# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The executive producer didn't expect to get pulled into the missing persons racket, but he couldn't resist 'Without a Trace's' siren call.

When CBS' "Without a Trace" came into Hank Steinberg's life in 2002, he wasn't exactly hot to produce a drama series. He was coming off the high-profile HBO telepic "61*," which had earned him both WGA and Emmy Award nominations, and he possessed a blind script deal with the eye network. Unfortunately, that last one had just produced one rejection for a show about college basketball.

Then, at the behest of his agent, Steinberg met with Jerry Bruckheimer Television president Jonathan Littman, and before he knew it, Steinberg was creating and executive producing a series focusing on a topic with which he had a passing knowledge -- at best. But as he would say later, "This was Jerry Bruckheimer, and it's very hard to turn down Jerry."

These days, Steinberg is developing and producing ABC's new drama "The Nine," which premiered earlier this month. However, he's still listed as an executive producer on "Trace," having been its showrunner for three seasons and taking primary responsibility for giving the series wings in the early days and molding it into a consistent hit. As the drama reaches its 100th episode, Steinberg spoke about his experiences with "Trace" with Ray Richmond for The Hollywood Reporter.

The Hollywood Reporter: How does a guy who writes biographical films about Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris and Robert F. Kennedy wind up making a procedural series?
Hank Steinberg: I saw the potential early on to create a series that focused on the character of the missing person, where the idea was, "Who they are will tell you where they are." That made it an intriguing concept for me from the get-go. Because we didn't start with a dead body, it was never about finding a killer but what happened to the person.

THR: You seemed to try to buck the procedural trend somewhat by inserting more and more character elements as you went along.
Steinberg: That was very much done on purpose. We crafted the show as a back-door character piece, a thriller with a fixed clock. We wanted it to have a kind of European, noirish feel, exploring the toll it takes on the people involved in the search and how it impacts their lives personally.
Didn't it make people nervous that you were trying to sort of mold two typically incompatible genres?
Steinberg: Oh, all the time. The first season ended with Samantha (Poppy Montgomery) getting shot and Jack (Anthony LaPaglia) going back to his wife, and we never looked back. My arguments were always helped by the ratings, which, thankfully, kept growing.

THR: So, the numbers kind of vindicated everything you tried to do creatively?
Steinberg: Not entirely. Everything was a tap dance. But you don't get the cover page of TV Guide and have Anthony LaPaglia win a Golden Globe (in 2004) unless you're doing something more substantial than a case-of-the-week formula.

THR: The Federal Communications Commission also noticed that you were doing more than just a humdrum drama, fining you $3.6 million this year for the show's so-called "orgy scene." That makes it the most expensive 48 seconds in TV history, no?
Steinberg: We knew that scene was on the borderline when we shot it; we knew it would be provocative. On the other hand, it was always meant to serve as a cautionary tale. Context is always forgotten. The whole thing seemed to be very arbitrary. No one really knows where the standards are anymore.

THR: What was the fallout from that whole situation? Any decision is still pending, but did it have a chilling effect on content from your perspective?
Steinberg: Ironically, I believe the effect on network TV is destined to be a positive one. Because we working in the broadcast realm can't do a show as titillating as (FX Network's) "Nip/Tuck" or with the kind of graphic violence you see on (HBO's) "The Sopranos" or as sexually suggestive as "Six Feet Under," it's forced the writers to be more creative in their storytelling to operate within the confines of the federal government and our own standards department.

THR: How difficult has it been to have to let go of a series you brought into the world?
Steinberg: Very tough. It's like with your kids: You're always worried. But fortunately, in (executive producers) Jan Nash and Greg Walker, I left it in very solid hands, and they've done a terrific job. Fortunately, I'm too busy with "The Nine" to obsess over it, or I absolutely would.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When CBS' "Without a Trace" came into Hank Steinberg's life in 2002, he wasn't exactly hot to produce a drama series. He was coming off the high-profile HBO telepic "61*," which had earned him both WGA and Emmy Award nominations, and he possessed a blind script deal with the eye network.

# data[].attributes.headline
You can replace behind the camera, you can't replace in front of the camera

# data[].attributes.subject
You can replace behind the camera, you can't replace in front of the camera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the first of a special Q&A series, CableFAX Exec Editor Michael Grebb sat down with "Sons of Anarchy" creator, showrunner and writer Kurt Sutter, who talked about his writing process, how his experiences on "The Shield" prepared him for Sons, and the differences between cable and broadcast audiences. Season 3 of Sons premieres tonight (Sept 7) on FX. Stay tuned for more Q&As at CableFAX.com with Sons actors Charlie Hunnam, Ron Perlman and Katey Sagal.

CableFAX: Sons has a spare and efficient writing style. No lengthy exposition. Characters keep things close to the vest. To what degree do you focus on that?

