Scott Manville:
Thank you for sharing your time with us, Corie.
How’s the pilot season shaping up for you at ABC?
Maybe a better question would be- Is there really
a “pilot season” for reality-based programming, or
is the Network on a constant run for new
alternative programming?
Corie Henson:
We're looking for new projects year round. There
really is no “season” for us, but with the
scripted shows in repeats or on hiatus, summer is
definitely a busy time for us with new series.
SM:
You have an impressive background,
having been involved in a broad spectrum of shows,
varied even within the reality genre, such as, “I
survived a Japanese Game Show”, and “Tommy Lee
Goes To College”. Which is more difficult to
produce, a weekly variety/gameshow with content
that needs to be
newly created and fabricated
each week, or a docu-series that seems to follow a
unique person through an interesting course of
life? And what’s your favorite type of program to
work on?
CH: I’m
addicted to great competition elimination shows
like Dancing with the Stars or Bachelor/Bachelorette…
and I love a good strategy driven elimination like
Survivor or Big Brother. The horse race and the
play along is so engaging as a viewer. As a
producer, it’s like unwinding a spool of thread
with so many exciting twists and turns. It’s
great to get to spend that much time with a
character and really dig in to their strengths,
game-play and quirks. I’m also a fan of docu-series.
It’s a totally different skill set from a producer
perspective and a big challenge to make it feel
real. You need to create invisible rails for the
story and be careful to not over-produce it, while
still building in real stakes for the subject.
Otherwise you run the risk of it falling flat or
feeling like its bad acting. I loved working on docu-series
as a producer because of the challenge, but I’m
not a committed viewer. If I’m going to watch
doc, it’ll be something gritty like Intervention,
or Hoarders, or the new weight loss series we’re
doing at ABC.
SM:
What attracted you to the industry? What was the
catalyst that sent you in the direction of
television development?
CH:
I started in news, so I always appreciated the
immediacy of television. I was developing a lot
of original ideas on my own as a producer, but
more often than not, you’re brought on at the last
second as a producer. I missed being in on the
ground floor, getting to dig into the original
creative, the casting, format, host casting,
staffing, etc. That’s something I get to do now
at ABC, and I do it over multiple shows, so it
never gets old and I get to work with some of the
best producers in the business.
SM:
ABC consistently produces America’s favorite
“appointment” programming. And thanks to Tivo, my
wife takes three hours to get through one hour of
The Bachelor, constantly rewinding to
re-watch each moment.
We’re also glued to the set watching “Extreme
Makeover: Home Edition”, waiting for that big “move-that-bus”
moment.
What is the key to creating these
entertaining and highly addictive shows?
CH:
Across the board, the most important thing is
casting. Two totally different approaches on
Bachelor and Home Edition, but if you’re not into
the family, Ty and the designers, you’re probably
not as engaged by that episode, and you’re not as
invested in the big reveal. Same for the men and
women on the Bachelor. If you’re not dying to
know who Jake will pick, Vienna or Tenley, it’s
not your season.
SM:
How many projects, from development to on-air, are
you currently involved in? Can you mention any
exciting programs yet to unfold?
CH:
At any given time I’m usually overseeing 3-4
current shows that are in pre/production/post
phase, plus 2-3 pilots that are waiting for
pick-up and another 2-3 shows I’m working on
developing internally. We have what is shaping up
to be an amazing extreme weight loss show. The
production cycle is really unprecedented at the
network. We will be shooting with each
participant for a year of their lives as they lose
weight. No prize, no eliminations, no
competition, just one person’s story each hour,
and the deep emotion as we really get to know
these people. I compare it to Home Edition in
that they’re difficult stories to hear. These
people are in dire need of help. But you know in
the end, that reveal when the person has lost half
their body weight (in some cases 300lbs +) is just
going to be amazing.
SM:
You must deal with an extraordinary mix of
Producers. What qualities do you like to see in a
Producer who is involved in any specific
production you have?
CH:
It is one of my favorite parts of
the job. As someone who came from production, I’m
now getting to work with and be pitched by
producers that I’ve admired for years. When we’re
looking at producers for new projects, it
obviously depends on the type of show - if we’re
developing game, then we’re looking for someone
with game experience, stunt/stunt,
performance/performance, etc. Beyond that, I’m
looking for someone with confidence that can back
it up. They need to be a big thinker, creative
and to take the idea beyond what’s on the paper
pitch and make it feel broader. I’m looking for
someone that has good relationships and brings a
strong staff with them. If you have people that
love to work with you over and over, you are most
likely a good collaborator. That means you’ll
hear other people’s creative ideas, let others
step in to help with your weaker spots, be able to
execute notes, and stay on budget. Production
value is very important to me, so someone that’s
going to be able to multitask and not just
consider the story (which is obviously key), but
what it’s going to look like on screen. One of
the best parts of being at ABC is that there are
several executives that came here from production,
which hopefully means a more open line of
communication with producers. We all want the
same thing… a hit show.
SM:
How critical is the process of
hiring the right Producers for the right show? As
a program develops and evolves, sometimes refining
itself in a new direction, does the show ever
dictate that new or different producers and
writers be brought in?
CH:
That happens. We pilot a lot of
shows, always with the intention of the pilot
being successful and going to series. As part of
the decision of whether a show will move forward,
we take a really close look at what worked and
what didn’t, and we take into account everything
that could possibly make the show better. Many
times that means creative will change and the
original producer is no longer the best fit. It’s
unfortunate, but not every producer is right for
every show. Also with returning shows, we’re
always reassessing how we can make the show
better. Sometimes the show just outgrows the
producer and vice versa.
