Back in 1990, in an awesome piece for The New Yorker, author Ian Frazier told the—shall we say—little-known story of Wile E. Coyote’s endless legal battles with the Acme Company. Now, the tale of Coyote’s legal tribulations, suing Acme for grievous personal injury and catastrophic product malfunction, has been designed and republished by Michael Bierut of Pentagram, featuring original diagrams by Daniel Weil.
Frazier’s premise is that Coyote has finally had enough of the injury, trauma, and humiliation inflicted upon him by Acme products—products that never seem to work as intended and that always, in the end, turn against the person (or, his case, animal) using them. So he has lawyered up and taken his case to court.
“My client,” we read on the opening page of the ensuing fictional legal argument, “Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hereby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and territory. Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company, under Title 15 of the United States Code, Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.”
The dry legalese of Frazier’s text sets a perfect tone for this—and it is maintained consistently, going through “improper cautionary labeling,” for example, to a case of “sudden and extreme malfunction” in the case of Coyote’s spring-powered shoes.
However, if imaginary legal arguments aren’t quite your bag, Weil’s helpful diagrams of the offending products add an awesome level of investigative detail to the new publication.
The CW announced today that a spinoff of the long-running show that’s about to hit the big screen will air online. It’s from Rob Thomas, the creator of the series and the upcoming movie.
The show will post on CW Seed, the network’s home for original digital series.
Sadly, the CW had very few details to share with the press today at the annual Television Critics Tour in Pasadena because the deal was justdone. CW Entertainment President Mark Pedowitz said Thomas is “thrilled” with what CW Seed is doing and already has some ideas about what characters could be featured in the spinoff.
They aren’t telling us about them, though, cuz…spoilers! (Or maybe cuz they don’t really have a clue since this all came together in a whirlwind just a few days ago?)
Ken Levine AKA Our Pal Who Doesn’t Know We Exist, scores again!
by Ken Levine
Recently in a post I wrote a joke that some felt was too insensitive. Was it? You could argue either way. But I decided it was easier to just swap it out for another joke. I could have stayed with it, but in this case figured it wasn’t worth offending some people. I say “in this case” because in other instances I have kept original jokes that was controversial.
But I kept those because I thought they worked and were appropriate and those who were offended were overly sensitive. You can’t do humor without offending someone. I have never however, kept a joke because I thought it would be too hard to replace.
Professional comedy writers learn early that swapping out jokes is just a part of the game. Many young writers are very defensive. They like the joke they wrote, it took forever to come up with that joke, or both. But jokes often need to be changed. And not just because they don’t work. Actors have a problem, the network has a problem, standards & practices have a problem, legal has a problem, the scene changes and it doesn’t fit as well anymore, it’s funny but too jarring, it’s funny but makes the character seem too stupid, it’s too hard to shoot, it’s too similar to another joke, or of course – it’s too Jewish. You get the idea.
Comedy writers need to get in the habit of swapping out jokes. When my writing partner, David and I can’t agree on a line, rather than argue for forty minutes and one team member ultimately unhappy, we just throw it out and come up with something else. It’s easier, faster, and reduces a lot of unnecessary tension.
Well, maybe not your questions, but those from a certain DP for sure. Here’s what he wrote:
I’m working on a half-hour animated show for the People’s Pilot. How should I gauge my Act lengths, or even my script as a whole? I’ve got a few THE SIMPSONS production scripts that I use as a guideline, each one about 50 pages, though that is longer than what most websites say, and longer than past winners I have looked at for the People’s Pilot (they tend to cap at about 30). Is there a general standard on how many pages each act should be/the script as a whole? It feels incredibly hard to tell. And I don’t understand why single-cam vs multi-cam shows should have different script lengths.
3) I’ve read that animated shows/sitcoms are only 2 acts, with a teaser and maybe a tag. That to me would suggest that there is only one commercial break within the meat of the episode (between Acts 1 and 2), and that doesn’t seem right to me. Don’t sitcoms usually have 2 commercial breaks apart from the teaser and tag? Am I crazy, or am I misunderstanding the terms/act breaks.
Thanks for all of your help, I follow TVWriter every day.
And here’s what I’ve got to say in reply:
First of all, thanks for following TVWriter™ every day. Second of all, thanks for planning on entering the PEOPLE’S PILOT. But if you could get, oh, maybe a couple thousand of your friends to do the same, we might be able to sell some advertising and actually cover some of the expenses of producing this site. And then, man, I’d definitely be thanking you bigtime.
(Wait, just kidding. You won’t see any advertising for outside products here no matter how much anyone offers. I mean, can you imagine munchman being able to write and edit this place while feeling beholden to anyone? Right. Neither can I.)
