The value in second guesses.

Eric Boellner

Well-known member
I was moderately excited to give NBC's new show The Blacklist a chance on VOD last night, because despite the atrocious commercials for it, I like James Spader, and the pilot was directed by Joe Carnahan, who's a fav of mine.

Well, I trudged through 14 minutes of that horrendously mediocre excuse of a television show, and here's the best advice I can give in retrospect to writers not wanting to repeat the mistakes of this show: THINK about it.

Think about everything. Second guess your plot points, your dialogue, your characters, your setups and your payoffs.

Seriously, ALL of the shortcomings of the 14 minutes I sat through could have been overcome by the writer and the director (Jon Bokenkamp and Joe Carnahan respectively) not being lazy.

Something a producer friend of mine drilled into my head when I was out in LA is that you can't assume that your first thought is your best thought. You HAVE to second guess things, you have to ask yourself "Is there a better/more interesting/less cliche/less obvious way I could tell this story?"

For instance:

- In a post-9/11 America, when everyone's on high alert, all the time, you'd think that maybe the DOOR SECURITY at CIA HEADQUARTERS in Langley might make a move on a guy (Spader) who turns away from the security booth, sets his briefcase down in the middle of the floor, takes off his coat, sets it on top of the briefcase, takes off his hat, sets it on top of his coat. You MIGHT think that looks like a guy getting ready to blow himself to hell and take a lot of people with him if you were, say, a lowly TSA agent working security at the Detroit Metro, but these guys want to try to tell me that security at the headquarters for the goddamn CIA wouldn't think so? No, all they do is give him funny looks because he's clearly just a harmless old man and not a terrorist.

- It's not until his name comes up on the security booth computer in a obvious, red "THIS GUY'S A THREAT" file that security does anything. The best part is, there's a red warning siren in the security booth that's literally bigger than James Spader's head (subtlety wasn't Carnahan's preferred method of doing things here) that goes blaring, and a swarm of agents pull their guns and train them on Spader. No one SAYS anything, like the usual "Freeze!" or maybe "On the floor, put your hands on your head!" No, they just look at him and aim their guns. He, of course, knows the drill so he gets on his knees and puts his hands on his head.

- Just for show, extra guys coming swarming up on the balcony above with assault rifles pointed down at Spader so Carnahan can feed us a cool low-angle on Spader with the guys overhead that screams "AHHHH, THIS GUY'S A BIG DEAL!" (I think this shot happened, I might have mixed them up in my head)

- Just in case it wasn't TOTALLY F--KING CLEAR, the camera then pans off Spader to see his face on a poster that reads in big, bold print "FBI TEN MOST WANTED."

- They put him in a Hulk cage. They seriously put Spader, this man whose crimes are later explained as essentially being a leak of classified information, nothing more, in a f--king Hulk cage (you know, like the one from Avengers, only it's a box instead of a circle). I'd try to describe it to you, but I think this does the trick just fine:

Tss9aAh.gif


Spader, of course, summons Elizabeth Keene, and again instead of subtlety and maybe not attracting the attention of every news outlet in a 100-mile radius, the FBI rolls in on Keene's house (BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING, WHICH WE KNOW YOU WEREN'T, LIZZY AND HER MAN ARE ABOUT TO ADOPT A KID. DID YOU GET THAT? NO, SERIOUSLY, HONEY ARE YOU READY TO ADOPT A KID BECAUSE I'M SO READY.) with a f--king Black Hawk. Oh, but this comes after Lizzy's boyfriend/husband explains in detail how Lizzy has it all together, but is also lovably forgetful! (As a side-note, Keene stepped in her dog's piss in the kitchen, and she just laughed and took her sock off and then walked out the door a half-second later, so all I can think is that this woman must be open to doing uncomfortably weird things in bed).

In case we weren't 100% certain who this chick was and wanted, you know, some delicious BACKSTORY (YAY!), the guy heading the whole "Get Spader to tell us everything knows!" operation tells Keene to profile herself. She is, after all, an FBI profiler, so why don't we just have her describe directly to the camera how her father left her or something and now she has to identify with criminals and she's trying to adopt so she can make up for her past by having a good family of her own and what? I fell asleep.

