Three very different families turn out to be one big family: Controlling Claire and immature Phil raise three children: flirty Haley, nerdy-but-snarky Alex, and dim bulb Luke. Meanwhile, aging Jay has married fiery Gloria and got her romantic son Manny in the process. We also meet touchy Mitchell and his boyfriend overly-dramatic Cam, who have just adopted a baby from Vietnam. In the pilot, Haley has an older boy over, Luke shoots Alex with a BB gun forcing his parents to make good on their threat to shoot in return, Jay sees a younger guy hit on Gloria, Manny quixotically asks out an older girl, and Mitchell must admit to Cam that he hasn’t told his disapproving family about the baby. In the end, Mitchell’s family arrives and we realize that Claire is his sister and Jay is their Dad.
CONCEPT: Is this a strong
concept for an ongoing series? (14/20)
|
|
The
Pitch: Does this concept excite everyone who hears about it?
|
|
Does the concept satisfy the urges that get people
to love and recommend this type of series?
|
Yes, it’s a funny,
likable family with a little edge to it.
|
Does the series establish its
own unique point of view on its setting?
|
Well, somewhat unique: “Arrested
Development” had already done the family mockumentary set-up, but this is
very different.
|
Is there a central relationship
we haven’t seen in a series before?
|
Many: gay parents, a positively-portrayed
May-December marriage, a dad who wants to be best friends with his kids, etc.
|
Does the ongoing concept of the
series contain a fundamental (and possibly fun) ironic contradiction?
|
Just barely: three very different types of
family are actually one big family.
|
Does the concept meet the
content expectations of one particular intended network, venue, or audience?
|
Yes, it’s very ABC/Disney: family based,
somewhat sentimental / somewhat hip.
|
Even if the setting is
unpleasant, is there something about this premise that is inherently
appealing? (Something that will make the audience say, “Yes, I will be able
to root for some aspect of this
situation to recur episode after episode.”)
|
Everything is pleasant.
|
Series
Fundamentals: Will this concept generate a strong ongoing series?
|
|
Is there one character (or
sometimes two, in separate storylines) that the audience will choose to be
their primary hero (although these heroes should probably be surrounded by an
ensemble that can more than hold their own)?
|
No. This
show splits its focus very democratically amongst all six cast members adult
cast members, and it really makes that work.
|
If this is a TV series, is the
hero role strong enough to get an actor to abandon a movie career, come to
work in TV for the first time, and sign a five-year contract before shooting
the pilot? (And even if not for TV, is the hero role still that strong,
simply for narrative purposes?)
|
No. Most were TV veterans, but, perhaps because
of the six-way identification split, none were big-screen-worthy stars. Again, this works just fine.
|
Yes.
All three families are pretty rough on each other, and the documentary
interviews allow them to really have at it.
|
|
Is this a setting that will
bring (or has brought) different economic classes together?
|
Not
really. Gloria and Manny used to be
poor, but now they too are rich. This
would be a big problem for the show.
|
Will trouble walk in the door on
a regular basis?
|
Just
barely, in the form of Haley’s dates, and guys hitting on Gloria. Most the trouble will come from ongoing
internal resentments, which is fine.
|
Will the heroes be forced to
engage in both physical and cerebral activity on a regular basis?
|
Again,
not really, which connects to the economic class issue. They’re all fairly rich.
|
Are there big stakes that will
persist episode after episode?
|
No.
Again, they’re all rich and have little to worry about other than the usual
family concerns. You would think that
this alone might cause problems (Phil is a real estate agent in 2009 L.A.--
Surely that might have cause some worry?) but it doesn’t
|
Will the ongoing situation
produce goals or mini-goals that can be satisfactorily resolved on a regular
basis?
|
Very
much so.
|
The
Pilot: Will this pilot episode be marketable and generate word of mouth?
|
|
Does the pilot contain all of
the entertainment value inherent in the premise (rather than just setting
everything up and promising that the fun will start next week)?
|
Very
much so. There’s a big reveal that they save for the end, but that actually
helps here because it assures us that each family is worth watching
separately, even if they never interacted.
|
Does the pilot
feature an image we haven’t seen before (that can be used to promote the
show)?
