No, not at all. In fact, the odds are against it. Studios and networks buy a ton of scripts each pilot season. A fraction of those will get shot, and only a small handful will get episode orders.

Does it work differently with movie scripts?

It's complicated, but in general, the odds are always stacked against getting something produced. And the less commercial the idea, the lower the odds. It's a tough business, but I think it's always been that way. The people putting out money expect to make money. It's a pretty square deal. It's logical. Still, creative people, like myself, will never stop b.i.t.c.hing about not selling something or not getting a project produced and crying, "How can they make that other piece of s.h.i.t when my thing is so much better?" That's normal. You can't think logically when it comes to something you're pa.s.sionate about. All you can do is keep trying. And write a lot of projects you're not pa.s.sionate about to pay the bills. [Laughs]

Over the years, you've sold two other movie scripts, not including Cabin Boy, that were produced: Lucky Numbers [2000] and Death to Smoochy [2002]. Were you happy with the way either of those films turned out?

No. But this goes to what I was kind of just rambling about. I sold those as pitches. And the end result was extremely painful for me- embarra.s.sing even-but sometimes I have to make myself stand back and look at the business transaction I entered into: I sold an idea, essentially. After I gave them the script, it had nothing to do with me anymore. I got paid; that was the deal. Any further creative involvement was at the discretion of the director-and, of course, the writer doesn't get to choose the director. In the case of those films, I was brought into the process, but it was nothing like a true collaboration, and the directors saw those movies differently than I did. I can b.i.t.c.h all day long about how much better the scripts were, and, believe me, I did plenty of that, but in the end, you have to accept what the rules were going in. It's not easy, though.

You know what? Maybe it's time for a blow-off question. [Laughs] I can feel my serotonin levels plummeting.

What's the current status of the worm farm script?

I haven't picked it up in awhile, but I'm going to do another pa.s.s on it. I've done several, which is always a good sign. Darren Aronofsky [the director of The Wrestler and Black Swan] read my last draft and really liked it.

And does he want to make it?

Oh, G.o.d no.

We never got a chance to discuss your HBO show, The High Life.

Let's save that for the new volume. I can't stand to hear the sound of my voice any longer.

Any last words?

I mentioned I wasn't a fan of the Brat Pack movies, right? Look, here's the thing-if you're in this business and you can cover your overhead by writing exactly what you want, you're living the dream. And if you're getting rich by writing what you want, you're in an enviable position. But for most writers, it's usually a compromise. The good news is, there's always a chance that everything will click on some project and you'll be happy creatively. And that's what keeps you writing, I guess. For me, every day that I'm not living back in Harrisburg is a victory.

Thanks for doing this, and please give my best to the prost.i.tute.

Oh, I'm going to give her a little something more than that, if you know what I mean. There you go-comedy.

ULTRASPECIFIC COMEDIC KNOWLEDGE.

PAUL FEIG.

Creator/Writer, Freaks and Geeks; Director, The Office, Arrested Development, Bridesmaids, The Heat; Producer, Peanuts movie; Author, Kick Me, Superstud

Writing a TV-Series Bible

In 1999, you wrote a series bible for Freaks and Geeks. Sometimes called a "character bible" or a "show bible," a series bible is a reference guide that a writer puts together when pitching a new show to networks. It includes details about the show's characters, setting, plot points, and other minutiae. Can you talk about how yours came about?

The bible for Freaks and Geeks was for the executives, of course, but I mostly wrote it for me. When you're thinking of something for so long and you have a million thoughts in your head and you keep taking notes-and especially when a show is based on truth, something you actually went through-a series bible is almost this stream of consciousness way to dump all that stuff out and then organize it. As a writer, all you can really do is to write honest work. You have to really put yourself in the head of your characters, so anything that helps you do that is great. And this really helped me do that.

It was also really a great way to show the writers for the show what I was imagining, what I wanted the show to be. I wanted to let the writers see the continuity of it all. Also, it was for production design, wardrobe, and the sound of the show; I wanted to portray a very specific look and sound. I went through all my old seventies yearbooks and put Post-it notes in them. I still have the yearbooks and they still have all the Post-its.

