• 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, Ep 390: Getting Staffed, Transcript

March 8, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 390 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program we welcome back former Scriptnotes producer Megan McDonnell. Welcome back, Megan.

**Megan McDonnell:** Thank you.

**Craig:** As you can see, she was such a valuable employee for her strong voice.

**John:** Well today you’re not producing because you are in fact our guest. We want to talk to you all about how you got staffed on your very first show. Then it’s a new round of the Three Page Challenge where we take a look at the pages sent in by our listeners and discuss what’s working and what could use some work.

But first off, Megan, how does it feel to be back here doing – you did so many Three Page Challenges. You probably read – how many Three Page Challenges do you think you’ve read over the years?

**Megan:** Hundreds.

**John:** Hundreds. Yeah.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Megan:** Not a thousand.

**John:** Not a thousand. But hundreds.

**Megan:** Hundreds. Certainly.

**John:** So you were the culling mechanism to find the very best of them. Now Megana Rao has that job, so she got to go through a whole bunch of them yesterday to try to find the three that we’re going to do today.

**Megan:** Yeah, I mean, it was so fun to read through all the Three Page Challenges. It’s the making the decision of like, OK, which ones are John and Craig going to like and that was the hard part.

**John:** I used to be a reader at TriStar and at another company before that and in some cases reading things that don’t work is really helpful because it gives you a sense of like, OK, I’m never going to do that because I just see that never works. Do you think reading all the Three Page Challenges helped you as a writer or hurt you as a writer?

**Megan:** It definitely didn’t hurt me as a writer, I hope. I think it’s extremely helpful to see what people are doing, not only to see like what works so well and what’s so good, but also just what the trends are out there and like what I see a lot. OK, that’s a thing that’s probably being seen a lot, so avoid that thing.

**John:** Avoid that thing. Megan is going to be back after we do some quick follow up.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Last week we had Chris Keyser on the show to talk about agency negotiations and the problems of conflict of interest, all that stuff is still happening. But on Wednesday we got word of a major payout in another conflict of interest situation. Craig, do you want to talk us through this.

**Craig:** Oh boy, what a mess this thing is. And this is not something that hasn’t happened before. This is kind of a pretty dramatic outcome though in terms of how it unfolded. So this is about the show Bones. This is a show that was airing on Fox. And it aired more than 10 years. And basically what it came down to was the people that were the profit participants in the show Bones essentially said that Fox had kind of self-dealt. I guess what do you say like–

**John:** Undervalued?

**Craig:** Underestimated? Undervalued. Perfect word. They had undervalued the value of Bones when it was kind of self-dealing the reruns to itself and the programming to itself. So, what happens is you’re making a show. Very typical way this would work is in the old days a studio, let’s say Paramount, would make a television show like Star Trek. So they produced that show. They then sell that show, meaning they license it, to a network. I think Star Trek was on – oh boy, I’m not going to say it because they’ll get angry at me, the Star Trek people. They license it to a network. The network pays them a fee. And then over time if the show does well then it goes into syndication and all that rerun money kicks back to Paramount, the studio that made the show. But they weren’t airing it.

What happens if you have Fox Television creating a show and then licensing it to Fox Network? Ah-ha. Now you have all sorts of opportunity for skullduggery because Fox doesn’t necessarily want to have to pay out profit participation to the people that are participating in the profits. And so the lower they say – the worse the show is doing, the better it is for them, because they’re actually keeping all the money. They’re just reporting on paper it’s just not doing that well.

But it is. So, the people that felt cheated by this took Fox to arbitration and they didn’t just lose this arbitration, they lost in the most spectacular manner. The arbiter essentially awarded them $180 million, most of which was him saying Fox is a bunch of liars. They have a culture of lying. This is egregious. So, first you’re getting essentially what you were asking for as kind of the money that they had ripped you off essentially. They were saying look they ripped us off about $52 million. He said great. Here’s your $52 million and here’s another $128 million in punitive damages because of the egregious manner in which they approached their accounting.

This is not a new story. This is Hollywood everywhere all the time. And I wonder if something like this will actually change the business or if this is just going to be another one of those, well, every now and then we have to pay $170 million but we’ll make more if we keep lying.

**John:** Yeah. So, it’s important to note that this is going to go up for appeal so we don’t know what the final decision is going to be. But what I found so interesting about this story is that we’ve had this situation before where for reruns they were undervaluing the thing, so X-Files the reruns were about that situation, syndication, that situation. But here it was the initial broadcast of the show. So the show aired – it was made by Fox. It showed up on Fox Broadcasting. Also Hulu and Fox’s foreign affiliates. And they were pricing it below market value is the argument that they should have been charging more for the show in all those situations. And they’d actually gone to the executive producers and the stars insisting that they not challenge the license fee issues over this time.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s really fascinating because you don’t – it’s one thing to say like, oh, it’s creative accounting. But it felt like there was actual deliberate manipulation and talk about we’re not going to pick up the show for the next two seasons because the show is not successful and it really was quite successful.

**Craig:** Exactly. They’re saying, look, you have to go along with this and take these reduced things because otherwise we’re not going to bring the show back. Meanwhile they had already made a deal with the showrunner to continue making the show. They were lying flat out. You can’t threaten to cancel a show when you’ve just made a deal with somebody else to keep making the show.

And then there’s the Peter Liguori thing. Did you read about this?

**John:** You know, I got a little bit lost in all the weeds of it, because I read – we’ll put a link to the actual decision, but there’s so many different articles. Tell me about the Peter Liguori of it all.

**Craig:** So Peter Liguori was the president of entertainment at Fox Broadcasting Company which is the network. And he was the president until 2009. So, 2009 he leaves Fox and he happened to be around when a lot of these initial things were happening. He was apparently meant to testify in these proceedings. And seven months before he is brought in to testify Fox makes a new deal with him, an outstandingly good deal with him to produce shows at FX.

And this did not pass muster with the arbiter. It says, “Liguori’s deal came with fixed episodic fees and contingent compensation far exceeding that of top executive producers in Hollywood despite the fact that the executive Peter Liguori had ‘virtually no experience whatsoever as a producer.’” That feels like a buyout, right? That’s essentially what the arbiter is implying here is that Fox basically paid off Peter Liguori to not testify against them.

Now, that’s obviously what this guy is saying. I’m just reading along with it. But the arbitrator, Peter Lichtman, apparently is a very well-respected arbitrator. They’re going to try and I guess appeal this in court. Good luck, I think? I don’t think that’s going to work.

So this is a fascinating one. I’m interested to see if it sticks. If I had to bet I would bet it would stick.

**John:** Yeah. I think some version of this will stick. But I think it’s also worth looking at it in the larger context of conflicts of interest. And so this is Fox for Fox, but as we talked about last week we have these agencies that are also becoming producers and that’s going to be really awkward. You can imagine a ton of these lawsuits over like, oh, did you really find the best deal for this project or did you just take the best deal that you could make internally?

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So it’s a real challenge.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** And follow up is over. Megan McDonnell, you’ve been the Scriptnotes producer for a year and a half, 14 months?

**Megan:** A year and some change.

**John:** Year and some change. You were also the producer of Launch, the podcast we did about the book. But you’re only a name at the end of the show, so people don’t really know you. I guess they could have seen you at the live show, or in Austin. But talk us through your background. Did you always want to be a screenwriter? How did you come to this?

**Megan:** I’ve always loved to write and it kind of never occurred to me that I could be a screenwriter until I went to grad school. So I went into grad school thinking oh I’ll be a producer, I’ll be a network executive, and then once I was there and doing internships and taking writing classes I was like, oh gosh, I’ve really got to give this a try. And I’m so glad I did because now I’m writing.

**John:** So where did you grow up?

**Megan:** I grew up in Long Beach, California, so a Southern California person.

**John:** All right. And school here? School in Boston, right?

**Megan:** I did undergrad at Harvard, studying English and Chinese.

**Craig:** As one does.

**John:** As one does. And then did you know you were going to move to Los Angeles directly afterwards?

**Megan:** Yeah. Because I knew I wanted to be in the industry.

**John:** Great. So you end up going to the Stark program at USC.

**Megan:** Yeah.

**John:** But did you have a job or an internship before Stark?

**Megan:** So I went straight from college, but while I was in college I had some internships over the summers.

**John:** So talk us through the Peter Stark program. For people who don’t know it’s a two-year graduate producing program. Why pick that rather than a screenwriting program?

**Megan:** Because at that point also I was like oh I’ll be a producer. This is my track. But also, I mean, all the programs at USC are wonderful, but also I think that for what I want to be doing ultimately anyway I’m very thankful that I went with the Stark program because it does teach you skills that you’ll need as a showrunner in addition to just being able to write and all of that.

**John:** So Craig is usually down on film programs overall, film school overall.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Sell Craig on film school. What were the things you took out of film school that you think you wouldn’t have gotten if you hadn’t gone through them?

**Megan:** A huge part of it, of course, is the friends you make there. Being able to make a short film, like using your friends as crew, and actually making stuff I think it’s helpful to go to film school. And I do think it’s like a big decision that isn’t for everyone.

But I feel very grateful that I went. One for all the people I met. Two for all the internships I had and the friends I was able to make through that. But also you just learn a lot. And it’s certainly stuff that you can pick up while you’re working, while you’re at an agency or any of that, but just like learning how things fit together in a very straightforward way I think is extremely helpful. And it’s stuff that comes up while you’re an assistant even where you just have answers to things. And it helps add value to what you’re doing.

**John:** Yeah. I will say a good film program, and Stark I think is a very structured film program, it gives you a sense of the entire process. And so a screenwriting program can teach you this is how screenplays work, let’s write our screenplays, but doesn’t give you a sense of how movies are made and sort of from the idea to release date to home video. That sense of it is useful and you can learn that in an academic setting.

**Craig:** I mean, listen, no question that there’s advantages certainly to a program like this. So we’ve spoken about how if you are going to film school in a graduate program, or an undergraduate program at NYU or at USC, I get it. I do. I can see just the value of the people you meet alone probably – I mean, I have to weigh it against what it costs. Like for instance, my friends, you know, I got my friends to work on my movie. I’m like you could have also paid a crew of people and that would have been half the year’s tuition maybe for one year of film school.

But I get that part. I do. I wish that there were fewer programs. I don’t know how else to put it. I honestly wish there was some kind of cap on how many programs there can be because sometimes we’ll get emails from people saying, “Listen, my professor of screenwriting at East Tuscaloosa Bible College says that,” and we’re like do they need a screenwriting program there? I don’t know if they warrant one. Do you know what I mean? Just fewer. I’m all for fewer programs.

**John:** Now, Megan, an interesting thing which is different than any previous assistant is that in addition to school you also were participating in writer’s groups. And so you had regular writing sessions with other folks. So talk us through that. How did you find those people and what did you actually do in your writer’s groups?

**Megan:** I think the biggest thing for me getting stuff written has been writer’s groups. It’s such a game changer. And I was lucky, the first writer group I really participated in was organized through my alumni program for undergrad. And so they put us with a group and it was a semester-long thing where at the beginning you have an idea, at the end you have a script. And just the value of deadlines is huge. But in addition to that just being around people that have smart ideas about your script and bring different things to the table and can help you out.

And just like you learn things from people when you get to meet with them every week and talk about writing.

**John:** So that continued after school. I know that you would have every week, every two weeks – how often were you meeting up with these writer’s groups?

**Megan:** I’m in two writer’s groups. One is weekly, the other is every other week.

**John:** And what are the expectations of what you’re going to do in a weekly group?

**Megan:** For the weekly one, we would just create assignments that we would have to turn by the next week with room to read them. But it would be like, OK, figure out your log line and then your structure, or have a beat sheet by the next week, or write ten pages. And then by the end, stacked in such a way that by the end you had a canvas script that you’re proud of. And then for the other one it’s just like whatever anyone is working on bring it in and we’ll see.

**Craig:** How many people were in these writing groups?

**Megan:** Six or seven.

**Craig:** OK, that’s not too big. Sometimes I think if it gets – if there’s a group rather large it always seems to turn into some weird political mess, you know, because writers not always great in groups.

**John:** So you said the advantages are deadlines. I guess there’s a sense of like social pressure. If you don’t do this thing everyone is going to notice that you didn’t do this thing. And you won’t just feel bad personally, you’ll feel like you’re letting them down. Is that it?

**Megan:** Social pressure, yes, definitely that. But also just the energy of being around people that are excited about it, about what you’re writing but also about what they’re writing. I think that energy especially when you’re an assistant during the day and you are kind of creatively burned out by the evening then to be around people that are very excited to be doing this, I think is a helpful thing.

**John:** Well let’s talk about your day jobs. So, during Stark, it’s a two-year program, but the second year all your classes are at night so you could in theory have a normal job. When did you have internships? When did you start working full-time for a place?

**Megan:** So, during Stark I think I always had full-time internships. Not full-time internships, but I’d stack internships in such a way that I was using all my time, which actually I’m really grateful for that system just because working all day and then heading straight to class and getting home at 11, now that’s just what I have as a baseline. OK, the workday is that many hours long and I think it’s helpful as far as then being trained to do the assistant job and then at night do the writing part of it.

**John:** So when you say stacked internships, so you might have two, or three, or four internships over the course of a week? So on Mondays you’re this, Tuesdays you’re that?

**Megan:** Yeah. Usually two at a time.

**John:** Two at a time. Great. And talk about internships. Classically it was making copies, but no one makes copies anymore. So what does an intern do these days?

**Megan:** It’s a lot of script reading, which of course is very helpful for a writer. And also just understanding like mandates, what people are looking for, what belongs on kind of what network. But for me it was always development internships or programming internships.

**John:** Great. So you’re reading scripts. Are you writing up coverage? What do they have you do?

**Megan:** Yeah. Writing up coverage.

**John:** Were you paid for these internships or were they credit?

**Megan:** 50/50 I think.

**John:** All right. And were you paid enough that they were actually survivable, or was it just sort of token pay?

**Megan:** Whenever I did get a paid internship it felt like holy moly, like this is so exciting.

**John:** One of the classic knocks against internships is you have to be able to afford to take an internship.

**Megan:** I think it’s a huge problem. Yeah.

**Craig:** The whole system stinks. We were talking about this on Twitter, I think Aline McKenna mentioned that the standard – and I was talking to Bo Shim who is my new assistant, and she came out of CAA. And she said early on they just say, “OK, are you OK with the industry standard of,” and I think it was $13.50 an hour or something like that. That’s just unconscionable. I really – in the middle of our argument with the agencies about package fees and all the rest of it, you know, I’d also like to start arguing with them about what they pay assistants. That’s stupid. And it’s mean. It’s cruel. It’s a bit like that old system – which is still in place – where medical students fresh off getting their MD are sent to hospitals to work 19-hour shifts. It’s dumb. It’s hazing.

**John:** It’s dumb and it’s dangerous.

**Craig:** Yes. It’s literally down to hazing. Except in this case it’s hazing plus cheapness. It’s really gross.

**John:** But also it creates a system where the only people who can afford to work for that little money are the people who can sort of afford to not have a job. And so people who actually really need to pay rent, good luck.

**Craig:** Yeah. And not only have these things not kept up with inflation, but housing costs have far outstripped that. So, it’s a mess. And I’m angry thinking about–It’s upsetting to me. And so you know let’s put that on our list of things to yell at the agencies about.

**John:** [laughs] All right. We’ve got a long list here.

**Megan:** Yeah. It’s also across the board, too, right? Agency assistants certainly don’t get paid a lot, but also assistants on shows and PAs and stuff also don’t get paid a lot.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** When was your first real job-job that wasn’t an internship? What was that?

**Megan:** It came from an internship where over a summer I had a job at Fox in comedy, the network, current and development–

**John:** We should clarify that for folks. So current means the shows that are on the air right now. Development is shows they’re trying to figure out how to get on the air, or they’re going to make pilots and they’re going to figure out which ones go. That handoff is always really weird. So you start in development and then if your show keeps going then you’re handed off to current. Is there more prestige in current or development?

**Megan:** So I don’t know because I felt very lucky to be at Fox Network because it was the same person, like when you start with a project in development you get to keep it through current. So, the executives did both, which I think is relatively rare. Most places it’s split up. But I think it’s also just very different skillsets, too.

**Craig:** That was my first internship, too, was current programming at Fox. And I remember that – you know, they had I don’t know three, four, five current programming executives, so they would assign everybody a few shows. And their job was to go to the table readings and to give network notes and so on and so forth. And the least seasoned of them, he was a fairly new hire, I think this was his first executive job, he was given The Simpsons. And I asked my boss who was the head of current programming, I was like just out of curiosity why would you give that guy The Simpsons? And he goes, “Because it’s The Simpsons. We don’t need him to do a good job.”

**John:** It’ll be fine.

**Craig:** It’s gonna be fine. They don’t give a damn what we say anyway. The sort of prestige portion of current programming is when you’re kind of put in charge of a rescue mission I think.

**John:** Yeah. Now, Megan, this is a question I never thought to ask you but when did you start listening to Scriptnotes?

**Megan:** I think I started listening during Stark. I don’t have a sense of what episode I came in on or anything, but as soon as I started listening I backfilled.

**Craig:** I really wanted you to say, “Oh, I’ve never listened to Scriptnotes.”

**John:** I’ve never listened to your show. Even though as I produced it—

**Megan:** I just assume they’re fine and I publish them.

**Craig:** Yeah. The wave form has come through, so I’m good. Yeah.

**John:** How did you find out about this job and what was the process there?

**Megan:** I found out about this job – a friend of mine, thank you friend, forwarded the blurb about the job and was like, “Hey, is this the kind of thing you’re interested in?” Because they knew I wanted to transition to a writing thing. And I was like yes I am. And so then I was lucky enough to be able to go through the process.

**John:** You sent through the email, the resume, we talked and you did a little assignment. And then you were hired into the job. What does a writer’s assistant do? What did you end up doing when you were doing this job in addition to producing Scriptnotes? Like what are the things that you think a good writer’s assistant is doing for a feature writer mostly?

**Megan:** I think it’s so, so different job to job because you’re so self-sufficient, so I feel like the standard part of a writer’s assistant job was much less for this. For me besides doing Scriptnotes the majority of the time was just on tech support for Highland2.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Megan:** Which was delightful.

**John:** Yeah. We are a software company as well, so there’s a lot of tech support that you stepped up and helped us out with that. But you were also writing a lot. And so what were you writing before you came here and what were you writing during here? What were you thinking your career was going to be about? Were you trying to do TV? Were you trying to do features?

You had directed a short that was great, which we linked to very early on in your run as a producer. But what was your plan getting here?

**Megan:** First of all I was just so thrilled to have this job because I mean obviously the best writer’s assistant job you can have. But as far as next steps/game plans, I had just started talking with my manager who is wonderful, Scott Stoops. Mostly I’m focusing on TV, so I had written a couple of TV scripts, a couple anthology specs which is kind of cheating. And then while I was here I was working on a feature, a couple more pilots. But I think the sample I’m using now is one that I actually gave to you–

**John:** Yeah, I read your pilot.

**Megan:** Right at the beginning.

**John:** Back then. And so I wasn’t hiring you as a writer, but I just wanted to see like does this person have the ability to put words together in a meaningful way. Does this person get it at all? So that was the goal behind that.

You very quickly skipped over this like “oh, and a manager.” So talk to us about how you came across this manager. Because it was a transition where it wasn’t quite clear whether you were represented by him or if it was a friendship. So talk about how you met this person and how it develops.

**Megan:** Yeah. I mean, I was so lucky, again, for this one through one of my writer’s groups we would organize every semester like a practice pitch thing where you would practice pitching in like a very fast way your idea to people in the industry. And so my manager Scott was among the people that would come in and listen to our pitches and give us notes on them. And I pitched him my project and he’s like, “Wow that sounds really interesting. Is it written?” And I was like yes it is and it’s printed out and here you go. And I gave it to him and he read it that night. And called me at work at the office. I told him who I worked for at the time. Called me at her number the next morning and was like, “Hey, just want to say I read your script and I loved it. Would you want to work together?”