|
Just
the sight of this very diverse untraditional family.
|
Is there something bold, weird,
and never-before-seen about this concept and/or pilot?
|
The
two non-traditional families are both bold choices, or at least seemed so at
the time.
|
Is there a “HOLY
CRAP!” scene somewhere along the way in the pilot (to create word of mouth)?
|
Sort
of: Claire and Phil shooting their son and their daughter’s date.
|
Does the pilot build up
potential energy that will power future episodes (secrets that will come out,
potential romances, etc.)?
|
Sort
of: it’s revealed at the end that nobody approves of Mitchell and Cam
adopting, which will proved future friction, and Phil’s crush on his
stepmother-in-law is also a potential (minor) problem.
|
Even if this is episodic, is
there a major twist or escalation at the end (though sometimes this twist
will only be new to, or only revealed to, the audience) that will kick future
episodes up a notch?
|
Yes:
the revelation that this is all one big family, rather than three separate
families (which is only a reveal to the audience.)
|
CHARACTER: Is this a compelling hero? (Okay folks, we have six co-equal heroes
here, so we have a lot of work to do, but this pilot does a great job setting
up all six, so let’s answer each question for each one) (15/16)
|
|
Believe:
Do we recognize the hero (or co-heroes) as human?
|
|
Does the hero have a moment of
humanity early on? (A funny, or kind, or oddball,
or out-of-character, or comically vain, or unique-but-universal “I thought I
was the only one who did that!” moment?)
|
Claire:
husband closes the fridge door on her, Phil: yells upstairs, Jay: fails to
stand up while claiming to be young, Gloria: stands up for son, Mitchell:
gives vainglorious speech, Cam: embarrassed by husband.
|
Does the hero have a
well-defined public identity?
|
Claire: the strict mom, Phil: the cool dad,
Jay: the grouch, Gloria: the trophy bimbo, Mitchell: the strident one, Cam:
the “woman”
|
Does that ironically contrast
with a hidden interior self?
|
Claire: the bad girl, Phil: the terrible
dad, Jay: not really, he is what he seems to be, Gloria: smart, loving,
snarky wife and mom, Mitchell: afraid of being too gay, Cam: actually a jock
and the strong one.
|
Does the hero have three rules
he or she lives by (either stated or implied)?
|
Claire: It’s up to me, I can’t trust my
kids, I must overcome my past, Phil: Be my kids’ best friend, be hip, be
subtly dominant, Jay: I don’t have time for this, I have to set everybody
straight, I’m not too old, Gloria: Nobody hurts my kid, life is for living,
share every thought, Mitchell: Stand up for gayness, Don’t trust Cam, Avoid
conflict, Cam: it’ll all be okay, be who you are, force the issue.
|
Does the hero have a consistent
metaphor family (drawn from his or her job, background,
or developmental state)?
|
There is no lone hero, so see ensemble
section for these.
|
Does the hero have a default personality trait?
|
There is no lone hero, so see ensemble
section for these.
|
Does the hero have a default
argument tactic?
|
There is no lone hero, so see ensemble section
for these.
|
Care: Do
we feel for the hero (or co-heroes)
|
|
Does the hero have a great flaw that is the flip
side of his great strength?
|
Claire: too strict, Phil: too lax, Jay: too
gruff, Gloria: too fiery, Mitchell: too touchy, Cam: too dramatic
|
Does the hero feel that this
flaw cannot be resolved until it’s time to abandon the world of the show?
|
Yes for all: they all feel like their role is essential to who they are and beneficial to their kids, even they recognize that it’s a personal flaw.
|
Does the flaw resonate with the
theme and/or setting of the show?
|
Yes for all: these are all different types of problematic parents.
|
Invest:
Can we trust the hero (or co-heroes) to tackle this challenge?
|
|
Does the hero have a great strength that is the flip
side of his great flaw?
|
Claire: strong mother, Phil: no, no great
strength showed yet, Jay: loving husband, Gloria: loving wife and mother,
Mitchell: greater perspective, Cam: braver
|
Is the hero good at his or her job (or family role,
if that’s his or her primary role)?
|
(the “job” for each, for the purposes of
this show, is spouse/parent) Claire: Yes, Phil: Not really, Jay: Somewhat,
Gloria: Yes, Mitchell: Yes, Cam: Yes.
