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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: 3 page challenge

Scriptnotes, Episode 395: All in this Together, Transcript

April 17, 2019 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/all-in-this-together).

**John August:** Hey, it’s John. So today’s episode was recorded on Friday when it looked very likely that writers would be leaving their agents this week. But then a twist. Just hours before the agreement was set to expire the deadline was pushed back to this Friday and negotiations are continuing. So, now you’re all caught up, and on with the show.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 395 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to be discussing a different kind of movie template where you don’t have one hero, you have a group of heroes, and the movie needs to follow multiple points of view which can be exciting and challenging.

Then we’ll be answering listener questions on a bunch of topics including things Craig tweets.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know what could possibly be interesting about that. What do I tweet? Recipes? Recipes mostly.

**John:** Yeah. It’s mostly recipes. Mostly things you saw in the world that you enjoyed.

**Craig:** And definitely not at all things that made me upset.

**John:** Yeah. Craig’s Twitter feed is basically just Instagram but with words.

**Craig:** It’s Insta-Rage.

**John:** It is Insta-Rage. It’s often Insta-Ragey. We are recording this on Friday afternoon. Unless something surprising happened during the weekend Craig and I now share a characteristic with many aspiring screenwriters out there. We don’t have agents representing us at the moment.

**Craig:** What do we do? How do I get an agent? [laughs]

**John:** We’ll have to answer that question. Back at Episode 1, Episode 5, early on in the show we answered the question how do I get an agent.

**Craig:** Should probably go listen to that now.

**John:** Yeah. As we are recording this there are a few agencies we could sign with. My plan is not to sign with any of those agencies at the moment. Craig, next week are you spending your time hunting down an agent?

**Craig:** No. Next week I’m spending my time mixing the final episode of Chernobyl and doing my job. And I will not be looking for agents. You know what? I’m going to tell you my outlook. I have a generally optimistic outlook that something will work out and we’ll all go back to the way it was. Or, that’s it for agents and writers. And which point I’m just like, OK, you know, let me calculate what 10% was of what I made. I think an answering service would cost less. So it won’t be as good, but at the very least somebody will have somewhere to call. Beyond that, I’m not really sure what else to do.

**John:** No. I mean, before we started recording we were talking about a thing where you were going to reach out to some folks, and you know what, you can just reach out to them directly. It’s one of those weird things where you realize like, oh, I could actually do this myself.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, there is a great utility to agents.

**John:** 100%

**Craig:** I mean, I have enjoyed my relationship with my agents and they’ve done great things for me and they’ve put me in positions where I was able to succeed that I don’t think I would have had an opportunity to be in without them. So I don’t want this to end this way. I want to continue on the way things have been continuing on. But, if they can’t, life will go on.

**John:** Yeah. It will go on. And we will be covering the life as it goes on, on this podcast and we’ll see where we’re at.

**Craig:** Forever.

**John:** Forever. An ongoing study of how life goes on. If you want to go back to those very back episodes I am here to point out that we have a Listener’s Guide, a Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide, and that was designed when we hit Episode 300 because people would come into the show late and say like, oh my gosh, there’s 300 episodes. Which ones do I listen to first? And so we crowd-sourced for our listeners from our listeners which episodes people liked the most. And so that is available for the first 300 episodes.

But now we’re on Episode 395, so pretty soon we’re going to have to do the 400-episode Listener Guide.

**Craig:** Oh my god, 400.

**John:** So people, be thinking about which of the episodes between Episode 300 and 400 are the really notable ones. I thought last week’s with Mari Heller was phenomenal.

**Craig:** That was great.

**John:** So that would be a recent vote. But you know what, I have that recency bias. So, please reach back over the past two years and tell us which of those episodes need to be on that list.

**Craig:** So, John, I feel like when we hit 500 there should be some sort of Diamond Jubilee banquet.

**John:** Yep. There has to be something. So, a little over two years away.

**Craig:** Banquet.

**John:** Banquet.

**Craig:** You know what? We should ask our agents to plan this.

**John:** [laughs] Indeed. So, they have to negotiate an agreement that deals with conflicts of interest and plan for our 500th episode.

**Craig:** Diamond Jubilee.

**John:** So good. Is 500 the Diamond Jubilee? Is that normally how it works?

**Craig:** I don’t think 500 is a thing.

**John:** Nothing goes to 500.

**Craig:** No, nothing goes to 500. So, I’m just going to say it’s our Diamond Jubilee. I feel that that’s fair. And you know what? I want there to be a Deyas. I want there to be a DJ. I want it to be like a Bar Mitzvah kind of.

**John:** That would be so good. So this last week was my daughter’s 5,000th day of life. And so my husband got her–

**Craig:** It’s her Diamond Jubilee.

**John:** It is her Diamond Jubilee, or like Double Diamond Jubilee. There’s some sort of gem stone that is appropriate for it. But got her a little special card and we turned off the explicit music restrictions on her iTunes account.

**Craig:** Yes. I had that discussion with my daughter the other day as well. They had already been off. And then I guess I got her a new thing and I turned them on the new thing and she came to me and said, “Why did you put this restriction on?” And I said, I don’t know, I mean, do you need to have the explicit lyrics? And she looked at me like I had stabbed her in the heart. I mean, it was a look of just shock and betrayal. Like yes I do. The look was so powerful, she didn’t even have to say anything. I just said, oh, all right, just give me the phone. Fine, here you go.

**John:** So people without kids may be asking well why would you turn on those restrictions at all. And here is the secret at least from my perspective is not that you don’t want them hearing those words, it’s that you don’t want them saying those words. You don’t want them singing aloud to the songs and saying those words. That is the reason why we have kept the explicit lyrics off for so long, just so they don’t inadvertently become sung aloud.

**Craig:** But then the thing is of course they are.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They’re doing it. They’re doing it wherever they go. My daughter sang me something the other day where I was just like you can’t – I can’t hear that out of your face. And we were just laughing. We were laughing at how outrageous it was that she said it in front of me.

**John:** And was she playing the ukulele while she sang it?

**Craig:** No, no. No. No. This is not a ukulele song.

**John:** With my daughter I get a ukulele accompanied by those words.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s nice. You know, Jessie plays the ukulele as well.

**John:** Oh my god, a concert. Concert series.

**Craig:** I feel it coming on.

**John:** For the 500th episode a concert jubilee.

**Craig:** Oh, for sure.

**John:** Nice. My last bit of news is that on my Arlo Finch book tour this coming week I will be signing books at The Briar Patch in Bangor, Maine. There will also be a little event there. The Briar Patch, for people who listened to the Launch podcast, is this little bookstore in Bangor, Maine where they’ve sold more Arlo Finches than any place else on earth. And so I’m going there to greet the people who have read Arlo Finch and made it the talk in Bangor, Maine.

**Craig:** Now, what do you think is going on there?

**John:** It’s really one bookseller named Gibran who is a huge fan of the books and just basically puts it in everyone’s hands who comes in. He does a very good sales pitch for it.

**Craig:** That’s spectacular. Great.

**John:** So Thursday, April 11 at 5pm is that event if you want to come see me in Bangor, Maine. And, you know what? I bet we have some listeners in Bangor, Maine, because we have listeners all over the world.

**Craig:** It seems like it.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So our main topic this week came up because yesterday I did a roundtable on a project and this project we were working on had not one hero but a big group of heroes. Or, not a big group, but four people who were sort of the central heroes of the story. And that wasn’t a mistake. That really was how the movie needed to work.

And it got me thinking that we so often talk about movies being a journey that happens to one character only once, and we always talk about sort of that hero and that hero protagonates over the course of the story and sort of those things. Even though we are not big fans of those classic templates and sort of everything has to match the three-act structure that tends to be the experience of movies is that you’re following a character on a journey. But there are a lot of movies that have these groups of heroes in them and I thought we’d spend some time talking about movies that have groups and the unique challenges of movies that have groups as their central heroes.

**Craig:** Smart topic because I think it’s quickly becoming the norm actually as everybody in the studio world tries to universe-ize everything. You end up, even if you start with movies with the traditional independent protagonist, sooner or later you’re going to be smooshing everybody together in some sort of team up. So it’s inevitable.

**John:** We’ve talked before about two-handers where you have two main characters who are doing most of the work in the movie. And sometimes it’s a classic protagonist/antagonist situation. So movies like Big Fish, Mr. And Mrs. Smith, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Romancing the Stone, Chicago, while there are other characters there’s two central characters you’re following and you could say either one of them is the main character of the story.

But what you’re describing in terms of there’s a big group of characters is more on the order of Charlie’s Angels, The Breakfast Club, X-Men, Avengers, Scooby Doo, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Lord of the Rings, Goonies, Go, all The Fast and Furious movies. These are movies where characters need to have journeys and make progress over the course of the story but they’re a part of a much larger team. And we really haven’t done a lot of talking about how those teams of characters work in movies.

**Craig:** Yeah. I actually wasn’t really a team movie writer until I guess The Hangovers, because those three guys kind of operated as a team. And then when you throw Mr. Chow in there it’s a team of four. It’s a crew. Now you’ve got a crew.

**John:** You’ve got a crew.

**Craig:** You got a crew.

**John:** We’re putting together a crew.

**Craig:** And you got to figure out how that crew works, because it is very different than just – even like a typical two-hander like Identity Thief. I mean, there are other characters but it’s just the two of them on a road trip. That’s pretty traditional stuff.

**John:** The movie is about their relationship. And so I’m sure people can argue that one is the protagonist and one is the antagonist. And, great, but really it’s about the two of them and how they are changing each other. Wicked is a two-hander.

**Craig:** Right. When you say, OK, now it’s really about three, or four, or five, or in Fast and Furious there’s like 12 of them at this point now, you kind of have to present them as this team. It’s a team sport now. So writing for a team requires a very different kind of thinking I think than writing for a traditional protagonist and let’s call them a sub-protagonist or something like that.

**John:** Yeah. So if you think about them as a group, if you think about them as one entity this should still be a one-time transformational event for this group of characters, for this team of characters, for whatever this party is that is going through this journey that has to be transformational to them as a group.

But within that bigger story there’s probably individual stories. And in those individual stories those characters are probably the protagonist of that subplot or at least that sub-story. So they’re all going to have relationships with each other, with the greater question, the greater theme, the greater plot of the movie, and it’s making sure that each of those characters feels adequately served by what the needs are. Bigger characters are going to have more screen time and probably take bigger arcs. Minor characters are at least going to enter into a place and exit a place that they hopefully have contributed to the overall success or failure of not just the plot that the characters are wrestling with but the thematic issues that the movie is trying to bring up and tackle.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a kind of a Robert Altman-y trick where you take an event and he would do this a lot in very good Robert Altman movies, but we see it in all sorts of movies, where there’s an event. And the event is so big it encompasses everyone. And so we kind of – we play a little bit of the soap opera game. So soap operas traditionally would have about three or four plots going at once. You would see a little bit of one, then it would switch over to the next one. And you’d have to wait to get back to the one you liked. At least that was my experience when I was home sick with grandma.

So in say a movie like Independence Day there are multiple stories. There is a president. There is his wife. There’s an adviser to the president who has an ex-wife. There’s his dad. There’s Will Smith. There’s a bunch of stories going on. And each one of them gets a little slice of the story pie, but ultimately it’s all viewed through the prism of this event. And in the end everybody kind of comes together in some sort of unifying act which in Magnolia was a frog rain.

**John:** Yes. Yes.

**Craig:** And we see that in fact as different as all these stories were everyone was connected and kind of working as a team. So individuals are the heroes of their mini-stories. And that’s in fact how those movies tell the story of the big story through mini-stories.

**John:** Yeah. Now, in some of these stories the characters enter in as some kind of family. They have a pre-existing relationship. In other movies they are thrown together by circumstances and therefore have to sort of figure out what the relationships are between them. In either situation you want those relationships to have changed by the end of the story. So just like as in a two-hander, their relationship needs to have changed by the end. In a team story the relationships need to have changed by the end and you need to see the impact they’ve had on each other over the course of this. So independent of a villain, independent of outside plot, the choices that they individually made impacted the people around them.

**Craig:** And that’s the matrix of relevance. So in a traditional movie it is about me. I have a problem. And I go through a course of action and at the end of the movie my problem is solved. In this kind of story the group has a problem. And what we’re rooting for is the group to survive. And in that sense very much it is a family. And we know that about the Fast and Furious, because they’re always telling us.

**John:** [laughs] It’s family.

**Craig:** They always tell us. This is a family. But it is. And so the hero of those movies is the joined relationship of them all in the family. And what the problem is in the beginning of the story is not a problem with one individual. It is a problem of family dynamic. And that is what needs to be figured out by the end of the movie.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about the real pitfalls and challenges of doing a story with a team protagonist or with a big group at its center. The first and most obvious one is that sometimes certain characters just end up being purely functional. You see what their role is within this group and what their role is within this plot, but their character isn’t actually interesting in and of itself at all. And sometimes if it’s a minor character, OK, but if it’s a character who we’re putting some emotional weight in that we actually want to see their journey at all, they have to be more than purely functional.

The challenge is the more you – in a normal movie you can say like, oh OK, well I need to build in some back story for this character. I need to see them interact with other people and get a better sense of who this person is and what they’re trying to do, but you can’t do that for every character because the movie would just keep starting again and again. It would never get anywhere. So, finding ways that one character’s progress is impacting another character, which is sending the next thing forward. The jigsaw puzzle aspect of getting all those characters’ changes to happen over the course of the story can be really difficult.

**Craig:** It can be. Because, you know, the movie starts to turn into a stop-and-start. Action, quiet talk, backstory, my inner feelings. Action, quiet talk, backstory, your inner feelings. And it’s one of the reasons by the way these movies are so long. They are so long because everybody needs a story. It’s hard to justify why you have seven characters when only three really have lives and inner worlds and the other four are standing around doing stuff.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** So everybody has to have it. And they can get really long. You know, it wouldn’t kill these people to maybe, you know, kill one of them. If it’s not going well we’ll just kill them. No big deal.

**John:** I’m going to argue without a lot of supporting evidence that Alien is essentially one of these kind of group movies, and a lot of horror movies are those kind of group movie, and they winnow down the characters so that one person is left standing. But you couldn’t necessarily say that that person was the protagonist at the very start of the story.

Aliens is not really kind of what we’re talking about with the team movie. Even though there’s a team of great people in it, it is Ripley’s movie and it is her journey. You can clearly see her protagonist arc over the course of it. So, that’s a distinction. Even within the same franchise those are two different kind of setups. I would say – I’m arguing that the first Alien movie is kind of what we’re describing in this episode whereas Aliens is much more a classic, here is one character on a one-time journey.

**Craig:** Yeah. Don’t be afraid, if you need to write fodder characters you write fodder characters.

**John:** Oh, go for it.

**Craig:** I mean, people need to die. Somebody has to be the red shirt. But when you think about – Star Trek is a pretty good example I think of a kind of team story. All their movies feel like team stories to me. And in part it’s because, I mean, take away the science fiction aspect, they’re just sailors on a boat. And so we’re rooting for the boat to survive. That means everybody on the boat is important. However, if something blows up, a few people on the boat can die and we won’t miss them. It’s the people that we have invested in emotionally. Those need to be justifiable to us. They all need to be important. They’re all doing jobs that are really important. I don’t care about the janitor on USS Enterprise. They do have an important job. Really important. But not during your crisis.

**John:** Absolutely. And we should distinguish between, in television shows by their nature tend to have big casts with a lot of people doing stuff, so Star Trek as a TV show you say, oh well of course, there’s a big cast, there’s a team. But the Star Trek movies which I also love, that is what we’re talking about here because it’s a family. It is a group of characters, the five or six key people. They are the ones that we care about. And we don’t care about the red shirts. We want to see them come through this and survive and change and interact with each other. That’s why we’re buying our ticket for these movies.

**Craig:** You know what? I just had an idea.

**John:** Yes?

**Craig:** You know, so occasionally we do a deep dive into a movie. And I do like the idea of surprising people. I don’t think we’ve necessarily been particularly surprising in our choices. They’ve all been kind of classics. But you know what’s a really, really, really well-written movie?

**John:** Wrath of Khan?

**Craig:** It is. But that’s not the one I’m thinking of.

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** Star Trek: First Contact.

**John:** Oh great.

**Craig:** First Contact is a brilliantly written script. It is a gorgeous story where everything clicks and works together in the most lovely way.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** I would deep dive that. I’d deep dive the hell out of it.

**John:** It’s on the list. Nice.

**Craig:** Put it on the list. Put it on the list.

**John:** Put it on the list. Getting back to this idea that there’s sort of a jigsaw puzzle, there’s a lot of things happening at once, you and I have both worked on Charlie’s Angels films. I found that to be some of the most difficult writing I ever had to do because you have three protagonists, three angels, who each need their own storylines. They need to be interacting with each other a lot. They have to have a pretty complicated A-plot generally. So every scene ends up having to do work on more than just one of those aspects. If it’s just talking plot then you’re missing opportunity to do Angel B-story stuff, but you can’t do two or three Angel B-story scenes back to back because then you’ve lost the A-plot. They’re challenging movies for those reasons. And more challenging than you might guess from an outsider’s perspective.

**Craig:** Well, you’re spinning plates, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You watch them when they’re actually spinning plates. They spin the plate and then they move over and they keep this plate. This plate is slowing down, spin that one faster. The one you were just spinning, it’s in middle. That one over there is slowing down, get to that one. It’s the same thing. You kind of service these things in waves. When you feel like you’ve had a good satisfying amount of this person, leave them and move onto another side story or another aspect of this group. That person can hang for a while.

If you have left somebody for a while when you come back to them it’s got to be really good.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You’ve got to go, oh, you know what, it wasn’t like we were away from that person because there was nothing for them to do. We were away from them because they have a bomb to drop on us. And so that works, too. But just think of it as just servicing plates. Spinning plates and looking for the ones that have kind of been a little bit neglected for a little too long. Because you can’t do them all at once. It’s not possible.

**John:** Yeah. And so this, we talk about art and craft a lot. Some of that is just craft. It’s recognizing having built a bunch of cabinets you recognize like, OK, this is what I need to do to make these cabinet doors work properly. And I can’t, if I don’t measure this carefully those cabinet doors are going to bump into each other and you’re not going to be able to open them. It’s a design aspect that’s kind of hard to learn how to do until you’ve just done it a bunch. And recognizing the ins and outs of scenes and how long it’s been since we’ve seen this careful. What are we expecting to happen next?

And while doing all of that remembering like, OK, what is it thematically these storylines are all about. What is the bigger picture that these can all – how are we going to get everybody to the same place not just physically but emotionally for this moment.

**Craig:** Yeah. You find as you do these things that you can get away with almost nothing. I think early on you think, well, it’s been a little while and this person hasn’t said anything, but whatever, it’s fine. These scenes are good. And then you give it to people and they go, “So why is this dead weight hanging around here? That was weird.” And you go, well, you can’t actually get away with anything.

**John:** Yeah. We talked before about how a character who doesn’t talk in a scene can be a challenge, especially if they haven’t talked – if they’re just hanging in the background of a scene for a long time and haven’t said anything that becomes a problem. But if a character has been offstage for too long and then they come back it has to be meaningful when they come back and you have to remember who they are. There’s not a clear formula or math, but sometimes you will actually just do a list of scenes and recognize like, wow, I have not seen this character for so long that I won’t remember who they are. And so I’m going to have to remind people who they are when they come back. It’s challenging. And you’re trying to do this all at script stage, but then of course you shoot a movie and then you’re seeing it and you’re like, oh man, we dropped that scene and now this doesn’t make sense. That’s the jigsaw puzzle of it all.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s why writers should be in charge of movies.

**John:** Yeah. I think so.

**Craig:** Just telling it like it is.

**John:** Well, we go back to the sort of writer-plus that you’re always pitching which is that aspect of writers sort of functioning as showrunners for films is especially important for these really complicated narratives where there’s just a lot of plate-spinning to be done.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think television has proven this. Really it’s empirical at this point. The other thing I wanted to mention, one last pitfall, when you’re dealing with a group dynamic and you’re writing for a family you have to make sure that no one person – no one person’s personal stakes outweigh the group stakes. We want to be rooting for this whole team to survive. And they’re working together. But if you tell me also that one of their little mini-stories is that they’ve discovered the cure for cancer now I just mostly care about that person. That person has to get out of the burning building. Everybody else should just light themselves on fire so that person can get out.

So you just want to make sure that no one person’s stakes overshadow or obliterate the other ones in the group. And really the biggest stake of all which is us staying together.

**John:** Yep. 100%. So some takeaways. I would say if you’re approaching a story that you think is going to be a team story I would stop and ask yourself is it really a team story or is it more Aliens where it’s one character’s story and there’s a bunch of other characters as well? Because if it is one character’s story that’s most movies and that is actually a good thing. So always ask yourself is there really one central character and everyone else is supporting that one central character? If that’s not the case and you really do genuinely have a family, a group, a series of characters who are addressing the same thing you’ve made your life more difficult but god bless you. That could be a great script. But recognize the challenges you’re going to have ahead for yourself and be thinking about how do you make this group feel like the protagonist so you feel like there has been a transformation of this group by the end of the movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that’s exactly right. And I do believe that after this episode people should be able to do this. All of them.

**John:** Oh, all of them. Easy-peasy. Nothing hard to do there.

**Craig:** I mean, what else do you people want? We’ve almost done 400 of these.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** They should all be at the top of their game. There should be 400 Oscars a year for screenplay as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Let’s see if there’s any questions. Craig, do you want to open up the mailbag?

**Craig:** Sure. Ben in Los Angeles asks, “I keep getting the note that my protagonist is ‘plot-transactional.’ The way I am interpreting this is that she is reactionary as opposed to making choices throughout my feature script. Do you guys have ways to avoid this? How do well-drawn characters drive the story from scene-to-scene? I feel like I don’t know how to approach a rewrite because I think she makes a lot of choices.”

John, what do you think this is about, “plot-transactional?”

**John:** I’ve never actually seen that exact phrasing of plot-transactional, but I think I get what these readers are talking about is that it feels like she is there to service the plot rather than drive the plot. That is she is a way for this plot to happen rather than the person who is in charge of this plot happening. And so, Ben, it’s good that you feel like your character is making choices. It may come down to dialogue and sort of what’s actually happening in the scenes. That it feels like she’s driving those scenes, that she’s asking the questions that lead her to the next thing. That she’s not just following a set of steps that a screenwriter has laid out for her.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think sometimes we get a little too wrapped up in plot. We think that our unique plot is the thing through which we should thread a character. I think that’s ultimately backwards. I don’t think the plot matters at all. I don’t think the plot is as important as what the characters need. And then when you think about it, Ben, this person that you’ve created she needs something. She needs to go through something. Your job is to create this perfect miserable torture for her so that the plot is directly relevant to her character. It is a challenge to who she is at her core rather than just a thing to go through.

That’s why when I watch Ocean’s 11 it’s a wonderful heist movie, and it’s brilliantly plotted, but the plotting is there to challenge a character who needs to do something. It’s not really just there because we like the mechanics of a heist.

**John:** Yeah. So I want to underline something Craig said there because it’s easy to mistake it. Saying you’re setting up these obstacles, you’re setting up these difficulties for the character, it’s to make sure it doesn’t feel like you have set up these difficulties and obstacles for the character, because that could be a situation where it feels like the plot is driving her or forcing her to make certain choices.

**Craig:** Yeah. That would be bad.

**John:** Again, you want to give the illusion that the character really has control over what she’s doing at every moment. And that she’s making the choices that have led to this outcome. And that’s hard to do with some plots, with some storylines, but that’s the struggle you’re facing as a screenwriter.

**Craig:** It’s essentially what writing is man. Sorry. That’s kind of the nitty-gritty of it. You have to just kind of figure this part out. And write in a way where the plot is only meaningful within the context of character. People only care about a character. They only care. They will tell you they care about other stuff. They only care about a character.

**John:** Yep. Oh, also we should say, you’ve said often people care about relationships.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So that can be an aspect, too. So look at–is there a relationship? Does that character have a relationship that’s meaningful? If that character does not that may be your problem.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Darcy from Toronto asks, “I’m approaching the 50-page mark in my screenplay and the story is approaching the end of the runway. I’ve listed out all the scenes I have left to write and I can maybe stretch it out 20 more pages. I know this isn’t a pilot for a web series. It has to be a movie. So, what do you do? How can I make an appropriate length piece of entertainment at this stage?

Yeah, you’ve got a problem. You don’t have enough story. That happens, man. You need to stop right now and you need to look at what you’ve done and then reassess like, OK, well what is the movie version because I didn’t write the movie version. I wrote a pilot.