KS: It's just how I know how to tell a story. Clearly, there is exposition that has to come out in a scene, but it's really about finding vehicles where that can happen organically. We have the luxury of "church" where the guys sit around the table, which is essentially a pow-wow and a very organic way for them to discuss what the f-k they're going to do. And the stakes are usually high, so it's fueled by emotion and it feels real. But that's a device where we can inform the audience about how they feel about things. The rest of it, I just try to have things come out really organically through story or through character.

CableFAX: The show seems to give the audience a lot of credit.

KS: I think writing that way, as you say, efficiently and having things come out organically-it forces people to pay attention. So rather than watching TV like this [he leans back] and watching everything be spoon fed to you, you're forced to sort of watch TV like this [he leans forward] and engage. And I think it's why people are drawn to the show. They do feel like they have to pay attention. They're drawn into the fact that they have to be aware. Therefore, they feel part of it. They don't feel like they're being pandered to or spoon fed. And look, there's a lot of people who don't want to watch TV like that. There's a lot of people who want to come home from work and kick off their shoes-and hey, I do it myself sometimes too. If I'm sitting down and I'm exhausted, and I'm looking at my TV for what to watch, it's "Family Guy" because I just don't have the energy that I know I'm going to need to watch a "Mad Men" or a "Breaking Bad." So I get it. But it's what I know how to do, and I think it ultimately makes for a better viewing experience.

Array

CableFAX: Does this sort of writing style work better on cable? Is the audience smarter?

KS: I don't know if it's in terms of being smarter or not. I think shows on broadcast are starting to get smarter-but I think it's also the nature of what works and what makes a lot of money in broadcast, which is procedurals. And I think procedurals are all about telling the audience what's going to happen in an entertaining way. And you know, it's why I sort of chuckle when I hear people talk about these character driven procedurals because I've yet to see one work. Some of it is just that procedurals are much easier to syndicate. You don't have to worry about timelines. So there's definitely a financial aspect to it. And that's why they're so popular... It's more of a challenge to get a serialized drama on broadcast for that very reason. I think "Lost" was an anomoly-to have something that serialized. That's why it was incredibly smart that they made the complexity-the serialized nature of that show-they made it like a hook. So they have all these long "previously ons" where they would talk about it. And they almost made that part of the hook of the show-almost winking at it in terms of "We know this show is incredibly complicated and convoluted, and we keep changing our minds, but we're going to shine a light on that and show you a 10-minute thing on what you missed it and make it entertaining and interesting."

CableFAX: But while "Lost" fans became irritated with the convoluted nature of the show, they also kept watching because the characters and their backstories were so interesting. So is character king? Is that something you focus on when writing Sons?

KS: I think so. It was interesting this season because I remember having a conversation with John [Landgraf] after the pilot was shot, talking about how I feel like sometimes shows trip and fall and stumble a little bit in Season Three because they figure out what they were doing in Season One, and then Season Two is implementing that, and then sometimes they try to do the same thing over again-and then it gets a little bit derivative. I've seen it happen a lot on broadcast shows. I had this notion of: By Season Three, people will be invested enough in those characters that they'll crave some of that backstory. So we were able in this season-in an organic way-to give some of that backstory with some things we've never seen with John Teller [the deceased father of lead character Jax], and really kind of knock him off that pedestal a little bit for Jax [played by Charlie Hunnam]. So I'm aware of those backstories, and we write from them all the time. Now it doesn't mean that we give out that information, but we know what it is, so everyone is sort of writing and reacting and working from that consistent place. So the audience may not completely understand why they're having the reactions that they are or what the investment is or what the relationship is, but if it's consistent, they at least understand it emotionally, and they can plug in. I think it's a good thing for an audience to come out of an episode scratching their heads, going "What the f-k was that? And I better stick around to find out."

CableFAX: How far ahead have you mapped out the story?

KS: I have a sense of really broad strokes of where I want the series to go and how I want it to end.

CableFAX: That must be hard when you don't how long it will be on the air.

KS: What I'm probably looking at is six or seven seasons if we're lucky. I have a notion of where I want it to go, and how I want it to end. As I get about halfway through the season, I start to understand and see where we'll be landing in the following season. So it enables me in sometimes a very subtle way-and sometimes not such a subtle way-to sort of lay track to that. And clearly, the end of Season Two was not a very subtle way to lay track to Season Three, but I think between Season Three and Season Four, the track that we lay will be a little bit more subtle.

CableFAX: That not-so-subtle Season Two finale involved Jax's baby son getting kidnapped. So does that storyline dominate Season Three?

KS: It does. And really just because our timeline of the show is very condensed. From episode to episode, more often than not it's literally a day later. So the whole season literally takes two and half weeks. The truth is that at the very least, it has to be emotionally impacting people. It's not like on "The Sopranos" where [David] Chase would come into an episode and realize that a month or two months had passed from the previous episode. I just don't tell stories that way because I feel like I would lose too much of the emotional momentum.

