You mean that's not fun?

Hmm, I think Aaron Barnhart of TV Barn kind of insults me here: Bill Carter vindicated. Fortunately, I choose to believe insults are a form of affection. And he gives me credit for something I didn't do - the requisite Amazon link on my TV Thinks Outside the Box article is to Bill Carter's book Desperate Networks, but he's not part of that article. A Gary Carter is, though. Oh well.

What's in a name?

I wasn't going to post my little Humanitas Prize blurb on Blogcritics because it was such a kooky thing dashed off quickly, but this morning I rewrote it to be a little meatier (but still keeping the London, Ontario theme that probably only I find funny). I'd titled it something bland like "Humanitas Prize Honours Screenwriters" (Blogcritics loves boring titles – they say it's more Google News friendly) but an editor changed it to "Paul Haggis, Bobby Moresco, David Shore Among Humanitas Prize Winners."

It made me pause, because I'm all about the screenwriters, but even I'm doubtful that title lets people know what that article is about. I know a lot of people who don't know those names, or that award. Haggis has the most name recognition, but separated from his credits, with no context that we're talking about the entertainment industry or writers, I'm not so sure he has that much name recognition. (UPDATE: The London Free Press used an almost identical headline the next day, but then they're local boys for them - that doesn't count.)

While it made me ponder, I don't care about the actual change – it's not important, plus I'm an editor and change other people's stuff all the time, so I have to take it graciously when it happens to me whether it kills me or not. And I love writing for Blogcritics because not only does it give me enough of a platform that some of those under-recognized names have said yes to my interview requests, but I can write pretty much what I want, when I want, how I want. I love my day job, but I have to worry about writing to a grade eight level for the general public, and I don't have much choice in subject matter, and I have deadlines the anal publications editor (that would be me) or my colleagues want me to adhere to. On Blogcritics, as in life, my policy is it's all about me. (They might disagree.)

Anyway, I've been on a mini-mission to understand the TV writing process and in the process try to spread a little more recognition for writers. That stems partly from when I had my first brush with fandom, outside of talking about shows I like with my friends. I was first amused, then a little appalled to discover that fans credit the actors with far more than acting, attributing a great line, plot development, or character revelation to, say, Hugh Laurie (to use a completely-not-random example).

In some cases, it's deliberate — a fan's desire to create a fantasy where the object of their affection not only can do no wrong, but does all that is right, and no amount of reality is going to interfere with that view. We all need a little fantasy in our lives, so whatever. But in some cases, it's just thoughtlessness, and some of those fans, like me, might appreciate a small peek at a behind-the-scenes world we don't generally think about. Since the actors are who we see saying the words and embodying the character, it's easy to identify them with the role completely. The writers who provide the words and plots for that role are faceless and virtually nameless, except as one of a long list in the credits.

There's a subset of fans (me included) who are credits watchers. There are even writers who have their own rabid fan bases – Joss Whedon and Javier Grillo-Marxuach to name a couple. But fans (me included) don't fully understand the wacky television writing process, so some of our assumptions are off-base. I know the credited episode writer didn't necessarily write that one great line that made me laugh, or the one that made me cringe at its clunkiness, or come up with that particular plot twist or that specific character idea. I guess I know enough to know I don't know — that when I talk about the episode writers in my House reviews, for example, that's a shorthand for whoever contributed to whatever I'm praising/condemning in that episode.

And us behind-the-scenes geeks are such a small minority of fans that no matter how many writer interviews I or anyone else does, no matter how many writing awards we write about, most screenwriters will never become household names. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Paul Haggis already is. The Oscar definitely helps. My Blogcritics article, and the Humanitas Prize … not quite as much.

London calling

The two writer boys from London, Ontario won some cold, hard cash and some glory from the Humanitas Prize today.

In the feature film category, Crash by Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco (who is not from London, Ontario, thus ruining my little tie-in) was cited “for its call to reach out with respect and compassion to all of our brothers and sisters.” At the Banff World Television Festival, Haggis said he was "telling fables. What pissed people off is I wasn't writing about animated characters with long floppy ears." The Humanitas people don't seem too pissed.

In the 60-minute television category, David Shore of House won for the "Three Stories" episode, “for its poignant probe into the pain and confusion that comes when someone we love disappoints us.” Shore said nothing about "Three Stories" at the festival, but he did joke it was annoying to be the second most successful writer from London, Ontario. However, since Haggis gave him his first staff writing job (Due South), first executive producing job (Family Law), and he said he felt lucky to be hired by that someone that smart he could learn from, I'm guessing he's not too bitter at being in his shadow.

Other people not from London, Ontario who won the Humanitas Award include Greg Garcia for the pilot of My Name is Earl (“for its light hearted portrayal of how we can right our wrongs”) and Richard Curtis for the HBO movie The Girl in the Cafe ("for the clarion call to universal concern”). A full list of winners is on the Humanitas website.

Inside House

Of course I had to cover this one: House creator and executive producer David Shore talks about his philosophies on writing generally and on his hit show specifically during his Master Class session at the Banff World Television Festival:

• Inside House

The whole Banff series is here:

• Banff World Television Festival feature

Though I put the Shore article in the House feature feed instead, since I could only pick one:

• House feature

Making lemonade

The bad part about being away from the office for a week and a half is I worked all weekend to catch up on a week and a half's worth of work (I know, I know, 1, 2, 3: "awwww."). The good part is that means I was able to catch up on the Lost DVDs, in order to have something on in the background while I edit the company newsletter, and had time to write some frivolous blog postings while I procrastinated. (I'm only on episode 8 of Lost, but Meldraw tells me in her comment that "the boys start to even the SPF playing field nearer the end of the season.")

But another bad part – it was an absolutely gorgeous weekend, and I spent most of it inside. But another good part – it's way too hot for my northern blood and pasty skin, only I can't complain, because when you live in Vancouver, you must be grateful for sunny days. It's the law. This way, I got to pretend I was unhappy to have to avoid the heat, while being secretly grateful.

