BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
Network: ABC
Written By: Jon Steinberg
Draft Date: January 18, 2012
Pages: 59
Disclaimer!
Okay, I'm just ripping the wax off with this one...
I hate this script.
There's really not much else to say, though I'm going to try and find words instead of impolite expletives.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHOW?????
Sorry. I'm better. Thanks.
I'm going to make an attempt to describe what it is, then expound on why I'm so incensed.
The basic story here is a girl trying to help her father, in her quest to help him she gets herself held captive, and then perhaps falls for her captor, who then allows her to leave to save her dad.
So, yes, the basic plot twists and turns are very reminiscent of a certain animated feature film version of the Beauty and the Beast fairy tale.
But then there's how the details of those broad strokes are filled out, and everything else.
I've spent a few hours now, off and on, trying to figure out the best way to describe what, exactly, those details are without coming off like a flame thrower in an oxygen tent. For the moment, I find myself incapable of expressing anything but my visceral reaction.
There is a lot going on and a lot of characters (courtiers and council meetings and soldier fiancees and old crones with obscure wisdom and fights with monsters and rebel encampments and daring rescue attempts and toad-ish nonhumans that only talk in grunts but can be understood by a select group of people, Chewbacca-style), and there is also very little going on and almost no one who could be described beyond stock.
I'm not sure what's being fought for, or what's truly at stake, or why I as a viewer in 2012 should care or be invested.
I don't feel the epic romance connection between the beauty/princess and the supposed beast/seven-foot-tall giant soldier rebel samurai-ish guy.
Even rules of the world feel arbitrary and constantly shifting, down to the system of government (which had been based on "Emperor dies and we find someone born that same day and make him the new Emperor because maybe he has the old one's soul" and following a rebellion/assassination is now semi-hereditary although I think the script implied the crown princess needs to marry to actually ascend to her throne, but now there's another rebellion brewing trying to go back to the old ways... or something).
I've decided that this is simply something that I will need to see to judge, because I can't do it from the page. I'm confused. I'm an avid reader of fantasy fiction and I'm confused by what I just read. Of anyone I know... I think I should be the one who understands this stuff. And I'm confused.
A confused viewer (not the same thing as an intrigued viewer) is one who turns the channel.
And this is a broadcast network's first attempt at a pure fantasy show post-HBO's Game of Thrones? No wonder I'm not on board. Calling this Beauty and the Beast is a mistake, too. Sure, it may have the basics of the story, but it sets up wildly unmet expectations.
Showing posts with label ABC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC. Show all posts
Monday, February 6, 2012
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Revenge Update: An Ill-Timed Stinker
So here I was, all prepared to issue a "mea culpa" about Revenge, which, until last night, was proving a remarkably delicious, confectionery treat to top off my Wednesday evenings.
I loved the pilot script, thought the pilot was lacking (and potentially very confusing to people who hadn't read the script).
Future episodes played better, almost a procedural of Emily Vancamp-Thorne-Walker taking REVENGE on someone through sometimes obvious, sometimes underhanded methods, all the while espousing the world's most monotonous theme-anviling voiceover and smirking and giving shifty-dead eyes that no one seemed to notice.
Also Madeline Stowe wears the shit out of every dress.
Also DEAR GOD Josh Bowman (Daniel) is gorgeous. And HOW AWESOME is Emily that she's so cold and calculating and amoral that she is SLEEPING WITH HOT DANIEL while systematically taking REVENGE (she really does need to shout that word, Sideshow Bob style, after every sentence... "Ah, Kettle chips. The perfect sidedish for... REVENGE!") on his family, and possibly on him.
Also the character they introduced as Daniel's college friend (who is, obviously, secretly poor—QUELLE HORREUR—and, I believe "super secretly" evil gay) is summering in the Hamptons with the Graysons in The Biggest House Ever, yet shares a bedroom and shower with Hot Daniel. RIDICULOUS.
Also what the hell is Connor Paolo's accent, given that neither his fictional father nor his fictional older brother speak with anything remotely like it?
The show, clearly, has so much going for it in the campy guilty pleasure department.
But, still, a big problem I've been having with the show is that there is very little actual drama to it. Emily (and pouty kind of sidekick Nolan) have everything worked out (they have had 8 years to prepare for it since she got out of juvie/whatever/backstory/zzzzzz) that it's all going marvelously flawlessly. Y'know what that means? It means it's boring, or at least more boring that it could be.
Real drama happens when characters have their backs against the wall and have to get out of sticky situations.
I was really excited for last night's episode based on the previews (that'll learn me, especially given every other promo for the show has some version of Madeline Stowe saying "I know your secret" but it turns out to be a dream and/or she's talking to her husband and/or vamping to some member of her staff of thousands) because things, finally, seemed to not be going according to plan when Emily blustered that Lydia (Madeline Stowe's ex-friend who was sleeping with Rich Dad in the pilot) FALLING TO HER COMA (ugh, really, she's not dead? Really? I'm fine that you're going to bring Amber Valetta back, but at least do it as an evil septuplet... because you know she's going to wake up from the coma with explosive amnesia) was not part of her plan.
But things kind of went along swimmingly, anyway. So last night's episode was a big ol' letdown.
Emily did not really seem to take REVENGE on anyone last night. There was no magnificent takedown (unless you count Secret Gay drugging Hot Daniel, then failing to seal the deal when he took Daniel upstairs to "sleep it off" in the poor family's / other love interest's apartment above the bar... and what was that montage scene at the end with Jack looking at Daniel when he came home from the party and the bar was already closed? Was he proud that Daniel worked himself so hard through his double-shift that he was taking a nap? Was he angry? Was he told that Daniel mysteriously disappeared after his enabling, secretly gay, secretly poor best friend drugged him? WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING????).
I didn't realize how much I was craving the procedural-ish element of the show until the show didn't give it to me. Emily didn't want anything last night. She wasn't even really cleaning up the mess Nolan made-ish for her. She was just... dating. Which is a problem, but I respected her when she was an amoral whore slutting it up for with rich, hot guy while scheming REVENGE. But according to next week's promo (Travis, what did you just say? Why have you learned NOTHING), she says she's falling in love with him? I realize this is all part of her evil scheme... but it's so much more interesting/unique (JMHO) if she is really this cold, calculating bitch.
Meanwhile Hot Daniel's Secretly Poor, "Secretly Gay" Evil Best Friend is scheming to... what, exactly? He's already gotten the internship (and Wall Street internships are bank, yo, my younger brother made like $10K in a couple months when he did his years back). And, um, sorry, but when you bang your own head against a blue-painted telephone pole, you don't get a horizontal gash on your forehead. You get bruising. And a concussion. And a skull fracture, perhaps. And even if you do get a gash, YOU GET A SCAR. HOT DANIEL WILL NOT WANT YOU, "SECRETLY GAY" FRIEND, IF YOU HAVE A SCAR ON YOUR FOREHEAD. Unless that just happens to be his thing, that might make Daniel more interesting instead of just man candy.
Where was I? Oh, right. I'm confused about Daniel's friend's motivations. But Emily is onto the fact that he's Secretly Poor, so hopefully she'll chase his ass back to the jitney so he can join the Other 99% in the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Meanwhile, Madeline Stowe's bodyguard? Security chief? New secret boyfriend after James Tupper was sent to jail and died? He's onto Emily. Thank god. Because this shit was gonna get real boring (despite all the WTF listed above) if there was no real noose-tightening going on.
Madeline Stowe did not get much to do last night. I mean, she stood on the veranda in a dress and was stoically angry and that was just about it. Eric Van Der Woodsen had more to do, and his plotline involved dipping his big toe into the Wall Street pond by using banker jargon, stealing, and learning a valuable lesson about the market value of lobster futures.
I don't know, guys. I just don't know. I'm so clearly, unexpectedly invested in this show. I want it to be horrible, yet good, which I realize is an almost impossible tightrope to walk, but the last few weeks have been so delicious and almost-dramatically satisfying, just like a good cotton candy puff piece of nothingness should be.
Although I might have just been in a bad mood because Happy Endings had what I thought was its worst episode ever (but, thankfully / paradoxically / go-figure-ally, its highest rated) immediately beforehand.
I loved the pilot script, thought the pilot was lacking (and potentially very confusing to people who hadn't read the script).
Future episodes played better, almost a procedural of Emily Vancamp-Thorne-Walker taking REVENGE on someone through sometimes obvious, sometimes underhanded methods, all the while espousing the world's most monotonous theme-anviling voiceover and smirking and giving shifty-dead eyes that no one seemed to notice.
Also Madeline Stowe wears the shit out of every dress.
Also DEAR GOD Josh Bowman (Daniel) is gorgeous. And HOW AWESOME is Emily that she's so cold and calculating and amoral that she is SLEEPING WITH HOT DANIEL while systematically taking REVENGE (she really does need to shout that word, Sideshow Bob style, after every sentence... "Ah, Kettle chips. The perfect sidedish for... REVENGE!") on his family, and possibly on him.
Also the character they introduced as Daniel's college friend (who is, obviously, secretly poor—QUELLE HORREUR—and, I believe "super secretly" evil gay) is summering in the Hamptons with the Graysons in The Biggest House Ever, yet shares a bedroom and shower with Hot Daniel. RIDICULOUS.
Also what the hell is Connor Paolo's accent, given that neither his fictional father nor his fictional older brother speak with anything remotely like it?
The show, clearly, has so much going for it in the campy guilty pleasure department.
But, still, a big problem I've been having with the show is that there is very little actual drama to it. Emily (and pouty kind of sidekick Nolan) have everything worked out (they have had 8 years to prepare for it since she got out of juvie/whatever/backstory/zzzzzz) that it's all going marvelously flawlessly. Y'know what that means? It means it's boring, or at least more boring that it could be.
Real drama happens when characters have their backs against the wall and have to get out of sticky situations.
I was really excited for last night's episode based on the previews (that'll learn me, especially given every other promo for the show has some version of Madeline Stowe saying "I know your secret" but it turns out to be a dream and/or she's talking to her husband and/or vamping to some member of her staff of thousands) because things, finally, seemed to not be going according to plan when Emily blustered that Lydia (Madeline Stowe's ex-friend who was sleeping with Rich Dad in the pilot) FALLING TO HER COMA (ugh, really, she's not dead? Really? I'm fine that you're going to bring Amber Valetta back, but at least do it as an evil septuplet... because you know she's going to wake up from the coma with explosive amnesia) was not part of her plan.
But things kind of went along swimmingly, anyway. So last night's episode was a big ol' letdown.
Emily did not really seem to take REVENGE on anyone last night. There was no magnificent takedown (unless you count Secret Gay drugging Hot Daniel, then failing to seal the deal when he took Daniel upstairs to "sleep it off" in the poor family's / other love interest's apartment above the bar... and what was that montage scene at the end with Jack looking at Daniel when he came home from the party and the bar was already closed? Was he proud that Daniel worked himself so hard through his double-shift that he was taking a nap? Was he angry? Was he told that Daniel mysteriously disappeared after his enabling, secretly gay, secretly poor best friend drugged him? WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING????).
I didn't realize how much I was craving the procedural-ish element of the show until the show didn't give it to me. Emily didn't want anything last night. She wasn't even really cleaning up the mess Nolan made-ish for her. She was just... dating. Which is a problem, but I respected her when she was an amoral whore slutting it up for with rich, hot guy while scheming REVENGE. But according to next week's promo (Travis, what did you just say? Why have you learned NOTHING), she says she's falling in love with him? I realize this is all part of her evil scheme... but it's so much more interesting/unique (JMHO) if she is really this cold, calculating bitch.
Meanwhile Hot Daniel's Secretly Poor, "Secretly Gay" Evil Best Friend is scheming to... what, exactly? He's already gotten the internship (and Wall Street internships are bank, yo, my younger brother made like $10K in a couple months when he did his years back). And, um, sorry, but when you bang your own head against a blue-painted telephone pole, you don't get a horizontal gash on your forehead. You get bruising. And a concussion. And a skull fracture, perhaps. And even if you do get a gash, YOU GET A SCAR. HOT DANIEL WILL NOT WANT YOU, "SECRETLY GAY" FRIEND, IF YOU HAVE A SCAR ON YOUR FOREHEAD. Unless that just happens to be his thing, that might make Daniel more interesting instead of just man candy.