**Craig:** Yeah. Unfortunately Darcy there’s no Hamburger Helper here, you know. Somebody asked you to build a limousine and you have completed the construction of a two-door coupe. That’s it. It’s the wrong thing. And you can’t just go, well, I’m just going to make the trunk of it bigger. It doesn’t work that way. It’s the wrong thing. You have to start over unfortunately. There’s no way to easily do this. You listed out all the scenes that you have to write now, but I’m suspecting that you didn’t do that ahead of time. If you sort of tear it back and you think about why it needs to be a movie, and you say it has to be a movie. I know this has to be a movie. Then you need to think about that movie, watch that movie in your head, and let it feel the rhythm of the feature version of this.

Because there’s something about the way you’re writing it that is not either feeling that rhythm or is missing things that would be fascinating, enlightening, and fun to watch. If none of that works, then maybe it isn’t a movie.

**John:** Yeah. So what is a movie? As we say often, a movie is a one-time journey that a character, or in the case of teams, characters can take. So if that’s why you truly believe it is a movie, great, it’s a movie, but you need to step way back and do Craig’s work there. What I will say, if this is at all comforting, is that this part gets easier with experience. Because after you’ve done a few of these you have a kind of innate sense of like, OK, that’s enough story for a movie, or uh-uh-uh that’s way too much story for a movie. You get a really good sense of how much fabric you need to cover the couch and that comes with experience.

**Craig:** It’s actually astonishing how consistent I am. Just after all this time when I plan out a story it inevitably ends up around 115 pages. It’s like down to the page. It’s the weirdest thing.

**John:** And I don’t have that experience in books and that’s why I have no idea how long my books are or how long they’re going to take. I had a sense of this is how much story I have, especially for book two it’s like oh wow I have a lot more story and that’s why book two is significantly longer. I don’t have that same way of sort of pacing myself because I don’t have the experience. I bet if I wrote ten more books I would have a very good sense of exactly how much story I have and how many pages it would take.

**Craig:** Well, you know, J.K. Rowling’s books got longer and longer as she did her series.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, your first Arlo Finch book was 14 pages which I thought was not long enough.

**John:** Yeah. It was barely a pamphlet but then the second one is, you know, 400. So.

**Craig:** 400 pages. Good lord. Nicole asks, “I had a general meeting at one of the big animation studios and they ended up loving one of my ideas and they went so far as to say that it was exactly the kind of thing they are currently looking for. They asked,” here we go, “that I write out a treatment. It’s an idea that I love, too. It would have been my script anyway, but since the meeting went so well I’ve been working on the treatment instead of jumping into my normal writing process. When I finish I really want to show them, but I’m weary of leaving my work behind.” I think she means wary. “Is there something I can do to keep their interest without just handing it over? Do I request a second meeting to talk through it in person and then leave with it? My fear is that if I don’t hand it in the conversation will be over with them. What would you do in my position?”

You are the perfect person to ask this question. John August, go.

**John:** Yeah. So, we have this campaign in the WGA, No Work Left Behind, reminding writers that when they go into pitch on a pitch on a project, when they go in for those meetings they might have notes for themselves. Don’t leave those notes behind. It hurts you. It hurts every other writer.

But Nicole’s situation is not quite that situation. So let’s talk through the distinction. Nicole has an original idea. She ended up sort of half-pitching this original idea at this animation company. And now she’s wondering, oh, I’m going to write up this whole treatment. Nicole, you own that treatment. You own everything. You own 100% of this concept. So if you feel like writing this up as a treatment or a full script, you can, you may. You own every little piece of it.

Now, is the best choice for you to show them that treatment or to go in and pitch it to them in person? I don’t know. Animation does have a lot of stuff that ends up being written out. And that’s fine and good so maybe that is. But, I want to just distinguish in a general sense you own this fully and that is not the kind of problem we’re trying to solve. The problem we’re trying to solve with No Work Left Behind is when they’ve called you in for a project that they own and they’re asking you to write up some stuff and leave it behind. That’s the real danger here.

Craig, what do you think?

**Craig:** Well, another thing to point out, one of the big animation studios equals not WGA. It is either going to be an Animation Guild shop or it’s going to be a non-union shop. So, the Writers Guild can’t help you here. I think that the problem I’m having, Nicole, is that they asked you to do this. That to me feels like kind of a weird one. They love your idea, so they say, and they have asked you to write a treatment. You have written a treatment. John is correct. You own that treatment meaning you own the unique expression in fixed form there. You don’t own the idea, because people can’t own an idea. So you may very well, if you consider your idea to be unique, you may find that they’re developing something with the same idea a year from now. These things happen.

But I am also wary of you leaving this work behind for sure. Because you haven’t been paid for it and you should be paid as a writer to write. I think pitching it might be the way to go. I think you could give them a tease. You can say, look, I can show you a little bit and then there’s much more. But let’s formalize it and let me come work here and write this script.

It costs them nothing to ask you to do this. And it costs you time and energy and talent to do it. So just keep that in mind. Their request has cost them nothing. They have no skin in the game.

**John:** This is where I jump in to remind everybody that just because most animation is not covered by WGA does not mean that all animation is not covered by WGA. So, increasingly there are shops, there are places where you can get WGA deals. So just don’t take it as a default assumption that you will get a non-WGA deal at a place. If Nicole has not worked any place and doesn’t know it’s more likely than not it’s a non-WGA shop, but don’t assume that it has to be a non-WGA situation.

Either way, I think what we’re coming down to is this is your idea. You own copyright on it independent of anything else. If you feel like sharing it you can share it, you know, that’s totally your choice. Maybe they’ll look at that as a writing assignment they want to hire you in to work on some stuff for them. OK. But I’m also with Craig in the sense that they’re asking you kind of to do something for free even though you own it fully, so just always be aware of that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. Ashley asks, “I recently inadvertently discovered that a spec I’ve been writing on and off for over eight years bears a very striking resemblance to a feature that is about to go into production this spring in a neighboring country.”

**Craig:** Of course it does.

**John:** “They share the exact same title and they seem to share a similar world, characters, and themes, but this film is set in the ‘90s and mine is contemporary. My question is what does the existence of the forthcoming film mean for my own spec? Should I change the title or consider dramatic alterations? Will industry bogs consider this spec an attempted rip off? Given its relatively small nature should I not worry about this other project?”

Craig, what should Ashley do?

**Craig:** Change the title. I think that’s reasonable just because this movie is about to go into production. And then that’s it. Just change the title.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** Listen, this is constant. This is never not the case. And I will say that everything always seems much more similar to us when we’re writing something than the rest of the world, even when, you know, you end up with two volcano movies at the same time or two talking ant movies at the same time. We can all look at it and go, yeah, but they’re different. And the people writing them are like, no, my god, I thought I was the only one.

So don’t panic. Don’t worry about it. Change the title. It will probably serve you well. And otherwise just rock on with your bad self.

**John:** The first script I ever completed was a romantic tragedy called Now and Then. And a year later there was a Demi Moore movie called Now and Then, so I changed the title to Here and Now. And people read it as a sample. It was great. But I think it was the right choice to change the title just so it wasn’t confused with the movie that had just come out. So, that was a studio movie so more people had heard of it. This other one maybe no one will have heard of it, but still good to have a title that’s not going to confuse people.

**Craig:** Agreed. Jake from Texas writes, “I wrote an original pilot that uses celebrities as characters, specifically country music stars as over-the-top action heroes in a parody. I want to enter it into the Austin Film Festival Competition as an example of my writing. Am I facing any liability in this situation? Clear parody. I’ve been conscious of not trying to negatively portray anyone. Should I just enter something else?”

**John:** Jake from Texas you should enter in your parody with country music stars. You’re fine. Just do it. If it’s good and it’s funny that’s all that matters. You’re not trying to make anything. You’re showing your writing. If the South Park guys stopped themselves at this stage they would not be the South Park guys. Do it.

**Craig:** Yeah. And they can’t stop you anyway. Parody is part of fair use. It’s literally specified as part of fair use. And frankly you don’t even have to worry about negatively portraying anyone either. Larry Flynt, god bless him, went to the Supreme Court to preserve your right to negatively portray people who are public figures in parody. So, just yeah, go on buddy. You’re fine.

**John:** Do it. Steve asks, “I also want to applaud the guild for taking the first step in breaking down the barriers that prohibit writers like myself who have always operated on the fringes from getting material in front of showrunners with the implementation of the Staffing Submission System. I’m curious as to what happens once I submit material to a show as many of your other listeners are I’m sure. Can you walk us through the process for showrunners? Is it up to them to log in to see if any writers have submitted? I just want to make sure I’m not wasting my time on something showrunners don’t intend to use.”

So, we talked about this last week. Craig mentioned wouldn’t it be great and I said it actually exists. So people seem to like it. Here’s what I hear from showrunners who are using it is that there’s one login per show. And so the showrunner has a login but so do their assistants. The assistants who would be gathering in scripts anyway go on the system. They see who has submitted. And it is useful to them as another way of getting some new scripts in.

So, I would say it is worthwhile to submit yourself for shows that you feel that you are appropriate for. That’s why we limited it to three. Pick the shows where you feel like you are the best fit. And it does seem like people are using it right now.

**Craig:** Also, Steve, I’m not quite sure what you mean by I just want to make sure I’m not wasting my time. Uh, click, right? Isn’t that it? Just a click? How much time does it take? [laughs]

**John:** I think you put a little statement there to explain sort of why you’re applying for the show and you’re updating your profile. But yeah.

**Craig:** That’s five minutes? Ten minutes?

**John:** Do it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t really see a time-waster there.

**John:** Nope.

**Craig:** Michael in LA asks, oh, here we go, here we go. So this is in response to a tweet I made about straight white men. And the context was that I was having a conversation with Monica Beletsky, a fantastic writer, about this thing where straight white men in Hollywood are starting to complain that they cannot get hired. That no one will hire them. No one is allowed to hire them. No one will read them. No one is allowed to read them. All their agents are telling them you cannot work in this town. It is simply – it is off limits for straight white men. So, this is what Michael writes.

**John:** Do you want me to be Michael just because I feel like it might be better if I play Michael and you can play Craig Mazin?

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that’s a great idea. You be Michael. I don’t want to be Michael. You be Michael.

**John:** “I’m a working writer and have two indie movies produced and been staffed on two cable shows. Like many people in this industry I’m a straight white dude and as a young straight white dude I couldn’t have picked a worst time to break into the biz. You and Craig are in the privileged position of breaking into the industry when you did and it is exactly because the upper ranks are filled with people like you and Craig that young white writers and I are having such a hard time right now.

“For Craig to completely dismiss how difficult it is to be a young white man right now simply because it wasn’t his experience when he was coming up is disrespectful and hurtful. I’m a good writer. I would say that I’m a great writer. But I can’t even get read for staff or story editor positions.

“In the past we had to hear things like, ‘You won’t even get read because you’re white,’ mainly from our reps, but now thanks to the WGA’s new staffing system we can see it written right there in the notes. Almost all the shows that are staffing say that they are ‘looking primarily for diversity and women.’ It’s one thing to hear this from an agent. It’s another to hear it from a showrunner and have it directed at all prospective writers looking to staff. What is a young white male writer supposed to do when all the showrunners are telling you that essentially you can’t even apply to write for their show?

“I understand there’s a correction going on to a broken system, but the dismissal being levied at young white males right now by people like Craig who were lucky enough to have gotten their foot in the door when they did is insulting. I’d love to see how he would have fared if he graduated from college in 2012 rather than 1992.”

Craig Mazin, take it away.

**Craig:** Well, I’ll tell you how I would have fared. I’d be crushing it. Sorry Michael. Here’s the thing man. Look, there’s luck involved in how this all starts. No question. Now, when John and I started we were in the middle of a recession. That wasn’t any fun. And the spec marketplace was essentially crumbling around everybody. That wasn’t any fun. But no question that the current situation in Hollywood which continues to favor straight white males really favored straight white males back then. I was a straight white male. John was a white male. And, yeah, so we had certain semblances of luck there.

Luck doesn’t keep you in this business. I can assure you of that. And it may take a little bit longer, just like it probably took a little bit longer for writers of color. But then they get there, right? And so that’s what we’re trying to fix.

Yes, I’m sure that it is discouraging to you to hear this all the time. The people that are saying this to you are essentially lying. They’re lying. Now, yes, you will see things like “looking primarily for diversity and women.” The reason that you see that is because people are having a hard time finding diversity and women. They are looking for writers who represent different kinds of people and different perspectives. And our system has done such a poor job of nurturing those writers that there isn’t the rich farm system there should be.

I’d like to think that there will be now going forward. But, yes, everybody is looking for that because people are putting a priority on it. Looking primarily for diversity and women doesn’t mean we’re looking for a room that is primarily diversity and women. It means we are primarily and looking for diversity and women, probably because most of what we keep getting are white guys. And you would be one of them.

And so I don’t think that that means don’t apply. OK. I don’t think that when agents say, “Oh don’t bother. You can’t because you’re a straight white guy.” My response would be why are you my agent? Why are you my manager? Do you have other white male clients? Why? Are you stupid?

So I want to read you something, Michael. This is a statistic. Because when I read your question I thought of the Black List. Not the service the Black List but the annual voted on Black List. And so this is features, not television, but it’s the features that all the assistants and development people in Hollywood vote as the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood. And I asked Franklin Leonard to do a quick tally of the percentage of the writers that were named to the Black List who were white males. And the answer was 67%.

Now, Michael, do you know – you’re not here. You can’t answer. I’ll answer for you. The percentage of Americans that are white males is 31%. So, that’s more than double representation. I know it feels weird to have anyone say I would prefer to hire fewer white men, but please put it in the context it needs to be in which is that there are way more white men than there should be.

I am not dismissive of your position. I am dismissive of people that say that stuff to you. I would ask you to really think about it and maybe investigate why people that choose to represent you are telling you that you are unrepresentable in the marketplace. And then I would just council patience. Patience. Because where I go and the rooms I’m going into and the people I’m seeing there are a lot of white faces and there are a lot of male faces. There are more than 31%. And maybe what you’re experiencing now is just the way it ought to have always been. And that means if you’re great it might take just a little longer.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s wind the clock back to ’92 when you and I were getting started. And it was even whiter then. And so as white people going into it did we have even more advantages back then? Maybe? Just because, I mean, the competition was different. It was a different universe and a different world. But the fact that he is facing less advantages that he did before doesn’t mean that he’s really disadvantaged.

I mean, it’s hard math to do. When you are used to having things have the dice roll in your favor and they start rolling more fairly it feels like something has gone wrong. But I don’t think that’s an actual accurate portrayal. I don’t think you are disadvantaged below other writers honestly.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I would really caution you, Michael, to not use – everyone wants to wrap themselves in the cloak of whatever woke language will give them the most moral authority in their argument. I would caution you to not do this. Because it’s easy and it’s a little cheap. There’s really no reason to suggest that John and I are in a privileged position when your thesis here is that you are a straight white man. Let’s dispense with that. We don’t need to get into the privilege wars.

We’re all white guys in America. So let’s just go with that. OK? We’re all white guys in America. One of us is gay. One of us is a Jew. We’ve all got our things. Well, maybe you don’t. I don’t know. But there’s no reason to look at it that way. I think the way you should look at it is there are white people, there are white men being staffed right now. There are. And they’re new. And they’re coming up. They’re being hired as writing assistants and then they’re getting jobs as writers. They are selling scripts. They are being employed. They’re everywhere.

So, if you’re not in the seat, work harder, try more, be patient. You may have to wait a little bit longer than John and I did, but if you are a great writer, and you claim to be, it’s inevitable Michael. It’s inevitable.

**John:** All right. It has come time for One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a great tweet by Rachel Wenitsky. It’s in the tradition of Natalie Walker’s great tweets where she does a character and she sort of explodes a stereotype of who this character is in film and entertainment. In this case Rachel Wenitsky is doing “The Hot Character Who Everyone Thinks Had It Easy But Finally Reveals Their Painful Backstory.” It is just a terrific monologue that I encourage everyone to watch because you will see it and you’ll realize, oh yeah, that. I can’t ever do that again.

And so it’s such a third act kind of monologue where that character explains how rough she had it and that people are misjudging her. So, I just highly recommend it and I want people to keep doing these trope-busting monologues.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Let’s take a listen.

**Rachel Wenitsky:** You don’t know me. You don’t know anything about me. You think I don’t know what I look like? What I represent? But you have no idea what I come from. I was born on top of a moving bus. When I was eight my dad evaporated right in front of me. My mom was never the same. She started collecting bones that she found in the woods and building a bone house. And then she made us all live inside the bone house. I had to go to school at a 7-11 because we couldn’t afford light-up sneakers. And when all the other kids were out becoming chefs I was home, giving our dog a deep tissue massage. Didn’t go to college. I went to a school of rock. So don’t you dare tell me that I don’t belong here because I have worked my ass off to be here and now I may not have an ass but I am lawyer. I am a goddamn good lawyer. And I object to you.

**Craig:** Ha! That is hysterical. Rachel Wenitsky, you’re funny. God, that was really good. You know, people are getting really good at writing bad dialogue. It’s like becoming its own cottage industry which I kind of appreciate.

Well, my One Cool Thing is somewhat similar actually. Also a parody of a sort. Very different sort. I don’t know if you saw this, John. This was a review in the LA Times, it wasn’t really a review, it was one of those lifestyle pieces. And the title – it’s by Lucas Kwan Peterson – and he’s a food columnist. And the title is “For Cramped New York, An Expanding Dining Scene.” Have you seen this?

**John:** I did because Julie Turner tweeted it and you retweeted it. And I thought it was amazing.

**Craig:** So basically what Lucas has done is written a think piece about New York in the same condescending, ignorant style that the New York Times uses constantly to talk about Los Angeles. And it is amazing. I mean, just a brief quote here. “My first culinary encounter was with pizza, a mysterious kind of baked tlayuda, covered in macerated tomatoes and milk coagulation, and occasionally smothered with a type of thinly sliced lap cheong called pepperoni. The odd dish, sometimes referred to as a pie, washed ashore from Naples some years ago. While the taste takes some getting used to, pizza can be enchanting when done properly.” [laughs]

It’s so great.

**John:** Yeah. It was just pitch perfect. Loved it.

**Craig:** It’s so good.

“The Jewish-style delicatessen I am well familiar with — Los Angeles has the strongest deli scene in the country, after all — but I’d somehow never had a bagel before, a dense version of a baozi that’s boiled, then baked. With a vaguely alkali exterior and a chewy but pliant center, the bagel was puzzling but nevertheless a treat. And that hole in the middle? Apparently, it’s supposed to be there.”

Yeah. You know, as a New Yorker who loves Los Angeles this couldn’t have been better pitched and more deserving. I mean, it’s just, yeah. I mean, New York, clueless when it comes to Los Angeles. Truly amazing.

**John:** It’s great. That is our show for this week. As always our show is produced Megana Rao, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by David John Banks. 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 like the ones we answered today.

On Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. We love to answer little short questions there.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a review or a comment. Those help.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up usually the week after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net. Or at store.johnaugust.com where we sell blocks of 50-episode seasons.

Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. Almost there. Almost to 400.

**John:** Almost to 400. Cool.

Links:

* Accepting recommendations for updating the [Listener’s Guide](johnaugust.com/guide)
* Arlo Finch Book Tour – Meet and Greet at The Briar Patch in Bangor, Maine on Thursday, April 11 at 5pm
* Rachel Wenitsky’s [“The Hot Character Who Everyone Thinks Had It Easy Finally Reveals Their Painful Backstory”](https://twitter.com/RachelWenitsky/status/1114209903256715265)
* [For cramped New York, an expanding dining scene](https://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-nyc-restaurant-scene-april-fools-2019-story.html) in the LA Times
* Submit to the Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by David Jon Banks ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/395_all_in_this_together.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 394: Broken but Sympathetic, Transcript

April 5, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here

John August: Hey this is John. Today’s episode has some strong language – barely strong language, but if you’re in the car with your kids this is that warning.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: Hey baseball fans, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 394 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about how to create a hero the audience is rooting for even while establishing that character must change. Then we’ll be answering listener questions about conflicting notes, meet and greets, and true life stories. To help us sort through all of this we welcome back Mari Heller. She joined us all the way back in Episode 212 when she had just written and directed Diary of a Teenage Girl.

Since then she has directed the Oscar-nominated Can You Ever Forgive Me? and the upcoming Mr. Rogers feature starring Tom Hanks. Welcome back Marielle Heller.

Marielle Heller: Yay. Thank you. Back to my favorite podcast.

Craig: Back to your favorite, the one and only, the greatest.

Marielle: But unlike you I listen to podcasts, so it actually means something that I said that.

Craig: It actually does mean something. I know that you listen to this and it actually makes me feel very warm and fuzzy. And it’s been so much fun to have you be part of our little podcast family because we get to watch you do these incredible things. And now they’re like throwing Oscar nominations around and people are winning Oscars. I mean, you won a guy an Oscar. That’s how I like to think of it.

Marielle: I don’t think we won any though.

Craig: Richard Grant didn’t win an Oscar?

Marielle: No. He did win an Indie Spirit.

Craig: He won an Indie Spirit!

John: That is an Oscar.

Marielle: And they got nominated for BAFTAs, Oscars, Indie Spirits, I mean, everything. Yeah.

Craig: I don’t watch the Oscars.

Marielle: Do you really not? That’s kind of great.

John: We were playing D&D during the Oscars.

Marielle: Good for you.

Craig: I don’t really understand anything about awards, but I did know that a lot of people got nominated, obviously our beloved Melissa McCarthy.

Marielle: And Melissa, I know.

Craig: The greatest.

John: We’ve all made movies with Melissa McCarthy.

Marielle: That’s so weird. Maybe we should change the title of this episode to be something about Melissa McCarthy.

Craig: We love you Melissa McCarthy.

Marielle: One degree of Melissa McCarthy.

John: Something about Melissa McCarthy is now the title of this episode.

Marielle: Great.

Craig: There’s something about Melissa McCarthy. Well, anyway, it’s just been amazing to watch how you’ve kind of grown. And now you’re making movies with Tom Hanks.

Marielle: Crazy.

John: And you often direct commercials. That’s good.

Marielle: I do sometimes. Yeah. I know.

Craig: No, you’re big time. Basically what we’re saying is you’re big time.

Marielle: How did that happen? I don’t know. I guess. It doesn’t feel like it though, right.

John: Here’s how I think it happened.

Craig: You never know, right? Because actually you are not big time. The world perceives you as big time. But you’re still a seven-year-old girl.

Marielle: Exactly. It doesn’t make any sense in your own brain when that’s happening.

Craig: Never. Yeah.

Marielle: I’ll always feel like an outcast. It’s just part of–

Craig: You are.

Marielle: Part of my DNA. I’ll never feel like I am part of Hollywood in any way.

John: Then you’re truly a writer-director.

Marielle: Exactly. [laughs]

Craig: Well it’s so good to have her back.

John: Before we get started on your topic, which you actually suggested this topic which is a great topic, there’s a little bit of news to get through. So by the time you’re hearing this we’ll already know the results of the vote on the code of conduct.

Craig: Ooh, can I throw out a prediction?

John: Throw out your prediction.

Craig: It’s going to pass.

John: Yes.

Craig: I’m going to say it is going to be a 93% yes.

John: All right. So the people who are listening to this podcast will know whether you’re correct or not. I have no idea what the percentage is going to be.

Marielle: I voted on the plane yesterday.

John: Congratulations. Thank you for doing that.

Craig: Thank you for voting. That’s the most important thing. Please, oh, I would exhort people to vote. But that’s in the past.

John: It’s already in the past.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: So, what happens this week as you’re listening to this, well, we are negotiating and we’re going to try to reach a settlement. But what happens the week after that is really an open question. But it’s something we’ll talk about on the show if we get to that point.

Craig: I’m sure we will.

Marielle: You guys are so helpful the way you talk about it on the show though. I think a lot of us look to the show to help us understand some of these issues, especially when our lives are so busy and it’s hard to follow everything.

Craig: That’s good to hear. And, you know, you tweeted the link to the WGA, but it may be the first WGA video that I’ve ever thought was well done. Literally the first. I have to presume you had something to do with it.

John: I had nothing to do with that video whatsoever.

Craig: I don’t believe you.

John: It’s a fantastic video. There’s a video about conflict of interest. We’ll put that in the show notes so you can see it.

Craig: It works. It reminded me of those videos that explain why vaccinations are important.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Helpful. I was at a couple of the big WGA meetings this past week and in one of the meetings a young writer stood up and asked a question. And the point of it was really how much is she allowed to do by herself, like without an agent. And I just wanted to talk about that for a second because I don’t we’ve necessarily talked about the entrepreneurial aspect of your career. You know, obviously at the very start before you have an agent that becomes important, but it doesn’t stop. And so what I urged her to do is to – basic things like write down the names of everyone you’re meeting with, all the people you’re going to talk to. You can call those people directly. You can email those people directly. You don’t have to do everything through your agent.

Craig, what other advice would you have for writers thinking about themselves entrepreneurially especially if they find themselves without an agent in the next few weeks?