Yesterday and tonight I'm nesting on the shady balcony which I rarely use, except to let the cat entertain suicidal thoughts as he debates jumping onto the railing of the 14th floor balcony. I have no furniture out here, so I've got a pile of pillows and blankets, some wine, some music, an assortment of fruit from the farmer's market, and chocolate. It's like a little piece of concrete heaven, overlooking a distant view of the Fraser River, some urban forest, far-off mountains, and, slightly less scenically, a plethora of highrises and highrise construction. So, heaven if it's not all it's cracked up to be.

I'm not sure what this month's newsletter is going to look like, given the distractions of Lost and wine, but it's sure been more fun to edit than the average issue. Maybe I should take a week off every month.

TV Thinks Outside the Box

Latest in my Banff World Television Festival series (and published a little earlier than I expected) is an article on how the television industry is scrambling to program on multiple platforms – the Internet, cell phones, video iPods, etc. – even though they have no real idea how to make money at it yet.

• TV Thinks Outside the Box

The whole series is here:

• Banff World Television Festival feature

I can't top this

Scott Feschuk of Macleans magazine has a laugh-out-loud funny article on pretty much what I've got lined up for tomorrow on Blogcritics – the TV industry's scramble to add Internet and mobile video offerings to their programming, as seen at the Banff World Television Festival. His article makes different points, or I'd be forced to delete my own, curl up in a ball and cry, and deal with my own inadequacies. Well, I still might have to do that last part, but I won't delete, anyway.

His article Banff to the Future says things like:

Nowadays a TV show is apparently "a subset of a bigger experience . . . a wonderful content experience" that incorporates the Internet and digital platforms. That's how it was described by Fred Fuchs, newly hired as a senior programming executive at the CBC. So next time you watch a terrible Canadian television program, don't say, "This show sucks." Remember to say, "This subset of a bigger experience sucks."

Feschuk replaced Terry David Mulligan at the last minute to conduct the interview for Paul Haggis's session, and he was both hilarious and able to let Haggis be the star. Mulligan was back for the Paul Scheuring and David Shore sessions, and let's just say I don't think Feschuk should have been second choice.

Another sign I'm far too white

So I've been watching the first couple of discs of season one Lost, and these lovely, fair-skinned women keep taking off their clothes, and I'm thinking, "man, I hope there was a lot of sunscreen in that luggage." The men don't seem to get unclothed nearly as often. That's the real tragedy of gender disparity in Hollywood.

I'd seen part of the pilot back when it originally aired, and was bored. That was still true this time, but I'd been promised it gets better. Now I see the appeal, though I'm not really hooked, and there's no way I'll be sifting through any of the extracurricular activities the show has spawned online and off. I just think, in theory, that it's a cool example of how all those different elements can work together to feed the fans.

It's a weird experience, watching a show that relies on unfolding mystery, and already knowing which characters I shouldn't get too attached to, and which ones will hook up, some of their biographical details, and a few of the revelations and new questions that await them. And all that through osmosis – I didn't seek out information on a show I didn't watch. It's not really like watching a movie with the ending ruined for me. It's worse. It's like knowing most of the major plot points of a neverending movie.

I, The Viewer: The Sequel

DMc has posted the second half of the interview that explores why Diane is clueless. About Canadian television, that is. This part gets into what attracts me to shows I do watch, both in content and marketing.

• TV Mandarins, Meet the Viewer (Part Two)

I told my brother about the interview and his instant glib response was "Canadian TV sucks" - though I suspect the last Canadian show he watched was The Red Green Show. That's a response I got to my post The Invisible Networks: Canadian TV, too. The scary truth is that while I have friends who are fans of particular shows, like Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys, even before my recent awakening, I was more aware and appreciative of Canadian television in general than most people I know.

I, The Viewer

Canadian TV writer Denis McGrath turns the tables to interview me, token clueless Canadian viewer. To unfairly paraphrase him (because he's paraphrasing me, not insulting me), he asks how I can be such an enthusiastic viewer of House, for example, and be so oblivious to what's going on in Canadian television. The first part is here:

• TV Mandarins, Meet the Viewer (Part One)

In TV, a Fine Line Separates a Hit from a Miss

"Nobody knows anything" is the theme of my latest Banff World Television Festival article, which combines stories from Paul Haggis (The Black Donnellys), David Shore (House), Ali LeRoi (Everybody Hates Chris), Paul Scheuring (Prison Break), Scott Peters (The 4400), and others about getting and keeping shows on the air:

• In TV, a Fine Line Separates a Hit from a Miss

The whole series is here:

• Banff World Television Festival feature

Whistler: not just a town now

It feels like I just got back, and I'm off again to Whistler, bright and early tomorrow morning. I really should have booked a hotel for tonight, too, but I couldn't face heading out so soon again. I'll regret that tomorrow when I remember that I'm really not a morning person.

Speaking of Whistler, I heard rumblings about Whistler the television series when I was at the Banff festival, since people involved with it were there (no interesting scoop – just that it's coming soon, busy, busy, busy). It premieres June 25 on CTV so I'll check it out if I remember. It doesn't sound like something I'd tune into regularly, but I bet the scenery is pretty.

Speaking of Canadian series, I've seen two episodes of The Jane Show now, and while I was lukewarm on the first, I loved the second (in a noirish spoof, Jane gets addicted to television - I can relate. Though maybe not to the noir part of it. My life is more ... blanc). But good grief Global! You don't make it easy to promote. It apparently airs Thursdays at 8:30 in Saskatchewan and Manitoba; 9:30 in BC, Ontario, and Quebec; and 10:30 in Alberta and Atlantic Canada. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like, say, Tuesdays at 9/8 Central. Plus, the show's website doesn't seem to have been touched since the show premiered. It has a banner saying "Catch the series premiere on Global Thursday night," a blog with two entries, the latest from June 1, and an episode guide that has only the June 1 episode listed.

