Monday, May 28, 2012

Fixing American Idol

If you've followed my blog you know I'm a fan of American Idol. I've used examples from the program to show you how to incorporate what works about it into your content. It remains one of the most popular shows on television, and its success and the success of its imitators have spawned even more music competition shows -- Duets is the latest. However, both the network, Fox, and the show's producers, are concerned about the show's 30% drop in ratings. They can't blame it on the latest Idol champion, Phillip Phillips, who had an inspiring personal story and an engaging personality. Last year I told broadcast networks to revive the variety show, and it seems like they did listen to me. Since I want to help save my favorite show, here's how I would fix the show. First, change the judges and judging. Steven, Jennifer, and Randy's supportive comments didn't help the contestants improve. Phillip and Jessica, the two finalists, were the same in the last show as they were in the first. When Simon was the judge, the audience wanted to hear his comments, because they knew he would tell the truth. Because the judges hardly said anything critical, the producers included Jimmy Iovine's taped comments to the results show. That didn't help the lack of criticism in the performanceee shows. The producers should encourage Randy Jackson to be more critical. They should replace Steven Tyler, whose comments very often were incoherent, with someone of equal stature who's going to say something interesting. The judge's comments are a big part of the show, and they were just fluff this year. Second -- promote conflict. More critical judges would help in this area. The contestants are fighting for their professional lives and the audience needs to see that pressure. They shouldn't be nice all the time, like this group was, or pretended to be. We want to see them really want this. If the contestants don't care, why should the audience? Third -- show more work. One of the best parts of Hollywood week and the auditions are watching singers make mistakes. Let's see our Idol contestants struggle more to achieve their performances. Let's have the celebrity guests tell the singers they may never make it. Wouldn't it be great to see the Idol mess up in the rehearsal and nail the performance? Essentially, I'm tellling the Idol producers the same thing that I tell all of you -- Raise the stakes. You'd think they wouldn't need to be reminded, but the main problem I see is that American Idol, after eleven years on the air, has become too comfortable. Everyone was happy on the show this year: the judges mostly said nice things, the contestants loved each other, and the celebrities kept being "amazed" at how good the singers were. No one had any problems. That makes a fun experience, but also makes bad drama. Make the contestants uncomfortable. Make the judges more critical. Make the stakes higher, and that will make American Idol #1 again.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

How to End a Series

When I was growing up in the sixties television series did not usually have a finale. With rare exceptions (the two part finale of the original Fugitive series comes to mind), series just ended, going off TV. The castaways on Gilligan's Island, for example, were not rescued in the last episode of the series. That took the TV movie, "Rescue from Gilligan's Island," which wasn't aired until several years after the series was cancelled. In the 70s show creators and network executives learned that series finales could generate great ratings and critical acclaim. The finale of the Mary Tyler Moore show, where the cast finally exits the newsroom singing "There's a Long Way to Tipperary," may have started the trend. The finale of MASH, whose series run lasted much longer than the acutal Korean War, was the highest rated series episode and remains one of the highest rated shows of all time. These days, almost every series that's been on the air for more than one season trys to plan their finale in a way that will satisfy fans of the series and tie up loose ends. Of course some series, like The Sopranos, end controversially. As a fan of that series, I thought creator David Chase didn't honor the series with his jump cut to black at the end. I didn't like the Seinfeld finale, a bizarre fantasy that made no sense to me. Which brings us to the finale of House. Spoiler Alert. I'm going to talk about what happened. I loved House when the series launched. I own the first four years on DVD. Like many viewers, I found the lead character fresh, funny, and interesting. I enjoyed the non-so-subtle Sherlock Holmes hints. I did think the series lost its way the last two seasons, and it was time to end it. I am glad that it ended with House faking his death, just like Sherlock Holmes did at the end of the first series of stories. I liked the character of House, and am pleased that he chose life, even if he had to kill his old persona to find it. Endings are tough, particularly in episodic television. When you're running a show, you're doing everything you can to keep it running by keeping the audience interested. A series that lasts several seasons leaves loose ends dangling all over the screen, making it difficult to tie them up. When you're creating your content, you should be thinking about how it might end, even at the beginning. I'm not saying you need to chart the plot, or outline it in detail. But if you know where your characters and story are going, you can shape the characters and events to make them get there. I hope we all have the success of a long running series, and the chance to end it gloriously.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Create Great Characters - Game of Thrones II

What your characters do is ten times more important than what they say. As a program executive, I read character bibles for proposed sitcoms. They would include each character's backstory, which is their history before the show starts. Backstories often include the character's feelings about the other people in the show. That's standard. However, a great proposal -- one that would move along in the development process -- always included information about the actions the character would take, based on their feelings. There's a reason they call it Acting, not Feeling. To act is to do. Hamlet, one of the most famous "indecisive" characters in English literature,in fact does a great many things during the course of the play. He goes to the top of the battlements to confront the ghost. He feigns madness. He hires actors to play the play and writes an additional scene for them, while also delivering some of the most lucid instructions to actors in the English language ("speak the speech, I pray you, trippingly on the tongue"). Hamlet kills Polonius, sends Ophelia to a nunnery and gets in a big fight with Ophelia's brother over her grave. The one thing he doesn't do until the end is kill his uncle, Claudius -- but that's because he wants to be sure, not because he's afraid to act. A character's behavior is what makes them memorable. Tirion Lanaster, played by Peter Dinklage in Game of Thrones, certainly looks different from the regular-sized characters in the show. But it's not how he looks, it's what he does -- saving Lady Stark from Barbarians, weaving a web of spies around his sister, the Queen Regent, slapping the boy king, hiding his mistress in plain sight -- that makes us root for him. You're a creator, but you're also an audience. When you're creating behavior for your characters think about what you find compelling about characters you like to watch. Are your characters as interesting? If not, it might be time to do some revisions.