• 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 523: A Screenwriter’s Guide to Bullshitting, Transcript

November 9, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/a-screenwriters-guide-to-bullshitting).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode uses one not particularly bad word that’s already in the title of the show, so you probably know it’s going to come up. But anyway we warned you.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** And this is Episode 523 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we discuss the fundamental skill of bullshitting. Why and when screenwriters need to use it. We’ll also talk about the uses of expertise and answer some listener questions that have been stacked up for far too long. And in our bonus segment for premium members after Craig’s rant last week about college we’ll ask the question what should an American do between the ages of 18 and 22.

**Craig:** That’s a good one.

**John:** Yeah. Do some follow up there. But first some sort of news and follow up. That movie Dune, it made a ton of money.

**Craig:** Yeah. It did really well.

**John:** Good on Dune. So it made $41 million over the weekend. Same weekend it was also free on HBO Max, so that was good. Happy for Dune.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Box office is back, baby.

**Craig:** And I’m happy for Denis. He’s a spectacularly good guy.

**John:** I’m going to put a link in the show notes to this article by Branden Katz doing some of the movie math on it. Because we’ve talked about this on the show before. How do you measure success? We used to always measure success of a feature film based on what that box office was and what that was going to translate to down the road.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And we could sort of calculate all of that stuff. But when a movie opens on streaming and theatrical at the same time and in this case they’ve decided to make a sequel based on how successful it was, well how are they gauging success? And so he sort of walks through this is probably the number of viewers. This is the reception it got. This is the reviews it got. This is the amount of fan buzz it got. It’s tougher than it used to be.

**Craig:** And look it was always difficult in the sense that nobody ever really knew what movies cost, because the reported budgets were always nonsense. Nobody knew how much money was exactly spent on marketing. Everything was very opaque. That’s the way the studios like it. But in the case of Dune I think the best indicator we have that it is at least in a binary sense successful is that they have gone ahead and green lit Dune Part 2, or Dune Part 1.2.

**John:** Yeah. Exactly. More follow up. Man, we just really have forgotten things and sort of messed up things. So we have a couple things to knock out quickly.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Last week we talked about sex scenes and I said I’d never written a sex scene. And then people wrote in and were like what about Go your first movie has a three-way sex scene it. And I’m like, oh you know what, you’re right. My very first movie had an extensive sex scene that was on plot and was there. So, I have written sex scenes.

**Craig:** That’s how old we are. We forgot the shit we wrote.

**John:** Oh, you know what else you forgot?

**Craig:** What?

**John:** Which one was Mr. Roper and which one was Mr. Furley?

**Craig:** Totally screwed that one up. So Mr. Roper was Norman Fell. And he was the first one. And then he and Mrs. Roper left and they were replaced by swinging bachelor Don Knotts playing Mr. Furley. So that’s absolutely true. And, yeah, sorry.

**John:** We regret the error. Dean who wrote in about this said that “The Mr. Roper character was asexual to the chagrin of his wife.” I’m not sure if he was asexual. He just didn’t want to have sex with his wife.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** And that’s not asexual. It was very much a trope of that time. He was Al Bundy before his time.

**Craig:** Yes. A very sort of Generation Z/Millennial interpretation of what was a classic ‘80s joke about a husband who is so tired of having sex with their wife that they no longer wanted to have sex with their wife at all. Then they were like, oh, clearly this is an asexual person. Nah. They didn’t know about that in 1970. At least not on TV.

**John:** We talked about blind spots last week and we were mentioning that it’s easy to think of our protagonists having blind spots in comedies, but it’s not as common in dramas. And just like when we talked about we can’t think of any examples of female characters making ethical choices, of course people wrote in with a bunch of good examples. So do you want to take Robert’s example here?

**Craig:** Yeah, Robert writes, “In The Remains of the Day, both the film and the novel, the protagonist, James Stevens, played by Anthony Hopkins in the movie, has so repressed his own emotions and needs in service to his employer, Lord Darlington,” best name ever, “he is incapable to recognize that he loves Sarah Kenton, played by Emma Thompson.” Side note from me, Craig. Everybody loves Emma Thompson.

**John:** Oh, how can you not love Emma Thompson?

**Craig:** She’s amazing. “He never breaks through his repression to understand the full depth of the affections. The novel is amazing as it is told from a first-person point of view and it is clear to the reader how Stevens feels, even as it remains hidden from the character.” That’s a pretty good example.

**John:** That’s a really good example and I like that, so thank you for writing in with that. And also good to bring up first-person versus third-person. So, movies are going to be kind of third-person because we’re watching these characters do these things. We don’t have access to their internal monologues, unless there is a voice over, which could also happen or work.

**Craig:** Or the talking to camera.

**John:** Yeah. They could just turn over their shoulder like a Fleabag situation.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Yeah. So, blind spots. They do exist in dramas. So, people keep bringing them up.

We talked a lot about Netflix’s numbers and how Netflix is changing how they’re reporting their numbers. Max wrote in to say, “In my house there are four different adults that watch Netflix shows. We all have different schedules. If each one of us watches the same program at different times then it’s four views, but what if we all watch at the same time, or two and two? The numbers will come out differently. How do you track that? If one of us watches a show for two minutes and turns it off, but later someone else returns to complete it in the same profile does that count as both metrics? And how many accounts are shared outside of the household? How do you track that? Use IP addresses? It will never be the same as ticket sales. Total hours of viewing or how many times it is watched, more than 75%, is probably the best metric.”

So what Max is bringing up here is a classic TV ratings problem. You kind of don’t know how many people are in the room to watch these things. Nielsen boxes over the time have tried to gauge how many folks are in the room, or asking you to punch in how many people are watching. And we always have to remember Nielsen was doing this measurement for a very specific reason which is they needed to be able to demonstrate to advertisers how many people were seeing their ads. That’s not quite what Netflix needs to do. They really want to know for their own purposes and I guess also for public reporting what shows are successful.

It comes back to the same question we had about Dune. What is success for one of these programs?

**Craig:** No one knows. I mean, Nielsen would have people fill out diaries. So Nielsen worked very different than Netflix does. So the streamers, they have the full population of data. Every single person that does anything on Netflix, that data is recorded by Netflix. The way it used to be for you youngsters is that it was done the way that polling was is done. You would pick a sample population that was meant to represent a large population like the United States. That sample population was, I don’t know, a couple of thousand different homes. I mean, it wasn’t a lot. And each one of those homes would not only have a little box that recorded what they watched and what channel it was on and for how long, but people would also be asked to fill out a diary that said I watched this and then I turned it off. Or I was in the room with myself and my daughter. And they understood how old everybody was and what everyone’s gender was and they could sort of break things out that way.

You’re right that Netflix doesn’t need to know necessarily how many people are watching at any given moment, but then you have to ask why are they measuring it then at all and why are they reporting it. And the truth is I don’t even know if they know. I don’t know why anyone is doing any of this. If the point is to get more subscribers, I don’t even know how you could argue that just because some people saw something a lot that’s why they subscribe or keep subscribing. It doesn’t even equate.

I mean, everybody watched Squid Games, except for me so far. I’ll get there. But is that why people – did people subscribe to Netflix to see Squid Games? Or did they subscribe to Netflix for something else that motivated them in a specific way? Was anybody thinking of canceling Netflix but then Squid Games came along? How does this work? I don’t know.

**John:** I just wanted you to say Squid Games a few more times so that our listeners who are shouting, “It’s Squid Game, without an S.”

**Craig:** Squid Games. No, no, I saw Squid Game. I’m talking Squid Games. Oh, you haven’t you seen Squid Games?

**John:** Oh, it’s much better. It’s the sequel.

**Craig:** I think it should have been called Squid Games. It’s funny.

**John:** It’s all about calamari.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, what’s more fun? Squid Game or Squid Games?

**John:** I want to see the Squid Games.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** And sometimes you can’t even talk about the official Squid Games. You just have to say the big games, because the Squid Game is a trademark like the Olympics and you sort of can’t do anything in that space.

**Craig:** Right. The Olympic.

**John:** The Olympic, yeah.

**Craig:** I really enjoyed the Olympic Game.

**John:** I love the Olympic Game.

**Craig:** There’s a point in your life where you cross over some number, I don’t know what it is, but maybe it’s 50, where what used to be embarrassing is now – I’m endearing myself to me by saying Squid Games. I am falling in love with myself as a cute older guy.

**John:** My mother-in-law would always add an apostrophe-S to the end of any business name or restaurant. And so it’s like we’re going down to Chipotle’s to get some food.

**Craig:** That’s a very Boston thing. They would add an S to everything. Dunkin’s. There’s no reason for Dunkin’s. There’s no guy named Dunkin. It’s not even spelled like the name. They don’t care. Dunkin’s. Going down to Dunkin’s. My god.

**John:** Ben Affleck and his Dunkin’s. I miss the Ben Affleck height of Covid pandemic and the deliveries and the paparazzi photos. That was a good time. That was some quality content. I miss that.

**Craig:** I don’t even know what you’re talking about. What happened?

**John:** So when Ben Affleck was dating Ana de Armas.

**Craig:** He was? I didn’t even know that.

**John:** Oh yeah. They were terrific together. And it ended poorly. And then the assistant was throwing out a standee of her in the trash and that was not a good sign.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** But when they were in their height they were always going to get Dunkin’ Donuts and basically iced coffees from Dunkin’ Donuts and it just felt wholesome and great. And Ana de Armas is fantastic.

**Craig:** We don’t know that. I mean, if you throw a standee of somebody out–

**John:** I don’t know what she’s like to date. I just know that as an actress, she is one of the best things of the Bond movie by far. I love her.

**Craig:** She’s a terrific actor. I just don’t know what it’s like to date her. If somebody is hurling a standee of you into the garbage, I don’t know. She might be great to date. My question is did they have one of those cute portmanteau names like – what was it with J-Lo? It was Benflo or something? I can’t remember–

**John:** Bennifer.

**Craig:** Bennifer, right. So with her was it–?

**John:** I’m going to invite on Megana Rao to see if she has any insight into what the portmanteau, or if there was a portmanteau to Ben and Ana.

**Megana Rao:** I don’t remember there being one. But Craig do you know that Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck are together again?

**Craig:** You know what? I did see a little bit of something about that. That much made it through my dumbness. My Squid Games obliviousness. Yeah, I got that much. You know, this is not new. When I was a kid I remember – and we would get TV Guide, which Megana was a book that had the list of shows that were across the four channels you got. They loved to go on and on about Elizabeth Taylor and her 19th husband or whatever and you know they would always come back to each other, then leave, and come back, and leave, and on again/off again. This has been going on forever. I like it.

**John:** I like it, too. All right, back to Netflix and the numbers. And so you’re talking about the Nielsen numbers. I was in a Nielsen family for a short time. I should say I wasn’t stolen by a Nielsen family. My family became a Nielsen family for about three months, and so we had to fill out the little diary log. And it was exciting. I felt like I had a job. I watched this show and I’m going to record it in this log. But it was before they even had – I don’t think we had the device to track, so we just had to fill out the log manually. And they paid you something, but it wasn’t a lot. And then eventually they stopped asking us, so I guess they were rotating their samples.

**Craig:** Or maybe they got the sense that you were really into it and they were like this is throwing our numbers off. There’s a human computer doing the log.

**John:** I was staying up extra late to watch the actual thing. Making sure that people could count my Fantasy Island viewing.

**Craig:** That is a problem.

**John:** Michael from LA writes, “Do you think Netflix’s pivot to ‘hours watched’ from ‘numbers of views’ has to do with an anticipated battle with the guilds over how to measure backend streaming compensation in the next round of negotiations? I would imagine an ‘hours watched’ metric would be more favorable to the streamers in calculations pertaining to the success of a movie/show since their entire business model is ‘keep them watching.’ Like Craig, I am suspicious of this and how it will ultimately be used to pay creatives as little as possible.”

**Craig:** Well they don’t need to make that switch to do that. It doesn’t matter how they report things. They have all of the data. So if the Writers Guild or the Directors Guild or SAG/AFTRA were interested in having them show us number of views versus hours watched they have that number, too. None of it matters. Whatever the data is, and again I don’t know how to skin this cat, it’s ridiculous, but whatever that data is they’re going to argue to pay as little per data point as possible.

**John:** Yeah. Here’s what it comes down to be I think the argument is that it’s clear that some shows/movies are incredibly popular and successful. And classically writers, and actors, and directors have been paid residuals when things are tremendously popular and successful. So for theatrical films it’s when it releases on home video and it reaches paid cable and other places, that’s how we get residuals is those successful things do a lot of business in those secondary markets and they therefore generate residuals.

When we don’t have a secondary market, when everything is made for Netflix and is sticking on Netflix or some other streamer, there still is a measure of success for those things. And we need to make sure that the writers, and actors, and directors, and other folks who would normally get residuals are rewarded for that success. And so there’s many ways you can calculate that and figure out what that actually means, but you’re going to have to figure out a way to do that that is fair. And that’s going to be a huge discussion.

So, I do wonder if Netflix is trying to – I don’t think it’s really about this guild negotiation – but I think they’re trying to frame the conversation by putting out this number as being a meaningful number.

**Craig:** I don’t think that’s why they did it. I think they did it because they knew that they had gotten feedback, I suspect, from their debt holders, because Netflix is a debt-burning company, that their numbers were bullshit. Because they are bullshit. And every new Netflix show is the most watched show in the history of mankind. You can’t hit that bell too many times. At some point people are like wait a second. Hold on. No, five billion didn’t watch such-and-such. Squid Games, yes. Squid Game, I don’t know.

But I think that they are making that change because some people asked them to do it, but it doesn’t matter. None of it matters. There is a very complicated math that needs to be figured out. There is a model for it. So in paid television, or I mean now that’s streaming too, but in the old days of HBO – HBO had a little bit of original programming and then it had a lot of movies that it showed. And you would get residuals from the showings of those movies. And how they figured out how many people watched that, I guess maybe it was a Nielsen-y thing because it was all linear.

**John:** I don’t think it was based on how many people were watching. I think it was based on the license fee that HBO paid. And so that’s the thing. There was a license fee paid and that same thing happened with broadcast television or pay cable or free cable.

**Craig:** There you go. So that’s something. Now that just covers the movies but it doesn’t cover the huge landfills full of original content that Netflix puts out there and how they carve that up, since they’re not licensing it. I don’t know.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s a concept called an imputed license fee which basically means how much this would be worth on an open market.

**Craig:** Oh god. But that just sounds like an endless series of lawsuits.

**John:** Yes. Here’s the most extreme example that will never actually come to pass but I’ll pitch it as a way of thinking about it. In the world of really expensive $100 million paintings it becomes this question of like how much is that painting worth. And really the way you can figure out how much that painting is worth is how much it would go for on an open market. If someone owns this thing and you want to put a wealth tax on it, you want to make them pay tax on owning this thing, you have to figure out how much that painting is worth. You say, OK, you tell us how much the painting is worth and we can choose to then put it on auction and see if someone wants to pay more for it.

Basically you can’t underestimate the value of it because if we think you’re underestimating it too much it has to go up to auction.

**Craig:** Assessment is a thing. I mean, we assess real estate in this way. And we assess art. We assess jewelry. But assessing content is not a field. Meaning there is not centuries’ worth of practice assessing these things. And I don’t know how you assess them, particularly when the data involved is almost – how do they assess homes, art, jewelry? They use comps.

**John:** Yeah. And so you’re looking for comps and that’s actually one of the big challenges. Classically we could say, because this has come up at other times, too. You know, someone might sell a package of films, like Sony might sell a package of films to ABC. And so, OK, how much are each of the individual films getting? You can look at the comps for a Charlie’s Angels and say this movie made this much money in the box office and had this on home video. It’s this kind of movie. Here are movies that are like that. This what percentage that should get.

So, that history of comps has been a thing, but when everything is made for streamers and there never is an open market on anything comps sort of go away.

**Craig:** Right. They mean nothing. And the data is all over the place. I don’t know how this is going to work out. All I do know is that Netflix will obviously work very hard to pay out as little as possible. And hopefully the unions work as hard as they can for us to get paid as much as possible.

**John:** Yeah. And we’re saying Netflix but of course we mean all the streamers that are doing the same.

**Craig:** But mostly Netflix, well, and Amazon.

**John:** Well Disney+.

**Craig:** Disney+ and HBO Max.

**John:** Paramount Plus.

**Craig:** Paramount Plus. The streamers that are tied to traditional film studios and networks have been doing this for a long time. And there is a practice of – even though we have had some very hard fought battles and they have not always treated us the way we would like, in fact they rarely do, we at least have gotten to some sort of equilibrium with them where they are used to paying out in a certain fashion for the stuff that we do. And this has always been a union town going back to the ‘40s.

Netflix and Amazon are from Silicon Valley which is the most anti-union industry probably in the world. When you look at the amount of money they make and their ability to handle unionized labor versus how many unions are actually there, I think they are the most anti-union. And they hate paying out money. They like sucking money up. Same even with Apple. So Apple, Netflix, and Amazon come from a very different culture and we’re dealing with that right now and we’re going to deal with that for a long time.

There was a moment in the 2000s where I think the unions were excited that these new entities were coming in because they were going to force the traditional companies to kind of have competition and pay more. And all I can say is LMAO.

**John:** At the high end I think rates probably do go up.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** If you look at the giant deals made for the giant things, yes. And there’s been more work overall, but the actual median pay of a person working as a writer I don’t think has increased because of them.

**Craig:** No. Big shock. Silicon Valley came to Hollywood and created a system whereby there is a dwindling amount of people who are becoming mega rich and everybody else is kind of getting the shaft. Someone get me my fainting couch. How could we have not seen this coming?

**John:** Well Craig but once we’re all writing for Meta, Facebook’s new–

**Craig:** You know, side note…

**John:** Umbrella project, it will be great.

**Craig:** I’m so upset because as you know I love puzzles. And meta puzzles are a thing. I’ve been doing meta puzzles for a long time. Remember the one we did at the – and we’ll bring it back now that Covid is, we have our vaccines to protect us against Covid. David Kwong and I did a puzzle hunt at the Magic Castle. You did one, you participated in one. And that had multiple meta puzzles.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And now fucking Facebook has taken it.

**John:** Taken the word meta.

**Craig:** And ruined it with their garbage company. Oh, god, did you watch that android? You know, I give you shit.

**John:** I’ve tried to watch pieces of it. I watched a supercut of him saying meta and saying world.

**Craig:** He makes you look like Zero Mostel in Fiddler on the Roof. Do you understand what I’m saying?

**John:** [laughs] I do. Yeah.

**Craig:** It is unreal.

**John:** I’m always really sympathetic towards people who come off a little robotic.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, no, he’s unreal. Literally. I think he was synthesized. What have we done? What have we done as a people? We’ve let this fucking weirdo – I mean we did a language warning. Anyway, now I’m going to get assassinated by the Meta police.

**John:** Or is it going to be a Meta assassination? So they’ll change what it means to be alive in a way that it’s like killing you.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. I will be disconnected from everybody. Exciting.

**John:** One last bit about blind spots. So also on the same episode we talked about our productivity because people were asking how are you so productive. Shauna from Vancouver wrote in a great piece. I’m going to sort of summarize it here, but saying it sounds like one of your blind spots might actually be that you’re acknowledging that you have Megana, for example, to help keep us focused and on tap. We have support staff. We have families. We have the resources to be able to do this stuff. And so the same way that Beyoncé has the same number of hours in the day that we do, yes, and she also has a really good support staff who do stuff.

**Craig:** Sorry, who is Megana?

**John:** Oh, you got Bo.

**Craig:** I’m sorry. We do have a Megana blind spot. I think about Megana all the time. I’m incredibly thankful for Megana.

**Megana:** You don’t have a blind spot.

**Craig:** You sound scared like, oh my god, no, no, no, you don’t—

**Megana:** No, you guys are great, yeah.

**Craig:** You’re like the Peloton lady. Now you’re a hostage. No blind spot. Please. Please sirs.

**Megana:** No, but I put that in there because you guys also have really incredible partners and you have amazing staff around you. And you support them really well. And I meant to bring that up during our discussion, too.

**Craig:** Well thank you. I am definitely very aware of what everyone does for me and with me. And I do think about it a lot. And I try and thank them and be as grateful as I can without being annoying about it, or weird. But, no, I’m extraordinarily aware of it. Though one blind spot that I think I do have in connection with this is sometimes it is easy for me to underestimate how much control I have over other people’s lives.

When you pay someone’s salary you have an enormous amount of control over their life. You can make decisions very casually that mean an enormous amount to them. So, I do try and remind myself of that to make sure that I am not just taking it all for granted. It’s a weird thing to employ a person, it’s an almost uncomfortable amount of influence over the quality of their life.

**John:** Yeah. An example I could think of is I have a personal trainer for many, many years. And so if I say, oh, I’m moving to Paris for the year, he’s like lost a client for a year and that’s a lot. Or if I just say, oh, I’m going on a three-week vacation, that’s three weeks he’s not getting an opportunity to train me. And so that is a kind of thing I do need to be sort of more aware of.

I guess my other blind spot is sometimes I forget people who have young children and having been a parent of a young child just remembering like oh my god that is just so much work and that’s hard for them. There’s periods of the day where they just cannot be doing anything other than parenting and now having a teenager who is sort of largely self-sufficient I can forget that at times.

**Craig:** That’s absolutely true. Children as we have said many times suck your life away.

**John:** They do. Lastly, we need a better term for this, because it’s not follow up. It’s sort of like a flash forward. It’s a set up for a future episode. We want to talk about whether screenwriting competitions are ever worth it. And so we have often on the show talked shit about screenwriting competitions that we feel are worthless, but are even like the big names, even like the Nicholl, is it worth it at all? And so we would love people to write in to Megana with the subject header “screenwriting competitions” so she knows it can go into the proper folder. If you have an experience winning one of these competitions or sort of first-hand experience that’s helpful for this conversation we would love to hear it.

If you are a person who loves to make spreadsheets of things and want to do some work figuring out these are the folks who won these things or were finalists in these competitions and where they are now, that would be also useful if you decide you want to do that. And if you’re deciding to do that and you want to help other people do that Megana might be able to coordinate that a little bit. So, we really want to take a look at whether screenwriting competitions are actually ever worth it for an aspiring screenwriter.

**Craig:** I’m not going to attempt to influence your answer.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** But I’m thinking an answer.

**John:** I know you’re thinking an answer.

**Craig:** I’m screaming it in my brain.

**John:** I want to be driven by data and not anecdotes.

**Craig:** 100%. I would expect nothing less from a lifeform such as yourself.

**John:** Let’s get into our marquee topic which is bullshitting. We have been bullshitting kind of the whole episode.

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**John:** But I want to be a little more specific and granular and jump off from this article I read in Spy Magazine. So Spy Magazine was this amazing magazine in the ‘80s that I absolutely loved that was a New York magazine that was really fun and gossipy about sort of New York media. It had a really specific point of view and tone that later informed Vanity Fair, but also Gawker and a lot of what we see as the voices of online media I think can trace some of their snark back to Spy Magazine. I absolutely loved it.

But one of the features they did which I saw recapped in this book was they invented this guy who was a show business manager named Jack Fine. And so they would use him as a fake person to try to set up, you know, De Niro really wants to be on Full House. And so he’d call Full House and try to get De Niro booked on Full House and record all that fun.

But they decided, you know what, we’re sick of Jack Fine. Let’s kill him. And so they sent out obituary notices to Variety and to all the other trades, Jack Fine, this amazing, legendary talent manager has died. And all these places ran the obituary with his clients he never represented as if it was truth and fact, which was great.

But they went one step further and went to this party where they were talking with all these comedians like did you hear that Jack Fine died. And oh my god, really? And so they were all responding to the death of this person who never existed and telling all these stories about him even though they’d never met him because he never was a person who existed in the world. And it just got me thinking about, oh yeah, I totally see how that happens because I’ve been in that situation and had to sort of bullshit my way through things. Craig, is it familiar to you?

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, it’s familiar. I’m sure everyone – you are in a spot where you feel like either because it would be polite for you to know something, or because you would be normally expected to know something and if you admit you don’t you will look like an idiot, that you attempt to sort of glide through. I mean, there isn’t a human being alive who has been asked and never responded in this fashion – hey, you’ve seen such and such? Oh yeah.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Like every human being has lied about seeing a movie or a television show. Every single one. Now, I haven’t seen Squid Games, but I’m saying–

**John:** But you have strong opinions on it regardless, which is great.

**Craig:** Yeah. And sometimes there’s answers you might get. I mean, Megana, you’re the one person who maybe never lied about this.

**Megana:** Yup. I’ve absolutely never lied about any of this. I’ve seen every movie and TV show and read every book that I’ve claimed to.

**Craig:** So you’ve done it.

**Megana:** Of course.

**John:** And just this week as we were making coffee I confessed I had never seen something and she expressed great relief that like, oh, I’ve never seen that, too. I keep having to pretend that I’ve seen that movie.

**Megana:** And in the sentence before he said he didn’t watch it I was pretending I had seen all seasons of this show.

**Craig:** So it’s The Wire. We’re talking about The Wire, obviously.

**John:** Are we talking about The Wire? Maybe we’re talking about The Wire. I don’t even remember – I mean, there’s so many shows I sort of like nod and don’t admit that I haven’t seen.

**Megana:** The Wire was one thing that came up but we can’t talk about this show because we will–

**Craig:** It’s Chernobyl. I get it.

**John:** All the time I’ve ever brought it up I’ve just been, yeah, because there’s a nuclear thing that happens in the show, right?

**Craig:** You can definitely fake your way through it. I mean, just go on YouTube, watch three clips, and you’ve got it. But sometimes you’ll say like of course I’ve seen it, but god, it’s been forever though. And that gets you off the hook of somebody going so that thing at the end where there was the thing. And you’re like, oh yeah, and then they’re like there was no such thing at the end. You’re a liar. And then you’re like, yup, I am a liar.

**John:** You caught me. So let’s talk about lying versus bullshitting because I would argue that bullshitting is not so much lying, it’s just sort of avoiding an uncomfortable truth. So you’re not trying to actively deceive someone. You’re just trying to get out of an uncomfortable situation that telling the truth would create. So that could be about liking someone’s movie that you didn’t really like very much. It could be about I kind of recognize that name but I don’t I actually have ever met that person. That’s a thing I end up sort of having to do a lot. My sort of go to is yeah I know that name but I don’t think I’ve ever met them. That’s a fair way out of it.

**Craig:** I think that a lot of times bullshitting comes down to trying to fit in. White lies are to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. But I’m not going to hurt anyone’s feelings if someone asks me if I’ve seen and then fill in the movie. I’m just trying to fit in. And I don’t want to look like an idiot and then have the conversation be what’s wrong with you. Because every one of us has failed to see something that apparently we are supposed to have seen.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** All of us. It just happens. And we don’t want that conversation to then be like “What, you what?!” So you just fit in to go along, to get along, because ultimately it doesn’t matter. And bullshitting has always been part of the Hollywood currency. People have always overextended the truth, maybe overextended themselves, what they were capable of.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** There’s a whole category of bullshitting called I’m in a meeting, someone just asked me a question about what something in my story means. I don’t know and I’m going to start bullshitting.

**John:** Oh yeah. Craig, ring-ring, ring-ring.

**Craig:** Hello.

**John:** Craig, hey, it’s your executive on this project on this movie that you’re writing. I wanted to see how the writing is going. How’s it going? Are you going to be able to deliver on time?

**Craig:** Absolutely. It’s going great.

**John:** So, I know you had some concerns about those notes. Were you able to implement those notes? Any problems?

**Craig:** You know what? The concerns I had were entirely about whether I just could figure out how to get those things done, because I knew they were right. And it took me a little time but I think just about all of them have worked. A couple of them I want to talk to you about later, because I ran into some issues, but yeah overall it’s going really well.

**John:** And you’ll let me know if you have any concerns, any problems?

**Craig:** Well, I do have one concern. I haven’t written anything since you sent those. I hate you. I hate everything you said. And I also think I’m bad.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** But other than that everything is going great.

**John:** Yeah. Your notes made me question whether I’m even in the right career. Other than that, everything is good.

**Craig:** I thought about walking into traffic yesterday. Yeah. You can’t tell people the truth at all about that stuff. You do bullshit. And god I don’t even know why they make those calls. They got to know they’re getting the shine, aren’t they?

**John:** Yeah. And now it’s an email so it’s a little bit easier. You’re not put on the spot so much. You can sort of calculate your answer back to stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Oy. So Megana actually brought this up this week. Do you want to talk about sort of like you’re in the room pitching and people ask the follow up questions?

**Megana:** Yeah, so Craig kind of covered this, but like say you’re in a pitch meeting and a producer or an executive asks you a question. I don’t think that they actually expect me or someone to know the answer. Is it better to bullshit it? Like is that what they’re testing? Or do they want me to just be honest and say I’m open to figuring that out with you?

**Craig:** I don’t think that they’re ever looking to see if you have bullshit skills, because ultimately those aren’t particularly valuable to them. I think they’re wondering if you have an answer to this. Somebody will probably ask them the question and they’ll need to pass the answer along. Sometimes when they’re asking those specific questions they’re just looking to add to the arsenal of things that they’re going to fire at somebody to get them to pay you to do a thing. Because they like it. And you can bullshit up to an extent. But once they see the fear and the tap dancing then you are in danger of knocking the Jenga tower over. And at that point it is better to say I don’t want to get out of ahead of myself and give you a bullshit answer. I want to think about that carefully. There is an answer. I have seven-eighths of an answer. Let me come up with the last eighth so that when I say it to you it doesn’t look like I’m just talking.