|
Is the hero surrounded by people
who sorely lack his or her most valuable quality?
|
Claire: the only sensible one, Phil: the fun
one, Jay: the skeptical one, Gloria: the passionate one, Mitchell: the
sensible one, Cam: the fun one.
|
Is the hero curious?
|
Claire: Yes (snoops into daughter’s date),
Phil: No, Jay: Yes (snoops into stepson’s business), Gloria: Yes (ditto),
Mitchell: No (never suspected any of Cam’s arrangements), Cam (snoops out Mitchell’s
family problem)
|
Is the hero generally
resourceful?
|
Claire: Yes, Phil: No, Jay: Yes, Gloria:
Yes, Mitchell and Cam: we don’t get to see yet, as they encounter no big
obstacles until the end (family’s dubiousness about the adoption), and that
obstacle remains unresolved.
|
Does the hero use
unique skills to solve problems (rather than doing what anybody else on the
show would do)?
|
Not really.
Jay offers Manny $50 not to ask that girl out, but that’s about
it. Two of the families are atypical
in their structure, but not so much in their (somewhat hapless) parenting
techniques.
|
ENSEMBLE: Is this a strong ensemble (beyond
the hero or co-heroes)? (13/13)
|
|
Powerful: Is each member of the ensemble
able to hold his or her own?
|
|
If this is a network TV series,
are there at least two more roles that are strong enough to get TV veterans
to sign their own five-year contracts? (And even if not for TV, are the
characters still that strong, simply for narrative purposes?)
|
All
six were well-regarded TV vets.
|
Are all of the other regular
roles strong enough on the page in this first episode to attract great
actors? (ditto)
|
Yes.
Every actor, including the kids, would excel as the show progressed. The casting is excellent up and down the
line.
|
Does each member of the ensemble have a distinct and
defensible point of view?
|
Yes.
|
Is each character defined
primarily by actions and attitudes, not by his or her backstory?
|
Yes.
The delay of the backstory reveal until the end proves that the show can rely
entirely on front-story whenever it needs to.
|
Do all of the characters consciously and
unconsciously prioritize their own wants, rather than the wants of others? (Good
characters don’t serve good, evil characters don’t serve evil.)
|
Very
much so. Each parent and child is
motivated almost entirely by self-interest.
|
Do most of the main characters
have some form of decision-making power? (And is the characters’ boss or
bosses also part of the cast, so that major decisions will not be made by
non-regulars?)
|
Yes,
in that the show is about their decisions as parents.
|
Balanced: Do the members of the ensemble
balance each other out?
|
|
Whether this is a premise or episodic pilot, is
there one point-of-view who needs this world explained (who may or may not be
the hero)?
|
Yes, the never-seen
documentary crew.
|
Does it take some effort for the
POV character to extract other characters’ backstories?
|
Yes
and No, they families tell everything to the documentarians’ camera, but
the documentarians choose to parcel
out that backstory to us.
|
Are the non-3-dimensional characters impartially
polarized into head, heart and gut (or various forms of 2-way or 4-way
polarization)?
|
Clare and Phil are
2-way: Strict vs. loose. Their kids
are 3-way: Alex is head, Luke is heart, Haley is gut. Also 3-way: Jay is head
(“this is a bad idea”), Gloria is gut, Manny is heart. Cameron and Mitchell are two way: Uptight
vs. frou-frou.
|
Does each member of the ensemble have a distinct
metaphor family (different from the hero’s, even if they’re in the same
profession)?
|
Claire: No, just generic mom, Phil: immature
“playa”, “we cool” “keep it real”, Jay: outdated alpha male “take it down a
notch, that’s all I’m saying”, Gloria: Spanglish, Mitchell: Not really, Cam:
maternal (“nesting instinct” “redheaded daddy is angry daddy”) therapy
(“that’s science, you can’t fight it” “you’re an avoider)
|
Does each member of the ensemble
have a different default personality trait?
|
Claire: exasperated, Phil: immature, Jay:
gruff, Gloria: fiery, Mitchell: uptight, Cam: serene
|
Does each member of the ensemble
have a different default argument tactic?