We really hit it off. At that time I had kind of been talking to a couple people. There’s a strange thing where–

**John:** Was it about the chemistry or did you just trust him? Was it you felt that he was the right person or you weren’t even quite sure at that moment?

**Megan:** Well, no, I really got great vibes from him. And I had been talking to someone else, so I didn’t know when things become official and like that kind of thing.

**John:** Let’s pause here because Craig–

**Craig:** Are we dating? Are we exclusive?

**Megan:** I wanted to say that but I was nervous.

**Craig:** Are we boyfriend/girlfriend, or are we just friends-friends? Or like where are we?

**John:** You and I had this conversation about him because it wasn’t quite clear for a little while there. But, Craig, I want to sort of wind back here because a lot of what Megan is describing feels really familiar. And so it’s that sense of like, oh, I must be really lucky, and she’s not noticing how much hard work she did.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Like how many things she wrote.

**Craig:** Shall I punish her for this? I mean, you’re not lucky. You are no luckier or less lucky than anyone. I think that certainly the way life functions there’s going to be circumstances and things, but I think in general we – you know, once you get past the luck of where you’re born and what kind of family environment you’re born into, when you get to Hollywood there’s just not enough luck. There’s literally not enough luck possible to make you have a career.

So, and by the way, I would also say there’s not enough bad luck possible to keep somebody brilliant down. It’s not going to happen. If you are talented and you are hardworking and you are a person of conscience, an honorable person with a work ethic, then you’re going to make it. Chance favors the prepared mind, and so on and so forth.

So it’s not luck. In fact, if anything I could argue that you are unlucky that somebody that was talented enough as you were to get hired and be put on a show as you are now – it should have happened sooner. You are unlucky. [laughs] So I’m glad that even as unlucky as you were you were able to finally get a job. See, that’s how I do it.

**John:** That’s how you do it. I would say that I’ve actually seen a lot of people in exactly your chair sort of moving up through. And what I recognized was there was a time at which you would have some phone calls where you’d have to step outside to take the phone call about a thing, or you’d say like is it OK if I take this meeting. So, your manager is setting up these meetings and you’re going to just general meetings and see who you hit it off with. And I saw that happening and I saw it happening more frequently and more frequently.

And so I would say to Craig I think she has about three months left before–

**Craig:** Yep. He would.

**John:** Before she’s out the door.

**Craig:** Before she gets really lucky. [laughs]

**John:** So you have a manager. At one point do you have an agent?

**Megan:** Now I’m getting confused with my timeline because it just feels like, you know, god I’ve been working ever so long now. But I think there gets to be a point where it’s getting close to like time to get staffed, time to do this, and that’s when I started meeting with agents. And also my agents are wonderful at Verve. But, yeah, the kind of thing where it’s like, OK, if we’re going to put you up for staffing jobs it’s helpful to have someone else to follow up and to find opportunities and covering agents and stuff like that.

**Craig:** Covering agents for those of you at home are the agents who are assigned a studio or place of purchasing. So they’re like, OK, I cover Warner Bros. I get a call from Warner Bros saying we have an open writing assignment for so and so.

**John:** Yeah. Or on a specific project. But how did you get to Verve? So this is your manager sending your script to people at Verve saying like I represent this young woman, she’s fantastic, you should read her? Is that the process?

**Megan:** Yes. It was for me.

**John:** Great. And so then you go in and you talk to the agents there. You see if you hit it off. But when you say you’re being put up for shows is it just the agency sending it in or is it also your manager who is talking to folks? Is everybody sort of working together to do it?

**Megan:** I think, yeah, everyone is working together. They’re always in communication. My agents will submit me to some shows. The show that I’m working on now I think initially my manager was the one to kind of initiate it, which I’m very excited about.

**John:** So there was a moment about two months ago where I came back after a meeting and you stayed back late and like I could tell you were really, really excited. And so what was your excitement over?

**Megan:** This is when I was called – it was after work on like a Friday evening and I was packing up to go. But I had a call with my team planned and it was like, oh, you have a staffing offer. And I was like oh my gosh. What it was was Scott being like, “Hey Megan, you know, on this thing, you know, they really liked you. I’ve got some bad news.” And I’m like, OK, yes, of course, like I never expected to get this job. Of course. And he’s like, “The bad news is you’re going to have to quit working for John because you got staffed.” And I was like oh my gosh.

**John:** So talk to us about the show that you ultimately ended up signing onto?

**Megan:** So the show that I’m staffing on now is a Marvel show for Disney Plus about Scarlet Witch and Vision.

**Craig:** Ooh, cool.

**Megan:** And it is just my dream job. It has been – it’s too good to be true, where like I’m loving every minute of it but also like very anxious that it’s too good to be true.

**John:** Yeah. So we should have said earlier on that the stuff that you’ve been writing has classically been science fiction or sort of like Twilight Zone anthology-ish. It’s very much in that sort of mode. And so this felt like, wow, that’s a great show for her to be staffed on.

**Megan:** Yeah. It feels like a really good fit. And everyone is so nice to each other. It’s going to be good. I can’t wait for everyone to see it.

**Craig:** You know, I’m telling you these kids growing up now in an age where people must be nice. And I feel like they’ve weeded out the real psychos. I hope they have. You know, back in our day Megan it was just psychos. You’d open your door and it was fields of waving psychos everywhere you looked. Ugh. Now you guys, I love it. I’m happy. I’m glad that it’s that way. It should be that way.

**John:** Yeah. I’m really glad it’s that way. Talk us through that first day being in a writers’ room, because that’s got to be just a completely different experience for a writer who has always been working by herself. So what is it like?

**Megan:** Besides just totally magical, I had met with some friends in advance who had been staffed on shows before to be like, OK, give me all the tips, what should I do, what should I not do. And so I thought I was like, OK, I’m going in and I know vaguely how much to talk and how much to not talk. And I felt all set. And as soon I get into the room I realize oh my gosh, like I don’t know what seat to pick.

I was one of the first ones there, of course, because I was new and nervous. And I was like this is definitely a thing. Like when I was in China I learned much too late that the seats where you sit at a dinner table is like meaningful. And that was very embarrassing to me then. So now here I am in this room being like I just have no idea. So I picked a seat and everyone was nice and it ended up being fine.

**Craig:** Again, I wanted you to be fired on the spot, just like, “Oh, you have to go now. You can’t come back. You picked the wrong seat. You picked the wrong seat.”

**John:** You picked the wrong seat. Are you still sitting in that seat today?

**Megan:** Yes I am.

**Craig:** That’s how it works.

**John:** And so right now you are in the room, you are breaking story, you are figuring out all that stuff. So you’re not writing on a script yet? It’s all secret because it’s Marvel.

**Megan:** Yeah. Everything is very secret. That’s one thing we learn the first day.

**John:** There’s a red dot moving across the wall. I don’t want it to land in the middle of your chest. Well, anyway, Megan, we are so, so happy that you are on a show and a show that you’re very excited to be on. We were so sad to lose you, but fortunately we found Megana who is great.

**Megan:** Yeah.

**John:** And so this is so confusing to everybody. Megan’s replacement is named Megana. And she is fantastic and she’s a friend of yours from before this.

**Megan:** Yeah.

**John:** So she’s been great. So she’s been on the job for a couple weeks. And you’ve trained her how to do all the Scriptnotes-y things.

**Megan:** Yep.

**John:** Let’s move on to our Three Page Challenge. You’ve done a bunch of Three Page Challenges. We have three this week. Our first Three Page Challenge comes from Christopher Cramer. For folks who have never listened to a Three Page Challenge before, here’s the deal. So we put out a call to our listeners saying we will read the first three pages of your script, your screenplay, your teleplay, whatever you want to send us that’s script-like and give you our honest feedback. And so Megana looks through them all and picks things that are going to be interesting for us to talk about. So they’re not necessarily the best things she’s read, but the things that had the most interesting stuff for us to talk about.

So three very brave people, actually four because it’s a writing team for one of these, have sent through their stuff and we are talking about them. These people have volunteered for this, so just reminder to everybody – everyone wanted us to do this. They went in full knowing that we were going to do this.

If you want to read along with us you can follow the links that are in the show notes. We have PDFs that you can download for these things.

All right, our first script is called Three Weeks Gone by Christopher Cramer. It’s morning on a ranch in Wyoming. Jim Young, the owner of the ranch, checks the progress of the farmhands repairing a fence. Through their conversation we learn that Jim’s nephew Mason has been having a hard time adjusting to the farm and that he damaged the back hoe recently.

Mason hasn’t come to help yet but was seen going into the barn. The conversation is interrupted by the sound of a gunshot, presumably Mason scaring off Coyotes. Then Jim goes inside to see his wife Laura. He grabs a bite and asks what Mason was shooting at. Jim leaves to check on his nephew. After a standoff with a coyote outside of the barn, Jim enters the barn to find his nephew dead. And that is where we’re at at the bottom of these three pages.

Megan, we’ll start with you. What was your first impression reading through these pages? What did you get out of this?

**Megan:** I think it does set up a story. Like you understand kind of what we’re doing here. You understand the relationships I think really well right from the beginning. Something I noticed before, through reading through hundreds of them, it used to be that sexual violence was the thing that was in so many of the scripts. And then more recently for all the scripts I’ve been reading suicide is now like in so many of the scripts. And that’s not to say that it’s not used perfectly well here. But something to look out for as you’re writing.

**John:** So this one ends, the reveal with the body at the end. And it may be because we’re asking for three pages that there’s the pressure to get to a big showcase moment at the bottom of three pages. Rarely is it just sort of trickling out at the end of three pages. But it sort of a big moment. Craig, what was your first take on this?

**Craig:** My first take was that I was bored to death. And, look, here’s the thing. Christopher, it’s not that your pieces of story are boring, they’re not. But the way you’ve laid it out you’ve forced me to wait for something that clearly is bad. There’s no surprise here. The second there’s a gunshot that goes off I’m waiting for somebody to be dead.

Everyone is acting like, oh, he must have been shooting a coyote. No he’s not. I know that the – because really here’s the thing, Christopher, do you really think that any of us are sitting there going, hmm, yeah, it’s probably a coyote. No. We know it’s a show or movie, so we know he’s dead. We know. Or someone is dead, right? So you’re just making me wait for this thing that I know is there.

So I was bored. And also I thought, and this is a theme I’m going to bring up in all three of these, I could have written all of this in a half a page as far as I’m concerned. You’re not using this precious space very well. There’s a lot of just yapping. There’s yapping about posts. There’s yapping about where’s my nephew. There’s yapping about him being in the barn. Then he gave me a heart attack. What was he shooting at? I don’t know what he was shooting at. How was he? Yeah, he didn’t eat much. It goes on and on.

And as far as I’m concerned you have a bunch of guys that are working on a post. They’re hitting the post with a hammer. Ping. Ping. Ping. Someone goes where’s Mason? Don’t know. Ping. Ping. Bang. They all look over. Somebody starts running. I’m watching that. Do you know what I mean? It’s just dragging this out. There’s not enough drama to warrant these three pages.

I mean, I have a lot of other small things that I want to mention, but that’s sort of my tough love beginning for you here.

**John:** Yeah. From the moment we hear the gun shot I sort of know that Mason is dead, and so I’m just waiting for everyone else to catch up with me, which is a really bad place to be on page two.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So there’s more here that I did kind of like and I want to highlight some stuff that I thought was possible here, it was possible to sort of enjoy here. So the overall setting of the world is not bad. We’re on a ranch. I like that there’s people working on the fence. I like that there’s a lot more fence to be building. I liked the moment on page – it’s really page two here. His page numbering is off. But Jim says, “Take it easy on him. Your first three weeks here weren’t nothing to write home about either. He’s a good kid.” That’s a pretty good way of giving me a sense of who Mason is.

Now if I had seen some of that and I’d seen Mason walking around, or I’d seen Mason walking with a gun that is scaring off coyotes I would have been fine. In a weird way if you’d set up Mason with a gun before all this had happened, or we just see him walking by in a shot that would have been fine. I wouldn’t have assumed that he’s dead. But because we’re talking about this character and then we’re hearing a gunshot we’re naturally going to assume that Mason shot himself.

**Craig:** That’s what a gunshot means. It means Mason shot himself. There’s a bunch of things that stylistically I think it’s important to take a look at because this is somewhere in the – it’s Wyoming, right? So we’re dealing with ranchers, cow hands, and so on and so forth. Everyone kind of talks a little bit like a robot for a while. And then they start talking not like a robot. First of all “Its” possessive does not have an apostrophe. Please proofread your work.

Jim says, “How is it coming along?” That’s really weird and stilted. How is it coming along? Not how’s it coming along. Things like that are a bit odd. And there’s a bunch of them actually in the action description as well. It is summertime. Even in action description if it’s not dialogue, if it’s taking place on a ranch in Wyoming there should be a slight familiarity there. The contractions are going to help you.

There’s a long conversation with a ranch hand and his name is Ranch Hand. No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** We’re going to hit that on another script today, too.

**Craig:** Exactly. I think also it’s important if you – Jim says, “How’s it coming along?” I’ve already done the contraction for you there, Christopher. And Ranch Hand says, “Oh, you know, one post at a time.” OK, a mild ranch joke I guess. But then the next thing you say is, “Jim cracks a smile. ‘There is no other way to approach such work.” Is this like a computer is explaining the joke to us? It’s very odd.

**John:** Yeah. So here’s a way to do that kind of joke. So, first off Jim is capitalized there for no good reason. But you could say Jim cracks a smile and then in italics go, “How else you gonna do it?” That sense of like you can give the unspoken line that he would be saying if he was going to say the line. But as it is right there it doesn’t help.

But then the idea of he reacts to that and then we reveal how much more of the fence there is to build, that’s fine. That’s great. To the degree it’s a misdirection about what is going to be happening next that can work.

**Craig:** Yes, I agree. Although it seemed like then everyone ignored the reveal. In other words if you’re going to make a reveal it usually comes at the end of something, not at the middle. So this is the moment where suddenly the scene has to stop so that we can do a reveal, and then it picks back up again. That’s not how it’s going to work. I mean, camera-wise if you think this, look, you know us we’re a big defender that writers can use the camera, but if you’re using the camera you got to use it right. So we pull out to see the expanse of the field and just how far along the fence isn’t. It is going to be a long day. Great.

Then the next thing. Ranch hand, “Haven’t seen your nephew yet this morning.” Well he’s a mile away from you now because I’ve pulled back. Like what’s happening? So that comes in the beginning or it comes at the end. But I don’t think you can put it in the middle here.

**John:** Megan, talk to me about geography in here. Did you get lost at all sort of where things were? Like the barn was close – he’d driven up in the truck but he said he’s already seen him go into the barn. And then we also have people walking through doors. Is this a thing that you notice a lot in these Three Page Challenges? I just felt like our confusion of geography is a thing that hits for me.

**Megan:** Yeah. On this one it didn’t bug me. I think I got more attentive to that after the Austin Film Festival Three Page Challenge where you guys talked a lot about geography and now I really look for it. In this one I saw it all pretty close together. But–

**John:** So let’s say that this is somebody in one of your writer’s groups who delivers these pages. What is the feedback you give to Christopher who is a friend or at least a colleague? What would you tell him to focus on?

**Megan:** There are just some things that he stylistically – he does a lot of things that are in all caps that I wonder like why is this in caps and why is this in caps. So *hot day*, *restless huff*, *long day*. And I can totally – it works really well, like sound of a gunshot. Yes, I definitely cannot miss that.

**Craig:** Sure.

**Megan:** But for some other things it just like if there’s too much capitalized or bolded then I don’t know what I should really be paying attention to.

**John:** For sure. So like on page three there’s a coyote is uppercase and bolded. Sure. Great. We’re seeing that it’s a big thing. But if we hit a bunch of those before then we don’t know what to pay attention to.

Let’s talk about the cut to-s on the second page. You didn’t need them. And so you can have cut to-s in your script. You can leave them out. But they didn’t feel like they were providing anything new. Because it was a kind of continuous action and you could get rid of those cut to-s and nothing would have changed.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I’m a big fan of using cut to when you really need to signal to the reader this is a big shift. We’re really going to a new place and time. Otherwise drop them out, because just doing the scene header is going to give you the sense that you’re cutting to a thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. Cut to-s are really there to just say look there’s an interesting cut happening, not a cut. Similarly at the end, smash to black, that’s not a thing. I don’t know how you smash to black. You can cut to black. But there’s no smashing.

**John:** No. Can’t smash it. And then the blood on page three, there was just a long time on the blood. All the bottom half of the third page could have been done in two lines.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s movies and television, so we have seen blood 14 billion times by the time we’re 12. So, when you want to show blood I think the last thing you want to do is all caps and bold and underlined – a pool of dark red liquid. It’s blood. I mean, it’s not that, do you know what I mean? Just say he notices something on the ground. He cocks his – I would cut it. Just literally cut the next three lines and just say, “He cocks his head to the side and then looks towards the barn. It’s seeping out from under the large door.” I would say it. Let people – we’re good at this sort of thing. We want to play. We want to be invested. We want to get to fill in a few little blanks. So why hit us over the head with something as mundane as blood?

**John:** Yeah. Agreed. All right, last thoughts for Christopher. I would say the idea of the world is good but I don’t quite know what movie I’m going to be following on page four. Like if I’m reading page four I don’t know what movie I’m in. And so I don’t know if this is going to be a crime thing. If it’s going to be a family dealing with the death of their son, or their nephew. I just don’t know kind of what movie it would be on page four and that’s kind of a problem.

I have a sense of the world but I don’t have a sense of like where this could go next. Fair?

**Craig:** Fair for me. I mean, I don’t know where it’s going. I assume it’s a ranch drama. But it’s too – it’s flabby. These are flabby pages I think.

**John:** Craig, do you want to take Am I a Man Yet?

**Craig:** Sure. Am I a Man Yet by David Koutsouridis.

A day before his 21st birthday David confesses to his budget psychologist Xavier that he is not only a virgin but that he has never been kissed. Xavier suggests David take out Xavier’s younger sister tomorrow night. Xavier says she has definitely broken up with her boyfriend. We then cut to David’s birthday dinner with his overbearing mother who gifts him a framed portrait of himself as a cherubic angel. David storms upstairs where he discovers the phone number of Xavier’s sister and decides to call her. He shows up for the date where Xavier’s sister, Renee, initially assumes that he is her waiter.

So, John and Megan, what did you think of I am a Man Yet by David Koutsouridas?

**John:** This was a good example to me where pages don’t have to be perfect to be enjoyable. And that you can see that person has the ability to do this thing called writing even if not everything is really working right. What was your first take, Megan?

**Megan:** Yeah. I think it has some very funny moments. I think a thing that I got frustrated by was there would be a very funny joke and then the next character would explain the joke which wasn’t necessary because we got the joke.

**John:** Yeah. It’s very joke-joke-jokey. And that can be great. But I had a challenge on page one where I didn’t believe the psychologist for most of page one. And then when we got to the bottom of page one, “A framed certificate print-out on the wall. It’s been poorly made in Word.” Oh, I kind of get now more what this cheap psychologist is, but I didn’t – because I didn’t get that earlier on I couldn’t read his dialogue with any sense that it could possibly be real.

**Craig:** Yeah. I had the same reaction. Actually I would say also to get rid of the Word thing because I don’t know – he’s a therapist and so you can’t do it. It’s illegal to just print something out. So that’s kind of a tone violating thing where the world doesn’t even make sense.

So tone on page one, page two, page three of broad comedies is incredibly important. It’s also where everyone I think early on at least washes up on the shore and their boat smashes apart because it’s tricky. So in this case, actually there’s a really funny bit here and what I would do is just eliminate some other things. I mean, he’s saying, “I’m a 20-year-old kiss virgin.” And Xavier goes, “What?” I would just keep him like a psychiatrist. “A kiss virgin.” “Well, yeah, it means that I have never been kissed. Also I’m a full virgin.” And then the psychiatrist, or psychologist, could do this line which is really funny? “Well, if you haven’t been kissed, I’d hope so. I’d hate to think you hadn’t kissed someone but you fully penetrated them. How do you even initiate something like that?” That’s funny in the context of a guy who is not doing other wacky stuff.