Craig: Well the first thing to recognize is that there’s absolutely nothing that an agent is allowed to do that you’re not allowed to do. There’s no legal thing there. It’s the other way around. Agents are limited in what they can do. But on your own behalf you can do whatever you want.

Ideally, if you have an agent you almost certainly have an attorney. At a minimum. If you have a manager then that’s a different sort of thing and they will keep doing what they do. But if you don’t, don’t necessarily feel the need to run out and get one. If you have an attorney who can at least say, all right, I can kind of field or at least handle the negotiation part of things so you don’t have to worry about that. And just sit down right now, make a list of all the people that you would wish your agent would contact and lobby on your behalf. And if something should come to pass where you don’t have that agent, I would agree that you will probably be better served by yourself in that regard than the agent will serve you, partly because of the very problem that we are tackling right now.

John: Yeah. Mari, how much are informal networks helpful to you? As you’re putting together a movie, obviously you’re dealing with agents, you’re dealing with managers and stuff, but how much is it you reaching out to folks?

Marielle: Huge. Hugely. I mean, Alexander Skarsgård was in my first movie because I actually – I had been trying to get him the script through the normal channels. I had been getting nowhere, because nobody wants to give their client a script for a movie that has no money. And then I saw in an US Weekly that he was friends with Jack McBrayer who I am friends with. And I called Jack and said I’ve been trying to get this script to Alex, can you help me get it to him. And the next day I got a call from Alex.

Like it all happened because of, you know, little circles and connections. And it continues to be like that. Always. I mean, it helps to be able to get to people through their agents as well. But often I find myself trying to go rogue.

Craig: Yeah. Well because the agency method is an institutionalized thing. They represent a thousand people. They have to handle outcomes in that context. So they call, they get an official no, it is over. The no has been received. Moving on.

But we don’t do that for ourselves. We’re like, OK, who said no. Why did they say no? Let me go around that person.

Marielle: And the number of times I’ve talked to actors and I’ve said did you ever get that script and they say, oh no.

Craig: By the way, I don’t get theirs.

Marielle: I don’t either. As a director I don’t either.

Craig: They’ll say to me, oh you know, we were hoping that you write this thing but we heard you were busy. What thing? What?

John: Ha.

Marielle: Me too.

Craig: And then when I hear about it I’m like oh yeah, no, I was busy. [laughs]

Marielle: Yeah. My agents were protecting me.

Craig: Pretty much.

John: I was reminded about all of this this last week because we were gathering names, we gathered like 770 names of showrunners and high profile screenwriters, Marielle Heller.

Marielle: And Jorma Taccone both signed.

John: And Craig Mazin.

Craig: The Jorma.

John: And as we were doing that it was interesting because we couldn’t go to agents to say like, hey, we’re trying to get to this person. We had to figure it out ourselves. And so you recognize like, oh, the informal networks you have are really important. And so we’re emailing like who has Aaron Sorkin’s email address? Who knows Aaron Sorkin? And you eventually find the person who knows Aaron Sorkin and Aaron Sorkin signs the list.

Marielle: I got an email from Jorma from you, but he passed it on to me saying we should all sign this thing. It was just going around.

Craig: It’s just going around like a bad penny.

John: Yep.

Craig: Keeps turning up. But a lot of people did sign it. A lot of people are going to vote yes.

Marielle: Do you want to tell Aaron Sorkin’s email address on the air right now? Sure.

John: What if it was aaron.sorkin@gmail.com? Wouldn’t that be amazing?

Craig: It probably is.

Marielle: It probably is.

Craig: I think you might have just done it. It’s actually probably like Imamazing@hotmail.com.

Marielle: Also, you know, all the Gmail addresses it doesn’t matter if there’s a dot or a dash, it’s all the same. So it’s aaron.sorkin or aaron-sorkin. Oh, you didn’t know that?

Craig: What?

John: In Gmail addresses the periods don’t matter at all.

Craig: My mind is blown.

Marielle: The periods don’t matter. Yeah.

Craig: They just strip them out.

Marielle: Which is so smart.

Craig: It is. Because then you don’t get confused between mariheller and mari.heller.

Marielle: Exactly.

Craig: Whoa. I’m freaking out.

Marielle: It’s weird.

John: Strange.

Craig: John, I have an amazing idea.

John: Tell me.

Craig: OK. The Writers Guild should create a list or some sort of system where if a writer wants to be staffed and the agents are out of the picture they can contact the guild through some kind of system and then there would be showrunners on the other end of that system who would then be able to see and get submissions. Wouldn’t that be an amazing idea?

John: That would be an amazing idea that is called the Staffing Submission System.

Craig: Wait, it’s happened?

John: It’s actually happening. So it’s rolling out. It’s a limited thing. I don’t want to sort of oversell it, but it’s a thing that’s out there for WGA members East and West to submit on shows.

Craig: All right. That’s exciting.

Marielle: That’s a really good idea.

Craig: It is. If it works.

John: If it works.

Craig: Like I always remain my, I have to be guild skeptic. And this is exactly the kind of thing that I could see them just fumbling. But lately, I got to say, just from that video alone, something is going on over there. I feel like it’s a John August influence.

Marielle: But I do think we’re at a time right where the gatekeeper thing is being broken down. And that is one more step toward the gatekeeper kind of being dissolved and it being direct-direct, artist-to-artist contact, which is great.

John: Julie Plec, a former guest who came to our live show, for staffing for her new show she went on Twitter saying like, “Listen, I need to find new writers. And so send me the writers you think are fantastic.” And so she went out to Twitter and she found some people off that. So it happens.

Marielle: That seems dangerous, but.

Craig: Well, exactly.

Marielle: For murderers and stuff like that.

Craig: Murderers–

Marielle: On Twitter that’s what I think of.

Craig: Always dangerous.

Marielle: I’m scared of Twitter.

Craig: Yeah, if you’re a showrunner the threat is that you will be, you know, just subsumed by a tidal wave of scripts. And I understand that. Even if you were to limit it just to people in the WGA my guess is there’s a good 4,000 people with scripts that would like to be on, and then name a show.

John: So the system limits people to apply into three shows, submitting to three shows.

Marielle: Oh that’s actually really good.

Craig: OK, cool.

John: Pick the shows that you think you’re actually appropriate for.

Craig: God, I hope they all pick the same show.

John: That would be amazing. [laughs]

Craig: I really want them to. What do you think that show would be?

John: Chicago Fire.

Craig: Chicago Fire.

John: 100% Chicago Fire.

Craig: No question. Oh, let’s do it to Derek. Let’s see if we can. It would be lovely.

John: Oh, it would be so good.

Craig: Just truckfuls of scripts showing up. Beep. Beep. Beep.

John: My favorite ideas for episodes are ones where the guest has an idea for an episode and says why don’t you do an episode about this and we can bring in a guest to do the episode.

Craig: Such a smart idea, too.

John: Such a smart idea. Mari, tell us about what you emailed us and what we can talk about today.

Marielle: Well, I feel like we talk a lot about how you begin a script. You guys obviously do your Three Page Challenges. What are the first five pages of a script? How do you set up a world? How do you set up what type of movie you’re going to tell? What are the rules? All of those things. And I’ve noticed in particularly the edit process of making movies that there is a script issue that can come up which is not how you set up your world but how do you introduce your main character who is going to be your hero who has a major journey that they have to go on, so you can’t meet them at a point in their life where everything is going great and they’re perfectly mentally healthy or whatever it is.

And how do you set them up as a person with problems but a person you can engage with emotionally, that you feel connected to, and that you’re rooting for? And it’s different than the likeable question that comes up a lot.

Craig: Correct.

Marielle: Which is the note we tend to get about the beginning of a movie or the beginning of an introduction of a character is how do we make this person likeable. And I think that that note has come around because of this actual bigger question which is how do we set up a new character that the audience has never met before in a way that is engaging and makes you root for them and makes you connected to them in your gut and in your heart?

And I dealt with it in different ways with Diary and with Can You Ever Forgive Me? And it was such a struggle with Can You Ever Forgive Me? that figuring that out. It finally dawned on me like this is a script problem and it was a problem that I handled in the script phase for Diary and it wasn’t a problem therefore in the edit. And I didn’t handle it in the script phase with Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Craig: Ah-ha.

Marielle: So then I had to solve it in the edit, which is much harder.

Craig: Way harder.

Marielle: Yeah. So I just thought it was a good idea to talk about because it’s something I keep thinking about recently.

John: It’s a fantastic idea. It’s an Oscar-winning idea in terms of–

Craig: At least a nomination.

Marielle: All my ideas are.

John: At least a BAFTA. An Indie Spirit. It’s an Indie Spirit–

Craig: Full on BAFTA.

Marielle: Indie Spirit winner, Oscar-nominated idea.

Craig: Correct.

John: Scriptnotes episode idea. So, a couple things that you’re talking about here is what is the author’s intent, like what does the movie need to do with this character and what is the audience’s first interaction with this character? And how do you line them up in a way that the audience’s first encounter with this character is positive. That they are curious and engaged. They understand the character well enough that they’re willing to go along with them, but also they want to know more. How do you set it up so that you have the runway that you need to get them through to the end of the story?

Marielle: Right. Because I think the tendency with notes around this is people tend to say, “I just want her to be more likeable in the beginning and I want her to be easier to stomach,” which I don’t think actually is the answer.

Craig: It is not.

Marielle: Because there’s a wonderful way that you can show somebody with a lot of problems but that you have to find a way to engage.

Craig: Yeah. If you mess up this little balance in the beginning the character will be alienating. It’s a turn-off, right? So it’s not a question about likeability. I agree with you. It’s really more of a question of the ability to inspire some kind of empathy in the audience.

Marielle: Yes.

Craig: So that’s the one side of the misbalance is that. The other side of the misbalance is they’re boring, because they’re just good. And this entire movie is maybe predicated on the fact that they’re difficult people.

Marielle: Right. With Can You Ever Forgive Me? that was definitely the case.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Right. So I believe that there is a theory of behavior that people bring with them into a movie theater. And the theory of behavior is if somebody is behaving monstrously, not in a criminal way but more in a way that violates social norms that underneath that surely there is some kind of understandable, empathizable with pain. And if you can show me, even if you don’t explain what it is, if you just show me that you know it’s there and you give me a tiny little glimmer of it, just a tiny peep, then I will be OK.

But if you don’t, I mean, we had the same thing with Identity Thief with Melissa’s character, too. It was the same thing. Show me one little peep and then I’ll be OK.

Marielle: With Diary I kind of had this chance to work this out because I did it as a play. And I got to realize when the audience connected to the character and when they didn’t. And the book started with her immediately, her first confession of I had sex with this guy and it’s my mother’s boyfriend, it goes right into it. And what I realized was in order for the audience to engage and go on this journey they first had to meet her and her philosophy of the world without knowing that little piece of information.

So, I wrote this scene where she’s walking through the park in San Francisco and we literally get to see the world through her eyes. She says, “I had sex today. Holy shit.” And you don’t know who it is with, but you see she’s really excited about it. And then you watch her looking around at kids smoking weed, and there’s like smoke wafting up around a cute boy, and a woman jogs by with big boobs and she imagines animated stars on her boobs and she kind of giggles to herself. And you get to see this creative mind at work. And you get to see this character who the way she sees the world is sort of infectious. You’re like she’s raging with hormones. She’s seeing the world through a sexual lens, but innocently sexual also. And she’s got something going on inside of her that’s bubbling out. And you fall in love with her before she tells you, oh by the way, the person I had sex with was my mother’s boyfriend.

Craig: Well, that’s so smart because I remember watching that and having a feeling – and I don’t know if this is what you intended or not – but when I watched it the feeling I had was worry for how vulnerable she was.

Marielle: Yeah.

Craig: Because that is actually – she was “irrationally exuberant,” to quote Alan Greenspan. That is not the way you should be feeling of those things. But we have all felt it.

Marielle: Right.

Craig: Particularly the first time after you have sex, you’re like this is it. I’ve stared into the eye of god.

Marielle: Right. She’s like walking around wide open.

Craig: Wide open.

Marielle: Her whole self has been opened up and she’s walking around totally vulnerable.

Craig: And then when she tells you what she did, you already know that her heart is going to get stomped on. And so somebody that’s done something, yeah, if you start with just like meh, whatever.

Marielle: Right. And I didn’t really realize at the time, but it developed over years of realizing what the audience needed in order to be engaged in the story. And I didn’t realize how hard that is to do until I was in the edit room with Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I realized – I did a lot of work on the script of Can You Ever Forgive Me? but I actually barely touched the first act. I kind of felt like I’d never done anything crime related before and I sort of trusted that I didn’t know how to set that up. And this must be setting it up right because I don’t really know to set it up, not realizing from a character point of view we’re actually not quite setting up what we need to set up to engage with this character. We’re pushing the audience away a little bit. And how can we get on her side? Because I actually do love this character. I think she’s wonderful and amazing. So how can we give the audience enough?

John: Well let’s talk some techniques because you describe it in Teenage Girl about you literally are showing her POV. So you are showing her POV on things and letting the audience know that this is from her POV and this is how she sees the world. And so once we are seeing what she’s seeing then we’re kind of in her shoes and that’s a very helpful technique. So by literally setting her up as the focus of the universe and the lens through which we’re going to experience the entire story.

Marielle: Yeah. And I think if you can set up what makes that person special. The way they see the world and how that is something unique and special, which Lee Israel, the Melissa McCarthy character in Can You Ever Forgive Me? also had a very special lens through which to see the world, which is really jaded, and funny, and dry, and self-involved, but enjoyable. And so we had to open it up enough so that you can see the way she was experiencing the world and be able to laugh with her, not just at her.

It’s also a matter of giving I think that character enough power that you’re not terrified for them the whole time. Like it’s this balance, right? Because you want to show – often you want to show your protagonist in a position where their life is going badly. You know, I think about Breaking Bad. You want to see the ways in which the world is not treating them well. But how do you do that in way but you also see where their power does lie when they had it, or you see their struggle for power, or whatever it is, but you don’t see them so deflated that you can’t feel like there’s any fight left or something.

Craig: Right. Well, I think sometimes people that – we’ll call these people challenging people, challenging characters. A lot of this stuff is they don like armor. This is their armor against the world. And one of the techniques you can use to create empathy is essentially show them nude. Not literally, but in As Good as it Gets which is, you know, Jack Nicholson is playing an incredibly challenging character. He’s a racist. He’s a homophobe. He’s just viciously cruel to everybody, including children and waiters. And then he gets into his apartment and we just see him go through the motions of having to do the locks a certain way, and having to move his things around a certain way. And because in here he’s naked. And it’s not that he’s pathetic. He’s not depressed. He’s not crying himself to sleep. But now we see what he looks like without the shell.

Marielle: Right.

Craig: And then we go, oh OK, there’s somebody to love in here.

Marielle: Totally.

Craig: And the one thing we know for sure about almost all of these characters is that they are alone. And showing loneliness is a huge—

Marielle: That was the key for us with Can You Ever Forgive Me? was the scene we could feel the audience connect to Lee is when she’s at home watching an old black and white movie. She’s speaking along to the movie with her cat, eating shrimp out of a napkin that she stole from a party. But she’s enjoying herself. You’re seeing what she loves. She’s lonely. But it’s funny. Like it had all of these elements that made you connect because you get to see her vulnerable. And there is something about seeing people in their place that they live when they’re alone and giving them that one little moment to let their guard down, especially if you’re established them as somebody with a thick armor before that. Seeing them drop their armor is really effective.

Craig: Seeing what makes this person smile. What makes them laugh? What makes them happy? And understanding how they’ve built their state of acceptable imperfection around themselves to protect from the world outside. And then you start to go, OK, oh yeah, you know, when you go outside put your armor back on because you are not equipped for out there. And now you’re with them.

There’s a question of timing as well. When do you do this? Because if you start this way you kind of let air out of the balloon. You kind of need to start with Bah and then go, but OK.

Marielle: Right. But it can’t be too late.

Craig: Precisely. You’ve got to measure it out just right.

John: Well how long do you think you have before an audience decides, OK, I’m onboard with this movie or I’m not onboard with this movie?

Marielle: Ten minutes?

John: Is it ten minutes? Do you think you can get all ten minutes? I don’t know if–

Craig: I mean, I think about it in terms of scenes. I think once you have delivered the scene that shows that they are a challenging person, I don’t want to see another one. If it isn’t within that scene I need the next one to be–

Marielle: That was the exact issue we had with the first act of Can You Ever Forgive Me? was it was scene after scene after scene of showing the same armor and the same pain and the same being shit on by society. And it was taking too long to get to the moment of vulnerability. To get to the moment of the soft underbelly where you get to see somebody naked a little bit. And yet we knew we needed to set up these circumstances to show why she was going to go to this life of crime. So we had to show her dire straits. We had to show all of these things of how bad it was. Because when we stripped them out and we only showed one or two things you went, “She didn’t try hard enough.”

Craig: Correct.

Marielle: And so it was this fine balance. But what we ended up doing, our editing trick we ended up doing, is we tried to turn all of the pieces that were separate scenes, that were written as very, very separate scenes into a sequence.

Craig: Exactly.

John: Yes.

Marielle: And we did it with music.

Craig: That’s the way to go.

Marielle: We had recurring music that came back between each piece. And we tried to make it not feel like and we’re going to start again, and then this one is going to have a beginning, middle, and end, and then we’re going to start again. Because that felt way too repetitive.

Craig: There’s an enormous amount of pressure on any scene that starts from a dead spot and then builds, right?

Marielle: Yes.

Craig: Those have to be pretty good scenes. And if there is a sense of repetition in them, right, then all that pressure just begins to crush you. So what you effectively did was kind of follow the do a scene and then give me the vulnerable scene. You just took a bunch – it’s a very smart solution.

John: Sequence.

Marielle: We took a lot of scenes and smooshed them together. And it was tricky to figure out and I don’t think it’s perfect by any means. It’s one of those things that I’ll – I mean, I don’t think you ever feel like any movie you make is perfect, but it’s one of those things I’ll go down feeling a little bit frustrated about because we worked so hard on it and I think it works, but it could have been better, and it could have been better in the writing phase and then we wouldn’t have had that problem.

John: A lot of filmmakers in your situation would have tried to do a voiceover or some way to get us inside of her head so we understand that the character that we see on screen is not the full character. There’s another way to do it. And voiceover that’s not planned, voiceover that’s glued on at the end it just doesn’t work. It’s disastrous.

Marielle: I did voiceover in Diary that was so baked in because she is writing a diary and when I made it into a movie I thought, OK, I don’t want to see her just sitting down and writing and hearing her voice. I want to see her physically recording herself on a tape recorder because that’s something I did as a kid. So that became part of the DNA of the movie.

John: It was natural. You can feel when it’s just been spackled on to try to fix those things.

Marielle: Totally.

John: But that instinct for voiceover is good to hear. Sometimes if you’re looking at a first act, a first ten pages that isn’t working, it might be good to think of what that voiceover would be. If you did have the insight into what the character was really thinking write that voiceover, set it aside, and then figure out how do I get the effect of that voiceover with actual scenes.

Marielle: Totally.

John: What are the actual scenes you could write that would give you that information?

Marielle: What would the action that I could see, the physical action, the visualization of that voiceover. Because I do think it’s also a lot about what you see, what your visuals of that person are. Whether it’s them in their space, how do they move in their space, what are their actions that they’re doing? Are they active? Are they passive? You know, what speed do they move through the world? Is it that you’re doing a slow-mo shot of a person with their head down walking through a crowd? Everyone else is moving fast, they’re moving slow. What does that tell you, that visual, about that character and where they are in their head? Are they depressed or whatever it is?

But if you can try to figure out what the visual way to tell that story of their internal dialogue it’s all the better.

John: For sure. Now, we’re talking about difficult characters, but some of these lessons apply to any character. Because every movie is theoretically a character’s one-time journey, one-time adventure. So what are some lessons we can take for more traditional heroes who are not – I mean, obviously all heroes need to have some flaw, something that they can overcome, some journey that they can go on, but what are the lessons we can take from these really difficult characters and apply them to characters who may not be so challenging?

Craig: Well, it’s a craft thing for me. It’s giving the audience a glimpse at some truth that that character is not willing to even acknowledge themselves. So they may look happy, right, because this is what we do as people. We create a situation to cover up some sort of pain and go, good, good, I’m happy now. No you’re not. And I need to see that. But you don’t get to see it yet as a character. I get to see it and I get to see that you don’t get to see.

I may be dreaming this, because I haven’t seen Groundhog Day in a long, long time, but I believe at the very beginning when Andie MacDowell first comes in he looks over and he sees her kind of goofing around with the green screen and there’s this little weird moment where he’s a human being. And he’s just sort of taken by this person and how kind of free and happy she is. And then he returns quickly into being an absolute wretch, as she calls him. And it’s so important because we see him go, you know, nah. Let me just go back to being a wretch and a letch and all that. That’s my speed. That’s what I do. I don’t actually have the equipment to, I don’t know, appreciate someone as a human.

Marielle: Right. And we were just talking about Groundhog Day for this exact reason which is even though Bill Murray is obviously so troubled and he’s somebody who can’t be happy and he’s a miserable person by all accounts, but he’s so enjoyable to be around as an audience member.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: You wouldn’t want to be his friend. But watching him is just a joy because watching somebody have terrible thoughts and say them out loud, or do the things you’re not supposed to do in life, or say no I don’t actually want to talk to the guy I just ran into from high school. Sorry. There’s something actually really relatable about that, even though you know it’s bad.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Right. And he’s so good at it. I mean—

Marielle: He’s so charming.

Craig: That’s another lesson I think for heroes in general is give them their flaw but then make them smart. Or make them powerful. Make them do something–

Marielle: Make them specific.

John: Yeah.

Marielle: Make them specific and make their – whatever their problem is, whatever their flaw is, it should be baked into the thing that makes them interesting.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: Like it should be – with him, part of what’s interesting about him is that he’s kind of a jerk and he moves through the world and you feel like that’s why he’s successful. You feel like that’s why he’s gotten where he has gotten in life. It’s not like he’s somebody who is living in a ditch and can’t make a living. He’s actually a successful kind of celebrity guy who everybody wants to talk to.

John: The superficial charm is partly what gets him where he is.

Marielle: Right.

Craig: And therefore you understand that it’s actually hard to remove that person from this path. In fact, it takes a metaphysical, cataclysmic event of time looping to force him to stop doing this because he can. And I think that’s for all characters in the beginning of a movie whatever their flaws, whatever their dire strait is, it should be something that theoretically they could keep doing forever if not for you as the writer just changing one little thing. Moving one toothpick.

Marielle: Knocking them off balance.

Craig: That makes it no longer possible. Which is the worst feeling for them. And really all they want to do then is just try and get back to where they were at the beginning of the movie for the longest time.

Marielle: And I think, something I thought about a lot when I writing Diary was that often when that protagonist is a young woman particularly they end up becoming less than an active participant within their world. They’re more like a blank slate that we tend to see things happen to and we project ourselves onto that character more. And I was so aware of the fact that I wanted her to be active within her life. I mean, she was within the book, so I’m not making up who this character was. But what I loved about her was that she was so active and she was such an active participant in all of her problems. And that made it so that – but I realized that that’s a major problem we have, particularly with female protagonists, is that things tend to happen to that person.

John: Yes.

Marielle: Rather than their inherent philosophy about their world or their inherent problems within themselves are the thing that’s driving something.

Craig: That drives it. The passive hero is bad in all shapes and flavors. But you’re right, there is a certain brand of plot where something crashes through the window and I fall off a boat or I get hit by a thing or a wizard turns me into a something and you’re just dealing with it, you know.

Marielle: Right. You’re sort of perfect to begin with and then something bad happens and something.

Craig: I know. And you know there is this thing, I’ve become really, really weary lately of beautiful people and their problems.

Marielle: I’ve always been weary of that.

Craig: Yeah, I just like, you know, I get it, it’s hard whatever the circumstance is in this movie, but you are objectively beautiful in a world that prizes that above everything.

Marielle: No, it’s really actually a major challenge to get an audience to totally sympathize with somebody who is super beautiful, super rich.

Craig: Good.

Marielle: It’s just really hard.

Craig: Yeah, maybe we should stop. Maybe we should not do that anymore because it’s–

John: Or if we’re going to do it we should look at the examples of movies that do it really, really well. I go back to Clueless where you have a beautiful rich girl who is the center of the movie and what Amy Heckerling does so genius-ly is set her up as this very flawed character even within her very skewed world and let her – she’s making the decisions that are leading her down these paths to discovery.

Marielle: And she’s not just flawed. She has a really funny way of seeing the world. Her mind is really interesting. And she’s not smart in a book smart way, but she’s smart in this other kind of way.

Craig: And she’s not evil.

John: No.

Marielle: She’s good.

John: She has very good intentions.

Craig: She’s a good person. Which I think is partly what saves that there.

Marielle: She’s also young. Like if she were a character who were 40 you’d kind of be like, you know, I don’t know if I care anymore.

Craig: Yeah.