Where was I? Oh, right. I'm confused about Daniel's friend's motivations. But Emily is onto the fact that he's Secretly Poor, so hopefully she'll chase his ass back to the jitney so he can join the Other 99% in the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Meanwhile, Madeline Stowe's bodyguard? Security chief? New secret boyfriend after James Tupper was sent to jail and died? He's onto Emily. Thank god. Because this shit was gonna get real boring (despite all the WTF listed above) if there was no real noose-tightening going on.
Madeline Stowe did not get much to do last night. I mean, she stood on the veranda in a dress and was stoically angry and that was just about it. Eric Van Der Woodsen had more to do, and his plotline involved dipping his big toe into the Wall Street pond by using banker jargon, stealing, and learning a valuable lesson about the market value of lobster futures.
I don't know, guys. I just don't know. I'm so clearly, unexpectedly invested in this show. I want it to be horrible, yet good, which I realize is an almost impossible tightrope to walk, but the last few weeks have been so delicious and almost-dramatically satisfying, just like a good cotton candy puff piece of nothingness should be.
Although I might have just been in a bad mood because Happy Endings had what I thought was its worst episode ever (but, thankfully / paradoxically / go-figure-ally, its highest rated) immediately beforehand.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Once Upon A Time Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
ONCE UPON A TIME
8:00-8:15
- 12.575 million viewers
- 7.3/11 HH
- 3.9/10 A18-49
8:15-8:30
- 12.849 million viewers
- 7.5/11 HH
- 4.0/10 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 12.962 million viewers
- 7.5/11 HH
- 4.1/10 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 13.352 million viewers
- 7.7/11 HH
- 4.1/10 A18-49
We'll see what happens next week (with presumably a stronger football game and with Fox's comedies instead of baseball... so that might be a wash, competition-wise), but this was as strong a start as I think ABC could have hoped for (and, has been written up elsewhere, the strongest drama debut of the season so far). I retain my qualms and questions about the show and its internal logic, but as I said at script and screener stage... this is the kind of show that at its best is something I can fall head over heels for... so my fingers are crossed.
8:00-8:15
- 12.575 million viewers
- 7.3/11 HH
- 3.9/10 A18-49
8:15-8:30
- 12.849 million viewers
- 7.5/11 HH
- 4.0/10 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 12.962 million viewers
- 7.5/11 HH
- 4.1/10 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 13.352 million viewers
- 7.7/11 HH
- 4.1/10 A18-49
We'll see what happens next week (with presumably a stronger football game and with Fox's comedies instead of baseball... so that might be a wash, competition-wise), but this was as strong a start as I think ABC could have hoped for (and, has been written up elsewhere, the strongest drama debut of the season so far). I retain my qualms and questions about the show and its internal logic, but as I said at script and screener stage... this is the kind of show that at its best is something I can fall head over heels for... so my fingers are crossed.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Man Up Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
Ugh, are premieres really still happening?
MAN UP
8:30-8:45
- 8.062 million viewers
- 5.0/8 HH
- 2.6/7 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 7.495 million viewers
- 4.7/7 HH
- 2.3/6 A18-49
MAN UP
8:30-8:45
- 8.062 million viewers
- 5.0/8 HH
- 2.6/7 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 7.495 million viewers
- 4.7/7 HH
- 2.3/6 A18-49
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Last Man Standing Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
LAST MAN STANDING
8:00-8:15
- 12.746 million viewers
- 7.8/13 HH
- 3.3/10 A18-49
8:15-8:30
- 13.106 million viewers
- 7.8/12 HH
- 3.6/10 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 13.044 million viewers
- 7.8/12 HH
- 3.6/10 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 13.873 million viewers
- 8.3/13 HH
- 3.9/10 A18-49
8:00-8:15
- 12.746 million viewers
- 7.8/13 HH
- 3.3/10 A18-49
8:15-8:30
- 13.106 million viewers
- 7.8/12 HH
- 3.6/10 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 13.044 million viewers
- 7.8/12 HH
- 3.6/10 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 13.873 million viewers
- 8.3/13 HH
- 3.9/10 A18-49
Thursday, September 29, 2011
One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other
Oh, Happy Endings. Have I told you recently how much I love you? And how worried I am for you? Yes, yes, you hit series highs coming out of Modern Family (while losing a veritable bleep-ton of MF's audience, which you inexplicably continued to bleed throughout your 29 minute run-time despite the fact that you are awesome and, in my estimation, The New Friends). But I worry.
Here's why. You're far too young-skewing for ABC's current audience, even the demo-friendly Modern Family.
Here's what happened in A50+ on ABC this Wednesday.
- The Middle: 4.5/9
- Suburgatory: 4.8/9
- Modern Family: 5.0/9
- Happy Endings: 2.7/5
- Revenge: 4.8/10
See? One of these things is not like the other.
It's like the old people took a fiber-pill induced 30-minute bathroom break before settling in for Revenge.
Meanwhile, A18-34 and A18-49...
- The Middle: 2.0/7 and 2.7/8 (-0.7)
- Suburgatory: 2.7/8 and 3.3/9 (-0.6)
- Modern Family: 5.4/15 and 5.7/15 (-0.3)
- Happy Endings: 3.2/9 and 3.1/8 (+0.1)
- Revenge: 2.1/6 and 2.7/7 (-0.6)
Your A18-34 is better than your A18-49. In short, you are a CW show that happens to air on ABC.
And I love you. Never change. Just survive. Please.
Hopefully overall numbers and retention post-MF improves as the season goes along (though I think the A50+ is a lost cause... as is the upper end of the A18-49, the parents with teenagers watching MP... just keep working that A18-34/W18-34).
Happy Endings is a show about urban early-30somethings airing on a night of family comedies. When ABC sees what it has on its hands with Apartment 23 (FKA "The Bitch in Apartment 23"... which I personally loved for the improbably comedy dream team Krysten Ritter playing a bitch and James Van Der Beek playing himself... but did not love the straight woman lead character), also not a family comedy, maybe you two can go be together and have, hopefully, a long, hilarious run.
Year of Penny, suck it.
PS - I've been asked for quarter hour ratings... like I said, there was significant bleed... but my point re younger-skewing remains the same
9:31-9:45
- 7.976 million viewers (last minute of Modern Family: 12.542 million)
- 4.9/7 HH (MF: 7.4/11)
- 3.5/9 A18-49 (MF: 5.5/14)
- 3.5/10 A18-34 (MF: 5.2/15)
- 4.6/12 W18-34 (MF: 6.4/17)
9:45-10:00
- 6.572 million viewers
- 4.1/6 HH
- 2.8/7 A18-49
- 2.9/8 A18-34
- 4.0/10 W18-34
Here's why. You're far too young-skewing for ABC's current audience, even the demo-friendly Modern Family.
Here's what happened in A50+ on ABC this Wednesday.
- The Middle: 4.5/9
- Suburgatory: 4.8/9
- Modern Family: 5.0/9
- Happy Endings: 2.7/5
- Revenge: 4.8/10
See? One of these things is not like the other.
It's like the old people took a fiber-pill induced 30-minute bathroom break before settling in for Revenge.
Meanwhile, A18-34 and A18-49...
- The Middle: 2.0/7 and 2.7/8 (-0.7)
- Suburgatory: 2.7/8 and 3.3/9 (-0.6)
- Modern Family: 5.4/15 and 5.7/15 (-0.3)
- Happy Endings: 3.2/9 and 3.1/8 (+0.1)
- Revenge: 2.1/6 and 2.7/7 (-0.6)
Your A18-34 is better than your A18-49. In short, you are a CW show that happens to air on ABC.
And I love you. Never change. Just survive. Please.
Hopefully overall numbers and retention post-MF improves as the season goes along (though I think the A50+ is a lost cause... as is the upper end of the A18-49, the parents with teenagers watching MP... just keep working that A18-34/W18-34).
Happy Endings is a show about urban early-30somethings airing on a night of family comedies. When ABC sees what it has on its hands with Apartment 23 (FKA "The Bitch in Apartment 23"... which I personally loved for the improbably comedy dream team Krysten Ritter playing a bitch and James Van Der Beek playing himself... but did not love the straight woman lead character), also not a family comedy, maybe you two can go be together and have, hopefully, a long, hilarious run.
Year of Penny, suck it.
PS - I've been asked for quarter hour ratings... like I said, there was significant bleed... but my point re younger-skewing remains the same
9:31-9:45
- 7.976 million viewers (last minute of Modern Family: 12.542 million)
- 4.9/7 HH (MF: 7.4/11)
- 3.5/9 A18-49 (MF: 5.5/14)
- 3.5/10 A18-34 (MF: 5.2/15)
- 4.6/12 W18-34 (MF: 6.4/17)
9:45-10:00
- 6.572 million viewers
- 4.1/6 HH
- 2.8/7 A18-49
- 2.9/8 A18-34
- 4.0/10 W18-34
Suburgatory Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
SUBURGATORY
8:30-8:45
- 9.782 million viewers
- 6.1/10 HH
- 3.3/9 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 9.836 million viewers
- 6.2/10 HH
- 3.3/9 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 9.782 million viewers
- 6.1/10 HH
- 3.3/9 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 9.836 million viewers
- 6.2/10 HH
- 3.3/9 A18-49
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Pan Am Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
PAN AM
10:01-10:15
- 11.406 million viewers (significantly higher final minute of DH versus the rest of DH, but here it is...: 12.188 million)
- 7.4/11 HH (DH: 7.9/12)
- 3.3/8 A18-49 (DH: 4.1/9)
10:15-10:30
- 10.987 million viewers
- 7.2/11 HH
- 3.0/7 A18-49
10:30-10:45
- 10.977 million viewers
- 7.3/12 HH
- 3.1/8 A18-49
10-45-11:00
- 10.906 million viewers
- 7.3/12 HH
- 3.0/8 A18-49
I'm still of the opinion that this show is an over the counter sleeping aid, but can't argue with these numbers. Quite strong coming out of depressed Desperate Housewives when talking retention. I think that inflated final minute of DH was helped by Pan Am pre-tune in (like with New Girl, which started at 9:01pm but was advertised as 9pm), so don't read too much into it.
10:01-10:15
- 11.406 million viewers (significantly higher final minute of DH versus the rest of DH, but here it is...: 12.188 million)
- 7.4/11 HH (DH: 7.9/12)
- 3.3/8 A18-49 (DH: 4.1/9)
10:15-10:30
- 10.987 million viewers
- 7.2/11 HH
- 3.0/7 A18-49
10:30-10:45
- 10.977 million viewers
- 7.3/12 HH
- 3.1/8 A18-49
10-45-11:00
- 10.906 million viewers
- 7.3/12 HH
- 3.0/8 A18-49
I'm still of the opinion that this show is an over the counter sleeping aid, but can't argue with these numbers. Quite strong coming out of depressed Desperate Housewives when talking retention. I think that inflated final minute of DH was helped by Pan Am pre-tune in (like with New Girl, which started at 9:01pm but was advertised as 9pm), so don't read too much into it.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Charlie's Angels Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
CHARLIE'S ANGELS
8:00-8:15
- 8.929 million viewers
- 5.8/10 HH
- 2.1/6 A18-49
8:15-8:30
- 8.676 million viewers
- 5.6/9 HH
- 2.1/6 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 8.651 million viewers
- 5.6/9 HH
- 2.1/6 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 8.764 million viewers
- 5.8/9 HH
- 2.2/6 A18-49
Meh? Certainly can't be what ABC was hoping for.
8:00-8:15
- 8.929 million viewers
- 5.8/10 HH
- 2.1/6 A18-49
8:15-8:30
- 8.676 million viewers
- 5.6/9 HH
- 2.1/6 A18-49
8:30-8:45
- 8.651 million viewers
- 5.6/9 HH
- 2.1/6 A18-49
8:45-9:00
- 8.764 million viewers
- 5.8/9 HH
- 2.2/6 A18-49
Meh? Certainly can't be what ABC was hoping for.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Modern Family Season Three Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
MODERN FAMILY (once again, a special premiere, not going to be making a habit of this... or so I keep telling myself...)