**John:** Yeah. Just that run of dialogue if you took out all of Xavier’s lines between that and let David keep talking, a character who keeps talking can be a lot funnier. So this might be a situation where you do some beats or something just to break up that thread so it’s not so dense to read. But I believe one character talking through all of this. And all those jokes play better if Xavier hasn’t spoken.

**Craig:** 100%. There’s a little bit of a – again, we giveth and we taketh. We are empowering all of you to use the camera, but then we are demanding that you do not make the camera do things cameras can’t do. For instance we are close on baby face David. We pull back to reveal an oddball psychologist, Xavier. That’s not possible. Because unless Xavier is not facing David, if you pull back you’re going to see the back of his head. You know what I mean? That’s not a thing you can do.

You can’t just use pull back as this like reveal. If you want to reveal, reveal.

**John:** Say reveal. You’re allowed to capitalize reveal. That works.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** In many ways I questioned the nature of like his being so babyish. On page three we also get into his bedroom which is “Bed-sheet with dinosaurs, plush toys serving as throw pillows. He grabs them, throws them into a garbage bin.” I didn’t quite believe that character because if the character is at the start of this thing frustrated that he’s never even kissed a girl and he’s 21 years old, but he just got frustrated today? Like why has he not sort of fixed his bed before this? Why does he still have dinosaur sheets?

**Megan:** Yeah. Someone who is frustrated with being read as a younger person would try – would overcorrect for that.

**Craig:** I feel like based on his name that he’s Greek and so he’s writing hopefully something that’s familiar to him with the character of Nancy, his mother. But we have seen this mother many, many times. We’ve seen her actually as a Greek mother. We’ve seen her as a Jewish mother. We’ve seen her as a Chinese mother. We’ve seen her as an Italian mother. This is the most clichéd of clichéd moms.

And I was a little confused because it began with David cheerily sits at the kitchen table. So he’s happy. And then she hands him this thing and he just doesn’t like the gift. At which point I’m like what’s your vibe, dude? If you’re super happy to be having your 21st birthday alone with your mom you can’t really flip out when she gives you a present that is consistent with that. Do you know what I mean? Like if you’re glum, if you’re depressed, if this whole thing is just like a total death of joy moment and then she makes it worse by handing you this gift I understand. But I’m like you, I’m confused. How aware is he that he’s like a child? Has he just become aware? That was a little tricky.

That said, I do agree with your initial point which is that these do feel like there’s promise there with polish and time and thought. There’s an intelligence behind this. There is some legitimately funny things that are happening. And so it just needs the usual thing that I would say to everybody that is starting to write comedy: logic, logic, logic, tone.

**John:** Absolutely. So the logic I would really stress is that you can have this scene with David and Nancy, with the mom and David. I don’t think it can be the first time that we’re meeting them because it doesn’t give me enough information to process how these people could possibly fit together. So I need a different thing that even if you’re not telling me everything I can believe it can fit into this universe and this world. Because I didn’t buy this first time you’re really starting at a deficit when it comes to later things.

But what Craig has pointed, like I see moments of really promising writing here. Page three, so he’s stormed off. Then David suddenly reenters, maintaining his anger, as he quickly finishes the last bit of his cake. He storms off again. That little tag on things, we’ve seen that kind of thing before but it worked in this scene and it felt like the right thing. It told us something about David and his impetuousness. And if I had a scene that set up how codependent he is with his mother or sort of like what their relationship is it could have even landed better.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** One last typo, page one, first word that isn’t INT is psychologist but it’s misspelled.

**Craig:** I mean, guys–

**John:** Got to proofread.

**Craig:** I mean, honestly. They have machines that do it for you now.

**John:** Yeah. It would be underlined with a little squiggly. So just look for the squigglies here.

**Craig:** Remarkable.

**John:** Our third Three Page Challenge is Chow by Carrie Wong and Herman Ming. Helen and Michael Chow, a Chinese-American couple in their 50s, shop for custom cut tablecloths at Home Depot. Helen questions Michael’s claim that the cheaper tablecloth has the same quality as the more expensive tablecloth. He convinces her that they’re the same and they check out.

A Home Depot employee tells them not to buy the cheaper tablecloth and that they are in fact not the same quality. The employee had bought the tablecloth herself and it quickly ripped.

We then cut to their 20-year-old son’s bedroom where their son Jimmy lies sleeping. And that’s as much as we know at the bottom of page three.

I’m going to start with a question specifically for Megan McDonnell. What typeface is used in these three pages?

**Megan:** I’m going to say Courier Prime.

**John:** It is in fact Courier Prime. You can tell by the lower case Ys.

**Craig:** Kissing up.

**John:** She doesn’t have to anymore. She doesn’t work here.

**Megan:** Right.

**John:** But this is a product I make.

**Craig:** Oh no, she’s not. Carrie and Herman are kissing up.

**John:** Oh yes.

**Megan:** And it worked.

**John:** It worked. It worked. They got picked. Just yesterday I was explaining to Megana how to tell which is Courier Prime and which one is not. So, yeah, now she knows.

**Craig:** Now she knows.

**Megan:** It’s so beautiful. If you guys haven’t seen it, read these pages.

**John:** Beyond the beautiful font what was your first impression, Megan McDonnell?

**Megan:** I really liked the dynamics in this. I really liked the characters. I think the way that they’re kind of looks are juxtaposed is really nice. I do think that the employee takes up such a huge percentage of the talking that maybe isn’t necessary, maybe slows the pace down a little bit.

**John:** The employee is just set up as “A moment later, a Home Depot EMPLOYEE (early 20s) approaches them.” But we don’t get a gender on the employee and later on it kind of becomes important because apparently she says, “When me and my boyfriend moved in together, he, like, bought the same…” And so not having any more information about that employee made it tough because that employee speaking probably has the most lines in these three pages and is just employee.

**Craig:** Yes. Employee. [laughs] This was another one where I thought I could have probably done this in one page. It just goes on. And I don’t know why. There’s nothing interesting happening here. The value is that the wife, Helen, is suspicious that Michael is pushing her towards a cheaper option. And it turns out he is. This is not high stakes, nor is it particularly interesting, nor is it something I haven’t seen before a billion times. This is almost the province of commercials. You know, dumb husband. And I’m fine with dumb husband, but three pages of it?

And the employee is just rambling. So sometimes we’ll call this shaggy dog. It’s rambling, rambling, rambling. The story that she’s telling is nowhere near interesting enough to warrant all this time. This story would have to go to some amazingly f-ed up placed where literally Helen and Michael are just staring with dropped jaws to justify the amount of time for which it goes on. This is the beginning of your movie. And what you’re telling me is that this movie is going to be sort of mumblecore like low-stakes chitchat. And I don’t like that.

And I think honestly that Carrie and Herman have done themselves a disservice because I think they’re good writers actually. The writing itself in and around these things is executed nicely. It’s just it has not been compressed. It has not been shaped. There’s not a lot of interesting things going on. People just arrive slowly. There’s no interesting ins and outs. There are two zoom outs which we’ll get into in a second. But this was sort of my trouble with this, like the first pages we went through, it felt like a prodigal use of what is incredibly precious real estate.

**John:** Some things I admired about these pages. We always talk about hair and makeup and really describing your characters. And so you look at the descriptions of Michael Chow and Helen Chow, they’re really good, and I can picture them in my head. And to skip out on that for the employee is sort of one of the big problems here. But to me this kind of felt like you have this writing team who has an idea for these two characters and just sort of gets them talking, or puts them in a situation and watches what they do. And this would be great practice for how to use these characters or practice for how these characters interact. But I don’t think it’s a great first scene in a movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s not setting them up on a big adventure. I’m more of a fan of the mumblecore, like stuff happens and people just talking and it’s loose, and that can work really well. But the things that work best it feels really loose but it’s actually getting to a point.

**Craig:** Exactly. I mean, when it’s done well people say, well, it’s mumblecore, but when it’s done well that’s just kind of the affect of the performance. But what’s happening is fascinating. So you have two people mumbling-coring at each other while somebody is watching and doing something else. The frames are interesting. The storytelling is good.

You know, you’re not going to get the movie made if it’s just boring talk. And this kind of is in the boring talk zone.

Small thing, in three – I think three different places, yes, bowl-shaped, gold-rimmed, mild-mannered, these things take hyphens. If you don’t put the hyphen in it’s just weird to read.

**John:** Yeah. You want to do this. Did both of you watch Master of None? Did you see the series Master of None?

**Craig:** Not completely but a number of episodes.

**John:** There’s an episode that I’m pretty sure Alan Yang directed where it’s this deaf couple in a store trying to buy something and it’s basically just them trying to have – the whole segment was just them trying to have this negotiation about what they’re going to buy. And it reminded me of this. But it’s the shaped version of this where you see their entire relationship is sort of summarized by their decision of what they’re going to buy here.

And I kind of feel like our writing team here could get there with the husband and wife because there’s something really interesting there that’s underneath this, but the employee is just dominating the whole thing. To see sort of what the manipulations are that they play with each other could be great.

**Craig:** Yeah. It just doesn’t – there’s no twists, there’s no turns. You know, there are versions of this where it seems like a normal thing and she’s like, oh yeah, no, because it rips. And then Helen just starts crying because this is the straw that broke the camel’s back and then the employee is like, “Oh, but it’s not the worth tablecloth.”

There’s all sorts of things you can do to justify these things, but you can’t do none of them. That’s the one that you’re not allowed to do.

**Megan:** I’m also curious about the way that this is opened, which is, “DARKNESS, A SERIES OF THIN GREY STREAKS, We SLOWLY ZOOM OUT to reveal…The bowl shaped hair of MICHAEL CHOW.” And I think it’s really interesting, an interesting visual, and I’m wondering are we supposed to be very curious about what it is. Are we going to come back to this? Because it is a pretty bold decision to start your film on something we don’t know what it is right away.

**John:** It reminds me of the start of Roma where you just see these squares and there’s water and eventually there’s mopping and eventually you sort of get to a thing. It can totally work. And maybe that really is the tone of what this is going for. Maybe we think it’s a mumblecore comedy but maybe it really is Roma and we’re supposed to be appreciating all this stuff around it.

If that is the case I think we would need to see our universe a little bit more and get a better sense that we are living in this space with these people and that we’re doing the slow pans through things, we’re really following them all the way up to the counter. And maybe it’s Roma. Maybe we’re missing that.

**Craig:** I don’t think it is. And if it is, this is not the way to start it.

**John:** The employee is written as a comedy.

**Craig:** The employee is written as a comedy. Let’s talk briefly about the difference between zoom and pull out or push in or those moves. So, typically in modern movies we don’t use zooms ever. A zoom is when the lens is doing the moving, not the camera itself. So as you’re zoomed in you’re looking at a small thing and as you zoom out the image essentially is like zooming out like on Google Maps, right. Whereas when you’re moving the camera itself, pushing in or pulling out, that’s more of a sense of you get parallax and motion and all the rest of it. And generally speaking zooms are bit ‘70s and a bit cheesy. They can occasionally be cool.

But in this case I’m guessing we don’t want to zoom out here, because if we did it would just be like one of those weird science movies where it’s like, look, you know, a tiny bug, and now the city, and the planet, and the galaxy. I don’t know.

Look, if you know the difference between zoom, and dollying in and dollying out, then cool, I apologize. But it’s important for people to know that there is a difference. I also – I have a question about at the end of this we arrive at the son. I assume this is their son because he’s got the same last name. Chinese-American, and then in parenthesis ABC, which I had to look up. It means American-born Chinese. The deal with this one is ECU, so now we’re extreme close-up on a yellow earplug. We slowly zoom out, again, so it’s the same gag. Is this on purpose? To reveal – and then the undersized ear of Jimmy Chow. I have no idea what that means.

What’s an undersized ear? I mean, like deformed?

**John:** Yeah. We don’t’ know if it means that he’s just a person with small ears or if there’s something really weird that’s going to actually be a factor. I agree. Undersized draws your attention without rewarding you for drawing your attention to that.

**Craig:** Perfect way of describing that. Yes.

**John:** Let’s talk about the ABC, American-born Chinese. I knew that term but you didn’t know that term. I think a safer bet for this script going out the first time is in that parentheses you say American-born Chinese, ABC, or ABC, American-born Chinese. And then once you’ve defined it you can use ABC after anyone else’s description if it’s helpful to you. Because in the nature of this project there could be lots of Chinese people with Chinese last names and it might be important to distinguish who was born in China versus who is born in the US.

**Craig:** Correct. Correct. Yeah.

**John:** Cool. All right. So those are our three samples, so our three Three Page Challenges. Thank you to all of our writers who sent them in. And to everyone who didn’t get picked, you’re still in the queue so we may get back to them.

Now, there was a question that came up on Twitter today asking, “Hey, last time you said that you wanted to have a bunch of female entries to the Three Page Challenge,” because historically those numbers have been low. Megan, you actually counted at one point and it wasn’t great. It certainly wasn’t 50/50. And so we want everyone to send in their three pages, but we’d really love to pick more women for these because the percentages are not fantastic.

If you have three pages you want us to take a look at you go to johnaugust.com/threepage. And there’s a button there. You click the button saying it’s OK for us to talk about your thing. You attach your script and it goes into a queue and we will take a look at everything that gets sent in.

**Craig:** Neat.

**John:** Neat. It’s come time for our One Cool Things. Megan, have you ever done a One Cool Thing on the show?

**Megan:** No.

**John:** You get to start. What’s your One Cool Thing?

**Megan:** This is thrilling. My One Cool Thing, I saw my friend Hunter’s setup. I love a second monitor when I’m working and his setup had the second monitor but it was like portrait, oriented portrait, which I had never seen before. This might be very obvious to everyone else. But I’ve got to say I set it up myself and Highland2 looks beautiful on a vertically-oriented monitor.

**John:** Nice! I love that you’re still selling our software.

**Craig:** Always be promoting.

**Megan:** Everywhere I go. People, yeah.

**John:** All right. So you write in Highland2, but you’re saying it works well done vertically.

**Megan:** Yeah. And you just can see so much more of your script and I think it’s really helpful for me.

**John:** Great. Fantastic. Craig, what’s your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is this tiny, little, dorky novelty item, but I saw it in my producer Jacqueline Lesco’s car. And I was like, ooh, what do you got there. And she showed it to me. It’s a charger. It’s a phone charger. That’s it. It’s a phone charger except – this is so dumb – but it lights up. So it’s got like these LED swirlies going around the cable and when you plug it in it lights up. And you’re like, OK, cool. But then when it’s charging the lights move.

**John:** Oh my god. [laughs]

**Craig:** It delights the child in me. It really does. It’s like you’re watching electricity flowing into your phone. It’s just delightful. I just stare at it. It’s hypnotizing.

**John:** Megan and I are going to watch the little video that shows what it looks like as it’s doing and, yeah, it does. It sort of snakes around.

**Craig:** Yeah. Look at that.

**John:** It’s like Vegas in your car.

**Craig:** Yeah. Vegas in your car. It’s the El-Aurora Lightning, it’s a USB cable. 360 Degree Light Up Visible Flowing, Glowing LED iPhone charger cable. I suspect that Amy August would love this.

**John:** OK, so are you using this in your car or in your house?

**Craig:** In my house.

**John:** All right. I guess it would be distracting in your car possibly. You could line your windshield with it and so everyone would know that you’re charging your phone and that you have this thing.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** Now, Craig, I’m noticing that it has 286 customer reviews but they’re three stars. That’s not a very high – but it doesn’t matter?

**Craig:** Well, you know, some people can’t be pleased. I mean, you just like – you know, they just – apparently for a lot of people it didn’t work. But you know what?

**John:** You know what? It set your house on fire. But it looks so cool.

**Craig:** Yeah. Somebody in their review, “Anchorman: 60% of the time it works every time.” [laughs]

**John:** Ah-ha. Good stuff. My One Cool Thing is a thing that probably everyone has talked to you about already. It is Russian Doll, the show on Netflix. I thought it was just fantastic. Megan you said you watched it all in one sitting?

**Megan:** Loved it. Yeah. One sitting.

**John:** Loved it. Oh my god, nothing could be a more Megan-y kind of show because it’s a puzzle box show. It’s like a cross between Lost and Girls. I don’t know, but it’s just so great. Craig, did you watch it?

**Craig:** I have it queued up. I’m going to watch it this weekend because I’m doing a little traveling this weekend. And I’m very excited for it. And I do think, you know, Natasha Lyonne should come on the show. I can’t believe we haven’t had her. How have we not had her on yet?

**John:** Well we crossed paths with her because remember when we did our Slate Culture Gabfest crossover she was the guest after us. But we’ve never had her on the show.

**Craig:** She was so cool. I remember when we were walking off the stage from that, because we went on and then she came on, and when we were walking off the stage she is like walking on the stage and she just gives me the fist bump. It’s just like what a cool person. Just look boop, my turn.

**John:** Boop.

**Craig:** Yeah, we should have her on. It’s actually fascinating watching the evolution and kind of progression of Natasha Lyonne over time because she’s been doing this since she was a kid. And I’m always fascinated by those people because I feel like I’ve kind of been weirdly growing up with them myself. It’s like knowing Jason Bateman is a fascinating thing because he doesn’t know it but I first met him when we were both 10. Do you know what I mean? And just like watching this thing happen is really cool.

And she’s just doing some really, really interesting work right now. Everybody loves the show. I know I’m going to love it, too. I can just tell. So I’m very excited.

**John:** Yeah. So it was created by her, Amy Poehler, and Leslye Headland, a great director who directed a lot of it, but Natasha Lyonne directed it as well. It’s just really well done. It’s one of those rare cases where everyone was hyping it up a lot and then you watch and it’s like, oh yeah, it’s really good. It didn’t actually diminish from everyone’s hyping it up. So, now that I’ve set the bar way too high–

**Craig:** No, no. I will.

**John:** Enjoy Russian Doll.

**Craig:** I’ll love it.

**John:** You’ll love it. Cool. That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by James Launch and Jim Bond. It’s called The Stuart Special in honor of our original producer, Stuart Friedel. Our producers have done pretty well. Godwin Jabangwe set up a show at Netflix.

**Megan:** So exciting.

**Craig:** I know. How about that?

**John:** If you have an outro of your own 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. Craig is @clmazin. Megan, are you doing Twitter?

**Megan:** No.

**John:** No, Megan is not on Twitter. Don’t try to tweet at her. But you can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a comment.

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

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net. Craig, just today I realized only 10 more episodes and we hit the big 400.

**Craig:** I know!

**John:** 400.

**Craig:** It’s almost too much.

**Megan:** Is it going to be a live show?

**Craig:** Oh, it should be. Well…

**John:** Actually I’m thinking ahead and it could end up being a live show.

**Craig:** It could be. Because we’ve got a little something planned. And I will give you a little teaser, not to give away too much, but I recently recorded something that is associated with Chernobyl and I did it with somebody who is a prominent radio person. And the people who were producing it were, you know, I think they were concerned somehow that, I don’t know, that we needed help or something. And I was like, look, he’s a pretty big radio guy. And then I realized – and I’ve done almost 400 podcasts. I think I’m also pretty good at this by now. I get it. I know what I’m doing. I know what I’m doing.

**John:** You do. Craig, it’s always lovely talking to you, but especially nice to talk to Megan McDonnell again. We miss you but we’re so happy that you’re doing so well. And continued success on everything.