Marielle: But there’s a vulnerability to being young that is almost similarly to a vulnerability of not being beautiful or something.

Craig: Yes.

John: But also because she’s young, we’re talking so much about the very start of this and how you set up this character, but we set up these characters so we can give ourselves the runway to have a full arc. And so in seeing Cher at the start of this movie we can see what her problem is and she needs to grow into. And we sense that she could grow into this thing if she could make the right choices.

Marielle: Do you have a memory of what the first thing we see of Cher is? I can’t pull it out of my head.

John: What is the very first moment of this? You know, we’ve always talked about doing, we should do a Clueless deep dive on it, because it’s one of my favorite movies.

Marielle: You should.

John: I’m trying to remember what the very first–

Craig: We should also have Amy on.

John: We should have Amy Heckerling on.

Craig: She’s the best.

John: Resolved.

Marielle: Can I sit in the corner while you do it?

Craig: Yeah. You don’t even have to sit in the corner.

Marielle: I’ll just listen though.

Craig: Yeah. You can sit in her lap. She’s very tiny though. She’s a very tiny person.

John: Maybe she can sit in your lap. Nice. So what basic lessons do we want to take from our flawed but improving characters discussion? So, it’s about how we first meet this character, the situation, what insight we’re getting that they may not want us to see perhaps. Sometimes it’s seeing them along. Sometimes it’s seeing their point of view. Giving us a sense of what is specific and interesting about this character and this situation. What else?

Marielle: There was like a moment in Homeland that I remember my writing partner Katelyn pointed out, because it was such a great character moment where Mandy Patinkin’s character is alone. They’d been working late. He’s at his desk and he pulls out a box of crackers and some peanut butter and he doesn’t have a knife. And then he takes a metal ruler and he scrapes the peanut butter and puts it on his cracker. It’s the saddest thing you’ve ever seen.

Craig: I feel like I’ve done that.

Marielle: Like 1am at your desk.

Craig: I may have done that this morning.

Marielle: Yeah. But there’s something – it was specific, it was character related. It was so defeated. Like something about it was like, ugh.

Craig: Well you see how deprecated someone’s – whatever the part of our life we reserve for us it has withered away for this man. It’s just the job now. Everything else, like the comfort of a meal or anything, it’s all gone.

Marielle: And it wasn’t the introduction of his character, but it was something that let you connect to him in a real way.

Craig: Which in television as you go on and on you get opportunities to flip the script on people. So this person is just an absolute awful villain, and then we get the episode where we go, oh god, you’re a person, too. But in a movie we’re on the clock. And so one lesson definitely is once you show us – introduce to us a challenging character, you have pulled a pin on a grenade. You are running out of time.

Marielle: It’s so true.

Craig: So make sure we get to see them as a vulnerable person we can empathize with before the grenade blows up or else you’ll never get a chance. Because they won’t believe it later. It will contrived.

Marielle: It will. It’s true. You have to see something that is innate to who they are. And you have to see it early enough that you go, oh, OK, now I’m connected to that person. They’re my person. I’m on their side. I’m with them. I’m going to see this story through their eyes. Which it actually really matters. I mean, it’s so tricky, but if you’re not on the side of your character you’re screwed.

Craig: Jack Nicholson does something in As Good as it Gets that always blows my mind. It’s early on when he’s delivering one of his horrendous rants that are so shocking you laugh because you’re shocked. And once he’s done, and he does it with pure conviction. There’s no hesitation. He just does it. And then the person just sort of reacts and then he reacts like them, like he didn’t get it until that moment that he could hurt someone with this. And then we see inside of him is guilt. And that’s also – it doesn’t excuse it, but you start to say there’s more going on here than just a jerk.

Marielle: Totally.

John: It’s a relatable moment. Because we’ve all done that thing where we overstepped where we didn’t mean to and then you’ve embarrassed ourselves and yes.

Marielle: It’s a naked moment.

Craig: Yeah. It’s a naked moment.

Marielle: In that small way.

Craig: It’s a revealing vulnerable moment.

John: Cool. We have a bunch of questions that are stacked up because we’ve not answered like crafty questions in a long time. Craig, do you want to take the first one here?

Craig: Yeah I do. All right. So Connor in Koreatown asks, “Lately I’ve been getting notes in meetings from two different executives that seem to tug in vastly different directions. Sometimes the people involved realize and remark upon this. ‘Ha-ha-ha isn’t this funny?’ And sometimes it seems to not even occur to them that they have just shoved an idea down the opposite path that the previous note did. What’s the best way to handle this? Is it our job to make the execs aware of this conflict and attempt to work it out with them there in the room? Is this something that we should just keep to ourselves and work out later on our own?”

Well this has never happened to me, or to you, or to you. So how could we possibly answer this question?

John: First time ever happened in Hollywood.

Marielle: But I do think that it’s always the best thing when you get two conflicting notes because it makes you get in touch with what you actually want. Because you feel in your gut somewhere one note making you go, oh, and one note making you go no, no, no, no. And sometimes only getting one set of notes – dealing with the exec is a totally different question. But in terms of what it does for you in your writing process, and it’s what happens at the Sundance Labs which is so helpful, is when you get conflicting feedback it puts you in clearer touch with what you really want.

John: Yeah. So, as a practical matter when you get those conflicting notes, I think it’s fine in the room to sort of let’s talk through this. And you don’t need to necessarily need to bring up that they’re conflicting notes, but I always like to bring it back to your work and your next step or like what you want to do. That you want to be the person who can give them what they want. And so you say like, OK, so is the goal to do more of this or to do more of that, because I can see that it’s going to be hard for me to do both things simultaneously. And so that way you can bring it back to the fact that you are going to be doing work on an actual script, an actual draft that they’re going to read next and talk about that as the future work rather than what an idiotic thing that just happened in front of you.

Marielle: You know, you guys talk about this all the time, but when people are giving notes I think there’s often very little thought about what that actually means for the work that you’re going to have to do after those notes come. It’s often that people want to feel engaged in the project. They want to feel like they got to give the smart note. They want to feel like they said the thing in the meeting that made a change. They want to feel like they’ve been involved in the creative process.

But they’re not necessarily thinking through the fact that one of their notes could take you down one path and the others could take you down another path. So clarifying and being like let’s unpack that a little bit, where does this lead us, where does that lead us, or, oh, that makes me think of this can kind of be a helpful way to make both notes feel heard yet do what is right for the story. Because I don’t know, I just also don’t think it’s our job to always do every single note. Our job is to filter those notes through our brain, take those notes, and say OK the reason that that’s not going to work is this. Or I totally understand why you think this note makes sense. I went there, too. And when I went there here’s what happened. You know, when I tried that in a different draft then this is what went down.

And explaining the process then they feel heard. Their note has been addressed essentially, even though it’s not making it in the script.

Craig: I mean, from a practical point of view Connor I think it’s perfectly fine to say – if you have a lot of conflicting opinions it’s fine to say, listen, it’s probably going to work best if you have a pre-discussion and come up with one unified set of notes here that you can discuss with me and advocate for. I’m happy to have the conversation with everybody here, but for the sake of clarity what I can’t do is do both of those at once. So let’s try and figure out where we’re going. And also let’s have – because sometimes the conflict between notes is not about notes. It’s a conflict between how two people see the movie.

John: Totally.

Craig: Or see the script or the show. It’s very fundamental. I try and have a conversation. And I try to ask questions. I think Connor one thing you can do is get out of the mode of receiving notes and get into the mode of having a conversation with them about notes as if you didn’t write the script. Put yourself in the shoes, you are also a creative executive on this project. So start having a conversation and ask questions. Ask them – go into that more. OK, well happens if this? Or why do you think that that would be better this way? Just ask questions.

Marielle: Dig.

Craig: The more they talk the more of a chance that they will either finally figure out what they’re really trying to say or also finally realize that what they’re saying is stupid, which happens all the time. I do it. I’ll say something and someone will ask me a question and I’ll go oh my gosh I just realized that’s stupid. Never mind.

Marielle: We all do that.

Craig: Yeah. That’s human. So give them a chance. Or rope. Whatever analogy we’d like to use.

John: The last bit, that spelunking you’re doing to try to ask questions about the questions might also reveal what’s really behind the note, which sometimes isn’t really about the script in front of you. It’s about the executive who’s above them or something else that’s going on. And so it’s good to know that.

Marielle: Or it might be revealing a problem with the script that’s different than the problem they’re identifying in the note.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: It may be that those two executives both are having – if they’re having conflicting notes about the same scene or the same moment or the same character or whatever, OK, so they have two philosophies about how that should be solved. But they’re identifying a problem. There’s a common problem there. There’s something wrong with the way that’s being developed.

Craig: It’s snagging. Something is snagging.

Marielle: That’s a good thing to identify and you can dig to find out what the deeper problem is.

Craig: You as a writer will always have more permission to propose a radical change than they will.

John: Oh yeah.

Marielle: Yeah. That’s a good point.

Craig: So what they’ll do is they’ll nibble at something and they’ll say, “I think in this scene she shouldn’t come in until the end.” And they’ll say, “No, no, I think she should come in sooner.” And you can go, “I think I know what you’re both reacting to. That scene shouldn’t be there at all. In fact, that character should be this character.”

Marielle: And people are blown away when you’re able to do that.

Craig: Yes.

Marielle: When you’re able to go, “You know what? It’s actually bigger than anything we’re talking about. This whole thing needs to go. Or that character is just not working.” And they go, “I didn’t want to say that, but that’s clearly the problem.”

Craig: And by the way I’m glad they didn’t want to say it, because the truth is—

Marielle: You do.

Craig: If somebody says that to you before you—

Marielle: Then you’re like, “No.”

Craig: It sounds horrifying.

Marielle: Absolutely.

Craig: It sounds like you’ve just suggested 14 years of hard labor in a gulag. But if I come up with it it’s like, oh no, but I know what to do, so it’ll be a joy.

Marielle: And let me tell you that that’s how it feels the whole way through that. Feels the same way in edit. If somebody else suggests that a scene needs to get cut out that I spent two days filming it makes my heart race. But if I come to the conclusion that I need to cut that scene out and I go to them and they go, “Wow that was really bold.” I feel great.

Craig: Yes. Exactly. Like look at me.

Marielle: Look at me. I killed my darlings. I did that really hard filmmaking thing where I cut something out and it made the whole better. But also I think with writing as the exact same thing as with editing. Sometimes it takes a while to get to those points. Sometimes getting to a point where you’re ready to make some big change, because often it’s something that you felt – it might be the first thing you wrote in a script. It might be that scene that you’ve had in there the whole time that made you love the character. And then you realize it has to go. You have to come to that on your own in some way.

Craig: You do.

Marielle: And you can get nudged, but if someone tries too hard to get you to lop that arm off it’s just really—

Craig: Your muscles tighten up. Dennis Palumbo talks all the time about how there are lines that we write that we are so resistant to cutting not because the line is good but because its creation meant something to us.

John: Of course.

Craig: It was a signifier test that we had changed as a person or as a writer or something.

Marielle: Oh, that’s so sweet.

Craig: You know? But then you have to cut it. [laughs] You just have to take the lesson of I can do something like this, but also it should not be in this. It’s hard.

Marielle: Right. It is, really.

Craig: So, good question Connor. Hopefully we helped you out there.

John: Jordan asks, “I’m a youngish writer trying to make it my day job. I have a lawyer and I’m in the WGA so I’m starting to meet with managers. It’s not going great. In one meeting I asked the manager if she was going to represent me after 45 minutes of chatting about work and personal life. She seemed uncomfortable and said she needed to read more but that we would be in touch. I understand now that maybe it isn’t very cool to ask, but I was under impression that that was why we were meeting. How do you ask that question? Or is that the manager/agent’s job? Is there a way to know if a meeting is going to be a general meet and great before I slog through traffic to get to general advice like apply to Sundance Labs?”

So, Mari, you’re of the Sundance Labs. So Jordan is asking this really kind of natural—

Marielle: Oh, it makes my stomach hurt.

John: Yeah. Because it’s like dating.

Marielle: It is.

John: Is this going well? Is this not going well?

Marielle: And it’s so kind of wonderfully bald – like I would put that in a script the person just being like, “So are you going to represent me?” Because that’s the naked moment that you’re not supposed to do. I mean, not that you’re not supposed to, because I don’t think there’s a supposed to, but yeah, it’s uncomfortable because there is this – I mean, there’s such a thing in this town particularly of having a million meetings and never knowing where that meeting is leading or if it actually means anything. And we’re supposed to just be OK with that. Like what was that meeting about? Why did we meet and talk? It’s just part of – and everyone will say, “Well you’re building relationships. You’re building relationships.”

Craig: No you’re not. What you are is a piece of sand in a sieve that somebody has gathered up and they’re shaking the sieve to find what they think is gold. But they have to tell you, “Oh no, no, you’re an important piece of sand to me, therefore let’s have this 45-minute meeting.” But in their mind you either are that gold that they were not expecting to find, or you’re just another piece of sand.

Marielle: Or they’re not even really judging you in that moment on whether you are that gold. They’re waiting to see what you’re going to do without them so that then they can say, “Remember, we know each other. Now I do want to represent you because you’re already working.” So in so many ways having that meeting, you just should be spending that time writing the script because whatever you make is what matters. Those meetings matter once you’ve made the thing, once you have the thing, once you have some value to them that they could then help you with. And then they can be incredibly valuable. But until that thing exists, whether it’s a short film or a script, or whatever, those meetings are just to lay the first ground work and–

John: Yeah. I think those meetings are important because they teach you how to have those meetings and they’re practice for important meetings that are going to come later on. So you have to take them. I think Jordan’s awkward overreach of like, “So are you going to be my manager?” in the room, that’s a lesson learned.

Marielle: Totally.

John: And so it’s good that you learned that lesson in something that didn’t matter so much.

Craig: Let’s give him just the practicals here. It seems like the best practice would be to let them tell you that they are or are not going to represent you. So you have your meeting, you say well this was lovely, and then they say, “Yes, I really enjoyed our meeting.” Great, well let’s keep in touch. Or follow up if there’s interest. Whatever you want to do. Meaning I don’t need you.

Marielle: Yes. I think that’s actually the most important thing is to give off the air of like–

Craig: Non-desperation.

Marielle: Non-desperation.

Craig: But we’re all so desperate.

Marielle: And that they would be missing out if they don’t take you on.

Craig: Right. By the way, everyone is doing that. Everyone is desperate.

Marielle: Absolutely.

Craig: Everyone is doing this to each other. Yeah, I’m cool.

John: I’ll tell you about an early meeting I had. So my attorney is Ken Richmond. And so my agent had apparently set up several meetings with different attorneys. This is when I was selling Go. And so I went in and met with Ken Richmond. And we talked for about 20 minutes and I said like, “You’re fantastic. I want you to be my attorney.” And he’s like, oh, OK, OK, this is good. And there were other attorney meetings already set up that I was going to be blowing off for this. But he was the right person and sometimes you know. It’s dating. Sometimes you know.

Craig: Sometimes you know.

Marielle: That was the question I was going to ask, too. Did you want this person to be your manager? Is this the person who when you were sitting there you went, “I want you to be my manager?”

Craig: Or is it that you just want a manager?

Marielle: A manager.

Craig: Which sometimes people can pick up on. And then it’s like, right, well I just don’t want a client. I mean, you have to find somebody that you care about.

You know what? Listen, Jordan, totally understandable. And we’ve all done stuff like that.

Marielle: Oh gosh yes.

Craig: And it’s annoying to have to game anything, play any kind of game.

Marielle: It’s the part of the business I hate the most.

Craig: I agree. And you know what? You do it a little bit here or there. Or, by the way, maybe Jordan you sit down with somebody at one of these meetings and you just be yourself. And you just say, listen, this is how I am. I’m not good at playing the game. So, just let me know if you’re interested or not. And they might go, “Oh no, I’m totally interested.” And then you’ve found your person.

Marielle: Right. And I actually think the way to not play the game is to make it that you’re doing enough that you actually aren’t playing the game. That you actually don’t care.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: Like you want to pretend you don’t care if that person signs you, but actually if you have enough going on on your own you actually won’t care that much.

Craig: Correct.

Marielle: So, do the things that make it that you don’t care for real. Then you’re not playing a game. You’re not pretending.

John: Great. Chris from Brooklyn writes with a question I think you’ll be especially good to answer. “I started sketching out a screenplay based on a true-life murder case from the 19th Century which about only three historical nonfiction books have been written, as well as many articles. Although I’m using them all as sources, one book in particular encapsulates the story best. Mostly looking at it from the same angle and shares the title I want to use. But that title was also used in several Penny Dreadful dramatizations of the story way back when.

“However I’ve been reluctant to reach out to the historian who wrote this book because he is known and well-regarded and if asked I’m not in a financial position to afford the option I imagine he would want. But I’m not sure an option is necessary because the true story involves no living persons. Based on what I found online it seems as if the book in question was either optioned or purchased nearly a decade ago with a name actor attached but nothing appears to have happened with the project since then.

“So, given all that, and given that the book is my primary source but not an exclusive one, should I reach out to its author to avoid any potential legal challenges down the road? Or just stop worrying and write the darn thing?”

So you guys have both written things based on true-life things. What’s your first instinct for Chris here?

Marielle: I would do both. I would keep working on the thing. I wouldn’t hold everything up. But I would reach out to the person who wrote it. I would first of all if you have an agent or you have a lawyer they can look up the option and who owns the option, or if there still is an option. If it was 10 years ago and no movie has been made about it.

Craig: That would be a lapsed option.

Marielle: And also you’re probably fine. Like most books after the first few years they’re coming out if they haven’t been optioned and no one is holding onto that option they’re not going to be some crazy hot commodity that’s impossible to get the option for. And you can actually get a very affordable option, especially if – in my limited experience – if that author feels like you’re the person with the most passion who has a reason behind it and you can connect to them in a real way and you appreciate their artistry and they can appreciate your artistry. Then actually it’s more about that relationship then about how much money you’re bringing to the table. They may not have anybody else who is even considering doing this weird historical thing that they wrote 10 years ago and it lapsed. You know?

So you might be getting it at the perfect moment.

John: Yeah. Craig, what do you think?

Craig: I’m in slight disagreement. I think no question you should keep writing it. I actually wouldn’t reach out just yet because you don’t need to. The facts are the facts. This is a nonfiction thing. The title is a question mark and I would strongly consider a different title at this point. But there’s nothing in – if it’s facts there’s absolutely nothing in any of those books that the authors own in terms of fact. They own the expression of those facts. They own their sentences. They own the way that they lay it out. And even then in a very specific way.

So it’s just research. They’re research sources for you. If as you get closer to selling this or setting it up, in that moment you should say these are the sources I used. These are the books I used. This one has an amazing title and it inspired me the most. We might want to consider reaching out. If you reach out now and they say no, now you’ve got a problem. Because merely by reaching out—

Marielle: You’re right.

Craig: You have indicated that you are basing this on this book.

Marielle: I take back everything I said. Craig is right.

Craig: [laughs]

Marielle: No, no, really. I think you’re totally right. Because historic is so different. Like the book that I optioned was about someone’s personal life, written by the person whose life it was. That was very, very different.

Craig: Yes. There’s life rights involved. If somebody writes about their life, everything that they’ve written about now becomes public record. But all the stuff behind it that you would want to have, and also just to avoid – the one thing that you definitely don’t want is to say, OK, I’ve written something. It’s based on someone’s description of their life. They’re alive. I didn’t need their permission, but they hate this, and they are now telling people not to go see it. That’s bad news.

Marielle: No, it’s bad news.

Craig: Right. You don’t want that. So those are considerations that come later down the line. But you know for Chernobyl we kind of in conjunction, they had somebody – HBO had somebody that does this and then I had a researcher that was helping us kind of do our version. But we had to make an annotated script for every single page. Everything had to be sourced. I mean, it was the biggest term paper of my life.

Marielle: Do people even really still do that in college anymore? I mean, is that like a thing you do? Do you cite your sources?

John: Oh you cite your sources in college.

Craig: They’re required to. I mean, there’s probably some app that does it for you now. Sourcy.

Marielle: That’s my – are these things kind of going to the wayside that these things being learned–

Craig: Everything is going to the way. Everything. It’s all collapsing around us.

Marielle: Like the Dewey Decimal System.

John: Irene Turner came on the show to talk about her movie which was historically based, and so we’ll put a link in the show notes to her conversation because she had to do what you did which was basically cite every little thing about it, because it was a well-known public figure but where that information came from was important.

Craig: And I had to defend my thesis at times. The gentleman that HBO used, that was as thorough a prostate exam as I’ve ever had.

Marielle: You should try to submit these scripts to some college, to like Harvard or something, and see if you could get a Ph.D. This could be your dissertation for some degree you didn’t want anyway.

John: Professor Craig.

Marielle: Professor Craig with a Ph.D. in Chernobyl.

Craig: Surely there’s an easier way to get a degree, like bribe them?

Marielle: Ooh.

Craig: There’s got to be some way to bribe them. I’m sure there is.

Marielle: No.

Craig: Not anymore. Not anymore.

John: Craig, do you want to take the last question?

Craig: Last question. Craig from La Canada writes, “Mari, you’re married to Jorma Taccone right? When is MacGruber 2 coming? Thanks.”

Marielle: Oh my gosh. I love it.

Craig: You don’t have to say if you’re not allowed to.

Marielle: No, I think it’s OK. Jorma has been talking about it. I think it’s fine. Jorma and Will and John Solomon, so Jorma Taccone, Will Forte, John Solomon who all created MacGruber together have been pitching it as a miniseries.

Craig: Great.

John: Fantastic.

Marielle: Instead of doing it as a sequel movie. They started to realize it would be better as a very short miniseries.

Craig: But it needs that canvas. Because we’re talking about a work of literature. It needs to occupy the space it demands.

Marielle: Yes. And so they’re in the process of writing it with Hulu.

Craig: Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. I can’t wait.

Marielle: I know. The pressure is real.

Craig: I’m the biggest fan.

Marielle: There’s somebody on Instagram who anything Jorma posts just writes, “MacGruber 2 or get the fuck out.”

Craig: That’s me.

Marielle: That’s probably you.

Craig: MacGruber 2 or GTFO at Insta.org.MacGruber.

Marielle: Which I like that the MacGruber fans are so rabid. You know, it’s the thing – I talk to Jorma about it all the time. He has made a lot of projects that are his total passion projects. The things The Lonely Island makes, they’re weird brain child things that they love. But MacGruber was one of those things where he was so happy when they made MacGruber. And they got to make another one.

Craig: Because he made one of the great movies of all time. Of all time.

Marielle: Yeah. And they have to make another one.

Craig: They have to. Oh. I could go on.

John: All right. It has come time for our One Cool Things.

Marielle: Already?

John: My One Cool Thing is these new door locks being installed at my house and my office. They’re by Schlage. They’re good.

Craig: Is that how you pronounce that?

John: I think it’s Schlage or Schlage.

Craig: It’s not Schlage?

John: I don’t think it’s Schlage, but maybe it is. People can write in and correct me if I’m wrong.

Craig: Yeah, thank you. Germans, tell us.

John: What’s cool about it is we already had – we didn’t have to rekey the locks at all. So our normal keys still work, but then this thing works for the deadbolt and it’s cool. So I just don’t have to carry my keys around as much which is just great. I punch in my code and the door opens.

Craig: And you can do it with your phone.

John: You can do it with your phone. You can tell Siri to open your things. I can tell Siri to check if the door is locked. So, it’s nice.

Craig: You talk to Siri?

John: I talk to Siri.

Marielle: Doesn’t that make you feel like you’re – I know I sound paranoid, but couldn’t you be hacked or something and then somebody could just get into your doors that way?

John: Yeah. Probably. Probably so.

Craig: But you can also be physically hacked with a hammer and a screwdriver.

Marielle: And a sledgehammer. Yeah. But I don’t know. There’s something about – maybe this is not true, but in Brooklyn there’s this thing going on where everybody – some of us have cars, which is crazy, but you end up parking blocks away from your house. But if you’re keyless key is within 30 feet somebody has figured out some machine that can just open your car door with that and people are stealing cars that way.

Craig: Sweet. Awesome.

Marielle: So people are like put your keys in the freezer and it won’t work. And I can’t tell if that’s true or not, but there’s something about like all this car theft is happening because of these keyless keys.

Craig: Oh, Brooklyn. Yeah, don’t have a car.

Marielle: I know. That is the solution.

Craig: Just don’t have a car.

Marielle: Or have a car and just don’t care.

John: Not caring is—

Marielle: That’s actually the key in Brooklyn or in New York is if you have a car you can’t care.

Craig: Have a piece of crap car. Just don’t care. Don’t get something nice.

John: Craig?

Craig: What is my One Cool Thing? Ooh, yeah. OK, my One Cool Thing, so every year in Stamford, Connecticut.

Marielle: Jorma’s grandmother lives there.

Craig: That’s my One Cool Thing. No. It would be weird if I started referring to his grandmother as a thing. Yes, you know that thing.

