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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Follow Up

More than 76 Trombones

December 12, 2011 Follow Up

In the eight years I’ve been running this blog, I’ve had a number of popular and/or controversial posts that generated a lot of comments. But I’ve never experienced the kind of patronizing sneer that came from this weekend’s [No Trombones](http://johnaugust.com/2011/no-trombones).

If you haven’t read it, don’t look at it yet. Rather, take a sampling of the comments first.

Mike:

> Mr. August, I have been a longtime reader and supporter of your blog, and have taken everything you say as the Lord’s gospel, but I’m sorry to say that I’m staunchly opposed to this post. If you’re not playing devil’s advocate with satire, you should remove this post immediately lest it unfortunately sway some unwitting parent.

Stephen:

> You’re an idiot. My intent is not to be rude, but seriously, this is pretty narrow-minded. I don’t disagree that the piano and guitar add to one’s understanding of music, but did you even read what you wrote and how little sense it makes?

Larry:

> Your posts like this one on what we “should” or “should not” do for our children (or any other non-screenwriting-related stuff) border on laughable because of the sheer arrogance that comes through in the writing.

Some other guy:

> Are you absolutely insane? Do you understand what you are promoting? I am a drummer, mallet player, saxophone player, and clarinet player in progress. You not only have been completely insulting drummers, but you are insulting the parents of drum players.

Claire:

> Mr. August, I am sincerely sorry that you have evidently never felt the absolute joy that creating music with other people can bring to a person’s life.

CJ:

> Perhaps you should reserve your commentary until you’ve actually completed a music curriculum? Maybe then you would realize that elementary music is just that, ELEMENTARY, designed to teach kids the basics so when they get to high school they can begin to explore the nuances and subtleties of higher level music and the associated theory.

Just reading these comments, it’s pretty clear what I said in my post, right? I must have written that music education is worthless, as are all the traditional band instruments.

I probably set aside special opprobrium for percussion and marching bands.

But wait: I didn’t. At all.

I wrote:

> Kids should learn piano and/or guitar.

> Either one will serve them well throughout their lives — and if they want to learn both, hooray! If, after becoming proficient in one, older kids choose to pick up the flute or the drums or the cello, congratulations: you now have a young person with a fundamental understanding of how music works and the curiosity to explore further.

> So we’re clear: I have nothing against the other instruments. They just don’t belong in the hands of children, and they shouldn’t be anyone’s first instrument.

That’s my thesis. I get why it’s controversial, which is why the rest of the post elaborates upon it.

You can disagree with my thesis. It’s fine to argue the other side.

But I have a strong hunch that many of the folks who left lengthy comments on the post — some were more than 500 words — never read past the lede. Perhaps they never read past the tweet.

They were responding to a perceived attack on trombones, or drums, or marching bands, without bothering to read the paragraphs where I specifically talk about these things.

A few comments broke the [Living Room Rules](http://johnaugust.com/2009/living-room-rules) — don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to my face in my living room — but I let them slide because I was amused by the outrage. Ultimately, I started to wonder if the comment box had become an attractive nuisance, tempting people to over-write and under-think.

Time, place and manner
—-

Would these readers say the same things in an email to me? Would they say the same thing on their own blog post, or a Facebook update to their friends? I doubt it.

I’ve long maintained that I have the [best commenters on the internet](http://johnaugust.com/2011/best-commenters-on-the-internet), but for the past few months I’ve been questioning whether hosting comments on my site adds to discussion or hinders it by walling it off from the wider world.

If someone has something to say, shouldn’t she say it on her own forum?

Dave Nuttycombe attempts a point-by-point refutation of my “utter wrong-headedness” on his [blog](http://nuttycombe.com/blog/2011/12/10/yes-trombones/). At 2,000 words, it’s a third longer than my original post — rarely a good sign — but I respect that he has his name on it for everyone to see.

I think his post is pretty weak. Hello, Strawman:

> Consider how we adults feign delight over a child’s incoherent crayon scribbles, awarding them a place of honor on the refrigerator door. By August’s logic, we should keep all drawing instruments away from young fingers until they are somehow able to produce gallery-worthy work.

On the contrary, I argued that would should be putting musical instruments like the guitar and piano in kid’s hands as soon as possible. *They’re the crayons in Nuttycombe’s analogy,* with immediate rewards. Young sculptors start with clay before they get to steel and welding irons. That’s a good thing.

Nuttycombe also attempts an analogy with screenwriters and the rest of the film industry that doesn’t bear much scrutiny. Are gaffers the trombones of moviemaking? I’d love to see a conversion chart.

But his fatal flaw: Dissing the glockenspiel.

He’s learned nothing.

More on Archer’s odd pre-laps

December 6, 2011 Follow Up, Television, Words on the page

Having seen my post about [Archer’s semi-pre-laps](http://johnaugust.com/2011/archers-semi-pre-laps), the good folks at FX sent over a copy of Adam Reed’s actual script for the Skytanic episode I cited. (FX seems awesome. Let’s all write shows for them.)

I’d been working off a transcript, so it’s interesting to see how those scenes [actually looked on the page](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/archer_excerpt.pdf). (Complete scripts of Archer are available in the Writers Guild library, FYI.)

Some differences worth noting:

1) On the page, we see Malory’s dialogue as a true pre-lap, occurring before the cut.

LANA

Cyril! It’s not what it looks like!

MALORY (O.S.)

Well then what is it?!

INT. MALORY’S STATEROOM -- CONTINUOUS

Malory, arms akimbo, surveys the room. Signs of a struggle. Pam stands nervously over by the bed, wringing her hands. Cheryl/Carol lies face down on the bed, nude and lifeless.

