This interview was originally conducted on March 25, 2007.

Now a co-executive producer on House and an Emmy award winner for directing the episode “House’s Head”, three years ago Greg Yaitanes was an executive producer on the short-lived FOX series Drive.  Here he discusses his role in the show.

Pasha: There are three executive producers on Drive, two of whom are writers.  As the non-writer one, what do your duties consist of as an executive producer?

Greg Yaitanes: My role as a Non-Writing EP?   Teacher.

Drive’s late pick up meant that most of the original crew was unavailable to come to the show.  They had booked other jobs.  While we designed a hell of a pilot, it was a road map of how to do the show on an episodic schedule.  The original pilot was 14 days of shooting with a very long prep.  Normal episode schedule is 8 shooting days and 7 prep days.

So.

Two things happened.  We recast a lot of the pilot (with everyone we made offers to originally) and redeveloped the material.  So most of old pilot was out the window.  Meaning someone new would have to come in and try to recreate what we had done (production wise) or I had to come back and shoot it.  And if I was going to do that, why not stick around and help the show get off the ground.

That all said, I see the role on a show like this as a teacher.  Since I designed the look of the show, I need to teach the new production how to think about the show.  What things to look for.  How to break a script apart and physically make it.  This is NOT to say I was teaching anyone how to do their job.  We have talented filmmakers at every level of our production.  I simply need to teach everyone how to get their heads around this particular show since the needs of it are very specialized and unlike anything on TV or even movies for that matter.

I also wanted the crew to learn a pace and an economy to how to get such an ambitious show done in such a short schedule.  So I did that by staying on to direct not just the new pilot but also the first episode that followed.

Once the production is up and running then my next job is to teach the show to the directors.  Again… NOT teach anyone how to direct.  We have FANTASTIC directors coming to the show.  Creative talents that will bring new and fresh ideas to Drive. I help the directors understand the needs of the series.  What to look out for on this particular show.  What elements are 2nd unit or visual effects. How the show is photographed.  How it’s not photographed.  What the tone of the show is.  Help them get ready during their prep.  Answer any questions they may have.

Tim is also extremely busy with the scripts and post production.  So I am the hands on when he wants or needs something at a creative level.  He comes with an idea and I translate that into how physically we are going to accomplish it.  I work with our producer John Moranville on accomplishing that.

Since Tim and I spent days upon days in the edit room together on both pilots we collaborate on the cuts.  Both on my own episodes and other directors.  Since we are all here to ultimately serve Tim’s vision of the series I try to be the other half of his brain since he can not be in all places at all times.

Other things I handle is making sure the crew is taken care of and keep up morale since they are working so hard and often late into the night (we are shooting an episode right now that is all at night).  I also stay plugged into our amazing actors and make sure they are also getting what they need.

As someone says in the new pilot “it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”  We have to keep everyone going at a steady speed and not burn them out.

So that’s it in a nutshell.  If I have done my job right Drive will have a solid stable of directors that know the show and a production that can pull off innovative episodes of TV every week.

That said I’ll be back at the end of the season to direct episode 11 and 13 to enjoy the fruits of my labor.  An amazing team that gels.

P: The original pilot had very frenetic camera work unlike a lot of other TV shows at the moment.  What was the thought process that went into creating that style for the show?

GY: Three things.

First.  I took a cue from The Fugitive, which always felt like a chase even in the non-chase moments.  If you watch again you’ll see we are always traveling with the main charter.  Same for Drive.  The camera is not passive.  We are participating in the scenes along with everyone else.  We are in the race.

Second.  The idea of using a lot of stedi-cam was also inspired by trying to keep a large group of people interconnected who didn’t know each other.  The camera had to be able to move around a room to find people who were otherwise not talking to each other.

Third.  Tim’s writing lends itself to a fluid and beautiful camera.  When I read Drive it reminded me of what I loved about Spielberg’s movies.  They were entertaining and the camera work supported the buoyancy of the writing.  Drive is fun.  The camera work should support that feeling and not work against it.

Chris Manley is our director of photography and he has the challenge of lighting a show that sees 360 degrees most of the time and still make it look amazing.  Bud Kremp is our hero stedi-cam operator.  Both make a huge contribution to the look of Drive.

P: What challenges have you faced when directing actors who are spending most of their time in cars in front of a green screen?

GY: None.  It is the easiest part of the show.  Everyone knows where they are at and what they are doing.  We can just work on performance.  Production wise we move very quickly.  Up to 14 pages a day (twice the days work on a normal TV show).  The idea behind it is that the characters, acting and writing will hold our interest.  Plus when the show gets out of the cars the camera work and locations get big.  When you are inside of a car the world is just what you see out the window.  If there is any challenge it’s remind yourself and the actors about the urgency of the race.  It’s easy for everyone to forget that while they are doing pretend driving.

P: How has directing Drive differed from directing other shows?

GY: It exercises every creative muscle you can think of.  The show is enormously ambitious and does not follow a set formula.  Each week presents completely new relationships, conflicts and obstacles.  Every week we are making the pilot.  Meaning every week we are making a unique story.

Our cast is fifteen main characters.  The closest I’ve come to a cast that big is Grey’s Anatomy, which is twelve.  A show like that is more performance oriented than visual.  Whereas shows that I have done for Bruckheimer are more visual than actor friendly.  Drive needs and has it all.  Compelling characters and the fun visuals.

Drive is also enormously technical.  Nesting the characters into the action and danger is something no other TV show can boast.  To do this however takes a lot of teamwork.  We have an amazing visual effects company in Zoic and an amazing special effects team that work with us.

P: In an interview Tim Minear said Drive would be a different show each week depending on who the central character was that episode.  Will this be reflected in the directing style?

GY: Yes and no.  Each episode will reflect the tone of the script but the show will still be shot like the show; the characters still in character.  For example episode five that we are shooting now has some dark tonal elements.  We are supporting this by introducing some new visual elements.  Drive always remains organic and honest to the situation at hand.  Tim is also a master of changing tones on a dime.  So the directors and direction needs to support that as well.

Kevin: How do you plan to show changes in location as the race progresses?