Marielle: She’s, yeah, that would be weird.

Craig: And he’s related to. In Stamford, Connecticut every year there is the Annual Crossword Puzzle Tournament. There are many, but this is the big one. It’s run by Will Shortz who is the editor of the New York Times Crossword Puzzle which is the gold standard of crossword puzzles. And this is where everybody comes and it’s a lot of people. They all descend upon some Marriot or La Quinta and they do puzzles. And they compete. And then there’s the ultimate prizewinner. This year again Dan, I think, Feyer, who is insanely brilliant at crossword puzzles in a way that is just disturbing.

In any case, you at home can do it. They have the exact same puzzles that they did there available online. And you pay I think it’s like $20 or something like that and you click on puzzle number one. You do seven puzzles. Puzzle number one and it times you just like them and it scores you just like them. Currently I am number 15 out of like a thousand online participants. Meaning, this is a challenge to–

John: To knock Craig down.

Craig: Come on people. Knock me down.

Marielle: It’s going on right now?

Craig: It goes on—

Marielle: Infinitely.

Craig: Well, until the next year, right. So they’re all available for you to purchase and do now. And as people purchase and do them they will change the – but I’ve been number 15 for a bit now. So, you know, if you’re listening and you think you’re a bad ass, come at me bruh. And see if you can knock me down. And if you do, if you’re the one that knocks me down a peg let us know.

John: All right. Write in to ask@johnaugust.com. Let us know. Take a screenshot.

Craig: Oh yeah. Definitely take a screenshot. Well, just write in and tell us what your name is because I can look on the standings. We can, yeah. Don’t cheat.

Marielle: OK. My One Cool Thing is a play that’s opening on Broadway I think this week called What the Constitution Means to Me.

John: Nice.

Marielle: And it’s Heidi Schreck. She’s a writer. And an actor. Comes from theater like I do, but she’s written on a bunch of TV shows and stuff, too. And it’s an incredible play that I got to see in its Off-Broadway form and it’s now coming to Broadway. Very personal. It’s sort of about when she was a teenage girl and part of how she was raising money for college was she was going around and doing these constitutional debates at rotary clubs and things like that.

But what she’s really digging into is how the Constitution treats women and how it has historically treated women and what that means for herself personally within her own family dynamic. It’s so brave. It’s so personal and deep. And it makes you question everything you know about the world. But it’s just an incredible play.

Craig: What the Constitution Means to Me. And so as you’re describing it in my mind I thought, OK, now that title is like the kind of clunky debate thing.

Marielle: It is.

Craig: Oh, that’s great. And then it takes on this whole other meaning.

Marielle: And she starts off the whole play kind of going back in time and acting like this plucky 15-year-old girl who is going off and doing all of these debates about Constitution.

Craig: She sounds like the light reflection of the very dark and evil Ted Cruz who also spent his childhood—

Marielle: Oh, he did?

Craig: Roaming around and memorizing the Constitution and explaining to people what it means to him, which is bad, because he’s bad.

Marielle: I guess that was a thing that people did and you could win scholarships doing that and it was–

Craig: Yes, it was a thing.

Marielle: My sister did debate and was a very accomplished debater in high school, but it wasn’t specifically these sort of competitions where you would win money and go to these sort of rotary clubs. She did the kind of classic debate.

Craig: Who are the people that are like, “Good news, it’s Friday night, which means we go to the club and we hear kids talk to us about the Constitution. Let’s do it.” Kiwanis, Rotary, Knights of Columbus.

John: Elks.

Craig: Elks.

Marielle: Exactly. Elks.

Craig: Let’s go.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And they love it.

Marielle: They do.

Craig: They love it. They’re like—

Marielle: But the play is – even if you have no interest in the Constitution or what that would be, and that type of night sounds like a terrible night, the play is so moving and Heidi – she wrote it and she performs it herself. And the fact that it’s going to Broadway just feels like this wonderful gift to the world. It’s so cool.

John: Oh yeah. Our friend Mike Birbiglia does the same thing. He does those one-man shows.

Marielle: I know.

Craig: I was going to say. Mike Bags has blazed a trail here and it’s happening. Well, we should obviously did up a good link to this show. It sounds amazing. So congratulations to Heidi for getting something like this to Broadway. That’s remarkable.

Marielle: It’s a huge deal. Yeah.

Craig: That’s great.

John: That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by James Launch and Jim Bond. We have some Sexy Craig, but we’re not going to use those yet.

Craig: No, you keep those bottled up.

John: 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 like the ones we answered today. For short questions, on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. John is @johnaugust. Mari, are you on Twitter?

Marielle: No.

John: She’s not a Twitter person.

Craig: Your sister is a Twitter person.

Marielle: My sister is and she’s funny.

Craig: I follow her.

Marielle: Oh good.

Craig: I think I do.

John: Is Emily your sister?

Marielle: Emily.

Craig: Accomplished comedian.

Marielle: Accomplished comedian. She has a special out right now. And she also writes for Barry.

John: Oh nice.

Craig: Nice. That’s fantastic.

John: Oh yeah. I think I knew that.

Craig: With our friend Alec Berg.

John: You can find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a comment. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net or download seasons of 50 episodes at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig: Mari Heller, thank you so much for coming in. This was a delight.

Marielle: Thank you guys for doing my question. It feels so good to suggest a subject and get to talk about it.

Craig: It was a good question, you know. Boom.

John: Boom.

Marielle: Boom.

Links:

  • WGA Video Explaining ATA Negotiations
  • Can You Ever Forgive Me?
  • A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
  • Scriptnotes 212, Diary of a First Time Director with Mari Heller
  • Schlage Locks
  • American Crossword Password Tournament Online–let us know if you unseat Craig!
  • What the Constitution Means to Me by Heidi Schreck
  • We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
  • Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session here.
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Find past episodes
  • Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Outro by James Llonch and Jim Bond (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 393: Twenty Questions About the Agency Agreement, Transcript

April 5, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript, WGA

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/twenty_questions).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 393 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is off in London finishing up the sound mix for Chernobyl. So this was originally going to be a repeat episode but a lot has happened this past week with the agency agreement. So instead I wanted to bring on two writers to help us make sense of it all.

First, Chris Keyser is a writer and showrunner whose credits include Party of Five, Tyrant, and The Last Tycoon. He’s also a two-time former WGA president and frequently leads the MBA negotiating committee. Along with David Shore and Meredith Stiehm he’s leading the negotiating committee on the ongoing talks with the agencies. Welcome back, Chris.

**Chris Keyser:** Thanks John.

**John:** Chris, it’s so good to have you back. Even more exciting we have Angelina Burnett. She is a television writer who has worked on The Americans, Hannibal, Genius, and Halt and Catch Fire. She’s on the WGA board of directors and the negotiating committee. Welcome Angelina.

**Angelina Burnett:** I’m so happy to be here, John. Thank you for having me.

**John:** So over the last year I have watched you in wonder as you’ve organized people and projects and things in ways that I just didn’t know were possible. So, your background is in political organizing. You’ve done this before?

**Angelina:** I have. And in fact it’s been so interesting to go through this struggle in leadership because I was an assistant in the 2007 strike and lost my job. And I had said when I saw Barack Obama in 2004 give his DNC speech that when he ran for president I was going to quit my job and work for him. But when he announced he was running I had this assistant job that I was sure was going to turn into a staff job. And as we all know when that comes and you feel like it’s right at your fingertips I just couldn’t quit. Well, fortunately the WGA handled that for me. I lost my job and I started volunteering about 100 hours a week on the primary campaign. And then I was hired to move to Nevada and run the border state program for the general. And I went through this really intense training program with this man named Marshall Ganz who was trained in organizing with the United Farmworkers back in the ‘60s.

And so I’ve spent the last ten years of my life balancing my writing career and political organizing career. And it’s been very thrilling to be in this challenge with folks and to get to bring all those skills to bear. So it feels really good to be of service with that background.

**John:** When I see Angelina Burnett yield a shared Google sheet to organize some things I’m just like, wow, we’re in the hands of a master here.

**Angelina:** [laughs] I’m honored. Thank you.

**John:** The other thing I want to call out, because you’d said this in a meeting and it never occurred to me before, and I’ve really watched myself since is we need to stop saying “baby writers.”

**Angelina:** Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. Thank you.

**John:** Because sometimes we’ll say, and we mean it in the nicest way, baby writers like newer, younger writers, but tell me why we should not say that.

**Angelina:** Well, first of all they’re grownups. They’re grown humans. And second of all when the Weinstein thing happened and I was on the sexual harassment subcommittee which quickly sprawled into bullying and workplace harassment and just the general vibe of a writers’ room. And I believe that the language we use gives people permission to treat people certain ways. And so I think when you call someone a “baby writer” you’re infantilizing them and you’re sort of implicitly justifying demeaning behavior.

And so there is an incredible amount we have to do as a guild, as a community, to address this issues, but I think a very small thing all of us can do is just excise that phrase from our lexicon.

**John:** We’re not going to say that anymore.

**Angelina:** Thank you.

**John:** Before we get into the agency negotiation stuff, this week a big thing happened which was Fox and Disney became one thing. So Disney had announced its acquisition of Fox but this was the week it all kind of came together. And so on the film side it looks like the following pieces are going to stick around. So there’s 20th Century Fox, there’s Fox Family, Fox Searchlight, Fox Animation. It’s unclear which of those divisions are going to make theatrical films versus making stuff for the new Disney Plus Streaming. But yesterday as we’re recording this Fox 2000 it was announced is going away. And that really brought me down, because that was one of the first places I worked. And I loved that Fox 2000 was a label that you actually sort of knew what they made. They made films about issues and especially films with women in them. And Laura Ziskin was the original Fox 2000 chief. Elizabeth Gabler was great. I was really sad to see Fox 2000 go away.

**Chris:** Not good for writers. Not good for the audience.

**Angelina:** No.

**John:** No. I mean, and so all of those people are really smart and they’ll get to go to other places, but when there’s one less buyer out there.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** Or in this case sort of six less buyers out there, it really hurts us.

**Angelina:** Yeah. These mergers are not good for us fundamentally. And, you know, I think back to ’94 which I’ve heard about when I started in the business and the vertical integration of networks and studios. And this is what we have to work against. And, you know, when we have power we have to use it. We didn’t have power here. But–

**Chris:** Not to bring us back to the conversation we’re going to get to eventually, but of course the agencies use that argument against us. They say, “Well, we have these affiliated studios. Isn’t that better for you? We’ve got more buyers.” And we say yes. We love all of those studios, we just don’t want them attached to agencies.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, if Disney were to buy WME that would not be good.

**Angelina:** That would be terrible.

**John:** It would be remarkably terrible. And yet I can imagine a different scenario with a different administration where Disney and Fox would not have been allowed to merge. I think that was a mistake and I think that’s going to hurt us in the long run.

**Angelina:** I do, too. And at the guild we do have a PAC. We do have a political action arm. And we did all we could with our limited power to try to push back against this. But this is what happened. You know, elections have consequences. And the Trump Justice Department, they were not going to be our ally on this. So we use the political power we have when we have it and we didn’t have it this time.

**John:** All right. To the marquee topic which is the agency negotiation. So, we are recording this on the Friday before a week where we’re going to have a bunch of big public meetings where people can come and talk to us about their thoughts on the agency agreement. Those meetings are Tuesday March 26 at the Beverly Hilton, 7:30pm. I won’t be there for that one, but I will be there for the next two, Wednesday March 27 at Sheraton Universal, 7:30pm, and Saturday March 31 at the Writers Guild, 10:20am. There are also east coast meetings, so we will get those up on the website as well. But we’re having those meetings because we’re about to start voting on something.

So the vote is to authorize the board and the WGA East Council to implement a code of conduct. So today we’ll talk a little bit about what the code of conduct is, why that might be a thing that comes to pass. Voting for that for members starts on Wednesday the 27 at 9pm, both Pacific time and East Coast time, so just ignore the time change in between there. It’s 9pm no matter which coast you’re on. And it goes through Sunday March 31 at 10am Eastern Time.

So big meetings coming up. A chance to sort of talk about what’s going on. But I asked people on Twitter to send in their questions and I thought we could knock out maybe twenty questions that people have right now about the agency agreement and I have two very smart people here who can answer those questions.

**Angelina:** Great. And actually before we launch into that I would love to say one thing. You know, occasionally I hear from folks that they feel that the vibe in those meetings is so guild positive and guild rah-rah that they don’t feel comfortable speaking up and sharing concerns. And I want to say at least from leadership’s perspective we want to hear concerns. We want this to be a place where people can voice dissent. This is a democratic union, warts and all, and we don’t ever want to make people feel like they can’t share their concerns. So, if you have concerns and you want to share them please come to these meetings and feel like you can speak up. Nobody is going to shout you down. We’re there to listen.

**Chris:** And even if it’s difficult to do that, and it may be difficult to do that in meetings where the majority feels like they’re on the other side, secret ballot. Vote your conscience and your heart. We don’t know who votes which way. And an honest vote from our membership tells us what to do.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** 100%. All right. Let’s get to these questions. So Marv Boogie writes, “Why did it take 42 years to renegotiate the ATA agreement?” Chris Keyser, why did it take this long? 42, 43 years. Why did we wait so long?

**Chris:** Well, it’s a complicated answer. I think it has mostly to do with the fact that the Writers Guild has a lot on its plate. Every three years we have to renegotiate the MBA. And that’s a thing that happens over the course of a couple months, but the preparation for it – and when I say the preparation, not just the preparation that has to be done by the staff and the negotiating committee, but the preparation to get the membership ready to think about that is long. It can be over a year.

When you think about what the cycle looks like when that happens and then you think about where the Writers Guild membership is, whether that membership is engaged enough to be called into action more than once in a three-year cycle. It has taken us a long time to get to the place where we could do that. I mean, to be honest with you I don’t know what might have happened earlier had we not had to strike in 2007 and 2008. That was absolutely necessary. And the benefits that we have reaped from our jurisdiction over the Internet I think are being felt by almost all writers today. I can’t remember what percentage of our income comes from that, but it has taken a little while to understand exactly why that was important. But it took a really great toll on the guild. There were people who were angry about it in the moment. There were people who suffered from the strike because strikes can be cruel things.

It took a lot of years for people to say we’re back in a place where we’re going to fight together in a place of unanimity. And I think the guild leadership after a lot of decades began to feel through 2017, the 2014 negotiations the guild was in a place where it could do that. We had the kind of staff that was prepared and so we saw this opening between 2017 and 2020 and thought we’d go for it.

It’s not that we didn’t care. It’s that it took a while for us to have a moment in time where we could do it. And then on the other side business has changed. The business has changed so that the agency business is now dominated by four agencies, small oligopoly. They have overwhelming percentage of the market share. And their control over that and packaging and the assessment of packaging fees had made this a question that we have to answer now. That’s thing two. Thing three. I probably should have identified it which is we are not going after packaging fees and other conflicts of interests just because we’re on a moral crusade. We’re going after those things because it has an economic impact on writers.

And it has been in the last decade that we’ve seen writers’ salaries plummet. So we’re in a very special, and I’m sorry for going on for a long time, but it matters to understand this, special moment in the business where, one, the studios who make our product because of the globalization of the marketplace, the accessibility of our product, their profits have doubled in the last ten years. They make $50+ billion every year. They’re doing really well.

The agencies, those big four agencies, because of the money, the influx of money from packaging fees they’re able to monetize that and their control over talent to get enormous influx of capital. So we know those agencies, indirectly we know this because their books are closed, they’re the recipients of billions of dollars in investment and those investors are reaping hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in profits. So agencies are doing well.

And at the same time writers’ salaries have gone down 23% in the last two years, double digits over the last decade. That is the contrary to the rules of economics. It ought not to happen that way and we had to look for a number of different causes for it. Some of them we’ve identified in our MBA negotiations. That’s why we negotiated, span a couple of years ago. And one of them is the fact that people who are supposed to be defending our above-scale income, the agencies, are failing in their jobs. So when you take the decline in writers’ salaries, the overwhelming control of the business that the agencies have, and a moment in time when the guild is powerful enough feels enough of a kind of common purpose to actually take on a battle like this that led us to this moment. That’s why.

**Angelina:** And I’d also say, this is my first term on the board. I’ve been a captain for ten years. And from my perspective, not having the sort of behind the scenes view that Chris does, this bubbled up from the membership. You know, I would go to membership meetings and it would come up unprompted. People would raise their hand and say what are we going to do about the agents.

And so the reality is this packaging money flowed in and then the private equity money flowed in. And then they stated these affiliate production arms. And now what we’re looking at is our agents being our bosses and I think writers started to feel the tension of that and the anxiety of what that future means. And they spoke up. And so while there were behind the scenes things happening as we investigate this, the membership was speaking very clearly about it as a problem and, again, we’re a democratic institution. We respond to the membership.

**Chris:** That’s really true. I mean, I was president for two terms as you said and we had a lot of membership meetings. And almost everything we’ve done over the last – and John you know this because you’ve been involved – almost everything that we’ve done from questions of Span which is how long writers need to work for a given episode, or issues of options and exclusivity which means how long writers are held without being paid in between seasons of shows, or forbidden to work on something else. All of that came from the membership. Every one of these questions came from outreach meetings in which members began to say here’s what’s affecting our bottom line.

**John:** Yeah. I would say the reason why it took 42 years for this to get renegotiated is as a person who is relatively well informed about the WGA business but was not on the board I didn’t even understand we had a relationship with the agents. I would complain about the agencies but I didn’t know that the WGA actually had a negotiated relationship with the agencies.

**Chris:** The AMBA. Yeah.

**John:** When writers would write in with questions and problems and would talk about horror stories and I would say why is your agent letting that happen it never occurred to me that the WGA could actually step in and do something about that.

The second answer is they started producing. And that to me is the biggest why now. Because I look five years, ten years down the road, I don’t want to be working for my agent.

**Angelina:** Uh-uh.

**John:** Jacqueline writes, “If we end up going down the route where we need to implement a code of conduct what happens the next day?”

**Angelina:** So we can’t say for sure right now, it’s going to depend on the strength of the vote. It’s going to depend on the factors on the ground. The board and negotiating committee will look at all the different factors and judge it accordingly, but we cannot pretend like there won’t be disruption if we ask the membership to walk away from their agents during staffing season. And we’ve really considered what we can do to mitigate that disruption. If the risk is worth the potential reward. And again we won’t be making that decision right now. We’ll make that decision when the vote comes in and we see how the agents respond. I mean, with everything we do they do something and we have to reorient our thinking.

But we have come to believe that by putting some programs in place and by frankly good organizing, good human-to-human community work that we can take care of each other and that we can mitigate the disruption and that we can get through a staffing season without agents. I mean, the membership has told us, 75% of our survey respondents go their last job without their agent. And that’s not to say that agents aren’t valuable. They do play a role. But the role they’re playing now is problematic and we have to adjust their power. We have to realign their incentives. And in order to do that we’re going to have to take a little time to see what life is like without them.

And speaking as someone who has always been very clear on her power, I think it might be a healthy thing for us to come together and take care of each other. And to reorient our understanding of writer’s position at the center of this business.

**Chris:** Can I add one other thing to that, to remember this which is the business is going to continue in some sense as it did before. Same number of shows that would have been picked up had we not done this are going to be picked up. The same number of people are going to be hired at the same levels. The same number of high-level writers and mid-level writers and low-level writers.

This is not a question of whether in the aftermath of an imposed code of conduct writers get work. It’s really a question of how that work is distributed. Whether the temporary change in access to that employment adversely affects some people in relation to others. And I don’t know if you want to talk about that at some point, but you’ve been working for months on programs to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

**Angelina:** Yes. And I should have started with the fact that everybody who has a job still goes to work. Like that’s the most important thing to remember. Nobody stops going to work.

**Chris:** And people who don’t have jobs, but who will be hired, still go to work.

**Angelina:** Yeah. There will still be 750 or so jobs in network staffing season and there will still be 1,500 people vying for those jobs and half of those people will get jobs. That’s what will happen.

**John:** Let’s talk about the people involved in getting those people their jobs. Because we talk about the agents as being a key force here, and they clearly are, but there’s also managers. There are studio bosses who have lists of the folks they want to – writers they want to work with. Networks have lists of people they want to work with again. Showrunners have experience with people. Showrunners talk to other showrunners about the people who are available now to be staffed on their shows. So, there’s a lot of communication happening that would happen regardless of the agencies.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I think something that – I ran for the board for a number of reasons, but a big one was to address access for diverse populations, for women, people of color, folks with disabilities. All the folks who have had a traditionally difficult time getting into our business. I wanted to be in leadership to see what little changes I might be able to make to create space for that. And so as I look at this, as we all looked at this, what does a staffing season without agents look like? The true fear is that we’ll go back to the old boys’ network, which is how it works anyway by the way. But we’ve made very like small little tip-toe gains over the last few years in cracking the doors a little bit wider.

There have plenty of showrunners who started going to Twitter. Mike Schur hires off of Twitter. Julie Plec hires off of Twitter. They’ve been going around the gatekeepers to try to find interesting, different, unique voices to bring into their room. And so my personal feeling in approaching how do we solve the problem of staffing season without agents is how do we make sure the folks who already have a hard time getting in the door and who are now losing their advocate, how do we protect them? That’s been my number one priority.

And I will say on top of the things we’re doing as a guild, which Chris is reaching out to the showrunner community and asking them to step up and systematize the thing they’re doing anyway. Showrunners recommend to other showrunners. Staff writers reach out to people they worked for and had good experiences with and say will you please give me a recommendation. So we’re asking folks to do more of that.

Additionally, we’ve developed this submission system which I hope will continue forever. I hope we’ll roll it out this staffing season, showrunners will buy into it, and will get to keep using it. And it’s a really simple way for showrunners to ask exactly for what they’re looking for, those unique voices, the specific backgrounds, the philosophy degree, experience in law enforcement, whatever it is. And then allows the membership to submit themselves in a way that speaks to those exact needs and puts it into a really clean, simple, sortable, searchable database.

So the submissions don’t feel overwhelming. You can pick out of it exactly what you need. So those are the two sort of pieces that the guild can officially put in place.

But what I have found so inspiring, this goes back to my organizing experience, problems like this always have an organizing solution. And organizing solutions are people-based. And I have met so many incredible young African-American women who want to be a part of the solution. And we are empowering them. They don’t need us to tell them what to do. The sort of paternalistic notion that the experienced white writers need to swoop in and save these people, these folks are used to working twice as hard. They’re here because they’ve been working twice as hard. All we have to do is empower them a bit. They’ve already created a network.

This stuff is already happening. All they need is a little support and a little encouragement from the guild and we can help them get their arms around that community and make those connections. So there will be mixers. We’ll be getting showrunners with lower-level writers. And I think the combination of these sort of online tools and, again, the person-to-person organizing work, I think we can get our arms around this problem and really, really create some support.

**Chris:** Do you mind if I add on a couple of things to that?

**Angelina:** Please.

**Chris:** Just to emphasize some stuff, because as you said it’s critical. And it’s a mistake we can’t make to allow—

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** To allow people to fall through the cracks. Although it’s going to be a little chaotic, a little more chaotic than before. So a couple of things. First of all, we’re asking showrunners to say that you are essentially responsible for anyone who has been on your staffs the last five years. Not just the people you’ve known forever, but everybody. It is a thing showrunners do.

So unlike the old version of showrunners talk to showrunners and the same old people get hired, we’re talking about anybody in the guild who has been employed in the last five years. And that includes low-level writers, new writers, writers of color, women, all of them. They will have better advocates in a sense than their agents, because I don’t know about you but when I run a show I just get lists of people from agents with not much information.

But if I get a phone call from a showrunner who says I worked with this young woman, or older man, or whatever it is, and hear she’s excellent in a room and a good writer, that means a lot. So I think that system is going to work really well. The other thing is when you think about the people in the system who actually make sure writers are hired, agents are not one of those people. They are the intermediaries, but it’s the studios and the networks, the producers, and the writers. We hire ourselves in a sense.

So, if we are attentive to that. If the networks and studios pay attention not just to their general staffing grids, but to the diverse grids, and we hold their feet to the fire on that and we say you can’t come out of the staffing season with worse numbers. You can come out with better numbers because in fact in some ways we’re democratizing the system. I think then we’re going to be OK.

No agent has ever hired a single writer.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** Right? The people who are still in the system are the people who end up making offers to writers. And if we knock this staffing season out of the park we’re going to have a lot of power as a guild to set things right.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I think – I just want to say one more thing to that. You know, agents open doors. And that’s the challenge we have right now is access. Agents open doors. And I’ve seen so many young writers, and I even felt it in myself as somebody who grew up in this business. I’m very privileged. I had a lot of doors already opened to me. And I still felt like I needed an agent to matter. And I needed an agent to get work.