To me, what’s most interesting about Archer’s technique is not exactly where the cut is falling, but the implied line that sets up the next scene. Both Lana and Pam apparently said, “It’s not what it looks like!” Malory’s line seems to answer both questions.

In other cases, the cut repeats the last thing said, but changes the context. Earlier in the episode:

LANA

Psh! Cyril?! With another woman?!

(gestures at herself)

Malory, seriously: look at me.

INT. MALORY’S STATEROOM -- CONTINUOUS

CLOSE ON Cheryl/Carol, looking up at us, eyes slightly bulged, as a man’s hands squeeze tightly around her shapely throat.

CHERYL/CAROL

Look at me! Look at and choke me!

In both cases, the writer is calling attention to the cut. It’s like a literary star-wipe. The technique works great in a heavily-stylized show like Archer, but would feel very wrong in more realistic shows.

2) In Archer scripts, vocal noises without true dialogue are written in brackets rather than parentheses:

LANA

[mortified gasp]

3) A recurring joke in the show is that Malory’s secretary keeps changing her name. I love that they call her Cheryl/Carol in the script, despite the extra typing that requires.

4) Look at what Singh is wearing:

And there is Lana, stripped back down to her bra/panties/stockings, with Singh in the background, stripped down to his Spreefs, rubbing scented OIL on his belly.

Spreefs! It’s funny and just right. Even though the viewer will never see that great word, it makes the script read better.

Scene description matters. It’s a little gift the writer gives the reader.

More on movie money

Episode -

Go to Archive

November 15, 2011 Film Industry, Follow Up, Scriptnotes

One of the many reasons I’m lucky to be married to my husband Mike is that he used to manage a bunch of movie theaters in LA, so he knows a lot about exhibition.

After listening to the Scriptnotes podcast on [movie money](http://johnaugust.com/2011/how-movie-money-works), he had some additional figures to share.

first personFilm rentals depend on various factors including length of run (the storied 90/10 split in opening week, but perhaps 30/70 in week 15) and location (“showcase” locations like Hollywood may have average film rentals around 35-40% due to studios’ eagerness to have the film at the most-visited or most-visible locations).

When I left exhibition in 2001, our average ticket price was about $6. Our film rental cost percentage was usually in the mid-50s. Assuming 55%, we paid the distributor $3.30 out of that $6 average ticket and kept $2.70.

Meanwhile, our average concession revenues were about $5 per transaction. However, only about 40% of customers bought something at concession, so the concession “per head” (analog to the average ticket price) was $2. So, revenue-wise, ticket sales were 75% of total revenues while our concession revenues were 25%.

However, concession cost of goods was about 15%, so out of the $2 concession sale per head, we paid 30¢ in expenses and kept $1.70. Given that, concession profits were 39% of the combined ticket and concession net.

Expenses are enormous, so even with super-high concession profits, exhibition was (and still is) always strapped for cash. You have a lot to pay out:

* Facility costs. This includes rent for the building, plus maintaining and upgrading furniture, fixtures, equipment.

* Staff and management payroll. Around 80% of employees were making within $1.50 of minimum wage, but you also have salaried management at both the theater and national level.

* Utilities and supplies, all the way down to soap and toilet paper.

One expense mentioned in the podcast was co-op ads. Co-ops were always a line item on our theatre P&L, and I was told that the studios placed the ad, but then charged every theatre whose name was listed in the theatre-list box below its proportional amount for the cost of that ad.

In LA, there are “showcase” theatres in the most important parts of the market (Santa Monica, Century City, Hollywood, Westwood) whose names appear larger in the co-ops, and for which actual show times are listed. Accordingly, the co-op cost to those locations is higher than for others.

Final Cut Pro updated

September 20, 2011 Follow Up, Software

Apple has [updated](http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html) Final Cut Pro X to address some of editors’ biggest concerns (XML, shared media) and now offers a free [trial version](http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/trial/). It’s worth a download.

As I noted in my [original review](http://johnaugust.com/2011/final-cut-pro-and-con), I found FCP X to be very “discoverable” — it is easy to figure out how to do almost everything:

> In earlier versions of FCP, if you didn’t know what you were doing, it was incredibly frustrating to even get started. That’s why there was a whole industry of classes and tutorials. They weren’t teaching editing. They were teaching Final Cut Pro.

Let me amend that a bit.

While you don’t *need* a class to get going in FCP X, I’d urge you to check out Ripple Training’s [terrific video tutorials](http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/final-cut-studio-courses/final-cut-pro-products/final-cut-pro-10-core-training.html) for FCP X. Having now watched 20 of the 39 lessons, I realize how much I was missing.

A few examples:

* Split edits. L-cuts and J-cuts in FCP X are so easy you keep thinking there’s another step. Once you Expand a clip (or all clips), you can drag the audio or video separately. Bumping audio clips get out of each other’s way.

* Compound clips are basically groups. If you’re familiar with design programs, you’re used to Command-G to group objects together. It’s the same idea.

* Connected clips pin to a specific frame in the main storyline, rather than floating in the timeline. It’s so tempting to fall back into thinking of stacked video clips the way they used to work in legacy FCP, but so wrong. It’s not a piano roll anymore. Everything is connected, always. Once you accept that, everything makes a lot more sense.

If I were Apple, I’d license Ripple Training’s videos and just give them away. They’re very smartly done, and would relieve a lot of the knee-jerk “It’s iMovie Pro!” responses. The app is much more sophisticated than it appears at first glance.

« 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 (73)
  • 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 (490)
  • 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.