At the time that I wrote the bible for Freaks-this would be the late 1990s-there was a tendency for Hollywood to think, Oh, everything was crazy in the 1970s. It was all leisure suits and disco and all that. And I was like, "No, that's not how it looked. That's not how it sounded to me." So it was really important to me to kill that mentality. By writing this character bible, it was my way of saying, "Here's the guide to the seventies that I knew."

I had never been in charge of a show, and there was a terror for me of pitching to the executives and not having an answer or an opinion when they asked-or of having the wrong opinion. So it also became a way for me to sort it all out.

The details in the series bible are incredible, to the point where you write that the geeks are the ones listening to Electric Light Orchestra and the freaks are the ones listening to Rush.

[Laughs] Right! I mean, it was kind of a fun way to do it. I was surprising myself that all of this was coming out of me, and I was able to go, "Oh, yeah. I remember who liked this. I remember who didn't like that." It was all about defining who were the freaks and who were the geeks. For me, these were the two groups who had never been explored. Even when nerds were in movies, they were always the valedictorians; all they cared about was schoolwork. In reality, the geeks I knew liked music; they liked pop culture.

I went into this show so afraid of all that had gone before us, and really wanting to have a defense against the network, or anybody else, who was going to try to force me to do things that had been done before in all those high school shows and movies. And so I really needed to have real-life answers.

Executives will sometimes-but not always-ask to read a series bible when a writer is pitching a TV show. They want to get a sense of who the characters are and what this world will be like. But is it always worthwhile for the writer to create one? It seems like a tremendous amount of work.

Absolutely. It is a ton of work, but it's incredibly helpful to any writer. I'd recommend any writer do it, only to get his or her thoughts in some semblance of order. As a writer, you really need a solid foundation when creating a show-in essence, you're creating an entirely new world, inhabited by characters coming from your imagination. If the foundation isn't solid, everything will collapse. It's a very difficult process. Now, that's not to say that details won't change as the show progresses. But by getting everything down onto paper, and by then organizing this world into a cohesive form, it can only help you if the show is bought and later produced.

When you ultimately got the go-ahead for Freaks and Geeks and were hiring writers, what were you looking for? The show is infamous for having one of the best writing staffs for any nineties TV show, and included Mike White, who wrote the 2006 movie Nacho Libre and created HBO's series Enlightened.

When we were hiring writers for the show, I was not very interested in reading their spec scripts for other shows. I felt that I wouldn't learn anything about a writer if I was reading a Buffy the Vampire Slayer script because I'd just be seeing how they could copy somebody else's style. Plus, they would already have these characters at their disposal. I preferred to either read somebody's original pilot or original play or original screenplay in order to see the invention they were able to come up with.

But, keep in mind, that's just me. Most TV shows find writers from spec scripts for their shows. I think it is good to write a spec script, but to always include something original, too. That is really the hardest thing: creating characters from scratch and creating a situation from scratch.

As a writer, what do you prefer to come up with first? Characters or situations?

What happens with a lot of writers when they develop a TV pilot is that they come up with the context first, and then they fill in the characters. That's slightly dicey for a new TV show because the concept is only going to be interesting for so long. What the show really hangs on are the characters and what kind of a life they have. I'd much rather see a writer come up with, "I knew somebody like this." Or, "What would it be like if these three people got mixed together?" At that point, you can then ask, "Okay, what's the best context for them to be in? What situation?"

Are your scripts meant to be performed verbatim, or do you allow for improvisation?

I think the main problem I see with comedy is that a lot of it is overwritten and it's created by people who are very precious about their words. You get that a lot in television, especially with sitcoms where writers are very religious about, "You can't change this; you can't change that." So, what happens is, there's no life to it.

