• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

John

Avoiding AD mistakes

October 5, 2005 Film Industry, QandA

questionmarkHow do you avoid the possibility of a line producer or AD misinterpreting what you wrote?

Do you get to meet with them and say, “These two characters are the same guy, I just wanted to make him a mystery in the beginning. So don’t schedule two actors for this.” Or, “This location is just a different name for INT. JIMMY’S HOUSE on page 10.”

Josh
Philadelphia, PA

Since many readers may not be familiar with the process, one of the first steps in pre-production is to break down the script scene-by-scene, making a list of characters, locations, vehicles and other production concerns. Usually, this task falls on the assistant director (AD), with a lot of input from the director and line producer, along with other department heads. The goal with a good breakdown is to have all the information nicely structured, so the AD can build a good shooting schedule.

The first rule of breaking down a script is to read through the whole thing first, so you really understand what’s going on. And most AD’s are pretty sharp, so they’ll catch these simple mistakes themselves.

But yeah, it happens.

I can’t think of a good example from features I’ve written, but on my first television show (D.C.), we ran into a couple of situations where the breakdown didn’t reflect reality.

A common mistake is not including a character who should be in a scene. It’s easy to overlook a character who doesn’t have any dialogue, and therefore has no words on the page to acknowledge his presence. (Note: If you have a character who doesn’t do or say anything in a scene, your first question should be, why is he here at all?)

From the screenwriter’s perspective, the best advice is pretty simple: introduce yourself to the AD.

This is unfortunately rare.

Since the AD spends most of her time on the set, and the writer spends almost none of his time on the set, their paths don’t otherwise cross that often. The AD’s primary relationship is with the director. She won’t think to pick up the phone and call you with a question, unless you already have some kind of rapport. So introduce yourself, and make it clear you’re on call to answer any questions, 24/7.

Once you have a relationship with the AD, she’ll ask, “Could this scene be day rather than night?” And if it doesn’t really matter, say you’ll be happy to change it. Consult with the AD about how she likes her scene numbers; there are several philosophies about how you add a scene between 94 and 95, and it’s important to be consistent.

And as soon as the first one-line schedule is published, read it. Go through the script page-by-page and make sure nothing’s been left behind.

The sky is not falling

October 1, 2005 Film Industry, Rant

To me, one of the most annoying non-stories of the summer — trumping even items involving Britney Spears — has to be the “crisis” caused by the box office slump.

For those who’ve somehow missed the articles, here’s the quick summary: weekend-by-weekend, the total box office was less than it was for 2004. This slump lasted from February until July, a total of 19 weekends. Along with the numbers, every Monday brought new speculation about just what was causing the downturn, and What It Really Meant. Could the problem be the poor state of movie theaters, the growth of DVD, the price of gasoline? Fingers were pointed everywhere, but most often at the movies themselves.

The movies stunk.

Whew! Glad we got that settled. You hear that Hollywood? You have to start making better movies! Movies people want to see!

Thank God we have the conventional wisdom. All we have to do is keep repeating it, and everything will be okay. Just this morning, the Los Angeles Times had a front-page story on the issue: [“This Just in: Flops Caused Box Office Slump.”](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/01/business/fi-boxoffice1) In the article, various studio big-wigs take responsibility for how badly the summer movies fared:

After months of hand-wringing and doomsday forecasts about the permanent erosion of moviegoing, the lunchtime chatter at Mr. Chow in Beverly Hills and other industry haunts has turned decidedly inward. Now, four straight weekends of crowded theaters have forced moguls and creative executives to admit in public what they have spent months avoiding: They were clueless about what audiences wanted.

The story has quotes from the likes of Amy Pascal and Brian Grazer. I can imagine how those conversations went:

__Journalist:__ “Would you say the slump was caused because the movies were awful?”

__Executive:__ “Umm, maybe. I guess.”

__Journalist:__ “No, seriously. _Say_ it.”

What makes this self-flagellation so annoying and unwarranted is that the “box office slump” is basically a myth. The Los Angeles Times included a chart which ostensibly shows the crisis, but in reality disproves it.

Box Office Chart

Week by week, the black line is a little below the gray line — except when it’s above it. More importantly, it tracks very closely. A more honest chart would have also included a line for 2001, which was at the time the pinnacle of box office grosses. This summer had that beat.

An analogy: Let’s say one year you have record rainfall. If you’re a journalist covering the weather, you write about how much above average it is.

The next summer, you’re back to a more typical rainfall. That’s not interesting. That doesn’t merit a story. But if you write about the “shortfall” compared to last year, well, now that’s worrying. And fallacious.

To their credit, buried deeper in the story, the LA Times writers do reveal the less-exciting truth: “Ticket sales lag behind 2004’s numbers by only 6%, with attendance off 8.7%.” Since Labor Day, the numbers have been running significantly ahead of last year, so by the time January rolls around, the year-end totals may not be very far from the $9.4 billion that movies brought in last year.