GY: We evolve the look of the series each week depending on what state of the country we are in.  Every state has a unique look.  In the new pilot you get a tease of different parts of the county that we will return to in series.  Also if you watch them all on DVD back to back you’ll feel the journey even more.  But still watch on April 15th and 16th.

P: How easy is it co-coordinating with a second unit that is traveling around America while you’re in California with the actors?

GY: Everything is shot in LA.  After directing Alias I was convinced you can make any look from any state or country here in LA.

That said, Spiro Razatos is our 2nd unit director and brilliant.  He shoots the driving sequences.  Loni Peristere designs our visual effect sequences, which integrate with Spiro’s driving work.  They are a great team.

P: Finally, from the moment you receive the script from the writers, what is the process you go through in preparing it for filming?

GY: We scramble! Seriously, the show is so ambitious it’s like prepping a movie in seven days.  When the script comes out we have to get it cast, find locations that reflect the part of the country we are in.  Nail down the visual effects.  Break it up as to what 2nd unit is going to shoot.  See what the director or “first unit” is going to shoot.  Each week is a huge task.  We do not have any standing sets other than the cars.  We do not have “headquarters” or a “hospital” to count on.  So it keeps us on our toes.  One thing is the same every week.  Each script is a page-turner.  And you are dying to find out what happens next.

This interview was conducted on July 30, 2007.

Tim Minear worked on Angel for four out of its five seasons, penning such seminal episodes as “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been”, “Reprise” and “Lullaby”.  Here he reflects on his time on the show.

Pasha: In the past you’ve mentioned that you initially refused the job to write for Angel several times. What was the reason for this and what made you eventually change your mind?

Tim Minear: When Angel came along, I’d started to make a bit of a name for myself. Well, that is to say, I was no longer begging for work and there were some other options. Also, I’m notorious for saying no before I say yes. Sometimes I say no even after I say yes. I just wasn’t sure. The thing that made me finally say yes was something Howard Gordon said to me: “You should always try to work with people who you think you can learn something from. You should be with Joss.” Howard wasn’t the first person show said I should be working with Joss Whedon. Others had been saying it to me long before I’d seen Buffy or met Joss. Back when I was doing The X-Files people were saying it to me. They were right.

P: Beginning with the first season you wrote many of the key episodes such as Doyle’s death, the key flashback episodes and the majority of the second season arc. Forgive the wording, but what was the reason for this?

TM: I can’t forgive the wording. Why me, or why at all? Me because… lucky I guess? I was the only guy — the only new guy — that stuck. Because a lot of the heavy lifting at first was done by Buffy writers, the new Angel writers were kind of red-headed step children at first at that shop. By the time the other new kids had fallen away, I was about the only original “exclusive to Angel” guy left, so in a way I was the only “actual” Angel guy in those early days. I guess since Angel was my only focus, I got to burrow my way deeper into its DNA than some others. Also, if you plan to stay in the game, you have to want the ball. I wanted the ball. I took the ball.

P: Looking at the episodes you’ve written, it seems you have an affinity with some characters in particular. Angel, Kate and Darla especially. Was there anything about these characters that appealed and you related to or was it just luck that you wrote many of their pivotal episodes?

TM: A bit of both. I knew we couldn’t compete with what Buffy and Angel had as a couple. Darla was a bit of an enigma, and therefore one could take more liberties with creating something new. I saw that we could do something that in no way stepped on Buffy but was unique to Angel. It would always be hard on the legacy of Buffy to say “Angel met someone new!” But, our show wasn’t called “Buffy” it was called “Angel.” One had to first and foremost service THAT character. We had to find a way to give the writers on Angel room to move without everything being about Buffy — but while still respecting everything that came before. So how do you give your titular character a relationship without saying “Oh, and that deathless one-of-a-kind romance you saw on Buffy is now null, ‘cause we need some good shit for our new show, too”? Well, the way to give him a complicated romance that didn’t discount Buffy was to make it an OLD relationship. Something that pre-dated Buffy. And when your guy is more than two hundred years old, there’re places to go for that. Angel and Darla are every bit as one-of-a-kind as Angel and Buffy — but not the same nor in competition. I always saw them as a combo of George and Martha from “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?” and Bonnie and Clyde. Buffy and Angel were so epic because it was so pure but so doomed. Angel and Darla were, for me, epic because it was so corrupt and so doomed. Darla and Angel are in many ways the negative image of Buffy and Angel.

I always liked Kate because, like me in those early days, she was an outsider trying to get a handle on this insular, magical world. Also she was Mulder and Scully rolled into one, and I never felt like I got enough of a chance to work out my X-Files fetish while I was on that show.

P: Did you have further plans for Kate had Elisabeth Rohm not left for Law and Order? One rumor was that the character of Justine was created to replace her.

TM: I don’t recall. I think we’d taken her as far as we needed to. But I’m sure had she been available we would have found reasons to bring her back.

P: What was the original ending for season two intended to be had Julie Benz and Christian Kane been available?

TM: I have to be honest. I know that some people recall Pylea as a reaction to those actors not being available. I remember it differently. I could be wrong. I remember that we were sitting around and thinking about the next few episodes and we were all a little weary of the Darla drama and someone said, “can’t we just do something totally unexpected and go to Oz?” And we did. Now, it may be that they weren’t available and we still planned on telling that beige Angel arc without those characters and that’s when the “Oz” of it was mentioned, but I don’t remember it that way.

P: Before Charisma Carpenter fell pregnant, what were the plans going to be for season four? I understand Cordelia was still going to be evil — would this still have led to a similar Jasmine arc, what would Cordy’s motives have been?

TM: It was still going to be Cordy as big bad, if I recall, but it would have built to a throw down between Angel and Cordelia. But because of Charisma’s pregnancy, we made Cordelia pregnant too and had her “give birth” to an actress who wasn’t laboring (sorry for the pun) under a medical condition. But before we made that choice, there was even talk of shooting the Angel/Cordy battle scenes early in the year… but the idea of getting far enough ahead on breaking stories so we’d know exactly what those scenes needed to be turned out to be a pipe dream.

P: Along these lines, I have to ask if there were ever plans to bring Doyle back in any capacity?

