Search Results for: Scriptnotes residuals

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, it’s John. Craig uses the F-word a couple of times in this episode, so just a warning in case you’re in the car with your kids.

Craig Mazin: Sorry about that. It just happened. It slipped out.

John: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 460 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we look at adapting features into TV series and adapting to changing norms of portraying people of color and historical figures. And in our bonus segment for Premium members we’ll talk about Hamilton on Disney+ and what it means for musicals on screen. To help us with all of this we will be welcoming writer-director Justin Simien.

But first we have some industry news. Craig, what happened this last week?

Craig: So on July 1st the Writers Guild announced, that’s the Writers Guild West, in conjunction with the Writers Guild East, announced that conjointly they had reached a tentative agreement with the studios on a new three-year contract. You were on the negotiating committee. This was kind of a strange one because of the pandemic and all the rest. And I think this may have been the first in my memory, this may have been the first deal that we negotiated after both of the other two major creative unions.

John: That’s right. So in our backstory here, so as we’ve talked through the lead up to this, generally the three big guilds, the Directors Guild, Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild, each of them is negotiating a three-year contract. I forget exact expiration dates but generally the DGA goes first, SAG generally follows after the WGA. Sometimes it goes before the WGA. But our contract had actually run out and we’d extended two months because of the pandemic basically.

We started all the process of gearing up for this negotiation. So we did the survey to members. We did the pattern of demands. There was a vote on the pattern of demands. We had member meetings. And then suddenly we could not have member meetings anymore because there was a pandemic. We could not gather together.

Craig: Yeah. And a lot of people had asked me at the time when we were running up against the expiration what would happen if there wasn’t some sort of official extension. And the truth is there kind of is an implied official extension. If your collective bargaining agreement expires and there is no strike and there is no lockout, essentially the contract remains in place and is largely enforceable. There are a few things that go away like grievances and things, but mostly it extends itself.

So people were a little concerned, like wait, do residuals stop on that day? No. Everything just keeps on sort of motoring along. But what you don’t get are, for instance, increases, or any of the things that you’re hoping to get, or probably know you can get. So it’s a little bit of a game of chicken. You don’t want to extend forever. You want to get a new deal done. So, I was not particularly freaked out by that.

John: No, I wasn’t either. Things to keep in mind though is that so the pandemic, of course, meant that we could not meet in person, but also meant that all production had shutdown. So suddenly the entire town was not working, except for weirdly the writers. We were still employed. And we were still employable. And we had virtual rooms. So it was a weird situation that we were going through. And then in the middle of these negotiations, which were all happening on Zoom, we had the George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter. We had a lot of other stuff sort of happening in society. And that was impossible to ignore that these other things were happening while we were trying to negotiate a three-year contract with the studio.

So there was a lot going on is basically what I meant to say.

Craig: There was. Look, you and I know that for, I don’t know, a while now there had been a lot of talk that the writers would be going on strike. I would hear it all the time. And I just didn’t ever think we would. It just didn’t seem – this was before COVID, before the world started to turn upside a little bit. It just didn’t seem likely to me. I didn’t quite understand why everyone was freaking out. Maybe I’m just naïve. But it didn’t seem like it was going to be a strike situation. It really didn’t seem like it was going to be a strike situation once the DGA and SAG had already cemented the pattern in place.

So, I was not surprised by this. I think some people were. Nor was I surprised particularly by how it all worked out. It kind of seemed to me like it worked out the way I expected it would.

John: I would say it didn’t work out quite the way I expected it would. So, and again, perspectives in terms of like who we’ve been talking with and sort of which rooms we’ve been in, but let’s go back and talk about sort of the strike idea, or the strike threat. Because in our last negotiation, the 2017 negotiations, there was a strike authorization vote that happened. And that’s one of the things that unions do when they are in a negotiation to show like, hey, we actually will – we would step out. We would stop working if this were to happen. Much harder I think to play that card when the entire town is shut down.

Craig: Yeah. That’s true. Although I’m happy that we couldn’t play that card because I don’t really think we should be playing that card the way we do. First of all, I don’t think it comports with our constitution. But also I’m just – we had gone through this last time and I was like on record I am not doing this whole – even if I don’t want to strike I have to vote yes for a strike. I’m not doing it anymore. It’s just crazy. We shouldn’t be in that business of just constantly asking our members to vote for something they don’t want just so that it won’t happen, and then it happens. I’m glad.

We do have to figure out how to have a reasonable strike threat without taking that vote. I think we did in 2001. We did a really good job of pushing it right up to the brink. We didn’t have a strike authorization vote, but it sure seemed like it was inevitable. And then at the last minute a deal was worked out.

John: So let’s recap what the issues were going into this, pre-pandemic, sort of what was on the table. So, for a change it wasn’t about the health plan. The health plan is actually funded and fine. We knew that the DGA had taken a rollback on residuals for TV syndication, so that was a thing that was going to be pushed at us. We talked a lot about pension and keeping our pension funded, so that we actually can pay what’s being owed to writers.

We talked a lot about streaming and SVOD, specifically residuals for streaming and SVOD. The idea that if your show is a massive hit for Netflix or for Amazon your residuals should reflect that. And right now they don’t. We talked about getting rid of the reduced rates that studios can pay for writers, newer writers, so there’s a new writer discount. There are trainee rates, which mostly go to underrepresented class of writers, minority writers, Black writers.

We talked about teams and the way that – writers are the only group in this industry where two people are sharing one salary and in sharing one salary there’s some real inequities that happen there, in their rates and also how things are calculated for pension and for health.

Comedy and variety, so when we had Ashley Nicole Black on the show talking about how if you’re writing on one of these talk shows, like late night talk show that’s for a steamer, there aren’t even minimums. There’s not residuals. It’s all sort of a wild free for all.

In feature land, because Craig and I focus on this, there was a proposal for a theatrical residual for foreign distribution. So essentially the same way that when an American TV show is shown overseas we get residuals for that. Shouldn’t we get residuals for an American movie that is showing overseas?

We talked about a second step for screenwriters. This has been a thing that Craig and I have been hammering on for years and years. The idea that especially writers who are being paid less than a certain percentage of minimum, or certain double of minimums, that you need to guarantee them a second step. They are the most vulnerable feature writers and they are being exploited in one-step deals.

Craig: Yeah. Generally speaking I think all these things are important. The guild has to figure out what their priorities are and what is more getable than others. I just want to mention that pension was a real issue. I mean, you all saw that. Somebody should be apologizing to Nick Kazan who went out on a limb and made a very strong statement during the last election that our pension was in trouble. And I believe he got just a ton of anger about that and denial. There was just like official Writers Guild denial that the pension was in trouble. And he was right. The pension was in trouble. And somebody should apologize to him for that.

And I’m glad that we were able to address it because the guild essentially has two major moral obligations as far as I can tell. One is to the emerging writers and one is to writers who are in the sunset of their life, because that’s when we need the care the most – when we’re coming up and when we’re on our way out, not to be too grim about what it means to be a retiree. I’ll be there soon enough.

The feature thing is obviously – it just hurts. And we are either going to be in a situation where we keep kicking that football down the field and punting forever, or we make it a point of saying that that is now the priority and it’s more important than other things like the every three years improving the payments and rates and terms for television writers. We’re just going to have to do it or not. Right? But right now we are on a pretty much a 25-year streak of nothing for screenwriters specifically.

And so I don’t know what to say. Certainly I’m going to be voting yes on this contract. I think most reasonable people would. But I just don’t know what else we can do internally, other than to continue to encourage screenwriters to run for the board. I know Michele Mulroney is a big advocate for screenwriters. I’m glad she’s there in the room.

John: She was co-chair of the negotiating committee.

Craig: And I hope she keeps pushing this. I know she wants it. I know that.

John: So you were saying the guild has a specific focus on writers at the beginnings of their careers, emerging writers, writers at the end of their careers. Another area which was on our pattern of demands was paid parental leave which is a real crux point there because for many writers it’s the moment at which they have to decide am I going to continue a writing career or am I going to have a family.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And so one of the sort of real breakthroughs I think of this negotiation was for the first time, for the first guild ever, we have a paid parental leave which is entirely funded by studio contributions. It’s 0.5% of writer’s earnings go into a fund that pays for paid parental leave. It’s worth $30 million over three years. No one else has it. I genuinely believe DGA and SAG have to get it for their next round. I think it could be groundbreaking for writers, especially women, who feel like they have to choose between a family and a writing career.

Craig: Yeah. No question. This is definitely of greatest value to us because it supports women continuing in the workplace. We know that just because of the nature of the way birth works that parental leave accrues to the benefit of women in the more immediate and important way. And because – I’m not sure if it ever will carry over quite the way it has for us to the DGA and SAG, because the nature particularly in television is that it is a Monday through Friday gig. You show up, if you’re in a room and you work and you go home. Directing, there is no ability to take leave in the middle of a movie as a director. It just doesn’t work financially. And the same goes for actors. It’s going to be much more difficult for them.

I’m not saying that they deserve it any less. It will just be much more difficult for them to get.

John: Craig, I think you’re misunderstanding it though. This is actually – it’s fully portable. So I think a feature writer is in much the same situation as a director. And a feature writer will be able to use this because the money that has been socked aside from this is going to go to them. So, you know, while you may not be leaving your exact job the way that someone who is working as an executive at Disney would leave to go on parental leave, when the time comes and you are not taking work because your job is now to raise a newborn you will be able to use it.

So the fact that it applies not just to TV writers but to all writers, to comedy/variety writers, is crucial.

Craig: Of course. Absolutely. I think, no question. I wasn’t questioning whether or not it applied to all writers. And I’m glad it does. I’m just suggesting that it’s going to be harder for the DGA and SAG to get it. But I hope they do.

But, no, I’m thrilled that we got this. I think it’s incredibly important. And it is going to make it easier for us to improve our parity, well, we don’t have parity statistics, but will improve our statistics and help push them toward parity, particularly in gender. So this was a big win for us and I’m thrilled that we have it.

John: Cool. Let’s wrap this up by saying the things we did not get, which I think are still really important. That sense of tiered residuals or some way of recognizing that if something is a giant hit for Disney+, like Hamilton, it should be paying out more in residuals than something that is not a hit. And there needs to be some way to recognize that and to pay that.

Craig: You’re talking about like elevations of the formula itself?

John: I’m saying elevations of formula or an actual true formula. How often something is streamed impacts how much a writer gets in residuals?

Craig: Well, there’s not connection whatsoever to the amount of showings? It’s just a flat number?

John: It’s essentially a flat number?

Craig: Isn’t there a formula with [imputions] and [unintelligible].

John: No. So right now the way in which you figure out how valuable something is is kind of an internal calculation based on the market value of the thing. But it doesn’t actually make sense when Netflix is making something for Netflix. They’re not selling it to anybody else.

Craig: Got it.

John: And so there’s no transparency.

Craig: They’re self-made stuff. And there is no transparency. We know that. And this is – this is a really tough nut to crack. Because even if you come up with a tiered plan you have to rely on their numbers. Because there is no Nielsen. There’s no ticket sales. There’s no box office. I mean, Netflix repeatedly says that people watch their shows. It’s some number that’s absurd. It’s just like, “Yeah, 400 billion watched our latest—“

No they didn’t. No they didn’t. They have their whole like, oh, they watched it for two seconds. But then in reality they’ll come back to you and say, “Oh yeah, no one is watching it.” I don’t know how they – how do you get that without transparency from them?

John: But the reason why this is so crucial just to wrap this up is that as more and more stuff goes streaming first, as what we consider theatrical features are made streaming first, this matters. Because the future of residuals is going to be on streaming. And so we need to make sure that residuals actually make sense on streaming.

Craig: Look, this battle is hugely important. And this is a battle that will cover both feature writers and television writers.

John: 100%.

Craig: Because right now I’m looking around, I’m not seeing theaters even open. And when this ends I don’t know what that looks like. And I also don’t know – I don’t think any of us really truly understand the economics that the studios are currently contemplating. The cost of putting Hamilton on Disney+ is vastly lower than the cost of putting it in theaters. Vastly lower.

Now, are they losing out on ticket sales? No question. Do they make it up in subscriptions and subscription retention?

John: Maybe?

Craig: I don’t know.

John: I don’t know.

Craig: I don’t know. But what I do know is if things continue to go the way they are, I mean, even prior to COVID Netflix had no problem making movies for Netflix that just stream. So, yes, we need to figure out that formula. And that will be a strike issue. And that’s something that we’re going to have to – I would love if we could somehow talk to DGA and SAG about that, too.

Foreign theatrical is probably not as big of a deal. I don’t that that’s – for me, personally is much of a – that feels a little bit like arguing over a somewhat sun-setting thing.

John: Just to help the Deadline Hollywood headline writers who are going to say, “Craig Mazin: We must strike.” All right.

Craig: [laughs] Well, I’ve always said [Wannsee] and we have to strike over something. They really need to look carefully at that. But I also do think at some point we are going to have to as a union collectively, and I’m talking to television writers now, do for feature writers what feature writers have done over and over for television writers.

John: I would also want to include comedy and variety folks in there as well. We think we get the short end of the stick. They get no stick at all.

Craig: They get no stick at all. So I think we should concentrate on the no sticks and short sticks people in our next go around. But for this go around I think that you, your committee, the guild pretty much did the best they could. I don’t see, I mean, just because I’m disappointed that certain things aren’t there, well, duh. I mean, I guess if we’re not disappointed then we really under-asked, right?

John: Yeah.

Craig: But this seems like a pretty solid deal. And pretty much what I imagined it would be. And we should all vote yes and get back to – well, keep working I guess.

John: We’ll keep working. All right. Now for the marquee attraction of this podcast. Justin Simien is a writer-director whose credits include Dear White People, which won the US Dramatic Special Jury Award for breakthrough talent at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival. In 2017 his television series based on the film debuted on Netflix. Now two seasons in it’s received a notable spike in attention given the protests and national conversation about race and racism in America.

His follow up feature, Bad Hair, debuted at Sundance in January, which feels like a century ago. Justin, welcome to the show.

Justin Simien: Hey, thanks. Good to be here.

Craig: Great to have you on, man.

John: It is a pleasure. So, where do we find you today? Describe your surroundings as we’re recording this.

Justin: I am Skyping from lovely Los Angeles where coronavirus is everywhere. And, yeah, where I’ve been just sort of working out of my house, you know, since February like everybody else.

Craig: You’re nesting. You’re nesting. We’re all nesting.

Justin: Absolutely.

Craig: Which I like. Yeah.

John: It’s a good instinct. So, let’s talk a little bit about your background. So you are a film school person, is that correct? We get so many questions on the show about like, “Hey, should I go to film school?” People who are in high school or people who finished college and thinking like, oh, should I go to film school. You are a film school person. I am a film school person. Tell me about your film school experience.

Justin: Wow, I’m a film school person, guys. You know, it was interesting. I have to say I figured out what kind of storyteller I needed to be/wanted to be in high school because I had the fortune of going to a performing arts high school. I studied theater. What was I called? I was a theater major with a musical theater emphasis. And truly if it wasn’t for that experience I don’t know what I would be, where I would be, how I would be. And so for me college was actually a little bit more like a high school in that there was certainly a film school component to Chapman University, but there were also other schools there. And there were other kinds of folks there. And there were quite a few people who had grown up and spent their whole lives in Orange County and had never met Black people before.

So it was a little more I would cliqued than my actual high school experience. But, the thing that I really loved about the Chapman film school is that, you know, there’s really this emphasis on making things from day one. You’re not sort of learning theory. I was making short films right away. And they were probably really terrible and I haven’t watched them in a long time. But it felt so great to be able to, you know, apply what I was learning kind of immediately.

And I think there’s a lot of stuff that I learned. There’s a lot of stuff that I’m realizing I didn’t learn in film school that has become essential to me.

Craig: Oh, well, let me stop you there. Because I’m not a film school guy like you two fancy lads. So I’m kind of curious what are the things, and I would imagine people who run film schools should be curious about this – what are the things you didn’t learn that you maybe think you should have, or at least film schools could do better?

Justin: Well I think film schools, well, I don’t know if this is true for all film schools, but it feels like it’s all about preparing folks for a certain kind of job. You know, you’re taught single protagonist storytelling. The things that I learned were very focused on like how to fit within Hollywood’s existing framework, which I think is valuable and interesting and helpful, but is incredibly limiting, too.

Specifically when we talk about cinema history, specifically Black people and African-American sort of contributions to not just Hollywood but cinema history in general are almost completely ignored. You maybe get like a conversation about Blaxploitation but like, you know, when everyone learns about Birth of a Nation we all watch the movie or we all watch clips on that. We discussed in great detail how D.W. Griffith invented cinema language and editing and cross-cutting and all of these things. And everyone is very careful to parse out the egregious racism in that film from its cinema techniques.

But then no discussion is ever given to the fact that that actually begins the independent film movement in America because, you know, Black Americans were so outraged by that film that you have the rise of someone like Oscar Micheaux who actually creates an entire Black Hollywood system, with its own stars and its own theater chains and all this stuff.

And this is stuff you just kind of have to find out in life if ever. And it’s actually like essential knowledge. This is actually the framework, the groundwork, for independent cinema as we know it. And of course independent cinema is what I’ve been operating in since I got my break.

Craig: It’s fascinating I think the general perception in let’s just call it the hegemonic culture in the United States is that universities and higher education is a hotbed of Marxist hyper-progressive thinking. And in fact the more I talk to people the more it seems that at least in a lot of these institutions things are fairly regressive. I don’t really understand. I mean, I’ve got to be honest with you, just as a side note about film school. A lot of people bring up Birth of a Nation. It’s been brought up a lot lately. John, have you ever seen Birth of a Nation?

John: I’ve never seen Birth of a Nation. So it only adds a thing that people talk about rather than an actual thing to watch.

Craig: Let me go on record here for a second. Birth of a Nation sucks. And I understand that people, like why they study it, because it was the first one. But it sucks. It’s sort of like let’s all study the first sandwich that was ever made. It was one stale piece of break that was folded over a shitty piece of meat, but look, a sandwich was born. Well who gives a shit?

Yes, OK, so he created these things. But it doesn’t matter. We all know what those things are. It seems like such a pointless exercise. And it’s a boring, overlong film. And the heroes are the Klan. It’s just stupid. I don’t know why anyone is bothering with it. Here, you want to summarize the value of Birth of a Nation? Let me teach you what cross-cutting is. There, that’s what it looks like, in 4,000 other movies since Birth of a Nation. Who gives a damn?

So, anyway, that’s just my rant on Birth of a Nation. I don’t understand why film schools are so obsessed with this boring, crappy thing. It just sucks. Come at me Birth of a Nation stans.

Justin: I know.

John: Send your emails to ask@johnaugust.com

Justin: A very controversial statement.

Craig: Yup. I’m out there.

John: But before you got into that rant I think you were asking why film schools and the Hollywood studio system are so regressive or so traditional and they are institutions. It’s basically they have a gatekeeper function. They classically have had that. And for people who were excluded from that system you have alternative systems that rise up. Just like we have alternative press and alternative newspapers, you had alternative films and independent films. And that’s what I think Justin is signaling that we have not been paying nearly enough attention to the history of independent film. We’ve only been paying attention to the history, the line that goes from Birth of a Nation through Casablanca up through, you know, Jaws.

Craig: Or when we do look at independent film we’re looking at our single, typically white male hero directors. That’s kind of the ‘70s worship of the guys that came in from USC and all that.

Justin: And those guys are great, you know. But the truth is that that kind of – these pockets of filmmakers exist all over the place and exist all over the globe. They exist in every race and every gender. But it’s only a certain grouping of them that we talk about.

And this is something that I deal with in the show Dear White People because the Ivy League that the kids attend in Dear White People is meant to sort of be an analogy for America or for imperialism or whatever. But the thing is all colleges are kind of based around this Ivy League system, at least in America. And the Ivy League system really came out of specifically preparing white, I believe Protestant men to be a part of the American workforce.

And so even though we’re moved from those days, college is really just about preparing a person to become a product. You are–

Craig: This is so good.

Justin: You are preparing to establish your market value. This is what I deserve to earn as a filmmaker. And so things that college is particularly concerned with is what the market is already looking for, what it already demands. You’re looking really to figure out how to fit yourself in a can of soup so that it can appear on the proper shelf. And I think that that knowledge is important and is interesting, but it isn’t like sort of the same as like, you know, knowledge in general. It isn’t the same as art and conversation and dialogue. These are things that happen in a culture and a society actually all over the place and in ways that might surprise people and are unexpected and don’t sort of fit neatly into a curriculum.

So, I really enjoyed film school. It was kind of like an escape. It was a way for me to get out of Texas and just sort of make movies every day and have that be normalized. But, a lot of what I needed to learn to sort of become the filmmaker that I am I had to figure that out on my own. I had to go find that stuff.

Craig: I fell into your discussion of higher education like a cold man going into a nice warm bath. That is so – I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air it is to hear somebody talk about the higher education industry the way you just did, because it’s so spot on. I mean, the Ivy League tradition was originally meant to educate the wealthy sons of wealthy captains of industry so that when they took over the business they had some, I don’t know, general understanding of just well-rounded liberal arts and weren’t just kind of narrow dumb-dumbs.

And what we’ve ended up with, you’re exactly right, is a system where we actually before you get to college you are already a product that is being analyzed and tested and tested and tested. And the purpose of the testing is to get into a school. The school does nothing more than prepare you ultimately, I mean, what do Ivy League schools really prepare you for? I went to one. So I can tell you. To go work on Wall Street. That’s what they prepare you for.

I had no interest in that. So, I don’t know why I went there. This is a great – we should have a whole other discussion, like a very radical discussion about higher education on another time, because I’d love to dig into that. But obviously we have many other things to talk to you about.

Justin: We do. But just really quickly I have to insert like a really—

Craig: Go for it. I love it.

Justin: Something that just came up, because we research a lot every single for Dear White People and I was researching the admission standards and how that works. And not only was the goal of the initial Ivies to prepare white Protestant men to lead what they felt was going to be a new empire, the American empire. But specifically it was designed to weed out in this country at that time Italians, Jews, Black people, women, you know, everyone else so that they couldn’t sort of take the reins of this new empire. It was a way to make sure that only a certain sect of people would get to lead it.

Craig: It’s a weird thing. It is a weird thing. When you start to look back at how recent this was not just like an implied bias or a secret bias but just an open policy. Open.

Justin: In fact, it was created to enforce the bias.

Craig: Correct. I mean, we have a world where Einstein is teaching at Princeton and is generally considered the smartest man in the world and the father of the nuclear bomb that helped us win WWII, blah-blah-blah. And there is still a strict quota on Jewish students at that time at Princeton. Anyway. And by the way, no women. And Black people…what?

Justin: Oh please. No, Black people – you know, this idea of systemically taking Black people out of the history of various things, that really begins in WWII because they felt like the general public couldn’t take the idea that there were Black people fighting in the war, but what we were fighting was white supremacy. Like wasn’t that what we were fighting? Weren’t we trying to end fascism?

John: Who is the white supremacist actually?

Craig: Their white supremacy has a crazy costume, so that’s bad. But ours…

Justin: And so instead of going into it let’s just remove them from it. So that’s why you don’t see any Black people in WWII. That’s why you don’t see any Black people in the history of cinema ever talked about before the ‘70s.

Craig: Right.

John: All right. Let’s get back to your university setting. So can you talk us through the decision to do Dear White People as a feature, the original feature you made, and then the decision, let’s transition into making it into a TV series? So the initial idea for Dear White People as a feature. Where did that come from?