**John:** I agree with Craig and also what they want is confidence. They want confidence in your ability to find the answer. And so whether you have the answer right then or down the road, what they don’t want to see is panic. They don’t want to see you’re scrambling to get an answer out, or that you haven’t even thought about it at all. So they just want to see – they want to believe in you. And so it’s giving them an answer that makes them believe in you, even if you don’t have the exact right solution for that problem at that moment.

**Megana:** Because usually it is something that I have thought about, but I’m not completely tied down to, and I don’t know how to communicate that.

**Craig:** I think that’s a great way of expressing it. And they’ll know that’s true. They are so used to con artists coming through there. I always feel like if you get pulled over by the highway patrol for speeding just be honest right away. When they come up and they say do you know why I pulled you over? Yup, I was speeding. I was doing this speed. You got me. And they are often so startled that you are not doing the thing that every other person did to them that day, which is what, no, why, I was? Yeah, you know you were. All day long they’re listening to people going what? Me? Yeah.

So if you’re the person who comes in and doesn’t totally go down Bullshit Avenue you will enhance your own credibility in their eyes. It’s just that you can’t only do that. You have to have some answers.

**John:** Yeah. Now let’s talk about the flip side of this, when you realize that someone is bullshitting you and when to call them on it and when to sort of just internally acknowledge that that’s bullshit but I kind of get why they’re doing it and it’s OK. They’re just trying to make this all right. And an example I can think of from early in my career is there was an actor we really wanted for this project and she seemed perfect for it, she seemed she was going to do it, and then she said she’s going to pass because she’s working on a project with her husband who was a filmmaker. And we were like why would she do that because this is a much bigger role and he’s not a big director. And then we realized like, oh, she’s pregnant and didn’t want to say that she was pregnant. And it’s like, oh, that was bullshitting that was a good way out of this situation. And I think you have to sort of allow yourself to acknowledge that that’s bullshit but also be OK with it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Certainly if someone is going through the motions to give you something that’s a little bit nicer than, ah, I didn’t like it, then at least they cared enough to do that. But yeah people – this is what people do. People are liars. Human beings lie all the time. It’s why your characters should be liars. We are all liars. But the extent to which we lie and the impact of those lies and the purpose of those lies differ from person to person.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There is a class of people in Hollywood that I would just call the Lying Class. They don’t make things but they are in the process, they are between the layers of people that make things and the people that pay for things. And a lot of what they do is lie. And sometimes they need to do that because they’re serving two different masters and they have to somehow coordinate between two interests. A company wants to spend as little as possible. The artists want to spend as much as possible. The person in the middle needs to figure out how to get the artist what they need but not a dollar more and they have to sort of bullshit everybody to get to that balanced middle.

I understand it.

**John:** It’s frustrating when you don’t understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. I would say I’m always happier when I feel like someone is bullshitting a little but I can sort of get why they’re doing it. When I see people doing needless lies or just not even malicious lies but just like why would you lie about that. That makes me really nervous when someone has a thing on their resume that’s actually impossible. Then I’m nervous that you might be a bad person and not someone I want in my life.

**Craig:** Well that’s a fraud.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So bullshit is different than fraud. You must look out for fraud. It’s hard to tell the difference at times. But like I said the nature of the bullshitting is where you can look at somebody and go, OK, so you just can’t be trusted at all. There’s nothing real to you. There’s a sociopathic quality. And at times you’re bullshitting pointlessly.

OK, here’s an awesome story. When I was a young man, younger even than Megana, I know, OK, that’s impossible. I was 23 or 24. And I started working at Disney in their marketing department. This was my first real job as like a studio executive. I wasn’t really – I was a director. That’s the lowest level of executive there is. And there was another guy starting there who was working as a vice president and he was also very young. He was like 28. But older than me. And I had been given a task by our boss to do and I was struggling with it. And I was sitting there with this other guy and at one point I just said I don’t think I know what I’m doing here. And what I meant was on this task, like I’m trying to solve this problem but I’m not sure what I was doing. And he got up, walked to the door, closed it, came back over to me and said, “Never say that out loud.”

And I said never say what? And he said, “Never say I don’t know what I’m doing out loud. Ever. Because then people will know.” And I was like, no, no, no, I know what I’m doing, I just don’t know what I’m doing with this right now. Oh, no, I just learned something about you. And that is the terrifying level of bullshitting, when somebody is literally walking around all day going, fact, I have no idea what I’m doing. Answer, bullshit all day long. And there are people that do it.

**John:** Yeah. And what you’re describing is a great character tell and you can sort of imagine that as a character in one of your stories. I’m also thinking about like Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos because some of what she was doing early on felt like the kind of bullshitting you do when you are new startup and you’re trying to sell people on a vision. And so selling people on a vision is embellishing. It’s hyping. But at a certain point it crosses over to, oh, that you know this is not going to work and this is now fraud. Or do you know this? So I think that makes a compelling character. Do they recognize when they’ve crossed over from bullshitting into outright lies. And in this case being investigated for illegal things.

So, that’s an interesting way to talk about bullshitting as not just a thing that we have to do on a daily basis, to a great character arc, a dramatic character arc can be. It can be honestly a blind spot that they don’t realize that they’ve crossed over from bullshitting to outright lies.

**Craig:** You see it in incredibly successful people I think because they’re surrounded by other people who do nothing all day except bullshit, so they’re all bullshitting each other and they forget that it’s so evidently bullshit. And then what ends up happening is you put yourself in a video walking through a weird creepy office space talking about a meta universe and everyone listens to it and goes every single thing you said is bullshit. It’s all bullshit. You’re talking out of your ass. This is bullshit and they don’t know that it sounds like bullshit because other bullshitters are like, well, that’s quality bullshit right there.

**John:** Yeah. Because everyone has this vision of like Steve Jobs and his reality distortion field. And so if I wear a tight black sweater, too, then I must be Steve Jobs.

**Craig:** “At Facebook we’re not a company about technology. We’re a company about people.” Hey, shut up. You’re not. You’re not. You’re a company about neither. You’re a company about making as much money as possible. That is the most ridiculous bullshit I’ve ever heard in my life. And it just got worse and worse from there. Ruined the word meta.

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** So sour about it.

**John:** We have a question that’s sort of in the same space. So, Nick writes in to ask, “I am a military veteran and my brother is the type of veteran you see in movies. I’ll leave it there to keep my clearance. I was curious what is a good path for people with unique life experiences like that to become story consultants like R. Lee Ermey or Dale Dye? Is that a feature or a product? Meaning is there enough there that a military consultant or other specialist could make stories better and earn a living in Hollywood? Is there a market to do so remotely or is this something that writers, directors, producers expect to be on set standing by as needed?”

**Craig:** What a great question. Thank you for that.

**John:** It’s a great question, Nick.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is certainly a thing that people do. I am not sure if the flow of work is steady enough for it to be a full career. It may be something better suited to someone who is transitioning out of career and would like some part time work as an older person. With somebody like R. Lee Ermey what ends up happening is someone is making a movie somewhere and it’s very specific and they reach out and a friend of a friend says oh here’s a guy who used to be a drill sergeant and he can tell you exactly how a drill sergeant would talk, and act, and behave. And he was so good at it that they put him in the movie as the drill sergeant. But there’s so much content right now and people do need experts.

So the Writers Guild has a list of experts who are willing to offer their services gratis to a point, which might be a nice loss leader. And there’s also the Science and Entertainment Consortium that we’ve talked about. And so I’ve talked to scientists and they don’t charge or anything like that. But if I were to say, OK, we need you to now be on call, and yes it could absolutely be done remotely as is everything now, at that point you would arrange for a fee. And that’s reasonable. Is it enough to make a career? I would be thinking probably not.

**John:** Yeah. Maybe a challenge to make a career in it. Obviously thinking of Zoanne Clack who started as a medical consultant on Grey’s Anatomy and then became executive producer and a writer, but she was a writer who happened to be a medical consultant when she started. She’s now making a career as a writer and producer on that show.

Joe Weisberg, CIA agent, was one of the creators of The Americans. But again he knew the stuff but also could write.

I did a Clubhouse Q&A many months back ago with folks from Spy Craft Entertainment and they were CIA agents who were starting a production company. They were offering themselves out as consultants on Spy Craft stuff. And so they were experts who know how to do that.

But could Nick’s brother or Nick himself offer themselves as consultants for productions and would they be able to make a living at it? I think it would be tough. In the coming together of a story phase, yes, they could offer some advice. While they’re on set, yes, there could be consultants who are very good at being on set and saying like, no, those would not be the boots, these would be the boots. That’s possible. But it’s hard to string all those things together. Even Jack Horner who was the consultant for all the dinosaur stuff in Jurassic Park, he had a day job. He’s a person you could call to ask a question about dinosaur stuff, but he’s not there every frame being shot. He doesn’t make his living being the Jurassic Park dinosaur expert.

**Craig:** That would be tough to do. But, you know, if you put yourself out there, there’s social media, and you can make a website, and you can talk about what your experiences are. And see if anybody nibbles or bites. And as you grow a resume of content that you’ve advised on and consulted on then somebody big might come calling and then you may end up kind of installed as a consultant on a long-running series or a series of movies. That’s always possible.

**John:** Absolutely. Or we think back to Queen’s Gambit. Like there’s a chess expert who worked on Queen’s Gambit.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** Can that person make a living being a chess expert for movies?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. There are not enough of them.

**Craig:** I think Gary Kasparov was one of their chess experts.

**John:** Oh yeah. That’s true. But you know he’s doing fine for himself.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s Gary Kasparov. I think it’s Kasparov. More questions.

**John:** More questions. Megana, do you want to ask what Erin in North Hollywood wrote?

**Megana:** All right. So Erin asks, “I’m working on a script that involves an unusual animal sound. I’m hoping for some craft guidance on how best to integrate the sound into the script. It’s a specific and evocative sound from the natural world, but one that readers would be unlikely to be familiar with. Or would it be better to simply describe the sound through simile or onomatopoeia? PS the animal in the script is a puffin and puffins sound like this.”

**John:** Would you go for a low pitch siren? Or would you do some onomatopoeia to describe that sound?

**Craig:** In this case just to kind of keep people reading I would describe it as something like listening to an ambulance siren passing by in slow motion. And that might just be enough for them to understand. Oh, that’s weird. Whatever it is it’s weird. The other thing you can do is it sounds like this, and then you can put in parenthesis, or this, and then put a little tiny URL. And then they can copy-paste and listen to it for themselves if they want.

**John:** Yeah. If it was crucial that’s a thing you could do. I’ve done onomatopoeia for weird sounds that are actually really meaningful, and especially if things are going to be recurring. So there was a [makes sound] that was super important for one of my projects. And so I would spell it all out, and it was bold, and it took up the entire line because it was meant to be just so jarring and you couldn’t get away from it. But in this case I don’t think you need it.

**Craig:** No, I mean, I use onomatopoeia all the time. It’s fun. And I try and write sound as much as I can. In this case I think it just wouldn’t do the job. You would want to go with simile is my instinct, Erin. That doesn’t mean to say I’m right.

**John:** Let’s try one more question, Megana.

**Megana:** So Ben from Vancouver asks, “After your discussion about aphantasia and hyperphantasia and how clearly you both see the scenes you’re writing I began to wonder about your personal reactions to seeing scenes you’ve written on screen. Beyond whether they turned out better or worse than you hoped, are you ever distracted by the disconnect between what you imagined and the filmed version?”

**John:** Oh yes. There have been times where I wrote something and I was like wow that was not at all what I intended it to be. And sometimes it’s better and sometimes it’s worse. A specific example that I’ve brought up before on the show is that in Big Fish there is a moment after Edward dies and Will has told him the story. Will has to call home to his mom. And in my head the phone is on one side of the bed and in the movie it’s on the other side of the bed. And the movie completely ruins it for me because I so filmed it in my head with the phone being on one side that it looks completely wrong when I see it in the movie.

So, completely pointless, but it does end up mattering to me.

**Craig:** That doesn’t ruin anything for me because, and I kid you not, I almost always imagine things on the other side from what everybody else shoots them. Almost always. If I think of it on the left, it’ll be on the right. And I’m not kidding, every damn time. Which makes me think there’s something wrong with my brain. Or maybe there’s something right. Either way, I’ve gotten used to the mirror imaging. That’s not a problem for me.

The problem for me, so in movies you have these imaginations, you have these visions. And then you’re dismissed while a director comes and decides they know what all this means without ever talking to you again. And then eventually you see it and you go, oh, this is like a dream I had, but if it had been dreamed by an idiot. [laughs] That’s basically what it’s like. And what I love about television is while it doesn’t always work exactly the same, because I live in the reality of budgets and locations and other things, I can encompass enough and I can essentially create a bridge between the scene I saw and the place I’m in to achieve the same feelings I had. That to me is when it is successful.

And there are moments every now and again where I will stop, working on The Last of Us, I will stop and go this is literally exactly how I saw it.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** And that is so wonderful.

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** I hope people like those moments.

**John:** Great questions. All right. Let’s get on to our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things that are both photo related. The first is a website called Cleanup.pictures. Craig click through this and see what it does. I think you’ll be impressed by it. It’s doing a thing that Photoshop introduced years ago where you can sort of paint over a thing and it will smartly fill in and remove that thing. But here it is doing it in the browser. So if there’s a rando person in the background of your photo you can just paint them out and it just magically fills in the space around them. It feels like some sort of witchcraft and it’s just really impressive.

**Craig:** I’m trying it right – oh, wow. Look at that. So, yeah, what do they call it, the blur tool or something?

**John:** Yeah. Unlike a blur tool where it’s just smudging it, here it’s actually creating new stuff to fill in the void of what’s being missed. So you can just paint out a street sign in the background or whatever you need to do and it’s pretty compelling.

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** So for a free tool on the web–

**Craig:** This thing is awesome. Wow. What a great. They should market this as post-divorce picture cleanup dot com. People could just remove their ex from all these photos. I think it would be amazing. You know who would have loved this? You know who would have loved this?

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** Stalin.

**John:** Oh, yes.

**Craig:** He would have loved this.

**John:** Change history.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. Just removing people easily from photos. Would have been lovely.

**John:** Love it. Good stuff. My second photo related thing is a Live Text in photos.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** From the new iOS. It’s really good. So the article I posted through from Spy Magazine, I just took a photo of it from this book and just live texted it and copied and pasted and put it in the Workflowy. It really is great when you see some text out there in the world, you hold up your camera, see the little icon, tap it, and it’s letting you select all the text.

**Craig:** What is the icon I’m looking for? I’m doing it right now. I’m trying to do it.

**John:** It is generally down on the lower right hand corner and it’s a little box that has the lines inside.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. I just did it. Cool.

**John:** And so then any text you see in a photo is selectable now and it’s really good.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** And it’s one of those things that would have been absolutely remarkable and impossible a few years ago, and now they just do it by default. So many good things. Craig, what you have got?

**Craig:** Somebody prompted me to put this as my One Cool Thing and I had actually intended to put as my One Cool Thing. And just to point out how beautifully humble Jack Thorne is he sent me an email after he saw that on Twitter and said, “Just saw on Twitter you are being pressured to say something about me. Please feel no pressure. You are awesome. You don’t need to mention anything.” And that’s just Jack for you. We could all live a thousand years and probably not be as nice as Jack Thorne. And one of the things that he did and this is my One Cool Thing is he delivered a lecture. This is the James Mactaggart lecture, so I believe this is at the Edinburgh TV festival. And the lecture that he delivered is about disability and the representation of disability in film and television and on stage.

And it is in typical Jack Thorne fashion beautifully written and passionately delivered. The entire thing is on YouTube and in keeping with the theme I did select the version that does come with captions and BSL. So, take a look at it or take a listen to it. It’s really well done. Jack himself has suffered from an invisible disability and is quite a call to action. I thought it was really terrific.

**John:** That’s excellent. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Henry Adler. 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 sometimes @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing. We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on what people should do if they’re not going to college. Craig, Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** We’re back. So, Craig, last week you had a rant about colleges and the cost of colleges, the return on investment on colleges. We had people write in saying like is return on investment even the right way of thinking about it because it’s not just about money, there’s other things. My question to you though is let’s say undergraduate education is not what it’s cracked up to be, what is an alternative? Because I feel like that period between 18 and 22 is really important and vital and I don’t think I would have become the same person if I hadn’t gone away to a four-year school. How do you think about that period of time?

**Craig:** I think that the period between 18 and 22 is a perfectly good time for people to go to college if they are the sort of person who will get something out of it and particularly if they’re the sort of person who doesn’t need incur a massive amount of debt for it. And if we had free continuing education for everybody that would be everybody. We don’t. I think it is also a perfect time for people to start trying to see what they’re good at.

There’s a great video that Professor Scott Galloway has out where he talks about the shittiest advice there is to undergraduates which is follow your passion.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And what he talks about is what you really need to do is figure out what it is that you’re good at and do that. And the more you do it the better you are at it. And the more you will get for it in reward and esteem and encouragement. And that is what makes you passionate about it. I’ve always said a version of that to my own kids which is it doesn’t matter so much what you think you are here to give the world. The world is going to tell you what they want from you. And then you have a choice about what you do next. But listen. Keep your ears open for what the world is telling you.

So, for some people I think the time between 18 and 22 traditionally was a time to apprentice. You had a thought about what you might be able to do well and you would apprentice. Which means you are paid and you learn and if you take to it and show skill you will be encouraged and you will move up. And if you don’t, consider a different path.

**John:** A thing I think is crucial about that period of time, sort of like a wolf who needs to sort of move to a new pack, I think you should move away from home if it’s possible to move away from home.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** I think you should try to get outside of your home environment and start to learn about who you are as an individual. So college is a great excuse for doing that. But if college isn’t the right choice for you can you move somewhere else to do this thing, to take an internship, to take a vocational class, to do something else where you can find a new tribe and find new people and sort of discover who you are when you’re not in that same home environment.

If it’s not possible, something like community college or some other thing that’s getting you out of the house for a significant period of time and getting you to meet new people that are not the same peers you’ve had through high school is going to be really helpful because you got to figure out how to do all that stuff because it’s crucial and it’s important.

**Craig:** You’re learning how to become an adult. So that’s the other issue is that college insulates you from adulting to a large extent. You are sent to college and the rosiest most romantic point of view is that college is where you will become a well-rounded human being who is immersed in the great discussions of culture and science and art and religion. And then you will emerge on the other side a better person who will contribute more to society.

The less romantic point of view is it’s sex and drug camp. And you get to go to sex and drug camp and you get to sleep with a lot of people and get drunk or get high all the time. My guess is for more than half of the students who go to college it’s sex and drug camp primarily. You can have sex and drugs but also not be in camp. It’s the camp part that’s the problem. It is preventing people from adulting before they should. And I think learning certain skills like how to live on your own and pay for bills and show up for work are incredibly valuable for younger people. It does teach you that you are enough, that you can make it on your own.

It’s exciting and it’s emboldening to know these things. So, we are fooling ourselves if we think that college doesn’t come with a price. And that price is an increasingly delayed maturity in America. I mean, Megana, you look around at your cohort of graduates from Harvard. Would you say that there are at least a number of them who haven’t quite launched?

**Megana:** That is certainly a way of saying it. I think my friends who have gone to grad school or have been in academia for a longer time than I have definitely have a different way of being in the world and a different sense of what it means to be an adult and how to have a lifestyle. I do agree that it kind of inoculates you from having to understand what it means to be a working professional person.

But another point that I would say is I feel like this idea of leaving home is a very western individualistic idea. And in other countries kids go to college but they’re living at home. And I think that that’s fine because the three of us we’re not living anywhere close to where we grew up and I don’t know that that’s necessarily a good thing.

**Craig:** Well for me it is. I’ll tell you that much. [laughs]

**John:** Megana, I think you’re making a really good point. Obviously we’re approaching this with a Western American bias and we look at the East or we look at even Europe, and Europe which has apprentice programs, and there’s not that culture of moving away from home to do this thing. And you sort of keep your family ties. That can be good too. So we have the bias of our own experiences. Because you went from the Midwest to Harvard and then never went back to the Midwest.

**Megana:** Yeah.

**John:** I want to go back to what Craig was saying about sort of like that college is delaying you from adulting. And to me the best version of college is it’s an onramp to adulting. And you’re out from underneath your parents’ control and protection and in that first year you’re learning how to do some things but there’s a structure around you. The first two years you’re in the dorms and the third year you’re in an apartment. The fourth year you’re finishing school but you’re really kind of working while you’re doing that. And that’s a nice onramp. You’re picking up skills along the way.

I think when I’ve seen folks who didn’t go to college and who suddenly just like I’m going to get a job and I’m get an apartment, they weren’t ready for that. They didn’t have the skills and maturity to sort of do all of that. And so I think that 18 to 22 period ideally there is some ramp to it. It’s the same reason why I think folks who don’t go to college sometimes end up in the military. They need some structure. They need something there to get them organizing principles behind them so they can figure out how to be themselves.

**Craig:** There are plenty of ways to onramp other than spending $100,000 a year. I would say that you’re right that there are a lot of people who do use college, and when I say use I really mean use it, in the way it was intended in its purest form. But there are also people who enter what I would call a permanent childhood. And what I mean by that is even if they get jobs they go to college, they follow the rules for what they feel they need to do to then be hired by a large corporation which will now be their new mommy and daddy. And in that corporation they are taken care of. They know where they sit. They know where they stand. They know what they’re supposed to wear. There’s rules for lunch and there’s rules for travel. And there are memos. And they follow these things as a child of a company now.

And they will do so forever until they retire. They don’t have a sense of being able to be entrepreneurial, on their own, being disconnected from some structure that takes care of you completely. That is scary to me. There is no question that our current system is working beautifully for large corporations looking for compliant employees.

**John:** Yeah. But that of course is not – large corporations and compliant employees was a different time. The idea of working for one company for the next 20 years, 30 years just isn’t even a thing anymore. So we’re sort of training people for a way of working that isn’t going to exist and probably isn’t existing right now.

**Craig:** I don’t know if that’s true. I think that most people do work for large companies or at least midsized companies. And if they don’t work for let’s say Apple their whole lives they may move over to Microsoft. Or they move over to Amazon. Or they may move over to this tech company or that tech company. If they work in the financial business they are absolutely working for a large financial company and they will move from one to one to one. The advertising world, companies, one to one to one. Even people that work for movie studios. When you work at a movie studio as an employee you become taken care of. You are a child and you are given a structure. If you’re good you get to move up to this level. And then you get to move up to this level. And then you get to move up to this level. And this level you get a car. And it’s like your parents taking care of you.

And we’re the people who give you your health insurance. And we’re the people that are there for you. If you need two weeks off you get two weeks off, but you have to fill out these forms and follow these rules. And people are being trained for this. And if you look at the way they’re being trained to get into college you can see it clearly. What do you need to do to get into college? You need to study incredibly hard, work incredibly diligently for very long hours and above all else follow the rules.

It’s brilliant if you’re Goldman Sachs.

**John:** Now, we were talking about this at staff meeting and our friend Dustin brought up one of the best things about college for him, or art school in his case, was the stakes were lower, so it was like work, it was like being out there in the world, but there was the soft consequences of missed deadlines, of messing up. Basically you had permission to make mistakes without getting fired in ways that in the working world you wouldn’t be able to do. Because the training wheels were still on a little bit you could experiment a little bit more. You could enter in as one major and go to a different major and sort of experiment a little bit more. You had some freedom because everything wasn’t going to come crashing down on you.

**Craig:** No question. And again it really does come down to the person. There are people that really understand the purpose of the training wheels and then there are people who get used to the thought of training wheels and can’t bear to not have training wheels on. And that’s fine. Mostly I’m just advocating that if you are going to be that second kind of person don’t pay for the privilege of being that kind of person. Just be that kind of person.

**John:** Craig, what do you think you need to learn – so let’s say you wanted to be a screenwriter for example, what are the things you need to learn and get better at doing between 18 and 22? Because to me all the writing I did in college, even though it wasn’t screenwriting, was hugely helpful in being able to put words together in a way that made sense and were persuasive. But what are the things that you feel like an aspiring screenwriter from 18 to 22 needs to learn to get better at?

**Craig:** If I were running the screenwriting section of a college, like for instance let’s say Princeton hired me to be in charge of their screenwriting department, which they absolutely should not do.

**John:** Because Craig’s first thing would be to shut it down, but, I’m assuming.

**Craig:** Correct. And then the second thing I would do is say, OK, well here’s the good deal. For the next four years of your life here at Princeton in our screenwriting section you are not going to write one screenplay or even one scene. For the next four years you’re just going to learn how to write sentences. Because none of you know how to put a sentence together. None of you know how to translate a thought into words in a way where the words convey your thought. You are going to learn grammar. You’re going to learn punctuation. You are going to learn how to be concise. You are going to learn how to edit. And above all you will learn how to structure your language. And none of it will be what you think of as creative because until you know how to do this none of your creativity is going to matter because you’re not going to be able to get it across on the page. Ever.

And then I would get fired.

**John:** Yeah. I will say that a thing I did learn in college as opposed to high school is in high school we were taught to write these incredibly formulaic essays which were sort of like matched up to the SAT kind of essays. It was so boiler plate-y. And in college I actually had freedom to actually write good new things. And in my journalism program, yes, we had to learn how to write journalistic style, but also write magazine pieces and other things and advertising campaigns. And you learned how to write persuasive words. And so that’s the crucial thing I think you need to learn in that 18 to 22.

And I agree it shouldn’t be about writing scenes. I mean, if you want to write sketches for your sketch group, fantastic. Do that. And learn what’s funny. Learn what works. Take some acting classes, too. But you shouldn’t be coming out of this assuming that you’re going to have three scripts when you come out of undergrad because they’re going to be terrible.

**Craig:** They will absolutely be terrible. And don’t kid yourself that people who are in the other quad taking creative writing for novels, they might actually write a novel that people like. They might write a novel that’s good. You know why? Writing novels is easier than writing screenplays. That’s why there are so many more novelists. There’s a thousand great novelists out there selling tons of books. And there’s about 15 people doing what we do. It’s just harder. It’s so much harder as far as I’m concerned.

And if I were in charge I would be like you. I would be saying let’s all just start reading a lot of nonfiction or even if they are fictionalized essays and talking about what this person was thinking, what makes an interesting thought, what is an argument, how do you look at the world, what is your perspective on things, and now let’s look at how they turned it into words.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** All of that is so much more important than here’s what a script, Interior, and then you have a time of day. Oh, give me a break.

**John:** Craig, you have to study Casablanca scene by scene.

**Craig:** Oh god. Yeah, because that’s what people want today.

**John:** People want Casablanca.

**Craig:** If I show my daughter Casablanca she’s going to kick me out of the room. Because it’s not – and Casablanca is objectively a great film, but it is a great film of its time. It is no longer a lesson on how to write a movie now. And anyone who insists it is is just being a reactionary. That’s the other thing. Why you need to teach I’ll call 18 to 20 year olds young adults the nuts and bolts of conveying thoughts into words as opposed to writing screenplays is they are already the vanguard of culture. They don’t need you to tell them how to turn their vanguard of cultureness into Casa-fucking-blanca. They’ve got it already. They’re young and they’re so much cooler than you are, Professor Whatever. But what they don’t know how to do is put a sentence together. And this is how I would run my incredibly bad screenwriting school. [laughs] And it would be called Don’t Come Here Institute.

**John:** Love it. I think the sweatshirts are really what’s going to sell. I mean, that’s the merch.

**Craig:** And the sweatshirts would say Don’t Wear This.

**John:** Thank you Craig. Thank you Megana.

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

**Megana:** Thanks.

Links:

* [Dune already made $41M](https://observer.com/2021/10/dune-is-getting-a-sequel-but-how-did-it-really-perform-lets-check-the-data/)
* [Spy Magzine](https://www.vulture.com/2011/02/spy_magazine_google_books.html)
* [Clean Up Pictures](https://cleanup.pictures)
* [Use Live Text and Visual Look Up on your iPhone](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212630)
* [Jack Thorne’s James Mactaggart Lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxwlpbJbbg)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Henry Adler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/523standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 513: Writing For Stars, Transcript

August 27, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/513-writing-for-stars).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 513 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is off somewhere in the Canadian wilderness this week, but I am very excited to welcome back a writer whose career we’ve followed from Saving Mr. Banks to 50 Shades of Gray, and the upcoming Venom: Let There Be Carnage. I speak, of course, of Kelly Marcel. Kelly Marcel, welcome back.

**Kelly Marcel:** Hello. Hello.

**John:** It is such a delight. And thank you so much for coming in to fill in for Craig while he’s gone.

**Kelly:** My absolute pleasure.

**John:** So last I spoke with you you were in England I think because you were working on Venom. But I talked to you this week and you are in Louisiana?

**Kelly:** Yes. I’m here in New Orleans which is an incredible city because I have a TV show that’s probably about to shoot here.

**John:** Oh great.

**Kelly:** We’re actually trying to decide whether it’s going to be here or New York. And I happen to have family in New Orleans, so in the pandemic I came here knowing that I was potentially going to be here or New York at the end of the year. And they’re very close to one another.