I was very quickly disabused of that notion because I got my first job all by myself, and then I got my agent. But I think there are a lot of writers out there who really feel like they matter because of what agency they’re with. And the truth is, the thing we have to keep reminding ourselves, is we matter because we’re good writers. That’s where our power and value is. Agents open doors, we get ourselves the work. So the guild and our community, we’re going to come together and we’re going to make sure those doors open and then you’re going to have the opportunity as you always have to get yourself the job.

**John:** All right. Let’s do a quick one. Adam writes, “What do you think of the David Simon article?” This is an article we’ll link to. David Simon of The Wire wrote a long screed – I think a screed is a fair thing to say – about his experience in packaging. What did you think about it Angelina?

**Angelina:** I was a fan. I thought he did a really great job of making the problem clean and clear in a very entertaining way, considering this isn’t an entertaining problem. I was impressed that he was able to make it entertaining.

**John:** Chris Keyser, what did you think of the David Simon article?

**Chris:** I thought at the heart of it it was true. I know some people have an issue with the heightened rhetoric. It’s not a thing that you would have heard from your guild, but it’s a world in which people speak their minds and he spoke his pretty powerfully.

**John:** Yeah. I liked it, too, because everything that the three of us are saying has to have some messaging behind it. There has to be a purpose and we know what we’re trying to say. And everything that goes out of the guild has to be sort of vetted. Chris Keyser, you’ve written a bunch of pieces that are up on the website which we’ll link to about sort of my agent is not like that. You really talk through these things. But those are more diplomatic than David Simon’s article because they’re on the guild website.

We didn’t ask David Simon to write that. He just wrote that.

**Angelina:** He just did it.

**John:** And sometimes you need a bomb-thrower.

**Chris:** Right.

**Angelina:** Agreed.

**John:** Kelly McNeal writes, “Is another strike eminent?”

**Chris:** Well, first of all, there’s no strike in this.

**Angelina:** This isn’t a strike.

**Chris:** We’re not striking. No one is going to lose a job over this. We’re just talking about a different way of having access to jobs briefly. Because we’re not anti-agent.

**Angelina:** Yeah. And then going back to our agents.

**Chris:** That’s right. We’d like to go back to our agents. As to what happens in 2020 no one can predict that.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** That’s the next thing. Tom writes, “Are you guys really negotiating or is this just running out the clock?” I can take that because I was in the negotiating room yesterday.

**Angelina:** Do it.

**Chris:** Tell us. What are we doing, John?

**John:** We’re really negotiating. We are really trying to get to a place where we can figure out an agreement together and figure out sort of what this all looks like. That’s not always a simple process. It’s not always a calm and quiet process. But, yeah, we’re really negotiating.

The other thing I would stress is that negotiating, you think about it just being that last deal-making phase where you’re haggling, you’re trading off stuff. But negotiating is also communicating with your members about what it is you want, advocating for your position, seeing how much strength you have around that position. That’s negotiations. And we’re doing that and you definitely see the agencies doing that.

**Chris:** Yes. I was going to say what do you think the agencies are doing when they accuse of not negotiating? They’re negotiating.

**Angelina:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s negotiating.

**Chris:** That’s what they’re doing. I know and I think – I know this because it came out of the MBA negotiations that members don’t like the game part of it.

**John:** They don’t.

**Chris:** Because we’re really specific and we’re type A and we’re organized and we want things to be useful and based on reasonable arguments. So it drives our membership crazy. But the problem is it’s actually part of what is in some ways a bit of theater in this. That what happens outside the table as David Young says determines the shape of the table. And the shape of the table has everything to do with what you end up getting. So when they say they refuse to come back to the table and we won’t let them back until they say they’re going to compromise on everything and we say we’re not going to compromise on everything before we get back to the table. If you don’t want to hear that we won’t be coming back. And they say, “Fine, come back.” Well, that was a little victory for us.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I’ll also say, you know, this goes back to my organizing training and why I think it’s so valuable in this context is this is about building and exercising power. Negotiations come down to who has more power. And all of this rhetoric, all of the organizing we do, the outreach we do, all of it is about building power. And the more power we can build the better deal we get. And I will say that David Young is a master at building power. And there may be times where a thing is said in the press in public that feels, that makes you personally uncomfortable because you like your agent and I totally understand that. But we wouldn’t do it if we didn’t think it built our power. And all of that is driving towards getting us the best possible deal with the least amount of pain. That’s what power gives us the opportunity to do. Get a great deal for minimal risk.

So, you guys want us to be building power. I promise.

**John:** Minhail writes, “If affiliate production arms present a clear conflict of interest why did a WGA board member at the new member orientation say it was ‘all good to sell stuff to them?’ This is after a member asked whether it was OK to pitch something to Endeavor Content.” So affiliate production arms we mean Endeavor Content, we mean Wiip, we mean the ones that are closely aligned with the agencies. So why would a board member say that it was OK to sell stuff to Endeavor Content?

**Chris:** Because it’s our philosophy that the action is collective and not individual. So we are not saying to any member of our guild change the way you behave. You don’t have to refuse a package on your show right now. You don’t have to stop selling to wherever you’re selling. When the time comes for the membership as a whole exercising the power that we have as a collective decide to change the world, then you’ll have to accommodate those rules. Until then, you play in the world that exists.

**John:** Yeah. I had a couple of phone calls this last week. So I’ve been emailing a bunch of people, including my cell phone, and so my phone will ring and it’s like, oh, who is this person. But I answer. And a couple of questions have been why are you so against Endeavor Content or Wiip and I got a great deal there, and I always stress that we are not against those. We want those to exist. We just don’t want them to be part of the agency. That’s the relationship. We want Endeavor Content to stay. We want WME to stay. We just want them to be separate companies so that everybody can compete fairly. I just don’t want to be working for my agent.

**Chris:** Right. Can I speak for one second to that question? Because a lot of people have said, “But I’ve gotten a really good deal at those places.” And this is the answer that I always like to give. First is that loss leaders are an old tactic. So a lot of the early deals are going to be really good. And by the way some people with enormous amount of power in the industry are going to end up getting good deals. But here’s the basic truth of it which is these studios, these affiliate studios, have to compete eventually in the marketplace against every other studio which means they’re not going to be doing that by giving some kind of sweetheart deal to their own clients.

In fact, when you take a look at some of the information that we released about the amount of money that’s being poured into these agencies that can only be repaid by studios that are very successful, you end up with this impossible to reconcile dilemma which is effectively those studios are operating. They’re operating as producers. They make money when they reduce their costs and they increase their revenue.

When they pay us more they increase their costs and reduce their revenue. And at some point something’s got to give. And the truth is the agency business is a much smaller part of this than a very, very successful studio. That’s why in 1962 MCA decided to become Universal because that’s where they were going to make their money. We don’t want to be in a business where effectively it’s an affiliated agency to an existing studio.

**John:** Chris, someone writes, “Could we forget about agents all together? Could we live in a world without agents?”

**Angelina:** I don’t know that we need to. I don’t know that that’s what the membership wants. I mean, could we? Possibly. But I think agents are valuable. I think they’re–

**John:** I think they serve an important function.

**Angelina:** I do. And I think their interests have to be aligned with ours. I mean, I think we need agents. I just think we need their power to be commensurate with their value.

**John:** I’ve had two agents over my entire career and what they’ve been great at is connecting me with people who I would not have otherwise met. Negotiating on my behalf. Really understanding what I was worth and fighting to get every penny of what I was worth. And just being a person I could trust to help me navigate this industry because obviously they’re going to have more experience out there in the world with many deals than I ever could.

I think that’s a valuable service for 10 percent.

**Chris:** I was going to say I like my agent so much I’m willing to pay him directly for what he does for me.

**Angelina:** Yes.

**Chris:** And my agent before I would have paid her as well. That’s how much I like them.

**Angelina:** Yes. That’s right.

**John:** Lady Page writes, “Can I still wear yoga pants to business casual days?”

**Angelina:** Yes. It’s a free country. You can wear whatever you want.

**John:** Yeah. I’m a big fan of yoga pants. They’re actually very comfortable.

**Angelina:** They are.

**Chris:** Depending on what the membership decides. I mean, I don’t know whether we’ll find that out.

**John:** Well actually the membership–

**Angelina:** That’ll be our next vote.

**John:** The membership is maybe sort of the writers’ room. So I guess within a writers’ room there’s a sort of – is it a formal code or you just sort of figure out what’s cool in your room?

**Angelina:** I mean, I wore my pajamas to work for the first probably three or four years of my career before I realized I was an adult and should probably dress like one. So, nobody ever said anything.

**Chris:** That was during your baby writer phase.

**John:** [laughs]

**Angelina:** I was such a baby.

**John:** So we’re saying thumbs up on yoga pants. Aline Brosh McKenna probably would have a different opinion, but she’s not here right now.

**Angelina:** She’s a classy lady.

**John:** She’s a classy lady. Andy Lee writes, “Why are the agents so bad at negotiating?” I think that’s circular logic. He’s begging the question.

**Chris:** They’re so good at negotiating.

**John:** I think agents are good at negotiating our deals for stuff, sometimes. And my agents have gotten me really good deals on things.

**Angelina:** I think they’re uncomfortable – we are forcing them onto our playing field of collective bargaining. And they just don’t have as much experience with that and they’re very uncomfortable there. And that’s good for us because, again, we want as much power as we can get.

I think they’re very good at negotiating. I think this playing field is new to them.

**Chris:** Yeah. But I think some of this is also – this is a little bit of theater again.

**Angelina:** Yes. Correct.

**Chris:** We don’t know what’s going on.

**Angelina:** Correct.

**Chris:** This is not our way. Why are you doing it differently?

And it’s all fine. Nothing wrong with it. Let them do that. They are fully capable of negotiating this contract if and when they want to do that.

**John:** And we see them organizing, too. So they’re doing their outreach to their members. They’re having meetings. They’re doing all the same stuff that we do.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** They’re playing the game.

**Chris:** They’re not the underdogs in this.

**Angelina:** No.

**John:** They’re not.

**Angelina:** No, they are not.

**John:** Erin S. asks, “Why is your rhetoric so heated? The agencies are not our enemies. The studios are.”

**Chris:** I think there’s two parts to that question. The first is it is absolutely true the agents are not our enemies. They are our deeply conflicted allies. And in a world in which the studios against whom we negotiate are extremely powerful we need unconflicted allies. That’s what we’re fighting to get. And the truth is I understand that sometimes conflicted allies are more complicated than simple enemies. We’re writers. What’s so hard to figure out that there’s not black and white. It’s not good or bad. Why do we need to paint it that way?

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** These are people who work for us most of the time. But they’re also working for themselves in ways that the law and ethics suggests they should not and that’s what we’re putting right. The question of whether our rhetoric is too extreme or not is a more complicated question. Look, it’s a fair question. I mean, should this have been ratcheted down by 10 percent or 15 percent? I don’t know. But I think that a lot of the people who are angry at how they perceive our rhetoric as being somewhat inflammatory forget that there are thousands of members of this guild who didn’t know anything about what packaging was. And unlike an MBA negotiation they are being whispered to every day and every week by their agencies telling them one thing. And it’s necessary for us not to just name things but to characterize them. To talk about them as they are. And that may seem like more extreme rhetoric than you want to hear against somebody who has been heretofore your friend in the business, but part of our job – you know this Angelina – is to engage people and get them – they need to be a little bit riled up. They can’t be too riled up because we need to eventually make peace in all of this.

But in order to make peace properly we first need to have people understand and fully committed. So some people will find our rhetoric precisely what they need. And some people will find it a little bit too much. And some people won’t be paying attention at all. It’s impossible to get it exactly right.

I understand why some of the members are conflicted about that. But I think if you took a vote on whether our rhetoric was right on or not I think we’d still get a majority saying thank you for explaining to me exactly the scope of what this problem is.

**Angelina:** And I also, Chris you may disagree with this. You have so much more experience in these negotiations than I do. But my gut instinct is that ratcheting down our rhetoric doesn’t give us a better chance of getting a good deal. I don’t think they’re not making a deal with us because their feelings are hurt. So I understand the anxiety on a personal level because those who like their agents it can be awkward. But on a systemic level, which is what we’re really dealing with here. This actually isn’t about individual agents. This is about a system that places pressure and has frozen streams of power and money in a way that harms writers. We’re trying to undo that system. And then those agents who we love will be more effective agents in a better system. So if it’s painful for you or hard for you I would suggest maybe just thinking of it in terms of systems and not people.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Chris:** I think that’s true. Although to be completely fair to the other side, which is to say now our own members who are upset about our rhetoric, they would argue eventually you have to make peace. And if you get people too angry, if you rile them up too much the making peace becomes less possible.

**Angelina:** I understand that. I agree.

**Chris:** There is a kind of balancing that we need to that we continue to do at every point.

**Angelina:** That’s true. Yes.

**Chris:** And I would say to those members who are upset at us about that, no battle this big is waged without some disagreement about tactics or the extent of them.

**Angelina:** Correct.

**Chris:** It doesn’t fundamentally change that we’re all on the same side about this.

**Angelina:** That’s right. Well said.

**John:** Holly writes, “What percent has the salary of the agent risen compared to that of the writer they represent over the same time period? How can the agent/agency possibly be content merely repping a writer now after this? And is criminal and/or civil litigation being assessed for past wrongs?”

So on this first point, how much has the salary of the agent risen? I have no idea. We have no idea.

**Angelina:** We can’t know. Their books are closed.

**Chris:** We do know that the most powerful agencies, as agencies have an influx of billions of dollars in capital which happens when billions of dollars eventually are paid back to their investors, or at least hope to be paid back.

**John:** And some of that seems like inflammatory rhetoric when we point that out, but I think it’s important. The members need to know this.

**Angelina:** It’s true.

**Chris:** And by the way, I don’t care about agents being wealthy. It’s not a question of whether they have a lot of money. I think people misperceive the argument that we’re making there. It’s not about the idea that they shouldn’t pursue that. What it is is that when the agencies cease to be organizations principally concerned with raising our salaries and instead become organizations principally concerned with raising their own and those two are not connected—

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** Then we have a real problem. So if they have investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of dollars, and you can’t possibly pay that off on the ten percent commission business, therefore you’ve got to go into the business for example where you are employers of writers, that’s a problem. It’s not really that those agents individually take home a nice paycheck. It’s precluding us from doing that.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** Yeah. Last two questions. Mike Royce writes, “What did Chris Keyser think of the UTA numbers blizzard?” So this was a presentation, a PowerPoint show put out by UTA that showed that they went through their books and found that writers on UTA packaged shows versus non-UTA packaged shows the packaged shows they actually made more money. What did you make of this presentation?

**Chris:** I think it’s playing around with numbers in ways that I don’t appreciate. Thanks Mike for asking me.

**Angelina:** [laughs]

**Chris:** So a couple of things. You guys can chime in here also because I think you know these answers as well as I do. The first is there’s no comparison that we can actually make in this world between package and non-package shows. Essentially 98% of television shows are packaged. And those that aren’t are of a different quality than the ones – by quality I mean by budgets and things. They tend to be small Disney shows. So it’s meaningless to say that packaged shows have writers who earn more money than non-packaged shows. There’s no apples to apples comparison.

**John:** There’s no alternate universe where there’s a bunch of non-packaged shows we can look at. They just don’t exist.

**Chris:** That’s right. The second thing is, of course, because they’re UTA-packaged shows it means ipso facto that UTA is representing the highest paid person on that show, the showrunner. That’s the reason why they have the package. So naturally those shows should have higher – was it average?

**Angelina:** Averages.

**John:** An average. They use average.

**Chris:** And by the way that’s another reason why. So you have this enormously high starting salary for a showrunner and that skews things. The third thing is, of course, they’re including commissions in all of that which means in the end all they’re really talking about is the commissions and we’ve spoken about that and why we think that pales in comparison to a 23 percent decline in above-scale income.

So in the long run those numbers aren’t particularly good. And I know we get attacked periodically for the fact that our WGA surveys, which are pretty good, they have thousands of respondents, a huge percent, they wouldn’t be worthy of journals. You couldn’t publish them. But they’re pretty information that we have about what writers are doing and they’ve been consistent what they’re telling us over the last decade.

So, we get it UTA. It’s just part of the game.

**Angelina:** I liked their graphics.

**John:** Oh, OK. Thumbs up on graphics.

**Angelina:** It looked good.

**John:** It looked good. Yeah, we don’t do a lot of graphics.

**Angelina:** We’re not fancy.

**John:** We’re not fancy that way. So we appreciate when people are willing to be fancy. I should say–

**Chris:** I feel, by the way John, I want to say I know it’s hard because this always depends upon whether you actually implicitly believe your leadership or not, but we don’t make up numbers. We don’t twist them around. We’re not asking people to take risks for no reason. We have no incentive to engage in a battle when writers for example are not actually making less money than they made before.

I understand that in a kind of war like this, you know, you begin to use all kinds of tactics. It is disappointing that an agency would manipulate its numbers in order to say to writers you shouldn’t be upset about something. Which they certainly should be.

**John:** Talking of numbers, Ivan writes “What is the voting threshold needed to approve this code of conduct? If we are to follow through on the promise that this is a democratic decision dependent entirely upon the results of the membership vote the precise percentage needed to pass the measure must be known in advance of the vote. For the sake of protecting the integrity of the resulting action or inaction I would ask that Mr. Keyser and the leadership disclose the percentage needed to pass the code of conduct.”

So, the threshold to pass–

**Chris:** To pass it. That’s just a technical question. Somewhere over 50 percent passes the code of conduct.

**Angelina:** 50.1.

**Chris:** 50.1.

**John:** So it passes the resolution to authorize the board–

**Chris:** To consider implementing. But remember the resolution says when appropriate after the agreement expires. And that’s really important because the truth is, first of all, David Goodman has been very clear, the president of the Writers Guild of America West, that the number will need to be overwhelming. The reason why none of us can give you a precise number is I think related to what you spoke about earlier which is the decision to impose a code of conduct has everything to do with a lot of things that are going on on the ground at the moment. So, it has to do with the total number of votes that we get, the percentage of the membership votes. It has to do with some assessment of the depth of support for the measure. It has a lot to do with what’s going on in the negotiation at the present moment, and might be going on up until the day that the AMBA expires, because we have the right to continue if we want to. So that assessment is somewhat fluid.

But people need to understand if you don’t want to leave your agent, if the code of conduct is implemented, don’t vote yes.

**Angelina:** Yeah. This isn’t like the SAV where we say give us a big stick so we can go scare people and we promise not to use it unless we absolutely have to. You should vote yes only if you’re willing to walk away from your agent. The leadership wants to hear your honest vote. We want the truth. And we will act accordingly. But if you don’t want to walk away vote no.

**Chris:** And yet it is still our goal to have enough – wield enough power to get what we need with the least amount of confusion and suffering.

**Angelina:** That’s right. That’s right.

**John:** Final question. Lawant writes, “What’s to stop anyone from starting a new agency that actually does what agencies are supposed to do?”

**Angelina:** Nothing. Come on in, boys, the water is fine.

**Chris:** And it’s a good business. It made a lot of agencies in the years before packaging very well to do and very important in the business.

**John:** There’s like 196 agencies. There are a ton of agencies, but could some of these agents at these bigger places decide I want to be in the 10 percent business and take their clients and go with them?

**Angelina:** I think they could.

**Chris:** Of course.

**John:** Sure. That’s how CAA was formed. That’s how Endeavor was formed.

**Chris:** Of course.

**John:** There’s always been a history of agencies just springing up.

**Chris:** Yeah. Right. And by the way in 1962 when MCA, the biggest agency in the country, went out of the agency business to become Universal Studios, other agencies took over.

**Angelina:** It’s a profitable business.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** All right. Thank you for your questions that people wrote in. Thank you for these great answers. It’s nice to talk through that.

**Chris:** Thank you.

**Angelina:** You’re welcome.

**John:** And now it is time for our One Cool Things, where we talk about something we want to recommend to our listeners. My One Cool Thing is a book. It is Ask a Native New Yorker by Jake Dobkin. It’s just a really good book for anybody who is considering moving to New York City. And is just advice on everything that you will encounter as you move to New York City. He’s a very, very strong advocate for New York. Like almost too strong. He’s a little bit dismissive of all other cities. But sometimes that’s what you want in a person who is advocating for a city.

So, if you are considering in any way moving to New York City I would strongly recommend Ask a Native New Yorker.

**Angelina:** That’s cool. My One Cool Thing is my favorite show the last few years. It’s called Patriot. It’s on Amazon Prime. Created by Stephen Conrad. I will do it a disservice by trying to describe it. It is unlike anything I have ever seen. But it has such a huge, hard beating heart at its center. It is so optimistic while wrestling with the darkest parts of humanity that it just makes my heart sing. And I prostelytize it at every chance I get.

**John:** Hurrah. I should watch it.

**Chris:** It’s good. Can you call me back when you have One Uncool Thing? I have to admit I’ve been a little busy. I asked my writers’ room what to recommend.

**John:** You threw it out to the room for pitches.

**Chris:** Yeah. And I’m taking credit for it, which is what it’s like to do a show. They said there’s a show called Money Heist on Netflix which is a Spanish show about a group of people trying to steal from the Spanish Mint and they say it’s incredible. By the way, my favorite show in the last month or two is My Brilliant Friend on HBO.

**Angelina:** Oh, I haven’t seen that yet, but I heard it’s beautiful.

**John:** Yeah. Pen15 is also really good. There’s too much good TV.

**Angelina:** There’s a lot of good stuff out there. We should get paid for it. [laughs]

**John:** We should. We should get paid for it. That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Chuck Eyler. 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. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Are you guys on Twitter?

**Angelina:** Not anymore.

**John:** Ah, she’s off Twitter. And so is Chris Keyser.

**Chris:** Yes, off. I’ve never been on.

**John:** Smart choices you’ve made.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there, leave us a comment. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. And I may see some of you at one of these big public meetings.

**Angelina:** Yes, come join us.

**Chris:** Please come. Where are you headlining on Tuesday?

**John:** I’m out of town on Tuesday, so I won’t be able to do that, but I’m back for the Wednesday one.

**Chris:** Great.

**Angelina:** Great. We’ll see you there.

**John:** Cool. Thanks.

Links:

* [The Disney – Fox Merger](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/03/disney-fox-merger-and-future-hollywood/585481/)
* [Upcoming WGA Meetings and Voting Info](https://johnaugust.com/2019/guild-sets-dates-for-meetings-and-vote)
* [Ask a Native New Yorker](https://amzn.to/2ULv8og) by Jake Dobkin
* [Patriot](https://www.amazon.com/Patriot/dp/B017APUY62) on Amazon
* [Money Heist](https://www.netflix.com/title/80192098) on Netflix
* [My Brilliant Friend](https://www.hbo.com/my-brilliant-friend) on HBO
* We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
* You can now [order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Chuck Eyler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/393_Twenty_Questions.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 392: The Final Moment, Transcript

March 25, 2019 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/the-final-moment).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 392 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie where we take a look at three stories in the news and discuss how they might be adapted to the big screen, or the small screen. We’ll also look at the final moment in movies, what they do and why they change so often.

Craig, it’s just you and me. We’re just two guys back talking on Skype.

**Craig:** Could we call this a classic Scriptnotes?

**John:** This is a classic Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** It’s the old original flavor.

**John:** It is. Yeah. So some new offices, some new equipment setups, but it’s still the basic Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** As long as it’s you and me, you know. As long as it’s you and me, I could foresee a day where – let’s say one of us were incapacitated?

**John:** Yeah, yeah.

**Craig:** If it’s me, the podcast goes on with someone else. If it’s you, not only does the podcast end, but I probably never say the word podcast again.

**John:** That would be really sad.

**Craig:** No, no. I mean, no. The part about you being incapacitated, don’t get me wrong, that’s tragic.

**John:** That’s tragic.

**Craig:** That’s tragic. And careful listeners will remember I believe we did broadcast our episode of Fiasco, is that correct?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** With Kelly Marcel in which your character was incapacitated cruelly by the two of us I think. So, there’s a tradition of that. And it would be very, very sad.

**John:** It would be. I feel like I should put together a living will just for that scenario just to make sure that everyone understood my wishes if I were to become incapacitated.

**Craig:** That’s a great idea. Because otherwise this all collapses.

**John:** Do you think Jack Thorne could take over my place?

**Craig:** You know what? I wish he would. [laughs] That’s what like, you know, you say to your spouse after – how many years have you guys been married by the way?

**John:** Only married for–

**Craig:** Well, but together. Let’s call it effectively married.

**John:** 19 years.

**Craig:** 19 years. OK, so Melissa and I are at 22 or 23, something like that. Very similar. Your spouse turns to you and says, “You know, what if you had to be married to so-and-so?” And you’re like, “Let’s do it.” [laughs] “It sounds great, let’s go.” And then, of course, your fantasy turns to horror. Because here’s the thing. Jack Thorne is amazing, but you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.

**John:** Mm. That could be a lyric.

**Craig:** It should be. It should be the lyric of many things. I can just imagine myself just thinking, oh wow, look at me, stepping out on John August. Cheating with some other guy.

