UPDATED : 03/05/2002   

Reading Assignment:  In Newcomb:  Newcomb and Hirsch, Gitlin, Thorburn  (Don't be put off by the level of vocabulary. This really is a grad level book, but I am sure you all can handle it.  Read for the  forest and worry about the trees in the lecture.  Then go back and review the articles and they'll make more sense to you.  They are really very good.  JM)

DiMaggio writes (and she is not alone) that there are severe restrictions when writing for television:

• Time limitations:  

  • length of script

  • development and shooting

  • length of story will not change, regardless or story needs 

  • 22 min. is 22 minutes -- period!

   

• Characters are set:

  • writer must know all the characters

  • writers must use all the characters  (producers don't like to pay people who aren't in the show)

  • characters make TV a personal medium 

  [Writer can't have characters doing things they wouldn't do -- acting out of character.  Can't wildly introduce new behaviors or backstory...Must work within the established story bible.]

   

• Locales are set:

  • 1/2 hr. show is usually limited to indoor sets -- 3-camera production

  • 1 hr. or 2 hrs. show usually taped or filmed

    • one camera

    • variety of sets

    • established locations 

  [Locales are closely tied to budget.  Writers can't take characters to London for a story -- it costs too much. Sometimes taking them outside costs too much.  So all of your stories must stay within defined parameters.

  Further, can't have locale doing things it's not established to do....Enterprise can't go warp 12, the transporter works a certain way every time. ] 

   

• Budget Limitations:

  • These are very severe limitations and they are taken very seriously; people lose their jobs for going over budget

  • Extravagant sets are to be avoided unless they are part of the format and budget

  • Special effects should be avoided unless they are part of format and budget (and if they're there, there will be a limit on how many, what kind, etc.)

  • Don't use children in the story unless absolutely necessary

    • expensive

    • can only be on set for short periods of time

    • require special staff, tutors, etc.

  • Avoid night time locations

  • Leave out critters of all types -- again, expensive, special staff, equipment, and chances for complications

David Gerrold, wrote "The Trouble with Tribbles" and later wrote a non-fiction book, The World of Star Trek.  In it he discussed the format of the original series in great detail, including the things that were wrong with it.  Because of that and his writing ability, he was brought in for a while on the development of The Next Generation.   In the book, he sets up four characteristics which very accurately describe what must be necessary for a television show to be successful: 

Requirements for successful episodic television:

1.    A broad based format.  

That means there are lots of stories possible.  That means there have to be lots of opportunities for the main characters to meet new people, face new situations and problems so the show can run more than just a few weeks. I love my husband dearly, but the drama, Randy McMullen, Landscape Designer and Contractor, isn't going to afford a lot of new situations....too much rain (oh, no!),  not enough rain (oh, no!), the customer is angry (oh,no!), the customer is thrilled (97% of the time), the plants didn't come in (oh, no!),  the fork lift broke...(you get the idea....Those thing can make for a very trying day for my hard-working and creative husband, but they don't make good television.)

2.   Interesting characters who have significant responsibilities:

All of the things we talked about in characterization apply here.  More than that, you also have to have people who because of who they are or what they do are faced with serious, significant responsibilities.  (Should we put an azalia or a crepe myrtle there?  Again, Randy deals with lots of tough decisions, and he works very hard, but it's not life-and-death or life-changing drama.  Most people do survive if their landscape isn't installed on time (though, believe me, some have had their doubts....).

3.   Unusual circumstances and confrontations:

Star Trek definitely offers that.  You can't get more unusual than Talos IV or the Klingon home planet of Kronos, whereas Hampton Woods is a lovely but not unusual place.  And yes, it was pretty exciting when the axel broke and the sod truck started rolling backward down the hill in Austin, Texas, but thankfully, that sort of thing doesn't happen very much.  

4.   Characters are required to take positive and direct action to deal with those circumstances.

Dr. Green, "cracks someone's chest",  Lt. Sipkowitz arrests someone,  Captian Sisko finds the bomb......

In Star Trek, Captain Kirk has all of that....