**John:** So I was surprised and delighted to have you in a closer time zone which makes this much easier to do. But last I texted with you or spoke with you I was asking you a very writerly question in that I had a character who needed to live in a London neighborhood. I needed to know what London neighborhood this specific character would live in. So thank you very much for weighing in on that. Because how am I going to know London neighborhoods if I don’t have great London friends.

**Kelly:** I’ll always help you with anything British-y.

**John:** Excellent. Well, you can help us out on the podcast today because we have a lot to talk through. I want to talk about the experience you and I have had which is a little unusual which is writing with and for an actor, when you know who is going to be in that role and that person is helping you work on the script.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** I also want to talk about translating action on the page to the screen, which is something that you and I have had a lot of experience with and you have had really firsthand experience with both the first and second Venom. So really going from what three pages look like in your script to what the experience is of shooting those pages and producing those.

And in our bonus segment for premium members I want to talk about visas for international writers. We have a blog post that’s up where we asked some writers to contribute their experiences about getting a US work visa as an international writer. And Kelly Marcel has experience on that, too. So I’m going to ask her what she can tell us about that process.

**Kelly:** That’s something I definitely have experience. I’d love to talk about.

**John:** Wonderful. Thank you so much. Unlike the people who want to listen to the back episodes, we have one episode where you and Craig and I were playing this roleplaying game where my character ended up being killed. I don’t think I will die in this episode. But there’s no promises this time.

**Kelly:** That episode was so fun and I’ll also add that we were all quite drunk.

**John:** We were. I think the ideal amount of alcohol for a Scriptnotes recording is like one to 1.5 glasses of wine. More than that was consumed during the recording of that episode.

**Kelly:** Definitely more.

**John:** But first we actually have some news to talk about. So this was in Variety, an article by Kevin Tran, where they’re looking at a report based on how theatrical movies are streaming online. Basically the movies that were supposed to go to the big screens but actually showed up on streaming services, how they really did. And the answer is they seemed to do pretty well. They actually outperformed a lot of the series that were there. And it’s the first kind of insight we’ve had into what these big movies that were supposed to go on the big screen but showed up on the small screen during the pandemic, the numbers they actually generated.

So, with Venom, you have a movie that at this point is planning to come out theatrically, but I’m sure as a producer there were discussions the whole time through about whether you were going to get your theatrical release.

**Kelly:** Yeah. I mean, look, I’ll say that I think that Tom Rothman is really sticking to his guns on this. And I kind of admire for it. I think he’s really invested in preserving and protecting the theatrical experience for audiences. And there are just some movies that you have to see in a room, on a big screen, with a bucket of warm popcorn on your lap. And, you know, he is such a cinephile and a true movie lover that I think he believes in that religiously. And so actually with Venom 2: Let There Be Carnage he has always said it will be a theatrical release.

I mean, obviously the world is changing and we’ve had to move the date a couple of times because of COVID. And we’ll see, you know, if we are able to stick to that. But I kind of love him for really, really, really holding firm on allowing audiences to see this in the theater.

**John:** Well you’ve had experiences earlier on with Cruella. So basically every writer who worked on Cruella has been a Scriptnotes guest, which I’m really proud of. But with Cruella that was both a day-and-date. So people could watch it on Disney+ as a premium entry or they could see it in theaters. And so you had the chance to do both. And you were saying you actually got to see it on a big screen in New Orleans because you got yourself a theater for it.

**Kelly:** We did. And Cruella is actually one of those movies that did well streaming. And so who knows. But I definitely wanted people that I knew to see it on a big screen. And I wanted to see it on a big screen, too. And there is this incredible little one screen movie theater in New Orleans called the Prytania Theater which is actually the oldest operating theater in New Orleans that dates back to 1915. It was the first theater to come back after Katrina. And the only theater that they had for a while. And it’s been made famous in books and it’s just this gorgeous kind of magical place.

And it had been badly hit, you know, during the pandemic because it had had to close as did everything. So, I rented it out for an evening and invited all of – this was during a period where everything was open and high vaccination rates, etc. Invited all of our friends, 50 of them, to come and see the movie on a big screen. And it was so lovely and magical to get to experience it that way in this small theater in this little part of town.

And, again, that’s an experience that can’t be recreated in your home I don’t think. And so I’m really glad that we were able to do that and I hopefully will do it again with Venom 2.

**John:** Yeah. I’ve had a chance to see some movies in the theater since started opening back up. The first thing I saw on a big screen was a test screening of a friend’s movie and that was still like really locked down and everyone was incredibly socially distanced and it was still at the time that we were putting on hand sanitizer a lot.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** But then I got to see A Quiet Place in theaters which was terrific to see there. I saw In the Heights on a giant screen at the Chinese which was just amazing and it’s a movie you want to see on a big screen. And I got to see Free Guy on a big screen, too, which was all terrific. And yet data like this coming out of this report shows that the studios are making some good money, or at least getting good viewership when they put stuff on streaming. So it’s going to be really interesting to see as we move out of this next wave which of these films sort of keep to they’re strictly theatrical and long windows and which ones go back to this 45-day window which seems to be sort of where we’re settling on now, where 45 days after the theatrical release it’s showing up on these services.

It’s really an open question how much we’re going to move back to the pre-pandemic way of releasing movies.

**Kelly:** Is it 45 days after the theatrical release that it goes to streaming? Because I thought it was a much shorter window now between the theatrical release and then putting it on streaming.

**John:** From what I understand it sounds like the Free Guy model was still 45 days, which I think they’re also trying to do for the next Shang-Chi Marvel movie. But I think there’s still open questions for that. And I think it also matters whether it’s free streaming versus the $20 whatever–

**Kelly:** Paid streaming.

**John:** Yeah. The paid streaming. And we haven’t talked a lot about paid streaming on the show, but premium video on demand, which is what Cruella was when it came out there, is a really good deal for you as the screenwriter. You got actual real money on that that you wouldn’t have gotten off of just theatrical.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** So it’s an interesting balance for screenwriters as well.

**Kelly:** Yeah. And I was reading that it wasn’t so brilliant actors. I don’t know what the Scarlet thing is with Black Widow. I haven’t really followed it closely, but I’m wondering why it’s not as great for actors because box office bonuses I guess?

**John:** Yeah. Really it comes down to box office bonuses which you and I would probably have in our contract as well, but hers are a lot bigger.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** And so I say the premium video on demand is good for a WGA residual, sort of that automatically calculated thing. But her argument is that by releasing it on streaming and theatrically it lowered how much it could make theatrically and therefore she should be compensated for the money she lost out of that.

**Kelly:** Right. And I think that’s why Netflix just paid Daniel Craig a big bunch of money, right, because he won’t make those theatrical bonuses.

**John:** Those negotiations are going to be tough. And it really comes back down to knowing how many people saw this movie which the studios and streamers have been loath to sort of share. And this report that came out in Variety Premium talks through basically another way to get at those numbers which is doing kind of like what Nielsen does. It’s called T-Vision which is surveying 5,000 US households to see what they’re actually watching. And through that they can see that, oh, Raya and the Last Dragon was a big hit in terms of viewership.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** Or that Luca was a huge hit for viewership, which is not surprising. These are the animated movies that would generally be big family drivers of viewership.

**Kelly:** I’ve been hearing a lot about these short term windows that we were just talking about and wondering actually if that’s going to be good for creators because the shorter the window now between a theatrical release and streaming means that theaters will probably need more content. And so my hope, I guess, is that we see more content being needed to go into theaters. And my hope for that would be smaller indie movies going into these slots and us kind of trying to claw that back a bit.

**John:** It would be fantastic if some of these smaller movies that kind of can only now get a streaming release can find some big screen time, just because there are available screens for it. We’ll see if that happens. It’s going to be challenging. But it’s possible.

You know, if you look back to the rise of indie films in the ‘90s and sort of what happened there, it was because there was capacity. There were actually screens that they could show these on. And so the movies that would have otherwise never made out to other than New York and Los Angeles could actually make it out to deeper markets. And that’s why you have Clerks being able to shown at theaters across America which 10 years earlier would never have happened.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** So it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen, but things will definitely change as we move out of this pandemic. And it’s important that we have some people actually finding the data to see who is watching these things because obviously Disney and Netflix and HBO Max know these things but they’re not sharing that.

**Kelly:** Why don’t they share that?

**John:** Because it’s their secret sauce. Because if they were able to show how much people were watching these things you and me and Ryan Reynolds and Tom Hardy would be insisting on a bigger cut of that. [laughs] Which is a natural segue to writing for and with some actors, because this is an experience that you and I have that not a lot of friends do. Because you and I have definitely come into movies for rewrite situations where a script was written and then a star is attached and we have to sort of tailor the part towards that star. And that’s common, but you and I have had the experience of from scratch we are working on a project that we know is going to a certain actor and that actor is involved in the development process, which can be great, but it can also be challenging.

So I thought we might spend a few minutes talking through the pros and cons and best practices for writers who find themselves in that situation. For you Tom Hardy was a friend from way back, from way back in London days, right?

**Kelly:** Mm-hmm. Tom and I have known each other for nearly 20 years.

**John:** And so when it came time to work on something with him, because you came in on the first Venom, but it’s really Venom 2 was the first time you were coming in from scratch. What is that relationship like? What is that discussion like? Because he obviously knows a lot about the character, but you know a lot about the character and you know a lot about writing. How did you first sort of approach that process of figuring out how you’re going to do the sequel?

**Kelly:** Well it’s important to know that Tom and I have always been collaborators. So how we came together is he was setting up a theater company in London. He asked me to come and write for that theater company. So we’ve always worked together in this capacity. So we know it very well. Venom wasn’t the first thing that I came into rewrite specifically for him. We worked on Bronson together. We worked on Mad Max together. And he’s always been an extremely creative powerhouse. He’s always had ideas.

So when it came to Venom 1, having worked with him before I knew coming in that he would have a lot of ideas and that he would have creative input, which he does. And, you know, Venom 1 was kind of a scramble and there was a preexisting script and we were rewriting on set. And we were kind of like making that movie as we made that movie. And kind of finding out what it was along the way. So when it came to Venom 2 we really knew that it had this very strange tone, sort of this balance between comedy, kind of horror, and typical Marvel action. And we kind of knew as well what the audience had loved about Venom 1. And so we very much wanted to double down on those things.

Tom immediately sort of came to the table and said, “Look I’ve got an idea for the story for Venom 2 and a character that I would love to bring into Venom 2.” And we kind of started there. And we were breaking the story together over FaceTime because I was in LA and he was in London. So, poor guy was doing some very, very late nights. And as we started to break the story together it became obvious that this was half his story and he needed a Story by credit. And so we immediately kind of made sure that he would have that credit, which is unusual for actors. Although I think Ryan has one, right?

**John:** He does. And so he actually had a writing credit on Deadpool stuff before then. So as we started this project we’re working on now we actually negotiated for him to be a writer on the project as well as being an actor and a producer from the start, which was important for this.

But my actual first experience with writing with and for an actor was on the first Charlie’s Angels. So Drew Barrymore was attached to star and to produce. And with that, you know, she had a clear sense of the tone we were going for and really the initial conversations were all about tone and what it should feel like. And so that collaboration was very much a let’s describe the world. Let’s paint what this ultimate movie should feel like. It wasn’t so plot intensive. It wasn’t so down to the nitty gritty details of this thing. It ultimately got there, but in the blue sky stage of it she was really important because I would have probably written a different movie if it hadn’t been Drew Barrymore involved. The tone of it would have been really different. And the vision for what we’re headed for.

So that is definitely a huge advantage to having that actor, that performer, involved from the very start is because you can sort of sense what it is you’re headed towards. Having a director onboard obviously early on is also a similar kind of experience because you know what they are aiming for in terms of the movie they want to shoot and in terms of what they actually feel like they can deliver. Challenging to have both, in my experience, having both the actor and the director onboard, because their visions may not match and then whose lead you’re following can be really difficult.

**Kelly:** Yeah, that can get very confusing. And very tricky because you’re very much in the middle as the writer at that point. I think we were very lucky on Venom 2 because we sort of had the freedom to write the script first before we had attached a director. So when Andy Serkis came onboard he came onboard with a full script. And that was kind of great that there weren’t kind of two voices. Although Ruben Fleischer on the first movie and Tom I think saw the movie very similarly, so we didn’t really have any of those problems on Venom 1. But it can be like that. I’ve experienced that elsewhere and that can be very tricky.

**John:** Let’s talk some other cons of the actor being involved. Because there have been times where I’ve had conversations where someone is objecting to a thing or feeling nervous about a thing and it can be hard to suss out whether are they talking as the producer of the film, are they talking as the actor in the film. Are they talking about this character as a character or as someone they’re going to be playing? And that balance between there can be really challenging. They very reasonably see everything in the story through the eyes of their character because that’s the character they’re going to be playing. But it can challenging to sort of get them to focus on this is everything else that’s around this.

And I don’t know if you’ve had that experience, not necessarily with Tom, but on other projects which you had to come on and help. It can be challenging as the writer who is responsible for the whole movie to make sure that their focus on their own character doesn’t dominate things.

**Kelly:** Yeah, absolutely. There have definitely been rewrites on other projects where I’ve experienced that. With Tom it’s more about I think things that he thinks are going to be really fun to play. And you’re like but does it fit in the movie? And also don’t forget that Tom is seeing through the lens of two characters, not just one.

**John:** Yes. Because he’s playing both himself as the human, but also playing Venom, the actual alien symbiote who has a completely different personality.

**Kelly:** Completely different personality, which by the way, this is one of the pros of working particularly with this actor is that when I write a scene Tom is literally there on FaceTime performing it back to me, as both Venom and Eddie. It’s quite extraordinary actually watching him do it. He does both voices and he plays against himself. But it means that I immediately know if those lines are working. Or if they don’t, which is an incredible gift.

But, yeah, there are definitely things that are like oh you want to do that because that’s just really fun kind of like action, but actually you know what why not put things in that are fun? Why not go to work and actually have a great day because you got to do something so crazy and amazing? I have to say that Sony were incredibly generous with us in the freedom that they gave us to play in this Venom sandbox and this Venom 2 movie I think you’ll watch it thinking oh my god they had so much fun doing that.

**John:** Yeah. You’re making the kind of movie where you really want to have that feeling. And so that’s great that you could actually do that.

Let’s talk some downsides of writing with and working with actors or with the star. Because – and this is not necessarily about, well it can be about their involvement in the writing, but also one of the blessings of big stars is that people want to make movies with big stars. And they’re attached and that movie will get made more likely. One of the challenges of big stars is that they are so busy and they’re offered so much that the project you’re working on could get pushed and pushed and pushed until you just don’t know where you are on their dance card.

Obviously it’s better with something like this where he is the main star and there’s a huge priority to make it. And having him invested in the writing of it probably pushes it further ahead. But it’s always a thing I warn newer writers about who are like, oh, I have this star attached. I’m like, wow, that’s exciting, and could be a challenge when Leonardo DiCaprio has 10 movies stacked up that he can pick between.

**Kelly:** Right. So many friend of mine, directors, big directors and big writers who have big stars attached to their movies and have had them attached to their movies for years. And their movies keep getting pushed and pushed and pushed because these people are very much in demand. I mean, you know, we just to push a little bit on a TV show that I’m doing because it has a very, very big star in it. And he got offered a massive movie. And that movie is very – it’s not Tom – but you know that movie is very appealing.

And so he’s going to do that first and it pushes the entire shoot. We’re really lucky that he’ll definitely come onto ours next, but I’ve seen movies sit around for years.

**John:** Oh absolutely. Things that are on the edge of production and it’s about one actor’s availability, or suddenly this movie is running long and then you’re going to lose the other actor because of this thing. It becomes really challenging. And so having an actor attached is a blessing, but it can also be a curse. And you’re always asking yourself is it worth it. When is it worth it? And when do you need to move on to another actor to sort of get the thing to happen?

**Kelly:** I know. I know. And that’s always such a tricky decision because you’ve lived with the idea of this person in your head. And it’s very hard to let that go. I would say as well the power of having a big actor like Tom or Leonardo or anybody really of that caliber, and Ryan, particularly if they are involved in the creation of your movie it means that they are really, really, really attached to that movie and invested in it. And so they protect the work. And when you have a star that’s protective of the script then, you know, you’re in a really great position.

**John:** They’re invested in the movie, but they’re also invested in the movie’s success, which is hugely important, too. Because having a giant star in a movie that they don’t really care about or like does you no good when it comes time to promote the movie, when it comes time to do everything else. When you have the star who has been in there since day one making the movie work when it comes time to promote it they will promote the hell out of it. And that really pays off. I mean, there’s a reason why Ryan Reynolds is sort of marketer of the year. He’s really good and works really hard at pushing things out there in the world. And that is worth more than anything in terms of the publicity and promotion you’re able to get out of them is crucial.

**Kelly:** Yeah. He’s particularly brilliant at it.

**John:** Yeah. And not every actor is going to be that way. But let’s talk about one thing which is that I think there’s this perception that if you write something for a specific actor then that role is inevitably locked to that actor. In my experience there have been so many times where I’ve worked on something where really it was tailored for one actor and then that person can’t do it and someone else does it and it works brilliantly.

**Kelly:** Yeah.

**John:** And in some ways just the fact that one actor could play a thing makes the character work enough that you could swap somebody else in and it actually just does brilliantly.

**Kelly:** Absolutely. I mean, that happens all of the time. I don’t know about you, John, but for me it’s really helpful to have somebody in mind when you’re writing. I really love to kind of plaster my walls with pictures of who I think this character is, whether it’ll actually be that actor or not, and think about cadences and tones of voices and facial expressions and body movement and the whole sort of being of a person as I’m putting the words that they’re going to speak and the actions that they’re going to do on a page.

I did it on Saving Mr. Banks. 50 Shades of Gray. And it really, really helps me to have that visual in my head to really know who it is. And then, you know, inevitably it doesn’t end up being that actor. But I still know who that character is having sort of seen them play it out in my head if you know what I mean.

**John:** But I think it also translates to the page. There’s something about the scripts you read that really work you sort of feel like you saw the movie. If you ask two years later did you see that movie it’s like I’m not sure. Wait, did I just read it? Because with really good scripts you feel like you saw it. And it’s because there’s just a consistency of that character and you really felt like you saw an actor in that role even though there was no actor. It was just the words on the page.

So, yeah, I think it’s great to pick actors you want to be in this thing, even if they’re unrealistic choices for the small indie drama you’re going to make.

**Kelly:** Of course.

**John:** Just having the consistency of voice and tone and body movement and just approach can be really, really helpful. And so I always – I do sort of cast out my movies as I’m writing them knowing that they’re not likely to be those actors in the final roles.

**Kelly:** I think you should think big because I think those big actors that you know so well are the ones that you can imagine more easily as you write these things because you’ve seen them do a million different movies. You’ve seen the way that they walk, the way that they talk, and different characters that they’ve been able to play.

**John:** Julia Roberts has played a ton of different characters, but I do have a sense of how her face works and how her energy is. And it’s useful to be able to write to that. Same with Will Smith. I’ve gotten to work on two movies with Will Smith and I do have a sense of what is going to be funny coming out of him. But if it’s somebody else put in that role I think it will still work because there’s a consistent thought and approach to it.

**Kelly:** Absolutely. Absolutely. And you know and that’s how it is with Tom. It’s really like a shorthand writing for him now because I’ve seen him do so many different things. And I kind of know his cadences and his tones and how something is going to come out of his mouth and his body as he moves it. And so it’s really a joy.

**John:** So you were working on the script from the very start and so you delivered a script, you got a director, and all that worked. But I suspect there was also a lot of writing on the set, or things that would come up. What was the relationship between you and Tom writing stuff during production?

**Kelly:** Well, it’s a really unique experience on Venom. So how Venom works is Tom starts his day in the makeup trailer obviously and then he comes onto set. And the first thing that he does is record Venom. So we have this sound guy, Patrick, who basically plays Venom back to Tom through his ear on the set. So Tom has an ear wig. And the Venom lines, which we treat, so it sounds like Venom in his head.

**John:** Oh that’s great.

**Kelly:** Are played to him so that he has himself to kind of play off of on the set. And we’ll have Venom in our cans. So everybody can hear what Tom is hearing. And then Andy will have a mic and I will have a mic. And those mics are directly connected to Tommy’s earpiece. No one else can hear what we’re saying to Tom through his earpiece.

As you know, it’s all very well sitting reading a script and reading out the lines, but you stand it on its feet and you start moving it around a set and it somehow just doesn’t work because now you’re up on your feet and now you have to put physical movement into this scene, or the blocking doesn’t fit the line, or there’s a million things that cannot work about a scene because it’s now suddenly a physical, living, breathing thing. And Tom really is a perfectionist and he wants every scene and every line to be the best line that it can be. And there’s a lot of comedy in Venom as well. So we’re always trying to beat ourselves. We’re always trying to beat the line. And so the luxury of him having this earpiece means that he has this incredible ability to follow you live in a scene and respond if you jump in with new lines for him. So, you can keep the camera rolling and I can throw new lines into his earpiece as Venom, which he’ll respond to, or give him Eddie lines so he’ll take a beat and then he’ll start the scene again with the new Eddie lines.

And we got so used to it on Venom 1 that it was kind of like second nature. But on Venom 2 when we had Andy come in and we had Bob Richardson who is this incredible DP. He’s Quentin Tarantino’s DP. Incredible.

**John:** An icon.

**Kelly:** A new producer coming in. They were like oh my god how is he doing that? And Andy would be able to say, “Tom, walk over to that draw and open it.” And then we’d plant things in there for him so that he had surprises and was kept on his toes through scenes. I really have never seen another actor do it. And weirdly there is this scene in Bronson where he does play two characters. He plays a nurse and himself and he turns his face to the makeup side of the nurse when he’s doing the nurse lines, and the Charlie Bronson side of his face when he’s doing the Bronson lines. And he did that all in one take and it’s incredible.

And so when we came to Venom it really reminded me of that scene in Bronson. And I was like, yeah, I know he can do this. Like I know he has this unique ability to switch between characters right there in the moment live and can take lines from you while he’s acting. It’s extraordinary.

**John:** That sounds great. Now my question is as you’re doing these improv bits where you’re changing stuff around, you have to make decisions about I think that worked or I think that didn’t work just in terms of coverage, right? Probably you’re doing some of that stuff in a master, but then you have to decide which of those things worked well enough that we want to make sure we get coverage on that. Was that ever a factor you had to remember, oh, we need to get more of that so we can actually make that work? Or are these really master decisions?

**Kelly:** You know, it’s sort of a bit of both. If something is really, really working and we know that it got the right response on the set then that’s the thing that we’re going to come in and collect. We’re going to collect as much as we possibly can. And so if we’ve shot something in a master and we’ve shot it a bunch of different ways and we’re going to try and shoot it again in the close-ups with the different lines as well. And he’ll just roll those out.

And by the way sometimes it isn’t live through his mic. Sometimes a scene isn’t working and you know how this goes. Then it’s a huddle in video village. Everybody is around the laptop. And we’re all there scrambling to fix a scene. Often Tom and I will write a scene three different ways and know that we’re going to go in there and shoot it three different ways and then decide having done it which one we think works best.

It’s quite fast paced this shooting of these kinds of movies. And we do find the time to be able to do it different ways.

**John:** Cool. So Venom is of course an action-comedy, but the action part of it is incredibly important, too. So I thought we might take a look at the script for the first Venom and take a look at a couple of pages early on in the first act of this. And just sort of see what an action sequence looks like on the page and talk through sort of how that translates to what we’re finally seeing on the screen. So, we’ll start with what was there in Courier and what that becomes on the day. And then where the choices that have to happen in post and sort of figuring out what the final version of this is.

So, we’re going to put a link in the show notes to just these three pages, page 31 to page 33 of the Venom script. And let’s talk through what’s happening here.

In the first movie Eddie is finding Maria, this journalist he’s been looking for. She’s in this detention cell.

**Kelly:** She’s actually the homeless–

**John:** That’s the homeless person. That’s right. So she is in this detention cell and clearly something is very wrong with her. He’s trying to break her out of this and she is actually infected by this thing we’re going to find out more about. And Eddie is also infected and doesn’t sort of know it at this point.

The action writing here is really good. And it’s kind of dense on the page and yet I’m never struggling to get through it. And all caps. You’re using italics. You’re using underlines to sort of keep us focused on what is important happening moment by moment.

“Maria LEAPS ON EDDIE, knocks him down and with surprising strength, PUNCHES HIM repeatedly in the chest and face. Maria, atop Eddie, wraps her hands around his throat, CHOKING HIM. Eddie struggles, gasping for air—“

That’s all one paragraph and yet it doesn’t feel like too much. And it probably is an accurate reflection of the amount of time we would be seeing onscreen.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** So talk to us about this sequence. Were you on set for this sequence?

**Kelly:** I was on set. I was on set every day.

**John:** Every day. Tell me what you can remember about this as you wrote it, then the discussions with blocking and how this came from just the page to talking with stunts, talking with director, figuring out how to shoot this thing. Figuring out what you’re actually going to build here. Can you just describe this environment and the decisions that went into shooting this action sequence, the stuff that’s happening here in this complex?

**Kelly:** Yes. Well this was an incredible set that was built with all these kind of lasers and crazy strobe lights. And so as you can see on the page none of that is indicated. That’s all done by our incredible production designer imagining what this thing will end up looking like and working with Ruben to build that set.

We also had the amazing DP Matthew Libatique on this movie who with this movie kind of kept the camera moving the whole time. He really brought an energy to the entire movie by constantly keeping it moving. So we knew that Matty would be moving the camera around during the scene. We knew that he had all of these strobe lights going. And crazy colors. And then we also had this brilliant actress, Melora Walters, playing Maria, who worked really well with Tom.

And so they’re friends in the movie, so they have a history prior to this scene. He cares about her. We’ve established that. And as we started to talk through this scene we realized that she having been infected would be incredibly powerful. And completely different to the Maria that Eddie already knows. So we knew that there would be shock, fear. You know, Eddie is not your typical action hero either. The way that Tom decided to play him was not a tall, this big–

**John:** Dashing knight. He’s sort of not mousy but he has a–

**Kelly:** He’s scared.

**John:** Yeah. He’s scared. He’s a coward.

**Kelly:** Yeah. He was like the reality of being taken over by an alien is that you will be completely terrified. And not know what is going on. And so he gets into this very physical fight with this woman who is incredibly strong. And of course she’s winning. Because Eddie Brock is a journalist, you know. And so we definitely wanted to play with that. We definitely wanted him not to be able to win easily. We knew that Matty wanted to move in and out of whatever the action was taking place in this scene. And then once he had been infected by the symbiote we really wanted to see a complete change in Eddie’s physicality and to see that suddenly he can climb up walls. Suddenly he can run faster than he has ever run before. And climb a great, big, huge tree as well.

And so in this scene as we were writing this scene these were all thoughts that have been right there at the beginning of writing this script. And I’ll add that Jeff Pinkner and Scott Rosenberg also wrote this script. And so some of this scene preexisted and some of it didn’t. And so this is definitely a mismatch of all of our writing, as is the whole script. And those guys are amazing and they’re actually really brilliant at action.

And so I took a lot of inspiration from action that they had written for this movie, because I loved the way they write action. It’s concise. It’s clear. I really think they’re absolutely brilliant at it.

**John:** Some things I want to point out that are good on the page, too, is on page 32 about two-thirds of the way down, “The Guards drop. Eddie stands there for a moment, incredulous at his own fighting skills– “Did I just do that?!” In quotation marks and italics. And it’s a thing we talk about on Scriptnotes a lot is that sometimes you have to sort of speak the thought because that is a very playable moment. So he doesn’t need to say that, but we can see that in his face. But if can see it on his face it needs to actually be in the script. So it was so important to put that there.

**Kelly:** Yeah. You’ll see a lot of WTFs in the descriptive passages of Venom 2 if we ever get to release that script. Yeah, I really like to do that. I think it’s really helpful for the actor. I think it’s really helpful for the reader. And it’s just very clear and concise. Rather than writing a whole sentence about he can’t believe he just did that.

**John:** So let’s talk about, we’ll just go on this sequence with Maria and Eddie, just that sort of first moment. So this is where he’s breaking her out of the cage and then the first time the symbiote is sort of going into Eddie here.

On the day, or on the days because this was probably more than a single day of shooting, talk to us about how you figure out the blocking for who is going to be where. Was all that blocking done in advance? How much was handled on the set as people were first showing up? What was the decision process there?

**Kelly:** Well obviously this is stunts. So, first of all Melora is a very athletic actress. So all the way back to casting you’re thinking about casting somebody that can do the physicality of this part. It’s very important. So then Melora is brought in as is Tom and as is Tom’s double, Jacob, into fight rehearsals. And so a lot of this blocking is done not on the day but weeks prior. When you’re looking at an action sequence it isn’t just blocked in the morning and then you shoot it. It’s very thoroughly and carefully and safely worked out weeks in advance. And so what will happen generally is you will have stunt coordinators with their own stunt people doing sort of a practice version of the scene which you will then see. They will film, they’ll show it to you, or you can see it live if we all happen to be in the same building.

And then once that is signed off on by the director you, and producers, you will then bring the actors in to see what that scene is. And generally Jacob and Tom who have worked together for years, and years, and years will have their own ideas that come from character. And then they will kind of incorporate those ideas into the fight sequence. And then Melora will be there also with her ideas and then they will start to work this thing through, beat by beat. But it will take days, maybe even a week to really fully flesh out this scene from top to bottom and the fight from top to bottom which is always done in a kind of slow-mo, you know, up until the last minute when you can move it to real speed.