Speaking of … nothing related, I still have at least a few more articles inspired by the Banff festival left to write, with one in pending now at Blogcritics – I'll link when it's up.

And now I'm going to start watching some DVDs of this little show I've heard about recently. Lost, I think it's called?

Pop Culture is Brain Food. Really.

The latest Banff World Television Festival article presents the ideas suggested by keynote speaker Steven Berlin Johnson, which can also be found in his book Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter.

• Pop Culture is Brain Food. Really.

The whole series is here:

• Banff World Television Festival feature

TV Interviews Index Page

These have all been posted before, I just want a page where I can gather all of them in one place and update as needed.

Bones (Hart Hanson)

• Challenging the Crime Genre article
• Q&A

House (Lawrence Kaplow)

• Constructing House article
• Q&A

Intelligence (Chris Haddock)

• Intelligence delivers smart, sexy entertainment
• Q&A

Love Monkey (Michael Rauch)

• Sex, Love, and Rock 'n' Roll article
• Q&A

Prison Break (Paul Scheuring)

• After the Break article
• Q&A

Scrubs (Bill Lawrence)

• Cultivating a Cult Audience article
• Q&A

Sons & Daughters (Fred Goss)

• Good Show, Bad News article
• Q&A

The 4400 (Scott Peters)

• The Return of The 4400 article
• Q&A

Banff World Television Awards

As I mentioned earlier, I'll post links to my Banff World Television Festival articles from Blogcritics instead of cross-posting here. The latest is about the awards announced last night:

• Martin Scorcese's Bob Dylan Documentary Wins Top Honours at Banff World Television Awards

Previous articles:

• The Return of The 4400: An Interview with Show Creator Scott Peters
• After the Break: An Interview with Prison Break Creator Paul Scheuring
• Banff World Television Festival Gathers Industry Insiders

More to come ...

Road trip

I had a hard time sleeping last night and developed a killer headache, so I got up without bothering to turn on the light or fumble for my glasses to grab some Tylenol. I don't often take pain relievers, but I'm fairly resistant to them when I do, so I tend to take more than the person who writes the dosage instructions would be comfortable with. I gulped down four, went back to bed, and woke up this morning to find a rarely-used bottle of multivitamins next to the sink. The Tylenol was still tucked away in a corner of the medicine cabinet. Oops.

I don't know if I feel four times better today, but I do feel pretty good (but remember, kids, overdosing on vitamins isn't actually good for you. Just say no to grabbing pills in the dark.) The reason I feel good isn't really the vitamins, however – I'm now officially on holidays from the day job.

I'm off on a road trip whose main purpose is to end up in Banff to cover the television festival, which will be a little frantic and a little exhausting and not exactly a relaxing vacation on the beach, but it's my idea of fun and that's all that counts. My pasty white self doesn't do well on the beach, anyway.

The drive will take me through the Okanagan to pick up a friend who's coming along for the ride, even though she'll have to fend for herself in Banff while I'm busy geeking out on the TV industry. She doesn't have her drivers license yet, so she won't be helping with the driving, but she does help my ego to know I'm not the only freak who waited so long to get behind the wheel.

I've written before about my brilliant strategy to avoid it until I was forced to get a car for my job. I now have the driving experience of your average 18 year old. I am not 18. I haven't been 18 for, oh god, almost 18 years. Anticipating the trip, I realized I've finally gotten to the point where I kind of enjoy driving.

I don't enjoy driving in traffic, though, and most of my accumulated driving time has been commuting in intercity traffic. That commute is now over the so-called Bridge of Death – an old bridge whose lanes are narrower than they should be by today's standards. They installed skinny pylons along the centre lane to try to reduce head-on collisions (with plastic pylons? Seriously?). I used to amuse myself by counting how many had been flattened. Now it's almost easier to count how many are left. I always lose count at the curve in the road, when I realize I should pay more attention to where I'm going instead of where vehicles shouldn't have gone.

But what I do enjoy is the enforced downtime. There's nothing else I can be doing that's more important than making sure I stay on the road, between the lines, away from the other cars. In the car, I'm just driving. Just thinking random thoughts. Just singing at the top of my lungs if I feel like it. It's where what seem like brilliant ideas at the time hit me. Where I compose articles, or stories, or blog entries in my head, and even scribble them down if I'm stuck in traffic. It's isolated, and comforting, and peaceful ... until that idiot turns left right in front of me.

But highway driving is pretty much all peace. It'll be just me and my thoughts and my music for the first half of this road trip (including a homemade mixed CD titled "The Road to Banff" that just arrived in the mail - thanks E!). Then it'll be just me and my friend, who I've known long enough that we can talk about anything or nothing with equal comfort, and our music. So I'm feeling good, even though the vitamins must be out of my system by now. As long as some idiot deer doesn't dart in front of the car, it's going to be great.

The Return of The 4400: An Interview with Show Creator Scott Peters

For a man who has assembled a fictional reality full of political and religious intrigue, bias and bigotry, The 4400 creator and executive producer Scott Peters is remarkably happy to be kept too busy by that world to be consumed with the weight of this one.

"I'm completely and utterly disconnected from the world. I have no idea what's going on, I don't watch the news, I have no concept of what's going on outside our little backlot here," he explained with a laugh during a hurried on-set lunch break, when asked about his own television habits. "It's not like I'm some crazy hermit running away from the real world, but it's certainly a relief not to have the morning shows and the nightly news and whatever else is going on. The hubbub of regular life interrupts, so it's great."

Though he may think of the North Vancouver studio where The 4400 is filmed as something of a haven, he isn't entirely convincing in the role of sheltered naif. The native of Windsor, Ontario, who has made Los Angeles his home for many years, has said the events of 9/11 helped inspire the premise – how people react to a catastrophic event that disrupts not only their lives, but changes their world view.