Justin: I was sitting in college after one of many very funny conversations between the few Black people that went to Chapman. I was in the Black Student Union. And I was just having a conversation with a friend about how funny is it that like for certain Black folks, you know, we will tolerate all kinds of personalities because we like need each other in a way that’s different. And we just had this conversation about friendship and race that was like why isn’t this kind of conversation in a movie. I of course adored Spike Lee and Robert Townsend and John Singleton and Charles Burnett and sort of the Black filmmakers that came out of the late ‘80s/early ‘90s. And I loved that, it’s probably problematic to say it now, but I guess it was then so I can say it. I was super into Woody Allen. Dun-dun-dun.

And like–

Craig: That’s all right. That’s OK. They’re movies.

Justin: Sort of like dialogue-laden, talky, articulate comedic satires. And I felt like I wanted to do that, but I wanted it to be new and fresh and speak to something that wasn’t being talked about. And what I felt at the time was that there really wasn’t anything in popular culture that was reflecting specifically my Black experience of being a Black person among mostly, vastly white people. Yes, I had my sort of community of Black people and Black friends, but most of time was navigating a very white world and having to cross in between those two things. I felt like that was an experience that I was having that all of my Black friends are having but yet none of us had a movie or a TV show that reflected that.

And so that’s really where it came out of. And at that time I just really knew that I loved multi-protagonist movies. It was like the one thing that no one at film school seemed interested in teaching me how to write or make. But I knew that I loved them and I loved Altman and I loved Do the Right Thing. And I loved Election. And Fame. These movies that nobody is right. And it’s not about consolidating around one particular point of view. It was about challenging the status quo from a bunch of different points of views.

And even though I didn’t really have language for all of that at that time I knew that my first movie had to be in that kind of world. And so ever since I had the idea to do that I really, you know, I spent years and years just sort of really self-educating myself how to write something like that. And in doing that it just became obvious to me that like within an hour and 40 minutes I could tell this story. But if this were ongoing somehow, if this were a series, and again in 2005 when I first started the idea of something like Dear White People being on television was laughable.

Craig: Right.

Justin: I mean literally it was unheard of. Nobody thought that that would ever happen. But in my imagination I thought, boy, this would really make for a great show. And I was inspired specifically by the MAS*H becomes a show. You know, Altman who is sort of a master of multi-protagonist cinema. It was already in my head. So by the time it started to come up it really wasn’t a decision. It was like do I want to pay rent and follow this opportunity to make Dear White People a show, or do I want to spend another eight years trying to get another movie made. So I picked the one that paid my rent and allowed me to keep going.

John: Justin, I want to stop you there on your decision to write the script while you were in film school. The idea that like, OK, this is a movie that I want to see that doesn’t exist but I want to see. And I think a message we keep trying to get out is that, you know, people ask us what you should write and we always say like write the movie you wish you could see. And it sounds like it’s exactly, Dear White People was exactly the movie you wish you could see because it did not exist out there. And you would have bought tickets for the very first showing, the very first day if it did exist. And so you had to make that movie. Is that fair?

Justin: I think that’s fair. And I think that’s a really important thing to stress because I think what we’re all taught, not only in film school but in film books and just by popular culture in general that like the most important question to ask is who is your audience. Who are the strangers that you’re sort of pouring your guts out for? And let’s make all of our creative decisions based on that hypothetical.

Whereas I always bought that, because I was like well I actually want to make things for me because I fucking love cinema. Like I will drink cinema’s dirty bathwater. I love it so much. And so what I want to see is a valid thing to bring into the equation because I’m not getting, you know, me as a gay, Black lover of cinema I’m getting hardly anything that’s geared specifically to me. It’s always an adventure from the outside in, you know, when I watch movies. And specifically when I watched the movies that people say are the great ones and the ones to watch. Like I’m having to look from outside a window into usually a very white life that Black people hardly ever show up in.

Craig: Well it’s described as this empathy gap where people who are in marginalized communities, in your case Black, gay, you are forced by culture to witness straight and white over and over and over to the point where if you’re going to appreciate what are an enormous amount of brilliant cultural works, you have to find a way to empathize with that culture. That culture doesn’t necessarily have to find a way to empathize with you. Right? Because they don’t have it. And, in fact, when you ask them to empathize with the other they really seem to struggle.

And what I find so interesting about the way you’re describing your relationship to the audience is that you have combined what you have taken in and who you are and then you say I want to make something that I’m passionate about that has a purpose. There’s sort of a purposeful self-expression. And I will argue over and over again until I expire that if you have a personal expression that is unique to you, meaning you’re not copying other people, right, so you’re not cynical, and you are not concerned with hitting a target. You’re simply expressing a concept that you believe hasn’t been expressed in this way and could not be expressed by anybody else like you can do it. If you have that, plus talent, then the audience will show up. Right?

So that’s like the old joke of like how do you avoid paying taxes on a million dollars. Step one. Get a million dollars. Right? So you definitely need talent. But there are a lot of talented people who don’t really get – look, for whether or not, people can argue about what my talent level is, but coming out of this very middle class kind of workday ethic background that I did my attitude was you work the jobs they give you. And that was where I was. And that’s where I was for a long time.

You were clearly and are clearly a braver person than I was. And it’s for the better. If you have talent – I mean, that’s obviously the key, then you trust it. You will essentially create the audience for the work that you do.

Justin: Yeah. I mean, I think that that that’s true. But I also think that for somebody like me, specifically Black, gay, it isn’t a given that an audience will show up. You know, there are so many brilliant storytellers who are braver than I am frankly and who are really out there, you know, doing something that popular culture is not ready for. But because they are a woman or because they’re gay or because they’re something other than straight white men audiences don’t find it. And people don’t champion it.

And I think my bravery, if you could call it that, really comes from a sense of urgency. A sense that like if I don’t do this and if I don’t take this chance and if I don’t sort of make the loudest version of this thing I will be completely ignored. You know? It’s sort of like there’s a pressure there.

You know, Dear White People is not the only thing I came up with. Dear White People is not the only thing I was thinking of in 2005 when I started writing it. But I knew that it was the one that had to come first because it was loudest. It doesn’t feel courageous in the moment. It actually feels quite terrifying. But I appreciate that it reads as brave. [laughs]

Craig: Well, you know, you can’t be brave if you’re not scared. Right?

Justin: That’s very true.

Craig: Bravery is action in the face of fear, I think.

Justin: That’s absolutely true.

John: Well, Justin let’s talk about the actions you took in that face of fear. What were the steps from I have this idea, I’ve written this script, to actually we’re rolling cameras and we’re finishing a film? What was the process of getting from idea to there’s a movie that can debut at Sundance?

Justin: Well, for me the process was really about motivating myself to do the work. There was a tremendous amount of work to do for Dear White People. One, I had to learn how to write it. I had to learn how a multi-protagonist film works. Because they don’t work in the same way that a single protagonist film works. And the kind of obvious thing of like, oh, it’s just like a single protagonist film but with many protagonists. It actually doesn’t answer a lot of questions. And it’s a really easy thing to get lost in.

And so part of my process was to watch everything that was multi-protagonist first and foremost. And then watch everything that felt like issue-driven. And whether or not it felt like Dear White People tonally, whether or not it was a comedy, I needed to get into my DNA the way these movies operate because, you know, something like Do the Right Thing for instance, you know, Mookie is technically the protagonist but he actually isn’t the one that breaks us into act two. It’s actually Buggin Out that breaks us into act two by bringing up the brothers on the wall.

But then it’s Mookie who breaks us into act three, but [unintelligible]. So just like little things like that, having to sort of – you know, what are the rules here? And so that was actually a really wonderful process. And then the other part I’ll be honest is I watched the Star Wars documentary Empire Dreams countless times because what George Lucas was trying to do with that film was also to make something he wanted to see but that did not yet exist and in fact really nobody, even the studio up until the day before release, nobody believed in that project.

Craig: They let him have the rights to the merchandise. [laughs]

Justin: Oh yeah. And I think they put it in two theaters or something. It’s like no wonder it’s a blockbuster because it’s only playing on two blocks. I needed those stories and I read a lot of biographies just to know that I belonged in the room. Because the self-doubt is crippling, I think for anybody trying to break into this industry or be an artist.

But especially for me because I was trying to say and do things that frankly I had no indications that I would be allowed to do.

Craig: Love it.

Justin: So there was a lot of that. And there was a lot of table reads. There was a lot of self-prodding. Self-given deadlines. Forcing myself to, OK, I’m going to figure out this plot problem this week. I’m going to table read with this group of friends by this month. You know, that kind of thing just went on for years and years.

John: But at what point did you have – there’s a budget, there’s a schedule, we’re actually going to make the movie? What was the transition point from this is a script that I’ve written to this is a movie I’m making?

Justin: So around 2011 we had a table read and I felt like people got it. I felt like people were picking up what I was putting down. And there was a conversation after that table read that was exactly – that’s how I knew that the script was in a place where I felt it was ready to be produced because people were having the exact conversation that I wanted people to have in the lobby after seeing the movie.

And so I made a concept trailer, because I mean there was just absolutely no – there was no market for what I was doing at that time.

John: Let me push back against that. It wasn’t that there wasn’t a market, because we actually know there was a market because the movie did really well. But there wasn’t an obvious prior to say like, oh, an audience will show up for this movie. You had no evidence of that.

Justin: The movie did OK. But it was, you know, I remember sitting with my agents and these people who were very passionate about me and my career and the movie were like, “So just so you know, 90% of all independent financiers we actually won’t even be able to go out to because they won’t even look at the package because it’s a Black ensemble”

So, yeah, it was like really I didn’t have any clue how to get the movie made. So, I just took whatever next step was available. And I felt like, wow, we should make a concept trailer so that people can get what this is. Because on the page it’s multi-protagonist. It doesn’t read like a script that a reader would expect to receive. You know, some readers, particularly white male readers were incredibly offended by aspects of the script. And so I made this concept trailer so that people could see it and get a feel for it. And that went viral online. And instead of at the end of that trailer “coming soon” it would say, you know, “Don’t you wish there were movies like this? Me too. Give us some money and maybe we can make that happen.”

And we raised about $45,000 and we were able to hire a casting director. And essentially we made YouTube videos about the making of this movie until a bigger financier eventually maybe a year and a half later came onboard to properly finance the film at about a million dollars. And, you know, because of the virality of that original clip we were, you know, there was a studio that was interested for a while and then they dropped us. And then spread a story that I had dropped them. It was all of this BS like political stuff going on.

But the net result was the movie wasn’t getting made. And then a year and a half in, because we had built this fan base online, and then we were continuing to water it and foster it, you know, this financier, Julie Lebedev, who also financed my second film, Bad Hair, I mean, she was just like, “You guys have an audience before there’s even a movie. Like let’s do it. And can you do it for $1 million?” And I said I don’t know, but I know that I’d rather try than not. And that’s exactly what happened.

We went to Minneapolis because they had a rebate program called Snow Bate that had just come back. We landed and looked at the University of Minnesota and we were told, well, you know, if you want to shoot here, and at that point in time it was the only college in the nation that we conceivably had a timeframe that we could shoot at. They said, “Well then you need to start in two weeks.” And that’s what we did. We hunkered down. I started casting. And all of a sudden we were making a movie.

Craig: I just love this so much. I love stories like this because it just shows a certain kind of indomitability and an impossible persistence is required.

Justin: Yes.

Craig: It also – I think it also goes to the heart of this very strange paradox. I think people think that studio productions are all about minimizing risk and independent film financing is the riskiest proposal of all. It’s actually backwards. Most independent film financing is the most cowardly kind of financing. They only way they’ll give you that financing is if they can do foreign pre-sales which make them make money before you even start shooting.

Justin: Absolutely. Absolutely. And foreign pre-sales work on specifically white star talent.

Craig: Yes. White and generally male star talent. And that system is, I mean, we have a certain kind of wonderful racism here in America. There’s a very old classic racism overseas. It’s a different kind. It’s a different vintage.

Justin: Nostalgic racism.

Craig: Yes. Yes. And it is very much their theory is that “Black movies do not travel.” I mean, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this. And we know for a fact that it’s not true. We know that.

Justin: We know it – it is proven untrue constantly.

Craig: Constantly.

Justin: And yet it’s still the paradigm. And so when people talk about how does racism persist, it’s like it’s not necessarily even an attitude. It’s not like – there maybe, but I don’t envision this hidden meeting of all the independent financiers and they’re like, “How do we keep the Blacks out?” Like it’s not like that. But when there’s these informal rules in place that’s essentially what we’re doing.

Craig: Yeah. There’s a received wisdom. And then every time a movie with a – let’s just say a significantly Black cast or a predominantly Black cast, or a movie about issues pertaining to Black people or race does well overseas they just say, “That’s the—“

Justin: “The exception.” Yeah.

John: The exception that proves the rule.

Craig: The exception. It’s an exception that proves the rule. Well, if every single exception is an exception then they’re not exceptions. It just happens so often.

Justin: It does.

Craig: First of all, hat’s off to the financier who was bold enough to say, “You have an audience. That’s all I need. I don’t need to be repaid by Spain, France, Germany, Italy before you can roll film.” I mean, to me that’s what independent film financing should be. So that’s good for her.

Justin: Well I think that’s great about Julie is that she would like that, but she recognizes that it’s wrong that that isn’t happening for certain kinds of stories and I think Julie is in the business of making – of proving markets that haven’t been proven by other people. And certainly with Dear White People and then again with Bad Hair, I think we’ve been able to do that.

John: Now, so you made this feature. It gets a great reception. The decision to go and make this as a TV series, in some ways it seems kind of obvious because when you have a multi-protagonist story, well, TV is multi-protagonist. You’re always going to be following multiple characters. So it seems like a pretty straightforward transition. And yet it’s so much more time and space and storytelling and a crew that is not just to make one feature but to make a whole series. You have potentially other writers. What was your process like figuring out how to move from I’ve made a feature to now I’m making a TV series?

Justin: Well, at that time I was certainly inspired by what was happening in streaming. I was inspired by things like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black because I felt like there was this new paradigm. There was this new space for cinema on TV. We were sort of moving beyond the idea that a show had to be very tightly formatted so that a kind of rotating set of creatives would come in and essentially make the same thing each time.

We were moving past that. And we were now moving into this world where you could stream an entire season of something as if it were just a really long movie. And that was really exciting to me. And I remember one of the early screenings of Dear White People there was an executive, her name was Tara Duncan, she’s president of Freeform now, but at the time was a creative exec at Netflix. And she said, “Have you thought about making this as a show?” And I said I absolutely have. And she said, “OK, well when you guys sell this,” at the time Netflix wasn’t really buying movies at that time, “so when you guys finally sell this I want you to think about it.”

And as I toured with the movie doing Q&As across the country a lot of which were at colleges, mostly white colleges where the BSU was throwing an event to show the film, or even in other countries like in Paris in particular, in London, Scandinavia, I was having these moments where I was realizing like, wow, the Black experience is actually a global one. And there’s so many things that we didn’t even begin to get into with this movie. So I started preparing just in my mind what would a TV show be like for this. And I started thinking about what could we do that would be new and fresh and exciting. And I came up with this idea of why don’t we give each character at least at the beginning their own episodes. So it’s a multi-protagonist show but it’s not a multi-protagonist show about this one light-skinned girl Sam and her friends. It literally is like when we’re in a Lionel episode we’re meeting everyone else from his point of view.

Wouldn’t that be interesting if we did something like I’ve seen Robert Altman do and I’ve seen other directors do with feature films, but we did that on TV? And that’s really where it grew out of. And there was a lot of material that didn’t get to be filmed that eventually became episodes. One thing that I recognized is that there were a lot of different kind of people showing up for the movie, but reliably Black women, young Black women were showing up. And were identifying with Sam and Coco. And I felt it was a priority to get Black women both in the writer’s room but also behind the lens to direct these episodes.

I never felt like this should just be coming from my point of view. I felt like my point of view should maybe set the parameters, but then I want a bunch of artists that are like me and I want to give them what I never get, which is room to do them and to say something that is specific to them. And that’s really the technique that I went into that with and I was able to do that. I was able to build a writer’s room where people felt empowered. Where people felt like they could bring their real stuff to the table.

We did the same thing with our creative departments, and particularly with the directors. And it’s been like going to graduate film school. I get to sit there and learn and mold and shape these world class directors.

John: Now, you have two seasons that are done and they’re out on Netflix.

Justin: Three.

John: I’m sorry, three seasons. But are there plans for – like what would you do next essentially? If there’s another season how does this current cultural moment we’re living in, how do you see that shaping the future of this show? What does it feel like to you?

Justin: We were actually writing season four when the lockdown happened earlier this year. And so we finished writing season four over Zoom. And then about the time that we were done writing it, and it was very emotional and of course it was like nobody knows that this is even happening, but we’re like oh my god this is the end of the show. Because it’s also our fourth and final season, I forgot to add.

And so the lockdown happens. And then the scripts are just sort of in a vault somewhere for a while. And then, you know, all of the protests around George Floyd begin to happen. And when the video of George Floyd went out, you know, as a Black person you don’t know if this is going to start a movement because frankly videos like this have become just part of the everyday fabric of life. And especially as a Black person it’s like every other week there’s something like this that happens. And when it starts to become a movement, you know, that was really mind-boggling and inspiring.

But then you realize that all of the same complications and all of the ways in which racism persists even among really well-intentioned people, well-intentioned white liberal people especially, all that stuff is still there. It actually felt like we had written a season especially crafted for this moment, but we of course had no idea that that’s what we were doing. The sort of method of attacking each season always involves deep, deep research. And a constant trying to tune in to what is in the Zeitgeist. Like what is just below the pop culture that’s happening.

And we end up making these wild predictions. And I can’t say much without spoiling it, but we end making these predictions that tend to come true. And you’re going to see the season and think that we wrote it in response to what’s happening, but we didn’t.

Craig: I have had my own weird dance with that very thing. And it turns out if you just look at the world and talk about it honestly that things that happen after are going to see like you predict them. You’re not predicting anything. You’re just accurately reporting what other people may not have been looking at.

Justin: I think that’s absolutely right. I think that’s absolutely right.

John: Cool. We have one listener question that I felt was especially relevant for this. Craig, would you mind reading us what Ryan in Brooklyn wrote?

Craig: Yeah. Ryan in Brooklyn, where I was born, writes, “My writing partner and I spent the first half of 2020 researching and writing a script based on a very well-known character from 18th Century American history. He is by no means the most heinous of culprits as far as racism, sexism, colonialism and the like go. But, he owned slaves and benefited from systems of white supremacy none the less.

“As our current culture reevaluates how we see these figures who in our case have for the most part been known as heroes and pioneers, we have taken a pause to ask ourselves for reasons both moral and creative if the project is worth even continuing with. How does one strike a balance between giving history its due but also taking into consideration modern sentiments?

“For instance the only people of color in the script are either servants or slaves who would have been paid very little mind within the limited scope of our narrative. But I feel like leaving them out altogether is white-washing. Artificially propping them is white-savior-ing. And leaving them as they are is lazy.”

Well, that is I suspect a dilemma that a lot of people are wrestling with right now.

John: Absolutely. And Justin it feels like the kind of dilemma that your characters on your show might be arguing. So talk us through what you’re thinking as you hear Ryan’s question.

Justin: Well, one, I applaud Ryan for having the dilemma, because there are examples of many people in this particular situation who don’t see a dilemma at all and just sort of well we’re just going to not talk about the slave people. Or that’s a very easy decision. Or we’re going to hang a hat on it. So kudos to you for recognizing the difficulty of the moment. I think for me and this is not really going to sound like advice, but for me it’s not just about how I’m telling a story or why I’m telling a story, but timing is a very important factor in storytelling in my opinion.

There are certain – there’s a time for certain stories. Because we’re trying to speak to a certain moment. There’s a reason why out of all the things people could be thinking about or talking about or experiencing we want them to experience this little slice of life right now. And for me – for instance I got a script the other day, it’s a wonderful script. Wonderful story. But it’s about a white boy sort of among a bunch of Black and Brown people where he is the outcast. And we’re sort of getting something of the experience of prejudice from his point of view. And I was like this is a good story, but I can’t tell this right now because this isn’t – this is a point of view that everyone is already pretty saturated in. And actually the story about the Black and Brown people who sort of just kind of accompany his world, those are the stories that have been left out. So actually I would like to tell those stories right now.

So, it doesn’t mean like abandon your story, but I would say, you know, I think you’re right to maybe give it a think and give it a pause. And if the Black people, the sort of subjugated people in that story are not the focus of it, you know, maybe they could be. Maybe we don’t really need a historical heroic example of a white person from a backwards time right now. Or maybe there’s something else to say about that person that is pertinent to the moment.

I think stories do exist in the times that they’re born out of and they should speak to those times. At least that’s how I feel as an artist. And everyone can do and make what they want. I may not go see it. [laughs]

Craig: I love that answer. I think that’s great.

John: Our friend Aline tipped me off to a podcast that charts all the presidents in order going up through modern day. And just because I know so little about the presidents, and my daughter is starting AP US History. And so I’m listening to the first episode and they talk about young George Washington who I only have the one image of George Washington which is sort of what’s on the dollar bill. But if you actually go back and look at he was pretty hot when he was a teenager. He had a reputation. He would have been a social media star essentially. He was known around the community and he was sort of heroic and dashing and sort of a wild adventurer. And there’s a story to be told about young George Washington, and yet I have exactly Ryan’s qualms about it because I don’t know that I need to see a young George Washington story and try to fit it into a context that is at all meaningful in 2020. It doesn’t feel like, what you said, it doesn’t feel like the time to tell a young George Washington story.

Justin: Especially because don’t we all have – I mean, you can’t live your life as an American without being confronted with George Washington’s story.

Craig: Thank you. We know it.

Justin: The one story that I just learned about is that it wasn’t wooden teeth, it was slave teeth. Did you guys know that? That he had slave teeth towards the end of his life.

Craig: Ew.

Justin: And it became wooden teeth over the course of the centuries of that story spreading, but it was actually the teeth of his slaves. It’s things like that that to me would be much more interesting to see a perspective or a movie about.

A movie I fucking love and I talk about this all the time that did not – I feel like this is another topic – but I feel like film criticism failed this movie. And it is Lemon by Janicza Bravo. And what I think is so brilliant about that movie is that essentially she’s telling a tried and true story that we accept all over the place about an actual sociopathic white man but nobody can see it because he’s a white man. And so the movie is very uncomfortable. And if you don’t quite know what she’s doing maybe you feel a little left out.

But what she’s doing is she’s telling the story that we always go to the movies to see, especially in independent cinema. It’s the thing that we always fall for, but she’s doing it without the white male gaze. She’s doing it from a Black female gaze. And that makes people very uncomfortable. But I was like that is so brilliant. That’s the movie about George Washington I could see right now.

Craig: It does seem, Ryan, like one of the things you’re hearing here is not only, OK, well done you’re considering this and timing matters, but also there have been a lot of books and movies and television shows that have examined very well-known characters from 18th Century American history. Do you know why they’re very well-known? Because they’re very well-known.

So if they’re very well-known, I don’t know, do we need another one?

John: Well, but Craig it is an opportunity to look at one of these people and fill out the context. So I guess the question is is it worth spending the time to take a look at one of these characters and paint out the context when you know that painting out that context is going to be really not just challenging but may not be the right time to be doing that.

Craig: Well, yeah. It just feels like – also, I feel we’re about to get – you know, I am always on the lookout for the trend. Because the trend is what, so people are behind things always. That’s what they want, the people that are paying for things. And the trend is going to be, well, let’s keep telling stories about famous white people but now let’s also focus on the Black people around them. Or, or, crazy idea, tell stories about not those white people. Because we’ve already had those stories. I actually don’t need another story about Thomas Jefferson as it relates to Sally Hemings or his slave-owning or the south. Because I’ve gotten my fill of Thomas Jefferson in Paris. I had 1776. I have John Adams. There’s a lot of Thomas – there’s Hamilton which we’ll be talking about. There’s a lot of Jefferson. Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefferson. I’m good. Let’s move on. Let’s find other people to talk about.

That’s my general feeling.