Where were we? Oh, of course. You need some answers. When it comes to the length and formatting of animated teleplays, guess what. It makes no difference. Every production company has its own way of doing things. What they have in common is simply that all their formats are based in some degree on the standard movie-TV script format and the standard live TV format.
If you were writing an episode of an existing show like, say, THE SIMPSONS, since you mentioned it in your question, I’d say to just do what they do, whatever it is. (I used to know, but I haven’t looked lately.) Single cam, multi-cam, single space, doublespace…whatever you’re comfortable with because you’re the creator. You’re the pioneer out there blazing the trail for your idea and you can do it in any way you want. If, sometime in the future, you get a studio or network interested in your show or – glory hallelujah – a network buys it, don’t worry, they’ll tell you exactly how they want it to look. (In every possible creative way as well as in the format, btw, so be prepared.)
That said, I’d suggest that if you use single cam/movie-TV format you should assume that 30 pages is your limit. If you’re using multi-cam/live TV format I’d say you can go up to 45 or 50 pages but you’d better have a lot of stage directions in there eating up the space. Especially since these days the average half-hour animated show runs for only about 15 minutes and a minute per page is still a good although no longer Biblical guide.
(I’m guessing about the running time, based on the fact that THE SILVER SURFER episodes ran 18 minutes and that was 15 years ago when interruptions were fewer and shorter.)
Speaking of interruptions, SURFER had a Teaser, two acts, and a Tag, with commercials between all of those, which means 3 breaks plus, of course, the commercials that came between the opening titles and the Teaser and those that came after the end. These days the number of breaks is pretty much the same, although it may vary depending, again, on the studio and network.
As for how long each act should be, I can only say that on SURFER we tried to keep everything proportionate with each act approximately the same number of pages and the Teaser, by storytelling necessity, probably twice as long as the Tag. I tried to never go longer than 4 or 5 pages for the Teaser and 2 or 2 1/2 for the Tag.
Actually, as I think about this a little more, I’d recommend that you use single-spaced filmed movie-TV format if you can. It’s the easiest for everyone – judges, producers, even agents – to read. The exception I’d make is that if you’re writing an animated sitcom I’d go with whatever THE SIMPSONS is doing now.
Hope I’ve been helpful. Now get to work because, you know our motto when it comes to the PEOPLE’S PILOT (and the SPEC SCRIPTACULAR but that’s not going to be open for several months): Enter early and enter often! (The enter early part is important. Our Early Bird discount price of $35 per entry ends March 1st.
Every January for the past 16 years, people who care about women’s progress behind the scenes in the film industry have restlessly anticipated Dr. Martha Lauzen’s Celluloid Ceiling analysis of the top 250 domestic films during the previous year.
The figures for women, according to Dr. Lauzen, have not improved in the 16 years since she’s published the story. In fact, things have gotten slightly worse. Here’s she has to say:
Anyone advocating for significant change would be challenging the film industry’s dominant ideology and mores. Since executives in even the loftiest positions are under constant threat of getting booted, it seems unlikely that they would take that chance. In addition, it seems that leaders at the various guilds are paralyzed on this issue because they feel advocating on behalf of their female members may alienate the majority of their members who are male.
I spend my time in the blogosphere and I know that the conversation about this topic is different from what it was even five years ago. While people might think that things are changing because there is a robust and clearly visible conversation about women’s issues in the film business, the reality is that this is not true. Nothing is changing and that is so depressing. Talk is not action, and clearly we need action. (This is something that Women and Hollywood is taking very seriously and is looking into how to be more activist about our work.)
Here’s another comment from Martha Lauzen on what needs to happen to see some change.
The vast majority of the public dialogue about the issue of women’s employment in Hollywood has come from grassroots sources, including individual filmmakers, bloggers, and women’s committees at the guilds. There are a few exceptions to this pattern. Amy Pascal referenced the problem in her Forbes interview last year, and the guilds do release their diversity numbers every year or every few years.
However, for the most part individuals at the top of the Hollywood hierarchy have been remarkably silent on the issue. We don’t hear the studio heads, union leaders, or executives at the Academy acknowledging women’s under-employment as a problem and outlining concrete plans for change. In order for the film industry to experience a significant shift, the top players would need to work together in a concerted effort to seek out more women filmmakers and films made by women.
This should be a moment where people realize that something drastic needs to be done, or else I fear that each year these numbers will stay relatively static and that will be the reality of women working in Hollywood. I don’t think any industry should be satisfied when gender discrimination is so rampant that one privileged group — in this, men — get 84% of the jobs available.