Then once that’s worked out they’ll bring it onto the set. And that’s when we’ll show Matty and the rest of the crew what this is going to look like so that he can then light it and decide where his camera is going to be. And obviously that’s very important because you’re in an action sequence. You know, you have to think about safety all the time. And so Matty needs to see where he can get in and where he can get out with his camera.

And we’ll run through that and block it a couple of times in the morning and then hopefully we’ve added the dialogue to it as well. And then we’ll shoot it and we’ll shoot it a bunch of different ways. And this scene is how many pages, three pages. This probably took us – I think this probably took us two full days to shoot.

**John:** There’s a lot happening here. And there’s visual effects happening here as well.

**Kelly:** Right.

**John:** There’s the symbiote, there’s the goo. Stuff like that is happening, too. And so on a production design decision there was probably a discussion of visual effects in terms of like what set you’re building versus what’s going to be virtual beyond a certain point. But then with all the creature effects what’s practical, what is CG, how you’re going to do this, where is the handoff between this, how much is makeup on her before she sort of fully goes out obviously. And very early on in visual development you had to figure out how you’re going to handle Eddie and Venom and the manifestation of Venom, what is that all going to look like. So all that had to happen, which is informing the decisions you’re making as you get there to shoot just this one small sequence at the top of this bigger action sequence.

**Kelly:** Yes. You have all of our effects people in there as well. There are these incredible things they can do where they sort of bring in these iPads but place Venom in a scene so you can look at the iPad and see Venom moving around the scene even though he isn’t actually there in real life. And it’s kind of crazy, but obviously we have fake Venoms and, you know, all kinds of stuff that–

**John:** You probably have folks who were in the costumes and the little tracking balls and things like that, too, for placement. So there’s lot of tools there at your disposal.

**Kelly:** Complete hysteria when the tongue gets brought in, because you have this enormous silicon Venom tongue. Yeah, and that gem really causes a little bit of shutdown on the set. It’s hilarious.

**John:** So I bring all this up because we don’t talk very much about the nuts and bolts details of shooting action sequences because it all started with the writing and then it goes into all these other decisions and yet it’s so important that you are there along with director and Tom who has been involved from the start to remember like, oh that’s right, this action sequence is actually serving a story purpose that goes all the way back to the script you started writing. And that can be one of the things I’ve found to be frustrating sometimes working on big action movies is that you sort of forget what was the actual story point we were trying to tell in this action sequence and it’s so important that you’re there to help remind those folks.

And you’re reminding them again as you go into post. Because you’ve shot this thing 15 different ways but with that same footage one editor could make a sequence that works a certain way. A different editor would make a completely different sequence. The thing we learn as writers working with editors is how transformative a skilled editor can be on the exact footage, the exact same thing that we saw being shot.

**Kelly:** Absolutely. Look, you’ve always got to be pushing story as well. But you can’t have an action sequence for an action sequences sake. And obviously we’ve seen that in movies. But this is actually a really sad moment in the movie. It’s a really upsetting moment. She dies and she’s his friend. And she infects him. This is the moment that he gets Venom. So it’s a very important scene within an action sequence. But the story is still the most important thing in these three pages.

**John:** Absolutely. So, Kelly, thank you so much for talking us through Venom, both sort of the initial kind of thinking about it, but also the really nuts and bolts of shooting stuff. It’s really cool to get that full education.

**Kelly:** Oh, my pleasure. I could talk about Venom all day.

**John:** All right. Now it is time for our One Cool Things. So my One Cool Thing is a really useful but useless thing called Meet the Ipsums. So if you’ve ever done graphic design you’re probably used to Lorem ipsum text which is fake Latin that you put in as text for layouts. And so it’s just gibberish Latin that takes the place of stuff so you’re not actually reading real copy. You’re reading fake copy. And so Lorem ipsum is fine and good. But my friend Nima pointed me to a site called Meet the Ipsums which is alternate Ipsums. It’s bogus text you can put in that’s in different flavors.

And so my favorite one is called Corporate Ipsum. It’s done by Cameron Brister and SquarePlan. And it’s ridiculous and it’s just so funny. So here’s an example of a Corporate Ipsum. “Leverage agile frameworks to provide a robust synopsis for high level overviews. Iterative approaches to corporate strategy foster collaborative thinking to further the overall value proposition. Organically grow the holistic world view of disruptive innovation via workplace diversity and empowerment.”

So it’s just paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense boilerplate corporate nonsense. And I just love it. I just love that it exists. I love that someone took the time to actually write it and make a website so we can download it and stick it in our layouts.

We’re working on Highland for the iPad and so we have a lot of screens where we have to have bogus text in it. And it’s just been a joy to kind of half-read this in all the different Highland versions we’re working on.

**Kelly:** Yeah. I looked at it and it kind of exploded my brain. I was like oh god. I don’t know what this is.

**John:** And there’s all sort of other weird flavors, too. So you can just find something that fits the project you’re working on. Kelly, you got a One Cool Thing for us?

**Kelly:** I do have a One Cool Thing. It’s called the Loóna App. Well I guess you’ll put the link up. And it won the Apple Design Awards. And I don’t know about you, or anybody else, but I’ve found this past year, year and a half, a little bit challenging. And I’ve been going through this weird thing where I’ve been waking up at 2 and staying awake till 4.

**John:** Yeah, that’s me.

**Kelly:** What is that? It’s bizarre.

**John:** It may be the changing of seasons a bit of that, too. But, yeah, I’ve definitely felt that. Especially this last couple weeks. So yeah.

**Kelly:** I just haven’t been able to figure it out. Anyway, I was looking at meditation apps and sleep apps and I came across this thing called Loóna which is basically a sleep scape. And I like to do it in the dark. So I turn the lights off and I load the sleep scape and they basically tell you a story as you find these particular things in the sleep scape that they’ve drawn for you that is beautiful, by the way, absolutely gorgeous. They’ve designed for you. And you find each thing that they’re talking about and you tap it and it sort of comes alive.

And at the end you have this beautiful landscape that you’ve created. But you’ve also been lulled into this very kind of sleepy state. And so it’s really working for me. I think it’s beautiful. There’s one that is set in Brooklyn that I think is my favorite. And I love that story. And it’s just gorgeous.

**John:** That’s great. Previously on Scriptnotes we’ve talked about the sleep casts that are part of the Head Space App, which are deliberately so kind of boring. They cram so many details that your brain just sort of gives up and you fall asleep. But this seems very, very cool, too. I’m eager to try it out. Are you doing this before you go to bed or if you wake up at two in the morning?

**Kelly:** I’ve been doing it before I go to bed and it’s been helping me not wake up at two o’clock in the morning.

**John:** That’s what you want.

**Kelly:** That’s what you want.

**John:** Hooray. And that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is a classic outro by our own Matthew Chilelli. But 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 shorter questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust. Kelly, I don’t know if you check Twitter. Are you on Twitter?

**Kelly:** I am. I very rarely check it. But I am @missmarcel.

**John:** All right. We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. We have our anniversary.

**Kelly:** Ah, t-shirts.

**John:** Are you wearing your t-shirt?

**Kelly:** I want a t-shirt.

**John:** Oh, well we’ll send you a t-shirt because we have our 10th Anniversary t-shirt. Our 10th Anniversary is next week. We’re so excited. So you can wear your 10th Anniversary t-shirt as you listen to the podcast.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting where we talk about writing things. It has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. You can listen to Kelly and Craig and I play fiasco and get a little too drunk, if that’s appealing. And other episodes where Kelly Marcel has been wise as always.

Kelly, thank you so much for joining us here on Scriptnotes. It’s so great to chat with you again.

**Kelly:** Oh, it’s so nice. So nice. It feels like it’s been forever.

**John:** It has been too, too long. So we won’t have you gone for so long.

**Kelly:** Yes, please don’t. It was great.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** OK, we’re back. So Kelly Marcel, if people couldn’t guess by your accent you are not from the United States.

**Kelly:** I am not from the United States.

**John:** So how did you become legally eligible to work here in the United States? I assume you’re not just sneaking in.

**Kelly:** No, I’m not. I’m actually allowed to be here. So I did the visa application. I’ve been here for nearly a decade. Initially I was here on an O1 visa and now obviously I have a green card. But it is a real process. And the O1 was a lot. It’s a lot of paperwork and a lot of time and can be very stressful.

And so I think the O1 is the one that you get if you have extraordinary abilities.

**John:** So not like Venom, but extraordinary abilities as a writer, as an artist, as a unique talent.

**Kelly:** You have to prove that only you can do the thing that you need the visa to do. And, of course, with writing it is very specific to your voice, so only I can write what I write. And so with the O1 I think I had actually – had I been nominated for a BAFTA at that point? Because that really helps as well if you have any kind of nominations or awards or stuff like that. I can’t remember whether I had it or not.

But what I did have was Terra Nova. It had been sold here in the states. And another show that I had at Showtime. And I was very lucky in that I had an incredibly famous producer on Terra Nova and was able to get a letter of recommendation from Mr. Spielberg. And so that kind of did it for me on the O1.

But I’ve written those letters for other people as well. And I’m certainly not that person. And those letters have worked as well. Where you talk about somebody’s extraordinary ability. You talk about how you know them in the industry. And kind of just how brilliant and unique they are. And so that’s one way to come into the United States to work.

**John:** We get so many questions at the website about working in the US as an international writer that we decided to reach out to a bunch of our colleagues who are international writers and ask them if they could anonymously tell us about their journey and their experience getting that O1 visa which seems to be the visa that almost everybody is using to get.

Some writers will come here on student visas. And if you’re here on a student visa there’s ways you can get an extra year after your student visa which is super helpful because then you can actually get work experience and get those connections so you can actually gather together all the materials and recommendations you need to get that O1 visa.

The biggest piece of advice we got from everybody is that you have to have a lawyer do it. Because it’s just not a thing a person can do. How did you find a lawyer? Was it something that the producers you were working for could steer you towards? What was your process of finding an immigration lawyer?

**Kelly:** It was London agents, Casarotto, who have a ton of British writers who were working in the states. And this was a lawyer that they had used a number of times. I’ll email you his name so that anyone can call him if they’re looking for someone to represent them in getting a visa. He is brilliant. And he actually got me my green card, too, which was a much different process. It was actually easier to go from the O1 to the green card.

**John:** Tell us about that, because I don’t have a great sense of how green cards work.

**Kelly:** I got my green card as a result of having – so I had my O1 – I think you can have the O1 for is it three years?

**John:** And it has to be renewed every three years apparently.

**Kelly:** Yes, I think it’s three years. So it was coming to the end of my three years. You know, I was very much living in Los Angeles at the time in the house that we did Fiasco in. It was time to either renew or get a green card. And I decided to get a green card, or try to get a green card. You know, that was when I had had the BAFTA nomination and at the time I was doing 50 Shades of Gray and so quite high profile work.

And I think Alan, who is my lawyer, Alan Klein, I think really didn’t have much of a problem moving the O1 into a green card. You do have to go for these sort of in-person interviews where they ask you all sorts of questions about what you’re doing in the US. With the O1 you actually have to be in your home country to be able to get that visa. So you have to go to an American embassy. You have to have your passport stamped in my case in the UK. With the green card you don’t have to return to your country to get that done. You can do it from within the states.

It took about, I think it probably took about eight months for the visa to turn into the green card. I know it’s taking so much longer during the pandemic. I know a ton of people whose visas have been kind of stalled because of what’s going on in the world right now. So, I know it’s much, much, much more difficult unfortunately.

**John:** Now with your green card situation can studios hire you just like any American writers? Is there anything different that a studio needs to do to hire you as a writer with a green card?

**Kelly:** No, nothing. I’m now a permanent resident of the US. Well, you have ten years on your green card. And then after that you either apply to become a citizen, or you renew – I think you renew your green card. But I think if you’ve been here ten years they like you to then decide to become–

**John:** To officially become a US citizen. So at that point you’ll be on Venom 9. You’ll have a pretty big work history there and things will be set.

**Kelly:** I think it’s going to be OK. I think it’s going to be OK.

**John:** And one thing we should clarify. Sometimes I know folks who deal with casting. And there’s a process for getting actors over here for a movie, which is a little bit different than the other things. And so the advice we’re giving is for people who want to work as writers. There are other ways, sneaky ways, to do things if you’re just coming in for one thing. But it’s not quite the same process.

**Kelly:** No, it isn’t. And also, look, I would also say the pandemic has changed a lot. You know, before I would have said you have to be in LA. You absolutely have to because you do the water tour and there are so many in-person meetings. But I think the world has changed.

You know, I have a great friend, brilliant screenwriter Jack Thorne, who has a very, very active American career, but he lives in the UK, and always has, and has never moved to Los Angeles. And has continued to work consistently in America without needing a visa or a green card because he doesn’t live or work within the US.

**John:** That’s a really good point. Because I think coming out of this pandemic it became clear that needing to actually go in to sit in a room to talk with people is so much less important than it was even for you and Tom working on this script. That was a FaceTime conversation. So it was challenging to be in different time zones, but it could absolutely work.

And I think are there some advantages to being in Los Angeles at the start of your career? Yes. Is it essential? No. And certainly not as essential as it was even ten years ago.

**Kelly:** And maybe that’s different for TV writers and as writer’s rooms start to come back then I would say that may be different. But definitely for movie writing I don’t think you need to be in LA anymore.

**John:** Well Kelly Marcel I’m glad you were in LA for a time so I at least got to know you here while you were in Los Angeles. And drink too much wine at your house.

**Kelly:** I mean, having said that, I’ll always have to come in and out of Los Angeles, so I will always have a place there. But I just think for new writers and people worrying about whether that’s something they need to do, they should worry less.

**John:** Sounds good. Kelly, thanks so much for your guidance here.

**Kelly:** Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Links:

* [Original Movies Are Becoming Streaming’s Most Popular Content, Led By Disney+](https://variety.com/vip/original-movies-are-becoming-streamings-most-popular-content-led-by-disney-1235037636/) by Kevin Tran for Variety
* [Foreign Writers on Getting a Visa](https://johnaugust.com/2021/getting-a-visa)
* [Venom Excerpt](https://johnaugust.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/venom-excerpt.pdf)
* [Meet the Ipsums](https://meettheipsums.com/)
* [Loóna Sleep App](https://loona.app/)
* [Kelly Marcel](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0545150/) and on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/missmarcel)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast), check out our special [10th Anniversary Shirts!](https://cottonbureau.com/products/for-all-time#/10278066/tee-men-standard-tee-military-green-tri-blend-s)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Michael O’Konis ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/513standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 503: When You’re Given the Character, Transcript

June 11, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey this is John. Head’s up that today’s episode has just a little bit of swearing in it.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 503 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is traveling, so today I’m hosting solo. But I’m hardly alone. Later in the show I’ll be talking with WandaVision creator Jac Schaeffer about her amazing series, and writer-director Lance Oppenheim about his acclaimed documentary, Some Kind of Heaven. A question I asked them both is what do you do when you don’t control the characters you’re given. Jac and Lance had very smart ways of thinking about that challenge.

But to kick things off I want to welcome back the writer-producer behind such iconic films as The Wedding Date, How To Be Single, Couples Retreat, and Isn’t it Romantic. She’s also the co-writer of the new film, Cruella. Welcome back returning champion, Dana Fox.

Dana Fox: Woo-hoo. I need my playout music.

John: Yeah. You’ve got to – you walk down, you take your seat, you pick up your mic and you wave to the crowd.

Dana: Ah, big time waving.

John: Dana, I can’t believe I’ve not seen you in person for more than a year. This is not good.

Dana: I miss your face so, so much. Sometimes I just Google you just to see you, because I miss you.

John: During this whole crazy time you decamped to Virginia, right? You’ve been in Virginia for most of this pandemic.

Dana: That is correct. We were in LA for the beginning sort of horrible sudden three children on Zoom school scenario where we were all jammed in like sardines and it was pretty intense. And we decided to come to Virginia because more space, just grass, just outdoor space. And we just told our kids to go outside and never come back. You’re wild animals now. Goodbye. And they became like feral. They stopped showering. There’s zero hair-brushing happening here at this house, including for me.

But we all just needed a little bit more space from each other. We love each other so much, but we needed a little space. Three kids under eight was intense.

John: That’s a lot. So, you were still able to manage your career though. So an interesting thing about this year is that it has sort of shown that people can be in places that are not Hollywood and still get stuff done. You had a whole second season of your show Home Before Dark. That all happened during the pandemic and you did it all from Virginia, correct?

Dana: Yeah. I mean, Home Before Dark season two, which comes out June 11, was literally almost entirely completed from a creepy room in a house in Virginia with just me being sweaty, with a lot of monitors. A lot of Apple products. A lot of whiteboards. So much laundry. So many piles of laundry all around me at all times.

But what I learned was that I’m actually weirdly possibly more efficient this way. I know it’s going to be controversial to say, but the Evercast system which allowed me to sort of watch what was going on on-set I know can be a little bit of a tricky thing for some people, but I tried to make sure that I was calling in more like compliments and cheers than anything else. And the only time I ever really called in notes was just if I had a good idea about something. I was like, oh, that made me think of a different line. Try this, because I didn’t want to use it like a creepy big brother who called in to complain from 100,000 miles away.

But it was incredibly effective because I could watch set. I could write scripts on one monitor while I was keeping one eyeball on set. I could pop into a Zoom to talk to the editors. All of a sudden I’m looking at one episode in one Zoom room and then I’m hopping into another room, watching another cut in a different room with a different editor. And like weirdly I ended up being a ton more productive.

I was also really lucky because I had this incredible woman, Margie Love, who helps me with everything. And she was like – not CJ Craig, but who on the West Wing is the one who orders everybody around and tells them what to do? The chief of staff. She’s like my chief of staff.

John: The Allison Janney character?

Dana: I don’t know who it is. I’ve seen West Wing 75,000 times and I love it so much and god forbid you held a gun to my head and told me to say what everyone’s jobs were. But truly it was like amazing because she was just sort of a chief of staff. She would sort of order me around and be like you’re going in this room next, you’re going in that room next. You’ve got 45 minutes. You’ve got to look at this script. You’ve got to do your changes on this script. So that was sort of what kept the whole train on the track. And it was weirdly I think I got a lot more done which is terrible because it becomes very man behind the curtain-y.

Like I think we all realized a lot of the like getting in your car and driving for two hours to Santa Monica to do color timing is maybe never going to happen again for me. Because I was able to do it from home. They sent me a fancy iPad. I looked at the color timing live. I could say, hey, can you brighten up that window, or hey, I feel like she’s sort of like this, and can you treat that. And, boom, he’s tweaking it and I’m looking at it from my creepy room in Virginia.

John: So Dana what I’m taking from this description is that there’s no reason for Craig to be in Calgary for all these months coming up here. And that he basically just ran away to escape me and the Scriptnotes recording process?

Dana: Literally 100%. That actually is why I was called to do Scriptnotes today. This is so awkward. Craig wanted me to come to tell you that it’s because of you that he’s gone.

John: Yeah. So, with Craig gone, this is normally the part of the show that we would talk through the news. And so maybe you could fill in for Craig on this part. Because I’m sort of struggling here without him.

Dana: I can’t possibly do as well as Craig, but please, try me.

John: So I want to roll out a new segment, it’s really a beta test of a new segment called Did You See in Deadline Where…? So these are all actual Deadline headlines. And so we should make it clear that ten years ago this would have been Did You See in Variety Where, but really Deadline has supplanted that as the thing people talk about when they go into one of those meetings. Like did you see in Deadline where.

So these are all actual Deadline headlines. And I just want to get your feedback on this headline, which may be complete news to you because maybe you aren’t following the trades the way you were before.

Dana: Hit me.

John: Are you ready?

Dana: Yeah, big time.

John: Dana, did you see in Deadline where Timothée Chalamet is set to play Willy Wonka in a new origin tale from Warner Bros?

Dana: Yes, I did. And that was one of the moments where I just Googled your face to think about you because I remember you did that movie. And I love me a Timothée Chalamet. I think he’s actually kind of fantastic for this part. And I was like, all right, I see where you’re coming from. I wonder what they’re going to do with it. What were you thinking? That’s kind of intense. You must have had some emotions.

John: I did. I mean, the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory made like a billion dollars and it was an origin story, so I guess there’s still new territory to explore. But Dana as the writer of Cruella I want to say you’re no stranger to origin stories, but at least Cruella only killed dogs. I mean, here you’ve got Willy Wonka going after Augustus Gloop. You’ve got some Violet Beauregard. You have Veruca Salt. You’ve got the unambitiously named Mike TV. This is like The Joker with chocolate.

Dana: Do you think we’re going to meet those people, or do you think we’re going to be like hanging out with him when he’s in his house before he gets the chocolate factory?

John: I suspect it’s before all of those people exist because they would be too young if it’s Timothée Chalamet. But it’s a good question. It could be the origin story of the Oompa Loompas, which is potentially problematic so you’ve got to find a way through the Oompa Loompa and their sort of indentured servitude to Willy Wonka. Yeah, there’s a lot.

Dana: We were always thinking of ways to sort of tease these future things when we were talking about Cruella and sort of saying well how much do we want to do nods and winks to the sort of canon. So I feel like you can do the math on Timothée Chalamet’s age and I think maybe you could watch Augustus Gloop’s parents make love and know that Augustus Gloop is coming? No pun intended. He’s like coming into the world.

You can always do the math and say well what would be the cool precursor to the thing and the thing. And so I mean I feel like I’m in for that movie. I’m intrigued by it. Who is directing it? Do we know who is directing it?

John: It is I think the guy who did Paddington if I recall correctly, who is great.

Dana: People are like obsessed with Paddington 2. Is Paddington 2 guy the same as Paddington 1 guy?

John: I think it’s the same person. I’ve never seen Paddington 1. I’ve only seen Paddington 2 and it is indeed delightful.

Now, going back to Cruella though, you know, one of the things I found so frustrating about the discourse on Cruella is this question of who is this movie for.

Dana: Oh, god, my favorite.

John: Yeah. And with this movie I guess you can ask that question. Who is the audience? If you want to see a twink navigate a chocolate river you’re probably not going to the multiplex.

Dana: [laughs]

John: I mean, that’s niche content Dana. No judgments. But you’re going to want to VPN for that.

Dana: That’s amazing. I really, really didn’t think about it that way, but now I will never, ever be able to think of it any other way. That’s really special and important.

Yeah, I feel like the question of who is it for is the number one thing I have been asked in the last three years of my career. And I keep just being like, I don’t know, I just kind of like it. I think it’s pretty great.

John: I think it’s pretty great.

Dana: You know, that’s the kind of thing that people ask when they’re scared that they don’t know exactly how much money something is going to make. And I just kind of feel like it’s fun to try to straddle the different worlds and try to say I think young kids want things to reach up to. And I think adults want to feel like kids again. So, don’t ask me that question anymore people. I’m not interested.

John: Speaking of adults feeling like kids, another casting news, did you see in Deadline where Kevin Spacey Will Return To Film In Franco Nero’s The Man Who Drew God. Spacey will play a police officer investigating a man wrongly accused of sexually abusing children. Spacey said he’s been researching the role–

Dana: No.

John: –for decades.

Dana: No. Are you kidding?

John: No, it’s a real movie.

Dana: That’s not what the part is about?

John: That’s what the part is about.

Dana: That’s not the part.

John: That is the part.

Dana: No, John.

John: Yes. He’s a police officer investigating a man wrongly accused of sexually abusing children. That’s the confusing part.

Dana: Oh my god, John.

John: I mean, Spacey, he’s so excited to be in a film that asks the question what if a guy didn’t do what I’m accused of doing.

Dana: I have to take a minute. I actually have to maybe potentially get down on the ground. I tend to sort of go low when I feel dizzy. Are you kidding? I literally thought you were 1,000% joking.

John: No, it’s not a joke. There’s a joke around it, but that’s the actual premise of the movie.

Dana: Oh my god. [Unintelligible]. I saw the headline and I intentionally didn’t click on it because I was like I’m not OK with it. I’m not ready. It’s too soon. Possibly it will always be too soon for me. I can’t do it. Unfortunately I can no longer watch Woody Allen movies. I love a Woody Allen movie. I used to have a secret thing where in the very beginning before I felt like it was like fully confirmed I was like I’ll only watch them on planes where nobody notices I’m watching. Like I’d like get on a plane and I’d immediately look for Annie Hall and then just sort of embarrassingly check both directions and then hit play, and then just watch it on planes where I feel like it was like, look, what happens at 40,000 feet stays at 40,000 feet.

And even that I can’t do anymore.

John: There was a time which I was a vegetarian, but I would eat chicken if it was the in-flight option.

Dana: Totally. Totally.

John: That’s you with Woody Allen.

Dana: And for me Kevin Spacey is chicken, which is that I no longer eat chicken even when it’s a secret, or when nobody is going to know about it. I just can’t do it. Can’t do it.

John: Dana, what are we going to do if this movie is good? That’s my biggest worry is Spacey is actually a good actor. And so this movie could be good and then what do we do?

Dana: I couldn’t agree with you more. But I think it’s like it doesn’t matter if it’s good. I think you just can’t see it. I think people just have to say we’re just not giving – to me it’s sort of like a serial killer writing a book and making money off of it. It’s like no. You don’t get to do that. Not my money. I’m not giving you my money.

And I think he’s a great actor, but you know, I was going to make a horrible joke that I’m not going to make about murderers being like painters. Like so and so is a good painter, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if the movie is good.

John: I know who the so-and-so was, and you know what, it’s right for you not to have made that.

Dana: Exactly. Thank you. Not funny. Never funny.

John: Speaking of restraint, did you see in Deadline where John Cena Apologizes — In Mandarin — To China Over Calling Taiwan A Country?

Dana: [laughs]

John: I get it. He’s got F9 to promote and China is a huge market, but still I have not seen a public figure so fully prostrate themselves to a foreign power since Craig apologized to Liverpool for misattributing You’ll Never Walk Alone.

Dana: Oh my god.

John: That’s a niche joke. That’s for the fans, I’m putting that in there.

Dana: That’s literally for my husband. I’m like you’re welcome, Quinn Emmett. Please enjoy.

I have to say I know I’m supposed to be talking about the headline, but I don’t know anything about it, so I am going to say I didn’t realize you were so amazing at segues. Have you always been this amazing at super natural segues in between stuff?

John: It’s a found skill, a found art. I’m one of those mutants in X-Men who like very late in life it manifests. Oh my gosh, he can do this really unimportant thing. But I became Segue Man only because of Scriptnotes.

Dana: You’re incredible at it. It’s sort of like how Craig discovered he’s an amazing actor. Did you guys both discover that because of Scriptnotes? It’s beautiful.

John: I don’t know. I think he did a lot more voice work sort of because of Scriptnotes, so who is to say. I don’t have a good segue for this next joke though. Dana did you see in Deadline where Amazon is buying MGM for $8.5 billion?

Dana: Oh my god. They have all the money.

John: Amazon vows to keep releasing movies theatrically with the new James Bond movie due out October 8, or October 7 if you check out in the next 30 minutes.

Dana: [laughs]

John: You can throw some batteries in the cart and push it over the limit.

Dana: It’s kind of amazing. But I have to say I know I’m supposed to be cynical, and I know I’m supposed be like ugh they’re destroying the world, but I just love sunscreen and I love being able to just order as much of it as I want anytime I want and five seconds later it’s at my house. So I was like psyched about the MGM thing. I like MGM’s catalog and I like sunscreen. So I was like it’s kind of a beautiful marriage for me.

John: Yeah, I mean, a lot of people are freaking out but I don’t think there’s really anything to worry about Amazon entering the movie business because look what they did for books.

Dana: Correct. Can you explain – I got the joke, but I’m moving on from it. Again, I like to order off of Amazon, I’m so sorry. But can you explain to me why people are freaking out about it? Because I didn’t totally understand why everyone was so up in arms. I was sort of like, yeah, there’s going to be a place where you can watch the movies that you couldn’t watch before this, now this other place. It’s all on your thing.

John: I think it’s just the problem of all of the consolidation in the industry. I think it’s people trying to take a do-over for Disney and Fox, which should probably never have happened. And so I think it’s just people recognizing like, oh my god, there’s going to be three buyers and you’re going to go to just the same three places the whole time.

Dana: Right. Right.

John: I think it’s just awareness of how much the industry is coalescing around these giant players.

Dana: I hear that. But I feel like if any of these places had been making these like profoundly amazing artistic films and then had been gobbled up by it I’d be like, oh trag. But, I mean, they’re kind of commercial movies. Here, go buy your batteries and watch your movie.

John: They got their Creeds. That’s sort of it.

Dana: I like that Creed. I’m not going to lie to you. That was a nice Creed. Love that Creed.

John: Finally, Dana, did you see in Deadline where in the new movie Army of the Dead Tig Notaro shot all of her scenes alone? So it was all reshoots and she’s in a bunch of scenes with actors but, nope, she was just in a green screen. It was just all Tig Notaro alone.

It reminds me that Craig was originally supposed to be in those scenes but he got too busy making his new show.

Dana: That’s amazing. That does not surprise me. And I’ll say it’s because I finished a TV show in complete Covid protocols and I was kind of amazed at – you know, in the beginning when we shut down in the middle of an episode I thought, oh, there’s going to be this fun bingo game, drinking game, that everyone is going to get to play after the end of the pandemic where you’re going to be watching your favorite TV show and then you have to drink when you see the character age by like a year in the middle of a scene.

