Cougar Town/Scrubs showrunner Bill Lawrence's candor makes you want to pry at him all day. Following a spirited TCA panel where he sat alongside peers from The Middle and Modern Family and riffed on, among other things, Conan O'Brien's liberation and Cougar Town's questionable title, I -- along with the horde of journos -- found myself racking up only more questions. For instance, would he really change Cougar Town to C. Town, as he'd mentioned offhand? Was there real benefit to doing a ninth season of Scrubs? And when is this fragmented network TV viewership going to vault a scripted series to the heights of American Idol? All of Lawrence's answers were provocative, and he also found time to wax optimistic on Conan's future.
"Cougar" is a pretty du jour handle. Were you worried, when the show aired, that viewers wouldn't look past that word's obvious connotations, which have been explored on TV with some comprehension already?
There's a hi-lo to it. The upside of Cougar Town [the title] was it got people to check out the show, and I think for the people that did, the show pretty quickly evolved into a dysfunctional family show that wasn't a bad sketch of an older woman on Saturday Night Live pursuing younger guys. The downside is I guarantee you there are still people out there who have never checked it out because of both the connotations of the word and what they think the show is. For me, I haven't decided if it's a good or bad call yet. I'm always straight-out honest. I thought, man, in this landscape, call this show something that people are going to write about. Any attention is good attention. Now I find myself going, "If I could figure out a way to change the title to C. Town," you know what I mean? So it's still branded. And could keep moving forward. So maybe someone accidentally checks it out. I can't tell you the nicest things that people like yourselves have written -- I'll read a review, we get massive packets, and I'll follow it -- and they'll say, "I was pretty predisposed to hate this, and it actually turned out to be something different." That's the upside. The downside, is I don't know if I screwed us or not, titling it that.
Would you really consider changing the title? Were you joking?
No, I'm not joking. I don't think the show is what Courteney imagined it would be anymore. She's not out trying to hook up at whatever young hottie at the moment. She's having Thanksgiving with her dysfunctional family, and she's the matriach of this big bunch of crazy characters. Maybe Courteney Town? After awhile, a title just becomes a title.
The recalibration of Scrubs has caused fans to stir. What was the biggest perk of pretty much overhauling the old set-up?
Aw, shoot, man. This is going to sound philanthropic, and it's not meant to be, but the best outcome and the main reason behind this decision -- which I'm sure people don't buy completely -- but Scrubs as a business has ceased to be profitable for me. For real, Scrubs has ceased to be profitable for me, because it's maxed out on its syndication. When it was on NBC, it cost $2 million to make, and it cost a licensing fee of $2.5, studios in profit, and of that profit I own a big percentage. When it went to ABC, because now that there's so much consolidation between networks and studios, they're able to self-deal. So part of the deal was, "We'll put Scrubs on, but even though you're going to make the show for $1.8 million, we're only going to only pay a million an episode for it." The show for the studio that year is going to lose money, lose millions of dollars. For the network it's going to make lots of money. And it was so bad that there was an argument that, by doing a ninth year of Scrubs, that the previous eight years would be worth less money to me. Like, as a studio, they're going to say to me, "We lost so much as a studio this year, we're going to take some of your money back."
That's why we wanted to change the title. We signed a legal agreement saying that Scrubs was over after eight years. And it was done. So, yeah, the ninth year isn't profitable for me. Long story [short], what was cool about it, in a tough economy where there's only 10 live-action comedies on television, a group of people -- 105 people -- all got another year working on it.
Now, following this whole Conan/Jay fiasco...
Is this 'Will I do the 11:35 show?' Because the answer is yes.
Close! Do you think this is going to force late-night's formula to change? To upgrade?
I think late night is ready to be redefined. There's not enough celebrities to go around to sit on a couch and talk about their movies for three straight hours. I think what's cool -- and generally what happens in this medium, in TV -- someone redefines it, and then you get some kind of fun avant-garde stuff, and -- and this is what could happen to multicamera sitcoms -- it makes the old comfort food seem new again, because you haven't seen in awhile. It's this cycle that perpetuates itself, you know? I need it to happen with comedy, I really want a true multicamera show to nail it, other than CBS's factory.