**Craig:** Welcome back and good luck.

**Megan:** Thank you so much for having me on.

**Craig:** It was a pleasure.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [The Bones Decision](https://deadline.com/2019/02/bones-award-profits-lawsuit-emily-deschanel-david-boreanaz-fox-appeal-1202564758/)
* [The Peter Stark Program](https://cinema.usc.edu/producing/)
* Three Pages by [Christopher Cramer](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3WGCramer.pdf)
* Three Pages by [David Koutsouridis](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/Am-I-a-Man-Yet-3-page.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Carrie Wong and Herman Ming](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/Chow-Three-Pages.pdf)
* [Megan’s Desk Setup](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/Vertical_Monitor.png)
* [Light Up Phone Charger](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075WSSFV8/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
* [Russian doll](https://www.netflix.com/title/80211627) starring Natasha Lyonne
* Submit to the Three Page Challenge [here](https://johnaugust.com/threepage)
* Submit to the Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch)
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) The Stuart Special by James Llonch & Jim Bond ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/Scriptnotes_Ep_390_Getting_Staffed.mp3).

Scriptnotes ep, 389: The Future of the Industry Transcript

March 1, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 389 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we will be discussing nothing less than the future of the film and television industry.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** With special guests to talk about the ongoing agency negotiations and a new initiative to bring the special magic of Sundance to more filmmakers around the globe. But first, Craig, I have to ask why have you destroyed my Twitter timeline?

**Craig:** It’s fun? Oh no, I know the answer to this. Because it’s there.

**John:** Argh. So here is what happened this last week is somebody asked like a screenwriting formatting question, or basically like was it a “we see” kind of question, or directing from the page, and tagged both me and Craig into this question. And then for the next week my entire mentions is nothing but this question and people responding to this question.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, we were joined by other writers like Rian Johnson and Chris McQuarrie and James Mangold and Beth Schacter and so everybody brought all of their people along. So there was a lot of interest in it. But you know, John, you can just say ignore conversation.

**John:** I can ignore the conversation. I should just ignore the conversation. I was curious at some points what people would say, but mostly I felt like we had talked about it so much on the air. That’s my frustration. I wanted to point people to the podcast and say like, no, no, we really have gone through this.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But for people who haven’t been listening to the podcast, and we could just sort of dispense with this in a little five-minute chunk, let’s talk through some of what came up in that thread and why it’s nonsense and how to move on past it.

So I think the initial question was the sense that are rules about what a screenwriter can or can’t put on the page and that it crosses some sort of line at which it is directing from the page. So classically things like, oh, you shouldn’t put camera angles there. You shouldn’t say “we see.” We shouldn’t do any of that stuff that is a director’s job rather than a writer’s job.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And the answer to that Craig is what?

**Craig:** That that’s the stupidest thing in history. Because for whatever reason, and I don’t know why they do this, a lot of these screenwriting gurus or sometimes sadly screenwriting professors will push this narrative that screenwriting follows the same sort of union divisions as like work on a set where an electrician can’t move equipment and a grip can’t plug something in. That’s not at all the case. There’s this feeling that somehow if we “direct” on the page we will be offending a director. No we’re not. And if they are offended, screw them.

Our job is to create a movie in your mind. That means of course we’re directing on the page. In fact, I would argue that’s what screenwriting is. It’s literally directing a movie or a television show on the page. So, this comes up all the time. Now, of course, of course, two things we’ll get back all the time. One is that a lot of amateurs will overuse things like stage directions, camera directions, and so on. Of course. You can do anything poorly. They also write dialogue very poorly, but we’re not saying you shouldn’t write dialogue.

Secondly, people will say, “Well OK, that’s true for you guys because you’re established.” Let me ask you something, John. Before you were established did you ever write “we see” or “close on?”

**John:** I 100% did. It does not matter sort of where you are at in the industry. You don’t cross a threshold in which like suddenly you can do anything on the page, where there’s a certain set of rules for what’s on the page before a certain point. And as I was scrolling through these things and not trying to engage with the conversation, I would see people saying like, “But you don’t understand, it’s harder for a young writer.”

**Craig:** Ugh.

**John:** “Or for a writer of color or for other people.” That can all be true. That can all be true that it’s hard for people in different circumstances to do stuff, but that does not change the words on the page or sort of the rules for the words on the page and the over-insistence on a set of rules that someone made up at some point. So that thing your screenwriting professor taught you about you can’t do that thing, always question it.

**Craig:** Always. Always. And whatever makes your circumstances uniquely difficult, the one thing I can assure you is that it’s not that you’re not able to write “we see” or “push down” or “tilt up” or “pan right.” None of that is a problem for you. We did hear quite a few people say that their professor at – or professors at Chapman, I guess it’s the dodge school, just sort of laid out this orthodox you cannot write any of these things and if you do you will fail.

So, I want to go there. [laughs] And I just want to say like, what, you can’t tell them – that’s malpractice.

**John:** It’s silly. So, here’s the best counter example I can offer to folks is that one of the best things that’s happened in the last 10 years is that all of the Academy nominated scripts are available online. You can find a PDF of every screenplay for pretty much every movie that’s been nominated for an award.

**Craig:** That’s amazing.

**John:** So read these scripts. Read these scripts and you will see that they are full of things that professors might call directing from the page. And then the next person will rush up and say like, “Oh, but it was a writer-director so it’s OK for that writer-director.” It’s not any different. There is not one standard set of rules for how it all has to work. You can do stuff in the scene description that creates the experience of watching the movie. That’s all you’re trying to do. And if to do that you end up saying “we see/we hear,” if you end up invoking a sense of angles or like shots, that’s fine. That’s good.

There’s clunky ways to do things and so we are totally not arguing for clunkiness. We are arguing for the best way you have to express what it is that would feel like to be in that theater experiencing this movie.

**Craig:** I wonder why film schools that are so invested in pushing the auteur theory are also apparently invested in convincing us that directors should be feared even when we’re writing on the page. Huh? Huh? Hmm. Pfft.

**John:** Pfft.

**Craig:** Only in academia could something called the “auteur theory” not refer to the actual person authoring a movie. Oh my god. Don’t even get me going.

**John:** Yeah. Now, let’s talk about sort of what things are useful to learn as you’re reading through these screenplays. Because hopefully you are taking advantage of this wonderful time we live in that you can just read all these screenplays. It used to be so difficult when Craig and I were starting. You would trade scripts will people and you would actually have to physically copy scripts and stuff. Now it’s so easy. So you have all of these resources.

I would take a look at how are they conveying the information that they want the reader to get about what the movie will feel like. How are they describing how characters are interacting with their space? How are screenwriters describing what you will be seeing and what you will be hearing in that scene? Look for how they’re doing that and you’ll find there’s different techniques. And different writers will have different techniques. It’s OK to use multiple techniques. It’s OK to use whatever works best for you. A voice is partly deciding what the things are that you’re going to focus on.

**Craig:** Right. Right.

**John:** That’s great. So find what works for you. Experiment. But don’t just be beholden on someone’s rules that you cannot do X, Y, or Z. Quentin Tarantino, you know, labels the kinds of cameras and angles he’s using. He really wants that very specific classic cinematic feel on things. So he and James Cameron will both reference cameras and specific lenses at times. Great. If that works for them, if it gives you a sense of what it feels like more power to them. That doesn’t mean that you need to do that, that you have to do that, or you can’t do it. It just means that is a way of conveying what something is going to feel like.

**Craig:** Amen brother.

**John:** All right. So this is going to be an unusual episode for us because generally when Craig and I are recording an episode we are on Skype together and it’s all kind of happening largely in real time. This episode is going to be cut together from different conversations that we’ve had over a couple of different days. And so when we come back from this break we are going to be sitting and talking with Chris Keyser about the agency negotiations.

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

**Chris Keyser:** Thanks John.

**John:** It’s nice to have you here. So I think last time you were sitting talking with us was about an MBA negotiation a couple years back.

**Chris:** I only show up for–

**John:** Ah, he’s here to talk through stuff. But let’s recap what’s happened so far with the agency stuff because it’s been a while. So the guild met with members about the issues regarding agencies as we came out of the last MBA negotiation. So you led the last MBA negotiation. What were those conversations? You were just sitting down talking with members about where they felt the industry was at?

**Chris:** Yeah. We talked about a bunch of different things and the pressures on writers and one of the conversations was about the way in which the relationship between writers and agents might be affecting the downward pressure on writer’s pay for example in television and features. Or the inability of feature writers to actually solve some of the pernicious problems.

**John:** So, every three years we have to negotiate with the studios and that’s called the MBA, but what I wasn’t aware of until I joined the board is that there’s also an agreement with the agencies called the AMBA. And we negotiate that once every–?

**Chris:** Well, it’s been 42 years I think.

**Craig:** That’s a normal cycle. Yeah.

**Chris:** I think it’s like six times, or seven times Brigadoon.

**John:** Yes. So it’s a crazy document. It comes in this yellow folder. And it is not – you try to read it and it doesn’t make much sense because it’s describing a time that is so different from what we’re in right now.

**Chris:** Right. By the way, can I back up for a second and just explain? You know, the guild is the legal representative of writers. The guild in fact is the only organization that has the legal authority to negotiate for writers. But because writing is not the same thing as some other professions because writer’s salaries vary based upon their experience and their success, the guild has allowed individual contracts to be negotiated by agents. In order so that we franchise those agencies. And that franchise agreement, the AMBA, which they have to sign on to, permits them to negotiate for individual members. Similar thing happens in the sports world and a few other places.

**John:** Yeah. The most analogous situation is if you’re a professional football player or professional NBA player you have a union, but you also have an agent who is negotiating for you above those minimums.

**Chris:** Right. So we negotiate for minimums. We negotiate for pension and health and certain working conditions. The things that unions usually do. And the agents are changed with negotiating over scale pay for our members.

**John:** So in your conversations with members you’re saying some of them felt like the agencies weren’t doing their jobs in negotiating those above scale things?

**Chris:** Exactly. Exactly.

**John:** So in order to change this agreement, this franchise agreement the AMBA, we had to give a one-year notice. Part of the actual existing agreement was that you had to give a one-year notice. And so we had these member meetings and then we gave notice to say that we would like to renegotiate this agreement. And then nothing publicly happened for a very long time. So–

**Chris:** Well there were member outreach meetings through last year. David Goodman, the president of the Guild.

**John:** But that was before we signed–

**Chris:** In and around.

**John:** Yeah. Around that time. And then we sort of went quiet because there was kind of nothing to do publicly because you didn’t want to have a protracted conversation when there was not actually a thing you could solve or fix at the moment.

**Chris:** Right. And we were spending that time, the guild was spending it’s time – you know because you were on the board – spending your time thinking about what the new AMBA should look like, what specific requests we would have at the agency to sign onto. I guess requests is the wrong word.

**John:** What we were looking for. What the actual outcome was that we wanted. And so then we started the member meetings and that’s been two or three months. We talked with the captains. We talked with screenwriters. We had this big meeting at the Sheraton Universal a couple of weeks ago with like a thousand people.

**Chris:** 1,500 writers have shown up. Maybe more at this point. It’s a fair percentage of the guild.

**John:** And the public goal was to really talk with every member about sort of what was going on.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** And so then at those big meetings and smaller meetings we had – David Goodman would read his speech. That speech is probably out now for everyone to see or to read. And there’s more details specifically about what we’re asking the agencies to sign onto, sort of what we would like the agreement to look like. Plus there should be some FAQs out answering a lot of the questions that you and I get. So we end up getting emailed a lot of questions and so that’s been really useful because we can talk to members about sort of what their concerns were, but now there’s FAQs that can really answer a lot of that stuff.

**Chris:** Exactly.

**Craig:** And I think that’s good language that you’re saying what it is that we’re asking them to agree to, because in a very real way this is the opposite of how things go with our negotiations with the AMPTP. In those negotiations we’re asking a concern to give us stuff. And in this negotiation, whether they know it or not – and I’m not sure they have yet come around to absorb this – the agencies are asking us for something. We’re not asking them for anything. They’re asking us. They’re asking us to be allowed to represent writers. So, we’re kind of in charge. Well, in charge, I think anybody that’s in the giving side of a negotiation has a little bit of a built-in upper hand.

**Chris:** That’s right. I mean, in this case we get to say what’s in that AMBA. And if they don’t sign on to it, they are not permitted to represent members of the guild.

**Craig:** Right.

**Chris:** Whether we can’t – what we decide to ask them to sign onto depends upon what the membership votes to, you know.

**John:** So there can likely be a vote sometime at the end of March about stuff, but we’re not there yet.

**Chris:** We should get back into that. We should be clear about what that means, what the vote is going to be about. But that probably takes a little bit more conversation about how we get to the point of that vote.

**John:** So at some point there could be a vote from the membership asking whether we want to sort of impose this agreement. Basically–

**Chris:** Let me put it this way. So right now we’re in the middle of negotiating with the ATA, which is the organization that represents talent agencies. A number of those meetings have taken place already and they will continue to take place between now and the April 6 expiration of the AMBA.

In those negotiations we’re trying to hash out exactly what the terms of the AMBA will be. If those negotiations do not provide us with a fruitful resolution it’s within the guild’s right to impose a code of conduct, much like the code of conduct that professional sports unions have imposed on agents there. And David Goodman for example mentions that all CAA agents who are part of their sports management group they all sign on to the player’s association code of conduct.

The vote by the membership at the end of March will be to approve the code of conduct, say we should adopt this code of conduct onto which the agencies must attach their signatures.

**John:** So what is the single issue that is at the heart of this discussion/negotiation?

**Chris:** The heart of the conversation is about conflict of interest. The idea that the agency practices have ceased to align their economic interests clearly and solely with the economic self-interests of the writers whom they represent. And that’s a fundamental problem.

**Craig:** And so for people, I think a lot of people probably have a general sense of how this is supposed to work. Agents represent writers. Agents get writers work. They are allowed to do that by the very power that this AMBA grants them. And then whatever the writer earns, the gross, the agent takes 10% of it. Seems very simple. And in fact they used be known as ten-percenters.

And so the more the writer makes the more the agent makes. But as it turns out that simple reality isn’t really the reality at all.

**Chris:** No, in television in fact essentially the standard method of payment now for agencies is to take what they call a packaging fee. And that packaging fee is tied both to the license fee of the show and ultimately the profits the show produces. So the agency makes – and we talk about this and if you read or have seen David Goodman’s speech he’s pretty explicit about this – 3, 3, and 10 is the standard formula. They make approximately three percent of the upfront license fee for a show, although that’s negotiable, somewhere usually between $30,000 and $100,000 an episode. There’s three percent of the backend that’s differed that is not often collected by them. And then 10% of the adjusted gross.

**Craig:** And that’s great information, but again just to sort of simplify it for people what we’re talking about with these packaging fees is instead of the agents taking 10% of what we earn as writers what they do is they don’t take any commission from us. Which, ooh, great, we get to keep that 10%. Except, what they are getting in return is more than that from the studios that are producing the television shows.

**Chris:** That’s right. And in fact they make deals specifically with the studios and in our budgets we see the results of studios that are made independently between the agencies and the studios, often without the writer knowing about it, that identifies what the agency is going to get. And what they get is not tied to how well we do but how much money is spent on the show on the one hand and how much the show makes on the other.

**Craig:** Correct. Essentially in this arrangement rather than the agency being concerned, financially at least, with the amount of money their client is earning, what they are concerned with is the amount of money the show is earning, meaning the amount of money the studio is earning. So suddenly their interest is in aligned with the studio’s performance, not their own client’s.

**Chris:** Exactly.

**John:** Now, I want to separate out two terms that I think get conflated a lot and we really need to think about them as separate complete concepts. So there’s packaging which is a verb. And what packaging really means is that you have a writer or a script. You have a piece of talent like an actor. You have a director. And sometimes agencies or management companies will put these elements together and that will be a package. And through this packaging process they create value because they can get more for that client, they can get more for the writer, they can get more for the director because they have a full thing together. They have a script, they have a director, they have an actor. They can sort of sell that on the town and get good money for everybody.

That kind of packaging is good. That kind of packaging can help a writer get his or her script out there in the world. It’s attaching that piece of talent. It’s attaching that director. That kind of packaging we don’t really have a big issue with. The problem is the noun of packaging fees. Packaging fees is that 3-3-10, or is that other cut that the agent is taking that is not related to a person’s commission. It’s not that 10%. It’s a special fee that they’re getting for the work that they’ve done to put this thing together which in some cases is really kind of no work at all.

**Chris:** Yeah. Maybe no work at all. And even if it’s a good deal work, the argument you would make or certainly used to be made is every person you add to that package, every attachment you make of talent you get 10% of that individual salary. So you have a writer, and a director, and an actor, maybe a couple of actors on a show. You get 10% of all of their salaries and the total of that is how much you ought to make for a show.

Here’s a thing that gets complicated for us because one of the arguments that the agencies are making back to us and are almost certainly making to their clients individually which is this: you want to eliminate packaging, which means you want to eliminate our ability to make your shows more valuable in the presale moment by attaching talent to it. What they’re essentially saying is if you don’t pay us the outside fees we’re not going to do our job. It is essentially the same thing they’re saying to the studios which is – and here’s the reason – why do studios pay these packaging fees? They don’t need to pay the exorbitant packaging fees. They pay those packaging fees because in a sense the agencies have said we have all of our talent corralled behind a fence. If you want access to them in order to get access you need to pay a kind of ransom. You need to pay a packaging fee to us which is over and above what we would make from the show.

Now they’re saying to us if you don’t allow us to charge the studios that exorbitant, over scale compensation we won’t actually do the work of attaching your script to a writer or a director. Well, if they don’t do that what else are they doing?

**Craig:** Ah-ha. Exactly. I mean, look, when we are wooed by an individual agency – and I’m talking about the big ones. So the big four agencies that we talk about in town here are CAA, WME, UTA, and ICM. When they’re trying to grab somebody from say CAA to go over to William Morris, but it’s Endeavor, but it’s always the same – look at all the other people we have. We can help you get your movie made. We can help you get your television show on the air because we have all these other people. They don’t say, “But only if you accept a circumstance by which we may make more money off of your work than you do.” They don’t mention that.

And the interesting thing about the circumstance is they are free I suppose to engage in this kind of extortion with the studios because the studios don’t have necessarily any kind of legal gun to the agencies’ heads. But the agency does apparently have a legal gun to their head behind held by us. And their behavior I think up until this point has been to essentially ignore that face. And so we’re entering this fascinating and somewhat disquieting period where the way that things have been going for decades is now suddenly not just being threatened to be toppled over the way that for instance a strike may topple over the labor market for who knows up to a year or something like that at most, I suppose. But permanently. We may permanently topple a kind of bedrock manner in which the business operates because packaging has been going on for decades as well.

**Chris:** Yes. That’s true. You said a lot of things and I want to comment on all of them, but now I can’t remember the first few you said.

**Craig:** That’s how I do it.

**Chris:** Exactly. Let me say a few things about that that strike me. The first one is this. Those packaging fees they’re requiring, they are doing that because they claim to be attaching actors. Now what work are they doing for actors, for example? It may be that as a writer I can bring my script to the agency and that agency can say we’ll submit this to the studio. That’s the job we’re going to do for you. If you want us to do more you have to pay more for that. I don’t think that’s true.

But what do they say to the actors? We’re not going to introduce you to a particular project.

**Craig:** That’s crazy.

**Chris:** What is that work that they’re doing? I don’t think it’s anything at all. The other thing we should say by the way is that packaging is more insidious than packaging fees and the system by which talent is corralled and then packaging fees are assessed on the basis of having that talent in your stable can be very detrimental to writers because – and you probably have had this experience, both of you. If you are at one agency looking to for example attach a director from a different agency, or an actor from a different agency, what you end up with is a lot of resistance often from that agency because they’ll end up having to split the packaging fee.

And so I just heard another story just the other day of a writer who said my project is being delayed because of a contentious negotiation between two agencies about who is going to get which packaging fee. By the way, splitting of packaging fees belies the entire notion of packaging because it means you’re not even attaching two things. Two different agencies are attaching pieces of talent to it.

**Craig:** Exactly. They have something called a half packaging fee, which tells you everything. What you’re kind of getting at is there’s absolutely no service that agencies can provide in return for this packaging fee that they cannot and should not provide just in return for the normal 10% of our earnings.