And I thought it was going to be really complicated and everything was going to look crazy. And it’s like I watched the show and you absolutely can’t tell. We have huge crowd scenes that we just did totally safely with tiling and all sorts of stuff. We had to do a bunch of stuff like what you’re talking about. Just kind of shooting people alone so that they could be in scenes with people that they couldn’t breathe around. And so it kind of doesn’t surprise me.

And again I don’t think it’s something that we want to do in the future because I think that actors really feed off each other’s energy and I think it’s a little bit oddball to be up against a green screen for like an entire conversation. But like, OK, I’m buying it.

John: Yeah. The real question is Dana why isn’t Tig Notaro in your show? She could be in your show. What do you have against Tig Notaro that she’s not in your show?

Dana: Well now we know that there’s no reason Tig Notaro can’t be in every show. So it’s like, yeah, there’s going to be a real reckoning with that. I like Tig Notaro a lot. I think she’s great.

John: I think she’s that little bit of pepper you need to sort of spice things up. She’s great.

Dana: I think that’s right. And I think maybe–

John: She’s like deadpan pepper.

Dana: Maybe just send me the footage and I’ll see if I can work it in from the other thing.

John: Done. 100%.

Dana: Some of the green screen stuff. Let’s just stick it in my thing with a different background.

John: Dana Fox, thank you so much for helping me out with the headlines. I’m going to be back talking with you–

Dana: Oh, I love you.

John: –in our bonus segment about naps. And everyone check out the second season of your mystery-thriller series Home Before Dark. It appears June 11 on AppleTV+. Yay.

Dana: Yay. Oh, you’re the greatest John. Thank you.

John: Stick around because after the break I’ll be cheating with Jac Schaeffer about WandaVision and navigating the Marvel universe.

[WandaVision clip plays]

So Darcy may not know what’s happening, but luckily we have someone who does know. Jac Schaeffer is a writer-director whose credits include Time, The Hustle, and the story for the upcoming Marvel Studios’ Black Widow film. She also created and executive produced the hit series WandaVision. Welcome Jac.

Jac Schaeffer: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.

John: Now, I emailed you probably after episode two to say how amazingly well-done I thought your show was and just how much I was enjoying it week-to-week. And I’d been curious about your show really early on because as listeners will know we lost our former producer, Megan McDonnell, to your show. She was hired away from Scriptnotes to work on your WandaVision show. And I was just so excited that it turned out so amazingly well.

Jac: Yes. I’m so delighted that I got to poach her directly from you. She is extraordinary. I love her madly. And that was her episode that you were just playing. One of two that she contributed to and many other things on the series.

Yeah, I could spend this whole segment just talking about Megan McDonnell if you wanted to do that. She is very smart.

John: Well maybe we can do that off-mic. But Megan is also an absolute steel trap because she told us nothing about your show or what was happening in it. And even as it was airing she was like I can’t say anything. She revealed nothing.

So now that the show is out and done I really want to talk about the process of putting together WandaVision and we’re not spoiling Marvel secrets. I’m just really curious how it all came to be. Because I don’t have a good sense of was Marvel pitching you? Were you pitching Marvel? What were those early conversations when it came time to think about doing WandaVision?

Jac: Sure. You know, it’s unusual at Marvel. It’s unlike anything else that I’ve experienced in the industry. They have their own system and it has been very successful for them.

They typically develop their concepts in house. And the only other actually place that it’s a little bit similar to is Disney Animation, where there is a lot of dedicated in-house development time. And so when you come in to pitch on something usually they have materials for you and they sort of know essentially what the gig is going to be. And then you’re meant to come in and bring your voice and perspective to the project.

So for WandaVision it was Kevin’s idea. He wanted to blend – to put Wanda and Vision’s characters together with the history of sitcoms and sort of use that to examine her very robust and tragic backstory of loss and grief. And they had a lot of sort of – they had some little ideas. They had this idea of like a milkman who was really scary. And so they had some granular stuff. And then they had big picture stuff of is it a dome, and is it the world, and who is helping, and what’s going on. And so I adjusted all of that material and then came back to them with a pitch that sort of gave shape to all of these pieces.

John: So it feels very much like a feature, you’re also a feature writer, so it feels like situations where there’s a book to adapt, and so obviously you have everything that’s in the book and then they may be bringing you in. And then you say like, OK, here’s how I’m going to do this. This thing you’re pitching towards me, here’s how I’m pitching it back to you. This is what I think it feels like. This is how I think it might work. Is that fair?

Jac: It’s sort of like that. I mean, I haven’t adapted a book, but I’ve sort of gone down the road. And I have felt that for me it’s a different approach. Because I find books are so immersive, especially when they’re very POV driven, if they’re very first person. And so you feel kind of surrounded by a world and a voice and a tone and a character. And this is different than that because it’s so sprawling. Because what you’re pitching on is like a kernel and a tone. Because they often assign genre to their – so the most reductive thing is like, OK, we’re doing a western, we’re doing a heist. So you’re sort of buying in on what, like you know Black Widow obviously is sort of spy genre, in the Bourne world.

John: As opposed to Ant Man which is like a heist comedy.

Jac: Yeah, heist comedy. Exactly. Exactly. With a novel I feel like there’s a little bit more containment. And yes you can depart from the book, but you’re always kind of housed in whatever that original container is. Whereas on this there’s like no container. It’s just an enormous table full of materials. And some of them – it’s sort of like I would imagine, I don’t know anything about cars, but cars before they were computers. If you took apart a car and there were all of these pieces spread out over a table. One is a huge engine and one is a tiny little whatever piece. I’m going to say wingnut, even though it’s probably not that. And this metaphor has gone off the rails.

But do you know what I mean? There’s so many parts to it that – on this one in particular I had to find the sort of spine and through line of it.

John: That’s what I really want to talk about is how did you find the spine and through line, which I guess quite early on you had to figure out sort of a tone and an approach. Because one of the things I loved so much about WandaVision is you watch that first episode and second episode and you’re like I’m not even quite sure what show this is. I’m not sure what the tone is. It’s just so wild and weird and unusual.

So what was the containment device for it? You say that it’s not a heist movie, it’s not a western. What did you feel this was? This surrealist existential drama? What limits did you put on yourself?

Jac: It’s funny. When I was thinking about having this conversation with you today and I was thinking about Craig actually and how amazed I am that he wrote The Hangover sequels and then also Chernobyl, and I always really admire people who can do it all, and can dance all the different – they can do all the different dances at the ballroom competition.

But for me, I just like them all in the same spot. That is really exciting to me. The challenge of can you do the kitchen sink with the one project.

You know, my first way in, I sort of had two points of entry on this. One was I mapped – I broke the episodes according to the stages of grief. It was a very reductive framing device that just helped guide me. And it ended up – we ended up straying from it a little bit, and then kind of returning to it. And now if you look at the show it’s very evident. She is in denial for the first three episodes.

And she’s angry and kicks Monica out. And then she’s bargaining outside, the sequence that we called the hex flex, when she steps out of the hex. You know, and the whole thing was meant to culminate with acceptance. That she has to accept the truth of her circumstance. So that was like one of the ways that I approached the pitch and kind of gave shape to it.

And then the other thing was that I knew that there was a huge risk that it would just feel like parody and just feel like a gimmick. And there was such a risk that we wouldn’t care about these characters. And I just knew instinctively that if we told the linear story of Wanda goes to get Vision’s body, is denied, and freaks out and creates a dome that there’s no tension in that.

John: Yeah.

Jac: So, it was my instinct and I think it was also kind of implied in their early documents of starting inside of the world and then trying to sort of unpack that mystery. But I think their instinct was to kind of parse it early, like in the first episode reveal. And I wanted to hang onto it. And I wanted to try and create an actual sitcom. So that was the driving force is like how long can we keep the cat in the bag and create maximum tension and intrigue and interest.

John: Well tension and intrigue and interest, you’re really talking about expectation. You’re talking about where the audience is at. What does the audience this is going to happen next? How can you reward that and how can you challenge that and sort of move past it? So those first two episodes, the first episode is so very classic black and white and really arch performances and so we’re expecting is this show, and then as we move to the second episode we see the time has jumped forward. It felt like you were from a very early stage anticipating what the discourse would be like week to week and where the audience was going to be at and what the audience was expecting to happen next. Is that fair?

Jac: It is fair. It is fair. We weren’t entirely certain that it would be week to week. When we were making it it was up in the air whether or not it would be a dump and be binge-able, or if it would be week to week. And it was always my hope it would be week to week. And I was so pleased that that’s how it landed.

But, yeah, I mean, it is bizarre writing in this world because you’re not writing alone. You’re writing with the legacy of everything that came before. People say lovely things about the show and I’m delighted that it has resonated, but I also – you know, I didn’t think it would play for people who didn’t understand the Marvel universe. I didn’t think it would play outside of the states. I was like if you’re not steeped in American sitcoms this is going to be Greek to you. And of course I completely under – and it’s actually even in the story she learns English. The character Wanda learns. So I don’t know why I was so sort of shortsighted about it.

But I mean so much of the eeriness and the uncanniness is about going into it knowing that these are superheroes. And that’s part of what’s so kind of delicious about it. So, yeah, I was absolutely playing to the expectations of Marvel fans. But then, you know, I wanted people who weren’t fans to be pulled in as well.

John: Now, one of the challenges of writing these characters though is that you don’t really fully control these characters. These characters existed before you. And they will exist after you. And so you have them for this period of time. It’s like you have them for college and you can do whatever they want to do in college, but they’re going to enter college and they’re going to leave college and you only have them for that time.

What were some of the challenges of taking Wanda and Vision and all the other supporting characters you brought in from the Marvel universe and using them to your best effect, but also knowing that they would have to go on and do other things? Like how early in the conversations with Marvel did that come up as an issue?

Jac: The continuing on you mean?

John: Yeah.

Jac: Well, you know, it’s really not as much of a burden as it sort of seems on the outside. First of all, it was a real surprise to me to discover how much I enjoyed picking up other people’s story threads, especially when they’re peripheral. There’s something about the characters with less screen time that really fascinate me, because you end up being able to make a meal out of these tiny moments. And actors are amazing and they make all these little choices that you sort of pass through but then upon inspection – you know, Randall Parks’ whole thing from what I understand that the moment in Ant Man between him and Paul Rudd where Jimmy makes the mistake that he thinks that Paul Rudd’s character is asking him to go to dinner. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this moment. But it’s this really charming and totally disarming moment of miscommunication between two men who aren’t friends, but it reveals that Jimmy’s character is actually seeking connection.

And it was like so pleasurable to run with that. And also his sort of little interest in magic in the Ant Man movie to then sort of take that. So all that textural stuff is very, very fun.

And then of course with Paul and Lizzie like they’re performers who really operate with an enormous amount of integrity. So they had so much to contribute and there was so much already there.

In terms of where they’re going, I mean it’s an ongoing conversation throughout making your thing, because while you’re making your thing they have an idea about what the next thing is, but it’s not rolling yet. And then once it starts rolling there are conversations. I never really felt – the only place where it sort of made me feel a little bit hemmed in is the tags. The tags are always really challenging because typically they’re iterated and iterated and iterated through the process and then really they’re decided upon so late in the game.

And that’s the handoff.

John: It’s not really wrapping up your story.

Jac: Correct.

John: It’s setting up the next one which you had nothing to do with.

Jac: Correct. Yeah. And I love the tags. I always find them to be so fun. And I’ve written a bunch that I fell in love with that then were cut because it didn’t align with the next thing, or the actor was unavailable. So that’s sort of where you handoff the baton. That’s the only place where it gets a little bit sticky. But really I have felt very fortunate that in the larger scope of whatever project I’m on you’re allowed to do what you need to do to make it the best that it can be.

John: So let’s talk about the characters you’re using, like Randall Parks’ character. How early on did you know that he was going to be a force? Was that already part of the Marvel pitch to you? And same with Darcy or other people who sort of exist in the Marvel universe. Did you need them or did they say like, oh, here’s available people we’d love you to use?

Jac: Yes, so they had a list of possibilities. And it’s funny now. I can barely remember who else was on them. Usually it’s a long-ish list. Randall and Kat Dennings were on there. And high up. And I was like absolutely. That is just an immediate yes to those two performers and to those two characters. And same with Agatha Harkness was on there as a maybe, I don’t know, maybe she’s in the mix somewhere. So those were the ones that I pulled out.

You know, we went down a road with a couple other characters that didn’t end up working out very early, because it’s also like you’re gambling on actor availability, which in the MCU usually that’s not a huge problem because they’re interested in continuing their participation. But it is a little bit tricky. And then sometimes characters get pulled into another property and that on a very small scale happened with us. On Black Widow that was a little bit more blue sky on that.

I was the first writer in on that. In conjunction with my producer on that we sort of set the table on who those characters were going to be. So, the short answer to your question is they have some ideas. It’s sort of like it’s a menu and then you can select and run at it and then if it doesn’t work often it can be modular and you can slide somebody else in.

John: Well let’s talk back to the process for WandaVision. What were the first documents you ended up writing for this project? Do you do an outline for the whole series? Did you do a pilot? What were you writing first?

Jac: Let’s see. That’s a good question. I mean, Marvel has a very extensive pitch process. So I had really detailed pitch documents. Because you pitch multiple times. So I had my pitch document which broke the whole series. And then I got notes on that which just sort of shored it up. Gave it a little bit of shape.

So the next step was putting the writer’s room together. And so when we were hiring writers they would come in and I would pitch the series.

John: So at this point you had not written a script, but you were hiring writers based on the approval of this pitch document and saying like, OK, we’re going to try to make this thing.

Jac: Correct. And it was in broad strokes. I can’t remember. Monica being kicked out. That was always there. The first three episodes, obscuring the truth, and kind of having red herrings. That was all – so I think that that kind of basic shape was there and that was part of what I was pitching to the writers. You should ask Megan. It’s all gone.

And then one of the things that you have to do is like you have to pitch over and over again because you have to pitch to the actors and then when you’re hiring the directors you have to pitch to them. So we ended up having it all on a wall. We had this really fabulous writer’s room with an enormous amount of art which was one of the things I did before the writers came in is I put all the art on the wall because it’s such a visual story and because we were telling such a multi-layered story.

So we had the wall broken by episode and then we had the art, like the posters from those classic shows above each episode. So it was this kind of wall that was a pitch document.

And then once the writers came on that’s when we started producing documents for the studio to receive notes on. And those were kind of series overviews. And then eventually once their episodes were assigned they were writing outlines that were part of the series overview. So we went really, really, really deep before anybody started writing a script.

John: So there were no lines of dialogue written until everything had sort of been signed off on, right?

Jac: Well, I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s actually true. You know, the pilot opens with the like “my wife and her flying saucers,” like that kind of stuff was in – those type of cute moments and big moments like “he was killed by Ultron, wasn’t he,” that stuff was in the outline documents.

John: OK. So you had those little moments. And it sounds like the James Cameron scriptment kind of things.

Jac: Correct. Yeah.

John: You have dialogue where you absolutely need the dialogue to sort of show how stuff works, but the scene work is not in those. It’s really showing—

Jac: Yeah, the scene breakdowns. Yeah, I guess scriptment. I mean, the way that I did it, which I don’t know if it’s any kind of formal system, was slug lines and what we planned to do. It wasn’t in Final Draft. It was in a Word document. But we broke out the scenes for everything and what would happen. Yeah, bits of dialogue here and there.

John: Now, finally you feel like, OK, we have a shape for this whole thing. We are signing off scripts. Is this your first time running a room? This is your first time working with other writers? What was that process like for you?

Jac: It was. It was my first time running a room. And it was the very best experience of my career. And I loved hiring these phenomenal people and I loved working with them. And I will keep it in my heart until the day I die. It was so wonderful and so special.

And it was a tricky thing because I needed to hire talented, inspiring, somewhat seasoned people, because I hadn’t done it before. But I also needed to hire people who weren’t going to have a problem with that. And weren’t – I didn’t have time for anyone to have a problem with my authority. I’ve heard on your podcast before that you and Craig talk about kids and having kids and the impact of family on your career. My children were two and four when I got this job. And I live on the west side and Marvel is in Burbank. So I had an hour plus commute every day.

So I was working on an extremely tight schedule. So I needed people who were just going to be in and be excited and optimistic and up for the whole thing. And so that’s who I hired. And I wanted people that I would learn from. And I wanted people who would keep the engine going if I ran out of gas. And that’s what I got. I mean, this team never quit.

And they had so much love for it. And I also chose them based on the kind of people that they are, but also because of their influences. I hired this group that just like they know film and TV in all the ways that you need them to, but the love that they have for it, and the deep cuts that were brought to the table in the room when we were breaking the show, and because it’s such a bananas show I needed those people with those super bizarro frames of reference.

John: I actually was writing down your quote, “I didn’t have time for anyone to question my authority,” because that is just such a great encapsulation of the real challenge of trying to do this job. My first experience running a TV show was this disaster called DC. It was me and Dick Wolf. And my authority was constantly being questioned at all moments. It became impossible for me to do this show because not just the question of authority for the network or the studio or Dick Wolf, but also you’re too young to be doing this. You shouldn’t be doing this.

So to hear you say that is such a smart way to approach how you’re making the decisions.

I want to know how you actually picked those writers. Were you looking for recommendations first and then reading them to make sure they were really good? Were you looking at the words first and then meeting with writers? How did you pick who would be the people in the room?

Jac: So my producer, who is my Marvel executive, Mary Livanos, who is wonderful – Marvel is really great because these executives are always doing the next move way before it’s time for the next move. Because of the way they operate, you know, they plant a flag. This is when this thing is coming out. So they just run at it and it’s kind of amazing whether or not it’s ready to go.

So I think she was reading scripts before I was hired. And also I met with some people who had been up for my job as well, because there were great people in that pool. So she was passing me scripts, things that were her favorite. I told her what my priorities were in the read which were I wanted people with original voices. It was less important to me that the specs stick the landing of whatever the show was trying to do. I just wanted ideas to leap off the page. Or I wanted comedy to leap off the page.

I just wanted it to be memorable. Because those were the brains that I needed in the room. I needed people who were going to constantly be questioning the tradition of storytelling. Megan’s spec was so good. It was such a fully realized mythology. And it was so achingly melancholy. And it had such an original voice to it.

Cam Squires’ spec was such a swing. And I remember when he came in to meet my first question was where does this series go. What even is your plan for this story? Because I can’t see it and that’s not a ding. That’s not a fault. It’s just you bit off so much in the pilot. Tell me what your plans are. And of course he had a plan and it was fascinating to hear what that was.

And I knew I needed people who could do mythology and world-building and genre and procedural. And I knew I needed people who could do sitcoms and comedy. I ended up leaning away from a lot of the straight sitcom writers, because our show was so ambitious. So I did hire sitcom writers. So Mackenzie Dohr wrote on the Mindy Project but she also wrote on Lock and Key. So she’s no stranger to fantasy and genre.

So that’s what I was looking for on the page. That was truthfully 30%. Maybe 30% of what was important to me. It was really so much more about the personality. Coming up in the industry I’ve had my share of bad experiences and being in rooms where I felt small. Whether or not I allowed myself to feel small, or I was actively made to feel small. But I was adamant that the room culture be positive and respectful and joyful. And that everyone would feel heard and valued.

So I hired people who that’s how they operate at. I hired Chuck Hayward because I invited him over to my house. I was like, OK, crack the code. Tell me how I run a room. And he painted a picture of what his dream room would look like and I was like, OK, great, because you’re hired because I need you to bring that energy into the room. I actually hadn’t even read his script. [laughs] And luckily it was great and he’s wonderful and very talented. But it was so much about a friend of mine, Micah Fitzerman-Blue who is wonderful and so talented himself, he was like you know you can write. So what you need is the people to help you break this. And you need people who will inspire you.

And my friend Chris Addison who is an incredible – he directed The Hustle and he won Emmys for Veep and is fantastic, he was like look at your room like a toolbox. You don’t need – every chair isn’t supposed to be a writer who is better than you. Every chair needs to bring something different to the table. So that was very much part of my approach.

I’ve been talking forever John because I love talking about building a room. It’s so fun. And I, yeah–

John: Well it sounds like you’re going to have a chance to do this again because just this last week it was announced you made a deal with Marvel and 20th Television to create some new shows. This is very exciting. Congratulations.

Jac: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I’m very excited about it and I feel incredibly grateful and honored.

John: So what do you see as priorities? Would you want to do traditional broadcast? Do you want to do more streaming? What do you think is really interesting in television for the next couple years?

Jac: I mean, for me I love this limited series space. I mean, that’s not to say that things can’t have another iteration, but I was so surprised at how much freedom I felt in making WandaVision. That every episode was a chance to redefine the actual show itself. In the years leading up to getting WandaVision, you know, it wasn’t my intention to go into television. That wasn’t the trajectory. But I had been watching these shows that were just blowing my mind with – especially with bottle episodes. The bottle episode of Girls, the Panic in Central Park, I was so dazzled by that episode. And it was the first time that I really sort of looked squarely at the bottle episode and what it could be.

Because prior to that in network television it had always seemed like filler or I remember my parents watching an episode – there was an episode of The Cosby Show. I think it was John Ritter who was on and his wife Amy Yazbek, is that right?

John: That sounds right.

Jac: I don’t know if I’m remembering this correctly at all, but they were having a baby and the enormous amount of show real estate was dedicated to their storyline. And I remember my dad saying, “Oh, they’re lining up a spinoff,” which didn’t turn out to be the thing. But I remember feeling like departures from the norm in network television was like filler or a detour or con. And now, you know, another one that I just couldn’t believe was Escape at Dannemora, the penultimate episode, that was very much an inspiration for the penultimate episode of WandaVision in that it’s a rewind. And you don’t know where you are when you start the episode.

That feeling of disorientation, rather than it being filler, rather than it being just like, oh, watch this instead, that you have to lean forward. I mean, that is what I am clawing after at every turn.

John: That’s how you know you’ve engaged your audience is they are desperate to figure out what’s going on. And they’re with you to solve the mystery. That’s it.

Jac: That’s totally it. That’s the juice.

John: Jac Schaeffer, congratulations again. I’m so excited to see what you’re going to make next. Do you know what that is? Is there anything you can announce yet that you’re going to be making next?

Jac: There are no announcements.

John: Nothing will be announced today on Scriptnotes. But thank you very much for coming on the show. And thank you for hiring Megan McDonnell and giving her that platform, even though we were sad to lose her. Thank you for taking a chance on her because she is a superstar.

Jac: She is. I mean, I’m the one who benefited from that. Let’s be honest. She’s the best. Thank you. Thanks so much.

John: Thank you, Jac.

Stick around because after the break I’ll be chatting with Lance Oppenheim about the writing that goes into documentaries.

[Clip plays from Some Kind of Heaven]

In that clip we hear from Dennis, one of the people in the documentary Some Kind of Heaven. The film follows four seniors living in The Villages retirement community and explores how they cope with later adult life. The film premiered at Sundance in 2020 and is now available on Hulu. And we have with us Lance Oppenheim, the film’s writer and director. Welcome Lance.

Lance Oppenheim: Hello. Thank you for having me, John. Big fan. It’s funny. The writer – I don’t consider myself the writer of a documentary, but I guess all documentaries are written somehow.

John: I want to talk about that. Because sometimes you see writing credits on documentaries and sometimes you don’t. But there’s clearly a lot of character work, a lot of story work that’s happening here. So I want to talk about how you do that in a documentary sense.

But I also want to make sure that people who are listening to this understand that your movie is actually really funny and visual and surprising. And it’s sad at moments, but also that clip might make it seem like it’s all dark and grim, and it has this really kind of weird spirit to it. So I want to make sure people don’t get the wrong idea about your movie.

How early on in the process of coming up with this movie did you know what it was going to feel like?

Lance: Oh man. I think it took a long time to know what the movie was going to be about and how it was going to do that. But I think the feeling of it actually came pretty early to me. And that came from spending a lot of time in the world. The Villages, as most people know of it from how much of a political spectacle it became this past year during the election cycle. It’s a very conservative stronghold of America.

But I think that the thing that appealed to me, I’m a Floridian. I grew up knowing about the place was that it really was kind of like The Truman Show in real life. It’s designed to simulate the 1950s, the 1960s. Kind of like an America that never really existed, but an America that I grew up with in movies, like in Blue Velvet or in Safe or in Edward Scissorhands. And Nicholas Ray’s Bigger than Life. The suburbia of those movies is the same suburbia of Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America and it’s the same suburbia that is literally brought to life in the Villages.

So I knew that I couldn’t just make a standard cinema verité style documentary that the aesthetics of it were handheld. I wanted to find a way to bring the audience into the world and make it as immersive and make it feel as [transportive] as if you were really there, as if you had stepped afoot in the community.

John: So those choices were about the kinds of shots you’re doing. Just literally the production design, sort of what you’re showing on screen. But you also need to show characters on screen and that’s really what I wanted to dig into. Because that boundary between what is writing and what is directing and what is being a documentary filmmaker and what is sort of shaping narrative.

How did you find these people? Because I keep wanting to call them characters and they’re not characters. They actually are people. But they felt very carefully selected and edited. And over the course of your times meeting with them you are putting them in situations that can help tell your story.

So, let’s start at the beginning. How did you find these people and when did you know these were the people you wanted to follow for your film?

Lance: Well, I think over the process of making the film, it was about four trips over almost 18 months of time spent on and off in the community and filming with a lot of different folks. It only really became apparent I think at the end of our second strip who our ensemble really was. We were following a lot of people. But I think going back to the root of the question of just documentary, fiction, how we watch documentaries, how we watch fiction films. I mean, I think it’s interesting.

A lot of people in documentary – the documentary orthodoxy likes to talk about this word “manipulation” and I think it’s a word that should exist. But I think, you know, I may be stating the obvious but everything in documentaries is manipulated. The moment you put a camera and train it on anybody. And anybody that is living a life and breathing and existing, something happens. Depending on how much time you spend in a place, how comfortable, and how much that bedrock of trust exists between you, the filmmaker, and the subject that’s on camera, there may be some kind of alchemy that gets you closer to real life. But it’s a tremendous hurdle.

And even the way most documentaries no matter how observational they may seem are put together in the edit. It’s a lot of times following the tenets of a thing we call story, which is inherently I think the tenets, the touchstones of how we think about story go back to the things that you talk about so well on the podcast which is narrativizing and the way we even narrativize our lives goes back to that same thing.

So I think a lot of movies, even the film that we made, contain these manipulations. And I think for me the world, the setting of the Villages, felt perfect to drop a camera and to kind of experiment with a more heightened, more stylized way of telling real stories. I guess my process kind of involves a lot of me getting to know people, spending a lot of time with them, and then essentially riffing off of reality. Putting them in situations, as you’re saying. It’s not even a matter of me putting them in situations they wouldn’t normally be in. It’s bringing those situations to life and shooting them in a way that may feel and evoke how a narrative film looks and breathes.

John: Let’s talk about one of the characters in this. So in the initial clip here we meet Dennis. And so the first shot that we’re seeing of him is he’s in his van and he’s going through his daily life and he’s talking to us about the kind of woman he wants to meet. And it’s a character who he can seem like a grifter, he can seem like a hustler. And yet he is kind of a classic protagonist, like a shaggy dog protagonist of a story.

So, when you first meet this person as a filmmaker are you thinking through sort of like where you want to see his arc going? Or are you just observing? Because that’s really the question. So often as a writer we kind of know what track we need that character to go, and so we’re tailoring that character from the start because we need that character to achieve these things.

You as a documentary filmmaker have limited means of actually deciding how this character ends up. So when you’re first meeting Dennis do you have a plan for him?

Lance: I’d say no. I think what compels me to the process of making docs, and also the process of making a doc in this way which is maybe a little bit more unorthodox to how docs are normally made, you know, the process in the beginning is similar. It’s observing someone. I’m meeting them. They’re meeting me. We’re getting to know each other really well. We have a few drinks. We have dinner. We have more drinks. We do that process, that cycle kind of repeats several times over, as many times as possible until we feel comfortable and we are friends with each other.

And once we got to the place where we were in this movie, you know, the film is shot entirely on a tripod, right. A lot of the intention was to make our frames as composed, feel as composed, as manicured as the Villages, as the setting dictates, as the landscaping is. It’s this very meticulously crafted suburban bliss that’s there. And I wanted the camera to feel that.

But in doing that and shooting the movie entirely on tripod it really did not allow for us to be flies on the wall. For one I’m much younger than every subject in the film, including Dennis. The process of shooting it on tripod in a way immediately established this distance and the challenge with the movie was to eliminate that distance and get as close as we possibly could. In a weird way something happened where midway through our shooting, you know, there were times where this process did not feel like it was working and it felt like it was corrupting too much of reality and it felt too artificial, even though we were putting things on screen that normally do happen in their lives.

And there were a lot of times where we were just observing and kind of putting the camera in a place where we would just let it run for a long time until something would happen in the frame. But what happened over time was that in kind of embracing the artifice we got to something more real. You know, the process of shooting on a tripod made me be a lot more honest about what I was shooting, why I was shooting it, and how I was going to shoot it for the subjects of the film. So in a way our process, our relationship, didn’t just evolve – it wasn’t like a mosquito biting someone and sucking up their blood and then painting a portrait with their blood in the edit or something.