9:00-9:15
- 14.958 million viewers
- 8.8/14 HH
- 6.1/16 A18-49
9:15-9:30
- 14.127 million viewers
- 8.4/13 HH
- 5.9/15 A18-49
9:30-9:45
- 14.618 million viewers
- 8.5/13 HH
- 6.3/16 A18-49
9:45-10:00
- 14.308 million viewers
- 8.3/13 HH
- 6.1/15 A18-49
10:00-10:01
- 16.365 million viewers
- 9.5/15 HH
- 6.8/17 A18-49
9:00-9:15
- 14.958 million viewers
- 8.8/14 HH
- 6.1/16 A18-49
9:15-9:30
- 14.127 million viewers
- 8.4/13 HH
- 5.9/15 A18-49
9:30-9:45
- 14.618 million viewers
- 8.5/13 HH
- 6.3/16 A18-49
9:45-10:00
- 14.308 million viewers
- 8.3/13 HH
- 6.1/15 A18-49
10:00-10:01
- 16.365 million viewers
- 9.5/15 HH
- 6.8/17 A18-49
Revenge Series Premiere Quarter Hour Breakdown
REVENGE
10:01-10:15
- 11.098 million viewers (out of Modern Family's final minute of 16.365 million)
- 7.1/11 HH (MF: 9.5/15)
- 3.8/10 A18-49 (MF: 6.8/17)
10:15-10:30
- 9.980 million viewers
- 6.6/11 HH
- 3.3/9 A18-49
10:30-10:45
- 9.606 million viewers
- 6.5/11 HH
- 3.1/8 A18-49
10:45-11:00
- 9.449 million viewers
- 6.4/11 HH
- 3.0/8 A18-49
Lots of immediate drop-off, clearly, but after that the ratings are actually fairly steady. We'll see how it's affected by the presumably significantly smaller lead-in next week (besides just general post-premiere fall-off).
10:01-10:15
- 11.098 million viewers (out of Modern Family's final minute of 16.365 million)
- 7.1/11 HH (MF: 9.5/15)
- 3.8/10 A18-49 (MF: 6.8/17)
10:15-10:30
- 9.980 million viewers
- 6.6/11 HH
- 3.3/9 A18-49
10:30-10:45
- 9.606 million viewers
- 6.5/11 HH
- 3.1/8 A18-49
10:45-11:00
- 9.449 million viewers
- 6.4/11 HH
- 3.0/8 A18-49
Lots of immediate drop-off, clearly, but after that the ratings are actually fairly steady. We'll see how it's affected by the presumably significantly smaller lead-in next week (besides just general post-premiere fall-off).
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Battle of Two of My Favorite Scripts' Screeners - AWAKE and THE RIVER
THE RIVER (ABC) - One of my favorite scripts. Screener is about 6 minutes too long, so stuff will have to get cut for air. Also, VFX are not done, so it's a tad difficult to fully "judge" a pilot that seems fairly VFX-heavy. That's the pre-amble to a "hm, that didn't come off quite as well as I envisioned it in my head based on the script." I have absolutely no idea how this is a series (granted, that was a problem I had with the script, too, but it didn't seem like as big of a problem versus the "I'm so in love" of my reaction). And this is going to sound really petty, but the guy who plays the lead? He frightens me. Like, in a vaguely Skeletor way. I want him to eat something at craft services. This is a problem in that he's, I think, supposed to be the center of the ensemble (though Leslie Hope really seems to be that, for now). This is a very horror movie-esque concept (maybe that was the point of hiring a skeleton as the male lead?) and the execution keeps it very much in that genre... to the point of me wanting to scream at the characters "NO, DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR" and "YOU'RE BLEEDING, DON'T JUMP INTO THE AMAZON RIVER". Sigh. I hate being disappointed and I'm blind-faith chalking this up to it being long and incomplete and without fully realized music. Fingers crossed whatever airs midseason works better for me.
AWAKE (NBC) - Also one of my favorite scripts! Probably the favorite, from an intellectual level. And there's a lot of intellectual to what shows up on screen. If you'll recall the concept, this is a police character-cedural where the lead, Jason Isaacs' Michael Britten (in the script it was Mark... oh why oh why do things so important have to change? Damn you, clearances! LOL) lives in two worlds thanks to a car accident: one in which his wife died and one in which his teenage son died. These worlds are populated by different crimes, different detective partners, different psychologists, and slightly different color schemes (the son worlds is a bit bluer, the wife's world has a bit of an orange hue). You feel for this man, with people treading carefully around him and tiptoeing around things and both psychologists insisting in their different ways that their world is real and why the other world is fake. Things do spin out of control, or seem to, but surprisingly there was a somewhat staid emotionality to the whole thing. Not a ton of highs and lows, maybe because (even having read the script) there were times that I was thinking "wait, what world are we in?" I'm entirely convinced that this will be a problem for the general viewing public going forward, especially because Steve Harris's detective character (in one world, Britten's partner, in another worlds, just another detective) isn't kept entirely to the sidelines in the world where he isn't Britten's partner. It's easier with Wilmer Valderamma's dubiously-accented character, because in one world, he's Britten's partner and in the other world he's just a uniformed cop. There is some hint at a longer-arc plot (dealing with both worlds perhaps representing clues in a giant mental puzzle Britten has constructed for himself to either deal with his guilt about the car accident or figure out some greater truth / possible conspiracy mystery) that will definitely keep me coming back even if it's only a couple D-story runner beats, USA-style, per episode. I've also managed to convince myself that there's some third reality that will be revealed at the end of the first season where either Britten is in a coma and dealing with things there or there's some world where both loved ones have died... much like I convinced myself that Bob had a secret third wife or at the very least an evil septuplet that would've been revealed at the end of the first season of Kyle Killen's dearly/prematurely departed Lone Star.
PS - There was no reason to make this a "battle" and it really isn't... I just felt like rattling off a couple short reviews in one fell swoop.
PPS - Still really annoyed at the networks in general that this fall is (on the drama side) essentially devoid of anything I want to shout my adoration of from on high (yes, there are things I liked), while I can't wait for NBC's midseason for more of Smash and Awake.
AWAKE (NBC) - Also one of my favorite scripts! Probably the favorite, from an intellectual level. And there's a lot of intellectual to what shows up on screen. If you'll recall the concept, this is a police character-cedural where the lead, Jason Isaacs' Michael Britten (in the script it was Mark... oh why oh why do things so important have to change? Damn you, clearances! LOL) lives in two worlds thanks to a car accident: one in which his wife died and one in which his teenage son died. These worlds are populated by different crimes, different detective partners, different psychologists, and slightly different color schemes (the son worlds is a bit bluer, the wife's world has a bit of an orange hue). You feel for this man, with people treading carefully around him and tiptoeing around things and both psychologists insisting in their different ways that their world is real and why the other world is fake. Things do spin out of control, or seem to, but surprisingly there was a somewhat staid emotionality to the whole thing. Not a ton of highs and lows, maybe because (even having read the script) there were times that I was thinking "wait, what world are we in?" I'm entirely convinced that this will be a problem for the general viewing public going forward, especially because Steve Harris's detective character (in one world, Britten's partner, in another worlds, just another detective) isn't kept entirely to the sidelines in the world where he isn't Britten's partner. It's easier with Wilmer Valderamma's dubiously-accented character, because in one world, he's Britten's partner and in the other world he's just a uniformed cop. There is some hint at a longer-arc plot (dealing with both worlds perhaps representing clues in a giant mental puzzle Britten has constructed for himself to either deal with his guilt about the car accident or figure out some greater truth / possible conspiracy mystery) that will definitely keep me coming back even if it's only a couple D-story runner beats, USA-style, per episode. I've also managed to convince myself that there's some third reality that will be revealed at the end of the first season where either Britten is in a coma and dealing with things there or there's some world where both loved ones have died... much like I convinced myself that Bob had a secret third wife or at the very least an evil septuplet that would've been revealed at the end of the first season of Kyle Killen's dearly/prematurely departed Lone Star.
PS - There was no reason to make this a "battle" and it really isn't... I just felt like rattling off a couple short reviews in one fell swoop.
PPS - Still really annoyed at the networks in general that this fall is (on the drama side) essentially devoid of anything I want to shout my adoration of from on high (yes, there are things I liked), while I can't wait for NBC's midseason for more of Smash and Awake.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Pilot Screener Reviewlets - ABC Dramas
- Charlie's Angels: totally sold on it, until Minka Kelly shows up? Still, probably has the best chance at succeeding of ABC's fall dramas. Very slick.
- Good Christian Belles: wasn't in love with the script, a bunch of changes made, and some good casting choices in the supporting roles. Very much in the cotton-candy dramedy vein. Not sure I love Leslie Bibb. Still feels like a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites gossiping about the same thing for 42 minutes at times (honestly, there are soooo many intercut scenes of bitches on phones) and very little... doing anything. But I could see this being fun.
- Hallelujah: didn't read the script. Of the religion-imbued dramas, ABC clearly picked the right one going with GCB. The whole of Hallelujah feels... silly.
- Once Upon A Time: my issues with the script stand on both a story logic and "why do we care?" level, plays really slowly, stuff in fairytale world is pretty damn awesomely rendered, but, again, not sure why anyone's gonna care.
- Pan Am: as with the script... I'd watch a show about a 1960s stewardess-slash-spy. Unfortunately, that's maybe 1/10th of what this show is. The flashbacks are needless, except to get us off the damn claustrophobic plane and attempt to tells us who the girls are... which feels like a narrative cheat to me. The whole opening 12 minutes are incredibly sluggish and I suspect a ton of instant tune-out. Tonally, feels like it's playing on the romance of it all and wants to recapture the magic of Titanic... but doesn't. It's not like the plane is going to crash into an iceberg and we know that going in and then this crazy epic love story unfolds. It's all atmosphere. B-o-r-i-n-g.
- Partners: held off reading the script because of the nutso logline, and it wasn't picked up, so I still didn't. Special Agent Renee from 24 was pretty decent, but I think that's because I liked her from 24. Meh, no big loss it won't see the light of day.
- Poe: was distracted by Chris Egan with brown hair and Natalie Dormer as a blonde. It didn't sound much like dialogue in a period piece, played very "quippy TV crime solvers." I probably would've watched, but would have turned off after three episodes when every one came down to the X-Files question of "is it the supernatural or something crazy but real world" and never coming down on one side or the other.
- The Revenge: loved the script, lots left on the cutting room floor to get it down to time and, unfortunately, I don't think it works... I wouldn't have known what was happening if I hadn't read the script
- Scandal: (SPOILER ALERT) The explanation of what the crisis management firm does is a little clunky and I didn't care much for the new addition to the team. Not sure audiences will like not having an answer on the murder, but I'm happy, as I was in script, that the team (who are not homicide detectives) don't solve it. Might develop into something of an interesting character/team-cedural down the line. The thing the first case hinges on is a little obvious, and I felt that way in the script, too. The whole affair with the President thing really puts a sour light on the lead character, IMO.
Not yet watched: Georgetown, Identity, Missing, The River
- Good Christian Belles: wasn't in love with the script, a bunch of changes made, and some good casting choices in the supporting roles. Very much in the cotton-candy dramedy vein. Not sure I love Leslie Bibb. Still feels like a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites gossiping about the same thing for 42 minutes at times (honestly, there are soooo many intercut scenes of bitches on phones) and very little... doing anything. But I could see this being fun.
- Hallelujah: didn't read the script. Of the religion-imbued dramas, ABC clearly picked the right one going with GCB. The whole of Hallelujah feels... silly.
- Once Upon A Time: my issues with the script stand on both a story logic and "why do we care?" level, plays really slowly, stuff in fairytale world is pretty damn awesomely rendered, but, again, not sure why anyone's gonna care.
- Pan Am: as with the script... I'd watch a show about a 1960s stewardess-slash-spy. Unfortunately, that's maybe 1/10th of what this show is. The flashbacks are needless, except to get us off the damn claustrophobic plane and attempt to tells us who the girls are... which feels like a narrative cheat to me. The whole opening 12 minutes are incredibly sluggish and I suspect a ton of instant tune-out. Tonally, feels like it's playing on the romance of it all and wants to recapture the magic of Titanic... but doesn't. It's not like the plane is going to crash into an iceberg and we know that going in and then this crazy epic love story unfolds. It's all atmosphere. B-o-r-i-n-g.
- Partners: held off reading the script because of the nutso logline, and it wasn't picked up, so I still didn't. Special Agent Renee from 24 was pretty decent, but I think that's because I liked her from 24. Meh, no big loss it won't see the light of day.