**Chris:** Right. What writers need to be aware of though is they’re going to hear this argument back. They’re going to hear the conflation of packaging fees with packaging which means attachments. Here agencies say to them you’re going to be a big risk for ending packaging fees because it means you’ll no longer have the advantage that you had by signing on with CAA, WME, ICM, or UTA and having access to this other talent. That’s not true.

**Craig:** Of course not.

**Chris:** Business itself will take care of that. The studios and networks that want movies and television shows made need the actors and writers and directors attached to each other. And so if those particular agencies refuse to do it except for an outside fee, someone else will do it for them.

**John:** So, the idea of packaging fees has been around for decades. That’s not a new thing. But what is relatively new is producing. So this move by talent agencies to really become direct producers of material. And so the notable ones in town right now are probably Endeavor Content which is related to WME, wiip which is related to CAA. So they are affiliate companies. They are not the same company. It’s not literally CAA producing, but they are very closely connected companies.

And to be clear the problem isn’t with those companies, it’s with really any move by an agency where they are directly owning content. Where they are competing with the studios for content. And puts a writer in a situation where that thing you write may be owned by your agency. Where you are actually an employee of your agency rather than them being an employee of the writer.

**Craig:** I mean, can you imagine? That’s exactly why the law that allows agents in California, the Talent Agency Act, that allows them to represent us – so they need two things, right. They need the Writers Guild to allow them to procure employment on our behalf. And they also need the state of California to license them to procure employment on our behalf. And in exchange for that right, that exclusive right, they get two limitations. One is they can only change 10%. And the other is they cannot be financially interested in the employment that they’re procuring for us.

**Chris:** Right.

**Craig:** What they’ve done is they’ve set aside these little side companies, but I believe the first time I ever heard of this was I think MRC, which was tied into Endeavor, I think, maybe even before it merged with William Morris, and all sorts of alarm bells went off in my head. But it is spreading now like Kudzu. This is not a good thing for us as writers at all.

**John:** Well let’s list some upsides, because sometimes you’ll hear upsides. That they’ll say like these are the good reasons for having these affiliate companies.

**Chris:** We hear a lot of writers talking about the fact that they’re getting better deals. The agencies themselves say we’re more generous in our backend. We often for example in television have less onerous spend requirements. All of these kinds of things.

**John:** We’re already your friends. We’re already on your side.

**Chris:** We just want to provide new opportunities.

**John:** Our clients are asking for these opportunities and we’re providing these opportunities.

**Chris:** And you don’t need to take it if you don’t want it.

**John:** Absolutely. And sometimes they’ll say like well we require that you have an outside attorney to review the deals. So those are things that they are saying. The downsides are also pretty obvious. So you can fire your agent. It’s very hard to fire your boss. You are competing with them for IP sometimes. Like if you want that book they may own that book. And so you’re actually in competition with them for the things you’re trying to buy.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And it’s also just the most classic conflict of interest possible. Something that David Goodman says in his speech is you wouldn’t want Peter Roth negotiating your salary. And that’s ultimately where you’re kind of getting to.

**Chris:** Right. I would make two arguments about this, one on either side of it. On the one had we’re fully in favor of the idea of more buyers, more people making content.

**John:** 100%.

**Chris:** They just don’t need to be our agents. And those studios that they’re forming, they can exist if they want as long as they are separate from – really separate from – our agencies. In the same way that MCA in the 1960s, in 1962, the largest talent agency in the country–

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Chris:** Was forced by the justice department to choose between its talent practice and becoming Universal Studios. And they chose to become Universal.

**John:** And what happened to all those agents? They became agents somewhere else. That agency business kept going. But they separated completely.

**Craig:** Or they moved on to become producers. And Lew Wasserman, who was the head of that talent agency became the head of Universal and in many ways became even more powerful. And that’s fine. You can do it. You just have to do one–

**John:** That’s fine. We’d love another studio.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just one or the other. The whole reason that writers, actors, and directors want agents is not just merely to do the formality of being a buffer between us and the people paying us, because lawyers can do that pretty well. It’s because we need people who understand aspects of the business that we don’t necessarily understand or are as invested in. Giving us counsel. What would be the right job to take? Who would be the right person to work with? What should we avoid? How far should we push it?

All of these things are what we agree to pay 10% for. And behind that is the theory that their bargaining acumen will also pay for that 10% because they’ll be able to bargain that much more than we could on our own. But, if they are involved in the production of the work we’re doing there’s absolutely no reason to think that nature and quality of the advice that we’re getting isn’t going to be infected by this very different role. Essentially we are asking them to manipulate us for their benefit instead of ours. Whether or not an individual agent does so, you won’t know. And that’s the problem with conflict of interests.

**John:** There have been so many times in my career where I’ve run into a situation on a project with an employer where I’ve had to go to my agent for help. And I needed that agent to be a separate person who had my back and didn’t have the other person’s back. And that is a crucial role for an agent to play and I just don’t know how you play that role when it is your own agency that the person is working for.

**Chris:** Right. I think the risk for us though is that at least early on these studios may be offering pretty good deals. You know, maybe even loss leaders.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t exactly–

**John:** They may be offering more backend. I think it’s good to have outside people who want to spend some money and build stuff up because that’s good and it can help push other deals up or help push other studios to try to match those deals in order to attract talent. So outside folks, fantastic. And Endeavor Content, the wiips, they have outside money because outside money wants to make stuff. They want to make content.

I think that outside money would find a way to do it that’s not through these two giant companies.

**Craig:** Now, I want to ask you guys something. What do you think they say to outside investors who are considering investing in Endeavor Content or wiip? What’s their big selling point do you think?

**John:** They have access to all of the best talent. All the best writers.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** The best directors. And the best actors.

**Craig:** There is literally – there is nothing else, literally nothing else, they have to offer that would distinguish themselves other than that. So one of the things that I think we are all struggling with right now is that as this kind of creep has occurred, right, where it started a little, and then a little more, and a little more, what’s happening is the people that are supposed to leverage our talent and our efforts into more for us are leveraging our talent and our efforts into more for them. And I do not like being somebody that’s being – like I famously told this story. The way I found out that CAA was packaging Chernobyl, I did not know. I literally didn’t know.

What happened was one day I got a check from CAA. And I didn’t know why. And I think a lot of people get a check and they’re like, yay. I get a check that I didn’t ask for and I’m like, mm-hmm. Somewhere someone is taking advantage of me. And that’s how I kind of delved into this world of packaging. And in the end what concerns me more than anything is that they are using us. And on a principle level it’s driving me crazy.

**Chris:** Right. I think that our big challenge is to remind writers of exactly what you’re saying, Craig, which is that their value is inherent in themselves. That it doesn’t come from the agent who represents them. As generous as that moment was when that first agent said I see something in you, ultimately it is our talent that’s making the profits for these studios and for the agencies. And while when we negotiate with the companies at the MBA we have to respect the fact that capital and the risks they take give them some real reasons to push back against us. In this case the agencies have nothing but us. There is nothing of value. The leverage is our leverage and not theirs. But it’s hard for writers to think of it that way. In part because the agencies have cultivated a kind of aura of – we talked about – and people talk about this all the time – that we work for them. You said it yourself. You got your check from your agency. It said CAA on it.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah.

**Chris:** You walked into their palace.

**Craig:** Did not like that.

**Chris:** Nicer than any office you’ve ever had. And the feeling that you get from that is I’m working for them.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Now, Chris, you also lead our MBA negotiations often, so I want to sort of both combine and separate out a little bit of stuff that’s happening here, because I think what’s also true is that at this moment we are in a really strange place in the industry and time, where we have consolidation of these mega corporations. We have Netflix really upending sort of how things are done.

Agents will argue that this is the wrong time for this fight because now more than ever we all need to be working together to confront the challenges ahead of us. So what do we say to agents as they propose–?

**Chris:** I entirely agree. Now more than ever we need to be working together. But we need to be sure we’re working together for this. It is a time of very great risk and therefore writers cannot afford to have studios looking to take advantage of us in whole new fresh ways. And agencies who are conflicted and make their profits off of the success of our shows rather than our own success.

**John:** We want to be rowing in the same direction. And I don’t feel we are.

**Chris:** The fact that this is antagonistic to whatever extent it is is because this has gone on for a long time and it’s hard to make change. But in the end we see agents as our allies, true allies, are what we need. So we’re working in that direction. But I want to say this about the MBA negotiations in relationship to the AMBA. Because in the long run although we’re all upset about the thing that smells bad about our agents using our leverage for their gain, and the fact that they are almost certainly violating their legal obligation as fiduciaries to us, maybe, both California statutes that require them to do that and we will find that out in time. There have been economic consequences to the fact that the agencies have behaved the way they have. And one of the things that we realized is that as we push writers to take risks in our MBA negotiations to shore up their salaries, to increase minimums, to decrease spans so that their above scale is not driven toward minimum we’re losing what we gained in those MBA negotiations because the above scale negotiations that our agents are doing has consistently failed to keep up.

So, in the last decade or so while the industry is expanding, while company profits are skyrocketing, while as far as we can tell from all the outside evidence because their books are closed agencies are doing better than ever, writers are doing less well. And our writer surveys that we sent out in 2016 and 2018 prove that. In television over a period of time at one point writer above-scale income went down 23%. That’s what concerns us. Because when agencies say, “Hey, this is fine. Yes, we’re getting a lot out of this but periodically you save the 10% on your commission and you’re doing OK. You should be quiet about it,” we need to think good and hard about whether we’re going to ask writers to do something that’s actually ultimately going to be in their financial best interests.

**Craig:** That is a really important point, because I think a lot of people might say, OK, hold on a second. The people that are kind of getting ripped off the most are the showrunners because what’s happening is the agencies are converting the showrunner’s work into these massive profits that otherwise would go into the showrunner’s pockets but they’re not.

Let’s say I’m a rank-and-file writer. I’m a staff writer. And honestly I’m not getting any of those anyway. And I am not having to pay 10%, so why am I going to be cannon fodder for these rich showrunners? And to that I always run this little experiment. You are on a show that your agency doesn’t package. And the studio calls your agent and says here’s the thing, we want to bring back Chris but we’re a little squeezed on budget this year so we want him to take a pay cut. What does your agent do? I’m going to guess says, no, and fights. Because her money comes out of your money.

But if they do package and the studio calls and says, listen, we’re on the fence about bringing this show back. We need to reduce. Can you convince Chris to take less money? Why wouldn’t they say, sure, I can do that? Because their money comes from the continuity of the show, not you.

This absolutely impacts rank-and-file writers. It’s really important that they know that this is not about making sure that showrunners get their pockets stuffed with even more money. It’s about protecting their ability to be represented effectively by their own agents.

**Chris:** I think that’s right. That’s right. Each constituency in the guild is affected in a different way. Showrunners affected because their backend may be hurt. Showrunners may be affected because their inability to access talent across packages is hurt. But the rank-and-file members are hurt because their agents, they have been unable to defend their quotes because by and large in agencies whose money comes from packaging fees rather than the specific weekly income of writers are either less inclined to push for that or more inclined to rollover on studios who say we’re sorry that’s just all there is. By the way, that’s another thing we have to deal with.

We have to deal with these myths on how that in eras of rising budgets for shows and for movies that the only thing set in stone is how much money writers can make and there’s no one out there who can get us a single penny more. These agencies who have defended their own packaging fees without any reduction over all these decades somehow will be entirely incapable of budgeting those writers.

**Craig:** Great point.

**Chris:** And, by the way, that’s true for screenwriters as well.

**John:** Absolutely, so let’s talk about screenwriter issues, because packaging does exist in features. It tends to be much more invisible because it happens as part of foreign sales. It happens as part of an early gathering of talent. It’s more complicated and it’s hard to sort of see it at times. And there will be times where you have sold a movie and not even realize that it is a package. So it is confusing on that level.

But there’s fundamental things that you also rely on your agent to do like to protect you from abusive employers, or for like that ninth revision on a script that you thought you turned in. So, a lot of the work that I’ve been doing with the screenwriter subcommittee this last year for the WGA has been doing stuff that we kept saying like isn’t that the agents’ job? And it is the agents’ job but they’re not doing their jobs and so we’re trying to sort of make up for the agents not doing their job. So when we do our campaign for No Work Left Behind, we’re just encouraging people like don’t leave that stuff behind. Your agent should be the one who is telling you not to do that stuff because agents should know that it’s a terrible idea, but that they’re not actually communicating that. So they’re telling you to, oh sure, go on, send in that treatment, do that free work for people. It’s ridiculous.

And then this is the second thing we implemented this last year was the Start Button. And so the Start Button is a way of tracking like this is when a person started on a project. This is when he turned in a draft. All the stuff that we built, the system we built to track especially feature projects and the steps you’re going through on a feature project we built that because screenwriter contracts were not being sent through from the agencies the way they are supposed to be sent through. If we had all the contracts we wouldn’t need to have the Start Button at all because we would see where people were at in their drafts and be able to figure out, OK, are they getting paid on time?

**Craig:** And there’s always been a certain built in conflict of interest that’s unavoidable simply because your agent represents 30 different writers let’s say. So there’s only five studios. If they push it too hard on your behalf they may lose out on another client’s behalf. So there is always a little bit of a balancing act there.

I personally–

**Chris:** Craig, let me tell you a story. A bunch of years ago, about five years ago, the guild tried to institute a policy by which the agencies would agree to send us the invoices for contracts when drafts were done. And we actually met with all the agencies and they all agreed to do that. And we said let us be the bad guys. You don’t need to do it. We understand. We’ll do it. We’ll actually consolidate those things and we’ll go back to the studios and say here are the writers you haven’t paid on time. We’re going to collect the money that’s owed in interest.

And almost no one ever followed up. Even when they were not actually going to be implicated in it, we just couldn’t get their energy up for–

**Craig:** They don’t care. In the end, that’s not really their gig. I will say that I’ve never – whether or not there have been packaging fees associated with a script that I’ve written that’s gone into production, I’ve never not paid commission. So I suspect that that hasn’t necessarily impacted me. But one of the reasons that I think this is becoming a much larger issue now and one that the agencies can’t simply skate by on is that the divide between features and television is collapsing. Not simply because there’s so much television production that a lot of feature writers are also dabbling in television like I am. But because the nature of what is theatrical and what is television is smooshing together into one thing.

So, at this point now this issue of packaging fees ultimately impacts everyone. And I do think that A-list feature writers have a really interesting role to play here. Because for a long time our relationship with our agents was not and has not been tainted by this. We have the ability to start talking with our agents in a kind of clean way that isn’t soaking in a certain amount of recrimination and regret and say, “Listen, going forward this makes sense. How do we get you guys to kind of get your colleagues come around to be the kind of agent that you have been for me in features?”

**Chris:** We’re having a conversation and we’re being pretty tough on the agencies here. And they deserve for us to be tough on them after all these decades.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Chris:** That’s not the same thing as saying those things about our individual agents. And it’s hard to hear somebody say, hey, this is an attack on a system that has not actually played out in your own personal economy. I’ll say a couple of things about that. The first is in cases of all guild action this is not really about our individual experiences. This is about systemic problems. And trying to solve a problem for the membership as a whole.

The fact that you have a wonderful relationship with your agent is not a counter argument against the fact that the system as a whole is disadvantaging writers. And even your wonderful agent, by the way, has not succeeded in ending the scourge of late pay and free rewrites and one-step deals or the downward pressure on income both for screenwriters and for most mid-level writers in television. They haven’t been able to buck that trend.

They do however work if you are represented at one of the big four agencies for companies or they are partners in companies who make massive profits off a system that takes advantage of writers. They take that money home. And so that friendship that you have with them, as meaningful as it is, it comes with an extra price that you’re paying that they’re not paying. And that can’t go on forever.

**Craig:** Yeah. And normally in those circumstances the people that we call are our agents. And so in a strange way what I’m suggesting in particular for feature writers because as you know that’s the drum that I will bang forever is just making sure the Writers Guild continues to fairly and properly represent its feature writer segment is talk to your agents. Have the conversation. And be armed with all the facts that we’ve given you here. And if they say something that contradicts it write it down and then talk to the guild about it. But have the conversation.

I think it’s important that we all start talking about it, because the more we talk about it I think the more they’re all going to feed back upstairs that this is a thing. Because what I don’t want is for these talks to be so unproductive as to ultimately end up sliding off the edge of a table. There is a certain value to a stable working environment in any industry. And there are great costs. And great costs to upending an apple cart so thoroughly.

So, talk to your agents. I think that’s really important.

**Chris:** And then privately be OK with your own anxiety about this.

**John:** That’s what I think is crucial, too. That’s the takeaway I lead with a lot of people is that I think it’s OK to feel unsettled because it is so different. I mean, you have a relationship with your own agent which is different than you have with a studio executive or any other thing. So it does feel different going into this because when you go into a MBA negotiation, you know this as well as anybody, that it’s going to be a range of outcomes. We’re going to ask for X. They’re going to say Y. And we’ll meet somewhere in the middle.

This is going to be a big change sort of no matter what happens here. And six weeks out we can’t tell you exactly what the world is going to look like as this all shakes out.

**Chris:** Right. No one will be asked to walk off a job.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**Chris:** We don’t face that kind of risk. But we face a real anxiety in putting under stress what may be for many of us are most secure relationship.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Chris:** In the business. That’s no small thing to ask. And by the way John you and I, we’ve been dealing with this for a year, coming to terms with it. But many of our members, they’re just hearing about it for the first time. And even in MBA negotiations it takes a while to process what exactly is being asked of you. What are the gains?

**John:** I always try to remind myself of that, is that when people say like, “Oh, this feels so sudden and so rushed,” I’m like this has been 16 months. But if they hadn’t come to one of those initial things a year ago and they’re only just now hearing about it, it does feel like but what.

**Chris:** And if you do feel anxious, you have concerns, you disagree with anything that the guild is talking about, you think it’s wrong, you have a counter example that you want to provide, you have to talk to somebody. Because the guild wants to hear from everybody. It’s impossible actually to hear from every individual person, but the more we know about what member experience is the better we’re going to be at making a deal.

**John:** Yeah. So I would say obviously good resources are take a look at the speech, but take a look at the FAQs because they are written in a way that is meant to anticipate what your concern and your question is and can maybe address that question. But come to one of the meetings and ask your question or ask a question of us.

**Chris:** Or talk to a captain if you’ve got a captain.

**John:** Absolutely. So almost everybody is going to have a show captain, a screen captain.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I think it would be good if you’re experiencing anxiety or concern or fear about this, the other reason I think it’s important to share that with your agent is because you need them to feel it, too. I think the first – if I were an agent the first thing I would be doing right now is assuring and reassuring my client that everything is fine. The guild is incorrect. The way it is now which say has been serving at least in appearance my client well this is the way we’re going to keep going. Don’t you worry. Everything is going to be fine.

Because that’s generally what agents are doing for us anyway. They’re reassuring us and calming us down. In this case I think it’s important that they start to feel the anxiety, too. Because that’s the only way they’re going to start talking amongst themselves and more importantly to their superiors because while they work for us in a sense, they’re also working for somebody that can literally fire them. And if enough people start saying, no, no, no, you don’t understand, we are now panicking, then things might get precipitated, or at least it might help.

**John:** Chris, as we head into these last six weeks can we have you back as our uncertainty grows and things change?

**Chris:** Sure. Of course. I’d love to come back.

**John:** Cool. So obviously we’ll follow up and sort of as stuff develops we may have special episodes just about things that are happening. Because as a once-a-week Tuesday show that’s great for some situations, but there may be cases along the way where we have to do some special episodes on stuff.

**Chris:** I can’t believe you’re making me say yes to this on air, but that’s OK. Fine.

**Craig:** That’s how he does it. He does it on air to shame you.

**John:** Thanks Chris for coming on the show.

**Craig:** Thank you, Chris, so much.

**Chris:** Thanks for having me. Bye.

**John:** So, Craig had to head off to deal with more Chernobyl drama. But now I’m joined by a new guest. Michelle Satter is the founding directing of the feature film program at the Sundance Institute which for the past 37 years has worked to foster independents, risk-taking, and new voices in film and narrative storytelling. I know her from Sundance Labs where I am often an adviser.