Holy f--k, guys, please as a favor to television viewers everywhere, DON'T WRITE LIKE THIS. It's atrociously on-the-nose, it's Jon Bokenkamp telling his actors to look directly at the screen and tell the audience every bit of exposition, and when he's not sure if we got it, he bludgeons us with over-the-top, obvious-as-hell imagery that doesn't suggest, but says EXACTLY what he wants us to know.

On the nose writing and exposition isn't "a necessary evil you have to include in the pilot of your show in order to let people know what's going on and who these people are." It's just a lack of trust and faith in your audience's intelligence, which frankly, might work for NBC's usual viewers, but for an intelligent person like myself, it's f--king insulting. It's insulting in movies, it's insulting in television. It's probably insulting in this post, how often I use super-CAPS even just as a parody of the show's obviousness. I'm making that clear now, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T GET IT. DID YOU GET IT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING. Oh, you got it the first time? Very well, then. My work here is done.
 
I'm sure it sucks, but, hey, they made it and it got picked up. In my very pragmatic opinion, being professionally paid for your writing is the only proof a writer needs that their work is of professional quality. In fact I find the success of shows whose quality I personally find dubious to be more encouraging than, say, House of Cards
 
I'm sure it sucks, but, hey, they made it and it got picked up. In my very pragmatic opinion, being professionally paid for your writing is the only proof a writer needs that their work is of professional quality. In fact I find the success of shows whose quality I personally find dubious to be more encouraging than, say, House of Cards

Hmm. Interesting thoughts, but I disagree. Getting produced is no indication of quality. Gigli got produced. Sullivan and Son is apparently a real thing, as TBS keeps reminding me with the most bland, annoying commercials. The Millers got picked up by CBS, and there was absolutely nothing even remotely close to quality in the commercial for that show.

Sure, the guys who vomit words onto paper and somehow get that dreck produced can call themselves professional writers. But I don't put any stock in that term to begin with, nor to I give praise to writers just for being produced. Sure, props to Bokenkamp who's written a show that somehow draws 12 million viewers a week, and apparently deserves a 7.9 rating on IMDb. For myself, the writing is s--t, the directing is s--t, the idea itself is mediocre and turned to s--t in the execution.

I get why some people find encouragement in seeing bad TV/movies produced, in a sort of "I can do better than that!" way, but like Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio say, the idea of looking at crap and being encouraged that you can do better is akin to setting the bar for your own writing at "crap + 1." I get excited by shows like SoA, BB, MM, GoT, The Office, The Big Bang Theory, etc. Sure, they've got moments of weakness in various aspects, but at the end of the day, this is some of the best writing on television and it inspires and encourages (and also slightly depresses) me.

To each his own, though - I'm not saying you're wrong for being encouraged by the show or considering the writer a professional. Just offering my opinion.
 
I understand where you're coming from - I really do. However, wiser words were never spoken, when William Goldman said "nobody knows anything". I sometimes see people bucking this and protesting, but sorry, it's just true.

Success is its own justification. There is the view that just getting paid for work makes it professional. That's true. But getting paid doesn't make the work automatically good. And then there is success - if audiences love it, nobody cares what the critics think, or what "discerning viewers" such as yourself think. Then throw on top of that the fact that tastes differ and de gustibus non est disputandum, and there are few to none "objective" criteria of what is good and what is bad, and all you're left with is market segmentation. You are not in the market for that show. Plenty of people are. Could it be made better? Sure, but again, remember, success is its own justification - that's "good enough". You consider yourself a man of good taste - well, so do I... and I bet there are tons and tons and tons of movies and shows where we will have drastically different opinions - so who says you are right and I am wrong or the other way around?