In Peters' supernatural world, that event was the return of 4400 people who had been abducted over the years, and whose displacement in time and paranormal abilities cause havoc not only with their lives, but with a frightened and mystified public. An agency of the Department of Homeland Security is assigned to investigate, entangling the agents' lives with those of the 4400.

With its third season premiering June 11 on the USA network, The 4400 continues to draw inspiration from current events. "It's not just a simple cut and dried, yes or no, right or wrong all the time, same with everything that's going on with the war on terror, with the war in Iraq, with all the things we struggle with on a day-to-day basis," Peters said. "We hold a mirror up to that in this world, and have it be as sophisticated and complex and difficult, with issues that are as difficult to struggle with, as in the world we face every day."

The show touches on themes such as government control in our lives, an eroded right to privacy, plus more personal, family stories, and Peters downplays the science fiction elements, at least as much as possible given its premise. "I think any time you have a world where 4400 people appear out of a ball of light, you've already got a pretty strong sci-fi convention," he deadpanned. "So I don't think you have to keep pounding it into everybody's head, and having it be spaceships flying around, and aliens running back and forth, and all that kind of stuff. Once you've signed off on that one big sci-fi premise, if it settles into more of a drama, that's better for me."


"We're moving away from the 4400 freak of the week."

The cable series' short seasons – 13 episodes this time – mean nearly a year has passed between the season two finale and the season three premiere. Canadians have a few more months to wait, likely until September, for the Space channel to begin airing the new episodes.

That second season finale presented several tantalizing glimpses of future storylines, including the idea of an impending war, the apparent resurrection of an assassinated character, and a suddenly grown-up baby, among others. Peters promises some resolutions ... sort of. "We like to answer some big questions, and in the answering of those questions, create bigger questions."

He also reveals a slight change in focus. "We're trying to build the mythology a lot more, trying to stick with our core characters throughout their travels this season. We found last year that we liked meeting new characters and having them interact, but we didn't want the show to just become that. There's still an element of that, it's just we've pulled back on it a lot and really focused on the main characters, the main cast, and how their lives interconnect."

That mythology includes the story of how humans of the distant future abducted then returned the 4400 in order to prevent humanity's destruction, in part of an elaborate but so far vague plan. "We know who did this, but we don't know specifically who did this. We know why they did it, but we don't know specifically why," said Peters. "So we're trying to give the audience more of a peek of that behind-the-curtain aspect of the show."

The fact that aliens were not behind the abductions took the show in a surprising direction at the end of the first season, and Peters hints at more twists to come. "We love to take an audience down one path and have it be clear and obvious that it must be A, and then suddenly we turn a corner and it's actually B."

Though known now more as a writer, Peters got his start in directing, and has returned to his first love. He's currently directing the ninth episode of the coming season. "This is really a different creative muscle to flex, plus it's just a bonus and a huge treat to get to do it on a show I created," he said. "There's just this enormous trust from the moment we set foot on the soundstage, and they're willing to let themselves go to places I think for me that they're not necessarily willing to go with a director they don't know."


"It's a definite steering through shark-infested waters."

Adding yet another activity to keep him away from his television set, Peters has been invited to lead a Master Class at the upcoming Banff World Television Festival, a gathering of industry professionals. "I'm really looking forward to interacting with everybody up there and sharing my experiences and learning about other people's, of their trials and tribulations in this great, terrific, wonderful, fun business."

He intimates that he will share the possibly not-so-fun intrigues of getting The 4400 on the air and preserving his creative vision. "We've been through many hurdles, we had to avoid many landmines, we had to protect the show at times, we had to let the show go in a certain direction that maybe wasn't intended another time."

"I think the biggest obstacle all the way through is just to protect the original vision," he continued. "There are a lot of elements that come at you as you're trying do that, and you either have to pick up a shield and a sword and try to defend it, or let it go. You have to pick your battles and what you are willing to relinquish and what you're not willing to, in terms of the original vision. Sometimes you have to pick a battle and fight to the death."

His original vision has evolved over the years, though in a more organic, non-combative way. "Like when you're bringing on an actor to play a character, you start to write to their strengths and stay away from their weaknesses," Peters explained. "So like that, as the series begins to unfold and evolve and take on a life of its own, you get a sense of what really works well and what doesn't work so well, given our time and budget and what we can achieve."

His pride in the show, which earned him an Emmy nomination for co-writing the pilot mini-series, is evident. "I like that it's evolving, and I like that we're deepening the story between all the characters. It's not just a story of plot, but it's a story that really brings these characters to life and keeps them as three-dimensional people and not just cardboard cutouts."

For more of our discussion, see the Q&A.

Q&A with The 4400 Creator Scott Peters

The 4400 creator and executive producer Scott Peters kindlly let me interrupt his rushed lunch break on Friday for the Blogcritics article The Return of The 4400. But for more of our conversation, the following is a minimally edited transcript of our chat.

DK: So you're directing an episode right now? How far along in the season are you?

SP: Yes, we're shooting number nine out of 13 right now.

What can you share about what's ahead for the third season?

SP: Lots. There's a lot that's new. We're moving away from the 4400 freak of the week, from following new and heretofore unknown 4400 members. We're trying to build the mythology a lot more, trying to stick with our core characters throughout their travels this season. We found last year that we liked meeting new characters and having them interact, but we didn't want the show to just become that. There's still an element of that, it's just we've pulled back on that a lot and really focused on the main characters, the main cast, and how their lives interconnect. Not only that, but we're giving a little more background on how all this came to be. We know who did this, but we don't know specifically who did this. We know why they did it, but we don't know specifically why. So we're trying to give the audience more of a peek of that behind-the-curtain aspect of the show.

And you're going to answer some of the questions raised by the finale?

SP: As we try to do every year, we like to answer some big questions, and in the answering of those questions, create bigger questions. That's our goal.

Has your vision of the show evolved over the years, or did you have a pretty firm idea of where you wanted to go with future seasons?