TM: Every once in a while I’d bring it up — but I’d get shot down. Rightfully so. I thought Doyle would have been a great Big Bad for season three. But the problems and demons that the actor wrestled with in the real world, which in the end took his life, ruled that out as an option.

P: Prior to its airing, I read you were pleased with the script for “That Old Gang of Mine” — yet the pleased went away once it was produced. What changed?

TM: No. I always pretty much always loathed that script. But I felt, weak as the script was, that had it been shot differently that it would have made a huge difference. As it happened, it was my weakest script coupled with the most unfocused direction. Just painful all the way around.

P: Angel famously changed tone and was reinvented a lot, especially after season one when Los Angeles became less of a character and the ensemble dynamic changed. Was the WB responsible for this or was it something that the writers felt was necessary?

TM: Joss and David at first thought we’d be doing a stand alone procedural show. When they saw “Eternity” and realized that when the guest cast member (good as she was) fell out and it became about our people, it all changed. In the end, we started writing to our and the show’s strengths — and no one argued.

P: Likewise, was the lightened tone of the show and Angel’s character at the beginning of season three, which coincided with the Cordelia pairing and arrival of baby Connor, a network mandate or was it a creative decision designed to magnify the effects of “Sleep Tight”?

TM: We’d get network notes in those first four years, but the creative direction was always Joss and us. We always looked to him and he pretty much never looked to anyone else.

P: After killing several characters you earned the monicker of the Tim Reaper and you’ve since joked about killing people off on your later shows. Did you actively set out to kill characters in Angel or was it just a thing you did that unbeknownst to you developed into a pattern?

TM: Somehow I’d end up with some of the big, pivotal moments. And in those moments, people die.

P: How did the storybreaking process evolve as the show shifted from its anthology format to the more arc heavy, serialized format?

TM: Frankly, the biggest change was that I was more involved. It was Joss, David and me for a lot of it. Then as we started building our staff and adding people who stuck, it would be the whole room, or permutations of various combinations. Sometimes just me and Joss, sometimes Jeff Bell and I, etc.

P: Incidentally what format did you prefer — MOTW or arcs — and why?

TM: Arcs. When the show started feeling like a novel and you couldn’t wait to get to the next chapter it rang like a gong. However, every once in a while when I’d get to do something like “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been…” it would be my inner gong that got rung. So that’s deeply personal on a different level, being able to indulge in a delicious just-for-me treat.

P: What are your thoughts on the academic study devoted to Angel? How much focus was placed on symbolism, social commentary, gender politics and the many other things discussed in these papers when you were breaking the stories?

TM: For me, virtually none. It’s almost all I can ever do just to make a story track and not be boring. If something makes me go “eww, that might be offensive” I try to compensate. But mostly, I just wanna spin a corker of a tale.

P: Were there ever any stories you wanted to tell and never got the chance to?

TM: Yeah. But then they pretty much got told later by other people once I left, so it’s all good.

P: Chances are you know now, but when the series ended what ideas had you come up with for what happened after the alley?

TM: Well, Jaye was going to be considered a messiah, and then Sharon… see, I was doing Wonderfalls by then and didn’t spend a whole lot of time breaking stories for a show I hadn’t been on in a year.

P: Finally, do you foresee yourself returning to the Angelverse in any of its incarnations in the future?

TM: I’d love to. I just adore Angel.

After the Dollhouse episode “True Believer” aired, the writer and consulting producer Tim Minear was kind enough to chat with me a bit about this episode, his contributions to the show and what he’s got coming up in development. Enjoy.

Pasha: “True Believer” was conceived as one of the “seven pilots”, as Joss has called them. With this in mind, what was the process of breaking the episode like?

Tim Minear: Well, Joss wanted to do a cult episode. The only real edict was that the culties should have a point of view — that they shouldn’t just be crazies. In fact, they should be right. I liked that notion. I don’t recall who came up with the “blind Echo” angle — I think it was Andrew. Anyhow, we were behind in scripts and I just said “let me do it.” Took what little we had and worked it out on my own. In terms of my thought process I wanted to make sure there was a real reason why only the Dollhouse could do what needed to be done in this instance and I wanted the story turns to be rooted in the Dollhouse premise so I used the sci-fi angle to make a scientific miracle.

They could create a real woman who had really experienced a divine vision. And the fact that she was really blind proved that she wasn’t lying. That’s why she could recognize Sparrow through touch because the vision she experienced was no lie. Granted, Topher put it in her head, and we saw the 3-D model of Sparrow’s head and understood how this was accomplished, but to Echo/Esther, all was true. So when Sparrow knocked the cameras loose and her vision was restored, this was also really a miracle… to her.

P: How do you write Echo in such a way that the audience relate to her when her persona is so different week to week?

TM: Well, that’s always going to be the trick with this concept. We know she’s not really that person, so there is a distance there, for the viewer. One can only keep that element in mind when working out the story. So as I mentioned, the “miracle” is always double-edged — they work on that level, but they also always must illustrate the show concept. Hopefully if that happens, then even with the emotional distance, it’s compelling enough to hold the interest.

P: Once you’ve overcome those obstacles, what about the premise most interests you?

TM: What interests me most are questions of memory and identity. These are difficult to really dig into in the “case of the week” episodes. But once we get all mythology-y… ka-pow with the existential conundrums.

P: The theme of identity was quite prevalent in The Inside and in many ways Echo’s arc isn’t dissimilar to Rebecca Locke’s. Has anything from The Inside spilled over into your Dollhouse input?

TM: Uh, I’d say so, yeah. Writing the FBI stuff is pretty easy for me, because of The Inside. You may have detected a shout out to myself in there tonight. Also, I may have suggested the Elizabeth Smart thing to Joss in the hostage expert thing.

P: A ha, thought that plot seemed like a you-thing.

Who did you enjoy writing for in “True Believer”? I’m thinking it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest Topher?

TM: I think it took me as long to write the Topher/Saunders stuff as it took to type it. Kind of a snap, actually. I also like writing for Adelle. And I have affection for Boyd.