I do use improv, but sometimes that's just as simple as loosening the wording of a written joke or a sentence to create a kind of naturalness. It also has to do with rehearsal and how you adapt the script to the actors' personalities and how you shoot and how many different ways you have to shoot a scene. Actors are great and they can do scenes over and over again, but, at the same time, there's always going to be a freshness about the first time someone says or does something. You want to get to the point where you're capturing lightning in a bottle. That is the key to comedy as far as I'm concerned: lightning in a bottle. You have to capture that moment when it first happens, because that's when it's funny.

How difficult is it to capture that lightning?

It's hard. Sometimes it's hard just because of the technology involved with making movies and television, like not being able to shoot both actors at the same time. Sometimes it's hard because an actor's not good at doing it. But you also learn from the actors you work with. Some are amazing at being in the moment and others aren't. Some don't know how to handle it correctly, and, if that's the case, you adjust and find a way to make them fresh when it's their turn. Some are better right out of the gate. Others need to warm up. Everyone's different.

When you direct, your head is spinning. That's why shooting comedy is absolutely exhausting. That's why when you come to the end of a full day, you'll have one last scene, and you sometimes feel, My G.o.d, I don't know if I can get through it. The temptation is to just shoot it exactly like the script and be done with it. But whatever you do in that one moment is captured forever-you'll always have it-so you have to force yourself to make what is hopefully magic happen.

"Freaks and Geeks: The Series Bible"

(Written by Paul Feig, last revised May 20, 1999. What follows are excerpts.) General Notes About the Series This show must be real. The teens in this series will talk like real teens. They will never be too clever or grown up sounding. We don't want a bunch of teenage Neil Simons spouting off wittily. These kids generally engage in teenage put-downs, they overextend their language ("Oh, yeah? Well, you're a . . . uh . . . big idiot, that's what you are") and never talk in that writers' "Now that I'm in my thirties, I know what I'd say in that high school situation, so I'll give this kid a snappy comeback" style of writing. These kids have to deal with each other with whatever is in the lexicon of a teenager and nothing more (and despite the fact that most of us think "if I knew then what I know now, I'd really be cool and in control" the sad truth is that if we knew what we know now when we were in high school, we'd probably get beaten up on a regular basis because teenage bullies don't respond well to clever put-downs at their expense).

What They Listen To Here are some of the bands that the freaks and geeks would be listening to in the Midwest in 1980 (the great thing is that, even though the groups divide pretty cleanly on what they listen to, there's lots of spillover in what they like, partly because of their siblings and parents and partly just because they're kids who are easily persuaded): The Cars-geeks Chicago-geeks Asia-geeks, some freaks Bee Gees-geeks Black Sabbath-freaks Blue Oyster Cult-freaks Blood, Sweat & Tears-geeks Eric Clapton-freaks, some geeks Alice Cooper-freaks and geeks Cheap Trick-freaks and geeks Doobie Brothers-freaks and geeks John Denver-geeks Eagles-geeks, some freaks ELO-geeks Fleetwood Mac-geeks, freak girls Foghat-freaks Peter Frampton-freaks and geeks Foreigner-freaks and geeks Genesis-freaks Jimi Hendrix-freaks Iron Maiden-freaks Elton John-geeks Journey-freaks and geeks Judas Priest-freaks Kiss-geeks John Lennon-freaks and geeks Lynyrd Skynyrd-freaks and farmers Marshall Tucker Band-freaks and farmers, some geeks Meat Loaf-geeks The Steve Miller Band-freaks and geeks Van Morrison-n.o.body Moody Blues-geeks Tom Petty-geeks, some freaks Prince (early)-n.o.body Rolling Stones-freaks for early stuff, geeks for "Some Girls"