SP: I did have a firm idea and I think that as with anything, as you start something and you have a target you want to hit, after a while it begins to take on a life of its own, and so evolves and it changes. Like when you're bringing on an actor to play a character, you start to write to their strengths and stay away from their weaknesses. As you see they can do something really well, you write more stories for them that allow them to do that thing they do really well. So like that, as the series begins to unfold and evolve and take on a life of its own, you get a sense of what really works well and what doesn't work so well, given our time and budget and what we can achieve. You try to steer the series into directions that will be interesting and exciting, with things that we can achieve and do well. If you start to see that you can't necessary pull one aspect of a story off, you probably don't want to go down that road again, because you'll hit another brick wall.

So it has a life of its own, and I like that it's evolving, and I like that we're deepening the story between all the characters. It's not just a story of plot, but it's a story that really brings these characters to life and keeps them as three-dimensional people and not just cardboard cutouts.

You've said in the past that the events of 9/11 helped inspire the premise - do you see current events, like the war on terror, shaping storylines as well?

SP: They absolutely have an influence. I think last year we played into themes of religion, the role of government in our lives, the bigger issues of the day, and prejudice and bias and all that kind of stuff. As we come into the third season, there's still those aspects going on. There's a splintering of the 4400, and different points of view that arise, and it's a very complex, sophisticated issue, just like the major issues of the day are right now. It's not just a simple cut and dried, yes or no, right or wrong all the time, same with everything that's going on with the war on terror, with the war in Iraq, with all the things we struggle with on a day-to-day basis. We hold a mirror up to that in this world, and have it be as sophisticated and complex and difficult, with issues that are as difficult to struggle with, as in the world we face every day.

Do you ever think there's a bit of a stigma with sci fi, that people miss the real-world relevance of your work?

SP: Yeah, we struggle with that a little bit. We want to keep the stories fresh and we want to keep the surprises coming. But I don't think this show wants to be anything that's really out there in terms of science fiction. I think any time you have a world where 4400 people appear out of a ball of light, you've already got a pretty strong sci-fi convention. So I don't think you have to keep pounding it into everybody's head, and having it be spaceships flying around, and aliens running back and forth, and all that kind of stuff. Once you've signed off on that one big sci-fi premise, if it settles into more of a drama, that's better for me.

You skirted the alien issue, too. People were surprised that wasn't the answer.

SP: That was one of the reasons why. I think that was the very obvious outcome for the show. In fact, it was kind of a blessing that we were able to so much put in everybody's mind that it could be nothing but that. It really helped us with our twist at the end because nobody really saw it coming. That was really fun for us. When I talked earlier about working toward the strengths, we found that that worked really well. So we love to take an audience down one path and have it be clear and obvious that it must be A, and then suddenly we turn a corner and it's actually B.

What will you be sharing at your Master Class at the Banff World Television Festival?

SP: I think the best I can do is talk about my own experiences, what I've learned, what I would be cautious of, and what I would tend to try and go for. Because it's a really difficult business and there's so many variables, so much potential for pitfalls, and so much potential for huge success. It's a definite steering through shark-infested waters. I can just speak to the process of getting this show up and running on the air. You hear about people who have projects that took years to get going, and this is one of them. We've been through many hurdles, we had to avoid many landmines, we had to protect the show at times, we had to let the show go in a certain direction that maybe wasn't intended another time. There's a lot of politics, there's a lot of diplomacy, there's a lot to it. It's a very sophisticated and complex process.

Sometimes you have to wonder how good shows actually make it to air, because sometimes there's way too much interference, and not just from what people may think of as the obvious sources. So it's definitely something I think is a very fascinating subject. I love to hear about how other shows make it and go through their growing pains to get to where they are.

What were some of your biggest obstacles?

SP: The first ones were just what everybody faces, which is just getting a pitch sold to a network and getting a network to be interested in a pilot script. Then it's getting them to the point where they want to spend money on a pilot and getting them to the point where they want to spend money on a series. Those two little sentences I gave you there take years to accomplish sometimes. But then sometimes they just say "go to it." Lost, I believe, was something that was written in January, shot in February, and was on the air in May. That's a huge success story for them. Others take a long time and there's a lot of people involved, with a lot of different opinions.

I think the biggest obstacle all the way through is just to protect the original vision. There are a lot of elements that come at you as you're trying to do that, and you either have to pick up a shield and a sword and try to defend it, or let it go. You have to pick your battles and what you are willing to relinquish and what you're not willing to, in terms of the original vision. Sometimes you have to pick a battle and fight to the death.

You started as a director, didn't you?

SP: Very early on, and then I fell back into writing. The writing piled up to a point where I was doing four and five scripts at a time and I just couldn't do anything other than write. I didn't have the time to do anything other than write. I got into a pattern where there was no time to direct. Now that the show is up and running, I wanted to really begin to exercise that muscle again, and allow myself to step away from writing a bit and get back behind the camera, which is something I really love to do. It's a great change up from writing.

So is one your passion more than the other, or do you want to balance both of them?

SP: I'm more into directing right now, because I haven't been able to do it as much as I have writing. I've done a lot of writing. Like I said, this is really a different creative muscle to flex and exercise, plus it's just a bonus and a huge treat to get to do it on a show I created. I've been with these actors since day one, and I've been with these characters longer than anybody has. It's wonderful because this cast knows me so well, and I know them so well, and we've all bonded so much. There's just this enormous trust from the moment we set foot on the soundstage, and they're willing to let themselves go to places, I think, for me that they're not necessarily willing to go with a director they don't know. Because they give up a lot - they're very vulnerable. Once they're on film, you can do anything with their performance in the editing room. You can make it great or you can ruin it very easily. It's just really nice, and I'm very honoured that they trust me enough to take them to places that maybe they wouldn't go normally with another director.

Do you find time to watch TV as well? What are your favourite shows?