P: The cast for “True Believer” featured a few Drive alums — Brian Bloom and Mark Totty of the healing staple gun. Did you have a hand in the casting and were you writing with them in mind?

TM: Oddly, I wasn’t really thinking of Brian when I was writing. I was kind of writing for Jeremy Renner (Penn from “Somnambulist” [Angel]). When he wasn’t available, I heard that Brian had been submitted. Joss and I both thought he would be great. In the back of my mind, I was kind of thinking of Mark Totty for Agent Lilly. And I asked for casting to bring him in. I cast the episode myself.

P: Aside from casting, how involved were you in the production and post-production of this episode?

TM: Pretty involved. I prepped it with my old friend Allan Kroeker, I was on set much of the time, and I was in the editing room until it was done.

P: What’s it been like consulting on the show during episodes you weren’t involved in? What duties did you take on?

TM: “Consulting” is just a title. I do the same thing I do on any show where I’m a producing writer — when not the actual show runner. I’m in the writer’s room, breaking stories. Writing scenes when needed, writing episodes, going to casting, goofing off, making wisecracks and eating pie.

Lots of pie.

P: How have you approached the theme of exploitation on the show? Even though “True Believer” was bereft of some of the bra-shots of the last few episode, how conscious do you have to be of causing offence when writing a show that is so near the mark?

TM: It’s difficult. We are talking about a whorehouse on some level. Happily I’ve been able to skirt around it a bit on my episodes.

P: Finally — now that the show’s wrapped and the introduction phase is over, what can we expect from the rest of the series? And what can we expect from you in a post-Dollhouse world?

TM: Well, you’ll get juicy arc stuff coming up soon. We just ram headlong into it all by the end, and it’s fun.

As for me, working on a few things. Two pilot ideas that I’m developing with the studio. One is science fiction — based on an old title. And the other is a dark thriller. Also have some movie stuff going. And I assume before Dollhouse resumes, assuming it does, the studio will have me consulting on some other ongoing concern of theirs. I’m on an overall deal, recall.

This interview was originally conducted on February 2^nd, 2009.

Dichen Lachman first became well known for starring in the Australian soap opera as Katya Kinski. After spending a few years on Neighbours she left and moved to LA, where she now stars on Dollhouse as Sierra, an active in the Dollhouse who can be imprinted with any personality or skills. Dichen was recently kind enough to answer a few questions with us.

Pasha: Having worked on the Australian soap Neighbours, what has the transition to Los Angeles and working on a primetime Fox show been like?

Dichen Lachman: It’s been fantastic. Obviously when I arrived in LA there were challenges getting settled, making friends, and negotiating the new territory was an experience, but an experience that will no doubt add to my character.

Working on Dollhouse has really been incredible. I love the people I work for and with, I look forward to going to work everyday and the challenges that come with it.

P: What are the main differences in how the two are filmed?

DL: When I was working on Neighbours we shot 25 to 26 pages a day. On Dollhouse we do on average about 8. It is nice to have more time I have to say. The scale… The production value is much higher as you might have noticed and I have my own dressing room They are really very different.

P: Your character in Dollhouse, Sierra, has a new personality or two each week. As an actress, do you try and create continuity between personalities so that it’s clear Sierra is at the heart of each of them?

DL: I think one of the challenges is to not do that for the most part, as she is not as aware as Echo. So the lack of continuity is really what I have to endeavour to create for now, so you believe I am these different people…

P: How do you approach playing Sierra when she is in blank slate Dollhouse-mode? Is it difficult getting into the head of a character who has no desires or freewill?

DL: It is and it isn’t. That’s a tough question I don’t really have an answer to… I enjoy it…

P: Has it been easy using an American accent in the show? Do you use the American accent in between takes or is it easy alternating between American and Australian?

DL: I enjoy doing an American accent. I tend to just do it when the camera is rolling but sometimes I do it in between. It depends how much dialogue there is.

P: Were you familiar with any of Joss Whedon’s other shows before getting the role?

DL: Yes. I was a fan which made it all the more nerve-racking when I met him.

P: Have you had any crazy or surreal fan experiences yet?

DL: Only with Neighbours fans. Are Joss fans more intense?

This interview was originally conducted on September 11th, 2007.

Marti Noxon was recently kind enough to take time out from running Private Practice to do an interview with me. During it we talked about Buffy, Grey’s Anatomy and Point Pleasant as well as what it’s like to be a showrunner.

Pasha: How’s Private Practice going?

Marti Noxon: It’s been good. It’s been very busy. The first year of any show is a lot of work. A lot of late nights. But it’s good people, really good people.

P: And as a spin-off of Grey’s Anatomy, how much of a challenge has it been differentiating the themes and the tone from the parent show?

MN: Well… one of the good things about it is, I think the tone is very similar in a way. It has the same comedy/melodrama ratio. But it has a similar ratio as Grey’s. But it’s easy to differentiate because the actors are so much more mature and they’re at a different place in life. So in terms of differentiating the shows, the feeling of the show is quite different. And we do a lot of locations and they’re out of the office a lot and that’s really not the case on Grey’s.

P: And is it different working on something like Grey’s and Private Practice, which are quite mainstream in their appeal, as opposed to Buffy and Point Pleasant?

MN: Yeah, it is different. I mean the level of public scrutiny, especially when I was on Grey’s, I couldn’t believe – especially the amount of press we were getting. So, yeah, it does feel different – there’s an immediate response to everything we’re doing. Whereas, with Buffy you could fly under the radar. Those are two very different experiences. From what I understand Point Pleasant was more popular in international.

P: I know they were all shown here in the UK.

MN: We really didn’t get a response with Point Pleasant. It just sort of petered away. But yeah, this is just constantly, constantly hearing articles both about the show and on set stuff. So yeah, you feel more scrutinized.

P: And is writing Private Practice different than writing genre shows?