Justin: But I will bring this up, too. The dilemma that’s being described to me feels like – I always feel that way as a writer. And it’s not about racism. Like I always get to a point in the story where I’m like, oh, I don’t know if this works anymore. I don’t know if this fits. And so it might be a necessary machination of the process. Maybe this movie, you know, this is going to say woo-woo, but I do feel like stories kind of have their own souls sometimes. And they tell you when they’re not ready. They tell you when they need something else. They tell you when they’re not working.

And this might be your journey to making a more interesting project. You know, this pause that you’re being given by this moment might actually be an opportunity to explore a different area of this very same person or this very same moment in time or, you know, or something deeper, more challenging, more interesting perhaps.

John: Agreed.

Craig: I agree.

John: All right. It is time for our One Cool Things. Craig, kick us off.

Craig: Well, I didn’t have one myself so I turned to my intrepid assistant Bo. And I said, Bo, do you have a One Cool Thing? And that is why I’m going to talk about long hair, which I don’t have.

John: Nor do I.

Craig: I don’t really hair. I mean, I have a little bit. So, Bo does have very long, straight hair. And apparently when you have long straight hair, so I’ve been told, it does get very dry at the ends. And, you know, you hear about split ends.

John: Yeah. I kind of know that as a theory, but I don’t really know what it is.

Craig: Yeah. So I guess the ends of your hair just start to split because they’re dry. So she is recommending something called Olaplex. And we’ll put a link in the show notes. If you have long hair that is getting dry at the end do what Bo does. Check out Olaplex. I cannot vouch for it myself because I don’t really have much hair.

John: The amount of money I save on hair care products is staggering.

Craig: I use like this much shampoo. Boink.

John: No shampoo for me. My One Cool Thing is a website I’ve gone to for years, and years, and years. I don’t think I’ve ever spoken about it on the show. It’s called Electoral Vote. If you go to this website, it’s electoral-vote.com, it looks like it’s from 1995. It’s like a really basic website. But every day they just update it and it’s these two smart guys who sort of summarize the political news and sort of what’s happening in the world for you.

And if you just read this every morning you feel like, oh, I kind of get what’s happening.

Craig: This is an encouraging map I’m looking at.

John: Yeah. So it was originally set up about sort of literally the Electoral College and that. But it’s morphed over the years into just a general political discussion of what’s going on in the world. Good summaries. Really good Q&As over the weekends. So, I’d recommend you take a look at this.

What I had to do during the 2016 election was really deliberately limit myself to how much news I would take in, because my anxiety just went off the charts. And so this would be the kind of thing which I would allow myself to look at in the mornings and then look at nothing else for the rest of the day.

So, if you were to go on that kind of diet this might be the thing you would leave in so you can get some information.

Justin: What is it again?

John: Electoral-vote.com.

Justin: Oh, OK, Cool. I missed the dash. Cool.

Craig: John, your description is perfect. This website does look like it was made back in the Angel Cities area.

Justin: Absolutely. Yeah.

Craig: But it’s a nice map to look at. I mean, I’m kind of grooving on the map. Because I don’t – I’m one of those people when everyone is like, well, we’ve put out a new poll. Biden leads Trump by this many points in the general election, I’m like, oh, you mean the national poll that I don’t care about at all?

Justin: Mm-hmm.

Craig: Give me the states. Give me the states.

Justin: This is giving me so much agita.

Craig: It’s coming.

Justin: Louisiana, why? OK, go. Sorry.

Craig: I think you know why.

John: Know yourself. Know yourself. And if this is not the right thing you’ll know it and you’ll clip it away and you won’t put it in your bookmarks.

Craig: I like this.

John: Hey, Justin, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

Justin: You know, this one made me feel so old. Have you guys heard of Animal Crossing? But I’m just going to say the thing that I think is fucking cool. I am so enjoying I May Destroy You. I know this is not a hot take. But Michaela Coel’s show on HBO or the BBC depending on where you are is just a cool – if you’re a writing nerd, you’re seeing the things that they’re doing on that show and the things that they’re getting away with in a TV show is so inspiring and liberating.

So, I don’t know if that’s cool enough or edgy enough.

John: Oh, it’s absolutely cool enough. We’ve been trying to get Michaela Coel on the show and Megana has been working really hard on it. So, people in Michaela Coel’s universe, if you are hearing this now we really are trying to get you on the show. So, we would love to have her.

Justin: I also just want to meet you and worship at your feet. So, if you can just reach out to Justin Simien. That would be great. If you just need some worship.

Craig: I feel like, yeah, she’s the new Phoebe, right? I mean, I’m not taking anything away from Phoebe. Phoebe remains Phoebe. But there’s this meteor that has arrived and everyone is like, oh my god, how do I get to talk to Michaela.

John: But you know what? We got to speak to Phoebe.

Craig: That’s right.

John: So hopefully we’ll be able to get to speak to Michaela as well.

Craig: And just to reiterate, Phoebe, still a meteor. Still a Phoebe-like meteor.

Justin: Well I want the Zoom code or the Skype code. I just want to listen in. Because, you know, I think she’s incredible.

Craig: Honestly, after your discussion of higher education, Justin, I’m considering having you be a permanent third host on this show.

Justin: [laughs] I’m down. I’m down.

Craig: When you meet a kindred spirit you’re like don’t leave me. Stay.

Justin: I love nerding out about this stuff.

Craig: So great.

Justin: It’s my pleasure.

Craig: Well, you know what, we’ll nerd out about Hamilton in our bonus segment.

Justin: All right.

John: Absolutely. So until then Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli who also did our outro. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Justin, what are you on Twitter?

Justin: Oh god, I’m barely on Twitter. But @jsim07. I may not @ you back just because it’s not on my phone right now.

John: Which is so smart. We have t-shirts. They’re great. You can get them at Cotton Bureau. There’s a link in the show notes.

You can find those show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com or on the podcast that you are playing this from. You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re just about to record on Hamilton.

Justin, thank you so much for joining us on the show today.

Craig: Thanks Justin.

Justin: My pleasure. Thanks guys.

Craig: That was great.

[Bonus segment]

John: Craig, you are a big Hamilton fan. Did you see Hamilton on Disney+?

Craig: Yeah, of course I saw it on Disney+. Are you crazy?

John: Justin Simien, did you see it on Disney+?

Justin: I did.

John: And had you also seen it in the theater?

Justin: I had.

Craig: And I have twice.

John: I have twice. And I’ve seen it with this original cast in the theater.

Justin: Oh wow.

Craig: Yup. I saw it with the original cast and then I saw it out here at The Pantages with another spectacular cast with I think – Renee Elise Goldsberry was the one kind of carryover, but everybody else was knew I think.

Justin: You guys are hardcore fans.

John: We’re pretty hardcore fans. I loved the staged production. I will say I loved the film production as well. But I need to provide some context. I was staying at an Airbnb when this debuted and so we hooked up our AppleTV, watched it, and it was only after I watched it that I realized that motion smoothing had been turned on.

Craig: Oh no.

John: And you know what? It was good.

Craig: No. No.

John: My theory is, and I can’t of course reengineer it to know, but I think the weirdness of live theater and motion smoothing which makes things look too present, kind of worked for it.

Justin: I could see that.

Craig: Outraged.

John: It was weird. So I think it made the one case, other than professional sports, in which motion smoothing is not an absolute horrible–

Craig: I hate it on sports. I hate it.

John: But let us not talk about the motion smoothing. Let us talk about Hamilton on Disney+ and our reactions to it. Justin as the guest you get to start. What was your reaction to it on Disney+?

Justin: Oh god. This is very putting me on the spot.

Craig: Here we go.

Justin: I’m not, OK, I am probably not the biggest Hamilton fan in the world. I wasn’t before I saw it on Disney+ and I’m still not. But, I thought, you know, one, seeing theater on TV in this form is something that like deserved this quality of production for a really long time. Like when I went to performing arts high school like – every theater geek knows about that one tape of Into the Woods with Bernadette Peters in it, or Pippin with Ben Vereen.

Craig: Yup.

Justin: And I love that stuff. So to see it normalized on TV is great without the gimmick of like doing it live in front of an audience that I think some Broadway shows are being adapted for TV in that way. So to see it just like in its native Broadway environment, well-filmed, with beautiful lighting, clear audio, I think was kind of a revelation for me that like, god, I wish I could see more shows like this.

John: Craig, what was your take?

Craig: The same. Look, I do love the show. And I appreciate the – it’s five years old now. And because we’re older five years seems like the blink of an eye to us. My daughter who is a huge Hamilton fan, she’s grown up, like she’s changed dramatically from a 10-year-old to a 15-year-old as Hamilton has aged one-third of her life with her.

So, it is interesting to see how the world changes and we do start to look back and reexamine. I still think that Hamilton is an incredibly important show. I think it has opened a ton of doors. I think it has changed Broadway permanently. I think Lin-Manuel Miranda is a genius.

I think that if you now want to look at the show and start asking questions about – he does sort of wave his hand kind of these aren’t the droids you’re looking for in that kind of manner over slavery. He’s very smart about how he – there’s a line right up front, “While slaves were being carted away across the waves.” He is smart to mention it. And it comes in various points. Does the show address slavery the way I think he would if he were doing it right now? No. Is that kind of the curse and blessing of art? Yes.

The art stays the same. The world changes. We do go back and look at it, but it is so good that it is – you can still dig into it and chew on it. From a musical point of view and from a storytelling point of view it is mind-blowingly good to me. And I really appreciated the fact that I could just see the show.

There are a ton of shows where they just don’t do it. I think they don’t do it because they’re scared that you won’t show up to see the show maybe. Hamilton obviously does not have that concern. They have sold out every performance they’ve ever had. But I would love to see other shows done this way because it is wonderful to watch. And it is a very different experience than a film adaption, like say Chicago, or the live versions which are live versions and not the show.

I thought Tommy Kail did a really great job of somehow being there and inside of things, but not in a way that made me feel like I wasn’t watching the show. More than anything what I really appreciated was the one thing that I couldn’t get in a theater and that was the faces. To see faces like that. Leslie Odom, Jr. in particular, who is just like, yeah. So that’s the MVP of the show, right? All respect to Lin who is, again, a genius, and who created the whole thing, wrote every one of those insane words, and managed to wrestle the whole thing. For a performance point of view, Daveed Diggs is a scene-stealer. But Leslie Odom is a show-maker.

And being able to see his face and the way he moves his mouth is very specific was fascinating to me. I got more of his inner turmoil and the terror of a man that’s constantly pretending all came out in the close, which I loved.

So I thought it was wonderful and I will absolutely watch it again. I remain a huge Hamilton fan. A huge Lin-Manuel Miranda fan. And just as much – more of a Leslie Odom fan. More of a Daveed Diggs fan. All of them. Christopher Jackson. All of them. Just remarkable.

John: So, I had a Broadway show, Big Fish, that you do a filming of it. So, pretty much every show that’s on Broadway there is at least one performance that is sort of properly filmed. There are multiple cameras in the audience filming it. But it wasn’t anywhere near this level of sophistication where – and it’s not edited in a meaningful way. So there’s not that kind of sophisticated approach to when we’re going to be in a close-up, when we’re going to be over here, when we’re going to be actually on stage and following a character as they’re making their exit. We have none of that.

And so there’s not a filmed version of the show I can look at and say, oh, here is the show. This is the thing that I made. And some of that is what theater is supposed to be. You have to actually be there to see it live and in person. And Craig you were asking sort of why more of them aren’t done it’s because – large part of it – is because the union contracts that govern how the performances are made basically bar the filming or make it impossible to have that be out there any other place.

And you’re always worried about cannibalizing future sales of the show by people just watching the video of it, which makes sense.

Craig: I get that.

John: But watching Hamilton, I think the thing that was most surprising to me is when it was done I did not have any desire for a typical adaptation of Hamilton. I didn’t want to see the movie version of Hamilton.

Craig: Agreed.

Justin: I agree with that so much because I think that Hamilton works in a very theatrical way. And I actually – this is going to sound like shade but it’s not – it is sort of, you see it with the adaptation of Cats into a film, is that some things they aren’t – it’s not a direct translation. I think a fantastic movie could be made of Hamilton. Don’t get me wrong. But you can’t just film it in real life and have it just be what it is. It just wouldn’t work. Like it works because it’s a concert experience almost. You are overwhelmed by these amazing performances and you feel like you’re there and there’s an audience participating. And you need all of that, I think, for Hamilton as it is conceived right now to work.

I felt the same way about The Lion King actually. And that I really enjoyed because I think too few people really appreciate the power of theater and musical theater in particular to be both musical and whimsical but also profound. And Hamilton is both dramatic, profound, and a musical. And that’s something that like only a few people understand because only a few people will have access. For that I think it’s very meaningful to have it out.

And I could not agree more. This to me is the version of Hamilton to see.

Craig: Yeah, I mean, there are certain shows that are easier to adapt than others. I mean, I’m in the middle of adapting one right now and I consider it to be one of the easier ones in the sense that the show is trying to be cinematic and so you can now be totally cinematic as you do the film adaptation.

Whereas Hamilton is not trying to be cinematic. Hamilton is interpretive and it is stylized. For instance, it does remind me of Pippin in a little way.

Justin: Absolutely.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: So when Pippin sings about war they’re dancing. It’s Fosse. It’s not war. And here when they’re fighting the Battle of Yorktown it’s dancing. And take the bullets out your gun, take the bullets out your gun. How the hell would you shoot that with real soldiers and bullets? It just would be ridiculous.

Justin: They would try. [laughs]

John: They would.

Justin: Which to me is so depressing.

Craig: They would, yeah.

Justin: In Broadway stuff in particular that gets translated to movies I’m just always – not always – but I’m mostly very disappointed because no one has taken the time to figure out how to adapt the theatricality of the show to cinema. They just sort of film it. And that’s not the same as adapting it. And some of these shows, and Hamilton is one of them, like I don’t think anyone should have a first blush idea as to how to do that. It should be recognized as an incredibly difficult problem to figure out how to adapt something like Hamilton to the screen.

Craig: Lin, I think, could. I suppose if there’s anyone who could do it Lin could. I still remain very impressed by the adaptation of Chicago. I think that was—

Justin: Oh, I think it’s great.

Craig: Incredibly successful. In part because Rob Marshall understood that he was making both a movie and also shooting the show. So he kind of runs in two lines. There’s reality, which feels cinematic, and feels real, and in the world with cars and outside. Because theater is inside. Movies are outside. But then also there are these moments where, you know, He Had it Coming is – it’s not the official name of the song, but–

John: Staged.

Craig: It’s staged. It’s a dream. Even when Latifah is doing When You’re Good to Mama there’s two versions. There’s the real one where she’s just in her regular – and it’s a regular prison – and then there’s the one where she’s in a burlesque on stage. So, he manages to do the theater and the real at the same time, which is brilliant.

I think Chicago is an excellent sort of map.

Justin: I love Chicago. And I love that Chicago consolidates really for popular culture some things that Fosse was doing in his films that I don’t think quite made it to the mainstream yet. Like if you look at Cabaret you’re starting to understand – Cabaret to me really is one of the first American musicals that begins to sort of have a dialogue between the real world and sort of like stage reality. And then with All that Jazz when the character starts hallucinating on his deathbed and he starts seeing in his mind what it would be like if this were made as a musical number you’re starting to see the language for that form. But it really isn’t until Chicago that it’s sort of like put into a kind of thesis that I felt like my mom could understand, or a general movie-going public could understand. And I don’t know, I do not include Chicago in the list of Broadway adaptations that I’m disappointed at. I quite like Chicago.

Craig: And interesting that you point out Cabaret because now we’re talking – there’s something about Kander and Ebb, I’m just going to say. Those guys are – when I think of the shows that they’ve done and written they do seem somehow slightly more adaptable. I don’t know how. There’s just something about them where I can see it working. I think part of it also is just the nature of the songs. They feel like I want to watch them being sung on screen. Or do I need them to be in a theater or else they’re boring? You know?

Like Sondheim to me, you got to be there. I don’t know. I just believe that. You got to be there. It just doesn’t work the same way if you’re not there. That’s my feeling.

Justin: Well I’m going to say it. I would have made a great Into the Woods. [laughs]

Craig: I love it.

Justin: And by the way I think it is possible to make a great Hamilton film. It’s just a lot harder than I feel like–

Craig: People might think.

Justin: People might realize, yeah.

John: So let’s also acknowledge that the Hamilton that we saw on Disney+ was not the version – well, it was a version – but we weren’t supposed to see it on Disney+. We were supposed to see it on the big screen. This was going to be a theatrical release. And I think it would have been a giant theatrical release. I think it would have been a big event.

Craig: Yes.

John: And that would have been a very different experience to see it on a big screen with a big audience to be able to cheer together. I can imagine people singing along in a theater.

Craig: That’s the part I hate. [laughs] I’m so angry at that part, in my head.

John: Maybe some screenings they would allow singing, some screenings they wouldn’t.

Justin: Eliza!

Craig: Shut up!

John: I remember seeing Evita at a singalong Evita and it was great that everyone could sing along to the songs. But, it’s important to remember that Broadway Theater is incredibly expensive so very few people get to see it. And so people have much better experience, or their experience of Hamilton is probably largely through the cast album rather than seeing the show because so few people could afford to see the show.

Craig: No question.

John: Movie tickets are much, much cheaper, so it’s how most people would have seen it. But now that it’s debuting on Disney+, which is an inexpensive subscription service, just the amount of people who saw Hamilton in one night when it debuted on Disney+ has got to exceed probably everyone who saw it, at least the original cast, in the theater.

Craig: Of course. Of course.

John: And so it’s important to remember sort of how transformative a cultural thing can be when everyone can see it is the thing, when it’s taken away.

Craig: This would have been – I mean, years ago if they had had to do this it would have been on ABC and they would have had commercial breaks. A lot of them. That’s how we watched stuff when we were kids, right? Commercial breaks. Oh my god, can you imagine? Oh my god.

John: Yeah. I may be working on one of those things with commercial breaks.

Craig: “Forgiveness.” And then, “We’ll be back after these messages.” Ah, yeah, commercial breaks.

John: All right. Thank you gentlemen very much for talking about Hamilton with me.

Craig: A joy.

Justin: My pleasure.

Craig: A joy. One more reason that I want to spend all my time with Justin.

John: Thanks.

 

Links:

• WGA AMPTP
• Dear White People
• Lemon Movie
• Olaplex
• Electoral Vote
• I May Destroy You
• Hamilton on Disney+
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• Justin Simien on Twitter
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can now be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 457 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast we’re going to be talking about comedy and variety shows, how they’re written, and how you get a job writing them. We’ll also be talking about studio diversity programs. Now, you might say John and Craig how much do you really know about these things?

Craig: Oh so much. So much. [laughs]

John: And the truth is not a lot.

Craig: Oh, right, sorry.

John: Which is why we have a very special guest joining us.

Craig: I forgot, it was not a lot.

John: Ashley Nicole Black is a writer and performer whose credits include Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, Bless this Mess, and a Black Lady Sketch Show on HBO. Ashely, welcome to the program.

Ashley Nicole Black: Hi, thanks for having me. It’s so weird to be able to talk back to you guys.

Craig: I know. Finally. I mean, all of those moments where you were frustrated or angry or disgusted, you get to express them directly at us in real time.

Ashley: Well usually I’m just washing the dishes more so than very angry.

Craig: All right. Well don’t do that now. Right now I think you’ve earned the right to not wash your dishes while you do this particular episode.

John: But we wouldn’t be upset if you were washing your dishes. If we hear some clinking it’s absolutely fine. Now, starting any conversation with a person these days has to begin with how are you holding up. So, how are you holding up, Ashley?

Ashley: You know, I had really found a rhythm with isolation and was doing really well. And then with George Floyd and the protests I got sucked back into that 24-hour news cycle. So I’m just starting to get back to the like being able to work and not being glued to the news portion of quarantine.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Now, you are working now, right? Because we’re scheduling this after you just finished a writer’s room. So are you back in a virtual room?

Ashley: Yeah. I’m in a virtual room on an Apple show. I don’t know if I’m allowed to ever say the show exists.

Craig: Oh.

John: Craig is also on an Apple show. So you guys both have Emmys. You both have Apple shows. You are pretty much the same person.

Ashley: Soulmates.

Craig: Yeah, I feel like maybe John if you want to just go, just go. Because we have secret Apple/Emmy stuff to talk about.

Ashley: Emmy-winner convo.

Craig: So much interesting information about that. [laughs]

John: I’ve just done the virtual Skype version of CC’ing two people into an email chain and now I can leave.

Craig: And then backing away. I love that move.

John: Now, we’re going to talk about comedy variety writing, we’re going to talk about diversity programs, but also for our bonus number I want to talk about fireworks because I know you and I actually we have opinions about fireworks and I want to get into that for our bonus topic for our Premium members.

Ashley: Oh, I have so many. I’m excited about that.

Craig: This is going to be good.

John: Now, while we have you here, you are in a writer’s room. We asked on last week’s program for tips for people who are in these virtual writer’s rooms, what they’re using in the room. Chad wrote in, and Craig can you read what Chad wrote in for us?

Craig: Yes. Chad writes, “I’m a long time Scriptnotes listener and I got my first professional writing job right at the end of March. We’ve been using the virtual whiteboard tool Miro for everything from breaking out macro story beats across all the episodes of the season to laying out choice maps, player activity for individual scenes. More seasoned writers, particularly those who work primarily in TV in our room had differing opinions on the effectiveness of this tool, but I really like it. And I started using it for my personal projects on the side.

“We use Asana for organizing due dates for deliverables, distributing scene work for a given week, and tracking what stage each scene is in currently, first draft and review, revision, and that sort of thing. Honorable mention to Google Docs and the almighty Zoom, but I’m sure those are pretty well known at this point.”

Sounds like Chad’s working in videogames, yeah?

John: Yeah. So I cut off the little first part of that, but it was a hybrid videogame kind of project. Now, are you using anything like Miro for a whiteboard? What are you using in your room right now Ashley?

Ashley: No, we’ve just been using Zoom and Google Docs, which means you have your Zoom really tiny on one side of the screen so you can also see the Google Docs. So it’s not ideal.

John: And who is responsible for updating the Google Doc? Is everyone typing into the same thing? Is there a writer’s assistant who is doing that work?

Ashley: The writer’s assistant, yeah.

John: Now, talking on Zoom, how deep are you into the show? How many weeks is this now that you’re in.

Ashley: It’s only been a couple of weeks, so we haven’t gotten into the nitty gritty where the technology is going to fall apart yet.

Craig: Right. I was about to say. Because the deeper you go the more stuff that goes on the normal whiteboard, and then there’s the erasing and the boxing around a thing. The different colors. I’m particularly fond of the different colors. So, it does seem like as you get deeper in it’s going to become a bit of a struggle to maintain it. I’m kind of curious, Ashley, if you feel like there’s any – is there an impact on just the creative flow simply – I mean, obviously not being in a room together is one thing but literally just the virtual board versus the actual board, do you feel like it’s impacting anything?

Ashley: The biggest difficulty I’ve found, and we haven’t like I said gotten that far into story yet, is just like the inability to interrupt each other. I didn’t know how important that was to writing.

Craig: [laughs] Well, I mean, there’s probably a little bit of an upside there. Perhaps people that had been interrupted or talked over a lot maybe get a chance to finish?

John: A thing I’ve noticed on a lot of these conference calls I’ve been having on Zoom is that when someone starts monologuing it’s very hard to send the signal that they need to stop, that they’ve been talking too long. And there have been times where I’ve had to text a person saying like, “OK, please stop now because you made your point and it’s time for us to move on.”

Ashley: And sometimes you can tell that they know. Like you can tell that they know it’s time to stop talking, but no one is making them.

Craig: It’s so great. I love that. I call that like failure to land. They know they’re supposed to land. They’ve been cleared to land. They just don’t know what to do. So they’re circling the ending of a remark. It’s amazing to watch.