- Poe: was distracted by Chris Egan with brown hair and Natalie Dormer as a blonde. It didn't sound much like dialogue in a period piece, played very "quippy TV crime solvers." I probably would've watched, but would have turned off after three episodes when every one came down to the X-Files question of "is it the supernatural or something crazy but real world" and never coming down on one side or the other.
- The Revenge: loved the script, lots left on the cutting room floor to get it down to time and, unfortunately, I don't think it works... I wouldn't have known what was happening if I hadn't read the script
- Scandal: (SPOILER ALERT) The explanation of what the crisis management firm does is a little clunky and I didn't care much for the new addition to the team. Not sure audiences will like not having an answer on the murder, but I'm happy, as I was in script, that the team (who are not homicide detectives) don't solve it. Might develop into something of an interesting character/team-cedural down the line. The thing the first case hinges on is a little obvious, and I felt that way in the script, too. The whole affair with the President thing really puts a sour light on the lead character, IMO.
Not yet watched: Georgetown, Identity, Missing, The River
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Pilot Script Review - Charlie's Angels
CHARLIE'S ANGELS
Network: ABC
Written By: Alfred Gough & Miles Millar
Draft Date: December 16, 2010
Pages: 64
Good morning, Angels.
In what seems to be a more-CW-esque move, ABC is rebooting iconic 70s series Charlie's Angels, this time with a multi-ethnic cast.
Yes, they're still PIs. Yes, they work for the Townsend Agency. Yes, one of them is still captured and the other two have to save her.
Oh, and Bosley isn't frumpy (I mean... upside-down crunches in gravity boots? Really, Bos?) Oh, and this time around, we the audience actually get to see Charlie (the Angels, of course, don't). Oh, and instead of three female cops quitting the force and being private investigators because they were annoyed with the crap work they were being given instead of actually solving crimes... we have three kinda-damaged women with different skill sets who Charlie has plucked out of misfortune and has given a second chance to.
Also, the show is now set in Miami instead of Los Angeles.
C'mon, you know what this format is about. Hot chicks kicking ass and taking names. Always has been, always will be. And, as a piece of escapist fantasy girl power fun? I kinda adore it. This is definitely going to be one of those pilot screeners I'm looking forward to, not because it's going to change my world, but because it's going to be a slick, glitzy ride to eat popcorn while watching. Even though the story does make a couple attempts to have pathos, mostly this is just a fun action hour, replete with over the top action heroine one liners.
The case of the pilot revolves around a villain named Pajaro and human trafficking. Turns out, Pajaro has a connection to one of our three Angels. And that connection... GETS HER KILLED.
Naturally, she's replaced by episode's end with a slightly more badass version of herself so the Angels are still a threesome and still just as multi-ethnic.
The Angels (per Charlie's voiceover in the opening moments as we see each in action... and then their mugshots):
- Abby (White). "A Park Avenue princess turned thief."
- Gloria (Latina). "A Miami street racer turned gang member."
- Kate (Black). "A decorated police detective turned dirty cop."
The "replacement" is Marisa (guess the ethnicity... since I'm choosing not to spoil who is killed), a dishonorably discharged Marine.
Reboots of former TV shows, even those that have lasted more than one season, seem to open big and quickly cool off. I gotta imagine this one is going to make the Fall 2011 schedule, unless there are big production snafus. Even if it's mindless, it'll still be mindless, sexy fun. Again, I'm not saying this was the best script ever, but you don't judge mindless sexy fun on the same playing field as, say, Breaking Bad.
Network: ABC
Written By: Alfred Gough & Miles Millar
Draft Date: December 16, 2010
Pages: 64
Good morning, Angels.
In what seems to be a more-CW-esque move, ABC is rebooting iconic 70s series Charlie's Angels, this time with a multi-ethnic cast.
Yes, they're still PIs. Yes, they work for the Townsend Agency. Yes, one of them is still captured and the other two have to save her.
Oh, and Bosley isn't frumpy (I mean... upside-down crunches in gravity boots? Really, Bos?) Oh, and this time around, we the audience actually get to see Charlie (the Angels, of course, don't). Oh, and instead of three female cops quitting the force and being private investigators because they were annoyed with the crap work they were being given instead of actually solving crimes... we have three kinda-damaged women with different skill sets who Charlie has plucked out of misfortune and has given a second chance to.
Also, the show is now set in Miami instead of Los Angeles.
C'mon, you know what this format is about. Hot chicks kicking ass and taking names. Always has been, always will be. And, as a piece of escapist fantasy girl power fun? I kinda adore it. This is definitely going to be one of those pilot screeners I'm looking forward to, not because it's going to change my world, but because it's going to be a slick, glitzy ride to eat popcorn while watching. Even though the story does make a couple attempts to have pathos, mostly this is just a fun action hour, replete with over the top action heroine one liners.
The case of the pilot revolves around a villain named Pajaro and human trafficking. Turns out, Pajaro has a connection to one of our three Angels. And that connection... GETS HER KILLED.
Naturally, she's replaced by episode's end with a slightly more badass version of herself so the Angels are still a threesome and still just as multi-ethnic.
The Angels (per Charlie's voiceover in the opening moments as we see each in action... and then their mugshots):
- Abby (White). "A Park Avenue princess turned thief."
- Gloria (Latina). "A Miami street racer turned gang member."
- Kate (Black). "A decorated police detective turned dirty cop."
The "replacement" is Marisa (guess the ethnicity... since I'm choosing not to spoil who is killed), a dishonorably discharged Marine.
Reboots of former TV shows, even those that have lasted more than one season, seem to open big and quickly cool off. I gotta imagine this one is going to make the Fall 2011 schedule, unless there are big production snafus. Even if it's mindless, it'll still be mindless, sexy fun. Again, I'm not saying this was the best script ever, but you don't judge mindless sexy fun on the same playing field as, say, Breaking Bad.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Pilot Script Review - Poe
POE
Network: ABC
Written By: Christopher Hollier
Draft Date: January 19, 2011
Pages: 64
My goodness, there really were a number of "crime procedural with a supernatural twist" pilots picked up by the networks this year!
If you read my twitter, I may have prematurely indicated that I disliked this script. It took a while to slog through, but by the end, I was interested enough and it started to pick up the pace. Getting there was a challenge (and this is an industry that tends to stop readying at page 10), so we'll see if that can be trimmed or fixed on screen.
We all know of Edgar Allen Poe as the master of mystery and the macabre, as well as possibly the inventor of detective-fiction. Well... what if he consulted with the Boston Police on mysterious cases potentially involving the supernatural? Set in 1840, the script plays fast and loose with some of the details of Poe's later life (for instance, he doesn't seem to have married his 13-year old cousin in 1835... rather, he is still pining after first love and best friend Sarah Royster), but contains the requisite references to several famous stories and characters. As presented in the script, he is somewhat reminiscent of Robert Downey Jr's take on Sherlock Holmes. Probably fun on screen but a pain to be around and always causing headaches for others. The consternation he causes several police officers throughout is at times too much, but I imagine it at times and in small doses will be amusing.
Poe's partner in... consultant detectiving... is Celeste Chevalier. The Scully to his Mulder, and I mean this is almost every sense. The show, genuinely, wants to be a period piece supernatural (rather than aliens) version of the X-Files. Poe believes in the supernatural, Celeste in scientific explanations. Poe is wildly imaginative. Celeste is grounded in reality. They banter. They have UST and will probably pine after each other for years.
Celeste has her own tragic recent past. Her paramour, Marcus, died. She apparently met both Poe and Marcus at the same time, initially was attracted to Poe, but wound up with Marcus (Poe was occupied with Sarah).
There were times in the script I rolled my eyes. Mostly at some anachronisms and ways of talking that are very modern and not very 1840, but I made my peace with that. Also during the numerous references to some action being the 1840 version of modern crime investigations (white rope, not yellow tape... a squad with revolvers and lanterns instead of a SWAT team... a moving chalkboard instead of windows on a computer screen, etc). None of these things will be pointed out on screen (no one is going to speak the line "in 2011 I'll bet they use plastic yellow tape instead of white rope), so I think it will only be my own personal issue with the read.
There's an audience for this show. You have the elements of supernatural / genre stuff, straight-forward crime solving (versus Grimm, where the police side of the equation I felt was poorly executed), and the banter/UST in the primary relationship. Plus, there ought to be a lot of style to the visuals. It's highly familiar, but also slightly different, and that seems to be a good formula on network TV. Maybe not a show I'd tune into every week, but there seems to be some "mythology" and a series-(or at least season)-long mystery arcs planned for Marcus's death as well as Poe's mother's death when he was a child that could keep me interested for a while beyond what's sure to be a crime of the week format.
Network: ABC
Written By: Christopher Hollier
Draft Date: January 19, 2011
Pages: 64
My goodness, there really were a number of "crime procedural with a supernatural twist" pilots picked up by the networks this year!
If you read my twitter, I may have prematurely indicated that I disliked this script. It took a while to slog through, but by the end, I was interested enough and it started to pick up the pace. Getting there was a challenge (and this is an industry that tends to stop readying at page 10), so we'll see if that can be trimmed or fixed on screen.
We all know of Edgar Allen Poe as the master of mystery and the macabre, as well as possibly the inventor of detective-fiction. Well... what if he consulted with the Boston Police on mysterious cases potentially involving the supernatural? Set in 1840, the script plays fast and loose with some of the details of Poe's later life (for instance, he doesn't seem to have married his 13-year old cousin in 1835... rather, he is still pining after first love and best friend Sarah Royster), but contains the requisite references to several famous stories and characters. As presented in the script, he is somewhat reminiscent of Robert Downey Jr's take on Sherlock Holmes. Probably fun on screen but a pain to be around and always causing headaches for others. The consternation he causes several police officers throughout is at times too much, but I imagine it at times and in small doses will be amusing.
Poe's partner in... consultant detectiving... is Celeste Chevalier. The Scully to his Mulder, and I mean this is almost every sense. The show, genuinely, wants to be a period piece supernatural (rather than aliens) version of the X-Files. Poe believes in the supernatural, Celeste in scientific explanations. Poe is wildly imaginative. Celeste is grounded in reality. They banter. They have UST and will probably pine after each other for years.
Celeste has her own tragic recent past. Her paramour, Marcus, died. She apparently met both Poe and Marcus at the same time, initially was attracted to Poe, but wound up with Marcus (Poe was occupied with Sarah).
There were times in the script I rolled my eyes. Mostly at some anachronisms and ways of talking that are very modern and not very 1840, but I made my peace with that. Also during the numerous references to some action being the 1840 version of modern crime investigations (white rope, not yellow tape... a squad with revolvers and lanterns instead of a SWAT team... a moving chalkboard instead of windows on a computer screen, etc). None of these things will be pointed out on screen (no one is going to speak the line "in 2011 I'll bet they use plastic yellow tape instead of white rope), so I think it will only be my own personal issue with the read.
There's an audience for this show. You have the elements of supernatural / genre stuff, straight-forward crime solving (versus Grimm, where the police side of the equation I felt was poorly executed), and the banter/UST in the primary relationship. Plus, there ought to be a lot of style to the visuals. It's highly familiar, but also slightly different, and that seems to be a good formula on network TV. Maybe not a show I'd tune into every week, but there seems to be some "mythology" and a series-(or at least season)-long mystery arcs planned for Marcus's death as well as Poe's mother's death when he was a child that could keep me interested for a while beyond what's sure to be a crime of the week format.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Pilot Script Review - The Revenge
THE REVENGE
Network: ABC
Written By: Mike Kelley
Draft Date: January 25, 2011
Pages: 60
Oh, how I wish American networks were in the business of limited-run scripted summer television. Because this script, in my opinion, would be a perfect piece of summer entertainment for 13 episodes. And then it would be done and we would clamor for more except there was no more because it told its story, it told it in a concise-yet-twisty way, and then it got out before becoming convoluted.
Sadly, The Revenge has been developed for the fall season and as a continuing series. And so I shudder to think of what may or may not come to pass, should it secure a series pickup. But I know I will be watching.
Emily Thorne is engaged to Daniel Grayson and Daniel's massively wealthy parents are hosting a (beyond) lavish engagement part for the two of them as the closing event of the "season" in the Hamptons. Summer is ending.
As is Daniel's life.