Michelle, welcome to Scriptnotes.

**Michelle Satter:** It’s great to be here with you John. Thanks.

**John:** I mostly know you from the Labs, and so the Labs experience from my perspective is I get to go up there as an adviser.

Before I’ve gotten up there I’ve read through these screenplays by some really talented filmmakers and I get to sit on these one-on-one meetings with them and talk to them about these movies that they want to make. And the first time I did it I was like well this is magic. Who could have ever thought up this idea of doing it this way? And it was you. You are the person who came up with this idea of the Labs. This place for filmmakers to sort of have other filmmakers help them out on the things they’re trying to shoot. Congratulations.

**Michelle:** Thank you. It’s a very simple idea but it works. And we’ve revised it along the way because we’ve been doing it for a long, long time. We were just thinking about it today in terms of is there anything that we want to change. Not much about it. Because the opportunity for writers on a project that they’re developing to have that deep dive and dialogue with a working professional screenwriter is like nothing else.

You know, you can say it’s a secret sauce of Sundance, but that kind of investment in a project on the part of an adviser like you and others and getting to go on a thought experiment, getting to learn about craft, specifically on a particular project. I mean, all that work that you all put into it preparing for it. And then that incredible experience of a two-to-three hour meeting which is as much about feedback as it is about an interrogative approach and going deeply into a project and finding out what the intentions of the writer that you’re working with.

**John:** What I think is so great about the process is that usually as a writer is getting notes that person who is giving notes has some agenda. So either they are a producer who has a vision for what they want the movie to be, or they are a friend or loved one who really wants to support that person but may not be an expert in that field. As we’re up there as advisers we’re just there to help. And so your sense of like what is the intention that is exactly always my first question. What movie do you see yourself trying to make out of this? How can I help you make that movie? I have no intention, no motivation other than just helping you do your thing.

**Michelle:** Yeah. And that’s a very – you know, that creates that safe space. Because no one is trying to impose anything. And, in fact, you get to do whatever you want once you leave Sundance. But the best thing you can do is go in very open but also with a clear vision of what you’re trying to communicate. What is the story that you want to tell that only you can tell as a writer? And every writer is so helped on craft, which is such an important part of it, because we often select a little bit more for voice and potential and where they need to learn is more about the craft.

That intersection or that connection of craft to story and voice, you know, is kind of perfect.

**John:** It is perfect. And what’s perfect about it is it is a small, safe environment. So generally we’ll have 12 to 15, maybe a few more fellows up there. We’ll have a few more advisers because advisers are talking to multiple fellows. But it’s a small, safe place and you’re in Utah. You’re up at this resort. You’re sort of isolated from every place else.

Now you’ve taken that same model and you’ve gone around the world with it. So, there’s Labs in different places and sometimes you’re helping establish the lab and it just runs by itself. So, you may have come up with the concept but you didn’t trademark it. You didn’t patent it. You’ve let other people do what you’re doing. But it feels fundamentally like it can’t scale all that far. It’s constrained just by it takes so many resources of advisers, and the logistics of getting everybody physically together in a space to do.

**Michelle:** Yeah. We’ve looked at numbers along the way and we have found that kind of perfect number. Because intimacy is really important. The fact that everybody gets to meet everyone and be in dialogue, not necessarily in a one-on-one meeting, but get to be a part of a community and build a family together is so key to the experience of the lab. And it has to be small.

**John:** There’s also the question of access because in order to go up to the lab you have to be able to take that time off from work or I know you sometimes have funds that can help bring those people to the labs, to help support them to some degree. But not everyone can sort of join you up on the mountain in Utah. And the question of how do you get some of that expertise and how do you get that experience to people who couldn’t show up there.

So that’s really mostly why you’re here today is to talk about this new venture that you’re coming up with which can sort of broaden that access to people. So this thing is called Sundance Co//ab. What’s the motivation behind it?

**Michelle:** For Sundance it’s opening access. It’s being able to reach many more writers, many more creators. Being able to reach out to parts of the world that we haven’t been in or even haven’t selected writers to support from. It’s looking at more under-resourced and underrepresented communities. You know, how do we create an inclusive, generous learning space and community for global creators.

**John:** Well there’s certainly, so Co//ab is an online community, or at least the first of it you see is an online community. So you go and there’s a website and it’s a really well put together produced website. And there are other websites out there that are about filmmaking or about sort of stuff, but deep down it’s like they’re trying to make a buck and that’s not sort of the impetus behind Co//ab. It’s not an attempt to corner the market on narrative storytelling on the web.

What is the model? If this is really successful five years from now, what do you hope it will look like?

**Michelle:** That’s such a good question. Four hours today thinking about what do we want it to be. What’s the future that we can imagine for Co//ab? And part of it is we have to look at where we are today. This is not a money-making venture for Sundance but we will charge a fee for courses and masterclasses and some of the things we do.

So much of the site, I would say over 50% of the site is free. And it’s an opportunity for people who are interested in writing especially right now, although we’re expanding to directing and producing and all the other creative disciplines that Sundance works in, but this is an opportunity for you to learn from some of the greats like you, John August, in a video that’s about the writing process for you. And sort of taking you through in a very short amount of time. They’re about eight minutes long because we know people have shorter attention spans. But you get nuggets of really important learning and inspiration from these what we call our learning library or videos.

But as importantly it’s creating a community online. It’s an opportunity for writers to share their work and get feedback. Get feedback from the community but get feedback from advisers who are rotated and on and are, again, giving back.

Tiger Williams who was our first instructor, and he teaches at USC, and he’s also an adviser at Sundance at the Sundance Lab, and was really exciting for this group of writers. They were from all over the world. People were up in the middle of the night to take part in this course. So it’s taking from a new idea to getting to an outline of what the story might look like going forward. You know, big focus on developing characters and character work as character evolves story. So a lot of the core elements of screenwriting.

But here’s what was beautiful about it, because I was worried about it by the way. I was thinking how do we take what we do at Sundance in person and bring it to an online community?

**John:** Because the Sundance experience is very much like we’re across a very short table and we’re just looking into each other’s eyes and down at the page. It’s a very intimate thing. And online can’t be that, so what does it feel like?

**Michelle:** Well, first of all you’re in a virtual community. We use a link. There are a lot of conference links. We use Zoom as a conference link. What you have to do is you have to get used to that space first. But what people felt is that they were there with Tiger in that space. They were learning about screenwriting. He spent one of the session just going through Moonlight as an example of great writing and choices that Barry Jenkins made as a writer and also as a director.

You know, it was pure gold.

**John:** Yeah. I would say that from our Scriptnotes listeners we have a ton of writers who are just off on their own someplace and really don’t know anybody else doing the craft of screenwriting. So the common things that happen again and again if you’re not in a group where you can sort of see like, oh, she’s struggling with the same thing that I’m struggling with, that can be hard. And so having some sort of group activity, some sort of group focus can be really good. Because it’s not just the feedback you’re getting on your own project. It’s what you’re hearing from the people around you can be great.

So, something like Tiger’s class, how many students would be in one of those classes?

**Michelle:** Well we went big. Not huge, but bigger than our intimate lab of 12 to 15. We had 30 people.

**John:** 30 people. So more like a traditional class.

**Michelle:** It was more like a traditional class. And Tiger was, by the way, worried about it.

**John:** Yeah. I can understand.

**Michelle:** It’s like I’m used to working with 12 in a workshop.

**John:** So let’s talk about access. Is there an age limit? Do you have to be a certain age to sign up for one of these classes? Do you let 16 year olds take this class, or do they need to be adults in college?

**Michelle:** Well, we don’t ask for their age.

**John:** All right. So as far as you know the people were old enough to do it. But I mean obviously the geographic thing is a huge aspect because I’m sure you had a bunch of international writers in this, but people in the middle of the country who are not around anything like this it’s a chance for them to actually talk with other writers and sort of explore.

**Michelle:** It’s a great opportunity for them. And it’s a great opportunity for writers who are working internationally. It’s interesting in forming Sundance we were very aware that – this was, as you said 37 years ago, we were very aware that there was very little instruction in writing at any of the universities, at any of the schools. Now, that has changed to a great extent.

But the value of that is sometimes questionable.

**John:** The cost of it is not questionable. It’s really expensive.

**Michelle:** It’s prohibitive for a lot of people to do that. And so we saw that not only in the US but really all over the world where there was no instruction around screenwriting, there wasn’t a value placed on writing in terms of teaching.

**John:** Well, also a lot of places around the world there isn’t even a concept of screenwriting. It’s just that a director makes a movie and the director might write the movie first, but there’s not a sense that like there is a writing process and a thinking process. You get your movie on the page first so you can use that as a jumping off place to make your film. And a lot of international communities don’t have that as their basis for how they’re telling their stories.

**Michelle:** Yeah. And what was surprising to us is there’s literally people up in India, you know, in Lebanon, in Australia, all over, Kashmir, I mean really all over the world who wanted to connect to learning about – to this community and also learning about writing.

**John:** Great. So right now the site is up and some people are using the site now. It’s growing. If listeners want to check it out, they go to – what is the URL they should go to?

**Michelle:** It’s collab.sundance.org.

**John:** Great. So they can check that out. They can check out all of the free stuff and then if they’re curious about the online classes, those just come up regularly right? So there’s new ones starting all the time in different topics?

**Michelle:** Yeah. There are. Our next screenwriting class is starting in about a week. And then the one after that, that’s our winter class. We have a spring class and it will start sometime in April. And we ask people to apply for the classes. And the reason for that is we want to make sure that people are serious about wanting to make a commitment to the class.

We’re not looking for sample work and we’re not reviewing the project that they’re working on. But it’s really important for us that the people that are going to connect with Sundance in a course at least this is an opportunity for them to really do the work.

**John:** While I have you here I want to make sure that we don’t miss any other aspects of the Sundance Institute process because Craig and I are often hyping the episodic labs and sort of the other things. So when I first got started with Sundance there was the screenwriting lab which tied into the directing lab. And so they were sort of two poles of it. But it’s really grown tremendously over the years.

And so I know there’s a producing lab. There are composer’s labs. There’s a theater lab. There’s episodic television, or episodic storytelling I guess, so it doesn’t matter whether it’s a network drama or some sort of webisode kind of thing.

What I admire about Sundance is the way you’ve recognized that storytelling exists in all these different media and there are common threads linking them all in that sense of what is the story that you uniquely can tell. And that’s what I always stress to people who say like, “Oh I’m going to apply for the Sundance Lab. I have this thriller about corporate espionage.” And it’s like that can be a great thriller. That does not sound like the kind of story that only you could tell. And that’s the thing that I think Sundance is so good at helping people do is how to excavate that story that’s inside you that you are uniquely qualified to tell, in whatever the media is.

**Michelle:** Yeah. Absolutely. And it’s an interesting process, you know, to work that through and find those projects that we want to get involved with. But one of the things that’s interesting to us and we don’t get enough of is comedy.

**John:** Oh, of course.

**Michelle:** Thrillers. Horror films. I mean, we really are open to all genres. And also right now looking at hybrid. What is the fiction/nonfiction story to tell? We supported Bart Layton on American Animals and that was such an interesting process. We want to be challenged, too, and our writers to be challenged. I remember when we brought Beasts of the Southern Wild to the Sundance Lab and it was a very early stage script. And Ben described it as an unruly child, which was interesting. But to really help him shape that beautiful idea that came full cloth out of him was a long road, both in the writing process and in the editing process.

But look at the result of it?

**John:** Oh, absolutely.

**Michelle:** I mean, just a gorgeous film. So, yes, we’re supporting writers/creators across all forms, all formats. We also have a new Frontier Lab and we’re supporting artists and it’s very much a collaborative. I mean, it’s always a collaborative process, but artists working with technologists, working with biologists. I mean, it’s scientists, architects. You know, it can be anything. You know, a lot of the work more recently has been around virtual reality storytelling and augmented reality. But there’s so much going on with AI and mixed media. It’s really exciting. So Sundance has also become an incubator for that kind of work.

But what distinguishes us even in new frontier is we’re grounded in story. There’s a lot of so-called incubators out there supporting – and hackathons – and supporting a lot of really great, and interesting, and innovative work. But Sundance takes it back to sort of what is the story that you’re trying to tell. What is uniquely compelling and complicated and complex about these characters? And what’s the movement of this story?

So we’re looking at, in some ways very conventional craft, but bringing it to different forms and different formats has been incredibly exciting and an incredible learning experience for everybody.

**John:** Great. Well I can’t wait to see what happens with Sundance Co//ab. It seems like a really well thought out project and a great way to sort of – you describe it as widening the funnel just so that you can actually reach people who couldn’t actually make it to the top of the mountain in Utah and really benefit from what you’ve been able to create there.

Michelle, thank you for coming on the show and thank you for talking about it.

**Michelle:** This has been fun. And thank you. And I hope your listeners will check it out. We’re also looking for feedback, always. So if there are gaps or things that you want that you might be missing or that Sundance could be doing online let us know. Reach out to us.

**John:** Will do. Great. Thanks Michelle.

**Michelle:** Thank you.

**John:** And, Craig, you’re back. And so we are back because it is time for our One Cool Things. Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing for us this week?

**Craig:** I do have a One Cool Thing for us this week. As people know I am a big crossword nerd. I’m a mega crossword nerd.

**John:** You are. Everyone knows that.

**Craig:** Everyone knows this. And as you proceed deeper and deeper down the path of crossword nerdiness you start to accrue more crosswords to do. So I used to just do the New York Times crossword every day. And then it was like, OK, I’m going to do the New York Times crossword every day and I’m going to do the Washington Post Sunday by a guy named Evan Birnholz which is fantastic.

Then I’m also adding on Matt Gaffney’s meta crossword every Friday and the Wall Street Journal meta crossword every weekend and it just goes on and on. I’m collecting these. Fireball. And American Variety Crossword. Anyway, it’s out of control.

But there’s one that I wanted to draw people’s attention to, even if they’re not big crossword people but they’re just generally interested in social progress. There’s a new subscription crossword service called Inkubator. And it’s run by two women, Laura Braunstein who herself is a super crosswordy person, and Tracy Bennett who also similar crossword maker-builder-constructor. And the two of them are seeking to address this very stark issue – and believe it or not there are stark issues in the worlds of crosswords – and that is that by and large crosswords still are primarily authored by men, at least I should say the ones that get published in major newspapers.

The gender balance is wildly out of whack. And yet I think the demographics of people who solve puzzles are not at all out of whack. So what they’ve done is essentially put together this incubator with a clever INK Inkubator to not only bring puzzles constructed by women to crossword solvers like myself but also to start to train women who are interested in constructing crosswords how to do it. Just like David Kwong kind of trained me how to create a crossword puzzle.

So it’s a really cool thing they’re doing and the puzzles themselves are really interesting and oftentimes feature answers you would never see in the New York Times. So, if you go to inkubatorcrosswords.com you can see how to subscribe and support the excellent work that Laura and Tracy are doing.

**John:** Fantastic. That sounds great. My One Cool Thing comes from those videos you probably see online where a person is singing with themselves. And so you have videos where a person starts singing and then it split screens and they’re singing with themselves and they’re forming harmony with themselves and they’re doing sometimes really elaborate orchestrations of just them singing with themselves.

And so it is entirely possible to that with just off the shelf stuff and you just splice it together in an editing program and make it all work. But then this last week I noticed that someone had posted something that was done in an app called Acapella which is not new, I had just never seen it before. But it makes it incredibly easy to do that sort of split screen singing with yourself stuff, where you record one track and then you listen to it in ear phones and you sing along with yourself. And then you sing along with yourself again.

And it’s really just fun to do and really simple. And on the app you’ll see a bunch of examples of other people doing that kind of thing. But it’s great. And so I’ve had fun playing with it. So, it’s Acapella. It’s in the iOS App Store. Try it. Craig, you would love it.

**Craig:** I’m pretty certain that Jessica Mazin is all over that.

**John:** That sounds like a very Jessica thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, but I’m going to double check. My guess is that I’m going to say hey Jessie have you heard about Acapella and she’s going to roll her eyes and say, “Oh my god, dad. I’m on to the fourth thing behind Acapella.” You know, because they know everything. Did you know that, John? Did you?

**John:** They know. Yes, teenage girls especially.

**Craig:** My god.

**John:** They know everything.

**Craig:** Everything.

**John:** And any given thing is either not worth their attention or it’s old. And so occasionally I will introduce my daughter to something that is just about to break and she’s like this is dumb and this is stupid. And two days later she loves it, but she will never acknowledge that I was the person who interested it to her.

**Craig:** To be fair I then also play the role of teenage daughter in your life. Because I do that to you all the time.

**John:** So we cut this out of the live show in Seattle, but it was the only time in Scriptnotes history where I was about to recommend something and Craig said like, “No, no, I already recommended that on the podcast.” Because that’s happened before. So it was the book Less, which is a fantastic novel. And Craig it turned out was right and he had actually recommended before I recommended it.

**Craig:** Oh my god, you cut it out? Ugh.

**John:** It was a long episode. So, Matthew had to find things to cut.

**Craig:** That’s fair. That’s fair. You know what? You’ve owned up to it here and now. And, of course, you know better than anybody you would have totally gotten away with it.

**John:** He never listens. And I may have Matthew cut this out, too.

**Craig:** Ah!

**John:** And that’s our show for today. So I want to thank Michelle Satter and Chris Keyser for coming on the episode to talk to us about the future of the industry. Our show is produced Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by XLNYC. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we love to answer.

For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. John is @johnaugust. I might mute your conversation if it goes on for more than four days, but you’re welcome to start a conversation.

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

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

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net. Craig, thanks again. It was good to have you back.

**Craig:** Thanks John. Good to be back.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [WGA Agency Agreement 2019](https://www.wga.org/members/membership-information/agency-agreement#list)
* WGA President David A. Goodman [Speech](https://www.wga.org/members/membership-information/agency-agreement/wga-membership-meeting-david-goodman-remarks)
* [Agency Campaign FAQ’s](https://www.wga.org/members/membership-information/agency-agreement/faq-agency-campaign)
* [Co//ab at Sundance](https://collab.sundance.org/)
* [Acapella App](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/acapella-from-picplaypost/id924635678?mt=8) for iOS
* [Inkubator](https://inkubatorcrosswords.com)
* [Less](https://andrewgreer.com/less) by Andrew Sean Greer
* [Chris Keyser](https://twitter.com/chrskeyser) on Twitter
* [Michelle Satter](https://twitter.com/SundanceSatter) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* You can now [order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) is Epic Jingle by XLNYC ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/38920-20The20Future20of20the20Industry.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 387: Seattle Live Show 2019, Transcript

February 21, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

**John August:** And we’re done. Yes.

**Craig Mazin:** So great.

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

We are here in Seattle for our first ever Seattle live show.

**Craig:** Hear that, John? The sound of people that have been freshly enriched by a higher minimum wage.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** They’re excited. They’re caffeinated. They’re full of their legal marijuana and they’re excited. Excited.

**John:** They are excited and why would they not be excited?

**Craig:** No, of course.

**John:** So, the Northwest Screenwriters Guild has been gently stalking us for several years to try to convince us to come up here and they finally succeeded, so a good lesson is to just stalk somebody for a very long time sometimes pays off. So Northwest Screenwriters and TheFilmSchool, all one word apparently, got us up here. I was here on my Arlo Finch book tour. You generously agreed to like hop on a plane and fly up here.

**Craig:** What happened was – thank you – John said come to Seattle and I said OK.

**John:** [laughs] Yes.

**Craig:** I don’t really do a lot of thinking or what I would say independent thinking or decision making.

**John:** No, it’s not planned.

**Craig:** Normally just John tells me what to do. Earlier I didn’t know where he was and I got scared. So, just so you guys understand, and you probably do, how this works. It’s that.

**John:** Yeah. I text Craig like meet me in the lobby in five minutes and he’s like OK-K.

**Craig:** OK. Yeah. And I was on time.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Do not show up late for John August.