MN: Yes and no. Although I said to Shonda [Rhimes] when I started working on Grey’s that in a weird way Grey’s is strangely not based in reality either and that the doctors are based in their own superhero world. Tonally, it doesn’t feel based in the real world. It feels like a magical space and the doctors, a lot like on Buffy, have these twisted personal lives and then they jump into superhero mode and they save people. So in a weird way I feel the most in my comfort zone since I left Buffy. That tone shift between the very dramatic and the very light. And then these characters are doing something and have a mission. The hardest thing for me on Point Pleasant was I couldn’t figure out who was on what side and for me the show didn’t come to life until we started leading into the fact the girl was evil but by then it was too late. But Private Practice, in a weird way doesn’t feel that much different.

P: What are the challenges of writing shows that incorporate genre elements and shows that don’t?

MN: Shonda is a huge Buffy fan, which is why she was eager to have someone from that show help her out and we talk about both shows often and the contrasts and stuff. And she jokingly said to me the other day, “we should make them all really superheroes, we should make the doctors all have alter egos and fly around.” And I said “no, don’t,” ‘cause one of the things I like about working on a show that is not a genre show is that the rules and boundaries are a lot more defined and that the rules and limitlessness of the genre show and the fact that it can only be confined by your imagination can be really, really overwhelming. You can feel completely stuck because you have to just top yourself over and over again and also so many things are just old genre tropes. Here, you’ve got your old medical show clichés but you can’t avoid them so you just try and write them better.

P: Okay, now some Buffy questions… You started off as a writer and then you became a showrunner at the beginning of season six…

MN: Yeah, I got promoted to an executive producer and the reality is I was already doing a lot of stuff that I did on season six before, but I got credit for it. And people also thought that meant Joss [Whedon] wasn’t around and that just wasn’t the case. He was very much around.

P: So, as a showrunner what were your favorite parts of the job? Overseeing production, editing or did you still favor writing?

MN: I think that that job for me, aside from the fact that there is just a lot of pressure, is the most fun because you do a variety of things. You’re you’re managing a staff of writers and you’re talking to the actors and you’re involved in production. But the problem is that it’s kinda just too much for a normal person. One non-Joss person. You kinda just feel overwhelmed and it’s very taxing. Private Practice is a good situation and the Buffy situation was great as those responsibilities are often shared.

P: A friend of mine told me this, which I did not know, but apparently Joss once said you were Zoe to his Malcolm Reynolds. Can you elaborate on that?

MN: That seems about right. I was faithful and devoted and I worked on the engine a lot, but he often had to tell me what was broke.

P: Okay, back to Buffy, because this is apparently a very schizophrenic interview… I noticed in Buffy, and this hasn’t been mentioned in many interviews, that the tone of the show changed from season to season. Like season seven had a very earthy feel. How much of that is you and the writers deciding what tone you want and how much comes down to production?

MN: And how much of it is unconscious? I mean so much of it is where you’re at in relationship to your own creative process; each other; the actors; where you’re at in your life. The outside culture bleeds in. In terms of what’s going on in the world, I think we all went to a relatively dark place after Columbine and 9/11. I’ll never forget the day, 9/11, going down to the set and telling people to leave and driving through the streets. I mean we’d been joking about the apocalypse for years but suddenly it felt more real than a joke. So, I don’t know, I think so many things come into play and you don’t always know what the big picture feels like. We did know, for instance, that in season six we wanted to explore that post-collegiate, toxic taste of adulthood where you kind of try all of the bad stuff to see if that’s you. I mean the darkness and the nastiness was definitely a reflection of our own fatigue and we didn’t feel the need to be quite as fanciful. We’d done that.

P: The thing I noticed about season six was… The stories were dark, but the visual tone of the series was lighter than it had been previously. Was that a conscious thing to balance it out?

MN: That’s interesting. I’ve never really noticed that and to be honest I haven’t gone back and looked at stuff very much at all. I just saw an episode for the first time in years and I’ve never watched the seasons they way other people did. I’ve never sat down with the box sets and just watched them. From the first thirteen, I only saw them in terms of production and then watched them on television maybe once. And then, as the years progressed, I may not have seen them on TV – never seen the color timed version. But we were certainly aware that that season was very, very dark. And Joss and I often didn’t go to color timing so the person in charge of post may have been like “kick it up.”

P: Do you find it hard to watch things you’ve made then and to be able to enjoy them the way you do other shows?

MN: It’s nearly impossible. Although I watched the musical – in fact Joss and I watched it together – and it was far enough away that I just watched it and had a great time. I think maybe I’m getting close to the point I can watch Buffy and enjoy it. But I’ve never watched Point Pleasant, I’ve never watched… I just don’t.

P: I’d never really thought about it before. That’s interesting.

MN: Yeah, it either turns into an exercise of longing or self incrimination.

P: I imagine if you were really a perfectionist and kept spotting mistakes it would drive you mad.

MN: Yeah, and until recently I hadn’t really had a good working situation. I mean Point Pleasant was a nightmare in terms of network experience and the production and I’d just had a baby, so it kinda feels like this weird dream. My nanny would go with me everywhere and we drove to the location in San Diego in this limousine and I went to a meeting with the network and they had made me cry and I got into the limousine weeping and they took me to a really fancy hotel where I had another meeting and they made me cry. And my nanny said, “What kind of job is this?” They cart you around in the most fancy limousine and you have every luxury and all they do is make you cry. So that’s what I remember when I think of Point Pleasant: that’s the day I thought I was gonna be fired.

P: Do you find the satisfaction of running a show outweighs the stress of it?

MN: That is a good question. I think if you talk to any Buffy related person, that was a unique experience. What I don’t enjoy is the first year thing. It feels like a gauntlet that has to be run. I’d like for a show to make it passed that so I could just do my job.

P: And you’ve been a consulting producer on Angel and Prison Break. What did that involve?

MN: That is usually just related to story and script stuff, just spending time with the writers and talking about their ideas. It’s a relatively one-tier job. You pop in, you stay for a while and then you leave. It’s a lovely job.

P: So, back to Buffy, they had very distinctive speech patterns and rhythms. Did you find that made it easier to write for the characters and conform to that style of dialogue?

MN: The great thing about that job is those rhythms were present in my work anyway and I just fell into them and I’m a relatively good mimic, in terms of voice on the page. So it was delightful to know what you were aiming for and to feel it in your own bones when it was working. No writing is necessarily easy but it came more natural to me.