That's where our story begins. And then we flashback to several different time periods, though much of the action of the pilot takes place during Memorial Day weekend, when Emily and Daniel first met. We discover many things about Emily, whose name used to be Amanda Clarke. Her father used to work at the company of Conrad Grayson, Daniel's father, and he was made into a patsy (she believes and thus we must, as well) and eventually put to death for laundering money into a terrorist organization (pre-9/11) that was responsible for killing hundreds of Americans.
Emily is out for revenge against all of the people responsible for ruining her life, and killing her father. Who are these conspirators? We don't know, exactly. But Emily is using the considerable fortune left to her from an investment her father made to rent a house at the Hamptons this summer and carry out her revenge.
Was Emily responsible for killing Daniel? There are clues, in the opening, that point to "maybe"... at least as soon as we learn her motives. During the opening of the script, however, I bumped on this being another show about rich people and lavish parties and love affairs. Then Daniel died and, suddenly, it was possible to care.
Unlike the pilot of Ringer, another series that gets a kick-start with a wealthy person's demise in the Hamptons and employs a flashback device... we never return to the "present" established in the opening, at least not in the pilot. And that, my friends, is something I believe will be a problem. Certainly for the casual viewer, but also potentially for the series' ongoing story. When will we return to Labor Day weekend and the engagement party? Episode 13? If the show is successful, not until the finale of a 22-episode first season? How fast do we get there, what does it mean in Emily's grand scheme, was it even a part of her scheme, what's next? I don't know. I want to know. Just as I want to know if there's anything more to the serie, beyond further exploring the conspiracy and Emily continuing to exact her revenge. Over and over and over again.
I'm sure things will go awry and spin out of control / in unexpected directions (for instance, even in the pilot, Emily begins to genuinely like Daniel... so she may not have killed him, or at least we are being led to believe that, or if she did, it was out of necessity for her greater scheme and not at all something she was happy to do).
It's odd to be so conflicted. Because I do genuinely like this pilot. It's an interesting update of the Count of Monte Cristo. It doesn't seem like every season will be a fresh start, like, say, 24 (a new terrorist attack / conspiracy to thwart every season) or AMC's The Killing (a new murder every season) and I'm just not sure I have the patience for seasons and seasons of conspiracy. Prison Break, for instance, petered out pretty quickly after the initial prison break at the end of season one (yes, it had three more seasons, but I certainly didn't stick with it).
Which is why, to repeat my opening to this review... I wish American networks were in the business of limited-run scripted summer television. I'd watch this for 13 episodes. Hell, I probably will watch it for longer than that (as I'm certain there is still plenty of stuff to be played beyond Daniel's death, per my questions above). But all shows like this hit a point where they either spin their wheels or completely derail. And, dammit, I don't want this to derail or get stretched out to the point I'm not interested any longer.
Goodness, that seems so fatalistic.
Let's talk a few more details of the pilot.
Emily has been planning this thing for years, since her father's death in 2003. And she's quite capable of fitting in and disrupting the lives of the Hamptons' social elite. She takes down Conrad's wife's best friend, Lydia, without her fingerprints on it at all, merely pressing the right buttons to have Victoria, Conrad's wife and Daniels' mother, excommunicate Lydia from the Hamptons. Oh, the problems of the wealthy...
Daniel has a younger sister, 17-year old Charlotte. Turns out that Kevin and Victoria were sleeping together about 17-18 years ago. So, two guesses on who Charlotte's dad is (not that any doubts are cast on her parentage in the pilot... I'm just prognosticating, here).
There is an upstairs/downstairs component to the show. The upstairs, of course, are the Graysons and the rest of the Hamptons' elite. Then there are the Porters, a working class family who run a nautical-themed bar. There's Carl, the patriarch, Abby, his wife who we see once and never hear from, Ben, a do-gooder who is the same age as Emily and about to head to Haiti to help (a bit belatedly) with earthquake relief, and Declain, 17, a troublemaker who is dating Charlotte Grayson. They also have an old dog, Jake, who used to belong to Amanda many years ago... and who knows Emily and Amanda are the same.
Network: ABC
Written By: Mike Kelley
Draft Date: January 25, 2011
Pages: 60
Oh, how I wish American networks were in the business of limited-run scripted summer television. Because this script, in my opinion, would be a perfect piece of summer entertainment for 13 episodes. And then it would be done and we would clamor for more except there was no more because it told its story, it told it in a concise-yet-twisty way, and then it got out before becoming convoluted.
Sadly, The Revenge has been developed for the fall season and as a continuing series. And so I shudder to think of what may or may not come to pass, should it secure a series pickup. But I know I will be watching.
Emily Thorne is engaged to Daniel Grayson and Daniel's massively wealthy parents are hosting a (beyond) lavish engagement part for the two of them as the closing event of the "season" in the Hamptons. Summer is ending.
As is Daniel's life.
That's where our story begins. And then we flashback to several different time periods, though much of the action of the pilot takes place during Memorial Day weekend, when Emily and Daniel first met. We discover many things about Emily, whose name used to be Amanda Clarke. Her father used to work at the company of Conrad Grayson, Daniel's father, and he was made into a patsy (she believes and thus we must, as well) and eventually put to death for laundering money into a terrorist organization (pre-9/11) that was responsible for killing hundreds of Americans.
Emily is out for revenge against all of the people responsible for ruining her life, and killing her father. Who are these conspirators? We don't know, exactly. But Emily is using the considerable fortune left to her from an investment her father made to rent a house at the Hamptons this summer and carry out her revenge.
Was Emily responsible for killing Daniel? There are clues, in the opening, that point to "maybe"... at least as soon as we learn her motives. During the opening of the script, however, I bumped on this being another show about rich people and lavish parties and love affairs. Then Daniel died and, suddenly, it was possible to care.
Unlike the pilot of Ringer, another series that gets a kick-start with a wealthy person's demise in the Hamptons and employs a flashback device... we never return to the "present" established in the opening, at least not in the pilot. And that, my friends, is something I believe will be a problem. Certainly for the casual viewer, but also potentially for the series' ongoing story. When will we return to Labor Day weekend and the engagement party? Episode 13? If the show is successful, not until the finale of a 22-episode first season? How fast do we get there, what does it mean in Emily's grand scheme, was it even a part of her scheme, what's next? I don't know. I want to know. Just as I want to know if there's anything more to the serie, beyond further exploring the conspiracy and Emily continuing to exact her revenge. Over and over and over again.
I'm sure things will go awry and spin out of control / in unexpected directions (for instance, even in the pilot, Emily begins to genuinely like Daniel... so she may not have killed him, or at least we are being led to believe that, or if she did, it was out of necessity for her greater scheme and not at all something she was happy to do).
It's odd to be so conflicted. Because I do genuinely like this pilot. It's an interesting update of the Count of Monte Cristo. It doesn't seem like every season will be a fresh start, like, say, 24 (a new terrorist attack / conspiracy to thwart every season) or AMC's The Killing (a new murder every season) and I'm just not sure I have the patience for seasons and seasons of conspiracy. Prison Break, for instance, petered out pretty quickly after the initial prison break at the end of season one (yes, it had three more seasons, but I certainly didn't stick with it).
Which is why, to repeat my opening to this review... I wish American networks were in the business of limited-run scripted summer television. I'd watch this for 13 episodes. Hell, I probably will watch it for longer than that (as I'm certain there is still plenty of stuff to be played beyond Daniel's death, per my questions above). But all shows like this hit a point where they either spin their wheels or completely derail. And, dammit, I don't want this to derail or get stretched out to the point I'm not interested any longer.
Goodness, that seems so fatalistic.
Let's talk a few more details of the pilot.
Emily has been planning this thing for years, since her father's death in 2003. And she's quite capable of fitting in and disrupting the lives of the Hamptons' social elite. She takes down Conrad's wife's best friend, Lydia, without her fingerprints on it at all, merely pressing the right buttons to have Victoria, Conrad's wife and Daniels' mother, excommunicate Lydia from the Hamptons. Oh, the problems of the wealthy...
Daniel has a younger sister, 17-year old Charlotte. Turns out that Kevin and Victoria were sleeping together about 17-18 years ago. So, two guesses on who Charlotte's dad is (not that any doubts are cast on her parentage in the pilot... I'm just prognosticating, here).
There is an upstairs/downstairs component to the show. The upstairs, of course, are the Graysons and the rest of the Hamptons' elite. Then there are the Porters, a working class family who run a nautical-themed bar. There's Carl, the patriarch, Abby, his wife who we see once and never hear from, Ben, a do-gooder who is the same age as Emily and about to head to Haiti to help (a bit belatedly) with earthquake relief, and Declain, 17, a troublemaker who is dating Charlotte Grayson. They also have an old dog, Jake, who used to belong to Amanda many years ago... and who knows Emily and Amanda are the same.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Pilot Script Review - The River
THE RIVER
Network: ABC
Written By: Michael Green
Draft Date: January 30, 2011
Pages: 60
Doctor Emmet Cole was the world-famous adventurer and star of a long-running wildlife and nature documentary TV show. Something like the Crocodile Hunter, but less about outrageous antics and more about the magic and wonder of nature. Doctor Emmet Cole has been missing for 6 months, ever since he took off on a trip down the Amazon River, claiming he was on the verge of a truly huge discovery. Three of his crew were found dead. He is presumed dead.
And, so, Tess Cole (Emmet's wife) tries to convince their 28-year old son, Lincoln, who was never able to find the "magic" in nature that his father forced on him as a child, to join her voyage down the Amazon to try and find her husband and his father. Tess still believes he's alive.
Lincoln is convinced his father is dead. He wants to head back to his life and finish his doctorate. But Tess reveals something: Emmet's emergency beacon's signal just went off, after six months. She's made a deal with a TV network, they'll pay for the trip which is the only way she can follow up on this lead. But they'll only pay if Lincoln goes, too. Lincoln, who wants nothing to do with being on TV again, relents.
Even though he had to be convinced to come, Lincoln is definitely the lead character here. The whole story is about activating him. Helping him discover the "magic."
So... it's on. Lincoln and Tess are joined by Emilio, who was Emmet's engine man for 23 years but was told to not come on this last trip, Emilio's similarly mechanically minded 17-year old daughter, Jahel (ha-yel), who only speaks Portugese, Clark, the longtime producer of the TV show, two cameramen Adjay and Sammy, and Reese, a bodyguard and ex-Navy captain.
These right, plus a team of crewmen, head down the Amazon on the S. S. Hopewell. They find the beacon... in an empty, submerged diving cage. It seems like a dead-end. The trip is over just as soon as it began. Until Lena Landry arrives. Lena is the daughter of Russ, one of Emmet's cameramen, also presumed dead on Emmit's trip down the Amazon. She's a fearless helicopter pilot and longtime friend of Lincoln's even though she was always much more attuned to the "magic" of nature than he was. She's pissed at Lincoln for not telling her about this trip to look for his father... and for her own.
And she has aerial pictures that she took when she was searching for her missing father and for Emmet, before the start of our story. She found the Magus, Emmet's ship. It's shoaled off a fork of the river that Google Maps dares not tread called the Boiúna. Local girl Jahel warns against going down there. No one who goes comes back. The S. S. Hopewell's crew won't go. But Tess is determined. So, split into two high impact lifeboats, the team of nine (Tess, Lincoln, Lena, Emilio, Jahel, Reese, Clark, Adjay, and Sammy) head down the Boiúna.
The rest? It's just too good to spoil. I wouldn't want to. It's pretty scary and in the grand tradition of carefully edited (perhaps "found footage" because who knows if any of them, eventually, survive) horror films with some nice character moments, especially between Lincoln and Tess as well as Lincoln and Lena.
The River is a show I can immediately get behind, with intriguing, imperfect characters that jump from the page and I want to know more about, a prescribed style (even if it's one I fear will be an immediate turn off for some due to what is sure to be an effusive amount of shaky-cam), and, well, it's just damn good.
It's also a show that seems like it would make a great horror movie... but as a TV series? How do you get multiple seasons out of this (in other words, how are they going to Lost this)?
Given the "documentary TV show" conceit, the script itself actually has a self-aware reference to this question when, stumbling on some of Emmet's secret video files and hearing Emmet say "the further we go up the Boiúna... the more physics breaks down, and reality... is so much... bigger," Adjay, the lead cameraman, says, "We just got a second season."