Rush-freaks Roxy Music-n.o.body who'd admit it Santana-freaks and geeks Carly Simon-teachers Simon & Garfunkel-teachers Patti Smith-"Creem"-reading freaks Bruce Springsteen-not very big in Midwest, some cooler geeks The Police-freaks, a few geeks Supertramp-geeks, some freaks Jethro Tull-freaks Queen-freaks and geeks James Taylor-geeks, some freak girls Jackson Brown-geeks, freaks who smoke lots of pot Van Halen-freaks Paul McCartney and Wings-geeks, some freaks Yes-freaks, some geeks ZZ Top-freaks, some geeks Frank Zappa-only the coolest of freaks Billy Joel-geeks Bob Seger-geeks, some freaks J. Geils Band-freaks for early stuff, geeks for "Centerfold" era Led Zeppelin-freaks April Wine-freaks, some geeks, lots of Canadians Jeff Beck-cool freaks Robin Trower-freaks Three Dog Night-geeks B-52s-n.o.body Devo-very cool geeks Elvis Costello-moody geeks, some freaks Talking Heads-some geeks, some freaks, mostly no one The Romantics-geeks, a few freaks s.e.x Pistols-no one knows about them The Ramones-them either What They Wear Overall note is that all the students will have about four or five outfits they will wear all the time. Pants can stay the same a lot of the time, shirts change daily (except for some poorer kids). Even cool kids and rich kids shouldn't have a lot of different changes. Bottom line, all these kids are blue collar or lower end white collar.

The Geeks In general, the geeks try to dress well but just don't quite pull it off. Maybe if they were better looking or cooler guys, their clothes would make them attractive. But on them, no matter what they wear, it somehow doesn't work.

Sam Overall look: Sam looks like a kid who cares about how he looks but only up to a point. He dresses more for comfort and his fashion sense is limited to knowing what other kids are wearing and then trying to approximate their look. He thinks he looks better than he does in his clothes (everything looks fine to him from head-on in the mirror but he doesn't see that what he can't see doesn't really hang well). He's not so much rumpled as the victim of poorly made clothes.

Shirts: Pullover Velour V-neck shirts with collar (a little baggy and ill-fitting), short-sleeved knit pullover with zipper V-neck and collar (white stripe on edge of collar and sleeves), terrycloth pullover with two- or three-b.u.t.ton V-neck and collar (shoulder pieces are darker color than rest of shirt, with a stripe on each upper arm), not usually tucked in.

Pants: Brown, green, burgundy jeans, never denim blue jeans (until second season), occasionally polyester slacks.

Shoes: Tan suede earth shoe hybrids with rimpled soles (remember those things? The soles were shaped like two "w's" and the whole shoe looked kinda pumped up like a loaf of bread-see Paul Feig for details), dark suede tennis shoes (occasionally).

Coat: Parka, fauxMembers Only jacket (maybe), windbreaker with stripe or father's sporting goods store logo embossed on back (cheap, low-end looking).

Accessories: Always a belt, sometimes with a large copper novelty belt buckle (like a train or Model T car or a tennis racket).

Bill Overall look: Bill's pretty much a mess. But not a sloppy guy. His family isn't very well off but his mother tries to dress him nice. The result is a lot of clothes from the irregulars bin. He looks like a guy who leaves the house neat but immediately becomes unkempt. Bill is so unaware of his clothes that you get the feeling he doesn't care what he wears.

Shirts: Plaid cowboy shirts, sweater vests (Bill tries to take his fashion cues off of Neal but it's always off a bit), brightly printed b.u.t.ton-up shirts, pullover shirts that no one else would buy (different color swatches sewn together, weird patterns patchworked into solid colors, stuff from the irregular bin).

Pants: Off brand jeans, rumpled khakis, occasionally vertically-striped pants.

Shoes: Orthopedic black dress shoes (not jokey looking-just sensible-looking shoes), suede gym shoes (Tom Wolf brand-see Paul Feig for explanation).

Coat: A beat-up, hand-me-down football/baseball jacket with the name of the school on it.

Lindsay Overall look: Lindsay is trying very hard to look like a freak. She pulls it off very effectively but there's always something a little studied about her look. She dresses down but her clothes are always pretty clean. She tries to be sloppy but can't help primping and neatening herself. A lot of her clothes come from her father's sporting goods store, so they're rather new looking. You'd have to look close to see that she's not truly a freak, but it shows.

Shirts: T-shirts (flower-embroidered, band logo iron-ons), thermal underwear shirts, solid color sweaters (occasionally cowl neck), b.u.t.ton-up plaid shirts (tucked in).

