No. With faxes, modems and airplanes a writer can live anywhere. It helps if the agent is LA based, but not mandatory. The writer for the ABC project I spoke of earlier is NY based and has a NY agent, proving that there are no absolute rules. This is a writer from my (massive) notes on writers whom I last read four years ago and couldn't locate several times in the past. If you are a member of the WGA and notify them, particularly if you change agencies, an agent can always be contacted based on the Guild Referral. This writer was finally listed and I was able to contact the NY agent. I read two more scripts from this writer after selling the project (June 4) and locating the writer. We had a phone conference and I got network approval today (July 3) with the only remaining matter being the business of the payment which will be worked out between the agent and our company business affairs negotiator. The network, the writer and I have said yes. The rest is out of my hands.

The network will travel the writer if necessary (WGA requires First Class Air Travel and per diem) for research (on true stories) as well as if the writer's presence is necessary at a network meeting. I couldn't be happier about believing this writer will write a script that will get the film made. By the way, the project was pitched to the network March 24, bought June 7 and the writer approved July 3. This is the quickest this process has ever moved for me at each of those steps. The story is a fictional piece, so there will be no research travel involved; the only travel may be for notes meetings, which probably won't be necessary.

I will probably speak to the writer on the phone a few hundred times during the development process, which per WGA allows for the writer to turn in a story, revised story, first draft, two revisions to the draft and a production polish. (These steps usually have payments schedules based on the overall price agreed on for the writer. Writers are given bonuses if the film is made, which is frequently much larger if they write the script on their own [aren't rewritten]. By the way, a "writer" may be two [or I suppose more] people who write as a team.) These are the formal steps; the writer will probably be asked to address production company notes throughout the process. I rarely ask for more than one pass between steps and most of what I ask for is minor. With this much in the process, if we're far afield, someone (usually me) has not done their job very well.

The most important step for me is the story since that's the blueprint; one can only hope that the producer and the network have picked a writer whose characters and dialogue work. The story is the structure, and I take that step extremely seriously.
Back to the questions

How easy is it for new writers to break into writing MOWs?

Every writer breaks in at some point, and it's never easy. "Talent" is obviously necessary. Someone who can make a difference must believe your writing is practical and worth producing. Figuring out how to move your work into consideration is the secret of succeeding. I cannot overemphasize the need for writers to figure out the business of the business and how to be perceived as someone with whom people want to work. Perception is everything and reputations are difficult to make and too easy to destroy. Everyone should remember that, in a business of purely subjective tastes, it is important that a person dedicate themselves to working for the long-run.
Back to the questions

What about book adaptations for something like Hallmark Hall of Fame? Do you look at those as MOWs or something else? Does your work include mini-series?

Books can be great sources for movies. I have done some very faithful book adaptations and some that were very liberal. I felt SBTL was extremely faithful to the book's theme but extremely liberal with respect to the book's lack of story. I once developed a film based on an airport thriller in which we abandoned everything but the basic concept of the book. I loved that film; it was pure cheese but we all felt like we were making fondue and it did extremely well (first-time writer, by the way).

I think if you don't like the massive variety offered within the form of MOWs, you can burn out quickly. I love being able to adapt Tennessee Williams, while doing a sleaze-filled biography, an issue film and a thriller simultaneously. I think MOWs are what is left of the anthological series in the early days of the medium (Playhouse 90, Omnibus, etc.) and love the speed, variety and possibilities in the process.

Personally, I don't like the mini-series form very much; it has evolved in the past ten years into something highly different from what it started as. (If you ever go to a mini-series screening, you may come to believe, as I do, that the human anatomy was not meant to withstand uninterrupted long-long-form.) I have worked in them, and am currently trying to set up a 4-hour story. In practice and technique it is very similar to an MOW. The biggest issue in a mini-series is PROMOTABILITY. Is/are the star/stars, the concept, the story big, enormous, huge enough to get people to commit to multiple nights of viewing? Will part one generate must-see discussion at work the next day? Structurally it is two (or more) two-hour movies linked together by story.

A network TV movie is a structurally mandated form: 100-105 pages, seven act breaks each of which is no less than 10 pages. The first three acts usually play in the first hour, with the critical Act Three break occurring near the hour break. Act One is set-up on character and introduction of problem. Act Three Break is the ultimate crisis and Act Seven is resolution. Each of the acts must end in a way that make it difficult for the audience to leave the program (classic cliffhangers, if you will, the more story and less psychologically driven, the better). The bulk of what sustains the rest of the film is story - event, not exposition.

There is a single obvious explanation for the fairly rigid TV movie structure: COMMERCIALS. From a business point of view, TV is commercial programming interrupted by program content. The money is made by advertisers reaching the best target audience for their product. That is a reality of TV - if you are offended by the reality, this is not your business; accepting reality is the first step in creating success. It is not to say that artists can't exist in this climate, but there's no point writing a TV film in three or nine acts or one that is 80 or 120 pages in length. It won't get made.