|
Claire: Glare and yell, Phil: appeal to
friendship, Jay: mock, Gloria: overshare, Mitchell: mock, Cam: declare as a
fait accomplait
|
Is there at least one prickly
character who creates sparks whenever he or she appears?
|
Gloria
|
STRUCTURE: Is the pilot episode a strong
stand-alone story and good template for the ongoing series? (22/22)
|
|
Template: Does this match and/or establish
the standard format of this type of series
|
|
Does the pilot have (or
establish) the average length for its format?
|
Yes.
|
If this is intended for commercial
TV, does the pilot have the right number of commercial breaks for its
intended venue?
|
Yes,
three.
|
If this is intended for
commercial TV, does every act end on a cliffhanger or escalation, especially
the middle one (and, if not intended for commercial TV, does it still have
escalations happening in roughly the same places, simply for narrative
purposes)?
|
Yes:
First: Dylan arrives and Phil fails to stand up to him. Next: Phil shoots Dylan.
|
Does the pilot establish the
general time frame for most upcoming episodes of this series?
|
Yes,
most episodes will cover one day, intercutting from family to family.
|
Do all of the pilot’s storylines
intercut believably within that time frame?
|
Yes.
|
If this is a premise pilot, is
the basic premise established by the midpoint, leaving time for a
foreshortened typical episode story in the second half?
|
It’s
a center-cut pilot for two of the families and a premise-pilot from Mitchell
and Cam, but it’s established right away.
|
Pilot Story Fundamentals: Does the pilot episode have a strong story?
|
|
Does the pilot provide at least
one satisfactory stand-alone story (even if that story is just the
accomplishment of a mini-goal)?
|
Yes, three.
|
Is this episode’s plot simple
enough to spend more time on character than plot?
|
Yes, three stories is a lot to
juggle but each is very simple.
|
Is the pilot’s challenge
something that is not just hard for the hero to do (an obstacle) but hard for
the hero to want to do (a conflict)?
|
Yes, for four of them: hard for
Claire to allow daughter to date, for Phil to shoot Luke, for Jay to all
Manny to do his own thing, and for Mitchell to confess all to his family.
|
First Half: Is the problem established in a way that reflects human
nature?
|
|
Does the hero start out with a
short-term goal for this episode?
|
Claire: get the kids fed, Phil: no, Jay:
calm Gloria down, Gloria: get Manny to play Soccer better, Mitchell and Cam:
prepare for the flight.
|
Does a troubling situation
(episodic pilot) or major change in the status quo (premise pilot) develop
near the beginning of the episode?
|
Claire: daughter has boyfriend coming over,
Phil: must defend daughter and shoot son, Jay: manhood insulted, stepson
seems headed for disaster, Gloria: husband won’t accept son, Mitchell: feels
looked down upon, Cam: boyfriend is freaking out.
|
Does the hero eventually commit
to dealing with this situation personally?
|
Yes for all.
|
Do the hero’s efforts quickly
lead to an unforeseen conflict with another person?
|
Claire and Phil: Dylan, Jay: the dude and
Manny, Gloria: Jay, Mitchell: people on the plane, Cam: Mitchell
|
Does the hero try the easy way
throughout the second quarter?
|
Claire: tries to avoid, Phil: puts off the
shooting, tries to befriend the boy, Jay: no, confronts directly, Gloria: No,
confronts directly, Mitchell: avoids confrontation with family, Cam: No,
deals with it directly
|
Does this culminate in a major
midpoint setback or escalation of the problem (whether or not there’s a
commercial break)?
|
Claire: Daughter goes up stairs with boy, Phil:
Hurts himself while confronting boy, Jay: Son is picking flowers, Gloria: No,
Mitchell: Finds out Cam called his parents, Cam: Mitchell upset with him.
|
Second Half: Is the mini-goal resolved as the ongoing trouble escalates?
|
|
Does the hero try the hard way
from this point on?
|
Claire: confronts Dylan, Phil: shoots son
and , Jay: , Gloria: , Mitchell: , Cam:
|
By halfway through, are
character decisions driving the plot, rather than external plot
complications?
|
Yes for all.
|
Are the stakes increased as the
pace increases and the motivation escalates?