John: Silence also plays so differently on a Zoom call than it does in a real room. Because there’s moments where when people are physically together where that silence is kind of meaningful. Because everyone is like OK we’re all thinking together. You can sort of see the process, the shifting in seats. It doesn’t play that same way in Zoom, so there’s this instinct to have to fill up those silences. And I don’t know that that’s healthy either.

Ashley: Yeah, you don’t get that feeling – there’s just a feeling in the room when everyone loves something but they’re quiet, or when everyone hates something but they’re quiet. And you don’t know. You just know that people are quiet.

John: Is there any good way that you’ve found to sort of signal your excitement about something or signal your disapproval? Are you guys using thumbs up? Is there any way that you can tell somebody that, yes, I really appreciate that idea? What are you guys finding – also, I don’t know how big your room is, but people are not muted normally, or are they muting? What’s the policy with your room?

Ashley: I’ve been muting, I think most of us have, just because like I have a dog who might bark or whatever. So I usually mute. I’ve been doing a lot of nonverbals, like vigorously nodding my head, just trying to visually communicate. But one really funny thing that happened was that one of the writer’s baby toddled in to the Zoom. And we all like raised our hands and cheered, because she was so cute. And then our boss was like, “Why are you making fun of me?” And we’re like, no, no, there’s a baby. [laughs] We can see a baby.

Craig: So cute. I do the same thing, by the way. I’m a big believer in the very broad nodding yes and shaking head no.

Ashley: Yeah.

Craig: And don’t do it like once or twice the way you would normally do it in real life. Because everybody has kind of peripheral vision in real life. But the cameras take away our peripheral vision. So somebody has to actually notice your thing. And so you kind of do it until you realize that they know. And it’s a way to sort of get to the heart of it without having to talk and interrupt people and hijack the audio.

John: So please keep sending in your suggestions for what’s working in your writer’s rooms and if you have some best practices or just little policies that you guys have figured out in your rooms that seem to be helpful, send those in and we’ll compile the best of them because we’re all learning together how to do this crazy stuff of writing virtually.

I mostly want to focus on comedy and variety, because this is a topic that a bunch of writers work in this space and we really have not had kind of any guests on to talk about writing for this space, how you get started writing for this space. And Ashley I kind of just want to start from the really basics. When we say comedy and variety what kinds of shows are we talking about? Name brand names so people can get a sense of these are writers working on these shows. What kinds of shows are comedy/variety?

Ashley: Yeah, the ones that come on late at night. So it’s Full Frontal. It’s all the Jimmy shows. Saturday Night Live. Sketch shows. All those shows that you stay up late to watch.

John: Great. And something like a Black Lady Sketch Show, which is a once a week. It’s a series but you’re writing those sketches as a room or people are writing those individually. Is that still under the auspices of what we consider comedy variety?

Ashley: Yeah. I think it’s variety sketch in the Emmy category.

Craig: I like that. Variety sketch. You know, variety shows used to roam the earth like dinosaurs. You know, when there was like – so it was like sketches, and then there would be a song, and then there would be like a weird dance thing. Like when I was a kid we watched the Mandrell Sisters. My sister and I would watch the Mandrell Sisters.

We don’t do that anymore. So it seems like mostly it’s going to be a comedy show. Like a sketch show is a sketch show. And I have to say they’re much better now. We’ve come a long way.

John: Well, what’s also weird about it is there’s a whole genre of show that is about that genre of show. And so like the Dick Van Dyke show is about writing a late night show, or a variety show. 30 Rock is about writing a weekly variety show that’s like SNL. So it’s weird that we have onscreen representations of what it’s like to write those shows. And yet I still don’t think I truly understand what it’s like to write. So can you talk us through, you were on Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. As a writer on that show what does your day look like? What is your responsibility on that show?

Ashley: So, that show is a weekly show that shoots on Wednesday. So our week starts on Thursday. And we would usually start the moment with like a big pitch meeting. Everybody in one room. People pitching stories that are of interest to them. And typically you want to have a take at that stage, but even if you don’t you can still bring in like an interesting story and let’s talk about this.

So we would pitch act twos which on that show is the slightly more evergreen act. So you could pitch that on a Thursday and spend a week or even up to a month working on something like we did one about rural healthcare. Like, issues that are going to continue to be issues a couple weeks from now. And then typically you would get assigned anywhere from one writer by themselves to the entire staff to work on an act and come up with a take together as a group and kind of a way through it. And then everyone go off and get their chance to write their draft alone, which is like my favorite part of the process that we would work on a take together but then you do get to have your own draft, which is great.

And then someone, either the head writer or the supervising writer, would take all of those drafts and compile them into one. And then we would have rewrite which is again everybody back in a room going through line by line, beating every single joke, cutting stuff, getting it as funny as possible. And then you rehearse it. And then you do that again. And then you shoot it. And then you’re like, oh, OK, wow, that was exhausting, and then you start it all over again the next morning.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: So talk to me about, so you say in a room, how many people were in a room for something like Full Frontal with Samantha Bee? What was that room like bodies wise?

Ashley: That was a smaller show. I think anywhere between seven and 10 at the most. But some shows would have like 14 staff members.

Craig: Now, a show like Saturday Night Live, they have this hybrid format where there are a number of people who are just writers, and then there are a number of people who are writer-performers. I suspect there a probably a couple of performers that don’t do much writing, but it’s kind of a blend. On your show, on Black Lady Sketch Show, was that kind of the way you did it? Were the performers also writing fulltime? Or was there kind of one group of writers, one group of performers?

Ashley: There’s one group of writers and one group of performers. I happen to be in both. But some of the performers are not.

Craig: Got it.

John: Now, going back to a more traditional weekly show like Samantha Bee, you know, talking about, so you’re pitching your takes. And so you Ashley would show up to work on Thursday morning saying like these are two or three things that I think are good story areas or good topics. Your job is really kind of pitching. How long is a pitch for that kind of thing is what I’m asking? How fully fleshed out is it or is it just an area that you’re trying to pitch?

Ashley: It really depends on what you’re trying to pitch. Because there are some stories, like a Trump story as soon as you hear that he had a hard time walking down a ramp you know what’s going to be funny about that. And you can just come in in the morning and go, “Trump had a hard time walking down a ramp,” and you’ll probably get approved. But if you’re doing something like we did a piece about the people who are suing the Catholic Church about sexual assaults that happened to them. The humor there is not apparent. So you’re probably going to do a lot more work before you bring that in to be like, “I promise you I have an angle and a way to write jokes around this topic.”

Craig: You’re drawing off of a certain substrate of facts when you’re working on something like Samantha Bee. There are topics. There’s facts. There’s journalism. And there are people. And then you’re kind of building this thing around it. But for A Black Lady Sketch Show this is just pure fiction. You are creating something out of nothing. Which do you find – a two-part question – which is harder and which is more satisfying?

Ashley: They’re hard and satisfying in really different ways. It’s very hard to take some of these political stories and make them funny. It’s not an easy thing to do. But the stories exist. So if you need a pitch, you don’t have a pitch that day, all you have to do is go to cnn.com and you’ll find something.

Craig: There it is, right.

Ashley: Whereas like on the sketch show you don’t have to draw from the news, so you can just do things that are funny to you in your heart. But on a day where you don’t have a pitch there’s nowhere you can go to find one. You really have to pull it out of your brain.

Craig: Right.

John: Now, talk to us about money. So, on these shows—

Ashley: Yes.

Craig: Get specific.

Ashley: I love talking about money. [laughs]

Craig: Can you please just quickly scan and email your tax returns? Because we want to get really granular about this.

John: Are you paid on a weekly basis? Are you paid – because you’re not paid on drafts? As screenwriters we’re thinking about drafts. But you’re paid on a weekly basis I’m presuming.

Ashley: Yes.

John: Are you guaranteed a certain number of weeks? How does it work when you’re hired on to one of these shows?

Ashley: I think it differs from show to show. On a lot of shows I think you have a 13-week contract. I think it’s different on every show.

John: And so for those 13 weeks you are exclusive to that show and what are your hours? So you’re saying you’re starting the pitches on Thursday. Are you working through the weekend? What is your actual life like? Or is it more a Thursday, Friday then crank on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday again? What is your life like when you’re on one of those shows?

Ashley: It varies from show to show. So when we started at Full Frontal the show aired on Mondays and so we did find ourselves working over the weekend a lot. Because if something changed on Friday like you can’t air old news. We would have to work over the weekend. That was one of the reasons the show moved to Wednesdays because people didn’t want to work weekends. But I know like on John Oliver’s show which I think they shoot on Sunday they work one weekend day and have another weekday off. So it kind of depends on the schedule of the show.

But the schedule is forever. Like there are definitely nights – I would say on a normal night I would get home by seven, but there are definitely midnight nights. There are two in the morning nights. There are I never left the office nights. The first time I was on a half-hour I was like we’re going home at 5:30? Really, we can all just stand up and leave? What? [laughs]

Craig: Yeah, I mean, everything I’ve read it does sound like comedy sketch shows or I guess we can move in the sort of news comedy shows into that same category are brutal jobs in the sense of the time commitment and the idea that it is timely. It’s repeating. And if you don’t have it you just got to keep going until you do. Is it healthy? That’s my question.

Ashley: I mean, no. I used to – I would get up at six o’clock in the morning and turn on the news in my apartment and have the news on while I got ready in the morning. I lived across the street from the office, so I would just walk out the door, walk back in the door. There are televisions showing the news on every wall, including in the office, like directly in front of your face. And it’s on all the time. And you’re watching these tragic horrible things happening and your brain is going I have to turn this into a joke? Which is just a weird place to live mentally.

But that being said the people I did that work with are my best friends in the world, because sometimes I remember one of our writers, Eric Drysdale, will just come in my office, lay down on the couch, and hug a pillow. And I’d be like, “You’re good, buddy.”

Craig: Yeah. That’s me every day basically.

John: It does sound like it’s this weird hybrid of like all the challenges of journalism where you’re having to keep on top of this moving thing with all the challenges of normal comedy writing which is how do we actually make this thing funny. How do we iterate, and iterate, and iterate until it’s as funny as it can be? Yet the lifetime of it is so transitory. Like, you know, an episode of that show doesn’t have very much of a life after that time. So, you know, yes that second act piece that you did might still be relevant months later but all the topical news it vanishes, just disappears. That’s so different than other kinds of writing that we do. Or you transitioned to half-hour writing. So talk to us about that transition because moving from where you have such a rush and a hurry to get this week’s episode up to you can actually kind of plan for things and there’s scripts. What was that transition like?

Ashley: I think it made me really good. Because you can’t be precious about your writing at all when you’re writing on a daily or a weekly schedule. Like whenever I wrote that, the President fired Jeff Sessions, we’re throwing that thing away, we’re making fun of Jeff Sessions. It is what it is. And so when I got to half-hour I was really used to writing very funny, very fast. And the schedule is just slower and more spread out. And I remember texting my friend who was still in a late night room like “We spent the whole day today talking about if two characters should kiss. And then we went home at five o’clock.” [laughs]

Craig: Yeah. There’s this other thing that’s sort of fascinating about – I guess we’ll call it topical humor or kind of fast humor. So, Saturday Night Live is both topic and week after week after week, and the same thing with something like Oliver or Samantha Bee. And that is that the stuff that you’re creating for the moment, but it’s there forever. And as we move through time the one thing I think we’ve seen over and over again is that what people think is funny as opposed to what they think is offensive or not funny or unfair changes.

And there’s an interesting kind of danger in that business. And I wonder if when you were in those rooms if there was ever a sense that you were going to be held accountable for the work down the line.

Ashley: You know, interestingly I don’t think that was something I thought about a lot because on both of the comedy variety shows I’ve been on they were very feminist, woman-focused shows. And so we were already punching up. And it’s like that will probably always be OK. But there were definitely times like on Full Frontal where like news had changed and we had covered something and we’re covering it again and it’s like do we play a clip of Sam saying something about this thing and now she has something more or different to say about it? There were like self-referential moments. Like I remember one of our first shows we covered a mass shooting. And then there were like seven more mass shootings. And at a certain point you have to say how many times am I going to stand here and talk about this and acknowledge the fact that we’ve done this before.

Craig: Right. Interesting.

John: Something like Samantha Bee, she has a very distinctive voice. Do you need to learn to write in her voice? Do you learn these are things that fit sort of Samantha Bee and wouldn’t fit other people? Was there any challenge of getting used to her flow and her format? Or is it just you naturally sort of feel it? Did you feel like you were writing to a character named Samantha Bee? Or were you writing what you wish you could say?

Ashley: A little bit of both. I definitely like when I was doing my packet, went to sleep with headphones on listening to her voice. Like I definitely studied and learned her voice. But also as a Black woman there were moments where I was like here is something I wish a white lady would say on TV. And I had one that I could give words to which was an amazing gift.

And then sometimes I would do that and Sam would be like, “You’re crazy. I’m not saying this. You’re in the show.” And I was like, no, I want you to say it.

Craig: Yeah. Samantha Bee is smart.

Ashley: Yes.

John: So, Ashley, you refer to your packet. So I think it’s time to transition into that part of it, because the packet is part of how you get hired in late night and comedy variety. Before we get to it let’s talk about how you got started here and sort of what is your background before writing on these shows? If someone has the goal of writing on these shows where should they start and let’s start with where you started. What was your route to getting to this point?

Ashley: I started at the Second City. So I actually grew up here in Los Angeles and so I actually knew as a kid that TV was a job and there were other jobs other than just being an actor. But I always wanted to be an actor. But there was no one on TV when I was a kid who looked like me, so it didn’t seem accessible to me. So I went to grad school. I did my masters and most of my Ph.D. hoping to teach performance studies. And while I was doing that I took a class at the Second City and did sketch comedy once and was like, oh, this is it. Because you got to write for yourself and that was the part of acting that didn’t work for me was letting other people write for me.

So I started doing sketch at the Second City. And a lot of people who come out of there end up going into late night. And people would always talk about packets. But it was always like this truly evil thing where people would be like, “Yeah, that packet we did last week was tough, huh?” And everyone would talk about it. And I’m like, oh, last week, so it’s over. You didn’t mention it until it was over.

Craig: Ah. Man, behind the scenes. So tough.

John: Yeah. So, let’s define some terms here. So, what do we mean by a packet?

Ashley: So the shows will send out usually to agents and managers, and then comedians get their hands on it and pass it around amongst their friends. A packet, like the list of things that you can write to sort of audition for the show. So it’s going to be all the things they do on that show. So like at Full Frontal it’s going to be monologues and field pieces. On Jimmy Fallon he does like desk bits and sketches, so that’s going to be in there. It’s basically whatever they would do in a normal week. You’re going to write like a couple examples of that. And probably also just some loose jokes which probably you already have in your Twitter. And send that off to them so they can see that you can write that style of show.

John: So when I first joined the WGA board someone reached out to me on Twitter saying like, “Hey, could you take a look at late night writing packets because it’s crazy how much work they’re asking you to do. Basically to audition for a job.” It’s like if you want to be a writer on CSI and they said like, “Write us a CSI as a sample.” There was just a huge expectation of work going into this. Hours and hours of time and a lot of material. And the sense that like even if that material wasn’t directly making it into the show it kind of could be leaking into that show.

The whole writing packet process is fraught. And I think we’ve been able to make some changes both in the East and the West with some best practices going into that, but I want everyone to be aware that this is a thing that happens in comedy variety that does not happen in half hours or hour-longs, in traditional scripted TV. That sense that you are specifically writing an audition piece for that show that you’re applying for.

Ashley: And it can weed out people who don’t have leisure time, right? Like my packet for Full Frontal was 25 pages long. I was someone who had been writing for a long time and could write 25 pages in a week and had like a job where I could take the hours to do that. But if you work like retail and you can’t take time off you’re writing 25 pages in the middle of the night. That’s just such a disadvantage compared to someone who has like leisure time.

John: And a lot of times these shows would also say like, OK, bring in your references and your research for these things. So basically you’re not just can you tell funny jokes, it’s like can you research at this thing and provide a lot. So it’s a huge amount of expectation of work there.

Ashley: And it’s work you would never have to do, because once you’re on the show there are researchers. But to do the packet you have to do all your own research.

John: Now Ashley, those researchers on the show, are those people who want to be writers on the show? Is that an entry level job for them?

Ashley: It isn’t. And that is a misconception that I’m happy to dispel. So a lot of the researchers are journalists, or like studio producers. If you want to be a writer you will find being a researcher very frustrating. And so I think sometimes people do take other jobs in late night hoping to move over to writer. And you can do that, but it will be harder on your show. So if like you’re a researcher on Full Frontal then do a packet and try to get on John Oliver’s show. You can definitely do that. But you’ll be frustrated if you become a researcher and think it’s going to turn into joke writing.

John: So these other comedians were not telling you about the packets that they’re writing for other places. They weren’t telling you that this was an opening out there. How did you finally find out about it? How did you submit for these things? What was the process that got your work in front of people?

Ashley: It’s like a very specific story to me but I do think that there are practical applications. So, like I said I was working at the Second City and I had worked with Dwayne Perkins in the past. And then when Stephen Colbert’s new CBS show came out they announced – they did like a big announcement of their writer staff and it was like 500 white men and two white ladies. And it was just like, oh, Colbert is supposed to be like – he’s from Second City. Being a Second City trained person, that’s like the show I should be able to like at least have a chance to apply for. And not only did I not, but I never even heard about the packet. And I’m in with the in crowd with that show. Right?

So I had posted on Facebook back when we used to do that. And I was just like, you know, it’s so disappointing to see that he has this all white, mostly male staff. And even as like a Second City person I couldn’t get my hands on a packet. And, of course, people got angry at me and were like if you didn’t get picked it’s because you’re not a good writer. And I was like you don’t know that because I didn’t get to write. I didn’t even get a packet. [laughs] I didn’t get a chance to write.

So, Dwayne Perkins had like seen that Facebook argument and he was like, “You’re exactly right. I got a packet recently. It’s 100% for you. Put your money where your mouth is. Here’s the packet.” And it was the one for Sam Bee.

Craig: That’s pretty great. I do like it when racist people on Facebook are really bad at arguing. [laughs] It’s just kind of funny. Like did you not read what I said? Look at the words. Ah, Facebook.

Ashley: Racists historically do not like to read.

Craig: You know what? They’re not big readers. Or thinkers. Yeah. You know, there’s an interesting study there. Maybe it’s just like whatever weird shame, it makes you hate books and words. It just stretches to other human beings.

Ashley: Well, it’s the opposite. They did a study and they found that people who, like novels teach your empathy. People who read more novels have better empathy skills.

Craig: It makes total sense. You have to put your mind in another person’s mind. Yeah. By the way, that’s what writing is. It’s why when writers talk about things and I’m like how is it that you can write somebody that’s different than you but you cannot imagine how this person across from you is thinking differently? Then it seems like a weird deficit.

Ashley: The whole gig is just imagining being another person.

Craig: Yeah. Like, hello? WTF.

John: So Samantha Bee is the first time you’re hired on. What is like to be working into that room for the first time? And how do you learn the rhythm and sort of when to speak and when not to speak? Because we’ve been talking on the show about your first time in a writer’s room, traditionally you’re sort of breaking out a season of a show and sort of like when you speak up and when you don’t speak up. Any guidance for the first time someone is in a comedy variety room? Like how to sort of get their feet underneath them?

Ashley: Yeah. I think a lot of podcasts tell people like, oh, if you’re a staff writer you shouldn’t talk, but talking is your job. So maybe don’t take that advice. When I started on Full Frontal most of that staff had been on The Daily Show, so it was of course like intimidating because they – I had never worked in TV before. And many of them had been on The Daily Show for like a decade.

And so I was kind of quiet to start off. But then I realized like, oh, yes they have TV experience that I don’t have, but I have a perspective that’s really important that I need to speak up. So someone had like pitched a story that unknowingly would have been very upsetting to the disabled community, like from a place of pure innocence. But as I’m listening to it I’m like, oh no, Twitter is going to kill us. And I was like, well, I can’t not – so I just had to say, “You know what, I’m sorry, I hate to be this person. Everyone is so excited about this idea. But Twitter is going to kill us if we accidentally say this thing. Maybe a different angle that wouldn’t do that is this.” And our showrunner pulled me aside and was like, “I was waiting for you to realize that there was a reason why I brought you here.”

And it was so validating. It was like, oh yeah, I’m here to be that millennial who says. And then I felt better and I started pitching a lot of stories. And I actually got a lot of pitches on in the beginning I think because I purposely curated my social so that I was following a lot of activists and people who were on the front line of news stories. So they would be tweeting about something that was going to be news in two days. So I could bring that story in first.

And then also the silly little advice I give people is pitch for the cold open and the tag. Because nobody cares about those. They’re having a hard time getting pitches on. They’ll always let you write a tag.

Craig: That’s great.

John: Now, Ashley, I want to talk about what you said there with the disabled community was going to be on you if you ever say this thing. One of the things I’ve been hearing a lot about these last six weeks is don’t ask the person of color in the room to be the brakes. Don’t ask that person to always be the one who has to be the person saying like, no, no, that’s wrong. Don’t ask the most junior person in the room to speak up when there’s a problem. Help me square that. Because it sounds like in that case thank god they had you there to do that. But it shouldn’t always be your responsibility to do that. Right?

Ashley: It shouldn’t be and it’s so much extra work that only that young or junior writer of color is doing. And it’s so unfair, especially when you, the staff writer, has to tell an EP that they’re wrong. Like that’s horrible. The power imbalance feels so bad. So, hopefully you’re not putting that person in that position. But because you have unconscious bias you may accidentally do that and then it becomes about how you respond. Like I remember when I was on Bless this Mess there was a storyline that I was like, oh, I don’t know. I don’t know if I buy – Pam Grier is on that show. I don’t know if I buy a Black woman doing this. And immediately our showrunner was like, “You’re absolutely right. Thank you.”

And she wasn’t defensive. She didn’t argue me down. She didn’t get her feelings hurt. She just said thank you and we moved on and started improving the pitch. Like you would if someone said like, hey, maybe we should cut these two lines of dialogue. And that’s how you should respond to everything.

Craig: Well there’s this notion that if somebody challenges one of the things that you’re presenting in a room either you have some sort of core shame attached to it or you don’t.

Ashley: Yeah.

Craig: And I think a lot of people have just a ton of core shame around anything that involves race or gender or sexuality. Any of these areas that we consider to be kind of slightly electrified train rails, you know. Because we’re afraid or we want to do well and then when somebody challenges you the shame kicks in and then there’s this defensiveness. And I think you’re making such an interesting point that actually there is nothing – it’s not personal. It’s the work. Right? So the work is what makes sense. What connects here? There is no need necessarily for shame. And I feel sometimes that behind some of that defensiveness is like a weird self-protection, like no, because I’m not a racist so therefore this is not racist or problematic.

Ashley: Exactly.

Craig: Well, no, no, you can definitely say things that are incorrect or problematic or upsetting without being a bad person. It’s called you didn’t make the right choice the first time. That’s what writing is also, right? That’s part of it.

Ashley: Yeah. Like any time in a room someone says like, “Oh, I think we can beat this joke,” we’ve like built a callous over the part of our heart that gets our feelings hurt by that.

Craig: Yes!

Ashley: And it’s just a value neutral, OK, let’s try to beat it. And I think we have to get there with these issues, too. And obviously you’re a human being. You might feel shame. You might get hot in the face. Take a walk around the block. Don’t put that on that poor young staff writer. Because I have seen people get shutdown and just stop talking for the rest of the season. It’s very easy to do.