This was something far more collaborative. I’m using such a violent example for how I imagine documentaries are normally made. But I think it’s like somewhat true. You get closer, the material you end up making out of somebody’s life, and it’s a very [vampiristic] relationship. So I wanted to do something different. This whole process of shooting on tripod kind of allowed and enabled this sort of collaboration and trust and honesty. I had to be very honest about the places and situations I wanted to shoot. And I had to be just as honest about how I thought it was going to work in the edit.

So in a way these were real people but they were playing a version of themselves that was entirely real and all the things that are happening in the movie are real. The way we’re shooting them, the framework we’re shooting them in, and sometimes even the way a situation is blocked, that is very much planned. And I think that’s the kind of joy of it all is that you’re riffing off of reality. It’s like jazz and you’re trying to shoot actively unfolding things in as stylized and interesting of a framework as possible.

So to answer your question I prefer not to know where a person’s journey goes. I have hopes, I have dreams, I have wishes for where they move, and how they move through a world, but I’m never telling them what to do or how to do something. It’s really more they make a choice to do something and for me the reason I chose these folks was, one, I was interested in some ways of making a movie about relationships, so there was that subtext to each of their stories. But, two, they were actively having things happening to them when I met them.

Barbara, the widow in the film, was trying to get back out in the world again. That was something very active. There’s conflict there. Dennis is someone who is trying to find a woman to move in with. And he needs to find a home essentially. His journey is about companionship and comfort and freedom. And these things that he talks about very articulately and beautifully. And the last subjects of the film are Reggie and Anne, a married couple, who are very different from one another and are about to just experience how different they really are and how there’s so much distance in that relationship. And how she has to deal with the fact that her husband may not just be recreationally dabbling in psychedelic drugs. He actually may be losing his mind.

And to me each of those stories, it took a lot of time to find each of them and befriend them and then get to a place where they were comfortable with me putting their lives onscreen. I’m not interested in taking it I guess to that degree. What’s more interesting and more challenging to me is taking real life and creatively lensing and creatively treating it. And that’s what I think my favorite documentaries do that. And it’s a shame that not all documentaries do.

John: Well, let’s talk about trying to frame it and you’re literally framing it with your camera, but you’re also deciding what parts of their lives are going to be useful for your film to be showing. So you said that initially there were other people you were following and they did not make it into the edit, or you stopped filming them because they were not helping you tell your story. So you said there were a total of four visits, between those visits what was the process for you in terms of like this is what the movie wants to be, this is the story that it looks like we can tell here? And was there writing involved in that? Were there conversations?

Or was it just looking at what you’d already shot in the edit bay? How did you figure out what the movie wanted to be? Because that’s a question that screenwriters are facing all the time. They have all these scenes, they have this stuff, but they may not necessarily know what the movie is from the moments that they’ve found.

Lance: You know, the process of making this – for so long I had no clue what it was. And I knew that we visually found a way to lens the place in a way that felt very expressive and not just representational and that I think was exciting to me and exciting to my cinematographer who I really consider a coauthor of the film. But it was only until I brought on an editor named Daniel Garber who I consider – screenwriting in documentaries, what that really is is the editors of the films.

Daniel is someone who is really well versed in both documentary and narrative films. He edited a film called Cam a few years ago. And I owe a great deal to him. We edited the film together, but he was the person who was making sense out of the lasagna, the cold noodles of footage that was just sitting on a hard drive or sitting in a refrigerator basically forever. And I had no idea how to make sense of any of it, or how all these people, places, and things added up. And he was the person that showed me what the film needed to be.

I think the thing that was guiding him in making those choices and guiding me, after seeing material structured in a particular kind of way it guided the rest of the way we were filming. Daniel came on I think at the end of our second trip and was struggling to figure out what it was.

There was one story that we actually released as a separate short documentary that the New York Times put out. I think it was about two months ago. About one of the stories that I thought the movie was about. I thought the movie was about this little girl who was living actually outside of the Villages and the development was trying to buy her land and turn this home that has been in her family for generations into prefab cookie cutter retirement home essentially, a house in this retirement community.

And there was another thread that I really liked about the ecological devastation this place causes. Sinkholes that were forming in the bottom of the ground. I mean, just like totally unbelievable things that we just kept shooting because that place is just unbelievably insane.

I’m trying to remember how we decided it didn’t work, but I think one of the things for sure that I think I was interested in and existentially so felt when I first got there. I had just gotten out of a long relationship. I felt pretty upset about that. And I was wandering around trying to figure out how these people who are navigating their seventh or eighth decade on this planet are still together. And what romance looks like there. And do we repeat the same things – if you’re returning to a place that reminds you of your youth do you make the same mistakes that you made as a young person?

John: So what you’re describing sort of sound like central dramatic questions. And so it sounds like you didn’t know going into it – you knew what the movie might kind of feel like. You knew what was interesting about it. But you didn’t have a central dramatic question until you really winnowed it down to like these are the people we’re going to follow and these are the questions the movie is going to try to answer, which is kind of what happens – it’s not about the place. It’s about what happens when you’re at this point in your later adulthood.

Lance: Right. Precisely. I think for a long time I was interested in making something that I thought at first was going to be about the place. And I realized over time that this movie, that stories aren’t settings. That this movie didn’t want to be about the setting. It wanted to be about people going through real problems against the backdrop of this unreal place. That seemed more interesting to me and that also – when I first started making the film, before I even rolled a frame on anything, before my crew came, I lived in the community for about a month and a half. These two retired rodeo clowns I found off of Airbnb, I rented a room in their house.

And I think a lot of those central dramatic questions came from seeing how they lived their lives and who their friends were and what they were doing. One of them had leukemia and the reason they were putting their Airbnb room up was to pay for the medical bills. So immediately I was like this is so fucking dark, but also they are still clowning. There was something – the tension between those two things, something that is more tragic through the funniness of it, and more funny through its tragedy. That was really nice and interesting to me and I knew I wanted to bottle that up somehow.

John: Well let’s get a sense of who you are in this picture. Because how old were you when you started this movie?

Lance: I was 22 when I first got there.

John: So you were literally just out of film school when this is happening. You’re straight out of undergrad and you’re trying to do this thing which has got to be both inspiring and also annoying to many of our listeners who are like how can this young kid do all these things. And my guess just from interactions we’ve had is you are not shy about approaching and asking people for this. You hustle. And it’s a thing I admire just in my interactions with you so far is you seem to recognize what you need and how to very graciously approach people about getting that thing that you need. And that feels like that’s Hollywood you get your subjects for your movie. But also how you sort of get the movie out there in the world.

Lance: Yeah. I’m an annoying person. You know, I think even the process of getting this film made, it was not – as I’m sure you would imagine it was not easy. It was I think throughout the process a lot of people were constantly, even in trying just to get the money to keep going back, you know, people could see through what I was doing. They could see through that I didn’t have it figured out yet. That I didn’t have a narrative that seemed like it would satisfy all of their funding needs, especially in documentaries which is a world – financing in documentaries I think goes back to a lot of other questions about issues and advocacy and stuff like that that is important but not – that was not this film.

So, it took time and it took a lot of bullshitting I think to really figure that out. I mean, the film that I thought we were making, the film that is this short film called The Paradise Next Door, that was essentially my pitch was that here’s a movie, you have a younger person, and you have these older folks, and it’s a movie about these two people and when those worlds collide, which was complete bullshit because it never collided. So, you know, after we were able to successfully bamboozle some people, graciously this company called the Los Angeles Media Fund, they were still down for the ride even as I started realizing that that narrative wasn’t the thing that we needed to be shooting.

What we needed to be shooting was something much more intimate and interior and subjective about these people and about this existential feeling of being in a place where you’re supposed to be having the best time of your life and time is running out and tht stress of not feeling that and also when this thing you’ve invested in, this dream – what happens when it becomes a nightmare? And that’s something that I think anybody can relate to, especially anybody who grows old, which is everybody on the planet I guess.

John: Now what I hear you describing though, it sounds like you weren’t asking for permission, and you weren’t waiting to figure out all the things, you just kind of started doing it and you sort of built the road underneath you as you were going. And that applies for a documentary feature, but also applies to a lot of writing. I do feel a frustration that sometimes the questions we get in on the podcast are about like am I allowed to do this thing, is this possible, is this a good idea, and the advice I want to shout so often just like well just try the thing and see if it’s a good idea. And if it’s not a good idea you haven’t lost that much.

And it sounds like as you started to make this movie you didn’t have – you kind of weren’t risking a ton. I mean, you might be wasting your time, but it wasn’t expensive to do the initial things you were trying to do. You could just go off and do it and eventually you had some footage you could show and you could bring in another person and another person. You got to Darren Aronofsky. You could sort of keep the ball rolling by just bringing in new people who could see what you’d already done. Is that fair?

Lance: Yeah. I think that is. I mean, you know, the movie – I started working on the film like kind of [co-curricularly]. It started off as my thesis film in school and that was how I initially was able to go down there. But even when we got the financing, the process didn’t change much. In terms of shooting it still was just me, my cinematographer, and I’ve been working with him since I was like 17. My sister who has a fulltime job, not in movies, but I convinced her to come and help us figure it out. And one of my college friends who coproduced the film. And then I had the sound guys.

So it was like a crew of five basically across the journey. And then obviously on the post side and everything else things started to get a little bigger and just a lot more people to answer to. And wanted to make sure that even though it wasn’t a ton of money to make, they wanted to make sure their money wasn’t being wasted. That’s fair. I feel like all first time feature filmmakers have to go through that process of just getting people to trust you in that way.

But it’s a process of trying things and taking risks and swinging big. And when you are there, when you’re up at the plate you’ve got to swing as big as you can possibly can and be as ambitious as you can. And I think going back to the thing you just said before, like don’t worry about being annoying. No one is going to find you on the Internet and pluck your script or you movie or your short out of obscurity. The only way they’re going to find it is if you sort of get it in their face.

And I remember reading this story about like Gus Van Sant. I think he called, I don’t know if it was William S. Burroughs, so forgive me if I’m screwing up the story, but I remember he found someone he admired very deeply, his name in the phonebook, and he just gave him a call. And they became friends and then he ended up adapting his story into a movie. So I’ve always just been inspired by that and took that to heart.

John: We just spoke with Jac Schaeffer who ran WandaVision and her Scriptnotes connection was that she ended up hiring former Scriptnotes producer Megan McDonnell as a staff writer there. You also have a Scriptnotes connection. Do you want to tell us what that is?

Lance: I would love to. I grew up with Stuart Friedel. His father was and has been my dentist for my entire life. Stuart was the first dude that I ever knew that was working in movies. He worked for Alexander Payne and exposed me to his films. And exposed me to your films, John. Told me what the podcast was. I didn’t know what the podcast was at all at that point in time, but I had seen so many of your movies. I’d seen The Nines. I’d seen Corpse Bride. I’d seen Big Fish. So I was like oh shit I should listen to that.

And I am devoted listener. Especially as someone who is trying to make stuff that is documentary and nonfiction based but also as I’ve tried to learn and remediate myself on how to write a screenplay which is an art, a dark art that is not easy. So I’m very grateful – I feel like your podcast keeps me going, and I’m sure keeps a lot of people going when they’re trying to figure out how the fuck to do it.

John: You also have Stuart’s vocal cadences, which I find so fascinating, because I wouldn’t guess that there was a South Florida accent, but you and Stuart sound so much alike. It’s jarring.

Lance: Oh, that’s funny. Huh. We’re just two Jewish South Floridian guys I guess.

John: Maybe it’s all that Friedel dentistry on your mouth that has shaped it into a specific way. So, you made this movie, but you’re still very, very young. So, what are you doing next and are you trying to stay in the documentary lane? Are you trying to do narrative features? What’s next for you?

Lance: I don’t know. I don’t feel very young. I feel, if anything I feel weird in a way. This was the thing that I basically went as far in as I possibly could on. And there was a kind of tremendous period of just like, wow, what do I do next. And this feeling of sadness of finishing something I cared so deeply about. And the people in the film, the subjects in the film, I speak with them still once a week. We’re still very close. And I’m always like, god, I wish I could go back and keep making something there.

But I’m working on a bunch of stuff. I am interested in continuing to make docs, but I also am very interested in narrative films and seeing if I can find ways to bridge that gap. So I’m working on another film right now that’s a small narrative film that’s based on a short story that I really liked. And then I’m adapting one of the short documentaries I made a few years ago and I’m writing that right now. And Darren Aronofsky is producing that. So we’ll see. I just want to make movies and I find it so interesting how I think especially in the narrative world it’s like so much time – hurry up and wait. You work and work and work and then if you get to that place where you can set something up it just takes a million years to get it made.

So I feel like I’ll probably just keep making documentaries because at least I have more agency and ownership of the process of just going and shooting stuff. Even if it’s the wrong stuff to shoot, it still feels good to be shooting something rather than talking about it I guess.

John: We’re always big advocates on this podcast of just making the thing. And so I believe you will continue to just make the thing and you will have the frustrations of development hell and all of that stuff, but as long as you can always make some things for yourself you’ll be set.

Lance Oppenheim we can check out your movie on Hulu right now. So everyone on Hulu can see it. I’m sure internationally you can find it through all the other streaming and download places. Congratulations on your movie. And it’s great talking with you.

Lance: Thank you so much, John.

John: Stick around because after the break we’ll be talking about writing while at your day job.

OK, this is the part of the show where we normally answer some listener questions. Megana, do you have a good question for us?

Megana Rao: I do. Cautious from San Gabriel Valley would like to know “Can a company gain partial ownership of something I wrote while at work? I got a day job where I basically babysit a building and my supervisor doesn’t care if I write for the majority of my shift. I was worried when I found out through an episode of Silicon Valley that a company can sue you for ownership of your project if you worked on it on company equipment, i.e. a computer. I thought I was fine because I’m a third party contract worker and continue to write at work, but recently due to my coworker’s constant cellphone and YouTube use my company sent out a scary memo regarding computer usage.

“Though the memo may not hold up in court, I’m uncertain how to proceed working on projects at work. I don’t care if I’m fired or transferred to a different post. I just don’t someone else to already have a bite out of my apple. I’m leaning towards continuing to use company computers to write scripts and only saving in the cloud because if I do sell a script I’d have a whole production company backing in the unlikely event of a lawsuit. As for other writing projects that I might self-publish I’m just writing in a notebook and tediously typing it up at home. What do you guys think? Is the time saved worth the hypothetical risk?”

John: All right, so this gives me a big flashback to my days when I was writing my first script. I was an intern at Universal. And so the first script I ever wrote was this romantic tragedy called Here and Now. And I wrote it basically while I was at work, when I was sort of at work in my job. Mostly I had a really mindless day job sort of like Cautious has where I was just filing stuff all day and really not using my brain at all. And I would go home and I would handwrite pages and then type them up over my lunch break at work.

And I was using my own laptop, but I think the same kind of idea applies is that you’re kind of doing it on company time and the question of could they control or own that work. I think you’re possibly asking for trouble using the company computer. That’s the only thing that gives me sort of pause. I think the fact that you’re still doing your job but you’re also writing at the same time, if your supervisors don’t care it’s going to be fine.

The fact that you’re using their stuff could be the problem. Even just using a browser or saving it online might be a problem. So my instinct would be to either get yourself a cheap laptop you can work on while you’re there. Write on it using your iPhone, your iPad. Write by hand and then type it up when you get home. But I think you could be asking for some trouble just because anything that’s edited in that computer kind of feels like it is their stuff.

Megana, you used to work at Google. What was the policies when you were at Google? If you were using the company’s computer to do stuff did they own it?

Megana: Yeah. I remember this came up during orientation. So my first day they have this policy that whatever you work on Google technically owns if it’s at the office or on company computer. And I remember being so confused. And I was like, well, what if I wrote a poem. Because if I wrote like an application, sure, that makes sense to me. But why would you guys want to own a poem that I wrote?

And the person who was leading our orientation, I think they brought someone from legal counsel was like technically we would own anything like that, and so I never wrote at the office or on my company computer there because I also saw that episode of Silicon Valley and was scared.

John: Yeah. It’s probably not going to be a problem, but this last paragraph you asked I’d only write scripts there because the production company would back you up. That’s not a guarantee. Like you hope the production is going to back you up. And, again, it’s probably not going to be a problem, but it’s like getting vaccinated before going on a trip or something. It’s probably not going to happen to you, but it’s better to ease your mind and not run into those problems. So if you can find a way to not write on their stuff that’s going to be a better choice.

Megana: And something, I don’t know if this is tricky advice, but I would just research a lot while I was at work, or I would do a lot of reading. Because they couldn’t possibly own that, right?

John: No, they can’t own your research. That’s another great point. If you are researching stuff for your project that’s great. And realistically what Cautious is describing, where maybe you’re typing into Google Docs documents, it’s completely on the cloud and no one is ever going to see it. It’s unlikely to be a problem, but still why take the chance.

Megana: Mm-hmm.

John: Cool. Well that’s a good question. We’re a pretty full episode so we’ll save the rest of these questions for next week when Craig is back. But thank you for helping us out with that. Maybe you can help us out with One Cool Things. So this is the part of the show where we recommend something. I’m going to recommend a really great episode of Slate’s Working podcast where they talked to this dialect coach named Samara Bay. Really smart and great.

So she’s the dialect coach who works with actors before they’re starting a role. So they are about to go in to shoot something, a British actor who has to play American, or an American actor who has to play an Irish accent. And she’s really smart about talking through the process and really thinking about there’s not just one accent you’re going for. You’re trying to get into the space where you can inhabit that character and then while you’re in that character have all the vocal ranges and expressions that you need for it.

She compares it a lot to how a costume designer works. You are trying to really suit the voice/costume of that character and make sure it really works for that actor and works for that piece and that period. So, she was just so smart and such a great way of looking at something that’s so challenging.

Because we think about dialogue being just the words we write and sort of these are the words in the right order. But it depends so much on how they’re delivered and how much that voice fits nicely. So, if you’re someone who writes dialogue, which is probably most of the people listening to this podcast, I would definitely check out this episode of the Slate Working podcast with Samara Bay.

Megana: Cool.

John: Now what do you have for us?

Megana: Well, I feel bad because I also was going to recommend a podcast episode.

John: You can do that.

Megana: I can? OK. I also feel like I’m cheating on Scriptnotes. I feel guilty.

John: But Craig is not here and also Craig rarely has one, or fills it in at the last minute.

Megana: So I have this podcast that I really love, in addition to this one. It’s called You’re Wrong About. And it’s a podcast hosted by these two journalists and each week they examine a historical event or a person in pop culture who was misunderstood or miscast in the popular imagination. And then they recontextualize the story with research and information that we have decades later.

And because they’re journalists they’re really good at parsing out what was the media narrative and why was it that way. And then following how the information gets weaponized. So I feel like for our listeners who like the How Would This Be a Movie segment, this is the perfect sort of supplemental listening.

And it’s also really fun. The female host, I picture her as the adult Daria. She’s very sardonic and her voice sounds just like Daria. And my personal favorite episode of this is they have one on the Exxon Valdez oil spill which does not sound sexy or fun, but it is so fascinating. And that’s one I’ll link to in the show notes.

John: So my recollection of the Exxon Valdez is that we did cast a villain. The captain of the Exxon Valdez was sort of penalized for his role in it, but my guess is that’s probably not actually accurate. Correct?

Megana: Correct. And like he actually had alerted Exxon to – like he might have made some errors, but like the way that the system and the company was treating regulations had already degraded so much to that point. And he had already alerted the company to say hey the way we’re running these ships is really unsafe. And there’s like a lot of twists that have happened in the past 10 years that I think, you know, nobody is going to keep paying attention – or most people do not pay attention to a news story 10 years later. And I think that’s how a lot of corporate malfeasance happens is that they can make really huge gestures and amends immediately and then 10 years later repeal all of that work that they’ve done.

John: Yeah. I remember that happening recently. A lot of stories came out about Y2K and it’s like, oh, Y2K was overhyped and it was a disaster that didn’t happen. And just recently I’ve seen a lot of recontextualizations saying like oh yeah it wasn’t a disaster because people spent five years working their asses off to actually make it not be a problem. So it’s those things, the nonevents that were nonevents because we actually did the thing.

Megana: Yeah.

John: Don’t make it into the news.

Megana: And they have a great episode on the Y2K bug.

John: Great. I will check that out. I will add it to my podcast app. And that is our podcast for today. Scriptnotes is produced, as ever, by Megana Rao. Thank you, Megana.

Megana: Thank you.

John: It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is also by Matthew Chilelli. 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 I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and the bonus segments like the one we recorded earlier this afternoon with Dana Fox which is epic and we talk about, god, we talk about everything. We talk about sleeps, and naps–

Megana: Teeth.

John: And teeth. And all sorts of things. So you’ll find out about all the secrets behind how Dana Fox kicks so much ass. So sign up for Scriptnotes.net.

Megana: it is a life-changing segment.

John: Megana Rao has already emailed to get links to all the things Dana talked about, because it could change her life and yours as well. So Scriptnotes Premium, it’s good stuff. Megana, thank you for a fun show.

Megana: Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

John: And we’re back and we’re back here with our initial guest, Dana Fox. And I asked you here because I want to talk about naps. So my daughter takes naps, my husband takes naps, I don’t take naps. But you know who takes really god naps? Dana Fox. Dana Fox, can you talk to me and Megana about naps?

Dana: Thank you so much for knowing that this is really one of my best skills. And thank you for having me on the show to talk about the fact that when you asked me to be on the show to talk about naps, I’m not joking I was literally napping. And I woke up and I saw your email saying can you come and talk about naps. And I was like, yup. And I am refreshed as hell and I can’t wait to do it because I just woke up from a nap.

Yes. So napping controversial. I have a lot of things to say about it. I think one of the things that has sort of unlocked, not to be like all what color is your parachute about it, but one of the things that has kind of unlocked my max productivity in recent years is not trying to be someone I’m not anymore. Just being super exactly who I am. And I’m a napper, John. I think you know this because I worked for you. I was your assistant and I slept basically every day, middle of the day. I would so much rather shovel food in my mouth at my desk while working and then use my lunch break to sleep, which is what I did and you were so nice to me.

You would like walk in and I’d be fast asleep on some couch and you would just quietly walk out and you were just the best boss in the entire world.

But for me it almost makes me have two full days instead of just one day where at four o’clock I’m non-functional. I’ve done a lot of research into sleep, because I’m obsessed with it, and I need a lot of it. I think part of it is burn really sort of brightly and spastically when I am awake. So, just being alive is sort of exhausting for me.

And the research I did on sleep is that you need so much less of it in a nap to feel refreshed than you actually think you do. And I think half the reason that most people don’t nap is because they’re like, oh, I’m going to get groggy, or I’m going to lie down and I’m going to feel all this pressure if I don’t sleep, then what’s going to happen, and then I’m going to lie there freaking out about not sleeping for 45 minutes and that seems like a waste.

So the way that I have sort of combatted that is that I have this app that – I can’t think of the name of it – but I have this app that I call Fat Bastard because he’s like a meditation guy who talks in like a very thick Scottish accent and sounds like Fat Bastard from Austin Powers. And I started listening to it when I was pregger-tits because I was working on a TV show. I was a showrunner and I was super pregger-tits. And I was exhausted all the time. And I was like oh my god I have to sleep during the day or I’m literally going to die.

So I started listening to this sleep app that puts you to sleep for whatever number of minutes you have to sleep you sort of program into it. And it puts you to sleep and then it wakes you—

John: Like a digital tranquilizer dart. It just shoots you in the neck.

Dana: Digital tranquilizer dart. Full on Maui blow dart in the butt cheek. And you can do it pretty much any time of day. And you can have it put you to sleep like good night-night and it never wakes you up, or you can have it wake you up. And the key is for the naps is the wakeup. Because as I’ve discovered through my excessive research it’s about waking up not in a REM cycle.

If you’re in a REM cycle and you try to wake up it’s like coming out of wet concrete. If the app wakes you slowly out of the REM cycle and then wakes you up it’s as if – like so much energy. I wake up and I’m like bam. I bound out of bed. It’s incredible. And for me it’s a total game-changer. Unfortunately because I got addicted to the one where the guy was talking to me about being pregnant every time I take a nap he’s like, “Feel your baby in your belly.” And I’m like, mm, all right.

But by that point I’m already asleep so it doesn’t matter. It’s like the Scriptnotes thing. It goes ding, ding, ding and I hear that and I’m asleep.

John: That’s amazing.

Dana: I’ve listened to it so many times. It’s become totally Pavlovian.

John: Yeah, Pavlovian. So, you nap every day, is that correct?

Dana: I try to. But I would say I nap three weekday and both weekend days.

John: And what time do you go to bed? How much sleep do you get overnight?

Dana: Oh my god, John, this is where it’s going to get super weird where all of your wonderful listeners are going to be like she has a medical problem. She should go to the hospital immediately.

I get in bed at no later than 9:30 every night. And I read my book. Right now I’m reading about Ada Lovelace. It’s fascinating. I read on Kindle, which is a whole other conversation that will lead back to an aggressive John August compliment if you will allow me to.

John: All right.

Dana: Which is that I discovered on Kindle that I am dyslexic. I did not know I was dyslexic until I was reading my Kindle one night and I was like why do books make me so tired, why is reading so hard for me? How come reading has always been hard for me? And I was on Kindle and I pressed this button for the font that says Open Dyslexic and I was like I’ll just check out what this looks like. And it was literally like a superhero movie. I was like pow. And there was a light flash and everything was crazy.

And I looked at the book and I was like oh my god I just read 42 books. So I went from being a person who reads like maybe three books a year to I read a book a week now. I’m just a voracious reader and it’s all because of this font. And my sweet, sweet John August who has his incredible app, which is called Weekend Read, sent me an email saying that he put Open Dyslexic onto it so that I could have it. Because you’re nice to me and you like when I have nice things.

John: I do like when you have nice new things. So, the new Weekend Read has Open Dyslexic on it as a font choice.

Dana: Which was amazing. So anyway, back to the sleep thing. I go to bed at 9:30 but I read for about a half an hour to an hour maybe, ish. Sometimes I read for like seven seconds and then fall asleep, but mostly I’m asleep by 10:30 and I wake up at 7.

John: Wow. So you get a lot of sleep.

Dana: I like a lot of sleep. Yeah, it’s weird how much sleep I get.

John: Ricky Gervais apparently also needs 12 hours of sleep. Some people just need it.

Dana: Who does that?

John: And you get a lot done during the day. Ricky Gervais.

Dana: Oh, wonderful. I love that story. And I get a lot done all day. I mean, I don’t want to call it like mania, but I would say when I’m working I am an assassin. What’s next, OK. We’re doing this. I stand at a standing desk. I never sit down. I do yoga for 45 minutes every day Monday through Friday now which has like saved me during the pandemic so I didn’t murder my whole family.

And then when my whole family turns up dead you’re going to have to call the police because you’re going to have this on the thing. I’m totally not murdering my family. I love my family. They’re the greatest. But the pandemic was very stressful for all families, I’m sure. And I started doing yoga which completely saved me. But because it’s so hard it’s also another reason why I have to nap.

Oh, and John, can I tell you the other really embarrassing thing?

John: I want to hear it.

Dana: The first time I was on Scriptnotes I talked about breast pumps, so this is definitely not as embarrassing as that, which I’m so glad you made not embarrassing, because it shouldn’t be.

John: But we also tried to normalize breastfeeding. You know, screenwriters who breastfeed on the podcast. So Rachel Bloom breastfed while she was on the podcast. It’s fine.

Dana: It’s so sweet. I love it so much. It’s the best. These attitude-changing things actually super-duper matter, so I thank you for that.

But, no, this is sort of an embarrassing admission which is because of the yoga my back was hurting one day, so I started sleeping with a heating pad for my back. And now I don’t think I can give up the heating pad. It’s amazing.

John: I want to talk about all the things I now use to sleep and they’re all great, but I do worry if I were ever to be in an emergency situation and didn’t have all my things to sleep I just could never sleep again.

So, here is the things I need to sleep.

Dana: Tell me your stuff.

John: First off, I need the pillow between my knees.

Dana: Classic.

John: Because if my knees are touching each other, not doable. I need the white noise machine which has been a previously One Cool Thing.

Dana: Of course.

John: I’ve got to have the white noise machine.

Dana: Do you do the Rohm? May I ask are in the ‘70s style Rohm? Because that’s the best one I think.

John: Yeah. So the one I like so much is the one from the Wirecutter and it looks like a black little octagon or hexagon.

Dana: Oh, no, I don’t have that one.

John: Oh, I think the one you’re talking about, the one that’s sort of like a dimpled bell. Is that the one you’re thinking about?

Dana: You spin it and you can create hallow-ness based on how much air is coming out of it. It’s pretty dope. You would like it.

John: I know what you’re talking about. Yes. No, this one is digital, but it’s not looping, so it’s generating those noises. That’s important.

Dana: Oh nice.

John: But I started to need a Breathe Right strip, a nose strip, to keep my nose open.

Dana: Sure.

John: And at Scriptnotes producer Megana Rao’s suggestion I tried this mouth taping thing, where you tape your lips together so you can’t breathe through your mouth.

Dana: Oh my gosh. My father-in-law talks a lot about that. Does it work?

John: It works so well. Megana, are you still doing that?

Megana: I’m still doing it. And it really helps with my allergies because I think during allergy season I get stuffed up, so I breathe through my mouth so much more. And this kind of helps me I think regulate that. I don’t know exactly how the science works. But I wake up feeling better.

John: I wake up feeling so much better. So that plus my eye shade. So I need all of these things. And my melatonin. So I need all of this stuff and I sleep so well. But I need all of this stuff.