• He's an autonomous power -- He can't pick up the phone and call for help.  That makes him general, diplomat, explorer, etc. -- 

  • It's that decisive responsibility which gives him dramatic power.  All the weight is on his shoulder.

  • Every decision is an important one; every decision has lasting consequences

  • Huge responsibility

• Faster than Light travel -- Necessary to make movement possible within a television time frame.  We can't wait for years for them to get some where.

• Only Method of Interstellar Dialogue -- Enterprise is fastest form of communication

  • Radio or television move at the speed of light

  • sub-space radio is faster, but slower than warp

  • robot torpedoes can't talk back or negotiate -- Must have human beings

All of these things contribute to the authority and responsibility of the captain, alone in space.  All of these things allows Star Trek to fulfill all four requirements of the format for episodic television.

When a series is being pitched, these concepts have to be boiled down into a logline: one or two sentences which describe the story.

For Star Trek the logline was Wagon Train to the Stars; Hornblower in Space.  The first established the situation, location, etc.  The second defined the captain-hero. 

Series are usually one of two types:

• character-driven:  series focuses on characters and their relationships and conflicts.  (Once and Again, Thirty-Something, Seinfeld, Frazier, The Guardian, Days of Our Lives)

• story-driven: action-series in which the focus is the situation in which the lead characters find themselves each week and to which they must react. (Enterprise, Alias, X-Files, Law and Order, The Practice, E.R.)

The logline will tell the premise of the series, or they may be used to tell the premise of an episode (when a writer is pitching it).  They will include:

• "A" Story" -- main storyline featuring lead characters

• "B" Story  -- if one exists which features a subplot with other leads or minor characters

• "C" Story -- is an additional story involving remain characters in the show.

To see what loglines look like, look at the descriptions in TV Guide.  Those are loglines.

Blum provides a logline from Third Rock in his book, Television and Screenwriting:  "A Story: After seeing Mary and Tina drooling over a photo of Harrison Ford, Dick looks into the possibility of undergoing plastic surgery." (p. 29)

So what does melodrama have to do with all of this?  What is it, anyway?

Melodrama is defined by Thorburn as "Sentimental, artificially plotted drama that sacrifices characterization to action or incident which makes a sensational appeal to the emotion of the audience and concludes with a happy or at least morally reassuring ending. 

Key words: 

• artificially plotted

• appeals to emotion

• morality play -- usually a simplistic moral statement

Blum addresses the issue of melodrama as well.  "...if the situation and dialogue are too heavy, then it becomes melodrama, which will stick out like a sore thumb.  If a writer deliberately pushes a political message, the entertainment value is lost and the statement overshadows it." (p. 42)

So how do we balance all of this out?  We know that drama = conflict but we don't want it to be too over done.  Some critics criticize television as being just that -- melodramatic -- because of the restrictions and limitations.

But others ask what if those restrictions are not contrivances which make the story artificial in some way, but rather conventions?

conventions:  rules within which the writer must work  Conventions make the writing more challenging.  Just as ballet is challenging because of the precise limitations regarding movement, so television's conventions challenge writers in similar ways.  Expression must be defined within those parameters, and that makes it harder to do and are necessary for it to function.  

Thorburn writes that this attitude allows television melodrama to be a public forum.  (not in the legal sense, by the way)

• it deals with culture vs. change

However, in order for that to happen -- that exchange of ideas -- the discussion must comply with the rigid rules of dictated by episodic television formats.

So what makes television melodrama a good thing versus a 'trite' thing?

• Acting:   true and believable performances are key

  • actors are aided by the small visual scale 

  • magnification created by the CU, MCU, etc. demand subtly

  • limited rehearsal time means actors have to get it right the first time

  • continual displays of emotion demanded by plot structure

• Well-structured Plot:  already discussed.