Craig: Yeah. No, that’s such a great point. People are encouraged to grow that callous over their sense of pride of ownership, pride of authorship, and in fact it’s a bit of a badge of courage that, dude, I don’t even feel anything man. Yeah, well first of all we all do. OK? Everybody feels something. When someone says, “Don’t love that joke,” everybody – you should. You’re a human being. You’re going to feel something. But it’s contextualized. You are a funny person. You have had funny things get into the show. You will again. No one is saying that you’re not funny. They’re just saying congratulations as a human being you’re not batting a thousand. And I think that extends to everything.

That’s such a useful perspective, I think. When these moments of rubbing up against each other happen, not good rubbing up against each other but bad rubbing up against each other, that you kind of are able to sort of let yourself grow the callous over it and not feel shame. Take the walk. Don’t put it on the other person. Don’t try and make your discomfort go away by denying that anything happened problematic in the first place.

John: I think it comes back to the idea of an action versus an identity. And a thing I’ve seen people talk about on Twitter this last couple weeks is to do a racism is to recognize that you did a thing that wasn’t right and it could have been unconscious or whatever, but let that be a thing that happened and it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are that person who did that thing. Because that’s where you get in that cycle where you start denying it and all these things.

There’s an opportunity to acknowledge and address it and move on. And that helps that young writer who pointed out keep speaking up in the room and it helps everyone just sort of figure out the way forward through this and not have it be so focused on your identity, just the work that you’re doing.

Ashley: And that writer’s ability to keep speaking out is going to save you a bad day on Twitter, I promise.

Craig: That’s absolutely true. There’s a great self-interest that you could examine and I think that is – obviously there’s a value there. But, you know, even if theoretically someone could whisper in your ear and say, “I’m from the future and you get away with it on Twitter, no one notices,” there is a human being there who you hopefully are encouraging to grow. Because definitionally you’re describing somebody that’s not in charge talking to somebody who is in charge. And we’re going to get into this whole theory of how you do let people grow and how to prevent I guess – what’s the version of the ceiling that isn’t even a ceiling? [laughs] Right?

You walk into a room and your head is already bumping up against it because essentially it’s like welcome to the entry level where you will stay forever.

Ashley: Yes. Hope you like it here.

Craig: Exactly. This is your home now. And you did have this fascinating thread on Twitter where you were investigating diversity programs and that was one of the concepts that came up. So maybe we should talk a little bit about that thread and what you were trying to say.

Ashley: Yeah. I’ve never done a diversity program. But I hear about them so much from my peers and it’s like among the entry level people of color one of the biggest pain points. And I just thought like, well, those people who have done one or who still hope to do one as their way into the industry probably feel like they can’t say these things. But I can. And so, yeah, I went on a good old birthday rant.

Craig: Oh, that was your birthday? Oh.

Ashley: It was my birthday.

Craig: Happy Birthday.

Ashley: Thank you.

John: Happy Birthday. So, some of the points you make in this is that these programs recruit people who don’t necessarily need them. And so you’re an example. Like you came through Second City so you probably could have applied for one of these programs, but you already had the training coming out of this that you kind of would have gotten in one of these programs right?

Ashley: Yes, OK, I did apply for them. I applied for all the diversity programs. I didn’t get in. And then I got a job on television. And a lot of my friends who were doing these programs were with me at the Second City. They had the exact same training I do. And I would watch as our white friends would get a staff writer job and our friends of color would get a diversity program.

Craig: Yes. And so there’s this weird thing that’s happening in two directions in this point that you’re making. One point is that there are people who have done programs like UCB or Second City who if they were white would have already then graduated from something. Essentially it’s like you’re done with your thing, so you move along. Like you don’t need to go through another thing to graduate through.

Which I think is really important to put into focus. When you have this program that then is like – it’s like putting a lobby in front of a lobby, right?

Ashley: Maybe this conversation is the end of my career, but when you—

Craig: Trust me, our careers will end way faster.

Ashley: [laughs] When someone presents a problem to you of like there aren’t enough people of color at your network or whatever and your solution is a training program, what you’re saying is you assume that those people need training. You’re assuming that they’re less than. And you know there was a time where people of color didn’t have access to universities or to these post-graduate training programs, but we do. So you’re now taking someone who has gone to college, gone through a Second City, and IO, a UCB, often for ten years, and then saying you need more training, even though the person who is sitting in the classroom next to you is ready.

Craig: Right. Exactly. And you may already have more actual training than that person. Because there’s a special training bucket, you end up in the training bucket. And you know because you applied, didn’t get into those programs, and then got the thing that those programs are supposed to train you for. I have the same relationship with film schools. I didn’t go to film school. I didn’t go to any of that stuff. And then I just did the thing that I’m doing. And the point being that there is the most essential training. The only real training you can ultimately get is job training that isn’t training – a job. Right? They got to throw you in the pool and you must swim. No floaties. No little special zone in the pool. You got to go in with everybody else and start swimming.

Ashley: And I think the problem they’re attempting to address is like when you’re on that first or second or third even staff writer job typically someone is going to take under their wing and kind of mentor you a little bit. If it’s not the showrunner, one of the other EPs. And I’ve certainly experienced that and been so grateful for that. And I think that people tend to choose – when you choose your guy who you’re going to do that for it’s often someone who looks like you.

So, I think in their minds they’re thinking, oh, a person of color may not get chosen as anybody’s guy, so let’s run them through this training program. But the training program is not the same type or quality of information that you would get as being on a job and having a senior level writer take you under their rein. So they’re not replicating the thing they’re trying to replace.

Craig: They’re not replicating the thing they’re trying to replace. It’s such a perfect way of saying it. Everybody knows, right? It’s not like people don’t know. This person is a trainee. This person is a rookie. That’s too very different jobs. And it does seem like there’s got to be a way to get us out of that loop.

I think that people sometimes think that, oh, these are essentially positive things. But, John, my question for you is behind all of this do you suspect, what I suspect, which is that the companies are just being cheap. They’re using training as an excuse to pay less.

John: So, I think there is a noble intention, or there was a noble intention behind these programs. So I don’t want to put a negative – original intention on this. But I think the realities are if a studio can get away with paying less they will pay less. And in many cases the people who are coming out of these programs they’re able to pay these people a training late, some lesser rate, or pay them out of a different fund so it’s saving them money to do this. And I think it overall limits the growth of some of these writers who are coming to television this way. Because if I can pay you X or I can pay you 75% of X, you know, as a studio I want to pay you 75% of X. And I worry that that’s really where we’re at right now.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And that’s why we probably need to take a very critical look at what we’re doing here and so that we are hiring Ashley out of Second City, not hiring Ashely, we’re bringing her into the training program after Second City. Giving her the job she should have.

Craig: Like Ashley says, so Ashley another point you make is because there is this trainee rate where they’re getting away with paying you less, they’re incentivized to keep you on that level.

Ashley: Or, to swap you out for another person of color. Because when it would be time for you to go up to the next level, like story editor, and probably get a pay bump. What is happening is that they’re just swapping that writer out and getting another new diversity program writer who is free again. And so it’s like when you tell someone that someone is worth less they’re going to treat them like they’re worth less. And it also makes it seem like writers of color are interchangeable.

Like we had a Black writer, and now we’ll just get another Black writer, as if that person is going to come in with the same experience and skills and life knowledge that they were bringing to the room.

Craig: Right.

John: Yeah. That idea of paying someone less makes them worth less is something we’ve talked a lot about with assistants over these years. And this is another example of that where it’s just when you give a discount for certain kinds of people in that room it has an effect. And so I think a writer is a writer and needs to be paid like a writer is where we’re coming down to.

While we’re still talking about money, I do want to circle back to comedy variety overall. Did you get residuals? Did you get paid residuals for the work you were doing on those shows?

Ashley: We did because the two shows are on TBS and HBO. So we did get residuals. I only found out recently that on streaming a lot of comedy variety writers don’t get residuals, which is like – that’s already nuts, but there’s no script fees in comedy variety. And there’s no advancement. You’re either a staff writer or the head writer. So there’s no like sort of guaranteed pay bumps. And there’s no residuals. So it’s just people working 45 hours a day for way less money than everybody else.

John: So you’re working in scripted television, working on Bless the Mess, or the show you’re working on right now, is that better pay and a better life for you?

Ashley: Yeah, it’s definitely a more chill life. There are a lot of comedy variety writers who only want to write comedy variety for the rest of their careers and they’re great at it. I don’t think that a lot of people are trying to move into scripted. But, they’re doing – they are a writer. They should at least be getting residuals and at least be getting the same level of financial gain that everybody else is.

John: Yeah. Particularly if they’re working on a streamer show, because the difference between if you’re writing a show for Netflix versus a show for HBO, and one gets residuals and one doesn’t, that’s crazy.

Craig: Well, you know, we’re kind of bumping up against this issue that we were discussing before. The churn of this kind of work. Because residuals ultimately are for reuse and if you have material that’s sort of got a – like I mean I guess some people sit and watch old episodes of Jimmy Kimmel, but not many. Mostly you’re just watching it that night. And so reuse isn’t a huge part of it, which means that the companies that are employing writers have to essentially balance that out so that – I mean, obviously you want to make sure that the people who are working for you can make a living. And that as an employer you are an attractive option for those people because, you know, as we’re hearing Ashley is appropriately describing the – I mean, this is like fox hole stuff. Right?

This is really hard to do. I mean, listen, just as a side note, always go for the more chill, if you can. Just always. This job is hard enough. Life is hard enough. Being a writer is hard enough. We already have our own mental problems that we’re dealing with. So chill – always I say gravitate towards chill.

John: We have a couple questions here and I’m curious about your perspective on these, Ashley, so I’m going to ask you first to answer these questions if you wouldn’t mind. Vito in Vegas wrote in to ask, “About a year ago a friend told me about an idea he wanted to turn into a screenplay. The idea was simple as ‘a heist film that takes place in a shopping mall’ with no other plot points, story, or characters discussed. Since then we’ve had a pretty big falling out but I really like the idea of a heist film in a shopping mall. Is it stealing if I write my own take on that idea? Does it only become stealing if I were taking plot points and characters? When is stealing an idea actually stealing an idea?”

Ashley, what do you think?

Ashley: I think, I don’t know, my perspective might be different as a sketch writer. Because as a sketch and a late night writer you’re going through so many ideas that to me it is stealing and stealing an idea – I don’t know why you would do it. Because you have 45 ideas a day. Just use one of the other 44. That’s such a vague idea that you could just have another one.

John: Craig, what do you think?

Craig: Yeah. I mean, the idea, a heist film that takes place in a shopping mall, is not intellectual property. It is not copyright-able. What Vito is really asking us to make is an ethical determination. And I tend to side with Ashley here. Like, yeah, no, you could. There’s nothing your ex-friend can do about it legally. But how will you feel? And maybe is there something else you can write? And also honestly Vito that’s not a great idea. Sorry. It’s just not.

John: It’s not a great idea.

Craig: It’s not a great idea.

John: We’ve spared you from that.

Craig: We’ve seen a billion heist movies, and so it’s in a shopping mall. Who cares? I don’t care. That was also Bad Santa. So, yeah, you know, it was Bad Santa. It’s been done.

John: What I find so fascinating about this question is that, OK, if it weren’t an ex-friend but a current friend would you be considering it? No. You wouldn’t be considering it because that’s your friend and you’d be betraying your friend. Or at least you would talk to your friend about that. Are you going to actually write this thing or are you not going to write this thing? But because it’s an ex-friend that you had a falling out with maybe that makes it OK? No. That doesn’t change the valiance of whether it’s OK or not to do this thing.

So, move on. I think Ashley had the best approach. Because really it’s a sketch idea. It’s just a loose idea out there. You can have other good loose ideas. Leave this one be, Vito. Don’t – thanks for writing in, but don’t take this idea.

Craig: Nice use of the word valiance, by the way.

John: All right. Thanks. I try every once and a while.

Craig: No, I love it.

Ashley: It’s on his calendar today.

Craig: I know. Today the word of the day is “valiance.”

John: I ripped it off. It’s like, ooh, valiance. That’s the new word.

Craig: Let’s see.

John: Do you want to try Hunter?

Craig: Yeah. Let’s pose this question to Ashley. Hunter from Washington writes, “This is sort of a follow up to your recent podcast about the use of police in mass media. That’s from Episode 455. Which made me wonder about my current project. I’ve been working on and off for the past two years on a drama feature about a minority teenager struggling against the nature of society while attempting to achieve his dreams. One of the characters currently happens to be a family member who is also a local police officer. The problem is I’m white and come from a middle class household so I haven’t experienced the injustice that I’ve been writing about. With the recent protests I feel like I woefully unqualified to tell the story and am worried that what I am doing will be seen as extremely insensitive should I ever release it to the public.

“Here’s my dilemma…” I’m already interested because I don’t know where the dilemma is, but let’s go on. “Here’s my dilemma. Should I continue to write this screenplay while avoiding the traps that typically appear with Hollywood portrayals of police and racism? Or should I simply accept I am too privileged to write something like this and write something else? I’m passionate about this story as some elements are personal to me, but I don’t want to write something that could considered by many to be insensitive.”

Ashley, any thoughts about Hunter’s – I’m going to downgrade it from dilemma to predicament?

Ashley: I feel really bad because he said he’s been working on it for two years, but he lost me at the word minority.

Craig: I was going to say. I don’t even like saying it.

Ashley: Yeah. I feel like if you’re calling your character a minority and not a Black person or a Mexican person you’re probably not ready to write the script. I’m so sorry.

Craig: Oh yeah. John, what do you think about Hunter from WA?

John: So, he says there is a personal aspect of this story. I think that’s what he needs to focus on and there’s probably some version of the story that he actually has real insight, both personal insight and emotional insight. But I think he’s trying to project it onto characters he is no ready to write and parts of the world he doesn’t understand. And I don’t think it’s going to work. And so not just because it’s like the politically correct thing to do, but I think it’s actually the correct writing thing to do and career thing to do is for him to focus on the story that he’s uniquely well-qualified to write and not try to write this thing that he himself seems to suspect he’s not the right person to be writing.

Craig: That’s the part that I’m kind of catching on. I mean, Hunter, I think you have to listen to your gut here. You can write anybody and you are allowed to write anybody. Writers, we are here to write characters and we should and can write characters that are not just like us. However, if you do so please be aware you have to get it right. If you’re going to write somebody that isn’t you other people that are more like that character need to look at it and go that feels right. Which means homework and listening and empathy and practice and thought and connection. So a lot of stuff going on there. And it doesn’t sound like you feel like you’re on solid ground there.

The other thing to investigate is whether or not your story is going to fit in a kind of story we’ve seen a lot of. For instance, if your story is about white people helping a Black kid, we’ve seen it. A lot.

Ashley: We’ve seen it more than it’s actually happened I would argue.

Craig: Correct. There is 1.5 of those movies for every time it has happened in reality. [laughs] So, I think that we don’t need more of those. Sometimes people think that they have a good idea for a movie because it’s just like other movies they’ve seen when in fact that’s the best argument that you don’t have a good idea for a movie. So, I think that you should listen to your gut here. You’re not a bad person. In fact, you’re a good person I would argue because you are being aware and you’re being thoughtful and you are taking the time to do something that a lot of people don’t do.

So, on that front I think well done. Listen to your gut here. And remember there’s lots of other stuff you can write.

John: For sure. It’s time for our One Cool Things. So, I have two One Cool Things. One of them is Ashley Nicole Black on Drunk History. So I was looking through clips and you’re on Drunk History Season 5 Episode 3 talking about Nichelle Nichols and Star Trek. It is fantastic. My question for you, so we’ll put a link in the show notes to this, my question for you is how does the drinking part and the recording of the audio work on that? Because you tell the story so well and yet you clearly have some alcohol in you. What is that experience like?

Ashley: That’s one of the top three drunkest I’ve been in my life. And one of the other three is another episode of Drunk History. So very drunk. And so basically like there is someone there who is very patient and whose name I couldn’t possibly remember who will get you to repeat a sentence over and over again until you get it right.

Craig: Oh my god. That’s awesome.

John: Well and it’s absolutely delightful. So people should check that out. The other thing I was listening to this morning, NPR did a reading of the Emancipation Proclamation in celebration of Juneteenth. And the Emancipation Proclamation, I guess I never actually read it. It’s not inspiring reading. It’s not poetic. It’s just a list of exceptions kind of to the end of slavery except for these cases.

But what’s fascinating about the NPR reading of it is – I’ll link to the page that has it – is they have a whole bunch of NPR hosts reading different sections of it. And so the first time I’m seeing like, oh, that’s what Audie Cornish looks like. That’s what Korva Coleman looks like. All these people whose voices I’ve heard in my head all these times. Oh, that’s the face that goes with it. So, I always find it so fascinating when I listen to the radio or podcasts because I end up building a face in my mind for what that person looks like and it’s never even remotely close. And so it was a chance to see some of the faces of all these NPR people I’ve been listening to for years. So I’ll put a link in the show notes to that.

Ashley: Can I make a confession about this show?

Craig: Sure.

John: Tell me.

Ashley: I thought you guys were the opposite. Like, I had seen a picture of Craig at some point and thought that man was named John August.

Craig: Oh wow. That’s awesome.

Ashley: A really long time.

Craig: That’s so great.

John: That’s excellent.

Craig: That’s amazing. But, you know, it doesn’t really change anything, does it?

John: No, it really doesn’t it.

Craig: I mean, you just thought all that time that agency agreement guy named John August was such an asshole. [laughs] And now you’re like, oh no, that man named John August is a very nice man.

John: So Craig has a beard. I could not grow a beard if I tried. That’s one way to sort of keep it.

Craig: Have you tried?

John: I have tried. It looks really bad.

Craig: Aw. I kind of want to see it now.

John: You want to see it?

Ashley: Quarantine is the time.

Craig: I mean, really.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I was just looking, by the way, at the Emancipation Proclamation. They have on the national archives they have the actual document which was handwritten, of course. And it just strikes me that it’s four and half pages long of just handwriting. Now, today any bill, even a bill to name a post office something is usually about 4,000 pages long. I just think it’s remarkable that before I think government became over-lawyered and burdened down by all these things that you could do something like free an entire race of people in 4.5 pages.

Now, you could also argue that maybe they should have been a little bit more thorough in their 4.5 pages because in fact the whole point of Juneteenth is that Emancipation Proclamation didn’t seem to take effect for a while. At least not in Texas. So I guess there’s a tradeoff. They could have used a few extra pages there it seems.

John: Or quicker enforcement.

Craig: Yeah.

John: That too. But there was a war, so it happened along the way. Ashley, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

Ashley: Yes. It’s the Loveland Foundation, which is an organization that helps Black women and girls access therapy. So if you want to access therapy you can go to their website and there’s places like find a therapist. And you can also donate and help pay for somebody’s therapy.

John: That seems great.

Craig: It’s called the Loveland?

Ashley: Yes. The Loveland Foundation.

Craig: OK. Bookmarking. All right. My One Cool Thing is, you had it listed here on our Workflowy John as “also” but I’m stealing it because I was already planning on it.

John: All right.

Craig: Our good friend, friend of the podcast, Mike Birbiglia, he has his many wonderful shows. Mr. Birbiglia – by the way, Mike Birbiglia’s movie Don’t Think Twice is – I was thinking about that when you were talking about, Ashley, talking about people who don’t mention the packets. Like that weird jealously thing that happens in the improv world.

Ashley: Oh man. I saw that movie with another comic. And it was one of our first times hanging out and we both liked walked out of the theater and were like goodbye. It destroyed us.

Craig: I love that. He’s going to love that, too.

Ashley: A very good representation of what it’s like.

Craig: Yeah. It’s sort of like he knew that world.

Ashley: That is a story he was uniquely qualified to write.

John: Yes.

Craig: Indeed. Indeed. So he had this wonderful show called The New One which was referenced both to the show itself and to his new child. And he and his wife J. Hope Stein, which I love, but anybody that is a fan of Mike’s comedy knows that he refers to his wife as Clo, which is not her name. Regardless, they have a book called The New One which includes poems by his wife. She’s a fantastic poet. And her poetry features in the show.

That book is now available I believe.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Everywhere. Including in print and in audio books. So The New One by Mike Birbiglia with poems by J. Hope Stein, aka Clo, is my One Cool Thing.

John: So the other “also” here was because he also has a brand new podcast and he’s probably listening to us right now saying like, no, mention the podcast.

Craig: I know. I can hear him saying that. Why aren’t they mentioning the podcast?

John: Mike Birbiglia seems like a nice person, but you can tell you don’t want to get him angry.

Craig: That he’s the devil? [laughs]

John: I don’t want him angry at me.

Ashley: He seems nice to me.

Craig: That’s the best thing you’ve ever said. Mike Birbiglia seems like a nice person. But I think we all know he’s Satan.

John: Yeah. But he’s also driven. His new podcast is called Working it Out. It’s him working on new material with other comedians and creators each week. And it’s great so you should take a listen to that because he’s a very smart, funny person. And it’s also cool to see the process of creation happening kind of live. This is the time he would normally be out on the road working on his new thing. And instead he’s doing it through a podcast. So you should listen.

Craig: Yeah.

John: If you are a Premium member stick around after the credits because we’re going to be talking about fireworks. But otherwise Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Eric Pearson. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com.

That’s also the place where you can send long questions like the ones we answered. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Ashley you are?

Ashley: @ashleyn1cole.

John: And so you find her there. That’s actually we found you. That’s how we first met was on the Twitter.

We have t-shirts. They’re great. Get them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments.

Ashley, absolute pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you so much for joining us here.

Ashley: It’s going to be weird to listen to the podcast and not be on it after this I got to say.

Craig: Well, I mean, if you’re looking for a podcast job…

John: If you’re looking for a podcast job. Actually what we’re saying is please come back often, OK?

Craig: Yeah.

Ashley: Would love to.

John: Thanks.

Craig: Awesome.

[Bonus segment]

John: Now, Ashley, you live in Hollywood. I live just south of you, just south of Hollywood. Can we talk about fireworks and the fireworks situation?

Ashley: Has it been a month? It feels like it’s been a month of every single night fireworks.

John: From Memorial Day on, honestly. Just hearing fireworks all the time. Not like happy big fireworks in the sky. Just like pops and explosions. And most frustratingly during the time when Melrose was on fire and there were actually smoke grenades and stuff like that I would also hear them. And so like is that fireworks? Is there some civil unrest happening nearby? Fireworks, no. Stop the fireworks.

Ashley: Yeah. It’s like every night it’s like helicopters and tiny explosions. And my poor little dog is like we shouldn’t be outside. And I’m like but this is where you have to pee. It’s just like, no, no, no, it’s not good. And it’s every night I have this shivering being hiding in my bathroom that I can’t do anything for.

John: Yeah. My dog is the same way. So, fireworks I think are appropriate for the Fourth of July. Second tier is New Year’s Eve. Great. I can take some fireworks on New Year’s Eve. Let’s keep them special for those days. I don’t want the fireworks for the unveiling of the tree at the Grove. No. The tree is the celebration at the Grove. We don’t need fireworks for that either. I just – I’m kind of anti-fireworks. Craig, you’re being very quiet here.

Craig: Counterpoint.

Ashley: No.

Craig: We should have fireworks every night. Hear me out. Hear me out. First of all, the dogs will get used to it.

Ashley: No they won’t apparently. It’s been a month.

Craig: They need like a lot of them. The problem is that they’re getting random fireworks. They need to know every night at say 10pm there’s an amazing fireworks display that brings everyone together. Beautiful. We can all look up. We can ooh and ah. And we all—

Ashley: They can’t see color.

Craig: That’s OK. Because a lot of them are white and black. Like, you know, they shine so a lot of flashes of light that disappear into the night. So they can like that. And also maybe like we could put some sort of flavor in the fireworks. Like a chicken flavor or something. I was thinking of my dog. She loves chicken.

So, chicken would come down and they would be happy. And because everyone – who doesn’t love fireworks? They’re heartwarming.

John: No. Fireworks are not heartwarming. And I oppose their use in anything other than the Fourth of July and occasionally on January 1st.