Who do you think serves as a beacon for this kind of change?
I don't know, man, you never expect it. Let's be honest: Jon Stewart did it first. If that were a network show, it would be successful, and it's not in the same vein as these guys. It's snarky, and it goes after the issues, and it's an equal-opportunity offender. You know? Maybe the transition to that kind of sensibility [can work] on network TV. My dad is as conservative as they get, and he tells me every night what he liked about The Daily Show.
Have we reached a point where the reign of reality TV can never be stopped? Is there a scripted comedy that can win control back?
The cynic in me says that there's no real chance anymore for the true, giant, grab-the-zeitgeist-by-the-hold monster hit, unless you are something like American Idol that appeals to all levels of age, economy, everything. Only because television, and it's exciting for writers, except from the network angle, has become a niche media. My father has 200 channels, man. He likes to watch what he likes. He watches Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives. He loves that shit. You know? When I was a kid, I knew CBS, Monday night, M*A*S*H* was on. But like, now, Modern Family, biggest breakout comedy hit of the year? When I was doing Spin City, that demo rating wouldn't have been in the top 50. And that's not a long lifetime ago. So that's the reality.
What's will revitalize multicamera sitcoms for you? Is there a particular idea that, now, would strike a nerve?
It's not about the idea. It's the exact opposite. Multicamera sitcoms are 100% about execution. When multicamera sitcoms fail, besides for obvious reasons, which is they're miscast or poorly written or there's no chemistry, there was a wave when they really started to fail -- when single-camera comedy got popular. In single-camera, you can go out on locations, and they seem more modern and hipper, and there was this wave of multicamera sitcoms -- and I think I even made a pilot that didn't work -- that were trying to be cool and hip. Like 'Hey! It's three single gals that live by themselves in a cool apartment in SoHo!' Except that there's backdrops and everyone stands around. It didn't work. "They say 'frack' and 'fudge'!" Multicamera works when it's a throwback. You look at Raymond, what CBS is doing, those are shows that could've been on TV -- albeit a little less raunchy -- 20 years before. That's what someone needs. They need that lucky chemistry of cast, decent writing, good producing. It's pure escapist entertainment. I know it still works. Two reasons, man: One, I still watch reruns and like them, as do a lot of people. Two, if you look at the highest-rated shows on cable TV, they are as traditional as a four-camera sitcom comes, when you look at Hannah Montana or Suite Life of Zach and Cody. And by the way, it's so weird, as a producer, that you hear executives go, "Man. These kids! Their attention spans! You have to feed them little bits of comedy!" Except for the millions of kids that are watching traditional sitcoms on the Disney Channel. Those kids are different.
Lawrence also weighed in on Conan O'Brien's recent displacement to a throng of reporters.
On O'Brien leaving The Tonight Show:
"It wasn't his. He deserved his shot. I would've been disappointed as a fan had he kinda walked back with his tail between his legs. I think sometimes tough decisions lead to better things, and for a lot of us, and comedy writers are all talking about this today -- if we had the balls to do the same thing -- it makes you cross your fingers and hope that, whether you're a Jay fan or not, hope that Conan finds some success and makes them pay for it... Do I believe it's the best long-term decision? Not for me, personally. It's easy to throw stones when i don't do that for a living."
On the very existence of The Jay Leno Show and its 9 PM timeslot:
"When I saw somebody that I felt was effectively trying to hurt scripted television, I felt it was so short-sided."
On whether there's a good side to the late-night fiasco:
"If there's a positive out of this, it's that network television, while it does survive, is going to survive on the basis on scripted shows. If things stand the test of time and generate a fan base, it's a good thing. As a guy who said for years that reality wouldn't work or who picks who as a date, and I've always been wrong, it's so satisfying to say, 'That's not going to work.'"