P: What characters in Buffy would you say you had an affinity for?

MN: I had different relationships with each of them. I loved to write Xander and Willow, in particular, and Oz. All the super misfits I was really comfortable with. Buffy herself was always interesting to write ‘cause she was in a way the least accessible character to figure out and it was an interesting challenge. But in terms of ease and relatability it was Willow and Xander. I was like, “I know these people.”

P: Okay, now I have a bunch of really geeky questions about plot points… Maggie Walsh was supposed to be the big bad of season four, but Lindsay Crouse was unavailable – that’s one rumor I heard. Is that true?

MN: Yes, that’s true. That is actually true.

P: Do you know what she would have done or did you never get that far with the plans?

MN: No, we never got that far.

P: Another rumor is that the season five finale, when it was going to be the series finale, was going to end with everyone dying?

MN: That is not true.

P: Last one… season seven, there is a whole thing with Buffy’s resurrection being the cause for the First Evil’s appearance and that was never really explained…?

MN: I know that we had a rationale. There was definitely a reason but it was never very clear. But we had one. We talked about these kinds of things endlessly. Nothing was ever, at least for us, not explained. But I’ll be damned if I remember what it was.

P: When you’re hiring writers for your own shows, what do you look for?

MN: You know it depends very much on the show. I think that, for me honestly the biggest thing is a “no asshole” policy and I also don’t want people who I don’t trust. Many people also believe you should always have a real freak in the room. Sometimes those people aren’t totally trustworthy but you always need someone a little whack as the tendency is to hire all the A grade students with pencils in their hands ready to go. But they may not always say that really weird and off the wall thing and you need that type. But generally you just look for someone whose voice, when you read them, makes you feel something. You read a ton of scripts and they’re very competent, they’re just not inspired in any way. Whenever someone makes me emotional or really laugh, they go in the interview pile and then it’s just about personality.

P: And when you read through the scripts, do you prefer original pilot samples, which are becoming quite popular now, or do you prefer traditional specs on existing shows?

MN: You know, it really doesn’t matter to me. It’s much more about voice. The one thing that I don’t like to do is read the show that I’m actually working on. For Grey’s I wouldn’t read Grey’s and for Buffy I wouldn’t read Buffy, because you’re much too close to it and you couldn’t be generous.

P: That makes sense. So when you sit down to plan a script, how do you do that? Do you start with the theme you want to talk about in any given episode? Or do you start with where the characters are at and then derive the theme from that?

MN: It depends on the show. We were always very conscientious about theme and emotional journey. It was less about the theme and more about the emotional journey of the characters on Buffy and we had to connect them in a way. On Grey’s theme is extremely important. But it’s a piecemeal, you figure out stories you really like and then you try and figure out the theme. Sometimes you back yourself into it by having stories that you like and then you try and find out what the theme is. Other times you start with a theme. Like, one of the doctors told that one of the things that makes them really sad is when they lose a patient. A patient just stops coming to them and they don’t know why. They call that “lost a follow-up.” We thought that would be a really interesting area emotionally for all the characters – where had they disappointed people along the way. So that would be where you start with a theme and then you try and find the medical stuff that supports it.

This interview was originally conducted on July 1st, 2006.

Tim Minear began his career working on syndicated shows before being hired on The X Files and Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. He is most recognized for his work on Angel and after departing that show went on to showrun, and in some cases create, several shows for FOX: Firefly, Wonderfalls and The Inside.

Here Tim discusses the inception and evolution of his latest show, Drive, and shares his observations on what makes a good franchise.

Pasha: Who or what has been the biggest influence in your writing and shows?

Tim Minear: Many influences, of course. I’ve been influenced by my favorite books, stories, films, television just like everyone. Too many to recount here. Add to that all the people I’ve worked with over the years. And in no small way, the audience is an influence. Maybe the biggest. And by that I mean partly real people in fandom with whom I interact, but also a kind of larger, imagined audience that I have with me and I’m always working for as I create something.

P: In your previous shows you’ve dipped in and out of many genres – is there one you prefer more than others?

TM: I’ve always been partial to science fiction, fantasy and horror — or more broadly, what Ellision calls “speculative fiction.”

P: Obviously you can’t say too much at this stage, but how has the concept of Drive evolved since Ben Queen initially brought it to you?

TM: Not at all and totally. The initial concept was so clean, so specific and so broad at the same time. My notion of what makes a good series franchise is something that is both specific and broad — for example, CSI is a genius procedural franchise idea because it’s specific: crime scene investigators who use science to solve puzzles. But it’s broad: one can tell endless crime stories under that rubric. Lost is a brilliant franchise because it’s specific: plane crash, stranded, island: but then it becomes endlessly wide reaching because instead of Giligan’s Island, JJ and Damon landed on the mystery of mythology and character revelation.

If something is only specific, so very “high concept” that it sounds more like an episode of a show, rather than a show, then it’s probably not going to hold the weight of a franchise. In other words, if you pitched Star Trek as “a show about a space ship that comes across a planet with a time portal” you’ve just described an episode: “City On the Edge Of Forever.” In my opinion the finest episode of STTOS, but it’s so specific that one knows what each episode is: the crew travels through time every single week. But a show about “a space ship with warp drive that has a five year mission to seek out new life and new civilizations — to boldly go where no man has gone before” opens it up.

So back to Drive. A secret, illegal, underground road race can be anything from Cannonball Run to The Game to North by Northwest to “Magnolia-on-wheels.” Ours is all those things.

P: How did shooting the pilot go – any anecdotes you want to share?

TM: Very smooth! Amazing cast, fantastic director (Greg Yataines), great crew. I got to work with Loni Peristere of Zoic again and I can’t wait for people to see our first shot: it’s a combination of road work, green screen and CGI. What you get is a five minute shot with no cuts that moves from car to car in speeding traffic and introduces us to an entire ensemble of characters. The visual grammar of the show continues like this — long, energetic and elaborately choreographed one-ers!

P: Will Drive have fantastical elements a la Angel and Wonderfalls or be more grounded in reality like The Inside – or will it be a combination?