Pants: Bell bottom jeans, old painters pants, overalls.

Shoes: Black suede rubber-soled shoes, clogs, old running shoes.

Coat: Old plaid hunting jacket, army field jacket, old worn parka, long wool coat.

Accessories: Worn knapsack for books.

Daniel Overall look: Daniel has the original grunge look, before it had a corporate name.

Shirts: Plaid flannel shirts with T-shirts underneath (usually black T-shirts).

Pants: Bell bottom jeans.

Shoes: Work boots, old sneakers, snowmobile boots in the winter.

Coat: An old army field jacket, an old sweatshirt under his coat if it's very cold out.

Accessories: Scarf, snowmobile gloves, never wears a hat (it would mess up his afro), a large afro pick is always in his back pocket (although we never see him use it).

Things in the Background In all the hallway scenes, there will be things happening in the background that typify high school (however, we won't have too much stuff going on in the hallway-we don't want it to look like all those period movies that take place in Medieval England where every street in town is filled with people doing activities typical of the era-you know, how every street in Moll Flanders and Shakespeare in Love looked like a Renaissance Faire was taking place-do we really think that every street in merry olde England had jugglers performing and bear-baiting contests? But I digress). Here's some of the stuff we'll see in the background: -Two guys having a punching contest (punching each other on the arm seeing who'll get hurt first) -Band kids selling candy bars -Drama kids selling suckers -Drama kids walking around in costume to promote the play they're currently putting up -Freak couples making out -Kids hara.s.sing the janitors -Janitors sweeping the halls with red sawdust -Kids trying to step on other kids' new shoes to get them dirty -Students carrying wooden planters and cutting boards they made in woodshop -Students trying to navigate the hallway carrying large sheets of poster board -Student government kids hanging long painted paper signs advertising dances and school activities -Freaks tearing the signs down -Other freaks writing on the signs -Students making fun of the pictures of former graduating cla.s.ses hanging on the hallway walls -Band kids carrying tubas and large c.u.mbersome cases down the hall -Hearing the school band rehearsing with the door open -Freaks with large radios (but not boom boxes-just big ca.s.sette players or large transistor radios-all low quality) -Hall monitors (usually women in their fifties who are constantly knitting) -Science students carrying large science fair exhibitions to and from cla.s.s -Kids getting clean-outs from other kids (when you run up behind somebody and knock their books and papers out from under their arm and all over the floor) -Jocks taking up too much of the hallway and kids trying to get by, not daring to ask them to move -Guys checking out girls -Girls checking out guys -Kids getting wedgies (when you grab the waistband of someone's underwear and pull it up as hard as you can. AKA "snuggies") -Tough freak girls hara.s.sing younger kids -Girls laughing at anybody and everybody -Teachers yelling at students in front of their lockers -Freaks flipping teachers off behind their backs -Kids tapping their friends on the opposite shoulder behind their backs to get them to turn around the wrong way -Students in band uniforms -Farmer kids tripping smaller kids -Guys high-fiving each other -A/V guys pushing projector carts down the hall -Yearbook kids taking pictures of other students (the students pose by doing kick-lines, putting their arms around each other, standing and smiling stiffly, putting up finger horns behind their friends' heads, punching each other, or simply looking like they really don't want their pictures taken) -Groups of freaks breaking up when a teacher approaches -Guys delivering love notes to girls for their friends -Girls coming up to a group of guys and telling one of the guys that some girl likes them -Students imitating teachers after they've pa.s.sed by -Students giving other students "flat tires" (when you walk up behind someone and catch the back of their shoe with your foot, making their heel pop out of their shoe) -Geeks carrying huge piles of books -Students rushing to the nurse's office with a cut or a b.l.o.o.d.y nose -Students from Commercial Foods cla.s.s walking around wearing industrial ap.r.o.ns and paper food service hats -Auto shop students wearing dirty coveralls -Greasy-haired, dirty "stinky" guys (usually some form of geek-although often a farmer or a freak or just some kid who's a real outsider) -Scary crazy kids that no one talks to -Quiet mousy girls with no friends walking quickly down the hallway, clutching their books -Drafting students carrying blueprint rolls down the hall -Fights, fights, fights!