**John:** So let’s just get a general sense of what’s happening in the industry overall because we’ve done a live show in New York and a live show in Austin, which are both big film towns, a lot of film happens here. But not a lot of film happens in Seattle. So I was curious why Seattle wanted us up here. And so we got a chance to talk to the Northwest Screenwriters Guild at dinner and a lot of the folks who are in this guild who are doing stuff they want to be writing movies. They want to be telling stories cinematically and it’s a group that got together to help them figure out how to do that. And some of their members have gone on to do big cinematic stuff.

You know, there’s cinematic storytelling that’s not just about making big movies. It can be about video games. It can be about animation. There’s lots of other things that involve some of those characteristics as qualities.

**Craig:** Everything is kind of smooshing together these days which is nice. You guys are also kind of on the backdoor of one of the largest production cities in the world. And it’s something to think about. I know you have to sneak across the border. Obviously it’s a little trickier these days with the wall.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** [laughs] The wall between us and Canada. Ridiculous.

**John:** International listeners might not understand that Seattle and Vancouver are just next door neighbors.

**Craig:** Kissing cousins.

**John:** And they are so close together but so much production happens in Vancouver. So little production happens in Seattle because of tax breaks and exchange rates.

**Craig:** And also the general politeness of Canadians. I mean, we should give them a little bit of credit.

**John:** Give a little more credit to the Canadians because the Canadians deserve–

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not saying you guys are rude. It’s not a “Hey!” See, it’s like “hello, how are you.” Oh, dual citizen? So you’ve learned to be rude?

**John:** So she’s a Canadian today but other days she’s an American.

**Craig:** Yes. Your alternate side of the street parking with your Canadians. Well, anyway, the point is you’re very close but I would imagine also that means there are probably a lot of training and educational resources here that you might not find in another city of Seattle’s size. I happen to be a huge fan of Seattle. I think it’s an amazing city.

Not every city has the spirit of art running through its veins. This one clearly does. So, I think–

**John:** It’s got a spirit of art and a lot of money. These are good combinations for a town.

**Craig:** Art and money.

**John:** Art and money.

**Craig:** Most of the people making art on the street do not appear to have the money. However, there are opportunities here. And so this is actually of all the places I think this is one of the – I don’t know, I think you guys are in a pretty great place. That said, you should probably move to LA.

**John:** At some point.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** You should move to LA. So this was a Twitter thread that I actually got into today. And so I was retweeting some folks about when do you stop your day job which is a really good question. These were novelists who were talking about when you quit your day job, but as screenwriters it’s a tough question of like when do you stop working your day job.

For people who get staffed on a TV show, well, the choice is made for you. You’re now a full-time employee on a TV show so you’re not going to go to your day job anymore. But for screenwriters it’s a much tougher call. And so Shannon and Swift who are a writing team who do a lot of stuff they were saying like they were on the front page of Variety having sold their script and they still went to work that day because you just don’t know. You just don’t know when that next job is going to come, when you’re actually going to get paid. So, that idea of you made it, you didn’t make it, when do you stop working your day job is really tough.

**Craig:** I went through the same thing. The first thing I sold was in I think 1995 I want to say, possibly. And I don’t think I actually quit that job until late in 1996. So for a long time you’re just sort of waiting, which is smart. I mean, honestly a lot of people sell a script. Not to bum you guys out. You guys will sell many scripts. But some people only sell one. Boo those people.

And so I was kind of scared, but it was a weird thing to be – because you feel like you’ve made it. You know, you and I have talked on the show there’s no making it. There’s no breaking in. It’s not a thing. There’s just this strange progression. And then one day someone says to you, “I need you working on this now. You can’t go to your safe job anymore.” And that actually is a scary day.

**John:** It is a scary day. And if you get staffed on a TV show, well great, so you have 20 weeks of work, but then what happens – or hopefully 20 weeks, maybe it’s 10 weeks of work. But what happens after that? And a thing you guys should understand is that as television has gotten just shorter and shorter seasons, well that’s great for a viewer. I like a short season. I like being able to get through all of it. But as a writer that can be really tough because if you’re only working on those 10 weeks, those 20 weeks, well you’ve got to get on another show. You’ve got to find ways to fill a whole year.

And so I think we’re going to see writers having to do a lot more scrambling as they jump from show to show to show, or trying to find the next show down the road.

**Craig:** Yeah. So maybe just quit now.

**John:** Yeah. Maybe just stop. That’s really our message. Or our anti-message.

**Craig:** The crazy part is there’s more jobs than ever before. It’s pretty awesome actually. You guys are in a pretty great time. There are more jobs than ever before. Almost all of them are in television, but that’s OK because television is more movie-like than ever before. But it is true. There is a certain pressure now on the way you live. That said, people are living that life quite successfully and some people are living it incredibly successfully. And I would add that aside from money there are other parts of this job that are so fulfilling and so lovely that they’re worth almost as much as money.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Which you don’t hear very often, but they are.

**John:** So, so much of this conversation we could have every day in Los Angeles. We do sort of have it every day in Los Angeles. But when we decided to come up here to Seattle my first question to Craig is like, well, who should we have on the show? Who is a special Seattle person we could have on the show? And Craig was like, oh, oh, ooh, I know exactly who we should have on the show. So tell me what was your instinct behind having Emily.

**Craig:** So Emily Zulauf is somebody I’ve known for many, many years. I met her when she was working at Pixar. Pixar does this interesting thing where – so they’re Oakland. I was going to say up in Oakland, but it’s down in Oakland. And they are always looking for people to write. You’d think like, oh, they’re Pixar. But the way that animation is done, some of you may be familiar with this, there are so many people creating and so many people writing that a lot of times they’re looking in places for writers that you might not think. And a few years ago Emily came down with Mary Coleman, another development executive from Pixar, to meet some people who they had read some scripts and liked and I was one of those people. And I’m a huge Pixar fan. And we had this lovely lunch. And then I guess about a year later we ran into each other again at the Austin Film Festival which is a fun thing. I don’t know – has anybody gone to the Austin Film Festival?

**John:** There’s some hands up. Great.

**Craig:** Look at all you. Good for you. So we ran into each other there and we just decided – she was like we decided that we would be friends, but mostly I was like I don’t like anyone, so when I meet somebody that I like I’m like, OK, we’re friends now and they don’t have a choice because it’s hard for me to meet people that I like. Because I’m a bad person full of umbrage.

So, we became friends. And she’s got a remarkable story mind and she also came out of this place that is legendary and has created some of the most incredible stories of all time. And, in fact, is one of the few institutions in the world that I think is mostly just obsessed with pure storytelling. And she’s actually in a different endeavor now. She’ll tell you about that. But maybe we should welcome her down.

**John:** Emily Zulauf will you please come and join us here.

**Emily Zulauf:** Hey guys.

**John:** Emily, so at dinner I was trying to figure out how I should introduce you. Emily Zulauf is a blank – but you do so many things. Talk to us about what you’re doing now and how you would describe yourself on a resume.

**Emily:** Oh god. So right now I am running story for a new video game company that I can’t talk about.

**John:** She’s under so many NDAs.

**Emily:** I’m so scared.

**John:** There’s like a red dot aimed at her forehead right now.

**Emily:** I know. It was my honest reservation about doing the podcast was I can’t talk about any of this. So that’s what I’m doing right now in secret. And, yeah, prior to that I did some freelance writing. I was the executive director of a nonprofit for a hot second. And I was at Pixar for almost eight years. I was the script supervisor on Inside Out and I was in creative development for about 3.5 years.

**John:** That’s great. You are also a friend of Tess Morris.

**Emily:** Yes.

**John:** Who is a very frequent Scriptnotes guest. And so I always think of you with Tess Morris, because I always see you at the Austin Film Festival right with Tess.

**Emily:** Yeah. That’s a great association. I totally appreciate that. I want to keep that going.

**John:** You know what? We’re happy to have you by yourself. So, when we have–

**Emily:** Yeah. No more Tess.

**John:** No more Tess. This is a Tess-less episode. So, there’s so many things about what you’ve worked on that I want to get into because they’re different than what we normally experience as screenwriters. First, I want to talk about process because Pixar is just a very different story and creative process than what we’re used to as screenwriters because Craig and I we just go off in our little rooms and we beat ourselves up and we write our stories. That’s not the Pixar way at all.

I remember going up to a meeting at Pixar where I gave a little talk, gave a little class, and then they were like, “Oh yeah, and then we’re going to do a two-day offsite to work on this one moment at the end of the second act.” I’m like I would kill myself. But it works for Pixar. So, how does it work and why does it work?

**Emily:** Like how do people not kill themselves?

**John:** How do people not kill themselves?

**Craig:** There’s actually quite a high suicide rate there.

**Emily:** It’s a very tall building.

**Craig:** They’re dropping like flies.

**Emily:** It’s a very tall building.

**Craig:** There isn’t. No there’s not.

**Emily:** It’s totally a joke.

**John:** People hanging themselves from a little lamp.

**Craig:** So touchy here.

**Emily:** Starting dark.

**John:** So what is – I mean, that two-day offsite was probably a real thing and you probably do that.

**Emily:** Yeah. We didn’t make that up.

**John:** That actually does happen. So, what is the process? So something like an Inside Out, is there a script at the start or is it just an idea that – tell me.

**Emily:** Yeah, so usually what it has been traditionally, and I guess I want to caveat this by saying I’m not there now. They’re obviously in a transitional period and so this might be changing a little bit. But sort of traditionally what it has been is that the director is identified first by some group of the executive team. And that director is responsible for coming up with three different pitches of stories that that person wants to do. And so part of what we do in creative development is sort of support them as they’re trying to figure out what that is that they’re interested in. And coming up with sort of a rough pitch for all of those. And then they pitch that to whoever is in charge.

**John:** Whoever is in charge. Let’s stop though for one second though. When you say a director is pitching three ideas, they’re really pitching sort of three story areas, or they’re pitching three like I want to do a story that’s about this, or about this idea, but it may not have the exact characters or sort of what’s going to happen.

**Emily:** For sure. Yeah, it’s definitely like the roughest outline. It would fit on probably a page or a half a page depending on how much they fleshed it out. And it’s usually trying to find three areas that feel distinct enough and different enough that the president of the company can say I like this direction. You’re certainly not – you know, when they buy off on an idea they’re certainly not buying off on something that looks like a full treatment or definitely not a full script.

**Craig:** And they’re basically saying go ahead and take some time to dig at this little vein in the mountain and see if there’s stuff there.

**Emily:** Exactly. Like run that direction. But certainly not at the point of like this makes perfect sense.

**Craig:** I heard a story that Finding Nemo just began as – was it Andrew Stanton?

**Emily:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Saying “fish.” Just started with fish. And everyone was like, yes, of course, fish.

**John:** We’re going to do fish.

**Emily:** There’s a pretty wide variety in how much people have prepared for those pitches. And some of it has to do with how comfortable you are. You know, we’re asking people to – I mean, with any director you have a lot of different skillsets that have to exist in one person. But certainly we’re asking somebody whose job is not pitching to figure out how to get up and pitch effectively.

**John:** To how big of a group would that person need to be able to pitch?

**Emily:** Well, ultimately – and this is where I’m going to fudge around on it again – historically that was just John Lasseter. I assume now that is mostly Pete Docter. But there certainly are other people who will show up in those meetings. But ultimately there’s sort of one decider at the studio. It’s just sort of how the hierarchy is structured. And depending on how comfortable you are makes a big difference in how you pitch.

**Craig:** I mean animation in and of itself has so much pitching from moment to moment that at some point I assume people just get over whatever kind of baseline of fear they had because story artists are constantly pitching.

**Emily:** Yeah. And the majority of our directors come out of story, too. So most of them do have a baseline of at least being comfortable enough to get up and talk about story. But there’s always a process that everybody goes through when you’re new at anything. And pitching to the head of your company is not the same as pitching to the rest of your story team.

**Craig:** Right. When you know like I have a job now, so the worst thing that happens is I have to just keep doing my job.

**Emily:** Right. Exactly. And then I think they’re doing I think a really wonderful job right now of starting to pull from other places more. So, if you’re coming and I’m totally making this up, I don’t know that this is true. But if you’re coming out of lighting for instance like that’s not necessarily going to be your area. So part of what we would do in creative development is just pitch prep, is just help people get comfortable to talk about their story and how to do it and what the beats are.

**Craig:** I had no idea. That’s so nice.

**Emily:** Isn’t that nice?

**Craig:** You’re a good person.

**Emily:** We’re very nice.

**John:** There’s a whole department that does not exist at a traditional studio at all because–

**Craig:** I feel like this is the opposite department where they teach you – they just remind you repeatedly before you go into a room that it’s quite likely you’ll fail.

**John:** That you’re all terrible and it will never get past here.

**Craig:** But good luck.

**John:** So because we’re in Seattle, Amazon headquarters, I know that Amazon has this policy of when they’re going to start on a new project one of the first things you have to do is write the press release announcing the finished version. And it feels so different from what you’re describing. So these directors who are pitching these story areas they don’t really know what the final movie is. They don’t even know what sort of happens in it. They’re just describing an area, a vision, so it’s not a specific kind of thing.

When Craig and I go in to pitch something, like we’ll get called to the mat on details about like well how do you get to the second act moment.

**Craig:** I just tell them, I’m like shut up.

**John:** Shut up.

**Craig:** It’s a pitch.

**John:** Shut up Sean. I can do it.

**Craig:** Just shut up, Sean. I’ve never said shut up to Sean. He’s a nice guy. Super nice.

**Emily:** In fairness I think they do usually have a story sketched out. I think the difference is that it will change–

**John:** They know it’s going to change.

**Emily:** So dramatically. So a lot of times even though you go in and you pitch a story you’re really pitching the world. And you’re really pitching like do you want to live in this space for a while.

**Craig:** And you’re pitching to a creative person. You know, most of the time for us – not that producers aren’t creative, but we’re pitching to people that don’t write. So a lot of their expectation is tell me a story. But when you’re pitching to people that do write, when a writer friend pitches something to me, sometimes it is just fish because a question that I will always ask somebody, like somebody says, “OK, can you read these first 20. I’m lost. What’s happening here?” Sometimes the question you just ask is what made you feel fascinated in the first place and maybe that’s kind of what happens in those meetings is someone just shows this little piece of spark because they want to tell, there’s like a little thing. Well let’s go back to that seed.

**Emily:** I think that’s totally true. And I think that’s also sort of what our job was in creative development too is to start poking at those questions and help you articulate why does this matter to me so that when you walk into a meeting that’s what you’re–

**Craig:** When they ask you why does this matter to you.

**Emily:** And you’re like I don’t know.

**Craig:** I need my healthcare. That’s not a great answer.

**Emily:** I really enjoy money.

**Craig:** Yeah. I bought a car I should not have bought and…

**John:** Well, Emily, here’s a crucial difference though is these folks who are coming in to do this, the people you’re working with, they’re already working for Pixar so they’re already getting a paycheck. So it’s not that like I’ve got to make this happen or else I’m dead. They’re already working there. So you can support them because they’re already part of your family.

My question though is how many people are pitching their kind of project at Pixar? Because you’re only making two or three movies a year. How many folks are trying to get one of their movies up and running? Is it 20? Is it 30?

**Emily:** No. You have to be invited to pitch a feature.

**John:** OK. And to be invited you probably were a super star on some previous project.

**Emily:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Or you get a Golden Ticket.

**Emily:** Right. Or there’s a line outside the studio and one person comes in a year.

**John:** One person gets the ticket.

**Emily:** But if you want to make a short it’s a much more open process. So that ends up being more of a training ground. And then there’s some people who made a short and did it successfully and then moved on to features. But, yes, if you’re getting to pitch a feature it’s a small group.

**John:** Now, one of the rare things that you get to do which I don’t hear other people talking about is Pixar brings in writers to work for a time on a project and it was part of your responsibility to find those writers who would come in to do that stuff. And so we have a lot of people who want to be writers in animation or writers at all and how would you find their scripts and what are you looking for in those scripts that might say like oh this is a person who could help us out. What are you looking for in scripts?

**Emily:** It’s a lot of matchmaking because we’re trying to match with a very specific director. Right? So it’s matchmaking also in the way that, you know, if your friend asks you to set them up with somebody you have to read between the lines of what they think they want and then what they actually need. And there’s a little bit of that that goes on as well.

**Craig:** That’s why I keep failing at that. I just do what they told me.

**Emily:** Like, OK.

**Craig:** That’s not what they really – argh!

**Emily:** No, I know. Wants and needs, Craig, we’re going to talk about it later.

So a lot of times it’s sitting down with a director and talking about what they think they need for the project. And then, you know, knowing who they are and understanding how they traditionally worked. And so sometimes the people that you filter to them are actually a little bit more informed.

But generally we were looking for people – it sounds sort of cliché because we’ve said it so many times – but it’s smart with heart. People who can write in this space that is both funny and where the character – where the humor is really coming from the characters and driven by the characters.

The thing that we get a lot that we don’t need is people who’ve written children’s animated scripts. Because we make children’s animated movies it’s a really logical idea that this is what we would want to see. And, in fact, we’ve never hired anyone off of a script like that. We’ve only ever hired people off of – you know, we hired Mike Arndt off of Little Miss Sunshine, for instance, which it would be hard to say that that’s like children’s animated.

**Craig:** Talk a little bit more about the heart part. Because I think sometimes people struggle as they’re starting out or continuing their path as a writer to figure out how to be emotionally moving without being formulaically saccharine or sentimental. Can you see what the difference is? Where is the line? And what makes something proper heart as opposed to formulaic sentimentality?

**Emily:** I wish I had like a really easy answer for that.

**Craig:** Take your time. We’re on radio. Take an hour.

**Emily:** I’m just going to sit here.

**John:** I think we’re done. I do have a theory though and maybe you can expand upon this. Is that when you see sort of false heart it’s just spread over the top of it. It doesn’t feel like it’s earned by the characters and it doesn’t feel like the movie itself is generous, that the movie is generous with its characters. That it’s letting them struggle but ultimately overcome some of the things that they’re doing. It doesn’t let them make bad choices and learn from them. It’s just kind of spread over the top of it like frosting on a cake.

**Emily:** And it’s also easy.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Well that to me, because the thing about Pixar movies that’s always fascinated me is how brutal they are to their heroes.

**Emily:** Totally.

**Craig:** Tortuous. Brutal and mean. And when they figured out how to be terribly mean to a character then they add one more thing on to make it awfully mean. And in a weird way I think sometimes when people are aiming for heart what they’re aiming for is happy. They’re aiming for like a happy cry and a wonderful moment. But in fact heart comes from misery.

**Emily:** Yeah. And I think – and I agree with you. I think they do [laughs] – that’s the end.

**Craig:** So you guys got a shot at this.

**Emily:** Heart comes from misery.

**Craig:** Heart comes from misery. Well, because I don’t really care in the end if something nice has happened to somebody whose prior experience was a little less than nice. I want it to be awful. I mean, that’s classic literature.

**Emily:** I totally agree with you. And I think obviously they’re not afraid to let their characters, you know, hit that point. I will say not to – I feel like I’m pitching Michael Arndt today.

**John:** Well Michael Arndt is fantastic.

**Emily:** He’s fantastic.

**John:** He’s a good guy.

**Craig:** We love Michael Arndt.

**Emily:** But when he did – I watched his Endings talk that he did which I guess this is now just a pitch for his Endings talk. But I thought that was also really, really insightful about just this idea that you can’t just flip one set of stakes at the end. You really have to flip the sort of philosophical stakes of what your movie is saying and what it’s about.

**Craig:** Which means you have to know that your movie is supposed to be saying something in the first place.

**Emily:** Well, yeah, there’s that, too.

**Craig:** Your movie is supposed to be saying something in the first place.

**John:** Your movie should have a point.

**Craig:** Yeah. There should be an arguable point. An arguable point.

**John:** Yes. It’s sort of like what we always say. Your question at the end of this has to actually be a question. Your movie actually has to make a philosophical argument that it actually answers at the end of this.