TM: It really is, stylistically, its own thing. But there are echoes of all that. I’d say that it’s more genre than not. But no vampires, no talking knick-knacks. Though there are characters with secrets, dark pasts and at least one disaffected teenage girl.

P: What approach to narrative will you be taking with Drive? There have been rumors it may be like 24 or will there be room for the non-linear episodes from time to time that you’ve been known for doing in your other shows?

TM: It’s nothing like 24. And again, because of the wide canvass of the premise, it can literally go anywhere narratively.

P: On a scale of Wonderfalls to Angel/The Inside, how dark can we expect Drive to be?

TM: You kind of just described the scale: it can be as comedic and whimsical as Wonderfalls, but go as dark and operatic as Angel.

P: Final question: what is the status of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress film and The Inside DVDs? And if they’re not coming out soon is there anything fans can do to persuade Fox to release them?

TM: I hold no hope for The Inside DVDs. My best advice is for people to find the aired episodes on-line: they’re all there, and in nice quality. Moon is in the hands of the people who hired me to adapt it. I understand they’re pursuing ways in which to set it up. That’s really all I know.

This interview was originally conducted on October 23rd, 2006.

At the 2006 Screenwriting Expo, after finishing his class on breaking an episode of television, I had the opportunity to interview Tim Minear. Less than an hour prior to this interview I found out that his new television show Drive had not been picked up by FOX. Later, whilst transcribing the discussion, I was informed that Drive may not be dead after all.

In the interview that follows we discusses the status of Drive as well as his previous projects from Angel to The X Files to Firefly.

Pasha: So Drive hasn‘t been picked up. That’s questions twenty-one through twenty-five out… Okay, we’ll just assume it’s going be picked up…: In Drive you were going to create different areas of the US when filming. How were you going to do that on a TV budget while still filming in LA?

Tim Minear: Because technology has progressed. If you look at the opening sequence, which I realize most people reading this won’t have, you will see that it appears… What did you think of [the opening]?

P: It was great.

TM: It’s pretty cool. None of those people are really driving on the road, so any time you see them driving, the actor’s on a green screen stage. The way that was accomplished was by going onto that highway with the cars to shoot visual fx plates, back and front. We put our actors on a location they were never really in. And that was how we would have done it in series: we’d put them onto virtual highways. It means that if we wanted to show them in a particularly recognizable piece of terrain, from a different part of the country, we were going to send out second unit to shoot these places for virtual fx plates. Our actors would always be in LA on the green screen stage. But we could show them driving through whatever part of the country we needed them to. That was going to be one aspect. The other aspect was, for instance, the pilot takes place in Florida but we never went there, we just doubled California for Florida. So we would be dressing sets and dressing locations to mimic wherever we wanted to go.

P: Who did the score?

TM: It was a temp score, which is normally what you do for a pilot. You pull music from other soundtracks and temp it in. We did an actual expensive sound mix and we had a music editor who cut the music, but we pulled a lot of the score from things like The Italian Job. Stuff that had a certain fun quality, but that also had some suspense in it. Something that had a “wink” in the sound. And a lot of the score was songs. We use a lot of songs.

P: Would you have used Rob Kral if it got picked up?

TM: I don’t know actually, we never got that far.

P: When you started writing it how did you and Ben Queen divide writing duties?

TM: Basically it was his idea and we developed it together. We didn’t break it into acts.

P: Do you think Fox may still pick it up?

TM: Y’know it’s still technically at Fox. They picked up the options on the cast, so it’s still their’s so I don’t know. I’ve heard rumors that it’s not dead. I think they’re still trying to figure out what it is — it’s rather unusual. These serialized dramas tend to take themselves very seriously and there is a certain irreverence, which I think confuses the born-in-captivity television executive.

P: Why didn’t you direct the pilot?

TM: The network wouldn’t let me.

P: But you could direct The Inside’s pilot because of the delay in production?

TM: Interestingly enough, on The Inside they wouldn’t let me. Then a version was shot which they didn’t like, so they wanted it re-shot and I said “just let me do it.” And they let me. So it was like the third time we shot it. I just want to add that when [directing Drive] wasn’t even going to be an option, I wasn’t just going to choose someone the network liked, I waited a few weeks to get Greg Yaitanes and that worked out well.

P: So, The Inside: Howard Gordon was credited as being co-creator yet he never wrote an episode of the show. What was his contribution?

TM: He was a consulting producer. He was more support and was doing 24 so he didn’t really have time to write episodes. Occasionally he would take a scene and rewrite it when we fell behind. But most of the time he’d be cheering me on. He would show up when we were breaking stories and he would be my sounding board, so he was available to be involved conceptually.

P: If [The Inside] had gone on what would have happened with Web, my favorite character from the show?

TM: We hadn’t quite got that far. You know, if you’re doing a series, you want it to be a franchise and you want the parts to be moving parts. This wasn’t really a serial, it was more a standalone procedural, although it became more continuing story as we went along. That’s what it would have evolved into. But I think Web would have continued to fulfill the function that he was there to fill.

P: Has there been an update on the DVD release for The Inside?

TM: I don’t think so. I pushed and pushed and pushed and apparently they have market research people at studio level who crunch the numbers to decide whether or not it would be financially feasible for them to invest in something like that and they decided they didn’t want to.

P: Standoff, you’re a consulting producer on that. What does that entail? The day to day on the set or…

TM: Not on the set. I haven’t been on the set yet. What it involves it what it sounds like… I consult. Which is a producer… I mean I actively consult on the show, which means some writing and breaking stories with the staff and the executive producer and looking at cuts and making notes. You know, just giving my input.

P: Is that the same as when you consulted on Angel?

TM: It’s actually more.

P: Because Angel was already a running machine?

TM: Yes. I mean when I was on Angel in season four I was actively there until episode seven. But when Firefly was going I was completely out of the loop until after Firefly was cancelled and then I was back in for whatever that Faith episode was after Christmas.

P: Okay, when you pitched for Buffy one of your pitches involved Xander trying to lose his virginity…

TM: Yeah, yeah.

P: What were your others?

TM: I’m trying to remember. There were like six. Six or eight ideas and I honestly just don’t remember.

P: Did you have to do the same thing for Angel?

