This is one of those topics I stay pretty private on! Partially for general internet safety, and partially because I know there are some folks on here who are either from my city or the industry (or both!), and I'm trying to keep that wall of separation high.

So I won't say where I've worked or my exact titles, but it's been a mix of production companies, studios, and live entertainment (not in that order). I'll say generally how I got each job, but please keep in mind that some of these are contract/freelance, and I've spent a loooot of time out of work/looking for work. It's the way of the west in entertainment. Just something to keep in mind if you're asking with the intention of getting into it yourself. I'd say don't, but clearly I don't take my own advice 🙃

Job #1 (college job): pretty self-explanatory. My university had opportunities for students to work in production. I did.

Job #2 (internship): again, through my university. Past students had worked for this company on a rotating basis, so I rotated in when my time came.

Job #3 (first "adult" job after college): got lucky! Applied online, interviewed, was chosen

Job #4: brought in by someone at job #3

Job #5: didn't know anyone, but was brought in because of my job title at job #4

Job #6: was brought in by someone I had networked/grabbed coffee with a year prior. Played the long game, still didn't work out long-term.

Oh, I hadn't even thought about that.

Ehhhh, I don't know. I'll watch. I'll most likely share my thoughts. Undecided if it'll be live or not.

I started a new job recently (yes, I have said that a lot on here. Entertainment!) and the instability of everything has been really hard for a long time. I'm still adjusting. I'm getting home and just wanting to collapse. I'm on here less, and I'm not sure I'll be able to watch shows live. TBD what August will look like.

I think what she means is that a real reconciliation takes time.

Yeah, I think she regards them ending up in bed and a full reconciliation as one and the same. Can't blame her for that, considering if they were to have ended up in bed, that is all people would have really focused on.

Tracy has been very consistent in (1) leaving things ambiguous and (2) always making sure to bring the conversation back to how much Hailey was hurt, which is fair given the amount of work she put in to seasons 10 and 11. It almost feels like her agreeing that they end up together would cause the conversation to brush over all that, so she doesn't. I could be way wrong in my interpretation, but that's just the vibe I get from her answers.

Anyway. It could also be a case of her caught off guard by a question and doing her best to give a satisfactory answer, because I don't think she was expecting that.

Ha, I mean there's only so much space for technicalities when answering a question in an interview, right? Especially an interview for another show altogether.

I think it's pretty standard! Especially for Versant/USA Network relaunching scripted programming. It feels like a lot right now because her appearances have hit back to back to back. Upfronts, award shows, and TV festivals are all typical ways to put your talent and your show's name out there, but they just happened to fall one after the other (especially for someone like Tracy, whose professional appearances have been somewhat sporadic over the years). I would imagine they have a premiere planned for the show, as well as your typical industry rounds for interviews still to come.

Which woman would I have co-showrun or EP? There are plenty who could do the job, but I'd look at someone like Jane Raab. I know her name from Only Murders in the Buiding, but she was also EP on Blue Bloods for several seasons. If you look at her imdb, she has work that includes crime dramas (like Castle) and character-driven (like Sex and the City). I think she has a really cool resume. I don't believe she has been a showrunner before, but I do believe she has UPM experience so she's no stranger to the nitty gritty of production.

I'm pitching this as if it's reality 😂

https://x.com/i/status/2060171670053081429

Here are links to X threads from someone who was at the Anna Pigeon panel today in case you didn't see 🫶🏻

Oh I didn't, thank you! Also thanks to the OG poster, if you're on here.

So the season is based on book 1 and book 17, which is technically a prequel. Makes total sense. I'll read that after I'm done with book 2.

Interesting that they didn't use a studio or stages, but also a great way to use the setting when it's so important to the plot. OG poster, if you're on here, can you explain what you meant by "whole time a backlot"? I'm 99% sure you mean they created their sets fully on location, but this is just me being nosy.

7.5 day shoots is a pretty good pace. Being on location both helps (interior/exterior shots are more seamless, so less stop-and-go) and makes it risky (weather! sound! bears? 😭)

It's actually so nice to hear Tracy sound relieved about playing a character with more levity. I think we could all see and feel how exhausting it must have been to play Hailey in her final seasons. Love the character, always will, but I'm also happy Tracy got to step into something different that highlights her range.

Get Ryan Murphy's weird ass out of there 😭

I'd take Shonda out too, only because I feel her shows tend to lean more dramatic than I prefer (I realize this is a dumb opinion to have about drama shows, but I don't know how else to put that). I haven't seen any of Allen Macdonald's work so I'll say no to him just based on unfamiliarity. I loved what Derek Haas did with early Fire, but I don't think he was ever as involved with PD. I'll say no to him just because I think the others would craft better cases, and the man wouldn't write a happy relationship to save his life.

If we're talking the Canadian Rockies... would I visit a place with stunning landscapes, great hiking, and beautiful lakes? Yeah, yeah I would.