CableFAX: How did your experience on The Shield prepare you for being the creator and head writer of your own show?

KS: I came into that as a feature guy, writing features. I refer to that as my virtual career because nothing ever gets made. So The Shield was my first paying gig, and I really went into it kind of naïve about what it all was and how it was all going to work. I just ended up being a really good match for me. I joked that every f-ked up pitch that got studio executives very uncomfortable and wanting to call security when I was in a room pitching it-I pretty much got to use all of those on The Shield. It was just a good fit for me, and my storytelling is somewhat dark, and I love damaged characters. It was the perfect world... [The Shield creator] Shawn [Ryan] was a great mentor and let me own a little piece of that show. I loved going to work every day. I would sit back every couple of seasons with my agents and talk about, "Do I want to make a lateral move? What do I want to do?"-and there really wasn't another show that I wanted to write for or, quite honestly, would f-king have me. So I got to the point where I just wanted to finish the ride. At the end, Shawn and I were the only ones left who had been there from the beginning.

CableFAX: Do you keep in touch with Shawn?

KS: Oh yeah. We work out at the same place. I see him all the time. Shawn is still a mentor of mine. I tap into him when I have questions. He's a really decent man. So it was a great training ground for me to really find my voice as a writer. And Shawn was great in letting that happen. So when Sons came around, and I was ready to pitch it, I just knew FX was the right place to do it. We pitched it to a few places, and there were a couple of networks that really wanted it. But ultimately, I just felt like I already had a relationship [at FX] and knew the shorthand-and also that they just knew how to market that genre. And the other networks hadn't had that experience. I just knew that they just got it.

CableFAX: I'm guessing your previous experience working in TV clued you into that vs. a hot spec writer who comes in with a show concept but isn't thinking about whether the network has the marketing chops for a particular style of show.

KS: Yes, and don't forget that if you're coming in with that kind of situation, they're not going to let you run a show. So it was my experience working on The Shield. I never ran the show. It was Shawn's show. But I was in the writer's room. I had spent enough time that I understood what that process was. So for me, I knew what I was getting into.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interview with Sons of Anarchy's Kurt Sutter | Archives | Cablefax

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gritty biker drama "Sons of Anarchy" has become the highest rated show in FX's history, and that's in no small part because of the nuanced writing of creator and showrunner Kurt Sutter. Last month in L.A., Sutter sat down with CableFAX Executive Editor Michael Grebb to discuss the show and how he sees it evolving as it enters its 3rd season with tonight's (Sept 7) premiere.

# data[].attributes.headline
Close all the doors except the one you want to explore

# data[].attributes.subject
Close all the doors except the one you want to explore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ronald D. Moore is a name needing little introduction to fans of . In addition to being a series producer, he has written more than 40 episodes across three different series for the franchise, as well as co-writing two Star Trek films, Generations and First Contact. Moore spoke with Collider this week, sharing several stories from his career with . Perhaps chief among them is Moore's tale of how his Star Trek: The Next Generation script, "The Bonding", helped change the way televised Star Trek would be written for over a decade.

It was the late 1980s and Moore had left college to pursue a writing career in Los Angeles. When Moore's then girlfriend found out he was a fan of Star Trek, she used her connections to get him into the studio for a tour of the Star Trek: The Next Generation sets. "They used to have a regular set tour," Moore said. "Once a week they would take people on the Star Trek sets, because so many people wanted to do it."

With six weeks until his scheduled tour, Moore wrote a script and brought it in, where he convinced his tour guide to read it. After formal submission and months of sitting in what is known as the "slush pile", producer Michael Piller purchased Moore's script. It wasn't long before Moore would join the writing staff of TNG. "It was a very lucky, amazing break that I got. I was very young," he said. He was just 25 at the time.

The talent that Moore brought to Star Trek gave Piller an idea. Moore explained to Collider that Piller wanted to "open the gates up to the fan community and people that want to write for the show."

Star Trek now had an open script submission policy. Now, anyone could write a spec script and sign a release form to Paramount Pictures for the chance to have it produced on screen. According to Moore, the new policy led to nearly 3,000 script submissions each year. "We had at least five full time script readers who did nothing but read Next Generation scripts and then wrote up coverage on every script," Moore told Collider. Bryan Fuller, Jane Espenson and Rene Echevarria are just a few of the talented writers who found their place in the Star Trek universe through this process. Sadly, the open submission policy for Star Trek scripts was discontinued in 2001.

Throughout his career with the franchise, Ronald D. Moore has written for Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Generations and Star Trek: First Contact. Stream the full interview now at Collider.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ronald D. Moore explains how he got Star Trek's open submission policy started - Daily Star Trek News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ronald D. Moore is a name needing little introduction to fans of Star Trek . In addition to being a series producer, he has written more than 40 episodes across three different series for the franchise, as well as co-writing two Star Trek films, Generations and First Contact .