I just say "it's not for me", and leave it at that. Take one example. The film "Taken" - it made a sh|tton of money. Unbelievable amounts. They made Taken II, and that too did super well. Now, I thought that Taken II was actually much, much better than the original, but mostly not due to the writing, but to at least competent directing. The first Taken is such an atrocious movie I have a hard time picturing how anyone who is not actually comatose can claim it's a good film. Talk about cliche and brutal, brutal, brutal exposition, and nothing but nothing making the slightest bit of sense. Just straight up worthless dreck. Horrendous writing, horrendous direction, mostly horrendous acting (even if Liam Neeson himself is mostly competent). And yet - people LOVE this movie. I mean, LOVE it. And I don't mean the "great unwashed masses". I mean people here on DVXuser. There is actually a guy on here who is shooting a whole movie inspired by Taken, and tons of people on this board have chimed in with their love for that movie. And millions of viewers agree, viewers who paid hard earned $ for it. So who am I to tell them all they're all "wrong"? But on the other hand, I can't stand that movie (I had to watch it because I was working with a writer and our assignment was to watch Taken for discussion purposes). What to do? Well, all I can do is say "I'm glad you enjoyed it, but it was not for me" and leave it at that.

Now we can go into a long discussion about why people enjoyed Taken, and what its flaws were and what it's good points were - but the bottom line is nobody can predict what will become successful, and few can agree on even what constitutes "good". There was a whole bunch of articles recently where CRITICS - I don't mean viewers - I meant CRITICS, you know, people whose whole job it is to study and write about film, well, they took to debunking what movies are considered "good" and offered opinions that those movies actually suck. Here's the article: The Criticwire Survey: Overrated Masterpieces. No film, no matter how agreed upon in the past, is agreed upon today, including Citizen Kane - or any other film you can name. The same for "discerning viewers" such as those on dvxuser - there was a thread here somewhere about famous masterpieces various posters actually hated and/or thought were trash - these are people deeply interested in film, sometimes working in film professionally, almost all aspiring to it. And then of course there are the ordinary viewers who vote with their dollars - no need to go there... there are tons of 'trash' they love, and 'masterpieces' they ignore. So since there is no agreement anywhere about what constitutes "good" where does that leave us?

I used to be like you, I really did believe there were such things as "objectively good", and "objectively bad" - after all, you can say "that movie makes lighting mistakes, the dp is no good, whereas the other dp with the other movie is a master, here is a camera move mistake violating the 180 rule, here is a clear mistake in continuity or whatever". And yes, you can make that argument. But it's not so simple. Tastes change. Coincidentally there's a ton of very interesting interviews with the respected DP Rodney Charters over at the Cinematography forum - and he makes the point that a ton of supposed "rules" have changed, from mixing lights, to lighting exteriors to naturalism to using lights and so forth. Same for acting style, same for camera work, same for a ton of stuff. Remember how in music, when punk arrived, a whole new production aesthetic sprung - not necessarily around it, but at the same time - where it became GOOD to be low-fi, not polished, where 'mistakes', and 'hiss', and 'flaws' were essential vitality and authenticity and immediacy and involvement - and punk 'musicians' couldn't play many - if any - instruments. But the music continues to be fantastic. It's just a different perspective. And that was true in film too. The New Wave was full of rough edges and 'mistakes', but it was full of masterpieces. Cinema verite is very different from polished films by Kubrick. But both can turn out masterpieces. So FORGET THE RULES (except have good sound :)).

There really is only ONE good rule - make it involving. Taken is involving - even if it doesn't do it for me, because I'm too hung up and offended by its flaws... if I could overlook those, I'm sure I could enjoy Taken just as much (since I managed sort of to enjoy Taken II). Make it involving and all is forgiven.

Same here - enough people find this show involving. But it may not be for you.
 
But I don't put any stock in that term to begin with, nor to I give praise to writers just for being produced.

I do. (In most cases) A screenplay is a document created for a very specific reason: to sell. It may be an art form in some weird, bastardized way, but what you're creating is not art in a form to be publicly consumed as is. It's a selling document, and it's important in this career-path to remain pragmatic about that.

And meanwhile the writers of this "dreck" are taking their checks to the bank while we debate their merits on the interwebs.
 
did someone say the big bang theory was well written aargg

also stuff thats crappy thats "out there" is often better than most amateurs can do. I spent years talking smack about how I would do this or that once I got a camera and some lights and actors, and now that i am making short films I see how hard it is to make something even passably solid lets call it- the line between something that works and something that falls flat is like a chasm which is maybe why you can find mind-blowing art all over conceptart.org and unwatchable movies all over netflix. I consider myself a smarter than the average bear dude, and its been a long hard road even learning the fundamentals of all this stuff.

also I notice A and B above contradict each other. In other words I hate the big bang theory but ill admit its better written than most amateurs (like me) can do.
 