Which leaves an open question: did this summer’s movies really stink? There were some outright bombs ([Stealth](http://imdb.com/title/tt0382992/), [Bewitched](http://imdb.com/title/tt0374536/)) and some quality misfires ([Cinderella Man](http://imdb.com/title/tt0352248/)). But I think trying to correlate a quantitative measure (how much movies make) with a qualitative one (how good they are) is pseudo-science at best. Case in point: [Fantastic Four](http://imdb.com/title/tt0120667/) made a lot of money, but it won’t end up on any best-picture lists.

Let’s ask the question: What if one of the late-spring movies had made a fortune? Say, [xXx 2: State of the Union](http://imdb.com/title/tt0329774/). Just one mega-hit would have erased the supposed slump, and the week-to-week numbers would be higher. Which brings up two points:

1. Is there really an industry crisis if just one movie would eliminate it?
2. If the numbers were better, would you still write about how bad the movies were this summer?

The final apples-to-oranges comparison in the story is perhaps the most annoying. [Bennett Miller](http://imdb.com/name/nm0587955/), a talented documentarian whose first narrative film [Capote](http://imdb.com/title/tt0379725/) opens soon, is asked to comment on the state of the box office. What he says is less revealing than the fact that they asked him at all. It’s like writing a story about the auto industry and interviewing a guy who makes bicycles.

I hope Capote is great. But I’m not counting on it to save the film industry, which, for the record, I don’t think needs to be saved.

Hollywood makes some shitty movies. It always has, and always will. But trying to conflate popular sentiment with specious data does a disservice to everyone.

Being a reader

September 23, 2005 Film Industry

I’ve [written before](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/getting-a-reader-job) about being a freelance reader in Hollywood — it was my first job in the industry, as it was for many screenwriters. It’s been almost ten years since I’ve written coverage, but looking through Scott the Reader’s [own explanation](http://alligatorsinahelicopter.blogspot.com/2005/09/mailbag.html) of his job, it seems that not much has changed.

Not even the pay: $50 a script. Adjusting for inflation, that sucks.

You can read Scott’s recap [here](http://alligatorsinahelicopter.blogspot.com/2005/09/mailbag.html).

Metablogging

September 22, 2005 Geek Alert, Meta

Now that there are several screenwriter-oriented blogs, I thought I’d take a moment to examine the six-degrees of separation quality among them.

Or perhaps I just want to revel in the fact that I’m the Kevin Bacon of screenbloggers.

**★ [I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing](http://hucksblog.blogspot.com/)**

This is how I met [Josh Friedman](http://imdb.com/name/nm0295264/): When I bought my house, my agent said, “Oh, hey, Josh Friedman lives down the street. You should knock on his door or something.” Like’s it’s Mayberry. But one day while I was walking my dog, I said what the hell, and introduced myself.

As it turns out, Josh and I grew up in the same town: Boulder, Colorado. He went to the cool high school downtown, while I went to the preppy high school up on a giant hill, literally looking down on the town.

Josh and I had the same agent starting out, sort of. Mine was an actual agent. His was the young woman who [answered the actual agent’s phones](http://hucksblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/one-day-at-time.html).

Josh lives in a bigger, fancier house than mine, covered with vines. (Like Madeline!) Actual famous people grew up in Josh’s house. Honest. Meanwhile, I sold my house to [Michael Rappaport](http://imdb.com/name/nm0001650/).

My moving had almost nothing to do with Josh and his monkeys.

I suspect Josh’s blogname for me will be some derivation of Ned Flanders, pesky do-gooding neighbor. Although it’s pretty egotistical to think he’ll ever write about me. (bashfully twisting foot.)

**★ [The Artful Writer](http://artfulwriter.com/)**

[Craig Mazin](http://imdb.com/name/nm0563301/) and I have the same agent. One day, my agent says, “One of my other clients has some questions about your website. Is it okay if I give him your number?” I say sure.

Craig calls. He asks about how I set up my site. He really wants to know how I got the brad graphic to float over on the right-hand side. (Answer: voodoo.) It’s only after a few minutes of conversation that he mentions that he’s at the hospital, because *his wife is in labor.*

Now that’s dedication. Or avoidance. It’s something.

To this day, I’ve never met Craig in person.

**★ [Man Bytes Hollywood](http://www.davidanaxagoras.com/)**

I first encountered David Anaxagoras’s site through a comment he’d left on a post. Apparently, he was significantly influenced by my site, but his layout and such is actually quite a bit smarter.

In fact, I stole these quotation marks from him. I have not poached his progress bars, but that’s only because I haven’t thought of anything worth charting.

I ended up meeting David when I spoke at his screenwriting class. He’s a good guy.

As for the other screenbloggers, I have no juicy dirt to spill. I only know them by their URLs.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.