• Emotion:  tied to acting and plot, but absolutely key to the success of television

  • the plot can be manipulated to fit commercial formats

  • but if acting and emotion aren't there or don't work, the program falls flat

• Backstory: Unique to episodic television

  • Multiplicity Principle:  

    • just seeing one episode isn't enough to understand everything about the characters

    • viewers build their understanding of characters based on all of the episodes they have seen

  • Characters are revealed a little bit at a time; like peeling layers of an onion

  • Gives the writer more opportunity to create characters with depth, complexity

  • Give write the freedom for character development not possible in other media

  • Allows multiple types of stories -- "Amok Time" and "Trouble with Tribbles" ; dramatic and comedic, 

  • The audience knows what to expect: 

    • If the expected doesn't happen, the audience knows that means something

    • If Spock smiles, Edith sits in Archie's chair, or Bart Simpson gets straight "A"s....

  • History of the characters is continually available through reruns. (Jag viewers who just began watching the show on CBS may find it helpful to watch the reruns on USA)

• The Nature of TV: Smaller Scale:

  • More intimate: 

    • focuses attention

    • indoor sets are more like viewer's own environment

      • more believable

      • more familiar

      • more comfortable

      • makes "suspension of disbelief" easier

  • Creates a problem: How do you accept all these limitations and make a character seem real in a mythical, stylized world  when that isn't like the real world at all?  

    • Intense emotion

    • Focus attention on emotions and audiences don't consider the other things

Remember, TV is Drama which is Heightened Reality :  But how far do you heighten the reality without losing the 'reality' part?

Horace Newcomb answers that question by suggesting we focus on three important devices:

• Intimacy

• Continuity

• History
  

These should have a familiar ring by now, because some of them are the same things Thornburg pointed out:

1.  Intimacy created by the Interior Set

• Smallness of the set

• Furniture

• Interior sets mean you can't have big chase scenes and lots of action: the importance is placed on the REaction, not action.

• Interiors are also more important to television than exteriors because they reveal a lot of information about characters.  We have also already discussed this point.  Those sets are loaded with details that tell us about the characters. 

• They also "invite us in" to the private space of the characters; we're welcomed and suggests physical intimacy and physical proximity

• Big exterior sets are not only more expensive, they are less efficient because they don't offer much information about the characters -- i.e. the Rawhide campfire or cattle drive ... 

2.   Continuity: 

• Refers to "connectedness"; the sense that audiences know how one thing is connected to another, whether it's one scene or a series of episodes

• Continuity was lacking for a long time in episodic television, because it was thought that each show had to be able to stand completely alone.

  • no references made to previous episodes

  • no sense of history or backstory that really meant anything

  • we knew that characters had to be back every week, so there was no big deal (supposedly)

• The advent of ensemble casts made the inevitability of the "return" a little more questionable.  Characters could leave, die, etc., and there were enough cast members left to carry on the show

  • Cheers

  • NYPD Blue

  • ER

  • Jag

• The first series which really dealt with continuity in a meaningful way was The Waltons

• Now continuing series -- address the on-going lives of the characters
  

3.   History: 

• Not backstory but where in time does the story take place

• How does the place in time affect the story and its characters?

• Some series are greatly affected by historical setting, while others may take place in another time but seem to be hardly affected by it?

  • China Beach?  (yes)

  • Cheers (no)

  • M*A*S*H*  (yes)

  • Gomer Pyle (no)

  • Lone Ranger (no)

  • The Virginian (yes)

• The same can be said of some episodes within a series:

  • "The Trouble with Tribbles"  (no)

  • "Little Green Men"  (yes)

 

Television Drama is different that radio or film drama because it is very dependent upon the use of contemporary historical or social concerns.

• Writers must refer to show's bible to see how such things can or should be handled 

• Modern issues are then put in historical perspective

• Issues are put on a personal level

  • Connected with characters in some way

  • FRAMED so they draw attention to our own social issues

    • Star Trek was noted for doing that -- drawing attention to issues of race, ethical issues in science, etc.

    • Bonanza was another.