|
Yes for all.
|
Does a further setback force the
hero to adopt a wider view of the problem?
|
Claire: Alex forces her to face her fears,
Phil: Shoots Luke accidentally, Jay: told to join mallwalkers, Gloria: no,
Mitchell: family tells him not to adopt, Cam: No
|
After that setback, does the
hero finally commit to pursuing a corrected goal?
|
Claire: Goes up to Haley’s room, Phil: No,
Jay: Buys new clothes, Gloria: No, Mitchell: Tells family the truth, Cam: No
|
Before the final quarter of the
story begins, (if not long before) has the hero switched to being proactive,
instead of reactive?
|
Claire: Yes, Phil: No, Jay: Yes, Gloria:
Yes, Mitchell: Yes, Cam: Yes
|
After the climax, does either
the hero, the point of view character or a guest star have a personal
revelation and/or life change, possibly revealed through reversible behavior?
|
Claire: Realizes that she needs to stop her
daughter from becoming her, Phil: , Jay: , Gloria: , Mitchell: , Cam:
|
SCENEWORK: Is each scene the
best it can be? (21/23) (Sample scene: Claire and Alex discuss the fact that
Haley is upstairs with a boy and her door is closed. Alex prods her mother
into acting by telling a story about a girl in her school who gave birth then
pretended she had just had mono and it was her mother’s baby.)
|
|
The
Set-Up: Does this scene begin with the essential elements it needs?
|
|
Were tense and/or hopeful (and usually
false) expectations for this interaction established beforehand?
|
It has
been established that Claire is tense about what is going on upstairs, and
that Alex is annoyed at her sister.
|
Does the scene eliminate small talk and repeated
beats by cutting out the beginning (or possibly even the middle)?
|
It
begins at the beginning, but cuts out the middle by intercutting with the
Phil and Luke scene.
|
Is this an intimidating setting that keeps characters
active?
|
It’s not
intimidating, but making frosting together keeps them active.
|
Is one of the scene partners not planning to have
this conversation (and quite possibly has something better to do)?
|
Alex
wanted to read her book.
|
Is there at least one non-plot element complicating
the scene?
|
The
frosting.
|
Does the scene establish its own mini-ticking-clock
(if only through subconscious anticipation)?
|
There is
a presumption that the goings-on upstairs may be escalating.
|
The
Conflict: Do the conflicts play out in a lively manner?
|
|
Does this scene both advance the plot and reveal
character?
|
Yes, for both.
|
Are one or more characters in the scene emotionally
affected by this interaction or action as the scene progresses?
|
Yes, Claire is
pained.
|
Does the audience have (or develop) a rooting
interest in this scene (which may sometimes shift)?
|
We share Claire’s
concern, and enjoy Alex’s sadism.
|
Are two agendas genuinely clashing (rather than
merely two personalities)?
|
They both want the
same thing (for Claire to check in upstairs) but for different reasons, and
each is prodding the other in different ways.
|
Does the scene have both a surface conflict and a
suppressed conflict (one of which is the primary conflict in this scene)?
|
Surface conflict:
Help me with the frosting. Next layer: What’s going up upstairs? Subtext:
will you control us or will we control you?
|
Is the suppressed conflict (which may or may not
come to the surface) implied through subtext (and/or called out by the other
character)?
|
Yes, though the mono
discussion.
|
Are the characters cagy (or in denial) about their
own feelings?
|
Very much so.
|
Do characters use verbal tricks and traps to get
what they want, not just direct confrontation?
|
Very much so, Claire
tricks answers out of Alex, Alex tricks Claire into acting.
|
Is there re-blocking, including literal push and
pull between the scene partners (often resulting in just one touch)?
|
Yes, they move
around the kitchen, Claire seems to put a hand on her back at the end.
|
Are objects given or taken, representing larger
values?
|
Claire hands Alex a
whisk, representing an attempt to restore her motherly status.
|
If this is a big scene, is it broken down into a
series of mini-goals?
|
Yes, at first Alex
wants to be left alone, then she decides to sabotage her sister. First Claire wants to find out what’s going
on, then she wants to defend her daughter, then changes her mind.