Dana: First of all, I support you and love you. And I know you enough to know that you’re not packing for anywhere without all that stuff. So I’m not worried you’re going to not have it. I can’t even imagine a scenario where you end up without it.

John: A mouth guard. Oh my god.

Dana: I was literally just going to say mouth guard. So I got a mouth guard and let me tell you guys, first of all, super sexy. My husband is like, yeah, this is great. But second of all I have a mouth guard that completely changed my life. Because I don’t know if any of your wonderful listeners have jaw clenching, but I was clenching my jaw because of stress. And I got this mouth guard that is different from all other mouth guards. It’s like the Passover, why is this different from every other night of mouth guards. And basically what it does that’s different. OK, this is what I learned. This is crazy.

Number one, the guy was like – I went to a specific dentist for grinding of your jaw. And he’s like do you drink sparkling water. I was like I’m a writer in Hollywood. I exclusively drink sparkling water. There is no other kind of liquid that goes in my body that isn’t a different flavor of La Croix. Like of course I drink, or La Croix, or however you’re supposed to say it. I call it the French La Croix because I’m fancy.

John: Yup.

Dana: So he was like, oh, you have to immediately cut that out because apparently sparkling water decreases something about your calcium and is like the enemy of jaw clenching. I was like that’s crazy. So I cut it out immediately and it was definitely helpful.

Then he was like I’m going to build you this mouth guard because 90% – he goes you know how everybody is probably telling you you’re too stressed out and you need to exercise more and you need this, and diet, and blah-blah-blah. And I said yes everybody is telling me that. And he said, well, it’s 10% of jaw grinding is that. 90% is tooth misalignment. And he’s like back in the day when you didn’t have dentists and you were like cavemen if something bad happened to your teeth your teeth would fix themselves. So you would lose a tooth and the other teeth would kind of like slide in to take care of it.

So really when your teeth get misaligned and don’t touch when you close your mouth your nighttime self is trying to fix your teeth for you. So all night long it’s going like let me fix it, let me fix it, let me fix it. So you’re grinding to try to fix the alignment of your teeth.

So the mouth guard I got, all it does is create a fake little tooth connection in the three places where my teeth aren’t touching. Boom. Literally night one the grinding stopped. I was about to have surgery for my jaw grinding because it was so crazy. It was so bad and like night one it was over, fixed.

Megana: I’m sorry. I am going through the same thing and I just had a dentist tell me that I’m going to need adult braces to fix it. And so this is…

Dana: But let’s talk later and I can tell you my guy. Because you’ve got to drive to Calabasas. Thoughts and prayers. But still he was amazing and he solved me because he said most people will tell you to get adult braces. And he said you can do that, but if you can solve it with a $400 mouth guard wouldn’t you rather do that? And I was like, yes, I would rather do that. And so, boom, solved.

Oh my god, we’ve got to sidebar after this.

Megana: Yeah. Well something else amazing I learned is that if you are jaw clenching it’s harder for you to get to REM sleep because–

Dana: 100%.

Megana: Your body is still moving and whatever muscles.

Dana: And do you know why? Thank you. Oh my god. By the way, thank you. I’ve never felt more understood by somebody. Do you know why?

Megana: No, please tell me.

Dana: Thank you so much for asking. The only time your jaw doesn’t do that kind of thing from when it’s trying to fix your teeth is in REM sleep. So it is literally trying to prevent you from going into this state that will make it so it can’t fix your teeth for you.

John: I mean, Dana Fox.

Dana: I mean, I’m not saying I’m an actual doctor.

John: Usually you come on this podcast to solve screenwriting issues, but here you are changing people’s lives, like people who have no interest in writing at all, but have teeth. People who sleep.

Dana: I have some other good advice, too. Some other things that have been really changing my life include color. Have I talked to you about color, John?

John: I love color. We did a whole episode on colors. But what are you doing with color these days?

Dana: Thank you so much. Well I have two different versions of it. Number one, when I’m writing a script I will put obviously like the storyline between this lady and that guy will be one color. Or the character will be one color. So I love to see color in a script because it ignites these different serotonin explosions in my brain. That makes me super happy.

Recently I had to pitch out an entire season of something and I was doing it over Zoom, which is sort of a different thing than being in the room, and I was trying to figure out like, OK, what’s my move. I’m like a good pitcher, but how am I going to do this differently on Zoom.

And what I did was I created this huge document which was very long, because it was obviously a whole season. And I was like how am I going to do this without seeming like I’m reading this document. So what I did is I went through and I took each idea and I did it in the consecutive rainbow colors. So red was the first idea. Orange was the next idea. A darker yellow so I could actually read it was the third. And then the fourth idea was a green. And the next idea was in blue.

And then every time I started a new episode I went back to red. So, I could like glance over with one eyeball and be like I know exactly where I am in this pitch, because I’m on the third thing I was going to say about this episode and now I’m like, OK, now there’s the next one and the next one. And I’m like, oh right, now I’m on the next episode because there’s red again.

John: I love it.

Dana: A delight.

John: Color. Color is good.

Dana: Color.

John: Dana Fox, thank you so much for solving all of our pitching problems, our sleep problems, our jaw problems. You are just the best. I cannot wait to have you back in Los Angeles.

Dana: Is it weird if I want 23 hours of my day to be on Scriptnotes and one hour of my day to be just my regular life? Is that weird?

John: That’s fine. That’s fine. That’s most people. Maybe get the premium episodes, get the premium feed. Get all those back episodes.

Dana: Just binge it. Just crack out on it.

John: I think your husband already has the premium feed, so he can share his URL.

Dana: Oh my god. I don’t believe that. I’d pay for it twice. I support artists. What are you talking about?

John: Thank you.

Links:

  • Watch Cruella on Disney+
  • Home Before Dark Season 2 on Apple TV June 11th
  • WandaVision on Disney+
  • Some Kind of Heaven on Hulu
  • Didja see in Deadline about Timothée Chalamet To Play Willy Wonka In New Origin Tale, Kevin Spacey Will Return To Film In Franco Nero’s ‘The Man Who Drew God’, ‘F9’ Star John Cena Apologizes — In Mandarin — To China Over Calling Taiwan A Country, Amazon Confirms It’s Buying MGM For $8.45 Billion, Army of the Dead, Tig Notaro shot all her scenes alone.
  • Dana Fox on Twitter
  • Jac Schaeffer
  • Lance Oppenheim on the web
  • Slate’s Working podcast dialect coach Samara Bay
  • You’re Wrong About Podcast – Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
  • Dana’s nap app Positive Pregnancy with Andrew Johnson
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 493: Opening Scenes, Transcript

March 26, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 493 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’ll take a look at opening scenes, how they work, and what writers should consider when planning them out. Then we’ll dive into the weird world of foreign levies and why our friend Stuart is getting mysterious checks.

Craig: I don’t want to know.

John: Finally we’ll discuss the rise of the megaplex and with it the past and future of movie-going.

Craig: OK.

John: And in our bonus segment for premium members Craig and I will help a listener answer a question about clichés and conventions. This is a listener in Copenhagen, so it’s a Copenhagen question about clichés and conventions.

Craig: All right. We’ll get into it.

John: We will do it all. But, first, Craig you and I have not talked about this on mic or off mic, but if you are planning to have another kid my advice for you would be to wait until after May 2. If you can wait until after May 2 it will behoove you.

Craig: You would have chosen by now if you were to be having a kid after May 2. I’m definitely not having any more kids. You know what, I say definitely, you never know.

John: You never know.

Craig: You never know.

John: I would say that the shop is closed, but I see babies and man I like babies. If I could have a baby for like a year I would be just the happiest person in the world. It’s that toddler and sort of like – honestly it’s that awkward kid’s birthday party stage I don’t want to go through again.

Craig: I’m good with five to 10. That’s what I like. I like when kids are children and they’re running around and playing and they’re going to grade school and nothing really matters and they can laugh and have fun. But they also aren’t peeing and pooping in their pants. And they’re not teenagers.

John: Yes. I believe it’s important that writers make decisions about when they want to have kids.

Craig: Yes.

John: And that could be a little bit easier for some writers in the WGA because starting May 2 the details have just been announced that on May 2 the paid parental leave will go into effect.

Craig: Yes.

John: So this was something that was one at this most recent round of negotiations. And it’s pretty good. And so if you are a WGA member and you have a kid after May 2, or adopt a kid, or otherwise add to your family after May 2 you are eligible for the paid parental leave. And it could be a real boon for many writers in our guild.

Craig: Yeah. So basically the rule is you can’t work and also receive – you need to the leave part of the paid parental leave in order to get the benefit, but the benefit is pretty solid, especially if you are a staff writer on a show. They’re trying to kind of get in near whatever perhaps minimums might be. So, $2,000 a week for up to eight weeks and they don’t need to be taken consecutively. And it looks like it also covers both birth and adoption and fostering. And placement for adoption. That’s interesting.

John: So if you are also a married writing couple who both of you are WGA members and you are having a kid you are both eligible for it, which was something I wasn’t sure was going to happen. So, that’s also a boon. Anyway, just some good news. It’s the first ever of its kind in the nation. The first ever sort of union paid parental leave that goes with you wherever your job is. It applies to screenwriters, variety/comedy writers as well. So, check that out if you are thinking about having kids or if you are currently pregnant try to wait till May 2 to give birth.

I was actually talking with a writer who is in that situation. Who is like my due date is May 1 but we’re trying to make it May 2.

Craig: It’s OK because the benefit is available for a 12-month window from the date of birth, adoption, or placement. So, you might have a couple of weeks of unpaid parental leave but then it gets paid. So, there is that. And it doesn’t have to be taken consecutively. So, you can do four weeks on, four weeks off. So that’s a terrific thing and it’s wonderful that we did get that concession from the companies as part of our collective bargaining power.

John: Yeah. So for follow-up. Hannah asks a question about gray areas. This is from Episode 492. Do you want to take Hannah’s question?

Craig: Sure. Hannah says, her question is regarding screenplay credit before it has been arbitrated. She says, “I have seen several examples now of writers being listed as the, insert big movie name, writer when the movie has not in fact come out yet. But the writer is taking credit where credit may or may not be due. Where do you come down on screenwriters taking credit and using it for personal promotional gain pre-arbitration?”

And we have talked about this to some extent before. John, where do you come down on this?

John: So, before credit is determined obviously if there’s a Variety story if someone was hired on to work on a thing that’s part of what you’re currently working on, so it’s totally fair game to talk about you working on it. No one has any disputes about that. Where it gets more awkward, I was actually having a conversation with another screenwriter about that, is when you’re talking about a project where you have a really minimal credit but you still talk about it as if you’re the writer on the thing. Or it’s a thing where you kind of feel like you probably won’t get credit on it, but you’re being listed for it. It’s awkward. And it’s a known awkwardness in how stuff is discussed in this town.

Craig: Yeah. So Hannah there’s something that might help you a little bit with the gray area here is that part of our rules are that before the arbitration happens the company does have the right to make a good faith guess of what the credit should or would be and then publicize it. Meaning they’re allowed to put the name of the writer on a movie poster before the arbitration is done. And there have been cases where there are posters with credits that then don’t reflect the final credits, so the poster changes. The idea there was we didn’t want writers to be disappeared off of things just because the arbitration hasn’t happened.

And arbitration sometimes take a really long time to get to. And they take a long time to finish. So, my feeling is that it’s perfectly fine for a writer to say, yes, if Variety is saying they worked on this to say, yes, I did work on it. That’s the way I put it. I worked on it. What I don’t think we should say is, “I wrote it,” because other people might also have written it.

John: Yeah. So, I think we’re trying to distinguish between employment and writing credit. And writing credit is a WGA credit. And employment, like I am working on this thing, is a thing you would say in a meeting, that’s a different beast.

Another follow-up question. Anonymous wrote in about whisper networks, which we talked about last episode. “One thing I felt was missing from that segment is that the whisper network exists to be amplified by those in positions of relative power. Those disempowered cannot convince the empowered of injustice or mistreatment because they’ve already been disempowered. So if someone like Harvey Weinstein hears from a woman that women are not his personal sex vessels it means nothing because he’s already decided that women are not worthy of full agency. It takes a whole bunch of men, people he respects, condemning him to rectify that.

“It’s hard to use Harvey Weinstein as an example here because it doesn’t seem that he respects anyone, but I hope I’m getting my point across.”

So, Craig, let’s follow up on this whisper network thing because I feel like Anonymous has a different idea of whisper networks than what you and I were talking about. So, for my conception a whisper network is like a warning system to others in a group rather than something that’s trying to systematically take down the abuser.

Craig: That’s my understanding, too. That is in fact why it is whispered. The point is the whisper networks, I think, would benefit from being amplified by those in positions of relative power, but they come into existence because specifically there is not a free and respected space for those opinions or information to be expressed.

John: So the whispering part of this is important. It’s like you’re not publically saying it out loud. But I think the network part is really especially problematic here because you have to be in the network to get the warning. So you have to – you know, a whisper network is only useful if you are actually able to hear the whisper network, or you’re part of it. And that can be the problem is that people who can be taken advantage of or having bad things happen to them is because they’re not benefiting from this network that they’re being excluded from. And that is a real issue.

And when we talk about the gray areas and sort of like when someone like you or I should speak up it’s because there are people who are being excluded from this whisper network as well that can’t get the warnings that you and I have heard.

Craig: Well right. So, that’s the other thing that’s important to note is that because of the nature of those whisper networks and the fact that they are typically an in-group kind of network it’s quite often the case that people who are in positions of relative power don’t know about it, because it’s being whispered. So, I did not know about a whisper network about Harvey Weinstein. I was not part of the whisper network about Harvey Weinstein for good reason. Nobody is going to call me up and say, “By the way, you need to know that if you’re going to take a job over there that you don’t want to be alone with Harvey,” because I’m not the one that’s going to be suffering there.

And so they’re actually protective of each other I think in a good way because they’re concerned that exposure will have negative impacts. That’s at least my understanding of how it functions.

John: Yeah. I mean, Harvey Weinstein is sort of an extreme example. Let’s step back and say that for many, many years I heard people talk about how Ellen DeGeneres was mean. I think you probably had the same experience too. People would talk about Ellen and Ellen is mean and that she has a great public persona but she’s actually mean behind the scenes. And I don’t know that to be true, but I heard it a lot.

And could I have spoken up more about it? I don’t know that it would have benefited me or anyone, but also there’s a difference between what I was hearing was sort of like she’s kind of mean and I wasn’t hearing anything worse than that. And so I did nothing.

Craig: Well, that’s also part of the issue with the whisper networks is that they have a freedom that expressed and amplified points of view don’t have. Expressed and amplified points of view are often held accountable to fact and truth. And so that’s where you start to end up in situations where you’re saying, OK, I have heard and therefore I need everybody to know that yada-yada-yada, well we have defamation laws. And we have lawsuits and we have all the rest of it, and for good reason, because you don’t want people to just simply say – anybody can say anything about anyone, of course. So, what I find fascinating and encouraging about the whisper networks that have existed from what I can tell they have operated extraordinarily responsibly.

I know that there are some people who don’t think so. Usually they’re the people that are being knocked by some of the whisper networks. And then you have to sort of, OK, figure that part out. But, you know, one thing that has maybe not been observed enough about the era that we live in now, we’ll call it the #MeToo or post #MeToo era, I guess we’re still in the #MeToo era and we will be until that problem goes away, is that there is enormous amount of power available to somebody in a sense to take someone else down.

And it doesn’t seem to me like people are behaving poorly, or abusing that power, which is rather amazing. Because the whole thing is in response to abusive power. And so there’s a group of people that have been the victims of abusive power. They get a kind of power which is to name and shame and they don’t abuse it. They just use it responsibly and fairly and justly. That is pretty amazing. And gratifying. And encouraging.

John: And I will say that when you try to move from informal networks, like whisper networks, to official systematized processes for investigation and such there’s definite pros to that. There’s definitely accountability. You can actually take actions that you couldn’t take in an informal network.

Craig: Correct.

John: But it also is really challenging to decide sort of what the rules are you’re going to make and what are the standards. It is really difficult and it is a thing we’ve seen out of #MeToo. It’s a thing we’ve seen in other efforts to hold people accountable for their actions. So just to acknowledge that it’s difficult.

Craig: Incredibly so. And terrifying. Because just knowing something to be true isn’t enough. And I think most reasonable people understand this. It’s not good. We don’t like it. But we know that just knowing something is true is not enough to save your abuser from re-abusing you, casting you in a different light, turning themselves into the victim, turning you into the problem. This is the playbook. In fact, we know from the Harvey Weinstein, was it Lisa Bloom? Was that his lawyer? Was essentially saying this is the playbook. This is what we’re going to do. We’re going to destroy these women by dragging their reputations through the mud.

If you know that that’s going to happen then it takes a remarkable amount of bravery to get out there and say what you say. And people are going to come at you. And they’re going to come at you for all sorts of reasons. I mean, when I look at the sort of things that have been said about Rose McGowan, there’s a mountain of stuff that just gets slung their way and it’s a hell of a thing to go out there and take all the shots, know that you’re going to take all the shots, and still stand up for what fact is, and what truth is.

John: Yeah. So, we will not be able to solve these problems in the industry.

Craig: Segue.

John: Segue. But, what we can do is talk about really specific crafty things which I feel like you and I are much better in our element to discuss. And so this actually comes from a question that Martin in Sandringham, Australia wrote in to ask. “I’m curious about the process to decide on the beginning point of your screenplays. Have you noticed a pattern of thinking that you tend to follow when choosing that first line of a script to be in the story? Or is it purely driven by the unique nature of the story that you’re telling?”

So, Craig, it occurs to me that often we do a Three Page Challenge and we’re looking at the first three pages of a script. We’re really looking at these opening scenes and yet because we’re only looking at that scene we don’t really have a sense of what that scene is doing for the telling of the rest of the movie. We’re really just focused on what is the experience reading these scenes, what are the words on the page, but not what is that scene doing to establish the bigger picture of the movie.

So, I thought today we’d spend some time really looking at opening scenes and our process as we go into thinking about an opening scene for a movie, or writing one.

Craig: It’s a great question, Martin. And I think it has changed over time stylistically, which is no surprise. When we were kids and we saw movies from 30 years earlier, meaning the ‘50s, the opening scenes seemed a lot different than the opening scenes we were used to. I mean, we’re sitting at home watching a VHS tape of Raiders of the Lost Ark. We see how that opening goes. And then maybe dad shows us a movie from 1955 and it’s much slower, and more expository in a flat sort of way. Perhaps there’s jaunty music happening or sweeping violins.

These days as time has gone on it seems like opening scenes more and more are about a strange kind of disorientation, a giving to you of a puzzle that the implied contract is this will all make sense. But I think of maybe the most influential opening sequence or scene in recent television history was the opening sequence of Breaking Bad which was designed specifically to be what the hell is going on. What is that? Why are there pants there? Why is there an RV? What is happening? Why are there bullet holes? And then the puzzle gets solved.

John: So, I like that you’re bringing up the change from earlier movies to sort of present day movies in how openings work because I think you could make the same observation about how teasers and trailers for movies from a previous time worked versus how they work now. And you look at those old trailers and you’re like oh my god this is so boring. This is not selling me on the movie at all. And in many ways we now look for these opening scenes, opening sequences, to really be like a trailer for the movie you’re about to see. They’re really setting stuff up and getting you excited to watch this movie you’re about to watch and to sort of reward you for like thank you for sitting down in your seat and giving me your attention because this is what’s going to happen.

So let’s maybe start by talking about what are the story elements that need to happen in these opening scenes or opening sequences. They don’t have to happen, but tend to happen in these opening sequences. What are we trying to do story wise, plot wise, or character wise in these scenes?

Craig: Well you have choices. You don’t actually have to do anything. Sometimes the opening is just about meeting a person. And you are accentuating the lack of story. They’re happy. They’re carefree. Everything is fine. But I agree with you. More and more there is a kind of trailerification of the opening of a movie or a television show. And there is the indication of a thing. And it’s often a thing that the characters don’t even see. Or if they do see it they’re looking at it from a different time. This is later, or this is earlier, whatever it is, but there is an indication of something, there is a crack in reality that needs to be healed somehow.

John: Yeah. So from a story perspective you’re generally meeting characters. If you’re not meeting your central character you’re meeting another character who is important or a character who represents an important part of the story. So in that opening scene you might be meeting a character who ends up dying at the end of that scene or sequence but it’s setting up an important thing about what’s going to happen in the course of your story, the course of your movie.

You’re hopefully learning about the tone of this piece. And what it feels like to be watching this movie. The setting of this world. How the movie kind of works. And some of the rules of this world. Like if you’re in a fantasy universe is there magic? How does gravity work? What are the edges of what this kind of movie can be? Because in that opening scene you want to have a sense of like this is the general kind of movie that we’re watching so that you can benefit from all the expectations that an audience brings into that because of the genre, because of the type of movie that you’re setting up.

Craig: Yeah. I think about openings that have always stuck with me as being confusing. And challenging, which I’ve always loved. And I often look at, very curious opening to Blade Runner, which was not the original opening that they had planned. But it’s the opening they ended up with. And neither of the characters in that scene are main characters. There is an unknown investigator and there is a replicant who we don’t know is a replicant. But he’s not the important one. He’s not the head villain. He’s a henchman essentially.

And you have no idea what the hell is going on. There’s one man in a very strange device that might be futuristic, or antique, asking strange questions of this guy and seemingly zeroing in on something important. And then the man feeling somewhat trapped by the series of very abstract questions kills the investigator.

What happens there is a challenge to you to try and keep up and a promise that it will make sense later. But in addition I know that this world looks a certain way. I know people are going to dress a certain way. And I also know that it is going to expect some things of me. It’s good if the first scene gives the audience a difficulty level. It doesn’t have to be high difficulty, right? I mean, sometimes your first scene says this is going to be an easy play. But let people know what the difficulty is with that first scene.

John: So, as you’re talking about that I’m now recalling that scene and it works really well and it’s setting up that this is a mystery story. That there are going to be questions of identity and sort of existential issues here. Even though you don’t know that it’s necessarily a science-fiction world it’s a pretty grounded science-fiction if it is a science-fiction world, so all these things are really important.

Now, Craig, an experience I’ve had sometimes reading a friend’s script, or someone I’m working with’s script is that I will really enjoy the movie that they’ve written, but I’ll come back and say this is not your first scene. You have written a first scene that does not actually match your movie and does not actually help your movie. And it’s a weird way to run into, but I often find that some scripts I really like they just don’t start right. They start on the wrong beat.

Or, and sort of dig deeper, you find that the writer wrote that scene first but then they kind of wrote a different movie.

Craig: Right.

John: And they need to write a new first scene that actually helps set up the movie they actually really wrote. Is that a common experience you’ve had?

Craig: I’ve noticed this. I think sometimes, well, it’s hard to hit that mark because nothing else has been written yet. So, it’s your first swing. Sometimes the first scene suffers from a sense of, oh, you’ve been thinking about this as a short film for about seven years and you finally got the nerve worked up to finish it. But the problem is this thing feels like it’s a seven-year-long thoughtful short film, and then the rest of it is just a movie.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Sometimes it’s the opposite. Sometimes there’s a sense that the opening is fine, but it is not special. And the opening is our chance to be brave. I think that we have two moments in movies or in any particular episode of television where the audience will forgive us a lot. And it’s at the very beginning and it’s at the very end. In the middle you’ve got to stay in between the lines on the road. But in the beginning and the end you get to have fun.

John: Let’s talk about why you have that special relationship with the audience at the start, because they’ve deliberately sat down to watch the thing that you’ve created. And so if they were going into a movie theater to watch it there they’ve put forth a lot of effort. They bought a ticket. They’ve driven themselves to that theater. They’re going to probably watch your whole movie whether they love it or they don’t love it.

And so in those first minutes they really, really, really want to love what you’re giving them. Their guards are down. In TV they could flip away more easily, so there’s some issues there. But their expectations are very malleable at that start. So you really can kind of take them anywhere and you get a lot of things for free. You get some – they come in with a bit of trust. And if you can sort of honor that trust and honor that expectation and get them to keep trusting you they’re going to go on your story. If you don’t set that hook well they may just wander off and they may never really fully engage with the story that you’re trying to tell.

Craig: Yeah. They’re hungry at the beginning. They’re hungry. So don’t just immediately shove all the food down their throat. You can have some fun here. You know that they want to feel that anticipation. When you go to a concert and there’s the opening act, and then they’re done and they leave, and then the PA system is playing just songs and you’re waiting. And then the lights go down. And it’s not like the lights go down and then the band comes out, “Here we are, let’s go,” and then they immediately start a song. There’s usually some sort of like…you know, they get you ready. And it can go on for a while. Because everybody knows oh my god it’s happening. Right?

John: Yup.

Craig: So let it be happening. Don’t have it just happen if that makes sense.

John: Yeah. Let’s talk about some of our own writing and our own opening scenes and sort of what our experience was with this. So, I’m thinking back to Chernobyl. Chernobyl if I recall correctly opens with an old woman and a cow.

Craig: That is how episode four or three opens.

John: That’s right. So it was later on. It’s not the very first image of it. What is the first image of the first episode?

Craig: The first image of the first episode is a couch with sort of an afghan type thing of a deer and we hear a man talking. We actually hear his voice before we ever see anything.

John: Yeah. And so we don’t realize at the time it’s going to be a Stuart Special. That we are setting up the past and that we’re going to be jumping back and forth.

I think the reason why I was remembering that cow scene is it’s an example of we don’t have context of who these characters are, sort of why what’s happening is happening. Are these characters going to be important? No, not really. You were just setting up sort of the question of that episode and that world and what kind of story this episode is going to be. And I thought it just worked really well.

Craig: Well thank you. So every episode needs its own beginning. And so I’m pretty sure it was the beginning of episode four. It’s sad that it’s all mushing together now.

But that was designed to be a bit confusing. Because we don’t know what exactly this guy is doing there. And we’re not sure what his orders are. And we definitely aren’t sure what her deal is. And we don’t know he’s just standing there. And so this goes on. And then at the end of it we know. We know a lot. And that is kind of a standalone intro, which we didn’t do much of. And generally I don’t. But sometimes it’s OK to make this opening its own thing that announces something about the world and then we catch up to the people that we know and care about.

And we think, oh, did they know that they’re in a world where that other thing is happening?

John: Yeah.

Craig: So certainly one way to go.

John: So, completely analogous situation is the opening of the Charlie’s Angels movie.

Craig: Mm-hmm.

John: So, of course, again, you’re establishing a place, and a time, and a world, except that it’s in a very candy-colored, we’re in a plane and we see all these characters. We see LL Cool J is the first recognizable star that we see. And there’s clearly some sort of heist thing happening. And it’s only as the sequence plays on that we realize like, oh, the Angels were actually part of this the entire time and this is an elaborate sequence to get this terrorist off this plane before he does something dastardly.

That sequence was important to establish the tone and feeling of this movie. And sort of what the rules are of this movie. And the heightened kind of gravity-optional nature of this movie. And sort of what it’s going to feel like to watch this movie.

So nothing that actually happens in that becomes important for the plot. It’s just introducing you to who the Angels are in a very general sense. The fact that they could kind of go into slow motion at any point if it’s glamorous. And just kind of how it feels. And it was one of the only sequences that made it all the way through from very early, before I came onboard to the movie, through to the end because it just felt like a good, goofy, fun start to this franchise.

Craig: With a punchline. I always feel like your openings need punchlines. And it’s weird to say like, OK, the punchline of the opening of the first episode of Chernobyl is a man hangs himself, but that’s kind of the punchline in the sense of there’s a surprise end. Similarly the old woman and the cow you’re pretty sure that soldier is going to shoot her and he doesn’t shoot her. He shoots the cow. Punchline.

You need to land something surprising. If you can, then the additional benefit you get from your opening is you’re putting the audience on alert that you are one step ahead of them so far. So, this is a good thing now. They’re leaning in. They’re trying to see what comes next. But they are also aware that you’re not just going to feed them straight up stuff, which is good.

John: The most difficult opening sequence I ever did was Big Fish. And I’m trying to establish so many things. I’m establishing two different worlds. A real world and a story world. That there are two protagonists and that both of them have storytelling power. So getting through those first eight pages of Big Fish and sort of setting up the storytelling dynamic of Big Fish was really, really tough, yet crucial. That was the case where like if I didn’t have that opening sequence the movie just couldn’t have worked because you wouldn’t know what to follow and what to pay attention to.

Craig: This is kind of high anxiety time. I like that you care – I think sometimes when I read these scripts, and we’ve said I think the word “precious real estate” or phrase a thousand times. You need to nail it. You’ve got to make that opening fascinating so that the audience says I will keep watching. If it’s just kind of meh then, I mean, you could have done anything there. The moment you have an opening you have limited what can come next. There’s a narrow possibility for what comes next.

John: You build a funnel. Yeah.

Craig: You make a funnel. A logical funnel. But not in the beginning. In the beginning there’s no funnel. You can do anything. And if you don’t do anything interesting I don’t see why people would think, well, this will get better. It won’t.

John: No. And weirdly it is probably the scene or sequence that as writers we spend the most time looking at just because by nature we’re going to kind of end up rereading it and sort of tweaking it a zillion times. And I do wonder if sometimes, let’s talk process here, at what point do you figure out that opening scene versus figuring out everything else in your story?