At the very least, The River should get a second episode out of it, as the remaining crew on the Magus continue down the Amazon in search of Emmet, following in his footsteps... the barely-glimpsed preternatural threat contained... perhaps.
The one gripe I have are the openings of acts two, three, and four, which are stark contrast "personal interviews" taken of various crew members. It's the familiar talking head interview thing. It fills us in, a little, on some character details... but mostly you just want to jump right back to the action following the act outs. So, if this pilot runs long, I suspect those would be the first things I'd cut. If I had any say over it. Even though, in the long-run, I can these personal interviews becoming necessary.
Network: ABC
Written By: Michael Green
Draft Date: January 30, 2011
Pages: 60
Doctor Emmet Cole was the world-famous adventurer and star of a long-running wildlife and nature documentary TV show. Something like the Crocodile Hunter, but less about outrageous antics and more about the magic and wonder of nature. Doctor Emmet Cole has been missing for 6 months, ever since he took off on a trip down the Amazon River, claiming he was on the verge of a truly huge discovery. Three of his crew were found dead. He is presumed dead.
And, so, Tess Cole (Emmet's wife) tries to convince their 28-year old son, Lincoln, who was never able to find the "magic" in nature that his father forced on him as a child, to join her voyage down the Amazon to try and find her husband and his father. Tess still believes he's alive.
Lincoln is convinced his father is dead. He wants to head back to his life and finish his doctorate. But Tess reveals something: Emmet's emergency beacon's signal just went off, after six months. She's made a deal with a TV network, they'll pay for the trip which is the only way she can follow up on this lead. But they'll only pay if Lincoln goes, too. Lincoln, who wants nothing to do with being on TV again, relents.
Even though he had to be convinced to come, Lincoln is definitely the lead character here. The whole story is about activating him. Helping him discover the "magic."
So... it's on. Lincoln and Tess are joined by Emilio, who was Emmet's engine man for 23 years but was told to not come on this last trip, Emilio's similarly mechanically minded 17-year old daughter, Jahel (ha-yel), who only speaks Portugese, Clark, the longtime producer of the TV show, two cameramen Adjay and Sammy, and Reese, a bodyguard and ex-Navy captain.
These right, plus a team of crewmen, head down the Amazon on the S. S. Hopewell. They find the beacon... in an empty, submerged diving cage. It seems like a dead-end. The trip is over just as soon as it began. Until Lena Landry arrives. Lena is the daughter of Russ, one of Emmet's cameramen, also presumed dead on Emmit's trip down the Amazon. She's a fearless helicopter pilot and longtime friend of Lincoln's even though she was always much more attuned to the "magic" of nature than he was. She's pissed at Lincoln for not telling her about this trip to look for his father... and for her own.
And she has aerial pictures that she took when she was searching for her missing father and for Emmet, before the start of our story. She found the Magus, Emmet's ship. It's shoaled off a fork of the river that Google Maps dares not tread called the Boiúna. Local girl Jahel warns against going down there. No one who goes comes back. The S. S. Hopewell's crew won't go. But Tess is determined. So, split into two high impact lifeboats, the team of nine (Tess, Lincoln, Lena, Emilio, Jahel, Reese, Clark, Adjay, and Sammy) head down the Boiúna.
The rest? It's just too good to spoil. I wouldn't want to. It's pretty scary and in the grand tradition of carefully edited (perhaps "found footage" because who knows if any of them, eventually, survive) horror films with some nice character moments, especially between Lincoln and Tess as well as Lincoln and Lena.
The River is a show I can immediately get behind, with intriguing, imperfect characters that jump from the page and I want to know more about, a prescribed style (even if it's one I fear will be an immediate turn off for some due to what is sure to be an effusive amount of shaky-cam), and, well, it's just damn good.
It's also a show that seems like it would make a great horror movie... but as a TV series? How do you get multiple seasons out of this (in other words, how are they going to Lost this)?
Given the "documentary TV show" conceit, the script itself actually has a self-aware reference to this question when, stumbling on some of Emmet's secret video files and hearing Emmet say "the further we go up the Boiúna... the more physics breaks down, and reality... is so much... bigger," Adjay, the lead cameraman, says, "We just got a second season."
At the very least, The River should get a second episode out of it, as the remaining crew on the Magus continue down the Amazon in search of Emmet, following in his footsteps... the barely-glimpsed preternatural threat contained... perhaps.
The one gripe I have are the openings of acts two, three, and four, which are stark contrast "personal interviews" taken of various crew members. It's the familiar talking head interview thing. It fills us in, a little, on some character details... but mostly you just want to jump right back to the action following the act outs. So, if this pilot runs long, I suspect those would be the first things I'd cut. If I had any say over it. Even though, in the long-run, I can these personal interviews becoming necessary.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Pilot Script Review - Georgetown fka The Inner Circle
GEORGETOWN (fka THE INNER CIRCLE)
Network: ABC
Written By: Will Fetters
Draft Date: January 19, 2011
Pages: 62
I'd like to begin this review by making a political complaint about it.
It's wrong.
And it really bothers me that the writers didn't do the research on something as simple as the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the US House of Representatives. I know The West Wing is years gone, and holding anything to its political accuracy and detail standard is a fool's errand.
But there are some things that are so simple to get right that when someone gets them wrong, it makes me not consider their point of view valid.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
So, when on page 3 of Georgetown, the script points out the cheers of celebration erupt in the West Wing when the 216th vote is cast on a landmark piece of legislation... it's wrong. There are 435 members of the US House of Representatives. You need 218 votes to pass unless there are vacancies.
Now, the entire situation this script bases itself in is a(n incredibly) thin facsimile of the Health Care Reform bill from 2009 and 2010. For that bill, 216 votes were needed to pass the final version in the House... because there were 4 vacancies. But the script never specifies that, and so, I worry.
So, um... minor quibble? Totally. But it really got my goat.
While we're on that note, this script feels incredibly anachronistic for something in contention to air in the Fall of 2011. It's based on the politics of a year ago. Political parties ramping up for a midterm election after a contentious, major bill is passed. Republicans in the minority (one must assume, in the House, though it's never specified) and saying "no" to anything and everything because it will help them in the midterm elections.
The issue, here, is that it's too close to reality... but one that is already antiquated. The disillusionment of the Left that swept Obama into office. The West Wing? It was a departure in the post-Lewinsky era of Clinton's season term.
Also, we never meet the President. We meet the First Lady (known only as "Elegant Woman"). It feels a little weird... given everything. We see the end of his secret service detail as he leaves a room. Also, we never hear his name. Honestly, he's referred to as "The President." BY EVERYONE. GIVE ME A SURNAME, DAMMIT.
Anyway. What was I supposed to be talking about? Oh, right, the script. I've been asked what I think of this versus The Body Politic (CW, 2009) script. I don't really remember TPB's script. I remember really enjoying the pilot presentation and being pissed off it didn't get picked up (especially in light of The Beautiful Life: TBL). That script was very much a mid-20something teen drama among the Washington set. Georgetown plays like it wants to be more adult. It wants gravitas. It wants to be serious.
Andrew Pierce is PresidentObama's Something's Director of Speechwriting, based loosely on Jon Favreau. He's the youngest to ever hold the job. He's credited in the script with turning President No Surname from someone who gave good speeches as a Senator to someone who gave great speeches on the campaign trail. Andrew dropped out of Yale to help a friend, Monty, with a business venture that would eventually become incredibly successful (a hedge fund to the tune of $10B), but he followed a girl into politics. He's an idealist and, in the wake of the "landmark legislation" passing, he drunkenly gives an interview to a reporter where, rather than commend the bill, he says that the Administration has failed because it came to change and rise above the political game, and hasn't, and the bill wound up not nearly as good as it should have been.
Andrew believes these things. Whether or not you do, in reality, about Obama and Health Care, ought to be besides the point, but I have a feeling that this is a show that won't be attracting anyone who leans too far right of the middle.
Naturally, Andrew finds himself in a predicament and though, through various machinations, he isn't going to be fired, he quits on his principles. And, by playing on those ideals and principles, he winds up being lured to the office of Senator Wallace, the Republican minority leader. This development is supposed to interest us and tease us into the next episode. As if Andrew is selling his soul to the Devil or something, or just to see if he can survive on the other side of the fence. But, again... I kind of feel like the presentation of "the Right" will be only as "the Left" sees it. It will feel pandering.
Also, the same night he gave his life-altering interview / drunkenly spoke his mind, Andrew has sex in a bar with a "gorgeous girl" who is a college student, the head of the President of the Georgetown Democrats, and who turns out to be Senator Wallace's rebellious daughter, Erica.
Oh, yes, there are other characters. And, natrually, many of them live in the same apartment.
There's Sam Whitman, the girl Andrew followed into politics. It's implied that she's rich, her father is mentioned though it's never said what he does or did (the past tense is used, so perhaps he's dead). She's the assistant to Michael Kline, a White House Senior Advisor. Through the pilot, Sam discovers that Michael's wife, Deanna, is cheating on him, and that he knows.
There's Nikki Argo, who does PR / works for Gale Sullivan, the Communications Director. She's invited into a closed-doors meeting between the Administration and Senator Wallace, where Wallace actually gives voice to the "saying no is good for my party until the midterm elections, so no compromise" and afterward talks to Bryce, a lesbian reporter friend trying to climb out from the Style section.
There's Peter Brooks, who works for White House Chief of Staff Vincent Feig. He's a smart, timid fellow with a crush on Andrew's assistant, Harper. Vincent promotes him to the head of a team of analysts and Peter is unprepared to lead. He also accidentally hires Harper as his assistant when he thinks he's asking her out on a date. One of his team members, Stacy, is clearly gunning for his job.
Outside this group, there's Monty Knox, the college friend running the $10B hedge fund. He's opening a Washington office and wants Andrew to work for him. And there's Jack McManus, who works for Wallace, and is describes as the "Southern Conservative" version of Andrew.
I just... outside of Andrew, there's nothing really special here, just on the page. And even with Andrew, it's Politics 101 talking points without insight. It's a reflection on the recent past instead of taking place in the present or near-future. And the soap opera conventions are just that. Conventional.
Network: ABC
Written By: Will Fetters
Draft Date: January 19, 2011
Pages: 62
I'd like to begin this review by making a political complaint about it.
It's wrong.
And it really bothers me that the writers didn't do the research on something as simple as the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the US House of Representatives. I know The West Wing is years gone, and holding anything to its political accuracy and detail standard is a fool's errand.
But there are some things that are so simple to get right that when someone gets them wrong, it makes me not consider their point of view valid.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
So, when on page 3 of Georgetown, the script points out the cheers of celebration erupt in the West Wing when the 216th vote is cast on a landmark piece of legislation... it's wrong. There are 435 members of the US House of Representatives. You need 218 votes to pass unless there are vacancies.
Now, the entire situation this script bases itself in is a(n incredibly) thin facsimile of the Health Care Reform bill from 2009 and 2010. For that bill, 216 votes were needed to pass the final version in the House... because there were 4 vacancies. But the script never specifies that, and so, I worry.
So, um... minor quibble? Totally. But it really got my goat.
While we're on that note, this script feels incredibly anachronistic for something in contention to air in the Fall of 2011. It's based on the politics of a year ago. Political parties ramping up for a midterm election after a contentious, major bill is passed. Republicans in the minority (one must assume, in the House, though it's never specified) and saying "no" to anything and everything because it will help them in the midterm elections.
The issue, here, is that it's too close to reality... but one that is already antiquated. The disillusionment of the Left that swept Obama into office. The West Wing? It was a departure in the post-Lewinsky era of Clinton's season term.
Also, we never meet the President. We meet the First Lady (known only as "Elegant Woman"). It feels a little weird... given everything. We see the end of his secret service detail as he leaves a room. Also, we never hear his name. Honestly, he's referred to as "The President." BY EVERYONE. GIVE ME A SURNAME, DAMMIT.
Anyway. What was I supposed to be talking about? Oh, right, the script. I've been asked what I think of this versus The Body Politic (CW, 2009) script. I don't really remember TPB's script. I remember really enjoying the pilot presentation and being pissed off it didn't get picked up (especially in light of The Beautiful Life: TBL). That script was very much a mid-20something teen drama among the Washington set. Georgetown plays like it wants to be more adult. It wants gravitas. It wants to be serious.