|
The
Outcome: Does this scene change the story going forward?
|
|
As a result of this scene, does at least one of the
scene partners end up doing something that he or she didn’t intend to do when
the scene began?
|
Well, Claire wanted
to do it, buy might not have if Alex hadn’t prodded her with a trick.
|
Does the outcome of the scene ironically reverse
(and/or ironically fulfill) the original intention?
|
No, they both unironically
get what they want.
|
Are previously-asked questions answered?
|
No, just
reiterated.
|
Are new questions posed that will be left unanswered
for now?
|
What are they doing
upstairs?
|
Is the audience left with a growing hope and/or fear
for what might happen next? (Not just in the next scene, but generally)
|
We are worried that
Haley might get pregnant.
|
Does the scene cut out early, on a question
(possibly to be answered instantly by the circumstances of the next scene)?
|
Yes, what will
Claire find upstairs?
|
DIALOGUE: Is this powerful dialogue? (15/15)
|
|
Empathetic:
Is the dialogue true to human nature?
|
|
Does the writing demonstrate empathy for all of the
characters?
|
Very much so.
|
Does each of the characters, including the hero,
have a limited perspective?
|
Very much so. Even in their interviews, with a little
hindsight, they fail to accurate identify their failings, which is
great.
|
Are the characters resistant to openly admitting
their feelings (to others and even to themselves)?
|
Yes. Again, they’re more willing to do so in the
interviews, but even there they often fail to do so.
|
Do the characters avoid saying things they wouldn’t
say?
|
Very much so. Mitchell is clearly refraining from
criticizing Can and says “I’m not saying anything,” but Cam responds “You’re
saying everything.”
|
Do the characters listen poorly?
|
Very much so.
|
Do the characters interrupt each other more often
than not?
|
Yes.
|
Specific:
Is the dialogue specific to this world and each personality?
|
|
Does the dialogue capture the culturally-specific
syntax of the characters (without necessarily attempting to replicate
non-standard pronunciation)?
|
Yes, Gloria’s
spanglish is handled deftly enough that it lively and fun, rather than
offensive or stereotypical.
|
Does the dialogue capture the jargon of the
profession and/or setting?
|
Yes, the parents use
a lot of unique-but-universal parent-isms.
|
Does the dialogue capture the tradecraft of the
profession being portrayed?
|
In this case, this
and the above are the same thing.
|
Heightened:
Is the dialogue more pointed and dynamic than real talk?
|
|
Is the dialogue more concise than real talk?
|
Yes.
|
Does the dialogue have more personality than real
talk?
|
Very much so.
|
Is there a minimum of commas in the dialogue (the
lines are not prefaced with Yes, No, Well, Look, or the other character’s
name)?
|
Yes.
|
Do non-professor characters speak without dependent
clauses, conditionals, or parallel construction?
|
Yes.
|
Is there one gutpunch scene, where the subtext falls
away and the characters really lay into each other?
|
Yes, the final scene
with the whole family.
|
TONE: Does the pilot manage its tone to create and fulfill audience
expectations? (10/10)
|
|
Genre
and Mood: Does the series tap into pre-established expectations?
|
|
Does the series fit within one genre (or compatible
sub-genres)?
|
Family mockumentary
three-camera sitcom
|
Are unrealistic genre-specific elements a big
metaphor for a more common experience (not how life really is, but how life
really feels)?
|
No genre elements
|
Separate from the genre, does the pilot establish an
overall mood for the series?
|
Yes, fast-paced,
sarcastic, droll, zingy
|
If there are multiple storylines, do they establish
the spectrum of moods available within that overall mood?
|
Somewhat. Claire/Phil is more broad and satirical,
Jay/Gloria and Cameron/Mitchell more open-hearted and warm.
|
Is there a moment early on that establishes the type
and level of jeopardy?
|
Mitchell makes the
speech on the plane: the jeopardy is public humiliation due to a failure to
navigate the tricky politics of the changing nature of families.
|
Framing:
Does the pilot set, reset, upset and ultimately exceed its own expectations?
|
|
Are there framing devices (flashforwards, framing
sequences and/or first person narration) to set the mood, pose a dramatic
question, and/or pose ongoing questions?