A TV movie will run about 91 minutes (depending on the network, but the length is specific to the second). At roughly a minute per page, there is enough lean in 100-5 page script to make a tight film. The art of TV movies is accepting the givens and making the best content you can within the form. If you want to write them, start watching them. Form must be observed. You need to learn the form and watch how some films make it work and how some don't. (I've always felt the worst films give the best advice because it's easier to articulate what didn't work than what did. Good art is seamless. Bad art is obvious.)
Back to the questions

Are MOW pitches to networks more common from agents or from producers? How often are pitches from writers entertained?

Producers pitch more than anyone. Agents may pitch an arena ("eating disorders", "euthanasia", "black market babies" are all arenas because they are general topics rather than specific stories) but the project, if the network is interested, will not be pitched without a producer in the room probably telling it in a story form: (e.g., "a family straining to keep together, each with a secret in which at the end of the first act the perfect daughter reveals to the audience she is bulemic. At the hour break the parents have decided to divorce and she is hospitalized. By the film's conclusion she is struggling with the chronic disease and having to accept the fact that her parent's marriage was dysfunctional, her father comitted adultery and her mother developed a drinking problem but she can still love them for their other strengths." [In TV terms, that pitch is fairly complete - Acts I, III and VII have been outlined]). An agent may have brought the producer into the picture after clearing the arena with the network and putting in a star to help motivate the sale. Usually an agent pitch is aimed at finding out about the desirability of a package. Pitches from writers are entertained rarely, and usually because the network wants to be in business with that writer and have asked them to come in and pitch for a picture that will be made by the in-house production company. That is rare, though. Mantra: MOWs are a producer's medium.
Back to the questions

What makes an idea saleable to a network?

There is only one reason why a network will buy an idea: they believe they can get an audience with it. It is a business of opinions. No one IS right. The network GETS TO BE right. Accepting that is a major requirement in the business.

A great idea should never be given up, even if the network doesn't buy it. Timing is everything and the ability to nourish an idea into a sale is a great pleasure, whether it's by finding the piece of casting that makes it a sale, or developing the script that has to be made. I never let go of a story I've put together, even if the rights have expired. I'll go back to the people if I believe in it. I think (who knows?) I'm on the verge of selling something at a Network that passed on it two years ago. Why? Because a movie that they had in development, and which they felt was too close to my idea, did well. Suddenly they may want another. I'm working it through with my executive (relationships are extremely important) to make it work for this buying climate. I went back to the person whose true story this is and asked to have my option reactivated. This person was more than willing. S/he (never discuss what might be happening, sorry) liked the way they were treated, appreciated my efforts the first time out and wasn't out marketing their story.

As with any business of taste, sales may be determined by a million non-identifiable and impossible to anticipate factors, including the track record of the salesperson, the salesperson's passion for the project, the buyer's need for the project, etc. When I was a buyer (network executive) someone sold me an idea by faking a TV Guide ad complete with faux but practical casting. The movie was apparent in the pitch, the clever device made me see how easy it would be to market the film. It got made (first time writer, again, thank you) and we had a better cast than the TV Guide mock ad. Both are framed next to each other here. I had dinner with my current executive at NBC (who used to be my assistant - it's a business of relationships) who told me they had just bought a film based on a fake TV Guide ad. ("The more things change...") I hate cute pitches, but there is a belief in programming that if it can't be sold in a single easy-to-grasp image, it won't be bought by the viewers. "High Concept" is a term which has been misappropriated to suggest jiggle or exploitation films. Network television movies, in general, tend to be a "High Concept" medium because it's an up-and-over proposition, by which I mean the momentum gets going and it quickly moves through the process and is over. No tracking of weekly box office stats, no reapproaching the promotional campaign, it's done when it airs which is, relative to many other commercial arts, relatively soon after it has been put into active development. That's why the idea must be simple to get. The audience gets one chance to tune in to a MOW. Promotion is limited to TV Guide loglines, print ads in TV Guide or daily newspapers or Sunday TV supplement magazines, rare radio spots, and of course lots of on-air promo for a week. If you don't "get" the movie (and want to watch it) it's over for everyone involved at 11:00 the night it airs. The concept has to sell itself.

Whether the film delivers on the concept is a separate matter. You have to find a way to say to the network that they can sell the piece in the first place. The more you convince the network they can sell to an audience they can deliver, the more likely you are to sell.
Back to the questions

Can an idea be sold on the basis of a certain star or director's interest in the script?

Stars more than directors. Another mantra: people do not tune in for the execution. Quality, in my opinion, will bring them back to the network next week, but they don't tune in to see the elements of the production. There are very few directors who will bring in a TV audience. Steven Spielberg would, and occasionally a feature director will do a TV film (particularly on the pay-per-view or cable stations, which promote the prestige level). When a feature director does a TV film, the promotion frequently focuses not necessarily on the director's name but on the most popular credit, e.g., "From the Director of..." (The hugely successful promotion for "Peter Benchley's 'The Beast'" relied on reminding the audience of "Jaws" in every moment of its promotion; my favorite being, "It's 20 years later and it's STILL not safe to go in the water.")