Andrew Pierce is President
Andrew believes these things. Whether or not you do, in reality, about Obama and Health Care, ought to be besides the point, but I have a feeling that this is a show that won't be attracting anyone who leans too far right of the middle.
Naturally, Andrew finds himself in a predicament and though, through various machinations, he isn't going to be fired, he quits on his principles. And, by playing on those ideals and principles, he winds up being lured to the office of Senator Wallace, the Republican minority leader. This development is supposed to interest us and tease us into the next episode. As if Andrew is selling his soul to the Devil or something, or just to see if he can survive on the other side of the fence. But, again... I kind of feel like the presentation of "the Right" will be only as "the Left" sees it. It will feel pandering.
Also, the same night he gave his life-altering interview / drunkenly spoke his mind, Andrew has sex in a bar with a "gorgeous girl" who is a college student, the head of the President of the Georgetown Democrats, and who turns out to be Senator Wallace's rebellious daughter, Erica.
Oh, yes, there are other characters. And, natrually, many of them live in the same apartment.
There's Sam Whitman, the girl Andrew followed into politics. It's implied that she's rich, her father is mentioned though it's never said what he does or did (the past tense is used, so perhaps he's dead). She's the assistant to Michael Kline, a White House Senior Advisor. Through the pilot, Sam discovers that Michael's wife, Deanna, is cheating on him, and that he knows.
There's Nikki Argo, who does PR / works for Gale Sullivan, the Communications Director. She's invited into a closed-doors meeting between the Administration and Senator Wallace, where Wallace actually gives voice to the "saying no is good for my party until the midterm elections, so no compromise" and afterward talks to Bryce, a lesbian reporter friend trying to climb out from the Style section.
There's Peter Brooks, who works for White House Chief of Staff Vincent Feig. He's a smart, timid fellow with a crush on Andrew's assistant, Harper. Vincent promotes him to the head of a team of analysts and Peter is unprepared to lead. He also accidentally hires Harper as his assistant when he thinks he's asking her out on a date. One of his team members, Stacy, is clearly gunning for his job.
Outside this group, there's Monty Knox, the college friend running the $10B hedge fund. He's opening a Washington office and wants Andrew to work for him. And there's Jack McManus, who works for Wallace, and is describes as the "Southern Conservative" version of Andrew.
I just... outside of Andrew, there's nothing really special here, just on the page. And even with Andrew, it's Politics 101 talking points without insight. It's a reflection on the recent past instead of taking place in the present or near-future. And the soap opera conventions are just that. Conventional.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Pilot Script Review - Pan Am (ABC) and Playboy (NBC)
PAN AM
Network: ABC
Written By: Jack Orman
Draft Date: January 24, 2011
Pages: 62
PLAYBOY
Network: NBC
Written By: Chad Hodge
Draft Date: January 17, 2011
Pages: 62
Gentle readers, we have a problem. I had no intention of reviewing these two scripts in combination, but, as it turns out, I read ABC's Pam Am and NBC's Playboy back to back (if days apart). And now... to do otherwise seems impossible even though, at this point in the process, these shows ARE NOT competing with each other. Pam Am is competing with the rest of ABC's drama development, while Playboy is doing the same with NBC's. The only way these two projects would be in actual competition is if both were picked up to series.
Let's just go through the list of considerable similarities and show where each diverts from the other by highlighting the differences.
The time period: the 1960s.
Wait, that's too general.
The year: 1963 (seriously, both of these projects take place in 1963).
Both projects feature suave mid-30s leading men. Playboy has Nick, a charming lawyer with a secret past and mob ties (hey, it's Chicago) who is carrying on a relationship with one of the club Bunnies. Pan Am has Dean, the captain of a 707 Clipper named the Majestic's maiden voyage from NYC to London in the pilot with a secret... present...? (it was a tad obscure) who is carrying on a relationship with one of the stewardesses. There's a clear Don Draper influence / blueprint on both. Yes, there are other males, but these are the leading men of each story.
It's my contention that the real stars of the two most recent major TV period dramas - Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire - are the women. Sure, the men have the power. And the women start as seeming caricatures. But it's the growth of the women that really gets our attention and keeps us watching. Really, what would Mad Men be without Peggy and Joan (and, yes, Betty, he admits while gnashing his teeth)? And Boardwalk Empire without Margaret Schroeder or Lucy Dazinger? The truth of it is that we've seen the story of the men in countless movies. The growth of these women... those are the long-running stories that TV is the best forum for.
And, so, we have the women. The Playboy club's Bunnies and Pan Am's stewardesses. Both, in their own ways, 1960s fantasy images of sex and glamor (my own personal "judgment" on the issue from a 2011 vantage is that the Bunnies are in a male-gaze line of work while the stewardesses are both male-gaze and female-aspirational... though, the Playboy script does try to make the Bunny job seem more "lifestyle" than I think we consider it in the modern day). And both scripts make a point that the women who hold these jobs will age out... or get married and leave. Hey, it's 1963.
Let's meet our ladies. Just so we know where the key characters are starting.
Pan Am:
- Kate: smart to the point that she's being tested to see if she can use her job as stewardess as a cover for espionage
- Maggie: a peace-preaching bohemian who is a competent leader when in uniform... minus the girdle (so many girdle jokes...)
- Colette: French, saucy, thinks she's going to marry a frequent passenger... until he unexpectedly shows up on this flight with his wife and child (easily the most cliche of the stewardesses)
- Laura: Kate's older sister sister now following in Kate's footsteps, extremely new at this but has the misfortune of being Pan Am's posterchild due to a photographer snapper her picture at her stewardess graduation. Prone to panic attacks brought on by marriage (her own in flashback, and a pair of newlyweds on the Majestic's maiden voyage)
- Bridget: Dean's paramour, a stewardess who was supposed to be the "purser" on the flight, but goes missing...
Playboy (the script tells the reader a lot of things that don't come out during the actual plot, so it'll be up to the actresses and potential future episodes to bring those aspects forward... I don't take issue with this, except when the script tells me):
- Maureen: the naive newcomer with a raw sensuality that suggests she's meant to be a star, her that, if this were Showgirls or Burlesque, would cause a significant amount of campy comedy... oh, running from her past
- Carol-Lynne: blonde bombshell, the club's most senior Bunny, a performer, in a relationship with Nick, and sharp enough to finagle her way into becoming the "Mother Bunny" to help train the girls as she feels her grip as number one slipping
- Alice: married... but to a gay guy, and she's a lesbian
- Brenda: the "Chocolate Bunny," determined to be the first Black centerfold, the script tells us she has a tough past she's put away but it doesn't really bear fruit
- Janie: Southern, dating the bartender, he proposes, she reveals she's already married, the script tells us she's carefree and on the run from something in her past (gee...)
My opinion? Most are a little thin. Pan Am's Kate and Playboy's Maureen and Carol-Lynne are the most fully fleshed out (though we've seen versions of all three before). There's room for all to grow.
There is definitely competitiveness between each set of ladies, but at the same time, there's also a sense of teamwork. There's a job to be done. There's a more positive light in Pan Am, where there is a genuine group friendship by the end. Playboy features a "darker" side, as there is definite potential back-stabbing between Carol-Lynne and Maureen, though that has more to do with jealousy issues.
Each world has seedy connections to provide "juice" to the story and take the shows beyond just period atmosphere and sexy fantasies. In Pan Am, per the above, one of the stewardesses is, for all intents and purposes, a spy. In Playboy, there is organized crime.
The true difference, for me, between the scripts is the narrative structure.
Pan Am makes the (at first, seemingly) bizarre choice to incorporate extended flashbacks. Hey, without them, most of the story would take place in a plane. It'd be claustrophobic. I get it. Doesn't mean I have to like it (I still don't). The flashbacks fill in the backstories of most of the girls and, in a roundabout way, lead into the "mystery" of the series. Like with Dean's "secret," the exact nature of the mystery about Bridget is vague. Is she a spy? Was she working for the Americans? Cuba? I'm not actually sure the latter implication is there, but I'm not sure what the big deal is if she just was doing espionage work for America and now she's done, and Kate is taking over.
Playboy, on the other hand, puts its seedy underbelly and mystery on its fishnets and beneath its stilettos... literally. On page 8, Maureen is attacked by a club keyholder (who we find out is connected to the mob) and, in the fight, puts her heel through his ear. Mmm, murder. Nick stumbles on Maureen as she is traumatized from this, and he helps her, bonding them in a way that Carol-Lynne, of course, misconstrues. Playboy has the element of danger that Pan Am, caught up in the fantasy of flight in the 1960s, was sorely lacking (only highlighted by the long, not-necessarily-dull-but-certainly-not-incredibly-engaging flashbacks). Ironically, of the two, it's Pan Am that does the teasing by trying to build its continuing story just on intrigue.
Of course, Playboy also ends on an extremely typical note (you thought you got rid of a body and destroyed the evidence? Well something literally floats to the surface that could lead to you being found out...)
I'm interested in the show about a 1960s stewardess who travels around the world doing espionage along the way. I think that's a rather novel "in" to a spy story. But I'm not that interested in the rest of what Pan Am is offering or the extremely languid pace with which it unfolds (even the act outs don't truly operate to propel the action forward... since there's not that much action taking place).
The other problem both these projects are going to face is the comparison with Mad Men. Boardwalk Empire had to face those (plus The Sopranos), but at least BE is in the 1920s and MM is in the 1960s. Playboy and Pan Am run concurrent with Mad Men Season Three. And, really, are you gonna out period piece Mad Men? Are you gonna out-"Women in the 1960s" Mad Men? Certainly not on a critical-acclaim level. So, Playboy amps up the danger, while Pan Am plays on intrigue and romance. Both feel glossy.
I'm conflicted on both of these projects. They both read like something I'd have to see... and wouldn't be able to truly judge until I'd seen the filmed, finished version.
Network: ABC
Written By: Jack Orman
Draft Date: January 24, 2011
Pages: 62
PLAYBOY
Network: NBC
Written By: Chad Hodge
Draft Date: January 17, 2011
Pages: 62
Gentle readers, we have a problem. I had no intention of reviewing these two scripts in combination, but, as it turns out, I read ABC's Pam Am and NBC's Playboy back to back (if days apart). And now... to do otherwise seems impossible even though, at this point in the process, these shows ARE NOT competing with each other. Pam Am is competing with the rest of ABC's drama development, while Playboy is doing the same with NBC's. The only way these two projects would be in actual competition is if both were picked up to series.
Let's just go through the list of considerable similarities and show where each diverts from the other by highlighting the differences.
The time period: the 1960s.
Wait, that's too general.
The year: 1963 (seriously, both of these projects take place in 1963).
Both projects feature suave mid-30s leading men. Playboy has Nick, a charming lawyer with a secret past and mob ties (hey, it's Chicago) who is carrying on a relationship with one of the club Bunnies. Pan Am has Dean, the captain of a 707 Clipper named the Majestic's maiden voyage from NYC to London in the pilot with a secret... present...? (it was a tad obscure) who is carrying on a relationship with one of the stewardesses. There's a clear Don Draper influence / blueprint on both. Yes, there are other males, but these are the leading men of each story.
It's my contention that the real stars of the two most recent major TV period dramas - Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire - are the women. Sure, the men have the power. And the women start as seeming caricatures. But it's the growth of the women that really gets our attention and keeps us watching. Really, what would Mad Men be without Peggy and Joan (and, yes, Betty, he admits while gnashing his teeth)? And Boardwalk Empire without Margaret Schroeder or Lucy Dazinger? The truth of it is that we've seen the story of the men in countless movies. The growth of these women... those are the long-running stories that TV is the best forum for.
And, so, we have the women. The Playboy club's Bunnies and Pan Am's stewardesses. Both, in their own ways, 1960s fantasy images of sex and glamor (my own personal "judgment" on the issue from a 2011 vantage is that the Bunnies are in a male-gaze line of work while the stewardesses are both male-gaze and female-aspirational... though, the Playboy script does try to make the Bunny job seem more "lifestyle" than I think we consider it in the modern day). And both scripts make a point that the women who hold these jobs will age out... or get married and leave. Hey, it's 1963.
Let's meet our ladies. Just so we know where the key characters are starting.
Pan Am:
- Kate: smart to the point that she's being tested to see if she can use her job as stewardess as a cover for espionage
- Maggie: a peace-preaching bohemian who is a competent leader when in uniform... minus the girdle (so many girdle jokes...)