Craig: So weird. You’re talking about fireworks like they’re ventriloquism or something, which as everyone knows is awful. Fireworks put a smile on children’s faces.

John: Because they’re special once a year.

Ashley: Yes.

John: And if we have them all the time it’s no longer once a year. It’s no longer special.

Craig: They should be shown every hour. I would be OK if they announced the hour change like, oh, it’s three o’clock. Fireworks. I’m down.

John: When I was in Scotland they actually have the gun where they fire at – I don’t know, originally it was like at noon, but they realized it was too many explosives. They were having to do it 12 times. So now they do it at one o’clock and so at one o’clock they put off the gun in Edinburgh.

Craig: Yeah.

Ashley: I’ve always found fireworks like OK. I’ve never had my mind blown by a firework. But there are people who have PTSD who like it ruins they’re whole day. So it’s like I’m not going to ruin someone’s whole day just so I can go like, oh, that was cool.

Craig: I hear you. But I think that’s again another reason why we should have fireworks every night. Hear me out. Hear me out. If they’re every night at a set time then anybody who is noise sensitive. Because, look, we have people out there who are neuro-diverse. They can handle the noise. They don’t like it. So they just know at this time let me get some ear plugs in. Let me get some foam. Let me put something over my ears.

John: I put on my thunder coat. Yes.

Craig: So this way I don’t have to experience the sound of it but if I want to watch the light, the beautiful colors, and I can see it. But they’ll know it’s coming. There’s no random factor. So, I think again the two of you – I almost feel like the two of you work for the fireworks lobby, because you’re making such good arguments for fireworks.

John: Now, have either of you seen the Queen of Versailles? The documentary about the rich woman who is determined to build the biggest house in Florida.

Craig: Yeah, I did.

Ashley: No.

John: So put it top of your queue. It’s fantastic.

Craig: Jaw-dropping.

John: But one of the things about the house that they’re trying to build is they’re outside Orlando and they build this giant window that aims towards Disney World because they can see the fireworks every night.

Craig: Yes. Yes.

John: So they wanted to be able to catch the fireworks every night. And the whole house is oriented towards being able to watch the Disney World fireworks.

Craig: They’re so good.

John: So amazing.

Ashley: And those are probably some of the best fireworks in the world. And they’re fine.

Craig: OK. Hold on. Hold on. Now we got a fight. When was the last time you saw the Disney World fireworks?

Ashley: Well not Disney World, but Disneyland probably a couple years ago.

Craig: I’ll grant you Disneyland fireworks – they’re good is what I would call them. You’re going to say fine. You put a little stink on it. I get it. Honestly good. But the Disney World fireworks are outstanding.

John: Now, but we can all agree though those fireworks which are up in the sky, that’s one thing. This sort of like war zone thing that Ashley and I are getting every night, that’s not the same thing. But it has the effect on our dogs and on our general wellbeing. Just like, oh, there’s a pop. Was that a gunshot? Was that some grenade thing going off? I don’t know. But it’s happening all the time.

Craig: If you don’t let people set off proper amounts of fireworks every night that’s what you’re going to get. It’s boiling over. OK? You need to give people an outlet. And the outlet I’m suggesting is nightly fireworks displaced 10 to 10:30, professional level. Professional level.

Ashley: It feels like what you’re describing is sex. [laughs]

Craig: A little bit.

John: Craig, I have a pitch for you. So it’s like the purge, but with fireworks.

Craig: OK.

John: So on one day every year–

Craig: No!

John: We let everyone do their fireworks and we do it on the Fourth of July. How is that?

Craig: You’re the worst. You’re the Grinch. You just said like what if every year we have one day where a man comes down from the North Pole and puts presents in our stockings. We already have that. You’re selling me something I already have. We have the Fourth of July. I want nightly fireworks. I’m not – this is my new thing. This is what the world needs.

John: Yeah. It’s in his HBO contract. He gets an assistant and he gets nightly fireworks.

Craig: That’s right.

Ashley: I’m going to send my dog to tap her little feet around your apartment at three o’clock in the morning.

Craig: I would actually kind of love that. I love dogs so much. What kind of dog?

Ashley: She’s a mutt. I adopted her from Puerto Rico. She’s a street dog. And she hates fireworks.

Craig: Is she big? Medium? Small?

Ashley: She’s small and chunky.

Craig: Oh, I like a small chunky dog.

Ashley: And she has Yoda ears.

Craig: Oh yeah. Yeah. Send her over. I’m good. I’ll teach her to appreciate the fireworks. She’ll love them.

John: Ashley, thanks again.

Craig: Thanks Ashley.

Ashley: Thanks for having me.

Craig: So much fun.

 

Links:

• Ashley Nicole Black on Twitter
• Ashley’s Twitter Thread on Diversity Programs
• Ashley on Drunk History on Nichelle Nichols
• NPR’s reading of the Emanicipation Proclamation
• The Loveland Foundation
• Mike Birbiglia’s Working it Out
• The New One
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by Eric Pearson (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 454 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we’ll be discussing the difference between story and screenplay, both as official WGA categories but also what we mean in everyday use. We’ll also explore that icky feeling that something is wrong with your script and what to do about it when you feel it. Then we’ll be answering listener questions about age, starting over, and whether you should turn in the Final Draft file when the producers ask for it.

Craig: Oh, yes.

John: And in our bonus segment for Premium subscribers, Craig and I will read erotic fiction.

Craig: Now if that doesn’t cause a stampede toward the subscription button I don’t know what will.

John: It could all be a big tease. We’ll see.

Craig: By the way, the erotic fiction we’ll be reading from is called Stampede Toward the Subscription Button.

John: Ha-ha. Really it’s good. It’s a very meta kind of thing.

Craig: Hot.

John: Hot. Some news about writing. Last week on the show I mentioned that my local bookstore, Chevalier’s was reopening and a bunch of local authors we’re getting together to celebrate its reopening – of course delivery or takeaway. But still it’s great that indie bookstores are being able to reopen. So we’re hosting a special event this coming Saturday, June 6, at 2pm. We’ll have a dozen authors, including myself, Aline Brosh McKenna, Derek Haas, Stuart Gibbs. Other middle grade YA and adult authors.

Craig: Stuart Gibbs! I’ve known Stuart Gibbs forever.

John: He is a lovely, lovely man.

Craig: Yeah. He really is. I’ve known him since I first arrived in Los Angeles.

John: Yeah. He’s a good guy. So we’re going to be talking through our summer reading list. So these are books we recommend people take a look at, both all the way from picture books up through grown up adult novels. So we’ll be talking through the books we love, books you should read over the summer. People should buy those books from Chevalier’s or whatever your indie bookstore is. But come join us on Zoom. It’s 2pm this Saturday, June 6. We’ll be hanging out and discussing summer reading.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: Second bit of follow up. Last week on the show we were talking about how to reopen the town for production. And several people wrote in about French hours. And they’re making a point which we didn’t really make in the show is that to summarize French hours are where rather than working these endless long production days you limit yourselves to 12 hours and there’s no lunch break. You don’t stop for lunch. You work through lunch and everyone goes home at a reasonable time.

Craig: Right.

John: And, Craig, what is the downside of that from an economic standpoint for an individual person?

Craig: Well…I think maybe it’s that there’s a less likely chance that there will be overtime.

John: That’s exactly it. So people were writing in to say that French hours sound great and they probably are healthier for everybody concerned. The reason why you’ll see pushback against it is that after eight hours people on these union sets tend to get overtime. And so you want to work more than eight hours because that’s how you bring home the big bucks.

Craig: Right.

John: And so that’s the thing we’d be balancing out is how to we get to a place where people value their life and their livelihoods and having a quality of life rather than just the sheer number of dollars they’re taking home.

Craig: Well, if you recall when we were talking about this Rawson got emotionally pleased at the thought of French hours. Most filmmakers do. And so what I would say – let’s say for instance on the next television show that I’m showrunning and EP’ing, I’d say to the producer, meaning the person in charge of the budget and also the studio, “Hey, what if we offer the crew more money per hour? We sort of say, look, we’re just going to go apples to apples here.” So we would probably end up doing this many hours over the course of a week with this much at time and a half, which is standard overtime. We’re going to give you a little bit more for your standard hours to get to that number and in exchange we’ll do French hours just because it makes us happier.

John: That is the right conversation to have.

Craig: Yeah. And hopefully that would go well. Because the benefit of French hours is not – look, maybe there are bean counters who say the benefit is that you’re saving money. But for us on the creative side the benefit is just that it’s just better creatively. And also for the purpose of managing COVID and etc. It’s vastly superior.

John: Yeah. So my hope is that as we start having these conversations about reopening the town some of the necessities, like French hours, become the norms. And that we really do move to a place where we are thinking about the health and safety and creative function of the people who make film and television and that it becomes a matter of course that we’re limiting our hours to things that make sense.

Craig: Yeah. I’m all for it. But point well taken. We should not put this on the backs of working people. That’s not who should be absorbing the cost. Nor should there be a cost to absorb. We’re already paying people this much money. We should keep paying them that much money, if not more, and just shift the way we do the work during the day.

John: And now there’s not a real state update in terms of when we are going to have guidance about how we’re reopening the town. As we’re recording this, this is on a Thursday, we thought earlier this week there would be an official state of California guide and plan for how it’s going to work.

Craig: Yeah. What happened there?

John: It didn’t really happen. I’ve heard rumblings that it’s really on the actors’ side. That there’s real concerns about, again, safety and basically what we talked about in the show. They are the most vulnerable people on a set because they cannot wear masks. Social distancing won’t apply to two actors who are in a scene together likely. So, there are real concerns about maintaining their safety.

What I hear, and this is all just people gossiping, is that’s one of the hold ups about having official guidance behind this. Still, when I talk to showrunners there’s ongoing discussions about maybe it’s July, maybe it’s August. That there’s going to be an attempt to get TV production at least back up and running.

Craig: Yeah. It will continue to be the actors and it should. Because they are going to be the ones who are the most risk. And they are literally incapable of doing their jobs properly if they are physically restrained from being near each other or revealing their faces. Unless we just go to an all Iron Man kind of thing. [laughs] Where everyone is just Iron Man’d up.

John: 100% of the time.

Craig: Yeah. Or Banes. Just Iron Mans and Banes.

John: Iron Man or Banes. Or a tremendous amount of visual effects to paint out people’s masks, sort of like how we painted out Henry Cavill’s mustache.

Craig: That didn’t work so well.

John: It was phenomenal. It’s what everything should look like. There’s vaguely a little bit long. Like an Animal Crossing face.

Craig: [speaking like Bane] I don’t want you to worry, John. I’ve had my COVID test.

I would do Bane all day. If I could do Bane all day I would. If it were allowable. If my wife would allow it.

John: Yeah. But she would never allow that.

Craig: No.

John: No.

Craig: No.

John: All right. Let’s get to our two main topics. Our first is story versus screenplay. So, on the show many a time we have talked about writing credits and what they mean, but we should probably recap that because for American movies the credits you see onscreen have very specific meanings and Craig can you talk us through what the very specific meanings are for the writing credits we see on a feature film?

Craig: Again, and first thing to know just as a little bit of background is that these writing credits that we have onscreen are the production of negotiation. So it’s actually writing into our collective bargaining agreement with the studios. And because that bargaining agreement is a massive contract these terms actually are legally defined in the contract.

So, what is story? Well, let me give you the dry version. Then I’ll give you – then we can discuss what we think it is. The dry version is “the term story is all writing covered by the provisions of the MBA representing a contribution is that is distinct from screenplay and consisting of basic narrative, idea, theme, or outline indicating character development and action.” And this is something that when we did our rewrite of the manual for clarity this was a section that I worked on pretty carefully. And this is a bit of my hobby horse. What it now says in there is “distinct from screenplay means that the contributions considered for story should not be applied to screenplay credit, nor should contributions considered for screenplay credit be applied to story.”

But what does that clunky lawyer-written phrase actually mean creatively? I’m kind of curious what you think it means.

John: So, when I think of story I think about if I were to sort of pitch the movie or pitch what’s happening in the story and write that down, so my written version of a pitch would probably be story. And that is it’s what’s happening but it’s not the specifics of details, individual scenes, how it works. It’s really more kind of what happens and the overall shape of things rather than the specificities of how it’s being told onscreen.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, I think that’s generally the way people approach it. I mean, there’s all sorts of ways you can work it in your mind. I mean, one tactic I have sometimes is to think what part of this could have been expressed in a treatment without any of it seeming like it might belong in a script. You know, people can put dialogue in treatments. Well, that could fit in a script. But if it’s just sort of a treatment-only kind of thing then it’s likely that it’s story, but not necessarily. Basic narrative to me kind of feels like broad plot. Not the specific little ticky-tacky moments but broad plot.

John: Now, the very specific language you gave, here’s why that language is important. Is that ultimately at the end of a writing process and as we’re determining credits it’s that very specific language that we are going to be using in our arbitration statements, or if you’re an arbiter determining credit you are going to refer back to that very specific legal language to say this is why I’m defending this decision on this. So, when Craig and I are talking in generalities about story, great, we can talk in generalities. But if we’re talking about the specific credit for this piece of literary material we are always going to reach back to that legally language because that is how WGA credits are determined.

Craig: Yeah. So when I’m doing an arbitration I will talk a lot about what I consider to be the basic narrative and who contributed to the basic narrative. Idea. I think everybody kind of gets what that is. Theme. Everybody kind of gets what that is. And then outline indicating character development and action, which to me means again kind of a – well, it’s an outline. And then the question is how fine or specific of an outline. Generally for story I tend to think of it is more on the broader side of things because of the nature of the definition of screenplay which I suppose we should get into.

John: Let’s get into that.

Craig: So, screenplay. And remember this is story is distinct from this. “Screenplay consists of…” and this by the way I’m about to read one of the worst sentences ever written.

John: Oh yeah. Full of semicolons. Yeah.

Craig: To this day I cannot parse it properly. It’s brutal. And here’s what it says. “A screenplay consists of individual scenes and full dialogue together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity scenario, and dialogue as shall be used in represent substantial contributions to the final script.” What? [laughs]

John: Yeah. But there’s even more.

Craig: There is more.

John: There’s four bullet points.

Craig: So, what the credits department did in their wisdom was sort of say, look, let’s take that and actually turn it into something that’s fairly useful as a general rubric for arbiters who are analyzing screenplay. We tend to look at screenplay as contributing to four major factors. The first is dramatic construction. The second is original and different scenes. The third is characterization or character relationships. And the fourth is dialogue.

So, what do you think those mean?

John: [laughs] So, and again, if you’ve ever done an arbitration either as a person seeking credit or as a person determining credit you have used this exact language in defending your decisions and your choices.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Dramatic construction. I think we all get what that means. It’s how the puzzle pieces are put together. This is how you’re telling a story. These are the ups and downs. The twists, the surprises, the reveals. It’s how the story tells itself.

Craig: Right. It’s different from just if I said, OK, what is the outline of John Wick. John Wick is a hitman. His wife dies and leaves him a puppy. Bad guys kill the puppy and steal his car. He declares revenge. He goes and kills this guy. And then he kills this guy. And then he kills this guy. The end. And there’s a hotel. Right? I mean, those are the big, big moments.

But the dramatic construction are the way that things unfold. The way that the bad guys explain to John Wick is to his son and how that, you know, factors into the way he deals with John Wick. Those are sort of – it’s the specific stuff, right? The specifics of the dramatic. Which leads us into original and different scenes, which you know, I think we get, right?

John: Yeah. We get a sense. A scene is as a moment begins, as a moment ends. It’s how the moment begins. How the moments ends. And crucially what happens in that scene. It’s the very specific beats within that scene. And so while in an outline or a treatment you might give a sense of the shape. We might get a sense that there’s a scene here that does this, it’s the actual scene itself is what is considered part of screenplay credit.

Craig: And that’s why the word “different” is in there. Because we are oftentimes parsing out this contribution between multiple writers. If there is a beat. If you and I are both asked to adapt something like Fiddler on the Roof, which by the way was just announced is going to be a movie produced by Dan Jinks, your former Big Fish producer.

John: And directed by Tommy Kail. Excited about all this.

Craig: And directed by Tommy Kail. Sounds like it’s going to be – I mean, I’ll see nursery school productions of Fiddler on the Roof.

John: Craig, let’s stop the podcast now. You clearly are going to be cast in Fiddler on the Roof.

Craig: I should be.

John: There’s no way this is not going to happen.

Craig: I should be.

John: Yes. If you’re not a Tevye there is a role in that production for you.

Craig: I’m weirdly too old for Tevye. Isn’t that terrible? I’m too old for Tevye. I always think of him as an old guy because Zero Mostel was probably – but he’s like – well, actually, maybe I’m not. Because his youngest daughter–

John: No, he has teenage daughters.

Craig: Yeah. You know what? I’m a perfect age for Tevye. And I can sing that – you know what? I’m going to do it. I should do it. I’m the best. I’m the best Tevye available. [laughs] I am. So we’ll discuss that with Dan.

John: And Craig can sing. I mean, I really don’t know why you’re not working on your audition right now.

Craig: Oh yeah. Dank Jinks, I will go on tape. And you will be amazed. You will be amazed.

John: Good.

Craig: Also, I’d like to point out I’m Jewish. That matters. Seriously. I totally get the white-washing thing. Like so just side note on Fiddler on the Roof. I’m a huge Fiddler on the Roof fan. To the point where I can explain why Zero Mostel is a vastly better Fiddler than Topol and I know people are going to say, “What?” But I really do think so. Because I think that Fiddler on the Roof is a very Yiddish kind of thing as opposed to a Jewish kind of thing. It’s different feel in a weird way.

And then there’s Alfred Molina. [laughs] I mean, Alfred Molina is a brilliant actor. And he can sing. But you got to be Jewish. You just got to be. I don’t know how you do it without being Jewish. I really don’t. I don’t know.

John: So that ties into our next topic which is characterization and character relationships.

Craig: Yes.

John: So back to the screenplay. And I like that character relationships is pulled out as a separate thing because as we talk about on the show a lot it’s very hard to imagine a character without really imagining how those characters are interacting. That’s how you actually reveal how two characters fit together. How a character is demonstrated in a screenplay is generally through its interaction with other characters in it. So the relationship between two characters or nine characters is crucially important for a screenplay in ways that it may not be in a story document.

Craig: No question. And so the reason Fiddler showed up in the first place here was when we say if I say to you I need you – we have a story beat. It’s story. And the story is that Tevye is going to marry his daughter off to the butcher. You and I will write very different scenes of that. Any two writers will write different scenes of that. Same basic story point, but different and original scenes.

Similarly, with character – so character development and action is story. So, who is in it? Like the guy that delivers the milk in this little village of Anatevka and he has five daughters. OK. And he is a big believer in tradition. Characterization is literally how that character is expressed.

John: Yeah.

Craig: The things he says and does. His temperament. His choice of words. And the nature of his relationship with his wife and his daughters and the townspeople and the Russians. All of that is script. And, of course, the primary way that that is expressed is through dialogue. It’s not the only way, but the primary way. Dialogue is essentially entirely a contribution to screenplay. Those are kind of the two big things.

John: Those are the big things. And so as we’ve said before sometimes in treatments you’ll do the parenthetical dialogue or the italics dialogue to sort of indicate what the things are. But it’s really a screenplay aspect. And that matches up I think with our basic expectations of what a story is versus a screenplay. The story is sort of the gist of it. It’s like this is the overall shape of it. But the screenplay is the on paper representation of what the movie is going to look like and feel like.

Craig: Right. Right.

John: And so from a credits level if the same writer has both story credit and screenplay by credit those compress down to become a written by credit. There’s special cases in weird situations based on underlying source material. So sometimes they don’t compress. But in general if you see a written by that means that the writer who is credited there is entitled to both story by credit and screenplay by credit so they’ve smooshed together.

Craig: That is only what it means. That is it. That is the definition of written by. And we’ve been working on this, and hopefully one day we’ll get there, but if you have written a story that is based on something, so it’s an adaptation, but it is quite a bit different. It’s clearly significantly different than the underlying material. Then you’ll get screen story by. And if you get screen story by and screenplay by unfortunately they don’t squish down, which is I think silly. But it’s the way it is. So, alas.

John: Yeah. And every once in a thousand credits you’ll see adaptation by which is a very unique credit that is only given as a result of arbitration.

Craig: It doesn’t mean what it says. And–

John: It’s a way of acknowledging that a person contributed to a thing that is important but isn’t meeting other thresholds. It’s a weird credit. We’re going to sort of ignore that for now.

Craig: I don’t think it has been given out. I don’t know when the last time it was. But I honestly don’t think it’s been given out within the last ten years.

John: So this is talking through credits when a project is completed, so the end of the process. But what I want to really focus on today is figuring out story and screenplay credits earlier in the process, when you’re thinking about writing something or you’re working with somebody and figuring out what are we going to put on the title page of this script because that is really important. Because that title page for your script is what sets the precedent for who wrote this thing that they’re reading.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And so figuring out story and screenplay credit is really a writer’s decision at the very beginning of the process. So let’s start with some listener questions because this might help us frame our conversation. So, a listener wrote in saying, “I have a question regarding credit on a screenplay I wrote with a partner. The project began with him pitching me a general premise and a very basic description of a couple of the main characters. From there we broke the story, even completely overhauling it at one point, and created the characters together. We’ve agreed to take a 50/50 credit on the screenplay but he is suggesting that he also get a story by credit. It seems to me that story by is too much for just a basic premise and some general characterizations, but I do think he deserves some sort of added acknowledgment for having the original idea.

“We were wondering if you could tell us whether ‘idea by’ is a legitimate credit in these types of situations, or if you have any other suggestions.”

Craig: [laughs] I like when questions are clear and easy. So, the deal is that there is story credit. That’s a thing. There is no idea credit. Story credit includes idea. So, while he’s correct in suggesting that he should get story credit, it’s also quite obvious that you should get story credit because like you said you broke the story with him, created the characters together, and then wrote the screenplay. Which, by the way, remember screenplays contain story elements. Story credit can be generated even if there’s no treatment or outline or something like that. So, the fact is you both deserve story credit and he doesn’t get special story credit or first story credit. No such thing exists.

The answer is no. He does not get anything special. It is 50/50 for the screenplay. It is 50/50 for the story. And your partner should take a look in the mirror and ask himself what kind of person he wants to be. Because this is not how you get ahead in the world as it turns out. And this is just separate. This is psychological. And I’m not condemning him. I understand it. Everybody is starving for a credit. And then along comes food and people are like “but I found the food I should get an extra chicken wing.” I totally get it. It turns out in the long run being generous with your partners will generate far more success for you than being stingy and parsimonious. Oh, there we go.

John: Yeah. So specific advice in this situation. So, you two writers should say title of screenplay, written by, because you’re both going to claim story credit and screenplay credit, written by your two names. Now, a thing you might decide to do is to put his name first because maybe that’s a way of acknowledging that he was the first person who came up with the idea. You guys can decide that. But, no, don’t break it up into separate things because it’s not going to accurately reflect what’s happening. It’s not going to be a good idea down the road.

Do what Craig did. Be generous, both of you, and god-willing you’ll sell this and many other things down the road.

Craig: Yeah. Just be cool about it. And in case you are wondering the order of names within a writing team has no significance. It’s not like the Writers Guild determines which person in an ampersand situation should go first. We do not.

Let’s see, should we do a Francesca question?

John: Please.

Craig: OK. Francesca writes in, or Francesco, depends, “About eight years ago I was pitching movie ideas to my friends. Most if not all got shot down except for one. The friend I pitched it to said to rename it 299, because it’s a play on the movie 300. Sure, why not? Titles change. Since then I’ve heard him talk about this movie he came up with by himself called 299. He’s done this in front of me once and in group chats. Like, hey guys, when are we going to work on the movie that I came up with. This was recent. 2020 pre-COVID. I sent a message in group that basically was like, hey man, we created that, not you alone. And he said, oh yeah.