  • Framing the issue in terms of familiar characters in a situation outside our own allows us to think about it, contemplate it and be "safe" in the process

    • We're not considering our own behavior -- or at least we don't have to do so

    • The distant place or different time makes the arguments appear to be 

      • more subtle

      • less threatening

      • less preachy

    • Yet viewers do get the point

  • Because of the nature of television story-telling, the problems are sometimes framed simplistically

    • May not adequately deal with the complexity of the issue

    • But may also make the bottom line values appear more clearly

    • So it's a mixed bag, all at the mercy of the writer/producer/director and their perspectives and interpretations (Remember what we said in Com 310: ALL communication is inherently sermonic).

• When the issues are resolved:

  • The solution found in the program is assumed to be the "right" solution.

  • The solution in the program is by implication applicable to the audience; the show's solution is their solution.

  Newcomb uses the Waltons as an example here:

• The characters form a tightly-knit circle; the viewer is admitted into the family

• The depression is an event viewers of the time could connect with; we'd all heard those stories from our parents and grandparents as we grew up

• The time period was much like the time in which the show aired; our own time was fragmented and frightening (with gasoline shortages, political unrest, economic uncertainty)

• The show offered no heroic answers, rather the problems were ones we all understood and their solutions were common solutions

Result:" The mythical frame dissolves and the history we see is our own."  

We make the connection and so the lessons of the story -- set in another time -- are applied to our own time and our own lives. That's what makes us care.  That's what makes us identify with the characters.

This happens in E.R., Seinfeld, Star Trek, Friends, etc.

 

Though he wrote World of Star Trek long before Newcomb published his collection of works, David Gerrold was applying that principle when he wrote about what made TOS work -- identification.  And it is especially true when you perceive your own identity to be in danger.  The stronger you identify with the characters (i.e. separate yourself from reality and put yourself in the story), the more jeopardy you feel, the more you care, the stronger you identify...etc.

THUS...A good series is one which allows the hero to be the principle decision-maker.

• Decisions must have a "stake" -- there is much to be lost if the wrong decision is made

• But can't jeopardize the decision-maker each week; audience know he/she must come back, so therefore, while our hero makes the decisions, they affect someone else as much or more than they affect the protagonist.

• Several genres allow for this: medical dramas, lawyer shows, police dramas, westerns, etc.

• If the character is a good and responsible high-stakes decision-maker -- makes decisions on behalf of others

  • doctors, lawyers, etc.

  • many people come in contact with the decision-maker for help, guidance, leadership

  • each person offers a new story situation, new challenge, new drama

• Thus having a hero who is a principle decision-maker allows for a the kind of broad-based format necessary for episodic television

• Also utilizes the other aspects of melodrama which allow TV to "work"

  • intimacy

  • emotion

  • morality/current issues

  [Discuss how that works...Why does the decision-maker "feed" the intimacy and emotion and issue-orientation of television?]

Star Trek began a new television genre: the science fiction episodic drama.  (Other previous series were anthologies) TOS filled the requirements set out above:

• Kirk was a decider (That was his job; he was not a specialist like Spock or Scotty; his job was to carry responsibility)

  • He was aware of that responsibility

  • He worried about it and we worried about it with him

• Other characters served primarily as functions of the ship, according to Gerrold

  • Spock: science officer -- collect info

  • McCoy: feelings -- physical well-being  

  Each of these become interesting when they are forced to make decisions....

  • Uhura: ability to communicate

  • Scotty: ability to take action

  • Checkov: Kirk in training

  • Sulu: tool of the action

  Anyone could have done what those characters did -- They became interesting over time as they developed, but they were designed for a function.

The Best Stories are about People

When the stories are only about characters going through the motions, good television melodrama become cookie-cutter formula all too quickly.  When a series begins to wear itself out, that becomes apparent -- all the good stories have been done.  

"Amok Time" and "Where No Man..." are about real human conflicts.  Some other episodes didn't work that well.

Another problem with series television is that any problem with the format will magnify itself over time: 

• Plot devices which may have worked well once or twice, don't work so well on the twentieth time

• There were several of these which happened on the original series:

  • Only one exit from the bridge -- if the turbo lift breaks, they're all stuck -- again. (You'd think they'd learn)

  • Security Guards die horrible deaths when they beam to planets with the captain. (Don't ever go if you're the only one; you're good as dead.)

  • That darned transporter never works when you want it to....

