More about ‘Rejection’ from Mark Evanier

Mark Evanier, one of the biggest writing talents in TV, comic books, and blogging has been writing a series of articles on the subject of rejection as faced by all creative people.

Here’s Mark’s latest installment on the subject. (To be precise, it’s Part 25):

by Mark Evanier

This is a series of articles I’ve written about writing, specifically about the problems faced by (a) the new writer who isn’t selling enough work yet to make a living or (b) the older writer who isn’t selling as much as they used to. To read other installments, click here.

It’s been a while since I posted one of these…so long that the 50-year anniversary of my career as a professional freelance writer has passed. I’m now closing in on 50.5 years of supporting myself as a writer of all sorts of things but mainly comic books, animation for television and live-action shows for television. I have occasionally been paid as a director, producer, editor, artist or letterer but I consider those adjuncts to writing. When someone asks me what I do for a living, I say with no evasion and absolutely no shame, “I’m a writer.”

Here’s another lesson I’ve learned: Don’t get mad at the folks who could hire you and don’t. No matter how incompetent you might think they are…no matter how blind to your talent they seem to be…no matter how they run you around and dangle you and avoid giving you a straight answer, don’t get mad at them. I have met some great, benevolent and wise editors and/or producers — and I’m not saying that because they hired me because some of them didn’t.

Most of those who didn’t didn’t because I wasn’t useful to them. We discussed being “useful” in the previous installment of this column. Now, let’s discuss being cautious…

Try to remember this about that person in the hiring/buying position: They usually aren’t spending their own money. They were hired to buy scripts or hire writers so they have a boss. They may have numerous bosses and they don’t want any of them to say, “Why did you waste all that dough on that lousy script?” One of the reasons that credits and experience matter is that they provide a dandy excuse for those who hire you.

Let’s imagine for a second that I’m in a position that I never want to be in: Developing screenplays for a big movie studio….

Read it all at Mark Evanier’s outstanding blog

See all of the series so far

9 shows that should have been canceled this year

It’s that time of year again, when various critics, reviewers, fans, et al come up with zillions of different lists about subjects of interest over the past twelve months.

This particular list, from Insider.Com, caught our attention because if there’s one thing past, present, and future TV writers need to know it’s creative negativity. And, yeppers, we know this through sadly glad experience.


There really can be too much of a good thing.

While some shows get off on the wrong foot, others explode in popularity just to fizzle out in subsequent seasons.

2019 marked the end of some beloved series, including “The Big Bang Theory” on CBS and HBO’s “Game of Thrones.”

It also marked the end of some not-so-beloved series, like CBS’s “The Code,” which was canceled just one day after the first season’s finale, and Netflix’s “Chambers,” which one reviewer described as a “bloated Netflix dud.”

However, some shows, including “13 Reasons Why” and “Riverdale,” were allowed to continue when really they’d run their course.

Here are nine shows that should have been canceled in 2019, based on critic reviews, viewership, and editorial opinion, along with the season that aired this year.

Warning: Some minor spoilers below.

“13 Reasons Why” (Netflix) — season three

A new “13 Reasons Why” character was panned by viewers in season three. 
Phil Bray / Netflix

Season three of Netflix’s “13 Reasons Why” was narrated by a new character, Ani Achola, played by Grace Saif.

Fans of the show didn’t fail to notice that despite being a new kid at the school, Ani seemed to know everything about each of the characters.

So bad was the abuse that Saif got on social media from fans who accused her of ruining the show that she deleted all images from her Instagram and made her Twitter account private.

Despite retroactively editing Hannah Baker’s controversial suicide scene, “13 Reasons Why” has struggled to shake off its questionable morals.

It’s been renewed for a fourth and final season….

Read it all at Insider.Com

Early predictions for the 2020 Oscar nominations

It may seem mystifying to some people, and gratifying to others, but in spite of the fact that ratings for the awards show are down, a hell of a lot of folks are interested in who and what gets each year’s Oscars.

We here at TVWriter™ are interested as well, although some might say it’s because we have a horse we hope will be in the race. That’s the upcoming film, 1917, written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, directed by that very same Mr. Mendes,  and executive-produced by Jeb Brody and Ricardo Marco Budé. (Regular visitors to this site probably will understand one of the references here. If not, well, no worries.)