“But even then, knowing he claims he created this movie I didn’t want to argue that in fact it was my creation. But really it was. He had a title and some suggestions. But I pitched him, not vice versa. What do I do and how do I keep stuff like this from happening again?”

Oof, we get this quite a bit.

John: We do get this quite a bit. So, there are a bunch of small things to unpack here. Listen, nothing was written down yet, so there’s not like a title page thing to be worried about yet. What we’re really talking about is what is that line between just sort of shooting some ideas around with friends and colleagues and saying like, oh, we’re not writing this thing together. At what point is feedback sort of like actually contributing to the underlying thing?

And there’s no clear answers here, but I can give you some – hopefully together we can give you some guidance and also some commiseration because even among us, among our friends, this still does happen. So, it is a little bit frustrating. Craig, how we would start off with Francesca here.

Craig: Well, in terms of this situation I think what you don’t want to do is soft pedal things. It seems like what’s happened is he’s somehow managed to bargain himself into being the cowriter of this when he’s not anyway. Or the co-creator of it. So, I think you want to be clear. “Look, this is what it was. And then say I’m going to not use the title but thank you. And this way we’re nice and clean.” If that’s really all of significance. And if there’s anything else you can say I’m not going to do that either. Sometimes you might be considered that, well, he’s going to go off and he’s going to write a movie called 299.

Look, if he is a better writer than you than he’s a better writer than you and his is going to go and yours isn’t. Odds are he’s not. Just going – odds are that nobody is a good writer, right? That’s just generally the odds as we know. So I wouldn’t worry too much about that.

In the future, going forward prospectively, one thing you can say to people before you ask them for advice or pitch them is say, “Listen, I was wondering, I’m writing something and I was wondering if you’d be willing to just give me some friendly feedback, just sounding board stuff. I’m not looking for anything, you know, I’m not looking for producers or writing partners. I was just really just looking for a sounding board. If you’re interested in just being kind of one of those no attachment sounding boards for me then that would be awesome. But if not, I totally understand.”

And then before you’ve ever said a word you have anchored dialogue in the proper context. Because people sometimes misconstrue things when you come to them and you’re like, “Well what do you think about this?” And they’re like, “Well what if you did this.” Oh yeah, and now we’re riffing. And suddenly we’re writing partners?

John: Yep. Yeah. So I was going to say exactly those same three words which is the preface to your pitch is “I’m writing something.” Just declare this is a thing that I am working on. And if you put it in that context then it’s harder for them to say like, “Oh, I thought we were working on this together?” It’s like, no, no, no, I said from the start I am writing this thing.

Craig: Right.

John: And that makes it clear this is the scope of what you want their feedback to be about. And that’s good and that’s helpful. Now, this thing that Francesca is describing happened eight years ago. So I do also question why haven’t you written this thing? Like if it’s really such an idea that is important to you why didn’t you write this? And there is also a time limit on this stuff. And if you really haven’t done any work on this in a year or eight years you’re probably not actually really writing this thing and maybe you’re just looking for a reason to be angry about this.

Craig: Yeah. You don’t want to be the proverbial two bald men fighting over a comb. If neither one of you – and that’s me and you basically – if neither one of you have written this thing within the last eight years then it kind of is neither of yours at this point. Do you know what I mean?

John: It’s the universe’s, yeah.

Craig: It kind of belongs to the universe. The other trick that you might want to try before you talk to somebody about something is say, “I’m halfway through something. I’ve been writing it.”

John: Yeah.

Craig: It’s much harder for people to imagine jumping on a bus that’s in motion than one that’s currently being assembled at the plant. So, another little trick there. But, yeah, I agree with John. I feel like the bigger question Francesca is what’s been going on for eight years? And maybe spend less time in group chats and write your stuff.

John: Yeah. And I think it’s a great way to wrap up this conversation about story versus screenplay is that story is not that hard to do. Story, it can be – generally it’s a document. It’s something you’ve written but it doesn’t have to be an incredibly elaborate thing. It could be a page and you could get credit on a movie for having written a one-page story synopsis. That’s possible.

Screenplay is a lot more work. Screenplay is an actual screenplay. You’re really writing a full thing here. And so, you know, I would challenge to Francesca and to other folks here is that if you don’t fixate so much on story credit and really think about what is the work you’re doing. And if you’re doing the work of writing a full screenplay then that is the work that becomes screenplay credit. And to really think about those things on that scale of like one page versus 120 pages. And when you think about it that way it’s easier to suss out who deserves story credit and who deserves screenplay credit.

Craig: That’s a great point. And one thing to be aware of is that the Writers Guild rules are an evolution of copyright rules. And so story is compensated significantly in the sense that 25% of all residuals are given to the person or persons that get story by credit. Now, you could say that’s only a quarter and 75% goes to the screenplay, but again, you can write a single page and get story credit. The person who gets the screenplay credit may have worked for five years and generated a thousand pages. So, that’s the Writers Guild point of view.

But what the world values, meaning the studios that pay us, is the screenplay. And we know this because there’s a screenplay bonus that is oftentimes multiples of what they’re paying you to actually write the screenplay. Meaning, if we make this thing and you get screenplay credit you’re going to get like a million dollars, two million dollars, just suddenly. Boom. Out of nowhere. Because you did the thing that they value the most. This comes up time and time again.

I’m sure that you have had these experiences where someone says, “Hey, we would love for you to write this.” And you’re like, oh, I don’t have the time. But I can maybe work on the story for a week. And they’re like, “We want you to write the thing.”

John: The thing. Yeah.

Craig: “Thank you. But what we want is the thing we value.”

John: Yeah.

Craig: So write your script is the point.

John: The other analogy I’d have is the story is like the trailer for the movie. And the screenplay is the movie. It’s the whole thing. And it’s like they are very different scales of time and work and sort of what you’re getting out of it. So, they’re both incredibly important but they’re going to pay you to make the movie. They’re not going to pay you to make the trailer.

Craig: Correct. Correct.

John: All right, Craig, let’s get to your topic here which you pitched to me as what to do when you sort of feel like your story – you get that icky feeling that your story is not working, your script is not working.

Craig: Something is not working. This happens to me at least once in everything I write. I will – it will suddenly occur to me in a vague sense that something is terribly wrong. And I attempt to specify it. I attempt to figure out where it’s wrong, why it’s wrong. But mostly it kind of manifests as a vague nausea that it’s instinctive. Something is wrong.

And when that happens over time I’ve started to come to an understanding of how to get through it and how to get out of it and what to not do. And I’m sure that you’ve had this feeling, too. I can’t imagine. I mean, as robotic as you are you’re still a human being. You have human feelings.

John: Yeah. I’d say most projects that I’ve gone through have some version of this. And including things which no one has ever read because I never really got through these situations. And so that may be an escape hatch we talk about in your overall discussion here is that sometimes these aren’t solvable. But trying to figure out where the problem is is so crucial. So talk us through where you figure out the problem might be.

Craig: Well, the first thing that you have to kind of wonder is what is the specific nature of the problem that is presenting itself to you. And we’ll find out if that really is the problem or not. But initially these things crop up very typically as, OK, I’ve got a plot knot. And you can call it a plot hole, a plot discrepancy. Things aren’t adding up. I’m supposed to have somebody be over here, but they’re over there. They managed to cross a continent too quickly. Or this happened the day before and it’s the day later. There’s like time problems you can’t get around. Or, I need them to know this thing, but they never knew it before. They haven’t met that person but they need to have this.

So you start to go, OK, there’s trouble. Just circumstances. And then sometimes you have concerns that are entirely focused on characters. The character needs to do something, but it violates some aspect of who they are or how they feel or what they’ve done before. There’s just a basic inconsistency. Their motivations don’t match their needs. These are the kind of problems where you just know before you ever hand a script in that if you did you might sneak it past somebody but never an actor. Never an actor. They would be like this doesn’t add up. And they’d be right.

There are also, man, this one comes up all the time. What I call immovable objects. And when writers sometimes will – I’ll call a friend or they’ll call me and we have these problems and we’re asking for help. They often are in the phrase in this context of immovable objects. The story requires this happens. But I don’t know how to make it happen. I don’t even know why it’s happening. And I don’t know how it should happen. But it has to happen. These are immovable objects and you just don’t know what to do with them.

It’s like I’m driving down a road and there has to be a wall in front of me, also I need to keep driving. What?

John: Yeah.

Craig: Trouble.

John: And so you and I have both encountered this situation where we are working on an adaptation of something, and so there are immovable objects because the basic nature of this property – this is a thing that must happen. Like the audience has expectations. This moment must occur.

Craig: Yup.

John: And yet given the logic of the story we’ve built and everything we know there is no reason for that moment to occur and we have to figure out – either create a new reason. I mean, it is a problem. So we’ll get into what some of the solutions might be to that problem, but it is a thing that happens especially often in adaptations because you’re stuck with – some rules are being imposed upon you that would not be the rules you would set for yourself.

Craig: Very much so. It’s a little bit of like if I pull this string the curtain opens too much, so if I pull this string it closes all the way. So I pull that one again. I need this person to be more like this. But then this [song] needs them to be more like this. And you go crazy.

John: So somebody is going to be listening to this podcast about three years from now and they’ll be like, “I know exactly what both of them were talking about,” and it’s going to be delightful. So, check back in three years from now. Set yourself a reminder to check in and you’ll know, ah-ha, this is what they were talking about.

Craig: Put it on our calendar. And that leads me to the sort of final specific one, which are competing interests. Lindsay Doran has a great phrase. “Close up with feet.” She’ll say, “I want this moment to give me this feeling. Also, I want it to this thing that is completely incompatible with that feeling.” You want somebody to do something bad, also you want to feel like this person falls in love with them. You want them to run away but you also want to feel that they’re brave here. You want somebody to make somebody happy, but you want that person to hate them.

You feel these competing needs. And they negate each other to the point where you clench up and do not know what to do. And all of these things are all wonderfully specific and yet less common than the most frequent one you encounter which is something is not right and I don’t even know what it is or why. It’s just not good.

John: So, Craig, before we move on I’m going to pitch two more things to you which I often feel–

Craig: Great.

John: Which give me this vague ickies. One is the awareness that something is repeating and I don’t want it to repeat. And yet I sort of can’t figure out a way for it not to repeat. I recognize I’m repeating the same moment, the same beat, the same idea, and I don’t want to but I don’t know how to not repeat it. I’m trying to stay – basically I’m trying to stay on theme and I’m trying to stay consistent, but in the consistency I’m being repetitive. And what’s often a related thing to me is something we talked about recently on the podcast which is like this is just not interesting.

Craig: Yup.

John: I recognize that it’s doing what it functionally needs to go, but I just don’t care.

Craig: Right.

John: And that to me is probably the most troubling of these vague ickies because it’s like if I don’t care about it no one is going to care about this.

Craig: Yeah. It’s a bad feeling to know that you have managed to build a house that is resting on a single load-bearing wall. And that wall sucks.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s a bad feeling. And it happens all the time. You said you had two. I’m curious what the other one was.

John: Oh, those were the two. I would say it’s the “this is not interesting” and the “I am repeating myself.”

Craig: I’m repeating myself.

John: Like I recognize that this a repetition. So it’s kind of the opposite of “close up with feet.” It is consistent and yet it’s too consistent. It’s actually just the same moment happening again.

Craig: Right.

John: And when it is a scene that’s repeating, like you can figure out ways to like, OK, I could put a little shading there. But you recognize this whole sequence is really doing the same thing that the previous one did, crap, I didn’t recognize this until now.

Craig: Well, right there you’ve kind of avoided the first big pit fall right here because I think some people encounter this feeling, this icky feeling that there’s a problem, and they go, “Nah, you know what, no there isn’t.” Takes them to Jedi mind-trick themselves.

No, no, there is. There’s absolutely a problem. If you know there’s a problem, there’s a problem. Even if you’re technically wrong. Even if somehow you’ve been deluded into thinking that there’s a problem when there isn’t one, the fact that you think there’s a problem means you’re not writing it well anyway. So you cannot ignore this feeling. It’s incredibly important to accept it.

John: Mm-hmm. Agreed. You have to – the first step of solving the problem is acknowledging that there is a problem. So yeah.

Craig: There you go. Exactly. The very common instinct in your desire to immediately get past this problem, because nobody wants to sit with this icky feeling, you just want to get it out of you, is to solve it with cleverness. You’re going to solve it by using a lot of scaffolding. You’re going to contort your plot and your characters to make the problem go away. And you will technically make the problem go away. You will solve it. It’s just that now it’s boring and it sucks. Because solutions aren’t what people are going to see a movie for. They’re going to see a movie or watch a television show because it is this beautiful, whole natural narrative that is there because it’s correct.

When you write a scene that solves your problem, that scene is bad. Because it exists to solve your problem. It is for you, it’s not for the audience.

John: Now, a corollary to this which I’m thinking back to the second Arlo Finch which I ran into sort of a – I ran into problems. This is just not going to fit right. When you talk about a scene that is just there to sort of fix the problem or muscle you through a problem and get you to the next thing, that’s an unsatisfying boring scene. But where scaffolding can become useful is I’m going to wind back, I’m going to unravel some stuff, and actually build in a scaffolding. And I’m going to support this idea by going back in time and making it so it is a natural extension.

So basically I’m going to build a bridge from where I was to where I’m going, but I actually have to step back a bit and build that bridge.

Craig: Right. So that’s an actual bridge. It’s not scaffolding.

John: That’s true.

Craig: That’s the thing. You absolutely should go back and support it. And then it feels natural and it unfolds and it looks correct. Yeah, you’re not just – you’re like, OK, we were building a house and this room was supposed to have a hallway to that room. But they’re offset by 12 feet. So let’s just build a weird hallway that just does this weird juke. Nobody wants that hallway. Nobody. I mean, yeah, technically I could walk from one room to another but this hallway sucks.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So, how do we fix this? So there’s this phrase that always comes to my mind when I’m in these moments and it’s from Searching for Bobby Fischer which I would like to nominate to be our next deep dive movie.

John: Oh sure. We could get Mr. Scott Frank on to talk about it.

Craig: No. We’ll get Mr. Steven Zaillian on to talk about it.

John: Oh, I forget. Steve Zaillian. I always [crosstalk]. Steven Zaillian.

Craig: We want to over-credit Scott Frank with everything, but we’re going to get Steven on.

John: We shouldn’t. We shouldn’t.

Craig: No, we shouldn’t. We’re going to get Steve Zaillian on to talk about it. And it’s one of my favorite screenplays. And also he directed it beautifully as well.

So there’s a moment that recurs where Ben Kingsley’s chess professor is instructing this young child and they’ve got a chess board in front of them. And he’s saying to this kid you can get to checkmate from here in 12 moves. Don’t move until you see it. And the kid is like I can’t see it. And he says don’t move until you see it. I can’t see it. And then Kingsley says, “Here, I’ll help you.” And he just wipes all the pieces off the board and they all clatter to the floor. And he has the kid just look at this blank board. And sort of makes him go through this mental exercise of trying to do it without being stuck in the weeds of the pieces themselves.

And this comes up in the end, in the final match. He’s got himself to a point where Ben Kingsley who is watching the match from another room goes, “You’ve got him. You’ve got him in 12 moves. Don’t move until you see it.” And then the kid is just looking at the board and in his mind he’s just whispering to himself “I don’t see it.”

And then back to Ben Kingsley. Don’t move until you see it. Can’t see it, I don’t see it.

And I’m thinking this all the time in these moments. I’m like don’t move until you see it. And then I’m like but I can’t see it. And I’m like, fine. Don’t move until you see it. And this is why this has become kind of a mantra to me.

Because when it happens it is not hard to solve. Once you see the problem, the real problem, then the solution is evident. It’s easy. It’s elegant. There are not a lot of moving parts. It’s easy to write. Because you’re correct. So, the question then is maybe this sick feeling I had was about what I thought was a problem. I didn’t understand the nature of the problem at all. So, the feeling was correct but my identification of the problem was wrong.

That’s why I’ve been kind of walking around in circles going “I can’t see it. I can’t see it. I can’t see it.” And then one day I go, oh for god’s sakes. Of course. And it’s outside of the problem that I thought it was.

So, one way we get through this is patience. And patience means not only being patient with yourself and giving yourself time to finally see what the real problem is, but also the patience and wisdom to not move until you see it. Because the more you write, the more you try and write your way through this problem, the more invested you are in the writing you’re doing to solve the problem that probably isn’t the problem. So all that writing is going to be wasted. All that effort is going to be wasted. And you’re going to maybe be loath to let it go. So don’t move until you see it.

And then when you see it you’ll know.

John: I want to believe everything you just said, and yet I can also imagine myself or other writers in situations where this becomes an excuse for paralysis and perfectionism. Because all writing is difficult. All writing, there’s going to be some moments of self-doubt.

Craig: Yup.

John: And so how do we help distinguish between, OK, this icky feeling I need to stop and wait it out until I really find the perfect solution versus, no, writing is hard. Writing is hard and you just have to do it. And you will discover things in trying to work on it. Because you and I both on our daily writing situations we reach places where we’re like, argh, I can’t make this thing work. And then you just work through it and you figure it out.

So, how do we help distinguish between the moments where you really should stop and wait versus just sit down and put your butt in the chair and get some words written?

Craig: Well, there’s a circumstance where you know what you’re supposed to do, you just don’t feel like you’re doing it well. That’s different. You need to just keep working. You need to work on it.

I know what the scene is supposed to be and I know what it’s supposed to accomplish. All that is correct. I just don’t like what I’m doing. OK. Think of a different way to do it. Write that. Try a different way. Try a different way.

But when there’s something that is fundamentally wrong it’s not that you should go to bed or take a vacation. Start taking walks and thinking about it. In fact, it’s important to think about it and think about it and think about it. It’s important to struggle with that problem because the struggle with the problem is what will eventually get you to the place where you see what the answer is. So you’re working. I mean, you don’t take the day off. And the “don’t move until you see it” part is essentially write the solution that you know is right. That’s really what I’m getting to. Is don’t write the bad ones. Don’t write the ones that just rush you through it. Write the one that feels good.

Because when you get it, I mean, I had this problem man on Chernobyl, oh boy. I mean, there was a dark week. There was one very dark week where I was just walking around thinking. There’s this awful wrongness in the midst of something and I don’t know how to solve it. And I did not move until I saw it. And then a few days later I went, “Oh for god’s sakes.” And almost inevitably it’s like all the pieces were there. I was looking in the wrong spot and I was thinking about it in the wrong way. And that there’s something that with all the pieces I already had that is so simple and obvious and once you see it it’s obvious. It’s just like solving any puzzle.

I mean a real puzzle. Not a jigsaw puzzle. [laughs]

If somebody comes along and goes, oh here’s how this works, you go, “Oh for the love of god,” right? So that’s it. It’s really just going through that and then when you know you have it you have it. So you certainly don’t want to do this as some excuse to not write. In fact, the hardest work you should be doing is this kind of work. Just struggling through the problem. If you don’t feel that you’re exerting yourself then, yeah, you’re probably just avoiding and you don’t want to avoid.

John: So, the solutions you’re describing, it almost sounds like you’re really talking about – you’re reframing what the problem is. It’s basically you’re working and waiting for your brain to come to a place where it is reframing the situation. Basically change the context so you can actually see like, oh, these are actually the ways these things could line up. This is what the – basically forgetting my original expectations about what needed to happen here so you can actually approach it with the things you actually have and what is going to work for the pieces that you have.

Craig: It’s exactly correct. It’s exactly right. We usually end up in this space because we have falsely determined that a bunch of things are givens. And they’re not. Sometimes most of them are given but some of them can change in pretty dramatic ways. And suddenly, it’s so interesting, like when you’re trying to solve these problems some of the, we’ll call them the grindy non-solution solutions, seem like they’ll be a lot of work. But you’re willing to do it to make the ache go away.

Then you come up with the real solution. The real solution is way more writing and it’s much less work.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Because it’s correct. And it’s actually a joy. That’s how you know.

John: Great. All right, let’s tackle some listener questions. Aaron wrote in to ask, “How old is too old? After working in digital media in New York I recently moved to LA to find an entry level job as a writer’s PA or a writer’s assistant. Although I have some contacts in the industry I did not have any gigs locked in. And now with COVID my chances of landing such a job this year or even next seem slim. I’m 25 years old and I know many people trying to break into the industry start their careers by working in these assistant jobs.

“That said, I’ve also heard that once you’re approaching your mid-to-late 20s it’s harder and harder to find these opportunities as people start wondering why you’re 28 and begging to be a PA for example. Basically my question is is it already too late for me to take this path breaking into the industry? Or should I start thinking about other ways in? And how necessary is assistant experience to foster a successful career in entertainment?”

Craig: My god.

John: Yeah, I know. I have a bit of “my god” in me too.

Craig: I mean, what has happened in our world where somebody who is 25 is like I’m over the hill. No, Aaron. Look, how old is too old? 112. Death.

You’re not too old. Objectively speaking in no way, shape, or form, in any hallway, in any building in Hollywood is 25 years too old, unless you’re talking about who is going to be playing a nine-year-old character on television. So, look, yes, tough times. And anybody that – I’ve also heard, he says, “I’ve heard that once you’re approaching your mid-to-late 20s it gets harder.” Who told you this?

John: [laughs] Yeah. Some grizzled 29-year-old.

Craig: Right. My god. Nobody knows a goddamn thing. Remember, Aaron, nobody knows anything. Nobody knows anything. Nobody knows anything.

John: The underline is on the knows.

Craig: Knows. Nobody knows anything. Is it harder and harder to find these opportunities? I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t think so. I don’t know how old PAs are. When I see them I don’t know how old they are. But in my usually they’re in their 20s or early 30s.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Assistants are usually in their 20s or early 30s. I don’t know. I mean, yes, if you’re in your 40s it’s going to be much tougher. People at that point sort of are like, “Look, you’ve been 15-20 years, we’ve had a pretty good look at you.” It’s just like sports, you know. I don’t think you’re making it to this show in this capacity at this point. Maybe think about a different thing.

That’s not, by the way, different than writing or anything that’s purely creative that way. But in terms of production work and stuff like that, yeah, I think it’s a reasonable question. But, no, 25. Come on. No. No.

Look, if you have trouble there may be a series of reasons why. One of them will not be your age.

John: Agreed.

Craig: Joe in NoHo asks, “A writing partner and I recently optioned a script to a big digital media company that is venturing into making features. We delivered the rewrite and the polish we were contracted to send them. And now they’ve emailed us to ask for the FDX version of the script.” That’s the Final Draft source file. “When we asked why they wanted the FDX they responded they needed it to run breakdowns for budget and casting, etc. We’re kind of split on how we feel about sending an editable version of our script for several reasons. Most of our working writer-director-producer friends say it’s not kosher and it’s disrespectful. But our attorney doesn’t see an issue with it. Thoughts?”

John, where are you on this one?

John: I used to have a strong bias – a strong opinion that I’m never going to send them the FDX file because that’s an opportunity for people to rewrite me, to make it easier to rewrite, to make little tweaks and changes to stuff. And so like, no, I’m only going to send in the hard copy or the PDF. And then I made an app called Highland which makes it really, really easy to take a PDF and make it back into an editable file. And so I realized it’s all moot.

They can edit the file if they want to. They can make the FDX. All I’m doing is creating a hassle for them to not give them the FDX. So I will send in the FDX file if they want it. Craig, how are you feeling these days?

Craig: The same. Although, yeah. So, Joe, it is a valid thing. There are budgeting and scheduling breakdown software that use the FDX version. They require that. I think you have to ask yourself how much of a protection are you affording yourself if it can be defeated by them spending $100 on a typist? Because that’s really what they could do. They could just say like, “OK, give us the PDF. We’re going to go hand it to a temp who is going to spend four hours just touch typing your thing into Final Draft.” That’s literally what – that’s the big obstacle that you’ve thrown up for them. It’s not an obstacle at all.