  This last one is pretty important.  The transporter was created as a device to get the characters in and out of the story quickly (economy, as we discussed earlier).  But if the captain can just beam out of any tight spot, he'd never be in any tight spots and then would have no reason for decisions, no jeopardy and no drama.  So in order to keep the captain where the story is,  certain things always happened:

  • Superior aliens incapacitate the transporter -- it won't work -- The captain is trapped.

  • Inferior aliens  -- clobber him and take the communicator from him -- The captain is trapped.

  • Some "force" -- messes up the molecules thus incapacitating either the communicator or the transporter-- The captain is trapped.

  Gerrold lists some other cliches in TOS:

  • The hero/main characters killed -- but not really

  • The inter-galactic lover -- James Kirk went after anything in a skirt and they repeatedly melted in his arms; how can we believe he really cares about anyone? And if he does, they have to die.

  • Hero in danger: Captains don't put themselves in danger -- they're too valuable (and to take the 2nd and 3rd in command on an away mission is just plain stupid!  It wouldn't happen.)

  After a while you come to expect the cliché...the gimmick.  Gerrold argues that there is no dramatic need in these stories, only artificial need.

  Drama requires decisions people care about -- not just saving their hides.  

  • why does the hero care about the decision

  • we may know he will escape, but we don't know how he will do it

  • what does the hero learn?

  Chris Voegler, writer of numerous Hollywood Scripts, believes the hero must complete a journey:

  The steps of the journey are clear-cut, and you'll be amazed at how they apply to films, TV shows, even comedies...It's the creation of the real dramatic need, and when it's employed well in television, you may have melodrama, but it's at it's very best.   Use this list and apply it to an episode we watch in class or to a show you watch on your own:

  The Journey:

  1.  Hero in Ordinary Surroundings:

  2.  Call to adventure; outside pressure, instigates action: 

  3.  Hero is afraid; refuses to move (refuses the call to action)

  4.  Wise person or teacher gives gift of advice, gets hero moving past this point.

  5.  Threshold -- leap of faith

  End of act 1 (usually)

  6.  Learning about new rules

  • makes allies

  • learns about enemies

  • passes tests  

  • may have comedy relief in the process

  7.  Inner-most cave?  Hero questions motives, blocked in some way

  May end act 2 here

  8.  Supreme ordeal: Mainspring for the plot -- whatever the hero fears most he must face

  9.  Seize the sword; get what he came after

  10. Road back: usually a chase scene, enemy is coming

  11. Resurrection: Hero in a hopeless situation, must be purified and make sure he gets the message (and that the audience does)

  12. Follow through: return to starting point and bring something back.  Hero's sacrifice is apparent; he given up something for the greater good.

NOTE REGARDING EXAM:   

The exam will be Thursday, March 14.   Check the study guide already on the web.  While I may update it somewhat, I will not go through it completely.  It has some good stuff in there, but I will not guarantee that new material added this semester will be included in the study guide.  CHECK your notes and text, and make sure you learn anything which is a "heading" or which is in bold. 

Resources:  

• Gerrold, David. The World of Star Trek.  New York: Blue Jay Books, 1973.

• Newcomb, Horace.  "_____________________*" In Newcomb, Horace.  Television the Critical View, 4th ed.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

• Himmelstein, Hal.  "_____________________*"  In Newcomb, Horace.  Television the Critical View, 4th ed.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

• Himmelstein, Hal.  Television Myth and the American Mind. Praeger Publishers, 1994. 

• Thorburn, David.  "Television Melodrama." In Newcomb, Horace.  Television the Critical View, 6th ed.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

• Vande Berg, Leah and Lawrence A. Wenner. Television Criticism: Approaches and Applications. New York: Longman, 1991.

• Voegle, Chris.  "Writing for Hollywood"  (Video) Cupertine, CA: Writer's Connection, 1990.

*Citation search underway, will be added a.s.a.p.

 Copyright, 2002 Janet McMullen

Email Dr. Mc: jmcmulle@unanov.una.edu 

Return to Dr. Mc's Home Page

.