Disappointed Bridge

Disappointed Bridge was the dumbest company name I ever came up with. The business in question was going to be the TV production arm of a theatre company we'd been running successfully in Sydney for a number of years. As part of this move the three founders invited Bryan to join us as a partner. He was a friend with a strong background in television but I suspect he really only came on board because of our cool offices.

And they were so, so cool; a former dance studio with a massive sprung wooden floor in a converted pier with panoramic views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The space was far too big for our meagre needs when we weren't actually rehearsing but when a friend offered us the chance to sublet, the wow factor was such that we couldn't turn it down.

Immediately after Bryan joined us we settled into the artfully spaced sofas and started brainstorming ideas for the new venture as a matter of urgency. Nothing so workaday as ideas for an actual television show mind; we needed a cool name for the business itself. And only a name as cool as our offices would suffice.

We ran an unsurprising gamut of obliquely clever and archly fey suggestions, including the obvious but taken 'Pier Productions', when I hit upon it, "Disappointed Bridge Productions!"

This was met with a predictable silence. I'd been reading James Joyce's Ulysses (which tells you everything you need to know about who I was at the time).

"There's a great joke in Ulysses: 'What's the definition of a pier? A disappointed bridge.'"

Genius, I thought; a company name that was apposite, witty and just a little off the mainstream. Just like the TV we planned to make.  Bryan, who knew me less well than the others but TV far better was withering in his sarcasm, "Yeah, because it's going to sound great when we're waiting in the lobby of Channel Nine and the receptionist calls up and says, 'The guys from Disappointing Bridge' are here to see you".

Bryan now makes lots of TV. I do not.

Blindingly obvious (when you think about it)

Last night I caught up with a few performer types for some year-end pints.  I was introduced to a guy who described himself as a film maker.  He'd recently set up a production company and we had a very interesting discussion about the challenge of getting stuff to screen, in particular the difference between film and television.  He shared an insight that had never occurred to me before: - 

To make a film all you need is money.  After that it all comes down to the quality of the work

To make TV you usually need a programming slot before you begin

Whereas film production companies focus on making films, TV production companies devote all their energy to the pitch before the creative process can even begin.

TVland

Apropos of Friday's lament about the TV pitching process: I came across the wonderfully named In the Meeja, Darling.

In the linked post the writer describes a networking event where Jay Hunt, Controller of BBC One (and thus the most powerful woman in British television according the Guardian) spoke about pitching: -

Slightly depressingly, this boiled down to "BBC One aren't going to commission anything that doesn't have a celebrity attached to it already". The example of Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds was used as an example of a TV format that had been kicking around for ages, but apparently "only worked" once it was tested with someone with Hammond's enthusiasm.