SM:
“Shark Tank”. Another great
show from Mark Burnett, and ABC. I love the
panel of venture capitalists, and the cross-fire
of the bidding war. How was that process in
discovering the panel? And was it difficult to
create that sharp and cutting chemistry they each
have? Can you share a bit of that process?
CH:
Mark Burnett and his team really
did due diligence. They met with or talked to
every multi-millionaire/billionaire that was
willing to give away their own hard earned money
to entrepreneurs! Barbara Corcoran, Kevin
Harrington and Daymond John were found through
rather tradition means. Research, interviews,
casting sessions, etc. Here’s a little inside
Shark Tank nugget about Kevin O’Leary and Robert
Herjavec. We were looking for our real “shark,”
the investor who wasn’t afraid to tell it like it
is, and we were getting close to a pilot shoot
date and we didn’t have our final five yet. Shark
Tank is produced all over the world – where it’s
called “Dragon’s Den.” Mark Burnett sent us a
tape featuring Kevin O’Leary, one of the Canadian
“Dragons.” O’Leary was abrasive, honest,
articulate and cut-throat – not just with the
entrepreneurs, but his fellow “Dragons”… and we
loved him. But we couldn’t help notice one of his
fellow Canadians (and one of O’Leary’s favorite
targets), Robert Herjavec. He was sharp,
sympathetic, boyishly handsome and he was truly
self-made. His family came to Canada from Croatia
with only $20. What a great story and we almost
missed out on him. We pursued both Robert & Kevin
and those two rounded out our team of sharks.
SM:
What do you feel is the greatest
impact that reality-based programming has had on
the industry? In contrast, what have the
challenges been?
CH:
Reality offers cost-effective, repeatable original
programming. That is also one of the greatest
challenges. Because we grew so big so fast,
people were quick to realize the impact of
reality both creatively and financially. Many
broadcasters got greedy and started to rush shows
and/or create lesser quality shows. The industry
cannibalized itself. Many of our shows started to
feel derivative and almost a parody of ourselves.
Unfortunately that stigmatized reality and many
times I think we have to prove ourselves with each
good show. But that’s just it, bad reality is bad
reality. Bad scripted is bad scripted.
SM:
We see a huge amount of activity with Docu-series’
at the TV Writers Vault being pitched and scouted
by production companies, mostly with cable nets in
mind as an outlet. Even though they’re often too
specific a subject for a primetime audience, do
you think there will ever be a place in primetime
for a docu-series at a major network?
CH:
Hopefully, because I think there
are definitely broad enough subjects that can
carry a show. A few networks have tried – One
Ocean View (ABC) and Tuesday Night Book Club (CBS)
came out the same summer and tanked. It’s not
just because of the creative specificity, but
because we can’t repeat the *$&%# out of those
shows like cable can. I didn’t see Jersey Shore
the first couple of weeks, but everyone was
talking about it. Three weeks in, I went into my
Tivo and they were still rerunning the premiere
episode. It was great, I caught up in one
afternoon! Also, I think there’s something to the
docu-series working better as a half-hour and we
don’t do many half-hours (other than scripted
sitcoms).
SM:
How do you feel the content and landscape of
reality programming in television has changed over
the past decade? Are formulas
as
strict
as most think,
or has cable and reality programming brought new
license for experimenting?
CH:
COPS was the first network reality show and if you
go back and watch the earliest episodes from the
late 80’s, it was what we’d consider a very
traditional reality show now. They followed the
cops in the field on the job, then home to their
families, all peppered with sit-down interviews.
I think we’ve come a long way in introducing new
versions of the format – the competition
elimination, stunt, performance – but there’s a
certain comfort in the familiar.
SM:
Do you have a strict mandate for the types of
projects your team will develop with Producers, or
are you open to projects that may challenge the
focus that ABC and Disney
have
traditionally had with programming?
CH:
We’re really looking for something that will be
the next step in reality. Not to reinvent the
wheel, because there is comfort in the familiar,
but to think big and take a unique approach.
Easier said than done. So yes, we’d consider
something unorthodox, but it still needs to work
within the Disney/ABC brand. That said, it’s a
wide swath… from Dancing with the Stars, to Extreme
Makeover: Home Edition, to Wipeout. All shows you
can watch at 4 or 40.
SM:
For those who have a great concept
for a reality series, what is the most important
element that makes you- a Programming Executive,
believe that it would have potential as a new
show?
CH:
Ideally, it should be something the
whole family can watch together. I always tell
producers comedy is the most reliable pitch. It’s
easy to watch, fun to make, and about as broad as
it gets. Also, keep it simple (which doesn’t mean
it can’t be clever and/or unique). Try to steer
clear of anything really derivative, and please
don’t come in and talk about how you’d fix the
network’s already existing shows or why yours is a
better version.
SM:
Time to admit your guilty
pleasure... What
reality
series,
on any Network
other than ABC,
would you love to be a contestant or participant
on, and why?
CH:
I’d love, love, love to be on
Survivor. It’s the perfect storm of mental and
physical challenges, and it really tests every
facet of the contestant’s strength, will, faith,
diplomacy and perception. I’d love to push myself
like that, and it really seems like an opportunity
where you’re forced to get to know yourself
better. It’s a classy show, and while they aren’t
afraid to have fun with the contestants, it never
feels like they’re making fun of them. Although I
do love food. So that may be a problem come about
day two or so when I’m starving and cranky.
SM:
Thanks for sharing your time and thoughts, Corie.
Keep up the great work at ABC, and continued
success in your career!
CH:
Thank you!
Copyright ©
TVWritersVault.com