- Colette: French, saucy, thinks she's going to marry a frequent passenger... until he unexpectedly shows up on this flight with his wife and child (easily the most cliche of the stewardesses)
- Laura: Kate's older sister sister now following in Kate's footsteps, extremely new at this but has the misfortune of being Pan Am's posterchild due to a photographer snapper her picture at her stewardess graduation. Prone to panic attacks brought on by marriage (her own in flashback, and a pair of newlyweds on the Majestic's maiden voyage)
- Bridget: Dean's paramour, a stewardess who was supposed to be the "purser" on the flight, but goes missing...
Playboy (the script tells the reader a lot of things that don't come out during the actual plot, so it'll be up to the actresses and potential future episodes to bring those aspects forward... I don't take issue with this, except when the script tells me):
- Maureen: the naive newcomer with a raw sensuality that suggests she's meant to be a star, her that, if this were Showgirls or Burlesque, would cause a significant amount of campy comedy... oh, running from her past
- Carol-Lynne: blonde bombshell, the club's most senior Bunny, a performer, in a relationship with Nick, and sharp enough to finagle her way into becoming the "Mother Bunny" to help train the girls as she feels her grip as number one slipping
- Alice: married... but to a gay guy, and she's a lesbian
- Brenda: the "Chocolate Bunny," determined to be the first Black centerfold, the script tells us she has a tough past she's put away but it doesn't really bear fruit
- Janie: Southern, dating the bartender, he proposes, she reveals she's already married, the script tells us she's carefree and on the run from something in her past (gee...)
My opinion? Most are a little thin. Pan Am's Kate and Playboy's Maureen and Carol-Lynne are the most fully fleshed out (though we've seen versions of all three before). There's room for all to grow.
There is definitely competitiveness between each set of ladies, but at the same time, there's also a sense of teamwork. There's a job to be done. There's a more positive light in Pan Am, where there is a genuine group friendship by the end. Playboy features a "darker" side, as there is definite potential back-stabbing between Carol-Lynne and Maureen, though that has more to do with jealousy issues.
Each world has seedy connections to provide "juice" to the story and take the shows beyond just period atmosphere and sexy fantasies. In Pan Am, per the above, one of the stewardesses is, for all intents and purposes, a spy. In Playboy, there is organized crime.
The true difference, for me, between the scripts is the narrative structure.
Pan Am makes the (at first, seemingly) bizarre choice to incorporate extended flashbacks. Hey, without them, most of the story would take place in a plane. It'd be claustrophobic. I get it. Doesn't mean I have to like it (I still don't). The flashbacks fill in the backstories of most of the girls and, in a roundabout way, lead into the "mystery" of the series. Like with Dean's "secret," the exact nature of the mystery about Bridget is vague. Is she a spy? Was she working for the Americans? Cuba? I'm not actually sure the latter implication is there, but I'm not sure what the big deal is if she just was doing espionage work for America and now she's done, and Kate is taking over.
Playboy, on the other hand, puts its seedy underbelly and mystery on its fishnets and beneath its stilettos... literally. On page 8, Maureen is attacked by a club keyholder (who we find out is connected to the mob) and, in the fight, puts her heel through his ear. Mmm, murder. Nick stumbles on Maureen as she is traumatized from this, and he helps her, bonding them in a way that Carol-Lynne, of course, misconstrues. Playboy has the element of danger that Pan Am, caught up in the fantasy of flight in the 1960s, was sorely lacking (only highlighted by the long, not-necessarily-dull-but-certainly-not-incredibly-engaging flashbacks). Ironically, of the two, it's Pan Am that does the teasing by trying to build its continuing story just on intrigue.
Of course, Playboy also ends on an extremely typical note (you thought you got rid of a body and destroyed the evidence? Well something literally floats to the surface that could lead to you being found out...)
I'm interested in the show about a 1960s stewardess who travels around the world doing espionage along the way. I think that's a rather novel "in" to a spy story. But I'm not that interested in the rest of what Pan Am is offering or the extremely languid pace with which it unfolds (even the act outs don't truly operate to propel the action forward... since there's not that much action taking place).
The other problem both these projects are going to face is the comparison with Mad Men. Boardwalk Empire had to face those (plus The Sopranos), but at least BE is in the 1920s and MM is in the 1960s. Playboy and Pan Am run concurrent with Mad Men Season Three. And, really, are you gonna out period piece Mad Men? Are you gonna out-"Women in the 1960s" Mad Men? Certainly not on a critical-acclaim level. So, Playboy amps up the danger, while Pan Am plays on intrigue and romance. Both feel glossy.
I'm conflicted on both of these projects. They both read like something I'd have to see... and wouldn't be able to truly judge until I'd seen the filmed, finished version.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Pilot Script Review - Grace
GRACE
Network: ABC
Written By: Krista Vernoff
Draft Date: January 7, 2011
Pages: 58
I thought I'd get things rolling with an inoffensive review of a merely passable script rather than start with something I'd be praising to high heaven.
Grace is a family drama centered around an aging choreographer and his, well, brood. The script has a very light touch with fast, breezy dialogue (think the flippant clip of Grey's Anatomy... remember, this is from Krista and Shonda is producing) and an occasional stylistic flair when Michael Grace, family patriarch and said choreographer, witnesses something and goes into DANCE VISION MODE, where his brain transforms interactions between people (often an argument) into dance numbers taking place in the "blackbox theater of his mind." It a nice, visual shorthand for the creative process of a choreographer.
Michael is the catalyst of this script. He is the force of nature, the center of the universe around which all else revolves. But he's not the protagonist. His second daughter, ex-dancer-turned-lawyer Sarah, is the main character. And, though she is partner at a law practice, she is pulled into Michael's orbit to help him in legal matters.
Like his financial shortcomings since losing his spot as an in demand choreographer for Hollywood. And a lawsuit from an 18-year old girl, Eden, who wants the 18 years of child support payments due her even though her mother never asked for a thing from Michael. Which, given his financial problems... is a big problem. Compound interest and all that. But, wouldn't you know, Eden happens to be a dancer (just like her mother... yes, the dance world is just that incestuous and philandering, at least in this script) and so Michael attempts to appease her by offering her a spot in his troupe and helping her improve her skills.
Michael was something of a hound dog back in the day. Sarah was the product of an affair Michael had while married to Helen, who is the mother of Shayna (aka Shay). Sarah's mother is no longer in the picture. Sarah and Shay are close in age and the best of friends and sisters. Then there's Eden (honestly, it's enough to make any of Brothers & Sisters' Walkers' heads spin). Interestingly, from a casting perspective, Michael was an equal-opportunity-philanderer in the sense that Helen is African-American, Sarah's mother (I believe) was Caucasian, and Eden's mother is Latina.
The weakest part(s) of the script is(are), honestly, anything and everything outside of Michael. He's just that charismatic and interesting that, when he's not involved... you just kind of want to go back to the dance studio.
Sarah is married to Adam, also a partner at the law firm, and she suspects he's having an affair (which he is) and decides to take action based on the sagely wisdom of 55-year old Helen (who, per the above, knows a thing or two about being cheated on). I'm all for thematic unity, but, honestly, I'm so sick of the sagely older African-American woman trope. Especially when Helen utters the word "Child." COME ON. Really?
Shay has her own problems. Dylan, the father of her teenage son is back in the picture and almost a year sober. So... that should be fun. Joe (the son), for his part, is sentenced to work at Michael's studio following an altercation with law enforcement (Sarah gets him out of true legal problems in one of those oh-so-typical "put upon, overwhelmed woman convinces a police officer to be lenient just this one more time" scenes that is all about Sarah and I have no idea why the cop lets her go on and on and on like that and... wait, I'm rambling). Though Joe at first snickers at Michael and his old hat ways, Joe is something of a street dancer and, wouldn't you know, Michael knows the lingo and is able to instruct Joe.
It's all in line with the easy, breeze, vaguely romantic sensibility that permeates Grace. And, yes, there are dance numbers. For what it is (I'm going to be using this qualifier a lot in these reviews), a light family drama set in the world of dance, it's perfectly acceptable. I never really felt like the family, or the dance company, were in danger (by the end of the pilot, Sarah takes the reins as manager of his dance company... so they're primed to butt heads, but the whole financial thing is kind of out the window and merely serves to put Sarah squarely back in Michael's world). So stakes may be an issue in the long run, but by then, I think the series will be trading on you loving the characters. Besides, Michael, I don't think I do. Yet. Perhaps seeing it all put together will improve some of his satellites.
Network: ABC
Written By: Krista Vernoff
Draft Date: January 7, 2011
Pages: 58
I thought I'd get things rolling with an inoffensive review of a merely passable script rather than start with something I'd be praising to high heaven.
Grace is a family drama centered around an aging choreographer and his, well, brood. The script has a very light touch with fast, breezy dialogue (think the flippant clip of Grey's Anatomy... remember, this is from Krista and Shonda is producing) and an occasional stylistic flair when Michael Grace, family patriarch and said choreographer, witnesses something and goes into DANCE VISION MODE, where his brain transforms interactions between people (often an argument) into dance numbers taking place in the "blackbox theater of his mind." It a nice, visual shorthand for the creative process of a choreographer.
Michael is the catalyst of this script. He is the force of nature, the center of the universe around which all else revolves. But he's not the protagonist. His second daughter, ex-dancer-turned-lawyer Sarah, is the main character. And, though she is partner at a law practice, she is pulled into Michael's orbit to help him in legal matters.
Like his financial shortcomings since losing his spot as an in demand choreographer for Hollywood. And a lawsuit from an 18-year old girl, Eden, who wants the 18 years of child support payments due her even though her mother never asked for a thing from Michael. Which, given his financial problems... is a big problem. Compound interest and all that. But, wouldn't you know, Eden happens to be a dancer (just like her mother... yes, the dance world is just that incestuous and philandering, at least in this script) and so Michael attempts to appease her by offering her a spot in his troupe and helping her improve her skills.
Michael was something of a hound dog back in the day. Sarah was the product of an affair Michael had while married to Helen, who is the mother of Shayna (aka Shay). Sarah's mother is no longer in the picture. Sarah and Shay are close in age and the best of friends and sisters. Then there's Eden (honestly, it's enough to make any of Brothers & Sisters' Walkers' heads spin). Interestingly, from a casting perspective, Michael was an equal-opportunity-philanderer in the sense that Helen is African-American, Sarah's mother (I believe) was Caucasian, and Eden's mother is Latina.
The weakest part(s) of the script is(are), honestly, anything and everything outside of Michael. He's just that charismatic and interesting that, when he's not involved... you just kind of want to go back to the dance studio.
Sarah is married to Adam, also a partner at the law firm, and she suspects he's having an affair (which he is) and decides to take action based on the sagely wisdom of 55-year old Helen (who, per the above, knows a thing or two about being cheated on). I'm all for thematic unity, but, honestly, I'm so sick of the sagely older African-American woman trope. Especially when Helen utters the word "Child." COME ON. Really?
Shay has her own problems. Dylan, the father of her teenage son is back in the picture and almost a year sober. So... that should be fun. Joe (the son), for his part, is sentenced to work at Michael's studio following an altercation with law enforcement (Sarah gets him out of true legal problems in one of those oh-so-typical "put upon, overwhelmed woman convinces a police officer to be lenient just this one more time" scenes that is all about Sarah and I have no idea why the cop lets her go on and on and on like that and... wait, I'm rambling). Though Joe at first snickers at Michael and his old hat ways, Joe is something of a street dancer and, wouldn't you know, Michael knows the lingo and is able to instruct Joe.
It's all in line with the easy, breeze, vaguely romantic sensibility that permeates Grace. And, yes, there are dance numbers. For what it is (I'm going to be using this qualifier a lot in these reviews), a light family drama set in the world of dance, it's perfectly acceptable. I never really felt like the family, or the dance company, were in danger (by the end of the pilot, Sarah takes the reins as manager of his dance company... so they're primed to butt heads, but the whole financial thing is kind of out the window and merely serves to put Sarah squarely back in Michael's world). So stakes may be an issue in the long run, but by then, I think the series will be trading on you loving the characters. Besides, Michael, I don't think I do. Yet. Perhaps seeing it all put together will improve some of his satellites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)