Last edited:
People in a forum for - say - cooking may rightfully detest Kentucky Fried Chicken or find it's products a dull manifestation of low standart cuisine. But it's out there and it is running successful and you get not poisoned as a customer. Same applies to a lot of movies.

A writer of something as the Slater Blacklist-thing very probably knew exactly what he was doing and what producers asked for: Write something for an audience that loves the mediocre and does not care when bombs have a big display (in red, clearly) that counts down to "bang" plus black helicopters and a shot of MavGyver and........ This is maybe not a mistake or a lack of talent but more a "hot dog stand-approach" to filmmaking.

I love lousy films at times. They teach us a lot of what to avoid. Even when it's perfectly planned lousyness.
 
here's the best advice I can give in retrospect to writers not wanting to repeat the mistakes of this show: THINK about it.

Think about everything. Second guess your plot points, your dialogue, your characters, your setups and your payoffs.

Seriously, ALL of the shortcomings of the 14 minutes I sat through could have been overcome by the writer and the director (Jon Bokenkamp and Joe Carnahan respectively) not being lazy.

Yeah alright.

But I think the writers on the show probably did think about it.
 
Lot of good points in this thread. Sorry I haven't been able to respond to them all. Rolf, your post has me thinking. Maybe you're right: maybe the guys who wrote and produced this show "came up" on B-programs like Supernatural and the like. After all, there's definitely a fanbase for Spartacus, and I'll admit to enjoying well enough the couple episodes I watched, but that show is clearly intentional B-grade content. It's supposed to be campy. Maybe The Blacklist is too. I don't know, maybe there's different kinds of campy, so some people would enjoy the Blacklist and think it's a well-made show, but then look at Spartacus and think it's drivel, and vice-versa. Something to think about, certainly.
 
Yeah alright.

But I think the writers on the show probably did think about it.

You're right, and I realize I kind of broke an unspoken rule I've held for myself for a while now, and that's to never assume that a writer didn't put everything he had into the script, no matter the final product. I guess I just don't understand the kind of taste in television it takes to write something this obvious.
 
You can still make mass market appeal shows that have decent writing.
I haven't seen the show that started this thread, but this is a generalization anyway. I doubt that the writers or director intentionally made it bad. Could they have done better? Probably, but at some point they wrote and directed down to the level of what the producers asked for rather than trying to aspire to something greater that might not make the network happy. Or at least I hope that's the case. I can easily see the producers looking for more "wow!" moments, like putting James Spader in a big retractable box (ripping off Silence of the Lambs and Skyfall and...).
Have you noticed that a lot of the really good stuff isn't coming from network anymore? AMC and HBO are the places that can take more chances and so they do. Not all of it will be great, but they're willing to take a chance on a show that can bring in the viewers vs the networks who just want to keep them from clicking away. Flip channels to that Spader-n-box scene and you might stick around for a bit to see what that was about. Flip channels to two people in an office talking about the details of a third character's actions from three episodes ago and you'll keep flipping channels. Network needs to make eye candy to catch viewers, while cable can build followings that bring people in to commit for the whole series.
 
You can still make mass market appeal shows that have decent writing.

I believe that a lot of writers who write things with "mass market appeal" are indeed very good, sometimes even excellent writers. I do even more so believe, that a some writers who write high-end arty stuff at times only camouflage their short comings (almost any writer has them and - if sober enough - realizes them) behind over-complex mumbo-jumbo.... ;-)
 
You're right, and I realize I kind of broke an unspoken rule I've held for myself for a while now, and that's to never assume that a writer didn't put everything he had into the script, no matter the final product. I guess I just don't understand the kind of taste in television it takes to write something this obvious.

It could be any number of things. Not least the notes the writers get. Which changes everything. It's that road between what's on paper and what eventually ends up on screen.

It's like blaming a bad movie on the writer. There's a lot in between.
 
Back
Top