Maaaan I was going to expand on this technicality in the OG ask, but I got lazy. Call me out, why don't you? 😂

In an actor like Jesse's case, I'd say it depends. Sometimes he could be pitched as part of a project, sometimes he could pitch projects himself, sometimes a role could come about through connections, sometimes a role could be brought to him, and sometimes he could submit audition tapes. It depends on the role, who is making it, what stage of production it's in, and what they're looking for. Having extensive work history in TV is great and an advantage, but each production would also have to know that the actor could play the part they're casting for.

​Anna feels so natural and real, not just in her personality, but also in her relationships. I love how at the beginning she puts in the absolute minimum effort to truly connect with anyone, but as the book goes on and she realizes that (spoiler) she’s the only one who actually cares about the murder, she starts investing more time and energy into her relationships, both past and new.

​I have this habit of hyperfixating when I like something; I just want to soak up all the information I can find.

​I’ve read and watched a few interviews with Nevada Barr, but there’s one from 2008 that made me interested in her as an author, and not just as the person behind Tracy’s new project.

​She was an actress until her late 30s, became a park ranger at 37, and finally dedicated herself 100% to writing books. She talks about her writing process without romanticizing anything, and mentions how she didn't expect audiences to actually like Anna.

​I’m a little jealous because back then you could change your life without major issues; nowadays it’s a bit more complicated. But that’s a whole other story.

​If you want to read the interview, here’s the link: https://www.bookthink.com/0128/128pet1.htm

​Bookthink: An interview with Nevada Barr by Catherine Petruccione

I'm a little jealous of how she was able to change her life too because I would also love to be a park ranger if I ever stepped away from entertainment.

Lots of roadblocks though, including but not limited to underfunding of the profession and my own inability to handle prolonged exposure to heat. I'd have to head north 😂.

I am, actually!

The only uncertainty I had was really born of not knowing anything about it (and I still know very little).

I'm not sure that's something that can really be measured, especially when (if they succeed) we don't know if they're telling the truth or not.

I can say there's a number of reasons they'd choose to, including:

1. A journalist asked for information they don't gave clearance to release yet

2. They were caught off guard and didn't know how to answer or how much information to include (see #1)

3. More on the personal side, a question crossed the line between their private life and public image

I just saw your reply.

First of all, my opinion is based on the books and authors I’ve read.

I’ve noticed that authors from the '80s and '90s follow a similar pattern when writing the personality and essence of their protagonists.

Irving Wallace and Robin Cook, who both write suspense mixed with other genres, "pigeonhole" their protagonists as idealistic women who use their sexuality to gain advantages or make a point, and who have strong, ironic opinions. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that, but after reading several books by the same author or from the same era, it gets repetitive—as if that mold couldn't be broken.

Nora Roberts, a romance author, features this exact same protagonist pattern in at least one woman per series.

Even in Reader's Digest volumes, this style of writing is very easy to recognize.

And it’s not just in literature; it’s also in cinema, with protagonists from iconic rom-coms or action movies of that same era.

My theory is that they were writing for a highly idealized "woman of the future," demanding perfection. The roles of these women don't allow them to be vulnerable, make mistakes, or just be "normal" with flaws or attitudes that might not be likable.

Okay, I thought that's what you meant (though I'm happy to hear it in your words), and I agree!

I like that the book does not try to make Anna perfect, or even super charming. She's guarded and a bit abrasive, but well-intentioned. Dynamic, like many, many women actually are. It's one of the reasons I liked Hailey too. They didn't try to make her perfect, but they made her interesting and real.

It's an approach that I appreciate, even down to the physicality of it all. The book mentions her having sunspots and looser skin as she ages, and it's not written as good or bad or anything but the reality of being human. I know people involved with the show have given interviews about how they intentionally let Anna's (Tracy's) hair be unkempt sometimes and she won't be super made up, because that's the reality of a woman in her field.

In an interview, Tracy mentioned that they adapted the first two books of the series for the first season.

I'm not that fast at reading in English since Spanish is my native language, but six of the books are available as audiobooks on YouTube. If all goes well, I'll be on the third book before the series premieres.

P.S.: I don't know if you've read other authors from the '80s and '90s, but I feel there's a strong similarity in the way they wrote their female protagonists...in a really good way.

Hi!

Okay, I'm done with book one. I won't spoil any of the plot for other readers, but I'll talk a bit about how I feel.

I fully understand why the concept is ripe for TV. Crime mysteries have built-in hooks and the national park aspect makes building the world inherently interesting.

I'll try to find the Tracy interview where she talks about adapting the first two books, though that makes sense (with a slightly new setting, likely to accommodate filming in Alberta). I recognized some of the scenes from the first book in the trailer, though definitely not everything. I don't really expect the crime or resolution to be exactly the same on TV, and I expect it to be far less gruesome airing on basic cable.

As for the book, it was much more "take it or leave it" than I expected. It didn't spend a ton of time building the characters or relationships, or convincing the audience to like them. It just built the world, presented the characters, and told the story without much appeal for emotions. Not bad, but not what I expected either. I also understand that I have only read one book out of nineteen.