SP: No, I'm completely and utterly disconnected from the world. I have no idea what's going on, I don't watch the news, I have no concept of what's going on outside our little backlot here. I'm not kidding. I'm like, "Oh really, that's happening? When did that happen?"

[Still laughing despite his "I'm not kidding."] Well, that's kind of sad!

SP: Sad, but also there's a strange relief to it because the news is often not so great and sometimes it gets to everybody. It's just a little depressing after a while. Out of necessity, I don't have time to do anything other than this. One of the bonuses is that I just don't have the time to be invested in what's going on. It sounds like a terrible thing, but it is sometimes a little bit of a relief, because the news is just so depressing and it weighs on you. I found that's what's interesting when I'm up here doing this, that I'm so completely disconnected from everything that it's a little bit of a relief sometimes.

You get to create your own world, anyway.

SP: Yeah, really, and it's all make believe.

It's not like I'm some crazy hermit running away from the real world, but it's certainly a relief not to have the morning shows and the nightly news and whatever else is going on. The hubbub of regular life interrupts, so it's great.

You don't live full-time in Vancouver, then? You go back to the States?

SP: Well I go back when I can. I don't get a chance that often. When I'm directing, I don't go home on the weekends because I need the time to prep for the coming week's shoot. Right now I'm doing two almost back to back, so I'm going to be up here for about five or six weeks straight.

You're originally from Canada, aren't you?

SP: I am originally from Canada. I grew up in Windsor, Ontario, and I went to school there. Then I went down to the States for my graduate degree in Los Angeles. The work started piling in after I did that. I shot a half hour film, a student project, which got me an agent right away, and that's when the work started.

Is there anything you'd like to add?

SP: I'm really looking forward to coming up to Banff. I've never been before. I'm really looking forward to interacting with everybody up there and sharing my experiences and learning about other people's, of working and their trials and tribulations in this great, terrific, wonderful, fun business.

Even in Reruns, June's a Good Month for House

Ornery Dr. House might not care about external validation, but his show and creator are garnering a lot of it this month.

On the day House entered summer reruns, executive producer David Shore was announced as a finalist for a Humanitas Prize for the Emmy-winning "Three Stories" episode. The prize honours television and movie writing that "honestly explores the complexities of the human experience and sheds light on the positive values of life."

This marks the third episode from season one to be nominated, following the pilot and "Damned If You Do" last year. In "Three Stories," House reluctantly gives a lecture to med students, describing three cases of leg pain to illustrate a lesson not just in diagnostics, but in the frightening power and consequence of choice - entwining the stories in a surreal, comedic way. Not until midway through the episode do we realize that one of the patients is House himself.

"Three Stories" is joined by ER's "Darfur" episode and "Ripped" from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit in the 60-minute dramatic category (see all nominees at the Humanitas website). Winners will be announced June 28.

On Monday, the previously announced Peabody Awards were handed out at a ceremony in New York City hosted by comedian Jon Stewart. House was one of the recipients, cited as "the most distinctive new doctor drama in a decade." (The webcast of the ceremony may eventually be archived at the Peabody site – the original announcement from April is currently posted.)

Piling on the accolades, Shore will be acknowledged next week with the Banff World Television Festival's Award of Excellence. Though he's gained prominence with the creation of FOX's highly rated, critically acclaimed show, Shore already had an award-winning career in both Canadian and American television, including Due South, Traders, The Practice, and Law & Order.

It remains to be seen if House's streak will linger until July 6, when the Emmy nominations are announced. Nods in acting and writing fields are possible-to-almost-definite: Omar Epps possibly, "Autopsy" likely, Hugh Laurie definitely (with the caveat that nothing is ever actually definite with those unpredictable Emmy voters).

However, the show rarely makes prognosticators' cuts for the top five dramas. With a surplus of exceptional, innovative dramas on the air – of which House is, of course, one – it may suffer from a stigma against procedural shows – of which House is not, exactly, one. However its flaws may count against it more than, say, Lost's or Grey's Anatomy's, because of the procedural elements.

The charge is that it's formulaic, and while that's not completely untrue, I deny it some weeks, and dismiss it others. Because even when it's not breaking free of its template, what it does within that template reaches higher and takes more creative risks than can be shrugged off with accusations of simplicity. Complex characterizations and thoughtful presentation of issues combine with quality writing, where episodes are structured so that many of the character and plot reveals are both unexpected yet completely congruous.

House is also funnier than most comedies on the air – which I realize is a backhanded compliment these days, but I've given the show enough, um, forehanded compliments to get away with it. In a rather Housian dig at Desperate Housewives' Emmy success last year, Shore had joked that perhaps his show should have entered in the comedy category. That's not likely to ensure success either, but whatever the Emmy outcome next month, House is having a pretty good June.

News to get House fans through the summer: FOX is rerunning season two throughout the summer with two back-to-back episodes Tuesday evenings beginning at 8 p.m. The season two DVD is scheduled for release on August 22. The webcast of the cast and producers speaking at an Academy of Television Art & Sciences event is now online at the Emmys site.

After the Break: An Interview with Prison Break Creator Paul Scheuring

Prison Broke? The Fugitives?

Skeptics wonder about the longevity of a show whose title promise was fulfilled in the first season finale. How do you sustain a show a called Prison Break after the break? But the show's creator and executive producer, Paul Scheuring, has no such qualms.

"I always had a two-year plan. Before I even wrote the first page of the pilot, I had to know the end game for all the characters and all the story arcs, because I'm really only comfortable writing closed-ended stories," said Scheuring, who wrote the film A Man Apart, starring Vin Diesel, before making his first foray into television with FOX's Prison Break.

In case fans despair for the longer-term future, though, he explained the show's lifespan isn't limited to those two years. "Of course with our success now, there's the question of season three, and we're beginning to explore some things with that that are pretty exciting, too," he promised. "But again, season three will be a complete reinvention, just as season two was of season one."