TM: No. No, no, no. There was no Angel at that point. I mean they picked up the show and they just made me an offer, I didn’t have to come in and pitch any ideas. In fact when they asked me to come in for Angel I said no about five times, which I think just made them want me more.

P: Going back to Drive — if it had been green lit what would the episode structure have been? For instance, Lost has flashbacks - would you have had anything like that?

TM: We would have avoided those to get away from comparisons. I’d broken, I don’t know, six or seven episode ideas. The action would have focused on two or three characters out of a larger ensemble and you would find out sort of why they were in the race and that’s how the stories would go. For instance, a lot of the stories would come from the racers and we wouldn’t rely too heavily on the puppet master aspect of the people running the race, but we’d find out what would happen to Alex’s wife. That kind of thing. All those questions would be answered.

P: So would each story have had a thematic tie to Alex?

TM: No.

P: Any plans to write any Firefly comics?

TM: No. At the moment, no.

P: What’s been your worst online or offline fan incident?

(Allyson raises her hand)

TM: Well… I’d say the worst experience: when I was threatened with castration at Worldcon by someone in a large audience during a Q&A — he was angry because of the bad messages my work is sending to America.

P: Would you ever get so frustrated with TV that you’d leave and move onto film?

TM: Well film has got its own set of frustration. In development it’s a lot of time and a lot of people weighing in. You can work on things for ages that never actually get made. In television, stuff gets produced. Even with the frustration of constant cancellation, if you only make thirteen or fifteen episodes per season or whatever, that’s still a lot of work. You’ve still been able to… I dunno… How many feature films would thirteen episodes be?

P: About six.

(John, Tim’s assistant, points out that a lot are three hours long these days)

TM: That’s like six or seven features. So, and as a writer in TV you have a lot of power and in movies you don’t. So I’m not tired of being canceled, I’m tired of maybe being at the same place year after year and not finding it a very friendly place for what I do.

P: Is that the network or is that with the studio?

TM: I’m with the studio and obviously I’m consulting with something that’s on that network right now, but I think that if I were to… Like the next time I go out to pitch another idea I think I will not be taking it there.

P: Will Twentieth be okay with you not pitching to their sister company?

TM: Twentieth will generally want me to take things there, but they’ve said they’d support me and they’d understand if that’s not where I want to go. I like the people at the network, but I think their brand has changed a bit. At one time, the sorts of things I do would have been quite at home there, but now I look around and see the environment elsewhere might be more appropriate. It’s difficult, because in some ways what I do isn’t generic enough to really fit in at a lot of places.

P: You worked on Wonderfalls as a show runner and Bryan Fuller was a creator. How much influence did you have on the creative direction and story arcs?

TM: Completely. Bryan and me and…

P: Todd Holland?

TM: Todd in a slightly different way. The three of us together was kind of a magical convergence. Bryan and I worked out all the story arcs, all the episodes and every beat together. There was a question as to how you make that pilot into a continuing series and I came in to help on that score.

P: Obviously you can’t divulge any of the plot points, but what were the themes going to be in the Faith and Spike spin offs?

TM: It was going to be one thing initially. Are you talking about the movies?

P: Yeah and the Faith TV show.

TM: It never really got that far. One thing we’d talked about was Faith’s thing on UPN, back when UPN was UPN, and that was right after Buffy was canned and right before Eliza took Tru Calling. So she had a choice to make between doing Faith and doing that and she did that. She didn’t want to just keep doing the same thing over and over. But, I mean we had talked about doing these movies — a Spike movie, possibly a Faith movie, and then Drive got green lit and the Spike movie derailed because of that. But there’s talk that those could be revived somehow. Joss still has ideas for that.

P: Was Drive the only reason it didn’t happen or were there studio and financial reasons?

TM: It was really… I became unavailable right when we talked about doing it and I’m sure there were studio politics and financial issues mixed in in some way, but we were not talking about doing it for any specific network. It wasn’t a network thing.

P: Straight to DVD?

TM: That was one idea.

P: Now The X-Files… “Mind’s Eye”, was that your spec?

TM: No that was not my spec.

P: Was that your idea or did you develop it in the writers’ room? How did the writers’ room work on that show?

TM: The X-Files?

P: Yeah.

TM: It was tough. I mean they were very thorough. There was a lot of scrutiny on that series and we would work them and work them and work them until, you know, Chris or Frank Spotnitz decided that they liked it. And it could be grueling. It was like a marathon. I do remember that what was interesting was when we were working on “Mind’s Eye” I had thought of Lili Taylor as the character. So I was just using her as a template in my head as I was writing the episode. Then her manager called us up saying “Lili wanted to do TV. Do you think there would be anything on The X-Files that would be right for her?” And we said we were writing it right now. So I knew we were going to have her while we were writing it, which was unique and wonderful and she got nominated for an Emmy from that.

P: Okay, an Angel question, which is just something I’m personally curious about… The Senior Partners: did you ever have an idea for what they were beyond what was established in the series? Or was it always going to be a bit mysterious?

TM: It was always going to be mysterious.

P: No set mythology then?

TM: No, I mean basically… No. You just want them to feel shadowy.

P: Do you know anything about the sixth season, if it had happened?

TM: No, I don’t.

P: You were fully gone by then…

TM: Yeah.

P: Any plans to bring back any of your series in some form?

TM: No, no plans. I mean there could be some Whedonverse thing, I just don’t know what it would be. But as far as I think - just post-Angel - no, there are no plans.

P: Non-Firefly comics… if they did a post-season five Angel thing would you do anything for that?

TM: No, they’re doing some Buffy comics right now and I was asked if I wanted to do that and it just feels like work and I try to not do that.

P: So nothing in development for next season?

TM: No, not yet. My deal is a development deal so I’m theoretically coming up with all these brilliant ideas that will be rejected soundly, but at the moment consulting on this series takes up all my time.

P: There was something Chris Buchanan said he was working on with you…?

TM: Chris and I and Loni talked about stuff we were developing. We’re still talking about that.

P: So is that a secret thing or…

TM: It’s not a secret it’s just so like un-formed that I can’t really say anything.