**John:** Yeah. The thing is you’re already cheating. You already have a whole second podcast recorded. I know about it. And you’re going to be dropping it week by week.

**Craig:** That is true. We haven’t announced that though, so we can’t talk about that. [laughs]

**John:** But this last week something was announced. A much anticipated trailer dropped showing how governmental corruption and arrogance led to massive destruction when a dangerous power source was accidentally unleashed. I’m talking of course about Aladdin.

**Craig:** Aladdin.

**John:** Which comes out May 24. So the trailer finally came out for Aladdin.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, the big trailer. You had a teaser.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And now this is the big trailer.

**John:** This is finally the good trailer. So I wrote the screenplay three years ago and I’ve really had almost nothing to do with it since. But correct me if I’m wrong, you also had some trailer out this week as well?

**Craig:** I had a teaser, a little 45-second teaser that weirdly was also about how governmental corruption and arrogance led to massive destruction when a dangerous power source was accidentally unleashed. Not quite as fun as Aladdin. It doesn’t have that pizzazz. But it is the 45-second teaser trailer for Chernobyl, the miniseries forthcoming to HBO. It arrives on May 6. We can now say that. May 6, the first episode airs. Or cables? It transmits on May 6.

**John:** It goes out into the world on May 6. And so because it’s a week by week thing it will start before Aladdin and it will be running still after Aladdin.

**Craig:** Well, they are a great pairing.

**John:** They are. Really.

**Craig:** You’re going to need the break, trust me. If you’re watching Chernobyl, by the time Aladdin rolls around you’re going to be like can I please just get a break?

**John:** I don’t know that my original screenplay for Aladdin will ever be seen in the world, but I would say there actually were more parallels to Chernobyl in my original screenplay than in the final movie.

**Craig:** Well, you know what? I’m interested to see – I’m fascinated by these Disney adaptations that are sort of auto adaptations in a sense, like self-adaptations, and how they do it, and how close it is. I mean, the trailer, you could see the trailer partly was sort of proudly saying, “Look, look, it’s the same.”

**John:** It’s the same movie but with real people.

**Craig:** It’s exactly the same. Right. Which I think is fascinating. But then you could also tell, I mean, it can’t possibly be entirely exactly the same. So I’m just fascinated by those aspects of auto-adaptation and how they work. And so after Aladdin happens and I see it I’m going to want to read your script. I’m fascinated by these things and how they evolve as it were.

**John:** Maybe someday they can make an animated version of Chernobyl.

**Craig:** You know, we’re working on that.

**John:** Complete the cycle. [laughs]

**Craig:** That would be, you know, yeah, no.

**John:** Follow up. So, in previous episodes we’ve talked about the WGA negotiations with the talent agencies about the future of the agency agreement. There have been some big meetings in the past, but there are some big meetings coming up. So those three meetings coming up are Tuesday March 26 at the Beverly Hilton, 7:30pm, Wednesday March 27 at the Sheraton Universal, also 7:30pm, and Saturday March 31 at the Writers Guild Theater, 10:30am. There will also be meetings on the east coast. I don’t have those details but you can look those up. Those will be talking to members about what’s going on, what’s in store. There will be a membership vote coming up so that’ll be why you’ll want to go to these meetings to learn all of that information.

**Craig:** And would it be acceptable for me to say that – seems to me reported widely – that at the very least now the guild and the talent agencies appear to be talking?

**John:** Indeed. So this past week I was in two negotiation sessions and, yeah, there’s chatting. It’s doing the things you do in a negotiation.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** So that’s what we want.

**Craig:** That is an improvement over what was there prior, which is nothing. So, and certainly not the fault of the Writers Guild I should add.

**John:** Cool. Our big marquee topic I want to get into today is the final moment in movies, or I guess episodes of TV, but I’m really thinking more in movies. And this came to mind this morning because there was an article talking about the end of Captain Marvel. This is not even a spoiler, but at the end of the original version of Captain Marvel she flew off into space and they changed it so she flew off into space with some other characters. And it was an important change and sort of giving you a sense of where the character was headed next.

And it got me thinking that in pretty much every movie I’ve written that last moment, that last beat, has changed from the pitch to the screenplay to the movie. And I sort of want to focus on why that moment is so important and also why it tends to change so much.

**Craig:** Interesting. And it’s funny because for me because I’m obsessed with that moment it actually rarely doesn’t change – it doesn’t change much for me.

**John:** OK.

**Craig:** But that’s in a sense because I think I weirdly start with it. I don’t know.

**John:** I start with it, too. And so as I was thinking back to Aladdin, my pitch for it had a very specific runner that had a very definite end beat. And so when I pitched it to Disney and also I just pitched it casually to Dana Fox, it made Dana Fox cry that last line, the last image of that last moment. It’s not in the movie at all. It totally changed in ways that things change.

But I would say even the movies like Big Fish and other things which have been very much, you know, we shot the script, those last moments and sometimes the last image really does change because it’s based on the experience of sitting through the whole movie and sort of where it’s deliberated to.

So let’s talk about that last moment as a way of organizing your thoughts when you’re first thinking about the story and then what it looks like at all the different stages.

**Craig:** Well, to start with, we have to ask what the purpose is. You know, I think sometimes people think of the last shot in cinematic terms. Somebody rides off into the sunset. So the last shot really is about sunsets. But of course it’s not.

For me the final moment, the final shot, that last image contains the purpose of the entire thing. Everything comes down to that. If your movie was about the love between two people, then that is that final moment. We’ve talked about Lindsay Doran’s Ted Talk where she talks about how movies are really about relationships. And she would cite how sometimes she would ask people well what was the last image of some movie, The Karate Kid, and a lot of people don’t remember it is Mr. Miyagi’s face. Proud. It’s Daniel and then Mr. Miyagi looking at each other and there’s pride.

So, figuring out the purpose of that last shot is kind of your step one of determining what it’s supposed to be. And you can’t get there unless you kind of know what the hell your whole movie is about in the first place.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, movies are generally about a character taking a journey. A character leaving home and getting to some place. But it’s also about the movie itself starting at a place and getting to a place. And that destination is generally that last beat, that last moment, that last image. And so of course you’re going to be thinking about that early on in the process of where do you want to end up. And way back in Episode 100 there was a listener question and someone asked us I have a couple different ideas for movies and I’m not sure which one I should start writing. And my answer was you should pick the one with the best ending because that’s the one you’ll actually finish.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And if you start writing without having a clear sense of where you’re going to you’re very likely to either stop writing it or get really off track and having to sort of strip away a lot of what you’ve done. So, having a clear sense of this is where I think the movie lands is crucial. It’s like the plane is going to land on this runway tells you, OK, I can do a bunch of different stuff but ultimately I have to make sure that I’m headed to that place. You may not be signaling that even to the reader, to the audience, so that they’re not ahead of you, but you yourself have to know where this is going.

**Craig:** John, when you were in grade school and you had some sort of arts and crafts assignment and the teacher said you need to draw a circle, and you just have to draw a circle. You don’t have a thing to trace. Were you a good circle drawer?

**John:** I was a fair circle drawer. I know it’s a very classic artistic lesson is how to trust your hand to do the movements and how to think about what a circle is. Were you a good circle drawer?

**Craig:** No. Absolutely horrendous. If you ask me to draw a circle you would end up with some sort of unclosed cucumber. And the reason I bring this up is because to me the classic narrative is a circle. We begin in a place and we end in that same place. There is a full return. Of course we are changed, but the ending reflects the beginning. The beginning reflects the ending. There is a circle.

If you don’t know your ending and you don’t know how the circle finishes it’s quite probable that you won’t know how to start the circle either. That you will end up with an unclosed cucumber, like nine-year-old Craig Mazin attempting to draw someone’s head. This is how things go off. This is where, I think, people can easily get lost as they’re writing their script because they realize that the story has developed in such a way that it wants to end somewhere but it has really not a strong click connection to the beginning.

One of my favorite albums is Pink Floyd’s The Wall, I think it’s Pink Floyd The Wall. And Pink Floyd The Wall, they play little games, the Pink Floyd folks did, and one of the games they play in Pink Floyd The Wall is very low volume at the very beginning. You hear this tiny little song and then someone says, “We came in.” And then at the very end, the very end, they’re playing the song and it finishes and then you hear someone say, “Isn’t this where?” And that’s exactly the kind of thing that blows a 15-year-old boy’s life, but it also was satisfying. You felt things were connected and they chose to make the very last moment some sort of indication that the beginning is relevant.

It’s the way frankly Watchmen ends. It’s the same thing. There’s this beautiful come around with that last final look.

**John:** Now, because we’re talking about narrative circles I need to acknowledge that Dan Harmon has this whole structure thing that’s based on a circle where there’s a circle and there’s these little lines across it that characters go on this journey. That’s absolutely a valid approach if you want to think about story that way.

That’s not quite what we’re talking about.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** We’re talking about how in general a character leaves from a place and gets to a place, but in both cases they’re either finding a new home or returning to a previous home changed. And so just a character walking around in a circle isn’t a story. A character being profoundly changed and coming to this environment with a new understanding that is a change. And sometimes it won’t be that one character. Sometimes it’s the narrative question you’ve asked at the beginning of the story has gone through all these permutations and landed you back at a place that lets you look at that question from a new way.

So it’s either answering the question or reframing the question in a way that is more meaningful. So that’s what we’re talking about, the narrative comes full circle. There’s a place that you were headed and that place that you were headed reflects where you began.

**Craig:** No question. And it’s really clear to us how someone has changed when we put them back where they were when we met them. It’s just one of those things where you can say, oh, here’s the variable. Where we begin is the control. Our character is the variable. Start at the beginning, get me to the end, and let me see the difference. And sometimes it’s very profound.

You know, we start and end in the same place in Finding Nemo, but we can see how different it is in the same place because the variable has changed and that’s your character.

**John:** So, I’m finishing the third Arlo Finch book right now which is the end of the trilogy, and so each of the books has had that sense of like, OK, reflecting where the book began and where the book ended and there is a completion there. But it’s been fun to actually see the whole trilogy. And it’s like, OK, this is the journey that we went on over the course of this year of Arlo Finch’s life. And yes he’s physically in the same space but he’s a completely different character in that same space and has a different appreciation for what’s happened.

And so being able to go back to previous locations where things have happened you see that his relationship to them is completely different because he’s a different character having been changed by what’s gone on. That’s what we’re really talking about with that last beat and how the last beat has to reflect where the character started and what has happened to the character over the course of the journey.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you would not – reading Arlo Finch you would never expect that he would end up a savage murderer, but he does.

**John:** [laughs] It’s really shocking for middle grade fiction.

**Craig:** Well it is. But then when you look back you go, oh yeah, you know what, he was laying the groundwork for that all along. It actually makes sense. He’s a nightmare. Then there’s the Dark Finch trilogy that comes next. Oh, you know what? Dark Finch trilogy is not a bad idea.

**John:** Dark Finch sounds pretty good.

**Craig:** You should do it.

**John:** I think it’s going to be a crossover with Derek Haas’s books about his assassin.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. Silver Bear.

**John:** Silver Bear.

**Craig:** Silver Bear. Dark Finch. That sounds like a Sondheim lyric. I love it.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** I love it. So, you know, when I’m thinking about these last images, everybody has a different way of thinking about this. But what I try and do really is actually think about it in terms of a last emotion. What is it that I want to feel? Do I want to feel comfort? Do I want to feel pride? Do I want to feel love? Do I want to feel hope? The movie that I worked on with Lindsay Doran, which is I think my favorite feature script, and so of course it hasn’t been made. They make the other ones, not those. The last shot to me was always an expression of the kind of bittersweet salute to the people who are gone. You know, it’s a coming of age story and the last shot when I just thought about the emotion at the end, the emotion at the end was the kind of sad thankfulness for having known someone who is no longer with you.

And I go, OK, I can wrap myself in that. That feels like a good emotion. And I know how that is reflected by the beginning. How you then express it that can change.

**John:** For sure.

**Craig:** And often changes frequently. But this is an area where I think movies sometimes fail because the system of movies is designed to separate the writer and her intention from the actual outcome, so a writer will have an intention like I want my movie to end with the bittersweet thankfulness for those who are no longer with us. That is my emotional intention. And here is how I would execute it.

Nobody else sees the intention underneath, or they don’t understand it, and they just go, “Well you know what? We don’t like necessarily the way they’re executing that. Let’s make a new execution. Let’s do this. Let’s do that. Let’s make it noisy. Let’s make it loud. Let’s make it funny.” And the intention is gone. And then you get to the movie and you show it and people go, “Well, the ending.” And you’re like, yeah, the ending, and that writer never really nailed the ending.

**John:** Ha.

**Craig:** You see how it goes? It’s just freaking brutal.

**John:** Yeah. That’s never happened to me once in my career. Let’s talk about what that ending looks like in the different stages. So, in the pitch version of it, you know, obviously we talked about in pitches that I would describe it as you’re trying to convince your best friend to see this movie that you’ve seen that they’ve not seen. So you’re really talking a lot about the characters and how it starts. And you may simplify and summarize some things, especially in the second and third act about stuff. But you will tend to describe out that last moment, that last beat, because you’re really talking about what is the takeaway experience going to be for a person who has watched this movie that you’re hopefully going to be writing.

So, in a pitch you’re going to have a description of what that last moment is because that’s really important. It’s the reason why someone should say yes to reading your script, to buying your script, to hiring you to write that script. So that last moment is almost always going to be there in the pitch, even if it’s not fully fleshed out, to give you a sense of what you want the audience and the readers to take away from reading the script.

**Craig:** What I’m thinking about in a room where I’m relaying something to somebody is ultimately how do I want them to – I want to give them a fuzzy at the end. I want to give them some sort of fuzzy feeling. I don’t want to give them plot. If I finish off with plot, so for instance, let’s say I’m in a room and I’m pitching Star Wars.

What I don’t want to do is get to the end and say, “And in our last shot our hero receives a medal which he deserved.” What I want to talk about is how a kid – I would bring it back to the beginning and say this farm boy who didn’t know about this world beyond him, didn’t know about the Force, who didn’t know about the fate of his father or the way he can maybe save the world, he is the one who saved the galaxy. And at last he knows who he is.

See, some sort of sense of connected feeling to the beginning. If you’re selling plot at the end then what you’re really selling is what Lindsay Doran calls the end that people think is the end but not the actual end.

**John:** Well, let’s take your example of Star Wars because you might pitch it that way, but then when it comes to writing the script you actually have to write this scene that gets you to that moment. And so as you’re writing that scene at the last moment you’re looking at what is the medal ceremony like, who is there, what is said, but most importantly what is the emotional connection between those characters who are up there. Actually painting out the world so we can see like, OK, this is why it’s going to feel this way. This is clearly the intention behind this scene but also I’m giving you the actual things you need to give us that feeling at the end.

And so in the script stage what was sort of a nebulous description of like this is what it’s going to feel like has to actually deliver on that promise.

**Craig:** Yeah. I always wondered – I hate being the guy who’s like would it be better if a movie that everybody loved ended like this – but the last shot of Star Wars is the medal ceremony, right. And then you have them looking at each other, and so the emotion is the relationships between them. But I always wondered what would happen if the last-last shot of Star Wars was Luke Skywalker returning back to Tatooine a different man and kind of starting a new beginning, a new hope. You know, that vibe of returning. I always wondered if I would feel more at the end if I saw him return.

**John:** I think it’s worth exploring. I think if you were to try to do that though it would just feel like one more beat. It would feel like the movie was over when he got the medal and you had this swell. Whether the journey was this is a kid who is all on his own who forms a new family, so like going back to where his dead family was wouldn’t feel like the kind of victory.

**Craig:** Dead family.

**John:** Dead family. So I think you want to see his joy and excitement rather than sort of the – I would just imagine the music would be very different if he had gone back to Tatooine at the end. It wouldn’t feel like a triumph.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, you’re right. And I guess then the payload for that final bit is really the looks between Leia and Luke and Han and Luke. That it’s we’re a family, we’re friends, we did it. We went through something nobody else understands.

**John:** So let’s say you’ve written the script, you’ve gone into production, and 100 days of production there’s finally a cut and you see that last moment in the film and it’s different, or it doesn’t work, or the way you had it written on the page doesn’t work. In my experience it’s generally because the movie sort of got – the actual movie that you watched isn’t quite the movie that’s on the page just naturally. And as people are embodying those characters things just feel different. Obviously some scenes get cut, things get moved around. And where you kind of thought you were headed is not really where you’ve ended up. And so you have to make some sort of change there.

In some cases it’s reshoots. In some cases you’re really shooting a new last scene. You realize this was not the moment that we thought we wanted to get to at the end. But in some cases it is just a matter of this shot versus that shot. Whose close-up are we ending on? You talk about Mr. Miyagi. I bet they tried it a bunch of different ways and it would make more sense to end on Daniel rather than Mr. Miyagi, but ultimately Mr. Miyagi was the right choice.

They’re thinking about what does the music feel at this moment. How are we emotionally landing, the payload here. And the music is going to be a big factor. So, there’s going to be a lot of things conspiring to get that last image, that last moment of the movie. And you may not have been able to anticipate that on the page.

**Craig:** No question. And this is why it’s really important for you to understand your intention because it may work out that your intention didn’t carry through in the plan. But if we know the intention and we have married the beginning to the end then the beginning has set up this inexorable domino effect. You have landed at the end. You require a feeling. Let’s see if we can make that feeling editorially a different way. And if we can’t, OK, let’s go back and reconsider what it’s supposed to be.

In rare circumstances you do get to a place where you realize, oh my god, having gone through this movie it’s really about this. It turns out we care more about this than this. This relationship matters more than this relationship. OK. So, now we have to think of the beginning, let’s recontextualize what our beginning means and then let’s go ahead and fix an ending.

But the ending can never be just – do you know what? “It just needs to be more exciting.” That’s nonsense.

**John:** The danger is a lot of times in test screenings they’ll see like, OK, the numbers are a little bit low here and people dipped at the end, so let’s add some more razzmatazz to this last little beat, or like an extra thing. And generally people don’t want more. They don’t want bigger or more, they just want to actually exit the movie at the right time with the right emotion. And that’s the challenge.

**Craig:** Right. How do you leave them feeling is the biggest.

**John:** So sometimes though the opposite holds true. Just this last week I was watching a rough cut of a friend’s film. And he has this really remarkable last shot and these two characters and their relationship has changed profoundly. But as I watched it I was like oh that’s a really great last shot/last moment for kind of a different movie than I saw. But when I looked at the movie I had seen before that I was like, oh yeah, you could actually do some reconfiguring to get you to that moment and actually have it make sense. So it was really talking about this is where we get to at the end. I think you’re not starting at the right place. And so therefore you may want to take a look at those first scenes and really change our expectations and change what we’re following over the course of the movie because doing that you could land at that place and it would feel really meaningful.

**Craig:** Again, the beginning is the end is the beginning. Right? If something is not working in that where your circle is supposed to connect up and you ended up with an open cucumber, then either the ending is wrong, or the beginning is wrong, or they’re both wrong.

**John:** Ha.

**Craig:** But it’s usually one or the other. And it is I think tempting at times to say, “Well, since the ending is the last thing, everything else is the pyramid and this this thing sits atop the pyramid, this is the easiest thing to fix.” And, John, you’re absolutely right. Sometimes the easiest thing to fix is the beginning.

**John:** Yeah. Change the expectations of the audience as they go into it and you can get them there.

**Craig:** Match them to where they’re going to arrive.

**John:** All right. That is our discussion of that final moment. Now let’s talk about the very, very beginning where we think about what these movies could even be. So in previous examples of How Would This Be a Movie we talked about articles from the news. Many of those cases those things have become movies. And so at least they’ve been optioned as movies.

**Craig:** We’ve been making people money left and right.

**John:** We really have been. I mean, I think if anyone deserves a packaging fee it is–

**Craig:** Man.

**John:** [laughs] Craig Mazin and John August of Scriptnotes fame.

**Craig:** I mean, you’re joking, but literally we’ve done more in those situations than a number of agencies have in certain packaging situations.

**John:** Indeed. So, obviously the story that we couldn’t escape this past week was operation Varsity Blues. This was – so this is not going to be a big thing we’re going to talk about – but this is the story of the college admissions scandals that ensnared Felicity Huffman, Lori Laughlin, a bunch of other VC folks. It was all anyone could talk about in Hollywood. And I will say while I can’t describe what happened in the negotiating room, I will say that every moment that we weren’t actually talking about the negotiations was completely talking about this whole scandal. I almost wanted to have a five-minute free period where we could all just talk about – it’s crazy, right?

**Craig:** Get it out of your system.

**John:** This is nuts.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a current feeding frenzy, you and I are both aware of this, that many, many, many people are attempting to get the rights to. I guess one of the main articles – the main article, you know, that’s one of those stories where I think life rights actually is really useful because some of the people within the story if they granted life rights you’d get more information. Obviously the perpetrators aren’t going to be granting anything anytime soon.

But so that one will be a movie. So probably not a good idea for us to go on the record as to how, or show, or something. That’s inevitable.

**John:** The story broke Tuesday morning. My first email about it from a producer came at 12:38pm, so just three, four hours after the story broke I already got my first like, “Hey, would you ever consider writing this thing?”

**Craig:** It was on Wednesday?

**John:** Tuesday.

**Craig:** Oh, Tuesday, OK, yeah, so I didn’t get one until Wednesday. [laughs]

**John:** All right, well, I mean–

**Craig:** Same thing.

**John:** I don’t want to say it, yeah, but, yeah.

**Craig:** No, of course, you’re one day better than me. Or, or, you’re one day better than me. There’s really no alternative.

**John:** In this segment though rather than talk about specific articles or specific incidents, I want to talk about three big story areas. And so we’ll have links to some articles that talk about that story area and in some cases one of those articles might be useful. But really I want to talk about what is the kind of movie that we do in this space.

And so the first, there’s two articles we’ll link to. One is about an unvaccinated boy who got tetanus and tetanus is a disease that shouldn’t exist anymore. But if you don’t vaccinate your kids they can get it. He was in the hospital for 57 days, $800,000 worth of medical expenses. Another story that could be helpful here is about a kid who defied his parents and got vaccinated against their wishes. I think he ended up testifying to Congress about why he did that.

So, Craig, I mean, talk to me about vaccines.

**Craig:** Well, I think I’ve gone on record a number of times as stating that not only am I violently pro-vaccine, but I’m violently anti-anti-vaccine. Of all the things I can tolerate in other people I think anti-vax is probably the lowest on the list. I mean, I’m literally telling you if I had a choice between sitting in a room with a Neo-Nazi or an Anti-Vaxer, I think I would go with the Neo-Nazi. I think at the very least I could say let’s – I’m just going to talk to you as a Jewish person and let’s see how this goes. [laughs] You know? We’ll sit in the room together. But an Anti-Vaxer, no, they’re dead to me. They’re dead to me. Their minds are not only not functioning in any way I can even approximate respecting, but they are through their smugness and arrogance, they don’t even have the common decency to be hateful people. They’re just aggressively stupid and they are killing other people with their outrageous, smug stupidity.

**John:** So now that you’ve stated your position on this–

**Craig:** My carefully–

**John:** Carefully nuanced position.

**Craig:** Carefully nuanced position.

**John:** Let’s think about how a vaccine story could work. And so there’s a couple different templates which come to mind. First is sort of the classic huge disease outbreak situation. So we have movies like Contagion, Crisis in the Hot Zone – I guess Crisis in the Hot Zone was never a movie. It was always supposed to be a movie. I read a zillion scripts on it, but I don’t think it ever became a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s–

**John:** Outbreak.

**Craig:** Outbreak. And Contagion. There were quite a few.

**John:** And so that’s the thing where a superbug gets out and suddenly half the world is decimated. I mean, World War Z is in some ways the same kind of thing where everything spirals beyond control.

**Craig:** Someone eats the wrong bit of monkey mean and there it goes. We’re off and running.

**John:** Something goes amuck. That doesn’t feel like the most, I mean, you can keep making those movies as long as you want to. That doesn’t feel like quite what we’re talking about here.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I think that sense of an individual choice, an individual story is probably more compelling. Talk to me about Ethan Lindenberger from Norwalk, Ohio. He’s one of the kids in this article who does sort of defy his parents and gets vaccinated by himself. I mean, he’s an interesting character because it gives you a way in because you can both love your parents and love your family and yet feel like you have to do this thing that is in opposition to their wishes which is a classic kind of heroic framework.

**Craig:** Well we typically will see this kind of story told in the context of religion. Someone grows up in a cult or even in a – let’s just call it extreme end of a mainstream religion. And they love their parents but have to get out. Eventually they realize it’s not correct and they have to get out. Although in some cases clearly they don’t love their parents. Their parents are abusive and they have to get out.