What you need to do is just make sure – make clear – that this is the writing I did. And since you have an attorney the attorney is wise enough to know that this is really not something that comes up a lot. Especially if you’re working with a reputable company. A big digital media company has concerns about liability. They’re not going to want to…

If you’re dealing with some rat, you know what I mean? Like some, I don’t know, fringe sleazebag then I guess. But you’re not. So, not a problem.

John: Yeah. There was one studio executive at a studio that is no longer a studio.

Craig: I know exactly who you’re talking about.

John: [laughs] Who was notorious for just like, you know, typing up scenes and pretending that the current writer wrote it.

Craig: Yup.

John: And that’s a situation where not ideally want to give them your FDX file. But you know what?

Craig: It couldn’t stop him from doing it anyway.

John: It wouldn’t have stopped him one bit.

Craig: Is he still around?

John: He’s still around.

Craig: OK. I’ll have to ask you off-the-air where he landed. OK, well anyway, we had an answer for you, Joe, which is nice. Do you want to take Jordan’s question?

John: Yeah. Jordan asks, “I wondered if you and Craig had any thoughts about when to put a project aside or even start anew? I’ve just hit a point in my pilot script where I realize things aren’t working. It’s too convoluted. I need to simplify. And I was 45 pages in. So it’s disheartening that I even got this far into it. I wish I realized earlier that there were issues. Something I missed in development I guess.

“Is there anything that raises a red flag for you or Craig and tells you it’s time to take a step back and either reevaluate the story, the structure of the script?”

So, Craig, this ties in very well with what you just were talking about.

Craig: Hopefully this episode does give Jordan some general advice. But Jordan you’re asking kind of a different question than the first question. Right? So the first question is when should I put it aside or when should I start anew. But then you describe a circumstance that requires neither of those things. You don’t need to start anew. If you’re 45 pages in and things aren’t working, if you still love it and there was something about it that does work for you then just you’re rewriting, aren’t you? I mean, yeah, take a moment, hit pause, walk around, think about it. See if you can figure out what exactly isn’t correct.

OK, it’s too convoluted and you need to simplify? Do it. De-convolute. Simplify. Make it elegant. I prefer the word elegant to simple. And, yes, would it have been great if you had realized earlier that there were issues? Yeah. But you didn’t. And guess what? That’s the way it goes.

As time goes on you do start to take some seconds off of your realization time. But you don’t get it down to zero. All of us end up in that situation. You know, just mourn for a day or two and then see if you can tuck back in. If you’ve gotten to a point where you’re like oh my god this is just junk, and actually what I’ve realized by writing 45 pages is that this – I don’t even want to watch this thing in any way, shape, or form, then dump it. Move on.

John: Yeah. There’s an episode we did a zillion years ago sort of centered around Marie Kondo and her big thing about how to get rid of things. How to say goodbye to things. And this could be a project where like you just don’t want to write this anymore. It does not interest you. You can basically hold it in your hands, or mentally hold it in your hands and say like thank you for teaching me that I didn’t want to write this kind of story. And then you can set aside and not feel any guilt about having not finished it. Because you did learn something from it. If you are going to abandon it it’s fine. It’s cool. It helped you. It taught you that this is not a thing that you wanted to write and you are a better person for having done that work.

Craig: 100%. We’ve got time for one more?

John: Yeah. Want to take Matt from London?

Craig: Yeah. Matt from London asks, “Hi John and Craig.” Hi Matt. “Longtime fan of the show. Your conversations are such a friendly comfort, particularly in these strange times.”

Glad to be a comfort.

“I have an admin question, specifically about digital organization. I’m hopeless at it. Files and folders are littered in scatter shot locations all over my laptop. It’s a mess. Lockdown seems like a great time to do a bit of spring cleaning. What are some techniques you guys employ to keep your digital houses in order? How can I Marie Kondo my hard drive?” Is he psychic?

John: It’s weird that he was referencing that. It’s a thing that happens. I feel like we’ve talked about this on the show other times but I keep one folder per project. I keep everything related to that project in one folder. Those folders all go in Dropbox. It works out really well for me and it’s just not complicated. And so this is a good time to sort of clean up your stuff and get things sort of neatly tucked away. But I’m just a big fan of the folder that is everything related to that project and leave it at that.

Craig: Yeah. Folders are your friends, right? So your laptop is essentially telling you here is how you should do it. And what you’ve been doing is not doing that. So why don’t you listen to the laptop, whether it’s Windows or Mac. It’s going to afford you the same opportunity. My basic method is similar to John. I have a folder for each project. Inside that folder all of the files that eventually lead up into the first draft I will then once the first draft is handed in consolidate into a sub-folder called Draft 1. And then all the stuff that is draft two gets into Draft 2.

And then if the show goes into production then I have a production folder and production drafts. And I have casting. Everything gets its own little folder inside of the big folder. And I have one mega folder called Scripts in Progress. That’s where all the stuff I’m working on right now goes. All those folders go in there. And when I’m done with something and it’s no longer in progress it leaves the Scripts in Progress island and it goes off into the Writing Archive folder where all the old stuff lives.

This is not hard to do.

John: No.

Craig: It’ll take you a couple hours to sort it all through. You’ll feel great. And then once you have that set up as a system you’ll just know to do it next time.

John: Absolutely. And once you have that setup you’ll also back up your stuff. So if you’re using Dropbox or whatever cloud service, great. That’s one level of backups. But you’ll also turn on Time Machine. Turn on whatever other system you want to do so you have redundant backups. Stick it on a USB flash drive so you can put those someplace else. Just make sure you hold onto those old drafts because they are useful. And you will want to refer back to them at some point.

Craig: John, do you have – a producer emailed me the other day. It was a project that I’d done with them back in I want to say 2001.

John: Wow.

Craig: And they were saying, hey, you know, would you be interested in kind of reviving that? And I wasn’t. But I did go and look for it. And it was in an – I think it was in an old Final Draft format that no longer seems to exist.

John: FDR. Yeah. I can open up FDR.

Craig: I don’t think it was FDR. It was something – I don’t know what it was.

John: I don’t think there was anything before FDR. Wow.

Craig: You know, I should look at what it is. Maybe it was an FDR. I’ll look and see actually. I’m looking right now.

John: Send it over because literally we have these sort of magic cameras and we can smash up nearly anything and convert it.

Craig: So the file, I’m looking at the information on it, a kind document. [laughs]

John: That’s not–

Craig: There’s no extension listed for it.

John: Send it over and I’ll get you an update. But I will say it’s 95% likely that Nima can smash it open for us.

Craig: I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t need to smash it up. [laughs] I really don’t need to. But it is interesting that there’s a line where things before that line are sort of–

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: You know, and then there’s the world of PDFs came along at some point and everything theoretically from that point forward is easily readable.

John: It’s readable.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Cool. All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two small One Cool Things.

Craig: Great.

John: The first is – so my daughter when she was little she was in gymnastics and when she did gymnastics they would get these medals when they completed like one – they learned how to do the fall, they learned how to do this. And so she ended up with like 60 medals. And she’s now coming on 15 years old.

Craig: Wow.

John: Doesn’t really care about these medals at all.

Craig: Oh.

John: Because she was getting six medals a month for this. And so we had all these medals. What do we do with these medals? And so my husband Mike found a place called Sports Medal Recycling. And basically you tell them what you’re sending them and you send them like all your old sports medals and they just recycle them. Because they can’t be done in normal LA recycling.

Craig: That’s interesting.

John: This place can melt them down and actually reuse them. So, just a good way to sort of get rid of those old things and not feel so guilty about just throwing them in the trash where they’re not being recycled properly.

Craig: Ah, well how about that. All right.

John: Second thing is something you may enjoy. It’s a video about Pac Man and specifically it focuses on how the ghosts work in Pac Man.

Craig: I’ve seen this. Yes.

John: And how they follow you. And it’s an actually very clever sort of pre-AI. But the algorithm for why the ghosts chase you the way they do is so much smarter than I would have guessed. And so I’ll put a link to this video on this. Behind the scenes of Pac Man.

Craig: Damn ghosts. Early AI enemies those ghosts. Nasty. Hopefully lots of people have seen the Mythic Quest quarantine episode that came out a week or two ago.

John: And I noticed the Scriptnotes t-shirt that Craig Mazin’s character wears.

Craig: Multiple. I wore two different ones I think. Three different ones possibly. And it was very gratifying to see how well that episode was received. Excellent work by Rob McElhenney and Megan Ganz and David Hornsby who are the primary writers of that episode

One of the things that I was kind of fascinated by was the way we did it. And we had kind of talked through a little bit in our last episode. But there is an app that we were using to actually do the filming.

So we were using iPhone 11s. I guess that’s the latest iPhone?

John: Yeah.

Craig: But it wasn’t just like the regular camera thing. It was an app called FiLMiC Pro. And FiLMiC Pro has like four billion little settings on it and the DP kind of had us make sure that all the things were set correctly. Shutter speeds. And exposure curves. And f-stops. I’m the worst at the DP stuff. I really don’t know anything about it. But it looked really good. It definitely looked better than I think it would have looked otherwise.

And so I thought, oh, well this FiLMiC Pro probably costs – it’s like one of those professional apps that cost like $150. $15. $15 for FiLMiC Pro. And it makes everything look quite a bit better, at least as far as I can tell. So, that’s my One Cool Thing of the week.

John: So, Craig, talk us through a little bit more. So, watching the episode all the times – we’re supposed to be looking at your laptop or your computer screens through this thing. So we’re looking that way. So, are you looking at the iPhone that’s doing this? Or is there another laptop? Who else is seeing the feed of that camera at the same time?

Craig: So we have – my personal laptop is running Zoom. And then we have this flexible gooseneck thing that props up the iPhone so that the iPhone is pointing – the camera is pointing at me. The screen of the iPhone is pointing back towards the laptop. So the laptop camera is seeing essentially the monitor, right?

John: Oh great.

Craig: Which was annoying. Because I would have to adjust the laptop screen to give a better view of the monitor, but then also adjust the camera to give them the camera angle they wanted on me. And then readjust the laptop camera to get the better angle.

John: So I assumed that it was piping out over the Internet.

Craig: No.

John: And recording – that would be great if it could. But it did not.

Craig: No, no. It was not doing that. So all FiLMiC does is just suck in data at very high resolution with all sorts of little – so one of the nice things is you can create settings profiles. So before they sent us the phones the DP and production staff went through and made sure that FiLMiC Pro was dialed in exactly as they wanted. And then they put it under a Mythic Quest setting.

John: [Crosstalk] and such, yeah.

Craig: All of that stuff was kind of done, all the color temperatures, and yada-yada. But there were still a few things that we had to do to make sure it was correct. And it did seem to work really well. So, yeah, our deal was we were basically, as actors, we’re looking pretty much directly into the lens. So it’s interesting because I’ve got like my earbuds in and I can hear for instance Ashly Burch who plays Rachel, I can hear her. I can’t really see her, because she’s–

John: Yeah.

Craig: Blocked. So I can hear her. So I have to talk to her as if she’s the iPhone lens. And one of the just little techniques that Rob said seemed to work really well and so we would do it is leaning in closer to that lens. If we wanted to make a point. But it was an interesting thing to not see someone like that.

John: How were you recording sound? Was that recorded separately?

Craig: No. It was recorded at the same time. So with sound we were using a Shure mic. The Shure brand. Classic mic brand. And so this particular Shure mic would connect into the iPhone through the lightning port or whatever that port is on the iPhone. I guess now it’s a USB-C port, isn’t it? No, it’s still lightning, right?

John: The iPhones are still lightning, yeah.

Craig: So it’s stuck in there and then we would point it at us and then there was a separate Shure mic that had the audio department. So then the sound guys had their settings for that. And so–

John: And so it was a lav hidden in your shirt? Or where was the microphone?

Craig: No. The microphone was on the phone pointing directly back at me.

John: I got you.

Craig: Because they didn’t want to have us like lav’ing ourselves up and then wiring something back over. The phone was the issue, right? Because they didn’t want to send over a separate recorder. There’s also no syncing.

So in production, you know, people think the clapboard is just for like, clap, but it’s got a crystal in it that’s syncing the audio with the numbers on the slate which the camera is filming. That’s how they sync everything up. So they didn’t have that opportunity here. But FiLMiC Pro understood that it was going to be pulling audio in from the Shure. And, I don’t know, it was all very well thought out.

John: Great. And so did you end up clap syncing before you started recording things or not?

Craig: You know what? They had us do it like once and I think they gave up. [laughs] Because I think they were like, OK, everybody clapped at once.

John: Yeah, it’s hard to do.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, everybody is getting their Zoom audio at slightly different times and so I think they just had to kind of eyeball it.

John: I was looking at how Seth Meyers is doing his show from his attic. And he’s just on an iPad. And the iPad is working as the teleprompter and it’s using the front-facing camera on his iPad is what’s recording him. And it works.

Craig: Yeah. So, the front-facing camera is generally nowhere near as good as the back camera. But if you want to be able to see yourself you need the front-facing one, right? So that was the weird part of this is we did use the back camera because it’s a far better camera, but you couldn’t see yourself. Which I guess kind of you didn’t want to anyway. I mean, I don’t want to see the monitor when I’m acting. I just want to be able to see the person.

Because, you know, John, I’m a very accomplished actor. [laughs]

John: Yes. So as you’re putting yourself on tape for Tevye, that is choices he’s going to make.

Craig: I mean, I’ve been around, man. I’ve acted in a show for a number of episodes that is fewer than 10. [laughs]

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by John Venable. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can see some of them featured in Mythic Quest. They’re available at Cotton Bureau. There’s a link in the show notes for that.

In the show notes you’ll also find other stuff we talked about. At the site you’ll find the transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re just about to record on erotic fiction.

Craig: Oh my god. That’s awesome.

John: Craig, thank you so much for a fun episode.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

John: All right. It’s our bonus topic. So back when I was writing Arlo Finch I met with a bunch of the audio book narrators and you can hear some of that on the Launch podcast I did. And one of the things that was interesting as I was talking with them is that most of them use their real names for when they’re recording normal books, but they use special names, alternate names, for when they’re recording erotic fiction. And I just love that the same folks who are reading children’s books are also reading erotic fiction.

And also that there’s still erotic fiction. There’s still a market for erotic fiction.

Craig: Is there anything less erotic than the word “erotic,” by the way? It’s such a boner killer.

John: When Madonna sang Erotic for her album Erotica she had a good intonation for that, so I get that. But erotic is not–

Craig: Nah. Blech.

John: But this is maybe an unfair and misleading setup for I really want to talk about meta fiction and fan fiction and sort of that intersection because while there still is erotic fiction even in the age of Pornhub and stuff like that, what’s probably most fascinating is user-generated fiction which is often porny but not always porny. Sometimes it’s slash fiction. But there’s a whole different category of fiction that didn’t exist when we were kids.

Craig: This is one of the great bait and switches of my life. [laughs] I can’t believe. I mean, if people are listening at home and they are upset, I just want you to know I am, too.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I was told that we would be reading erotic fiction.

John: All right. Well, we can at least talk about erotic fiction.

Craig: Sure.

John: Craig, did you read erotic fiction at any point in your life?

Craig: [laughs] Oh, I think we should ask Sexy Craig that question.

John: Sexy Craig, have you ever read erotic fiction.

Craig: I’ve lived erotic fiction. I’ve lived it, John. Yeah.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah, I never thought this would happen to me. Yeah, of course I did. I mean, when I was a kid. So the porn that was available when you and I were youngsters–

John: Was all printed.

Craig: It was all printed. The thing that you would go to – if you were a young straight lad like myself you wanted Penthouse. You didn’t want Playboy. Playboy was too fancy. It was too classy. Hustler was hard to get and really did make you feel like you were wrong. So Penthouse was a fantastic middle ground. It was dirty enough but you didn’t feel like you were just falling apart as a human being.

And Penthouse had this section called Forum. And in Penthouse Forum people would write these stories in.

John: Like I never thought it could happen to me, but…

Craig: Every single story had some guy who was like I never thought this would happen to me but I went to a laundromat and I was doing my laundry and three women came in and…

Yeah, and they were great. They totally worked. [laughs] They did the job.

John: And they were all fake. None of those were actual real things that happened.

Craig: No.

John: And those were probably the direct predecessor to online sort of porny fiction which was very much imagining scenarios with like famous people. And sort of a newer phenomenon as I was sort of researching this was have you ever heard of Y/N?

Craig: Nope.

John: So Y/N is Your Name. It’s a placeholder for your name. And so it’s fiction where the reader is inserted into the place where we see Y/N.

Craig: Oh.

John: So it’s a thing that you see on like Wattpad and other sort of online fiction pieces.

Craig: Oh, that’s interesting.

John: Yeah. So it’s first person/second person. It’s a weird sort of POV thing. But where you as you’re reading it you’re supposed to put yourself into that position.

Craig: Do you actually enter your name so that it is stringed in to a variable?

John: No.

Craig: Oh, you have to do it in your head.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Huh.

John: You have to be your own variable–

Craig: Somebody ought to take care of that because that would be way better.

John: Yeah. If you’re going to insert your variables.

Craig: Do your variables, come on. Come on, man.

John: Get yourself some good, fun times. My experience with erotic fiction was, yes, like friends would have Penthouse or Playboy or that kind of stuff, but there were also these trade paperback books that were – they were definitely mostly oriented towards women but there were some that were sort of general purpose or sort of male-oriented.

And they’re weird. I can’t imagine that there would be any market for those kind of things now. But there was a market for everything because that was all you had.

Craig: That’s all you had. But I mean you were like in a porn store?

John: Yeah. Like in a porn store. So the same kind of place that would ultimately sell videotapes before then would have like cheapy trade paperback kind of–

Craig: Ah.

John: Fiction like that.

Craig: OK.

John: I’m sure there’s people who collect. Maybe I’ll look for those because I’m sure the artwork was all fantastic.

Craig: There’s an interesting just topic of the porn gap for gay boys in the 1980s, right?

John: Oh, for sure.

Craig: How did – I mean, now it doesn’t exist, right?

John: There was Playgirl.

Craig: Yeah, there was Playgirl, but like where did you even find Playgirl? It seemed like Playgirl was a myth. You would talk about it but I never saw it.

John: Yeah. So but it was hard to find nude male representations outside of medical things. It was literally sort of hard to find that source of stuff. It’s also why I feel in writing and in fiction you found people searching for queer characters even when they really weren’t quite there. Or they were being so carefully coded into what was there. And so you ended up like, you know, if you could see a movie like Maurice, like oh my gosh, there’s actual men kissing.

Craig: Yeah. Well wasn’t the birth of slash fiction was – maybe I’ve got this wrong – but in my head the first versions of it were homosexual romances between Captain Kirk and Spock.

John: Yeah. That’s what I consider the initial slash fiction. I’m sure there’s some other history but that’s what I think popular culture considers the first slash fic.

Craig: They should do that. I mean, honestly. Like we’ve had 400 Star Treks. Just do it.

John: Go straight for that.

Craig: Yeah, just do it. I would watch that.

John: So slash fic sort of leads into – what I will segue into talking about like why these exist in print forms. We haven’t seen a lot of them in actual video forms or at least we don’t see this in actual real entertainment that people are making out there. So the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt special I thought was terrific. It was the most recent Netflix special where you get to make choices between who is going to – at decision points you decide should Kimmy do this or should Kimmy do that. And it branches out in sort of a Choose Your Own Adventure kind of way.

And I just feel like there’s more – it’s weird that it’s still such a new place. Because we’ve had videogames for a long time but we haven’t had the ability to do a lot of the kind of stuff you see in print form in terms of user control over the experience in film or video.

Craig: Yeah, I mean, we try. I think part of it is that we just like receiving video. You know, we like receiving it and–

John: Passive.

Craig: Yeah. It’s passive. When you and I were kids they came up with the Choose Your Own Adventure books and they were great. And we enjoyed them. But I mean the stories weren’t good.

John: They were not good.

Craig: Because the point is they were designed for you to go pick your way through them, but they were kind of disposable. And they weren’t literature. I mean, literature you want to receive. But what is interesting is that there is this whole the world of receiving literature that is interactive in the sense that fans are creating it. So you mention in the show notes here Wattpad. I mean, my daughter is on Wattpad all the time. I mean, she is reading Wattpad constantly.

John: Yeah. And I think within Wattpad it is fascinating that there are genres that exist within Wattpad where it’s like how is this a genre and yet it’s such a thriving genre. So there’s like gay military werewolf is like a big Wattpad genre.

Craig: Huh.

John: Which is kind of great. It’s scratching an itch that you wouldn’t realize that people out there had.

Craig: So specific.

John: Yeah. And so I do wonder at what point we’re going to be mining some of those if not specific stories then the general universes of those kind of stories to create – where is the True Blood for the people who want to see the military werewolf gay romances?

Craig: Yeah. Well, eventually we will be able to have an entire channel. There will be the network, right? We are fragmenting things out beautifully. I mean, Wattpad, my understanding is – the way my daughter explains it to me, and I hope you didn’t just get into trouble, is that it’s not erotic fiction.

John: Oh, no, no, no.

Craig: It’s fan fiction.

John: It’s fan fiction but like–

Craig: It’s like romances and stuff.

John: And so what I’m saying about military werewolves, it can be romance without being sort of erotic.

Craig: They kiss and they’re in love. Yeah. Are they both werewolves or is it like a non-werewolf? Like he’s in the military and sergeant has a secret? And then the moon comes up. Is it like that?

John: I don’t know the outer limits. I don’t know what the fans would consider the boundaries of what that would be. But, yes, that feels right and also it feels like the overlap of what a pack would be like and those – that kind of order and the wildness versus the military thing feels right. So, there’s a lot of good space there.

Craig: The idea of representing unbridled, unrestrained masculinity in a safe context of a story.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Because werewolves are dangerous and brutal and they bite your face and stuff. But, you know, I feel like either you or I could write the greatest gay werewolf military story on Wattpad. We just come in and just dunk on everyone. [laughs]

John: Maybe we already have. Maybe this is all a setup for just this.

Now, I can’t believe I’m this far into the conversation without bringing this up is that of course we look at 50 Shades of Grey. This is an example of exactly what we’re talking about. So this was a woman who wrote fan fiction that hit exactly the right nerve and became an international sensation when it crossed over into popular culture. So, I guess I’m just – I’m reminding us that this has happened before and it seems so right to be happening now.

Craig: Yeah. It’s interesting. You would think that there would be more. 50 Shades of Grey seemed like it was heralding the beginning of something. But it may occupy a unique space. Because I haven’t seen it happen again in that regard. Unless I’ve missed something major. And it’s been quite some time.

John: It has been a long time.

Craig: Yeah. And that was fan fiction that was roughly based on–

John: On Twilight.

Craig: Twilight. Which has werewolves.

John: See? It all fits together. I mean, it’s really our calling. It’s what we need to do.

Craig: Yeah. Werewolves.

John: Werewolves.

Craig: Gay werewolves in the military.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Huh.

John: It’s what we want.

Craig: OK. I’ll do it. I mean, I will. Is there a ranking on Wattpad? I want to be number one.

John: Whatever the top things are, that’s what our goal is.

Craig: I want to grossly abuse my power as a writer to pointlessly make my way to the top of that chart.

John: Ah-ha. Yeah. We’re really nothing if not competitive.

Craig: It’s weird. I’m a weirdo. This was great.

John: Thanks Craig.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Bye.

Links:

• Larchmont Author Extravaganza with Chevalier’s this Saturday June 6 with guests Stuart Gibbs, Aline Brosh McKenna, Derek Haas and more!
• Sports Medal Recycling
• How Pac Man Works
• FiLMiC Pro
• Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Outro by John Venable (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.