Where were we? Oh, right. Here: Because of the widespread interest, we’re proud to bring you the following predictions for Oscar noms. “Action!”

by David Canfield and Joey Nolfi

Over the past few months, EW has been offering in-depth analysis of this Oscar season’s (very) early days, assessing potential frontrunners, making the circuit rounds, and tracking the dominant narratives taking shape for 2020. Now, as the last remaining contenders start getting screened and precursor nominations officially trickle in, we’re ready to present our picks for who will make the cut on Jan. 13, when the 2020 Oscar nominees are announced.

We’ll update this post regularly as the race comes into tighter focus. And we’ll soon expand with predictions for every below-the-line category as well. As for now, check out our breakdowns of the directing, acting, and screenplay categories — in addition, of course, to Best Picture. UPDATED Nov. 25


Epic new films by Oscar mainstays Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino lead this race, but a South Korean critical phenomenon and a surprise TIFF People’s Choice winner add plenty of intrigue. Tracking changes: Little Women reviews dropped this week, and it’s looking like one of the year’s best-reviewed films. Screenings of Clint Eastwood’s Richard Jewell and, especially, Sam Mendes’ 1917 have introduced two potential power players this season. And boffo box office for Ford v Ferrari proves this crowdpleaser is a real sleeper in this race.

The Top 10:

The Irishman (dir. Martin Scorsese)

1917 (dir. Sam Mendes)

Parasite (dir. Bong Joon-ho)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (dir. Quentin Tarantino)

Little Women (dir. Greta Gerwig)

Marriage Story (dir. Noah Baumbach)

Ford v Ferrari (dir. James Mangold)

Jojo Rabbit (dir. Taika Waititi)

Joker (dir. Todd Phillips)

Richard Jewell (dir. Clint Eastwood)

In the Hunt:

Bombshell (dir. Jay Roach)

The Farewell (dir. Lulu Wang)

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (dir. Marielle Heller)

The Two Popes (dir. Fernando Meirelles)


Waves (dir. Trey Edward Shults)

Hustlers (dir. Lorene Scafaria)

Pain and Glory (dir. Pedro Almodóvar)

Read it all at

Do Any of Us Really Write Alone?

This article on the effect of fandom on the Good Omens miniseries brings out the quantum theorist in this TVWriter™ minion. As in – Do the acts of reading and commenting on a creative work actually change the work itself?

At the very least, it would see that they can’t keep from having an effect on the writers/ What do you think?

by Samantha Edmonds

I’m just going to say it: I liked the Good Omens miniseries more than the novel. It’s sacrilege among Book Folks, my people, to admit this, but sometimes recasting an old story into a new medium improves the experience. (Remember Legally Blonde, the Amanda Brown novel? Of course you don’t.) There are several reasons why I preferred the show, but mostly it’s because the novel didn’t have Aziraphale and Crowley’s queer-as-hell relationship — unarguably the best part — as the main focus.

So when I say Good Omens the show is “better” than Good Omens the book, what I mean is, it’s gayer.

Good Omens isn’t unique in its having fans who read queerness into the text. Fandoms have been doing this for years: Supernatural immediately comes to mind, as does The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. What does make Good Omens unique is that this fan-created queer love story — a fairy tale for the end of the world — pretty much came true when the story was adapted from the page to the screen.

Consider the standard one-sentence summary of the miniseries, which goes like this: In the final days leading up to the final battle between Heaven and Hell, the angel Aziraphale and the demon Crowley work together to thwart the apocalypse. Reviews may continue from there to praise the show’s casting, humor, or Emmy-nominated music — but then, inevitably, every article says something like “at its heart, this is a love story,” in reference to the obvious Crowley-and-Aziraphale-Making-Heart-Eyes-At-Each-Other moments throughout.

Here’s the thing, though: I don’t think it actually is a love story. Or rather, I don’t think the book was.

A more accurate novel summary is this: Shortly after his 11th birthday, Adam Young starts displaying mysterious powers. As various supernatural forces gather around him, he and his friends (the Them) decide if their world is worth saving….

Read it all at

Toys We Want -ASAP!!!

Current GOTTA-HAVES here at TVWriter™.

What? You thought we were all old and serious and such? Hell, even our Beloved Leader, Larry Brody, who’s older than, well, than all those hills people are always “as old as,” has shelled out for the following. Now if we can only get him to put them on the shelf in our cube.)

Avengers: Endgame MMS558 Hulk 1/6th Scale Collectible Figure

Pre-order for $375 at BIGBADTOYSTORE


Order for $49.99 at