And that’s exactly what this reminded me of. Essentially he says, listen, that his mother loves him but she was “steeped in online conspiracies that made him and his siblings vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases like ongoing measles outbreaks. I grew up under my mother’s beliefs that vaccines are dangerous. He’d show her scientific studies but said she instead turned to illegitimate sources that instill fear into the public.” Essentially his mother was a cultist.

And, by the way, that’s what Anti-Vax is. It is a flat-out cult. It is a cult based in fear and instead of worshipping a central person character what they worship is a central theory, a charismatic theory if you will.

So, there is a natural kind of narrative structure for a story where someone has to get out. And what you’re doing is retelling it in the context of science, and medical science, which I think is kind of an interesting angle on it. If it were me, I think I’d be going – because I’ve thought about this. You know, I’ve thought about doing a limited series on the rise of anti-vaccination which has always been with us by the way. I mean we say it’s a rise. There’s always been fear of vaccines. And the fear of vaccines is directly connected I think to the fear of people who are smarter than us.

I think there’s a direct line. It’s the same thing when we look at fear of elitism, fear of expertise, fear of those smart people, fear of the scientists, and then a direct line to fear of vaccines. It’s always been there but the current story that begins with the charlatan Andrew Wakefield and continues to this day to me is deserving of a – there’s a good exploration there. I’ve thought about it.

**John:** Now, the counter narrative is also an easy thing to see. So, the opposite movie which is basically that vaccines were a conspiracy. That secretly they always knew they were doing harm. That story we’ve seen a bunch, too. So, it feels like there’s going to be an upcoming one at some point about the opioid crisis and how big pharma was–

**Craig:** Oh there is. Steve Zaillian is working on it right now. It’s going to be brilliant.

**John:** Yeah. So we always have that kind of thing where like there is a secret government cabal hiding information about the real truth of these things. I agree with you that I think the cultist template or basically escaping from the cult template or the – I hate coming to realize, but the character who discovers that what they thought was true was not true is a meaningful way to think about it. The Matrix is essentially that, too. That sense that the world is not the way you thought it would be.

And I think what’s interesting about the vaccine situation is because the enemies are invisible and kind of ancient. Because no one has any experience with measles we think that measles doesn’t really exist. And it’s almost like one of those like don’t do that or you’ll attract the dragons. Like no one has seen dragons for 500 years. I’m not sure they ever really were there. As these diseases break out you realize like, oh wow, measles is terrible. Tetanus can kill you. These are things that are real issues.

**Craig:** Yeah. In a very real way Chernobyl is a story about what happens when people decide that because something hasn’t happened it can’t happen. And it won’t happen. It’s just inherent to the human condition. We pretend because we don’t know these things.

And, yes, there’s a weird line because you don’t want to end up as the person who is walking around saying, “Don’t you understand? Just because you haven’t seen ghosts doesn’t mean that ghosts aren’t there.” No, there’s an absolutely wonderful reason to presume that ghosts aren’t there. This is different. We know that vaccines work and we know that there are diseases that kill people. And the fact that we have eliminated polio because of vaccination doesn’t mean now that we don’t need to vaccinate because polio is not a thing. It’s a thing.

Mitch McConnell had polio. Which he seems to have forgotten, mind you. No, it’s a thing.

So, for me I keep thinking about this story in terms of the villains. Because I find the villains fascinating and horrifying. And there’s a danger in feeling like your axe-grinding if what you’re doing is building a narrative around a hero who is just yelling all the time, “Don’t you understand?”

**John:** The Jeff Goldblum character.

**Craig:** “Vaccines are great.” No, the Jeff Goldblum character is amazing as a kind of like background, “Do you know, uh, maybe we shouldn’t, uh, do this.” But in a show like this what you could end up seeming is just facile if your show is built around a CDC scientist or medical doctor.

**John:** Totally.

**Craig:** At Harvard Med who is saying, “Don’t you understand? You’re killing people.” Yes, we understand. And then you’re just going to repeat over and over? I want – it’s the villains that fascinate me. I want to expose them with the hope that some people would see themselves in it and think twice.

**John:** Yeah. That’s the goal. So, it feels like the characters we’re going to be looking for is who is the one who has a journey, well it’s probably somebody who starts in that world and leaves that world and recognizes that world for what it actually truly was. That feels like the classic thing.

The villain, it could be a quack. It could be a person who is profiting off that fear. But it probably is more that even kind of accidentally charismatic cult leader. Basically people start to believe him or her and that creates a sense of self-esteem and then they can’t have their self-esteem challenged by science or reality. And that becomes a fascinating loop there.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you can see a story about parents who – let’s say the mother convinces the father that vaccines are terrible. And so they don’t vaccinate their child and then eventually their child dies. And these two people have to come to grips with it and they can’t. And there are ways – by the way, this is one of the most fascinating areas because this is one of the few areas where it’s more likely that women will be the villain. It’s fascinating just demographically. For whatever reason, this seems to be more prevalent among women than men.

So, and that already fascinates me because then I can get out of the usual thing as well. Because we’ve seen a billion male cult leaders. Haven’t seen too many female cult leaders. That’s exciting.

**John:** Yeah. It’s good. All right, our next story area is the Boeing air crashes. And so this is of a relatively recent Boeing redesign of planes. Two of these planes have crashed. A bunch of other countries grounded the planes saying there’s something fundamentally wrong here. The US stalled for a bit and has now grounded those planes. So let’s talk about this situation, this area, and figure out what are the interesting stories in there.

So, our friend John Gatins wrote the movie Flight. So Flight was a great movie about a plane crash or plane near crash and a remarkable pilot.

**Craig:** It was a crash.

**John:** Oh, it was a crash. It was a crash that wasn’t as bad as it could have been.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And there have been other movies about plane crashes. Where are the story areas in this Boeing situation?

**Craig:** Well, we’ve got a few potentials. Sort of the obvious one is the – we’ll call it the big political story. Why are these planes still flying around in the United States while other people cancel them? The problem is that the United States grounded the planes quickly thereafter. So that story gets a little short-circuited. That feels like a little bit of a footnote.

Then there’s the investigation angle, you know, how did this plane crash. And then I think connected to that one is where I would probably start, which is why is this plane this way to begin with? That is fascinating actually. I don’t know if you’ve read about why they think this has happened and what led to it, but quick summary is that they continually need to update these planes to appear as if they’re selling something new and something that is more advanced. And advanced means saves money. That means more fuel-efficient. That means you can fly longer with less fuel, less drag, all that.

And Airbus is Boeing’s main competitor. Airbus is rolling out their new planes. Boeing freaks out. We’ve got to rollout our new planes. We don’t have new planes. Let’s take the planes we have and make them fly cheaper by making the following modifications. And they do. Because technology progresses.

But what they find is in making those modifications – and they’re so slight, right, they’re shaving things off here and there – that in certain circumstances the engines themselves are creating a little bit extra lift. So, if the plane is pointing up a little bit too much then it could theoretically start pointing up a lot too much. So, they just go ahead and build a thing into the system that automatically will lower it back down if that happens. They don’t tell anyone. Or they do, but they bury it in manuals. And the presumption, current presumption, may be proven wrong, is that in both cases of Ethiopian Airlines crash and the Lion Air crash, which look almost identical, that this system engaged incorrectly and the pilots didn’t understand what was happening. And so they started correcting for the system that was correcting and there was a feedback loop and the whole thing came down.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** And so you trace it all the way back to the same story we’ll hear about airlines where they say, my god, we just saved American Airlines $14 million a year by removing one olive from our salad. That’s kind of the same thing that’s going on here, except it’s leading to death apparently.

**John:** Yeah. So I think the challenge of that kind of a story is figuring out how you put characters in there that are compelling. And so you can have the investigator character who is going through and figuring all this out. You could do a more Chernobyl kind of situation where there’s a group of people that we’re following or we’re looking over the course of time. We’re figuring out how we got to this place or we’re moving back and forth to do it.

I don’t know that it’s going to feel especially compelling. I mean, it’s totally possible that we’re going to find that there’s some moment in there that really is groundbreaking and blows it all open, but I do worry that it’s not a movie. It’s really more of a good documentary than a narrative film. The actual just reporting of the facts may be more compelling than – just because unlike Chernobyl we’re not going to have great visuals. We’re not going to have great things to see. We could theoretically have two plane crashes, but there aren’t going to be cinematic moments. Does that make sense?

**Craig:** It does. And since I’ve seen Chernobyl I know that – I’ll just spoil it. The explosion happens very early on, really early. This is a kind of a one-incident plot, right? Plane crashes. What I find fascinating about complex disasters is not the thing that begins it but rather this terrible dragon’s tail that extends behind it that gets worse and worse and worse and worse.

So it never stops in a sense. With something like this you’re absolutely right. And it reminds me a little bit of the Sully movie. Was it called Sully? Was that what it was called? Sully?

**John:** Yeah. Which I never saw. Did you see it?

**Craig:** I saw it. And, you know, well first of all it was fairly apparent to me that they had just created a lot of drama that wasn’t true. The government inquiry board suddenly got very evil. Yeah, I mean, ultimately I just thought this doesn’t need to be here.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** I mean, very good filmmakers. Excellent filmmakers. Great actors. Great people involved. I just ultimately it didn’t feel like it rose to the test for me at least of I didn’t learn anything great other than Sully is a hell of a pilot.

**John:** Yep. Well let’s talk about this story area then. So rather than specifically these crashes or these Boeing planes there’s that sense of what you’re describing if this is really what caused these planes to crash was the kind of algorithm, this kind of automation that people weren’t aware of that had a good intention but went awry. So, you can very much envision as our Teslas start being able to drive themselves more, one bug could result in huge catastrophic problems. And so that sense of unintended consequences of automation, or these things which we rely on to keep stuff functioning properly goes wrong.

So, if for example what if it weren’t that there was one specific problem and this one specific design, but there was something more fundamental and we had to ground all the planes like what happened after 9-11. That is the kind of impact that you see that really does change how we live our daily life.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, air travel is essential to everything. And interestingly in the days following the second Boeing 737 Max crash, Max-8 crash, a number of people started asking American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, the two US carriers that use those planes, “I don’t want to fly on that plane. Can I get my money back? Or is there another plane?” And both airlines essentially said the same thing which was we’ve flown tens of thousands of flights with these with no incident. And that’s true.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s still the safest form of travel there is. And this is one of those areas where like radiation I’ve discovered, there’s certain things that we find to be dread. Certain diseases. We dread certain diseases when we should really be dreading other ones because they’re the ones that are way more likely to kill us. Like we’re terrified of rabies but we don’t seem to be particularly worried about, I don’t know–

**John:** Heart disease.

**Craig:** Heart disease. Exactly. We’re still eating our pastrami sandwich while we’re talking about how terrible rabies is. And really very few people get rabies. Radiation, dying from radiation, I watch people refuse to put their phones up to the heads, but meanwhile the banana they’re eating has more radiation than the phone. By the way, so does flying. People are terrified of flying, but cars are constantly smashing into things. 35,000 people a year I think die on the road. Cars are bursting into flames. We have no problem with it. I was thinking about this in the context of they’re starting to talk about using drones now to move people around. Air cars essentially. And, you know, sooner or later an air car is going to crash. And someone is going to die. And everyone is going to lose their minds.

But that day 15 other people in Southern California alone will die in auto accidents. And no one will even care.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We struggle with this.

**John:** We discount the things that happen every day and focus on those rare things because they’re just so spectacular.

**Craig:** Exactly. They’re spectacular. And ultimately we know, well, if I get into a car accident I could survive that. If I get into a plane accident, no. And that’s what terrifies us. We’re not in control of the plane. Something else is.

In the case of this story I think there is something fascinating about the notion of how we put things in the hands of computers and then we’re terrified that the computers will let us down. But almost every single time, in fact, sorry, every single time when the computer lets us down is because a human has let us down. The computers aren’t writing their own code.

**John:** They will someday, but not yet.

**Craig:** Not yet.

**John:** Not yet.

**Craig:** [laughs] Not yet. So, what happened here was something akin to when a doctor gives you a pill to solve a problem, it does except it creates a new problem, so he gives you a pill to solve that problem. And you get pill on top of pill. And in this case it seems like they’re solving one problem that creates another problem, to they make a new thing to solve that problem, but it creates a new problem. This is a human thing. It’s about money.

**John:** Yep. All right. Something else we can’t control is the weather and this winter has been–

**Craig:** I can.

**John:** I always forget you have weather control. You and Storm from X-Men are our weather controllers. This winter has had some spectacular extreme events in weather across the US. We’ll link to two articles, one about the historic number of avalanches in Colorado. Another one about the Bomb Cyclone which is what they’re calling this huge winter–

**Craig:** Bomb Cyclone.

**John:** Bomb Cyclone!

**Craig:** Bomb Cyclone!

**John:** This huge winter storm complex that has sort of parked in places of the US. So let’s talk about extreme winter and what kinds of movies we can find in what’s happening in this big winter not-wonderland. Horrorland.

**Craig:** Weather is tough, right? I mean, because it’s slow and what we generally end up with are movies like The Day After Tomorrow where it’s cataclysmic, supernaturally cataclysmic weather where we’re taking it and speeding it up so it’s happening at a geo-storm. You know? And so it’s science-fiction essentially. Because what we don’t know really how to do is make a story out of a two-degree increase in average temperature in an area.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s try to separate that out because I think it’s hard to make the climate change movie because it’s just hard to sort of see the actual thing. We can talk about that another time, but like showing that is really hard to do even though it’s probably much more important than any given storm.

But we do have templates for survival stories in extreme weather.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The good thing about weather is it’s a disruption of ordinary daily life which is fertile ground for narrative. Because it breaks characters out of their usual routines and being broken out of their usual routine we can see them do things and take chances and go on journeys they wouldn’t otherwise take.

**Craig:** Yeah. Human versus nature is a classic. And there’s this inner sense we have when we watch those narratives that what we’re seeing is the human finally understanding who they are and the depths of what they can do because they’ve been pitted against nature. It speaks to an innate human desire to master nature. Right? I will beat you. I will defeat you. And you won’t beat me.

And we like those stories. We like them but they often are very similar. You just see – you find ways in where, OK, what makes The Perfect Storm better than, you know, this movie about the river overflowing. And you find the differences, but there is a real formula to it. Doesn’t mean bad. I like a good formula movie. But in this case I wonder if out of this new round of stuff the most story valuable thing that has come out is just the phrase Bomb Cyclone because, I mean, how is Bomb Cyclone already not a movie on – which channel makes Sharknado?

**John:** I think it’s Sci-Fi Channel, yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like it just seems like Bomb Cyclone is terrifying.

**John:** Well, some of what’s happening in this last round is that we’re having snow storms in places that are not used to snow, and that can be fun, you can do a comedy where it’s like this snow day in Atlanta. Like they just don’t have – completely out of context for what they’re sort of used to.

**Craig:** That’s a good idea. Good idea. Stop there. That’s a great idea. To me, somebody should make that movie. That’s funny. Snow Day in Atlanta. I love that.

**John:** That sense of everyone is knocked off their normal routine. No one knows how to deal with this thing. So it’s a fish out of water story in some ways, too.

**Craig:** It’s a fish out of water story, but then it gets people to do stuff. And then things that maybe you wouldn’t have dealt with you deal with. It’s classic comedy stuff. And somebody falls in love. And there’s a snowman. There’s a snow fight. But it’s fun.

**John:** It’s fun.

**Craig:** It’s fun.

**John:** It’s fun.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** Classic other template for this is trapped, basically where you have characters stuck together in a place where they have to deal with a thing. For some reason we are fascinated with storms trapping characters at motels. I can think of so many examples of that. Where characters are forced to interact in ways they would not otherwise be interacting. Drama. Thriller. Those are sort of the classic ways to get into this. But I guess what’s important is in all these situations the weather is an inciting incident. It’s a reason why these characters are in this situation. But it’s rarely the actual villain. Because the weather is not personified in a way. It’s not a dragon you can defeat.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right.

**John:** You just get through it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Apparently everyone on planet earth saw Bird Box on Netflix.

**John:** I never saw it.

**Craig:** I’ve seen some of it. I won’t spoil anything. The bad guy, the monsters, whatever you are, you don’t even see them. That’s the point. You don’t see them. So they might as well be the weather. The plot is if you look at them then you go crazy and want to kill yourself. So you can’t look at them, so what you end up with is people trapped together in a house with this bad weather/alien presence outside. And the personified villain – so Eric Heisserer who wrote that script clearly understood exactly what you just said in a way that Shyamalan did not when he made The Happening. Because he thought the wind will be scary enough, or plants. They will not be.

And so what Eric Heisserer very smartly figured out early on in his writing process – I haven’t talked to him, I just know this is what happened – he said, oh my god, the weather isn’t personally scary. So he essentially created two tiers of effects. This is a very screenwriter solution but it works. Most people who look at this thing will go crazy and kill themselves. Some people will go crazy but basically go and evangelize and try and get other people to look at the thing.

**John:** Ah.

**Craig:** And therein you have your personified villain. It’s essential for a movie about the weather/aliens.

**John:** Another good example I can think of is Stephen King’s The Fog. And so you have a bunch of characters trapped in a supermarket, surrounded by this supernatural fog. And it’s the dynamics of those characters within that space and them jockeying for power is really what you’re following. The same can be said for The Walking Dead where the zombies are weather.

**Craig:** They’re weather. Exactly. We have seen the enemy and it is us. So, Stephen King does the exact same thing in The Dome. You know, OK, let me trap you. You’re facing a common enemy. And let me watch you rip yourselves to shreds instead.

**John:** Yep. So, I think if we’re going to do a movie about the Bomb Cyclone or any of this extreme weather it’s probably going to fall into either the snow day in Atlanta template or here is an ensemble drama about characters trapped in a situation. Those feel like the natural ways to do it. Because I don’t think we want another Goldblum situation where someone is explaining the weather. That doesn’t feel like–

**Craig:** [laughs] Goldblum situation.

**John:** But honestly you could stick Jeff Goldblum in all three of these movies that we’ve pitched today. So, you can definitely see him being the plan expert who is telling you I warned them not to do this but they did it anyway.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. Exactly. Where do the Madea movies take place, by the way?

**John:** Oh, I don’t know.

**Craig:** I mean, I think he shoots them all around Atlanta and Georgia.

**John:** It feels like they should be in Atlanta.

**Craig:** So Madea’s Snow Day just feels like–

**John:** Done.

**Craig:** How is Tyler Perry not already writing that?

**John:** The poster, just make the poster and the movie follows.

**Craig:** Madea’s Snow Day. I would actually see that.

**John:** [laughs] I would see Madea’s Snow Day, too.

**Craig:** I would. I would see Madea’s Snow Day. I have no problem with that. None.

**John:** All right. If you have ideas for other How Would This Be a Movie do send them our way because we do gather those up together and Megana will put them in a nice little package and we’ll look at them again. I think it’s always fun to look at these areas because honestly that’s what Craig and I kind of do all day. Just random things are thrown in our general direction and we have to say like, oh, what kind of movie is this. And that’s what kind of movie it is.

**Craig:** If you become a writer in Hollywood, and I think a lot of you would like to be, those of you who are not already, this is what you do a lot of the time. This is it. So, if you hate the idea of doing this, hmm, mm. That’s all I got to say.

**John:** Yep. To bring this all back together I would say that in any of these movies that we’re sort of half-pitching here it’s going to come down to what is that final moment. What is the takeaway from this thing? Because if it’s just like a bunch of weather happens or a plane crashes that’s not a movie. It has to be about what is the last thing you’re taking from this thing that made it worthwhile to be listening to this pitch, to be reading this script, to be watching this movie.

**Craig:** 100%. These two things are not unrelated.

**John:** Great. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have a Kickstarter for my One Cool Thing. It is the Humblewood Campaign Setting for the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. So you and I have both encountered these things that are Kickstarters that do a special new little world for within the DND universe. Humblewood is absolutely adorable.

**Craig:** It is.

**John:** So, I first came across these because Leesha Hannigan who is an artist who did some work for us for One Hit Kill, she has some of her characters in this. They are these adorable foxes with swords and rabbits and mice. And it looks absolutely incredible. So, just encourage you to check out the Humblewood Campaign Setting for Dungeons and Dragons.

If you don’t play DND you’re not going to get a tremendous amount out of this, but it’s worth looking at the artwork because it’s just really incredible.

**Craig:** And it does seem like if you are introducing your kids–

**John:** Oh my god, it would be perfect.

**Craig:** Yeah. Particularly, you know, not every kid likes the kind of classic monster stuff, and blood and guts, and brains with sharp teeth sticking out of them and all that stuff. This is definitely more kid-friendly. It’s softer but it’s cuddly. But it’s still DND so you still get to kill stuff. I mean, come on. But you’re doing it with an adorable mice character named Jerbeen, or sorry that’s his race. He’s a Jerbeen, which means he’s a mouse person. It’s adorable. Adorable.

**John:** And Aline Brosh McKenna will of course love the owl knight, a Strig, and Aline loves owls. But, I mean, come on.

**Craig:** She loves owls. And then there’s Corvum – looks like sort of Necromancy/Crow guy. Very good. If you love birds, and you love DND. No, it is. It’s adorable. It’s absolutely adorable. Don’t worry about the it not happening. Their goal was $20,000 and they’re currently at $127,000.

And here’s a thought. Make some stuff for DND. People like it.

**John:** They do like it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I love it. My One Cool Thing is an article from NewScientist.com. We will include a link in the show notes of course. And it’s fascinating. I did not know this. Here’s the headline: Humans couldn’t pronounce “f” and “v” sounds before farming developed. Like how many F sounds are in that sentence itself?

So essentially a group of linguists have determined that our jaws before agriculture were aligned in a certain way where it was all about chewing hard food. And because our jaws were aligned in a certain way we couldn’t actually align things so that the bottom teeth could touch the top lift to make “f” or “v.” It just didn’t work.

**John:** It’s top teeth and bottom lip, right?

**Craig:** Sorry, did I say bottom teeth and top lip? I meant bottom lip and top teeth. You’re absolutely right. What if I was like, oh, is that how you say it?

**John:** I tried to picture like an orc doing it.

**Craig:** Exactly. But what happened with agriculture once we started to farm our food became easier to chew. And it led to changes in human jaws and teeth. And thus with the jawbone not having to do as much work it doesn’t grow to be so large and now you can make F and V sounds.

**John:** That’s nice.

**Craig:** I love stuff like this.

**John:** I love evolutionary biology. I love how stuff all fits together. And sometimes it can be magical thinking, like oh it must be this way. And who knows maybe they’ll find that this isn’t quite accurate for some reason. But it does track and make sense and also reminds me that humans have been around for a long time. There used to be many different species of humans in our sort of giant family. We ended up doing different things because of where we ended up. It’s cool.

**Craig:** I love it. I love anything that reminds me of how much animalistic meat blobs we all are.

**John:** Yeah. That we’re mammals.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, we’re special mammals but we’re mammals. We’re mammals. We’re meat.

**John:** We’ve got big brains and we’ve got really nimble hands and that got us a lot.

**Craig:** Thank god for soft food. It’s my favorite food.

**John:** Soft food is so, so good.

**Craig:** The best.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Jim Launch and Jim Bond. 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.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts and Stitcher and wherever you listen to podcasts. If you’re there leave us a review. That helps people find the show.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. We’ll have links to the articles we talked about. You’ll also find transcripts there. They go up within the week of the episode coming out.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. It’s two bucks a month to listen to those back episodes.

**Craig:** $2 a month. Come on.

**John:** Come on. We also sell packs of 50 episodes if you just want to buy those. They are at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, lovely talking about all these things with you.

**Craig:** John, another great episode of Scriptnotes.

**John:** And I’ll talk to you next week.

**Craig:** Bye.

**John:** Bye.

* [Aladdin](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foyufD52aog) in theaters May 24th!
* [Chernobyl](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMlwjCID3Io) first episode on HBO May 6th.
* Unvaccinated Boy Got [Tetanus](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/well/oregon-child-tetanus-vaccine.html), and Ohio teen defies parents and gets [vaccine](https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/03/05/health/ap-us-med-senate-teen-vaccine.html?module=inline).
* Trump grounds [Boeing 737 planes](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/13/18264348/trump-boeing-737-max-faa-emergency-order)
* [Extreme Avalanches]((https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-47559181/why-is-colorado-having-so-many-avalanches)) in Colorado and [Bomb Cyclone](https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703352564/bomb-cyclone-paralyzes-central-u-s-bringing-snow-floods-and-dangerous-winds) Storm
* Humblewood Campaign Setting for DND [kickstarter](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hitpointpress/humblewood-campaign-setting-for-5e-dnd?ref=user_menu)
* [Why Humans started saying “f” and “v”](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2196580-humans-couldnt-pronounce-f-and-v-sounds-before-farming-developed/)
* New Highland 2 [videos and tutorials](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOJ7j13MYughtFygR1KYIRw/featured)
* We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
* You can now [order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by James Llonch and Jim Bond ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/392_The_Final_Moment.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.