Sometimes I think the best approach would be to figure out where your story overall wants to go before you write that opening scene. Because so often you can be sort of trapped in that opening scene and love that opening scene but it’s not actually doing the best job possible establishing the rest of the things you want to do in your story.

Craig: 100%. If you do know what your end is. It would be lovely if you had that in mind when you wrote your beginning. Certainly I did when I did Chernobyl because it works like Pink Floyd’s The Wall album. It begins with I think it’s maybe David Gilmore saying, “Where we came in,” and then the song starts and then that album happens. And then at the very end you hear him say, “Isn’t this where?” And so you go, ah, ah-ha, in a very Pink Floyd cool way. I see what you did there, Pink Floyd.

And I like that. I like the sense that you catch up. And you complete the circle. It doesn’t have to be temporal like that. It can just be commentary. It can be somebody’s face ending in a similar position to how it began.

Here’s an example. Social Network. Opening scene, fantastic. And down to nothing but dialogue and performance. Two people sitting and talking. That’s it. Excellently written and excellently performed and excellently shot. And at the very, very end of the movie he goes back to looking at that girl’s profile on Facebook. She is not mentioned. Or referred to at any other time. It’s just the beginning and then the end. And then you go, oh man, this guy.

And so that’s how you can kind of think about these things. The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning. Know them both. It will help you define that opening scene much, much more sharply.

John: Cool. And now as we look at Three Page Challenges going forward let’s also try to remember to ask that question in terms of like what movie do we think this opening scene is setting up. Because that’s really kind of a fundamental question. We’ve talked so much about how those first three pages, that first opening scene is so crucial to getting people to read more of your script. But let’s also be thinking about what movie we think is actually establishing because we have strong expectations off the start of that.

So just a note for ourselves. We will try to think about how those opening scenes are setting our expectation for the rest of the movie that we’re not reading.

Craig: I think that tees us up nicely for a Three Page Challenge next week.

John: Yeah. We’ll try to do it. All right, next up we got a question from Stuart Friedel, former Scriptnotes producer. Do you want to read Stuart’s question?

Craig: Stuart, aw, writes–

John: We love Stuart.

Craig: “I just got a check in the mail from the WGA for foreign royalties for two episodes of Vampirina that I wrote. It’s the first time I’ve ever gotten anything like this. It was made out to me, not my S-Corp,” his loan-out corporation, “through which I got paid for these episodes originally. And the show is Animation Guild, not WGA. Is this normal? What’s going on here?”

John, is this normal?

John: It is both normal and weird. So writers get these checks all the time. But it’s not normal WGA residuals. It’s a whole special thing that I actually had to look up again because I remember it and then I forget and then I remember it and then I forget it.

Craig: I think we’ve done a run-through on the show at some point. It was probably years ago.

John: Stuart has listened to every episode, so Stuart should have known.

Craig: All right.

John: But we’ll give a brief recap here. So foreign levies are the fees that some foreign countries, largely European countries, they collect and they’re mean to compensate the rights holders when films or TV are broadcast or copied in things.

I remember originally it was like blank VHS tapes and blank DVDs, there was like a tax put on those thing.

Craig: Oh yeah, still. In fact probably the largest chunk of the foreign levies we collect are feed levied on blank disc media, disc drives. So basically the theory, it’s a lot of South American countries, too. The theory is that people are going to use blank media to copy things and watch them again. The artist should be compensated for that, but we don’t know how many times they’re watching things. So we’ll just tax the things that let them do that.

It’s a fascinating sort of thing to do. And we are not the authors of stuff here. But we are there. And that’s where it gets fun.

John: Yeah. It’s where it gets complicated. So under US law we tend to write these things as work-for-hire. So, we sort of pretend that the studios are the authors of the properties. But many of the countries say like, no, no, that’s actually not true. It’s the writers and the directors who are the authors. And so it became this big fight. And so in the show notes we’ll link to the history of how foreign levies came to be and how the DGA and the WGA came to collect that money. It’s fascinating and complicated. And there was a lawsuit about how the money was being distributed out.

But, the answer for Stuart is that the foreign countries are sending in that money and it is the WGA’s responsibility and the DGA’s responsibility to figure out who those people are and get the checks out to them. And so that’s a thing they do.

Craig: It’s not based on union work. So, the rest of the world does not have work-for-hire and they have moral rights of authors. So, France collects this money and then they turn to us and say we would like to give this to the moral – the moral authors of this movie, which we consider to be the writer and the director. And over here the studios are like but there’s no moral author. We’re the author. And so France said, nah, we’re not going to give it to you then.

And so then we had to hammer out some deal. The split between us and the studios did adjust over time. It’s been a while. It should be 100% us. So, will continue to have to broker that somehow. But then this other issue happens where they say, well, OK the WGA steps up and says we will collect all this. The other countries say, “Uh, just one thing, we’re not breaking this out by who is in your union and who is not in your union because we don’t care. We’re just going to send it all to you and you distribute it.”

And so now the WGA has this interesting situation where they’re collecting money on behalf of people that aren’t members, like for instance in this case while Stuart Friedel is the member of the Writers Guild they’re collecting money for him that he earned through the Animation Guild. Here’s another fun fact. We collect a ton of foreign levies from porn.

John: Hmm.

Craig: So we have to find the porn directors and writers. And that is kind of how we did it. We just agreed that we would do this. And for that there is some fee, of course, some sort of administrative fee that the Writers Guild takes. This has been litigated. Members of the Writers Guild have sued over it. Other people have sued over it. It was sort of like incredibly hot potato in the 2000s and has since ceased to be that hot potato. It’s now just kind of this passive stream of money that shows up in a brown envelope, or on a brown check instead of a green check.

John: Yeah. So to date the WGA West has distributed $246 million in foreign levies, and including $37 million to non-members and beneficiaries.

Craig: Ah, yes, that’s the other thing. If someone is dead–

John: They still get it.

Craig: They have to give it to whoever controls the estate.

John: Yeah. So right now there’s a little bit over $9 million that can’t be matched to writers and directors. And so we’ll put a link in the show notes. There’s a way you can search for like, oh, am I owed foreign levies. And so they try to match up those funds. But it’s possible that some money will just never go to the place it’s actually supposed to go, or to the person it’s supposed to go to. So, based on the settlement at a certain point that money, if there’s any money left over, goes to the Actor’s Fund which we’ve talked about before is the charity that supports the industry.

Craig: Correct. And that number, $9 million, sounds high. It’s not. It used to be much higher. There was a point where it was like at $25 million. It was becoming a real liability. You can’t just sit on $25 million of other people’s money and not do something about it. So the guild has actually made really good progress on that front. My guess is that’s probably as low as it’s going to be, because there’s always going to be some stuff that comes – it’s really hard sometimes to understand these – you have governments sending you lists of taxation based on their information. Sometimes it’s not complete.

John: Yeah. It’s going to happen. All right. This last week I was listening to an episode of 99 Percent Invisible, and this one was one megaplexes. It was about sort of how everything changed when AMC opened up the Grand 24 in Dallas. And I realize we’ve talked about exhibition before on the show, but I think we’ve never talked about our experiences of going to the movies and sort of when movie theaters changed.

And for people who are younger than us they probably don’t remember clearly a time before megaplexes and before stadium seating and sort of what that life was like, but we saw both sides of it. So I thought we’d spend a few minutes talking about our experience with that. And also the podcast episode, which was trying to make the point that the physical changes of theaters actually had a big impact on sort of what movies were getting made and then as theaters started to collapse a bit also change what movies were getting made. So I thought we’d talk about both our experience as movie goers but also what we saw happening in the industry as the exhibition itself changed.

Craig: I used to go see movies at the Amboy Multiplex. The Amboy Multiplex, not a megaplex like the AMC Grand 24, the Amboy Multiplex I think had eight screens which was considered insane at the time.

John: That was pretty big at the time. Was that the first theater you remember going to?

Craig: The Amboy Multiplex might have been the first multiplex. It’s in New Jersey. Well, it was. It’s no longer there. And I believe they opened in maybe ’78 or ’79. I remember for instance seeing Star Wars in just a single screen movie theater. And that was kind of what you had. The multiplex was pretty great because if you were a family my dad and I could go see Raiders of the Lost Ark and my mom and my sister could go see, you know, Max Dugan Returns or something, I don’t know. I can’t remember what was going on.

But the point is families could split up and see different things.

John: That was such a great point. And I had not considered it, but yes, I mean, on a single screen theater everyone is going to see the same movie and you can’t do that thing where you divide up and see different stuff starting about the same time. And that’s a huge difference. Like you’ve sold more tickets because more people can go.

Craig: Correct. And they also because they had that many more screens running the concessions became a massive part of it. Because now you’re not feeding the amount of people that fit into one room. You’re feeding the amount of people that fit into eight rooms. It all becomes a much bigger money maker. And you could just feel like, OK, if I’m a single movie theater and I’m showing one freaking thing, first of all if there’s a – so the blockbuster emerges out of the ‘70s out of Jaws and Star Wars.

Now, you can say we have these blockbuster films like Raiders, we can show them on more than one screen. So you’re losing money when you’re turning people away from a theater. The multiplexes didn’t have to. They said we’ll just stick it on another screen. No problem.

John: Now growing up in Boulder, Colorado my first experience in a theater was probably either the Base-Mar, which had two giant screens, or there was the Village 4 which were one really big screen and three smaller screens. That’s probably where I watched Star Wars. It’s where I saw 9 to 5. Or I saw a lot of early movies. I saw The Muppet Movie there.

But eventually we had – Mann built a six-pack theater with six identical size theaters and I think at about six is where you start to see some of those economies of scale. Where they can just sell more concessions. They can put the same movie on two different screens at the same time. There really are reasons they can just make more money off of things by sort of sticking a bunch of screens together.

But that was a real innovation. So, you know, the history of movie theaters were those giant sort of movie palaces that sometimes would get carved into smaller screens. But it’s still a pretty bad experience and not very efficient.

Now, something like the six-pack that I saw most of my movies in high school at that was still pre-stadium seating. When was the first time you experienced stadium seating Craig?

Craig: That’s a great question. I think it was when we – I’m going to say it was back in the early 2000s I remember going to a test – we were doing a test screening and it was out in like Chatsworth or something. And there was this stadium seating and I thought well this is absolutely terrible for comedies. And it is. It’s the worst. Because you laugh outwards and you basically hear yourself and some of the people behind you and that’s it.

Whereas in the old days when you were in that flat room everybody heard everybody and laughs were just so much bigger. It was like being in a comedy show. And now it’s not. Obviously it’s terrific for viewing. I get that. But I was disturbed.

And now that’s it. It’s that and nothing else.

John: Yeah. So younger listeners don’t have a memory of going to see movies and having to make sure you weren’t sitting behind someone taller than you. And having to look behind you to make sure you weren’t blocking somebody.

Craig: Yup.

John: And that whole experience. And what’s also surprising to folks who live in Los Angeles now is you said you went to a screening out in Chatsworth and that’s where you saw stadium seating, like LA when I moved here had the worst movie theaters.

Craig: Oh yeah. Bad.

John: We had Mann’s Chinese which was like a movie palace and just gorgeous, but it actually had terrible projection and sound.

Craig: Correct.

John: And could only show one movie at a time. It was great to see a big movie there because it was huge, but was not a good theater. And all the rest of the theaters were just terrible. They were sticky floor monstrosities. And so now we have great ones, but we were kind of late to get our great theaters.

Craig: It’s true. We were. And there is now a generation of parents who don’t have the joy of saying, “I can’t see!” When you would go to a theater and you would say, “I can’t see,” would your parents say some version of, “Don’t worry, when it starts you won’t even notice.” Because my parents would always say, “Oh yeah, don’t worry about it. When the movie starts you won’t even notice that that guy is blocking half of the screen.”

And they were kind of right, in a sense.

John: They weren’t entirely wrong. I would say because I had an older brother, it was my older brother who was mostly responsible for taking me to movies. And so he and I might switch sometimes, but that was going to be about the extent of my accommodation for my shortness growing up and going to movie theaters.

Now, let’s talk about the impact of the change in movie theaters had on the movies that were getting made, because this is a point that this podcast was trying to make and I wanted to push back against it but then I thought, OK, you know what? They actually did have a point here.

So, I remember pre-multiplexes if you wanted to see a David Cronenberg film, if you wanted to see a David Lynch film, if you wanted to see an art film you had to go to an art house movie theater. But with the rise of these bigger and bigger multiplexes it became possible to have one screen that was showing a Being John Malkovich, showing something that was – a Miramax movie. Something that was outside the realm of just the big studio blockbusters. And I think more people saw some indie movies on a big screen in their home town than would have if we hadn’t built out these multiplexes.

Craig: Depending on your town, I think. Obviously it’s a little easier if you’re in a city. It’s a lot easier if you’re in a city. But that’s true. And there are still theaters now that kind of pride themselves on showing you a mix of both. So the ArcLight companies for instance, they take pride in their cinematic fidelity. And part of that is not only sound and picture, but that you can see a Spider-Man film and you can also see a Jim Jarmusch movie and that’s kind of their thing.

But over time I think the big megaplexes, the AMCs, and whatever the Regal Cinemas or whatever they’re called, they’ve really adapted to the way that studios have changed, because studios used to put out a movie every week or two. And now they put out a movie every month and a half. Maybe. And what that means is that movie is just steroided-out. It’s the equivalent of the Butterball Turkey. It can barely stand on its own legs because it has been steroided and fed for size.

And now everybody has been like, oh my god, we’ve got to go see The Avengers 7, and so Jesus put it on all 28 of your screens. And so then these movie theaters kind of become like The Avengers’ movie theater for four weeks.

John: Now even the ArcLight which can still hold some screens for the smaller movies, but Spider-Man is going to be on eight of the 14 screens. Which can be good for an audience because it means I can actually see something opening weekend. And I do definitely appreciate that. The frustration of not being able to see a thing that you want to see is a thing. And not be part of the cultural conversation about the thing. It is great to be able to see things opening weekend and I look forward to being able to see things opening weekend as theaters start to reopen.

But, I don’t know, the anticipation was part of the experience as well. And I remember before there was reserved seating having to line up and get there in time to sort of get your seat. Yes, it was a hassle, but it also was part of the experience of going to see the movies.

Craig: It was communal. But another shot has been fired. It was fired yesterday. Another shot across the bow of the way movies are released and seen. And that shot was Zack Snyder’s Justice League.

John: Yeah. Let’s talk about that.

Craig: So, Zack Snyder shot Justice League. He was in the middle of editing and working on it and then there was a family tragedy and he had to stop. So, the studio brought in Joss Whedon. I assume just to sort of finish and Joss Whedon was like, ah-ha, how about instead of finishing I just redo most of this.

And so he did. And it was a different movie. And people did not like it. And for many, many years there’s been this clamoring for the Zack Snyder cut. Now, I’m going to tell you something I’ve never mentioned before on this podcast.

John: Tell us.

Craig: I saw the Zack Snyder cut back when he was working on it. Because they were talking about maybe doing a week or reshoots or something like that. And so he invited two or three – I think there were three or four of us, writers, to watch the movie in the state it was in and then just have a conversation about some things that they might be able to do to tweak some things up over the course of a week of writing.

And I, you know me, I’m not like a huge superhero movie guy, but I really liked it. I liked it. I thought it was really good. I thought there were a couple things, like OK here’s some suggestions and things. And then Zack left the project. And so that was it. Literally, I think he left like the next week. And I never saw the Joss Whedon version.

But all this time while there was this fan movement for the Zack, there was like a mythologizing that the Zack Snyder cut was going to be amazing and it was going to save that movie. And a lot of people are like why would you think that? And I quietly was sort of like but it’s really good actually, like I hope that that does happen. But I didn’t want to say anything because I didn’t want to be in the news. Because people are obsessed with this stuff.

Well, I watched it last night and it’s fascinating. First of all, it is good. I really enjoyed it. It’s four hours.

John: Now, was the movie you watched previously four hours long?

Craig: It was probably three-ish. I think he went and shot some additional material. In fact, I know he shot additional material because there’s like an entire sequence at the end that wasn’t there when I saw the film. And there was a bunch of things that I think he went and reshot and did some work on.

But by and large, yeah, the movie was the movie I saw. Except like finished and good. And what I find fascinating – and people have received it very well. It has been reviewed very well and people are enjoying it. And I think this is a new kind of thing now. Everybody is going to stop and go wait a second, so now we can do these like really long experiences and people will watch them on streaming.

And that is a new challenge to what movies had become, which was we’re going to give you the 2.5 hour extravaganzas. And now people are like, “Or, give us four hours.”

John: Four hours at home.

Craig: At home. And this is interesting now.

John: So, I have a counterpoint for you. We can wrap up the sequence with the counterpoint example of another superhero epic, the last Avengers movie. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the fan reaction to the arrival of the other superheroes at the end of Avengers.

Craig: Yeah, it’s great.

John: And to hear, I mean, you’re not seeing the audience, you’re just hearing the audience and the audience’s reaction to what happens at the end there is a great reminder of sort of why the communal movie theater experience is so different and so vital.

You talk about test screenings with a comedy and how a comedy plays with a crowd, well this isn’t a comedy but the cheering you hear and the feeling you get off of people’s reaction to it is just so different and so dynamic and it’s a thing you’re never going to get in streaming obviously.

Craig: Correct. And I don’t think that we’re going to lose that big movie experience, meaning I think movies will return. But, I also think that there may be room now for this other thing, which is the mega-movie, gig-a-movie. You see like say Avengers, the final one, and then two years later you see this four hours version of it, where all this other stuff is happening. Some of which was cut out. And some of it is just new. Like you can keep making those movies.

John: Yeah. I would say basically the whole Marvel canon in a way does feel like it is already kind of there. It’s this epic movie that just sort of keeps going. It’s like a series that just keeps going and there’s always a new installment, a new chapter. And WandaVision feels like it’s a six to eight hour Marvel movie that’s in the middle of it. So, it’s exciting.

Craig: Yeah. We’ll see where it goes.

John: But let’s wrap this up and talk about the megaplex experience because theaters kept getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and nicer, and nicer, and nicer, and I’ll be curious to see what happens next with the theater experience. And assuming we get back to just butts in seats and people are watching things, you know, I think this may give an opportunity for closing off those less performing locations and focusing on building good new theaters.

Sometimes when there is a crisis people can sort of cull things off their sheets in ways that is useful. Like Alamo Drafthouse filed for bankruptcy but I don’t think Alamo Drafthouse I will go away. I think it will just reorganize.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, bankruptcy doesn’t mean you go out of business, it just means you’re taking a pause to pay your creditors back because you need time. And, yeah, I don’t romanticize small movie theaters with terrible projection and awful sound. I think the trend towards making a movie theater more like your living room will continue. So you’ll have the lazy chair style seating and reserved seating. Ticket prices will go up.

If movie studios purchase large theater chains, and I think they’re sitting back and waiting. If theater experience comes roaring back I think we’ll see that. And then at that point you’re going to get to variable pricing on tickets. All sorts of things are going to happen.

But the theater business was remarkably stable, as much as everybody kept screaming about it, ticket sales were insanely stable for decades. And now all bets are off. I have no idea what happens now.

John: But, whatever does happen, MoviePass is going to be part of it. Because MoviePass is coming back. And when there’s an update we’ll see what that is. But they announced that they’re coming back, so in some version there’s going to be a MoviePass out there.

Craig: [laughs] Man, I’ll tell you. I want to give us a pat on the back for that, but I can’t. It was so obviously ridiculous.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Oh lord.

John: You know I’m not joking? MoviePass has announced – MoviePass really is coming back in some version.

Craig: What? I’m sorry, no. What? Oh no.

John: Who knows what it’ll be. But the MoviePass account is suddenly active again. So something is happening.

Craig: So MoviePass is going to come back and they’re like, OK, new deal. You pay us $80 and we let you see one movie.

John: Craig, it will involve the block chain in some way.

Craig: Oh god.

John: Yup.

Craig: [Unintelligible].

John: Craig, it’s time for our One Cool Things. Before we get to your One Cool Thing, I’ve been asked by Megana for an update on your Upstep insoles. How are your insoles going?

Craig: Now, Megana, are you asking because you are also interested in some foot support?

Megana Rao: No. But as I was listening to the episode I was just like I wonder how that’s going.

Craig: I like that you’re just generally interested in my foot health.

Megana: The anticipation from all of that unboxing.

Craig: OK. It has worked great. They fit perfectly and they are very comfortable. They do this thing that all kind of orthotic inserts do which is they squeak. So when I walk it’s wah-wah-wah. I think over time that will probably stop.

John: Well WD40 should help.

Craig: Exactly. That’s what you want in your shoes. But, yeah, they work great. And they are experientially identical to the ones tht cost way more that you’d have to go to the doctor for. So, I give a big thumb’s up to the Upstep insoles.

John: And don’t forget to use the promo code “umbrage” at checkout to save 15%.

Craig: CraigsFootHealth49. Yeah, I just did an ad for Upstep and I’m not getting paid.

John: Weird. Weird that.

Craig: God, my streak of not getting paid on this show continues.

John: Yeah. What’s your real One Cool Thing?

Craig: You know what? Let’s make it that. It’s really good.

John: Craig wasn’t prepared.

Craig: No.

John: My One Cool Thing, I was a guest on another podcast this last week which I think many of our listeners would really enjoy, like the podcast overall. My episode sure, but this is the Screenwriting Life Podcast. It’s by Meg LeFauve and Lorien McKenna. They do it weekly. They are up to episode 35 right now, so it’s going to stick around for a while. What I really dig about their podcast is it’s very much just about talking through the writing that you’re doing each week and what the highs and the lows were. And it’s very much the emotional process of it all. So, we had a good interview and I’m sure all their interviews are great. But I really enjoyed how the two of them just talked about the work they were doing on a regular basis.

Now, Craig, you and I have referred previously on the show to you and I sort of write in our little bubbles and we just do our own writing. We don’t sort of share and don’t talk about stuff. But we have friends, especially women friends, who are involved in each other’s writing a lot. And I’ve always been really envious of that and I really appreciate the way they can just focus on what the experience is of writing on a daily basis. And so especially for aspiring writers who are listening to this I think just check out them and their advice because I really think you’ll enjoy that show.

Craig: It’s got to be mentally healthier than what I do, which is just curl up in a ball and shiver with fear and self-loathing. Right? It’s got to be healthier than that?

John: And play some videogames.

Craig: Oh yean. And D&D.

John: And D&D.

That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Peter Hoopes. 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 I’m @johnaugust. I might be able to answer your question.

We have t-shirts. They’re lovely. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Craig, thank you for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

John: All right, Craig, we got a question from Julie in Copenhagen. Can you read Julie in Copenhagen’s question?

Craig: Indeed. She writes, “I’m currently writing my master thesis in film and media studies focusing on the meaning and use of clichés and genre conventions in Danish youth dramedy television series. I have interviewed Danish screenwriters, critics, and two focus groups of the target audience to hear how they define and feel about clichés.

“But there doesn’t seem to be a clear cut definition of what a cliché is and how it differs from genre conventions, or what the relationship is between conventions and clichés.”

Well, this is a question that is universal. It travels beyond the borders of Denmark.

John: Absolutely. Even places without Lego, they have clichés.

Craig: Correct.

John: So, let’s talk about that, because as she raised the question I was trying to sort through what I felt is a cliché versus what is a genre convention.

And so I went to Wikipedia to look at their definition of cliché which is pretty good. They say, “A cliché is an element of an artistic work, saying, or idea that has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.” And I think that last clause is really important there because a cliché didn’t start as a cliché. A cliché probably started as something relatively clever or sort of clever or at least new. But just through overuse it’s not that anymore and it just feels terrible. It’s an idea that doesn’t know that it’s busted.

Craig: Right. Yeah. I think that is a valuable way to discriminate between the two. I would say, Julie, that clichés are specific things that put your teeth on edge because you’re like, uh, it’s mean to make me smile, laugh, or be shocked or something and it’s not because it’s just unoriginal. Conventions are things that just keep showing up. They’re not demanding a lot of attention. They’re just sort of baked into the structure or concept.

So, for instance a convention of a space opera is a dogfight between spaceships shooting lasers at each other. That’s just a convention.

John: Yeah, not a cliché. So clichéd moments can happen during it, but the idea of a space battle, fine.

Craig: Exactly. So, like a cliché is someone gets shots a laser into my X-Wing and I go, “I’m hit, I’m hit.” That’s a cliché. It’s like, oh, what an original moment. But the existence of the convention of the space dogfight could actually be good.

So, there was like some really cool stuff that Rian did in The Last Jedi. It’s a convention, but inside of that convention original and interesting things happen. Please don’t @ me, because I like that movie. I don’t care.

So, I would say that like in zombie movies the convention is that a lot of people are zombies and a group of people who are not zombies need to get away from them. But inside of that there could be a ton of clichés. A ton of little moments that you’ve seen a billion, billion times.

John: Yeah. So trying to save someone’s life in an extreme situation can be a genre convention. There’s military versions of trying to save a person’s life, like doing CPR on a person. That is a convention. That’s great. We get it. Saying, “Don’t die on me,” that is a cliché. There’s no version of “don’t die on me” that will not be a cliché. And it will ring the bells.

And the first time a character said that it was great. But then the fourth time a character said that it’s like, ugh, that’s not fresh. We know it’s not fresh. And that not fresh feeling is really what makes something a cliché.

Craig: That not so fresh feeling.

John: An example of good genre conventions, we have vampires, we have vampires drinking blood. There’s lots of things about vampires that are genre conventions that are good, sort of come for free. But the vampire flourishing his cape in front of his face that’s just a cliché. You feel like you’re in Count Chocula territory when you do that.

Craig: Yes.

John: So you’ve got to be mindful of that.

Craig: Yes. So, a vampire speaking with a vaguely Romanian accent is sort of cliché. It’s not a convention, because vampires can be anywhere. And that’s sort of the deal. Conventions in and of themselves aren’t bad. You can absolutely do something and be unconventional in the way you do it. But you will find just as often that there are vampire conventions that are turned around because they are executed in a way that is not cliché.

So, I think we talked about Near Talk at some point.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Kathryn Bigelow’s first film.

John: So good.

Craig: So good. A ton of vampire conventions in there. Sun burns you and you’ve got to drink blood. And there’s a lead vampire. But the execution, the setting, the tone, all that stuff, clearly she avoided cliché every step of the way and it’s one of the reasons that the film feels so exciting even though it’s full of vampire conventions.

John: So here’s a convention I want to throw your way. You’re in a western and there is a hooker a heart of gold. Is that a cliché or a convention?

Craig: I think it’s a cliché because the convention I always think of is connected to plot, setting, the inciting incident, the goal, that sort of thing. So a convention would be a bunch of unlikely allies in a western have to make it from one town to another while being pursued by bad buys. Well, if you are doing Stagecoach, well there’s the hooker with the heart of gold. That’s fine. It was 1930-whatever. But these days you wouldn’t do that. Because it is cliché.

You would want the individual characters to feel fresh even inside of the convention of it all. So in The Hateful Eight there’s a lot of western convention in there. But then these characters are just, whoa. Not clichéd characters.

John: So I would steer listeners to TV Tropes which is a great site which sort of goes through in any genre what are the clichés and conventions. And so you have to be careful to read through this to not assume that anything you see there is by default a thing you need to avoid. A lot of those things are just part of the genre. So you have to sort of understand what everyone sort of accepts as an audience and what things are hackneyed or stale.

And so you have to be a student of what’s happened in that genre before in order to avoid those clichés.

Craig: Yeah. So if you’re doing a romantic comedy you will want to fulfill certain conventions of the genre, most likely. But you’re going to want to avoid the cliché ways of getting them across. A girl meets a man. Girl meets a boy. Boy meets a girl. Boy meets a boy. Man meets a man. Whatever it is, then you don’t want them bumping into each other in the middle of the street and one person dropping all their stuff and the other person saying, “Oh let me help you pick that up,” and then they look in each other’s eyes and go, “Ah!” because that’s cliché.

But you’re going to want them to meet.

John: Yeah. They do have to meet at some point.

Craig: That’s the challenge. Do the convention. But be original.

John: And Tess Morris has been on the show to talk about rom-coms. And like, yes, again it’s always about understanding the conventions while avoiding the clichés.

We’ll put a link in the show notes to a video essay talking through the makeover sequence, the makeover montage. And that transformation of essentially the female character in one of these stories and how troubling it is and how we really need to look at that sequence and think about what it is we’re trying to say through those sequences.

Craig: We’re trying to say that if you’re pretty you’re valuable, and if you’re not you’re not.

John: There’s that.

Craig: That’s pretty much what those movies are telling everybody as far as I can tell. That until you are physically attractive by some normative definition you’re worthless and a loser. And I say that as somebody who has never been attractive in any normal sort of way. I’ve always been like but my face is weird. What about me?

John: Aw. Craig.

Craig: Oh, Craig.

John: Thanks.

Craig: Thank you, John.

John: Bye.

Links:

  • WGA Parental Leave begins May 2!
  • Learn more about foreign levies
  • 99 Percent Invisible Podcast Episode: The Megaplex
  • We’ve Outgrown the Ugly Duckling Transformation by Mina Le on Youtube
  • TV Tropes – Vampires
  • Listener Guide Submissions send in your favorite episodes from 300-500!
  • Check out the Screenwriting Life Podcast and this episode with John!
  • Upstep – the review is positive!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Peter Hoopes (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

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

Apps

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

Recommended Reading

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

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.