|
The documentary
interviews provide a framing sequence.
|
Is there a dramatic question posed early on, which
will establish in the audience’s mind which moment will mark the end of the
pilot?
|
Will Haley fool around? Will they shoot Luke? Will Manny be humiliated? With Mitchell and Cam it comes later: what
will happen when Mitchell’s family arrives?
|
Does foreshadowing create anticipation and suspense
(and refocus the audience’s attention on what’s important)?
|
Claire talked before
about her own high school promiscuity, etc.
|
Are set-up and pay-off used to dazzle the audience,
distracting attention from plot contrivances?
|
There aren’t really
any plot contrivances, but the big reveal is that they’re all one family, and
that’s subtly set up well.
|
Is the dramatic question of the pilot episode’s plot
answered near the end of the story?
|
Yes and no, they’re
all answered in the second half in succession.
|
THEME: Does the pilot create a
meaningful ongoing theme? (10/14)
|
|
Pervasive: Is the theme interwoven into many aspects
of the show?
|
|
Does the ensemble as a whole
have a unique philosophy about how to fill their role (and competition from
an allied force with a different philosophy)?
|
No, each
of the pairs of parents has a philosophy of raising kids that contrasts with
his or her co-parent.
|
Does the pilot have a statement
of philosophy and/or theme, usually either at the beginning or ¾ of the way
in. (Sometimes this will be the ensemble’s stated statement of philosophy,
sometimes this merely be the implied theme of the series itself.)
|
Yes,
at the very end: It seems to be delivered by Jay in a sincere manner, but
then we realize that he’s reading Manny’s ridiculous love note. This is a good cheat, allowing them to have
a sentimental summary of theme without actually having to be annoyingly
sincere, but soon the show would give in and allow actual syrup to leak into
the end of each show.
|
Can the show’s overall ongoing theme be stated in
the form of a classic good vs. good (or evil vs. evil) dilemma?
|
Should families
trust each other or set each other straight?
|
Throughout the pilot, do the characters have to
choose between goods, or between evils, instead of choosing between good and
evil?
|
Yes, shoot your kid
or break your word? Denounce possible bigotry or give the benefit of the
doubt? Protect your stepkid from
embarrassment or let him be foolishly brave?
|
Are the storylines in the pilot
thematically linked (preferably in an indirect, subtle way)?
|
Yes
and no, they’re linked, but the links on this show are never subtle enough.
|
Are small details throughout the pilot tied into the
theme?
|
Yes.
|
Will the heroes grapple with new
moral gray areas in each episode?
|
Yes,
all of the above dilemma will continue.
|
Grounded: Do the stakes ring true to the world of
the audience?
|
|
Does the series’s set-up reflect the way the world
works?
|
Yes and no: the
families are very authentic, but the economics and work life will be
fantasy-land.
|
Does the series have authentic things to say about
this type of setting?
|
Yes, within the
families.
|
Does the ongoing concept include twinges of real
life national pain?
|
Yes and no: the painful
struggle to break down social assumptions is right upfront, but the other
struggles facing America are absent.
|
Are these issues presented in a way that avoids
moral hypocrisy?
|
No. It is disingenuous to
pretend that the struggles within the 1% represent a true portrait of a
“Modern Family” Also: the show
criticizes Jay for going to great lengths to avoid showing Mitchell and Cam
kissing, but the show itself would refuse to show that for many years.
|
Do all of the actions in the pilot have real
consequences?
|
Yes, Luke really
does get shot, Manny really does get humiliated, Mitchell really does get
ridiculed by his family.
|
Untidy: Is the dilemma ultimately irresolvable?
|
|
Do the characters refuse (or fail) to synthesize the
meaning of the pilot episode’s story, forcing the audience to do that?
|
No. As always on this show, there will be too
much talk about what it all means.
|
Does the end of the pilot leave the thematic dilemma
wide open and irresolvable?
|
Yes.
|
2 comments:
The above article is very useful for the writers to write the book for the author and to improve the knowledge. Thanks for sharing the article
Modern Family
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiTP-6Kv_8
When I was younger, I was dreaming about flying and being a pilot. No, I did not become a pilot. Instead, I just chill on my couch and watch movies! :)
Post a Comment