The success of the show has led to an invitation for Scheuring to share his experiences with industry insiders at the upcoming Banff World Television Festival. "What's interesting is that it's called a Master Class, and I'm involved in it, but I'm essentially a neophyte," he said. "I'm gladly going to share what I can in terms of my personal experiences in doing this show, which is a very unorthodox show for television."

Prison Break's first season revolved around the elaborate plan Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller) devised to free his brother, Lincoln Burrows (Dominic Purcell) from prison, where he was on death row after being framed for the murder of the Vice President's brother. Scofield, a structural engineer who helped design the jail, gets himself incarcerated in order to break out from the inside, while working on exonerating Burrows.

Scheuring thinks the audience, like the characters, were ready for release from the claustrophobic prison setting by the end of the season, and will gladly follow the characters through the aftermath. "It's basically a reinvention of the playing field," he said. "Our guys are going to be scattering to the four corners of the country, in all different modes of conveyance – you're going to have planes, trains, automobiles, everything."

In a TV landscape where a show like 24 reinvents itself and thrives each season, the fuss over Prison Break's change in direction seems linked to the title, as if the event becomes irrelevant even though it drives the action that follows. But as he prepares to begin shooting season two, Scheuring hints at more dramatic changes than simply a change in setting and mission.

"Overall, the season's going to be a mix between The Great Escape and American Idol," he revealed. "People are going to slowly fall by the wayside. We're going to pare away one escapee after another after another until only one's left standing. It's going to be fun, and we're playing for keeps. The audience is going to understand that from the very first episode – that no characters are sacred."

Last season, loyal fans stuck with the show despite a lengthy mid-season break, one they'll have to endure again in the coming season if FOX's recently announced 2006/07 schedule remains unchanged. This year, however, the producers are anticipating the hiatus. "Last year we were apprised of it after starting to shoot the 13th episode, which made this false cliffhanger," said Scheuring. "This year we're anticipating it."

While preparing for the second season of Prison Break, Scheuring recently turned in his script for the movie Yucatan, based on a pet project of Steve McQueen – star of The Great Escape. McQueen had traveled extensively to the Yucatan peninsula as research for a film on a treasure hunter in Mayan Mexico.

"He compiled all his notes into 16 custom-made leather-bound journals that were then placed in two custom-made treasure chests that he kept in his vault," explained Scheuring. "His son, Chad, discovered them and brought them over to Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers obviously was very excited about it. There were storyboards in there – it was just amazing, there was a whole film in there."

Scheuring, a long-time McQueen fan, was honoured to be chosen to write the script: "It's a piece of Hollywood history." But he also noted that writing for movies is the antithesis of writing for television.

"In television, as creator and executive producer of the show, I've got final cut on the episodes, making the final edits, music choices, that sort of stuff. It's very, very empowering as a writer because the writer really becomes a filmmaker in a way," he commented. "Whereas in features, you're not involved in post production, you're not involved in casting decisions. They sure pay you a lot to complain, but by and large, you're just one of a stable of people they can just keep cranking through that project, and get new people to rewrite you."

Besides writing and producing Prison Break and continuing to write films, Scheuring hopes to turn to directing, possibly including later this season on the show. He discounts his one past directing credit with a laugh. "(36K) was a small film we made for a thousand dollars, and somehow it showed up on IMDb. I don't even have a copy of it. I don't think it exists anymore. So I don't think that really counts."

For more of my discussion with Paul Scheuring, see the Q&A.

(Cross posted to Blogcritics.)

Q&A with Prison Break Creator Paul Scheuring

I spoke with Prison Break creator and executive producer Paul Scheuring for the Blogcritics article After the Break. But for more of our discussion, here's a minimally edited transcript of our talk.

DK: So where are you at with the second season of Prison Break?

PS: We're about 13 days away from shooting, and we're breaking our fifth and sixth episodes right now.

It seems like unless all the prisoners get rounded up and sent back to prison, you're facing a fairly substantial change of focus – can you give me any hints of what will be new in season two?

PS: The show's going to be a very different thing from season one. We felt the audience felt cooped up enough and were ready for release by the end of season one, so the last thing we want to do is get right back in there, in the prison. It's basically a reinvention of the playing field. Our guys are going to be scattering to the four corners of the country, in all different modes of conveyance - you're going to have planes, trains, automobiles, everything.

Overall, the season's going to be a mix between The Great Escape and American Idol. People are going to slowly fall by the wayside. We're going to pare away one escapee after another after another until only one's left standing. It's going to be fun and we're playing for keeps. The audience is going to understand that from the very first episode, that no characters are sacred, and it's definitely going to be a rocky ride for everybody.

Have you always had a multi-year plan in mind, or was the network ever concerned about how this concept could survive over several seasons?

PS: I always had a two-year plan. Before I even wrote the first page of the pilot, I had to know the end game for all the characters and all the story arcs, because I'm really only comfortable writing closed-ended stories. So I worked out in my head the first two seasons and the larger character arcs and everything. Season two was going to be a resolution to a lot of those things. Of course with our success now, there's the question of season three, and we're beginning to explore some things with that that are pretty exciting, too. But again, season three will be a complete reinvention, just as season two was of season one.

It looks like the mid-season scheduling break will happen again this coming season – does that affect your creative decisions now that you know about it?

PS: This year we'll be a little more ready for it. Last year we were apprised of it after starting to shoot the 13th episode, which made this, in my opinion, false cliffhanger. The 13th episode was never meant to be anything other than just an additional episode. Certainly not a cliffhanger, semi season act-out. This year we're anticipating it.

The ratings have been strong especially with younger viewers, and maybe surprisingly with women. How much do you think about audience when pitching and crafting the series? Did you consciously try to appeal more to women than your average prison-based show might?

PS: No, we've changed absolutely nothing from our original plan in terms of what stories we'll tell or tonally how those stories are going to be told. I think they've just taken a liking to how we're doing things and we're going to continue with how we are doing it. I mean, ultimately the audience is all you're thinking about when you're creating a show, but we're not changing any of our approaches based upon the whims of the audience.