-Students on payphones -Students who are dressed very nice (disco-style clothes) -Students who are dressed terrible (ratty T-shirts, knit watch caps, old worn parkas, dirty jeans) -Jocks wearing their school jerseys (usually on game day) -Girls wearing rabbit skin jackets (short jackets with a patchwork of different colored squares of rabbit pelts) -Students eating junk food (Hostess fruit pies, Nutty Buddy prepackaged ice cream cones, Twinkies, cans of soda pop) -Other students knocking the food out of the other kids' hands -Kids burning other kids with the "If your hand is bigger than your face, you'll die when you're thirty" gag (the other kid puts his hand up to his face to check and you hit the back of his hand, causing him to get a b.l.o.o.d.y nose-funny!!!) [Editor's note: Original version contains nearly twenty-one thousand additional words.]

PURE, HARD-CORE ADVICE.

STEPHEN MERCHANT.

Stand-Up Comic; Performer; Co-creator, The Office, Extras, Life's Too Short, An Idiot Abroad, h.e.l.lo Ladies I was always a comedy nerd. I used to spend a lot of time watching and dismantling comedy to see how it worked, what made it tick. It's about taking pleasure in the process. The fun of it for me is the work. And I don't really like work; I'm naturally lazy. But when I am being lazy, I feel guilty that I'm not being productive. With stand-up and writing, it's about trying to be good at it in the way that my heroes, the people I admire, are good at it. Like Woody Allen, who started as a stand-up and hated stand-up comedy, but his managers told him it was an important process in terms of a gig, getting yourself noticed, building your skills as a writer and as a comedian. It's this philosophy that keeps me doing it. "Oh, I'm just not good enough, I wish I could be better." You never feel like you've cracked it. It's like a tooth that keeps wiggling.

Woody Allen is quoted as saying, "Eighty percent of success is showing up." You can't sit around going, "Man, I would be the heavyweight champion of the world, it's just that I never got in the ring, but I have the physique, people have told me." At some point, you've got to do it.

Sitcom writing is a different skill set than stand-up, because narrative writing has a whole other set of difficulties and complications. There's a different grammar to it. I think sometimes sitcom writers struggle when they try to just simply take their stand-up material and dole it out among different characters. They just regurgitate their observations on airplane food. And if you look at something like Seinfeld, where it could've become that, in the end it's so grounded in those characters of George and Jerry and Elaine, allowing what would've been stand-up observations to be played out as real scenarios. The characters are real, not just simply making droll observations about a subject.

Everything's been done. I really think that. All you're doing is variations on a theme. There's an obsession with novelty and freshness, but often that's just repackaging something that people haven't seen for awhile. It's writing something that you think will be funny, that you will enjoy seeing. It has to be that to me. What would I want to see? How am I not being catered to? That's the way to do it, rather than something more cynical: "Let me see if I can find a gap in the market." That's just joyless to me.

So much of what we see now is market-tested within an inch of its life. The humor is fine, it makes people laugh, but people sense something missing. It feels mechanical; it feels committee-driven. And the stuff that feels personal and unique-even if the subject matter is very familiar-will become appealing as long as your take on it is specific.

In the end, it comes down to what is satisfying to you. It's hard because we're all seduced by popularity and we're all seduced by money and success, and those things are very alluring, and it's hard to fight that. But you've got to be careful because you might find yourself, five years down the line, working on something you hate-but living in a big house.

I always feel like even with the things I've tried that didn't come off, it was important to go down that alley. Every little avenue is productive, even if you've got to back up again and come back out. I always feel like even with the things I've tried that didn't come off it was important to have done it. Otherwise I'd have this niggling frustration that I didn't try. To me it's useful. Even the missteps are productive, because you're getting something out of your system.

DAN GUTERMAN.