A TV star is a risky business and can be like attaching the wrong writer at the right network. NBC, for instance, is contractually unable to air a Candice Bergen film on Monday at 9, because network series stars are forbidden from airing in competing programming. To do a Candice Bergen film, for instance, NBC cannot choose to air it on their normal Monday movie night because that would be in competition with "Murphy Brown". Programming flexibility is a huge requirement at the networks and they have to be willing to concede half of their movie schedule in order to air a film with Bergen. She's such a big star, they probably would, but in general the networks don't like to have their hands tied with respect to scheduling. (One network played dirty pool last year by scheduling a broadcast of a series on an atypical night to prevent an MOW from being played because of the star's contractual obligations.)

Also, because TV is cyclical, a star attachment is good when the show is hot, but when the show is no longer valid the star attachment may kill the film. There's a star at a network whose show had a promising start and someone wisely attached the star to a film at that network. When the show started to tank while the script got quite good, it looked problematic. The network had a problem as well. Scheduling is competitive and they didn't want to announce the imminent cancellation of the series which was now on life support. Ultimately the producer had to make Solomon's choice by losing the star, who had also been attached as a producer, in order to get the film made. (Producer's fees are budget items. Networks divide the money they give for a film in different ways, but essentially offer the same amount of money no matter what. Extra producers will cost more money and the networks want to see the money on the screen as much as possible. Those fees, theoretically, come from the production company's profits for owning the film and go to the other producers they bring on board.)

There are people thought of as perennials whom you still can't count on. One network's highest rated star was unable to sustain interest as an MOW star; nevertheless, the network had made a Pay Or Play (POP) commitment with the star, meaning they had to pay the star for a certain amount of MOW performances at increasing increments for each year of the series whether the movies were made or not. It was cheaper to pay the star off than to lose the revenue - but it wasn't cheap. And it wasn't great for the network's talent relations either.

Feature stars do not always translate into TV events. Jessica Lange, Alec Baldwin, John Goodman and Diane Lane could not deliver a large audience to "Streetcar Named Desire" this year. Despite the success of Bette Midler in "Gypsy", the subsequent failure of "Bye Bye Birdie" has made it much harder to sell a musical (although I suspect everyone can come up with several reasons why the two films were neither analagous nor comparable). I heard, but don't know for a fact, that Steve Martin in "The Music Man" (I would have watched) was passed on; I couldn't get anyone interested in Glenn Close and Angela Lansbury in "A Little Night Music" (conceptually, no one encouraged me to go out and make it happen: "Too period, too obscure...") "Mame" has reportedly gone away because the one star they wanted decided not to do it and they couldn't find an acceptable replacement, etc. The first failure of an "Epic" attempting to imitate the success of "Gulliver's Travels" will make that genre a tough one to get going again. That's why the business tends to be cyclical. ("Nobody knows anything" is the mantra in William Goldman's wonderful "Adventures in the Screen Trade"; I also like the philosophy that "Failure is an orphan, but success has many fathers.")
Back to the questions

What's the total page count for a MOW script? Where do the act breaks fall?

Answered above: 100-105 pages (coming down because of increasing commercial time). Seven Acts. First Hour: Acts 1-3, Second: 4-7. No act less than ten pages. Act Seven traditionally the shortest. First Act traditionally the longest. Major event: Act Three (as in "Don't touch that dial at 10:00"). Act One: set-up on characters and introduction of crisis (around page 20-25) Acts Two, Four, Five and Six: Story, story, story. Act Seven: Wrap it up. The basic TV Movie premise: They were just like you and me until... (This is changing but the notion of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances is a time-tested formula for MOWs)
Back to the questions

As a MOW producer, do you care whether a script comes to you in feature film (i.e., 3 act) or MOW form? Can a screenplay structured as a feature be successfully turned into a MOW?

I've discussed submission process and the low probability of finding a script that works. Sad but true, most (but certainly not all) TV movies are concept generated and specifically developed for the medium. So it's possible but unlikely. Good writing, I'm pleased to believe, is forever. I've made quite a few feature scripts as TV movies, but never cold - they had to be rewritten for Act breaks, and usually softened for standards. (Most feature scripts that find their ways into the TV market are high concept films [or "concept driven"] and, as features, were probably harder driven with respect to sex, language and violence than television is willing to accomodate. In addition, to get a feature film to the network, it is frequently attached to a star who makes sense for the buyer. All of these issues, in addition to the network's concerns for story, structure [gotta find a place for those act breaks] and dialogue, require rewriting.)
Back to the questions

What makes one story right for TV and another right for feature film? Or do you draw such distinctions?

I don't make the distinction for features since I don't play in that ballpark, but I know that most TV movies are made for a predominantly female audience (while I believe marketing of feature films is predominantly male-directed). Fox is aggressively making films for male audiences, but realities of budget and comparability to feature action means that the best script for TV is much more character than action driven. It's not to say that there aren't action or special effects films, but the average TV movie budget is under 3 million dollars and it's hard to compete with "Eraser" or "Twister" at a small percentage of the budget.