How much are you involved with the Internet-based and cell-phone based content that's produced for the show?

PS: Our assistants are pretty active on the websites. In terms of the cell phone stuff, that's created in-house by our writing assistants. To be totally candid, I'm not very involved.

Do you think those kinds of strategies are important for building and keeping viewers?

PS: Umm ... no. It's kind of like the Internet boom of the late '90s where everyone's trying everything because they thought this was the wave of the future, and the only way you find out if this stuff works or not is to give it a go. I don't know if you're going to have that mass of an audience on telephones, but I have no idea.

You're attending the Banff World Television Festival to present a Master Class. What will you be sharing with delegates?

PS:What's interesting is that it's called a Master Class, and I'm involved in it, but I'm essentially a neophyte. I'm gladly going to share what I can in terms of my personal experiences in doing this show, which is a very unorthodox show for television. But I'm certainly not going to operate from a position of "here's how you should ..." and must-dos and how-to-dos, because I think that would be absurd for me to pretend I have that kind of expertise.

You're also working on movie scripts – can you tell me about the origins of the Yucatan script and how you got involved?

PS: That's very, very cool, and I'm glad to be involved in that. Steve McQueen, in the last few years of his life, went down to the Yucatan peninsula quite extensively with the director Sam Peckinpah, and they were doing a lot of research for what McQueen wanted to be his last great film, about a treasure hunter down in Mayan Mexico. He compiled all his notes into 16 custom-made leather-bound journals that were then placed in two custom-made treasure chests that he kept in his vault. His son, Chad, discovered them about two years ago and brought them over to Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers obviously was very excited about it. There were storyboards in there - it was just amazing, there was a whole film in there. So they went out looking for writers and I got a meeting and I basically asked if I could stay overnight in the office. You know, it's a piece of Hollywood history. I just turned that script in I guess two weeks ago, and everyone's really excited about it. I am. I'm just honoured to be involved. It's a piece of history.

Do you have an idea of a release date yet or is too early to tell?

PS: You know how Hollywood is, I mean, everyone's talking a big game right now, but let's get a start date and start filming. So I couldn't possibly say. At the earliest, next summer, maybe the following summer.

How is it different working in television versus film, in terms of the writer's role and creative control?

PS: It's the exact opposite. In television, as creator and executive producer of the show, I've got final cut on the episodes, making the final edits, music choices, that sort of stuff. It's very, very empowering as a writer because the writer really becomes a filmmaker in a way. Whereas in features, you're not involved in post production, you're not involved in casting decisions. They sure pay you a lot to complain, but by and large, you're just one of a stable of people they can just keep cranking through that project, and get new people to rewrite you. Like I said, it's a very great paycheque in features, so I'm never going to knock it too much, but it's certainly the antithesis of the experience a writer has in television.

You're going to continue to do both, though?

PS: I think so. I'm also moving over into directing so I think there's a lot of different directions I'm going to go in.

Didn't you already direct a film?

PS: That's a bit of a misnomer, though. It was a small film we made for a thousand dollars, and somehow it showed up on IMDb. I don't even have a copy of it. I don't think it exists anymore. So I don't think that really counts.

Will you be directing on Prison Break, then?

PS: Yeah, maybe later this year.

It's not all about hockey

The Edmonton Oilers are in the Stanley Cup finals, for the first time since 1990. I was born and mostly raised there, went to university there, and, more importantly, was a crazed hockey fan there starting in junior high school, when the Edmonton Oilers won 5 Stanley Cups and had an amazing team led by Wayne Gretzky at his prime. (For now we can ignore the fact that I looked for an excuse to leave there after graduation and haven't lived there for over 10 years. It'll always be my home town.)

Though I can still watch a game if pressed, I stopped being a hockey fan around university, when I was busy studying and working and having a life to own a TV or go to games. Plus it's an example of why I'm a big believer in lowered expectations. After starting my fandom with the 80s-era Oilers, later teams looked a lot like the Saint-Quentin Beavers I cheered on when I lived in a tiny New Brunswick town. But even after a move to Calgary, home of the Oilers' dreaded rivals, the Flames, then to a country where you have to specify "ice" before the word "hockey," and then to Vancouver, home of the nondescript Canucks, I still have nostalgic ties to the Edmonton Oilers and wish them well.

Those ties and wishes don't translate into caring enough to watch or even to pay attention to when the series starts, though. So I was sad about this comment on the Blogcritics version of my Invisible Networks post, about promoting Canadian television:

"For a country that lives and dies by the puck, what's the point anyway."

Sigh. What's the point of arguing with that narrow a view? With all our angst over what a Canadian identity actually is, and whether it's worth fighting for in the face of the cultural behemoth next to us, do we really want to pin our entire identity on hockey? I guess it's the safe choice. Why bother competing with American television and our own national sports obsession when we can just put on our Mountie hats and ride moose around the igloos? Never mind fostering stories that resonate with people who might not get all their storytelling needs satisfied with the saga of Todd Bertuzzi versus Steve Moore.

But I did my part. I'm proud that I managed to remember to record The Jane Show, a new Canadian series on Global, after a tip by my usual source. I haven't quite managed to watch it yet, so have no idea if it's any good, but that's coming ... eventually.

I insanely did two TV writer interviews today which I'd had to cram for, since I wasn't overly familiar with the shows - it's a hard life, when watching TV is my most pressing chore - and now I have to juggle quickly writing them up with my other insane decision to volunteer at that communications conference. That's this weekend and Monday, then next weekend I'm off to Banff, then the next week I'm going to Whistler for another work-related conference (which, unlike the Banff festival, I likely won't write about, unless any of you suffer from insomnia - it's for a health care PR association). Poor me, too many mountain resorts, too little time.

Oh, and wcdixon, I didn't lie to you, honest - my "no" was true at the time.