**Craig:** What’s your movie about? Brotherhood. No.

**John:** No, no, more than that. There’s not a challenging thing there.

**Craig:** Family. Hmm.

**John:** Oh, no, no, no.

**Craig:** No. Sometimes the best thing you can do to show love to somebody is to let them leave you. Possibly permanently. When they are all you have.

**Emily:** Which also I have to say–

**Craig:** Doesn’t that feel like a movie? They should make that movie but with fish.

**Emily:** I’m a real sucker for movies that don’t end like “happily,” where you get the emotional catharsis of the film but you don’t–

**Craig:** If at the end of Finding Nemo the mom came back. Like it turned out she wasn’t eaten at all.

**John:** Oh, Nemo.

**Craig:** Oh look, and she’s here. And Dori remembers everything.

**Emily:** Right. I mean, genuinely I think one of the things that Pixar does really well is they do set up that hurt at the beginning. And they don’t undo it.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Emily:** So, once you set it you let that–

**Craig:** They lean into it.

**Emily:** You lean into it. And you let that be the thing that’s guiding your character. And so I think you know, when I read scripts I’m also looking for that. I’m looking for people who are willing to let bad things happen to their characters.

**Craig:** Let bad things happen.

**Emily:** And then let the character react to it.

**John:** So Emily tell us about, like these scripts you’re reading, where do those scripts come from? Because Pixar is not a WGA shop so you don’t have to be a WGA member to be writing for Pixar. Where are you finding scripts that have this smart with heart that work for you?

**Emily:** Well this is the news that I feel like nobody is going to like, which is they’re mostly coming from big agencies. They have–

**Craig:** Well they’re all represented at big agencies.

**John:** Oh absolutely.

**Emily:** Yeah, no everybody. Like me too. You know, mostly they are coming through that way. But we also look at the Nicholls and we look at Austin.

**Craig:** What about short films that come, so not scripts, but rather little films, short films or any kind of expressed art that is coming in not from an agency but something that you just find out in the wild?

**Emily:** I think those are always sort of exciting little gems but they have to be – for us – backed up with written words. So, we have to see, you know, a lot of what we’re asking a writer to do is we have this incredible team of people of story artists who are all dedicated to making the story great. So you’re not by yourself, but you are – if you’re the writer you’re the person who is actually putting words on the page and like dialogue in the mouths of the characters. And so even if you’ve made an amazing short film, unfortunately part of what we’re looking for from a writer is to make sure you can do the structure. Make sure that you understand–

**Craig:** But that’s kind of fortunate in a sense because what you don’t get is fooled by auteurs and directors that aren’t really – because I think sometimes there are people that can make beautiful shorts that aren’t really writers. They’re just doing this little impressionistic wonderful thing. But these people are writers. So that’s a good sign.

**Emily:** Yeah. And I think that the truth is, I mean, anybody who has tried to write a short and then tried to write a feature knows that those are two different beasts, right? And so if you can write a great short but when you try to go expand it into a feature it very quickly–

**Craig:** Jog around the block/marathon.

**Emily:** Yeah. And so I think if you can make a beautiful short I think that’s fantastic and I think that’s an incredible thing to have and it’s another thing in your portfolio. But for animation you’re going to have to have an actual script.

**John:** Emily, my question is like let’s say you meet with a writer and is it a phone call first to talk with her about the script you read and then you bring her up to see if she’s a good fit? What is the dating process like for–?

**Emily:** Thank you for saying her John.

**John:** But you’re trying to get this writer to work on this project and see if it’s a good match. Obviously there’s a personality thing. Let’s say you all agree that this is the writer. This is the one we want. But what is she actually going to do? Is she going to write a full script or is she going to work on some scenes? Because that’s the thing I never really understood about Pixar is does any one writer actually finish a whole script or is everyone just working on little sections and it’s all getting assembled over the course of years?

**Emily:** At the beginning, like when you’re first in development, you probably do have one writer who writes a script all the way through. And it’s like the first draft and it’s really rough and no one will ever see it. But once you get into production everything becomes a big jigsaw puzzle. So everything goes out of order. You start boarding the sequences completely out of order which means you’re rewriting the sequences out of order. Sometimes depending on the project sometimes that writer will be the only person who writes. But a lot of times on a lot of projects there’s either a story artist who also writes or a director who also writes or a co-director or head of story. And so while the writer is still the writer and is still sort of the main person watching the full script you will often have people sort of come in and touch things along the way. But, yes, it’s a big giant jigsaw puzzle. And one of the most difficult things I think for our writers is that you do have to, you know, here’s all these moving pieces. They’re changing all over the place. And yet you still have to have the whole thing kind of in your head, which is–

**Craig:** That’s the job.

**Emily:** Just like a–

**John:** But it’s a very different job than what Craig or I usually do.

**Craig:** Well, it is, but I would say–

**John:** Well, in production I guess.

**Craig:** When you get in production that’s happening.

**John:** So that would happen, I mean, it happens for you on Chernobyl. It happens for me on a Charlie’s Angels where everything is just crazy. But you’re like, oh no, no, this is actually the movie we’re trying to make and you’re trying to remind people. But, there’s a lot of voices. So when I talk about that like we’re going to do a two-day offsite about this thing, so who would be in that two-day offsite? There would be storyboard artists. There would be the writers – writer or writers who are on. The director. And is everyone just pitching ways to get through this moment or new things? What happens?

**Emily:** It would depend on the nature of the offsite. Most of our off-sites are actually brain trust off-sites. So that would be all the other directors at the studio.

**John:** OK, great. So it’s like a council of elders looking at this project.

**Craig:** Nothing creepy about that in any way, shape, or form.

**John:** A brain trust. So they wheel out the brains in jars. They all stare at the project.

**Craig:** We are offsite.

**Emily:** We give them a little special–

**Craig:** Why do they have to go offsite? That building is amazing.

**Emily:** I know. It’s huge.

**Craig:** Where do they go? Like a La Quinta or something?

**Emily:** Denny’s.

**Craig:** Denny’s?

**Emily:** We go all over the place. It’s just sort of wherever the producer finds. But it’s like the idea–

**Craig:** That’s what happens when every movie makes a billion dollars. You’re like we’ve got to spend some of this money. Literally it’s coming out of the pipes. Uh, let’s go to Yosemite.

**Emily:** I don’t think we’ve ever been to Yosemite.

**Craig:** See?

**John:** Yeah. Good idea.

**Craig:** There’s an idea.

**Emily:** Somebody is going to hear this.

**Craig:** Mountains!

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh no, you already did – volcanoes did it. Pixar did it.

**John:** So, coming out of one of those sessions you would have new ways to sort of get through this thing. But the brain trust thing is really interesting. So we had Jennifer Lee on the show to talk about Frozen. And she talked about the brain trust and like the Disney brain trust that you’re showing these early cuts and all of the other directors and all of the other big powerful people are watching this and seeing this thing which is not very good in front of them. And having to figure out how we get it to this next stage. And she actually stepped up in Frozen because she had the answers and she became the writer of Frozen.

Because they had all these pieces and she’s like, oh no, the way you do this is to do that. Here you go. Let’s make this movie. And I’m sure–

**Emily:** It’s her own fault for talking.

**John:** It’s her own fault. Now she’s running Disney.

**Emily:** What a tough path.

**John:** It worked out pretty well for Jennifer Lee.

**Craig:** It can happen to you.

**Emily:** Speak up.

**John:** It can happen to you. Speak up with the right ideas.

This brain trust thing is a kind of thing that I think could only really happen in animation because animation is the only cinematic art form where you have this constant iteration. So even on live action features we go through cuts and stuff but there’s only so much we can change in a cut versus a Pixar animated film. You could change fundamental things. That sidekick character could become the main character. You can really revise stuff.

**Craig:** Well in live action there are people whose job is simply to get everyone to stop changing things. There’s an enormous compelling force once you start spending money to stop changing things. And very typically as the writer you’ll come on set and someone will walk up to you and say, “You didn’t change anything, did you?” Well, that’s what they’re paying me to do. “Ugh, OK. But now we have to figure things out. We were going to shoot here. Now we have to shoot here. This person was going to wear this. Now they have to wear that. They’re not even available on that day.” And so on and so forth.

Whereas in animation, change it.

**Emily:** Yeah. I mean, in fairness there’s a schedule in animation that–

**Craig:** That they blow through constantly.

**Emily:** That they blow through constantly. There’s still poor long suffering people whose job it is to keep us on schedule who like–

**Craig:** No one listens to them.

**Emily:** They try so hard.

**Craig:** They’ve been moved offsite.

**Emily:** They’re having a permanent offsite.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Emily:** It’s a Denny’s.

**Craig:** And not in the United States anymore.

**John:** So most of the animated features I’ve done have been stop motion, which is a different beast because in stop motion we can’t tweak anything. So we’ll do cinematic sketch versions, but once we shoot a frame it’s just done and we can’t fix or tweak anything.

**Craig:** Well it’s like live action animation.

**John:** All of the challenges of animation with all of the challenges of live action, just put together. How difficult can we make it?

**Craig:** The South Park guys who did Team America.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** On day three: why did we do this? This is a nightmare.

**John:** This is a terrible, terrible choice.

**Craig:** Yeah. And we’re stuck. We have to keep going.

**Emily:** It’s true. If you are an indecisive person animation – like computer animation is your jam. It’s a great idea for you.

**Craig:** That’s amazing.

**John:** I think we’re going to go out of sequence here because this feels like a good moment to introduce a brand new game. So, when we come back from this I want to talk about naïve characters, but before we get to that I want to try this new game. So, as I flew in here last night I had this vision for a game. And it partly came from sometimes – and I’m curious what you guys do about this – when you have an idea in the middle of the night do you actually get out of bed and write it down or do you just like, oh no, I’ll remember it in the morning. Craig, do you write down the stuff you think at night?

**Craig:** Yeah. My iPad is over here so I might email it to myself. That’s my quickie note thing. Except it so rarely is any good.

**John:** No, it rarely is any good.

**Craig:** A lot of times it’s just Ambien talking, I’ve got to be honest with you.

**John:** Sometimes I have no idea what the idea was. I just see these things together and I’m like I have no idea what this is. Emily, do you write your stuff down?

**Emily:** Yeah. But I have Evernote on my phone and then I type things. But also I’m really tired so I don’t check to make sure it’s spell-checked, made sense or anything. So, very, very often I open it like a couple days later and it’s actually nonsense words. I did it too fast and it didn’t autocorrect correctly. And then I’m just staring at orange sofa couch and I’m like I don’t know what that is.

**John:** Yes, but it was very important to you at like 12:30 in the morning.

**Emily:** It was so important at the time, yeah.

**John:** This idea kind of comes from that, but it also comes from a very Hollywood concept which is the open writing assignment. And so what an open writing assignment means is that there is a project that a producer or a studio has and they’re looking to hire a writer on this open writing assignment. And it can be just a very vague idea, but they’re bringing in writers to pitch their take on this open writing assignment. And so new writers will spend a tremendous amount of time coming up with takes so they can pitch on an open writing assignment. It’s one of the things you do a lot as a new screenwriter.

And so I thought tonight we’d do some open writing assignments and we have a great audience here who have helped us figure out some of the things we need to incorporate into this open writing assignment.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** I gave some people some homework in here. Raise your hand if you did the homework that’s on the slide up there. Oh, a lot of people did this. All right. I’m going to pick six people at random and I’m just going to come to you and ask. And I’m going to ask each of you one piece of what you did up here. So, raise your hand, someone in the second row. What is the genre of the movie that you wrote down?

**Fe**Male Audience Member:**** Drama.

**John:** OK, so we have to write a drama.

**Craig:** I can do that.

**John:** OK, we need to write a drama.

**Craig:** I’ll email it to myself.

**John:** What is the general setting of this drama we’re writing?

****Male Audience Member:**** Los Angeles.

**John:** So it’s a drama set in Los Angeles. All right, I’m going to come up here. I feel like a game show host here. What is the profession of the hero in the movie?

****Male Audience Member:**** Weatherman.

**John:** OK. It’s a drama about a weatherman in Los Angeles.

**Craig:** They’ve made this movie, but OK. Keep going.

**John:** How about you right here.

**Fe**Male Audience Member:**** Find out what is killing people.

**John:** Oh, it’s a drama about a weatherman in Los Angeles who has to find out what’s killing people. And who is the villain? You right there, who is the villain in our story?

**Fe**Male Audience Member:**** Classicism.

**John:** Classicism. Classicism is the villain. Oh, this is really good.

**Emily:** Oh no.

**Craig:** Someone has been to college.

**John:** Right here, I need a big trailer moment.

**Male Audience Member:** A meeting of gangs in the parks.

**John:** A meeting of gangs in the park.

**Craig:** I’m sorry, what was the last category?

**John:** A big trailer moment. It’s a meeting of gangs in the park. So I think what we need to come up with a pitch on is a project that is a drama set in Los Angeles about a weatherman who has to fight classicism–

**Craig:** And find out what’s killing people, which is classicism.

**John:** Find out what’s killing people, which is classicism, obviously. And there has to be a big meeting of gangs. So I kind of have a vision of The Warriors a little bit. Emily, talk me through—

**Emily:** No, I had a little moment of like wondering if you get some sort of weird like weather patterns that are only affecting certain areas of Los Angeles.

**John:** Microclimates.

**Emily:** Microclimates if you will.

**Craig:** Like douchebaggery is causing sleet over Brentwood?

**Emily:** And killing people.

**Craig:** And killing people that we want to die.

**Emily:** It’s a really short movie.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** Well, how about actually–

**Craig:** It’s like over Howard Schwartz’s house.

**John:** But like lightning bolts. Like a lightning bolt could come down–

**Craig:** Schulz. His name is Schulz, right?

**John:** Howard Schulz, yes.

**Emily:** Also, he’s here.

**Craig:** What’s that?

**Emily:** He’s here.

**Craig:** Howard Schulz is in the audience?

**Emily:** No, no. Here in Seattle.

**John:** Hello! Please don’t run for president. Thank you.

**Craig:** I know. He employs most of the people here.

**Emily:** Do you think he listens to your podcast? Wouldn’t that be great?

**John:** Oh, it would be amazing if he did.

**Emily:** Wouldn’t it be amazing.

**John:** What if we were the people who convinced him, no, no, no, stop this right now. Crazy.

**Craig:** He should.

**John:** He should stop. I mean, he should stop.

**Craig:** I mean, he has four billion coffee stores. That’s good. You did it, man.

**Emily:** You did a good job.

**John:** You won. You won the race.

**Craig:** You win. Right.

**John:** Stop running.

**Craig:** We don’t open coffee shops.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** We don’t do that. Anyway.

**John:** Is it a Howard Schulz kind of character one of the villains, like the classicism thing?

**Emily:** Oh.

**John:** I think we have a little thing going here.

**Emily:** Interesting.

**John:** The hero is the weatherman, so maybe the weatherman hero is trying to figure out why these weird lightning strikes are killing certain people, or there’s some sort of–

**Emily:** They’re killing all of Howard Schulz’s primary opponents.

**John:** Holy cow.

**Craig:** This is called Geo Storm. They made this movie, again.

**John:** That’s right! It’s Geo Storm 2.

**Craig:** What if there’s like a science fiction kind of thing where as the weatherman realizes that in areas where income inequality is growing the weather starts getting more and more severe.

**Emily:** Which is actually what I was pitching.

**Craig:** That was? No, no, it’s not crashing down on rich people or anything.

**Emily:** No, no, you said the rich people thing. I was saying, I agree with you, I think it should have to do–

**Craig:** Well what you’re actually saying is I agree with you.

**Emily:** No, I really agree with you. I think we’re the same person.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Ah. I was wondering if you were doing the thing–

**Craig:** Shush.

**John:** You say the exact same thing the woman said and you take credit for it.

**Craig:** No, I thought I was saying a different thing.

**Emily:** You said a different thing.

**Craig:** I thought I was saying a different thing. I really did. Your circuit is misfired.

**John:** Oh OK.

**Craig:** But I agree with you. I think that’s awesome. But the meeting of the gangs, now it feels like there’s two groups of people that know the truth. And the weatherman gets pulled into one group that’s like we’re going to use this to bring the system down. And then another group is like, no, we have to stop this from happening. The system needs to keep going. And so there are two gangs and they meet in the park.

**John:** The park.

**Craig:** That’s a rough one.

**John:** Parks are a natural open environment. Weather happens in parks.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Also fascinating that the Weathermen were like a big gang of the time. So, that is an historic. Nothing said this has to be present day.

**Craig:** Can we switch it then? Yeah, so make it the Weathermen. Because that will really make this a lot easier.

**John:** Also it would make so much more sense that they were called the Weathermen if it was actually about weather. Because history is really confusing.

**Craig:** Here’s what’s killing us. Classicism rather. That’s not a villain. That’s a problem. It’s not a villain.

**John:** It’s very abstract.

**Craig:** It’s abstract. Your villain can represent something abstract like classicism, but it has to be someone. Let’s make it Howard Schulz.

**John:** A thing I want to stress here is that as absurd as this is so many projects that you will encounter are kind of like this.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** So I think we talked about this on the show before. For about 20 years there was an Imagine project called Clipped. And it was about a guy who got a paperclip shoved up his nose or in his ear or something and Brian Grazer is like well that’s got to really change a person. And so we all had to go in and pitch on Clipped. I pitched on Clipped. You probably pitched on Clipped.

**Craig:** I refused.

**John:** All right. Let’s get another open writing assignment going here. I’m going to go in the back of the audience here because I like walking around.

**Craig:** I’ll write this down again. I thought we did all right with that one.

**John:** We did pretty well. I think it was a good start.

**Craig:** We tried.

**Emily:** Shameless applause.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a pity clap if I ever heard it.

**John:** Who up here did your homework? Can you please tell me the genre of the movie we need to write?

**Female Audience Member:** A rom-com.

**John:** It’s a rom-com! We love rom-coms. We saved rom-coms. I don’t know if you remember that. But Tess Morris was on the show and she helped us save rom-coms.

**Emily:** I’m going to be the poor man’s Tess Morris on this.

**John:** The general setting of this rom-com we need to write?

**Female Audience Member:** England during the Regency period.

**Craig:** God.

**John:** England Regency rom-com. I like this very, very much. Who else up here has – please tell me the profession of the hero.

**Male Audience Member:** He’s an assassin.

**John:** Ooh, an assassin. This is so good.

**Craig:** Well at least you didn’t say something like an electrician because that would have been hard.

**John:** That would really be a tough thing. All right, so we have a rom-com set in the Regency period of England about an assassin, that’s his profession or her profession. Right here, can you tell me what is the main goal of this assassin character?

**Male Audience Member:** It’s a rescue mission.

**John:** Oh, an assassin has to make a rescue mission.

**Craig:** As they do.

**John:** As they do. Anyone else back here, right here, can you tell me the villain of this story?

**Male Audience Member:** His old mentor who ruined his career.

**John:** Ooh! An old mentor. I like that very, very much.

**Craig:** An old mentor.

**John:** Finally I need a big trailer moment. Who has got a big trailer moment for me? Going once, going twice – oh right here. Tell me what your big trailer moment is.

**Male Audience Member:** It’s anachronistic. Jumping from a horse onto a tank.

**Craig:** A tank? A tank. In the regency period.

**John:** A tank in the regency period. We’ll get jumping from a horse. I’m not sure we’re going to get to tank. All right. So we’ve got this Regency rom-com. That feels really promising. Assassins are good.

**Craig:** Everything is good except rom-com at this point because that’s, yikes.

**John:** Think about like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. If you could take that.

**Craig:** No, you know what? You can do this.

**Emily:** Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

**John:** You can do this.

**Craig:** Or, or, or – all right, so we have an assassin, oldie England, and he’s been trained by his mentor, but then he does the thing that mentors want you to do which is to become great. He becomes so good that the mentor gets jealous and blinds him. Right? He blinds him. And so now our blind assassin has to be led around by this – let’s make the blind assassin a woman. She’s a woman and she has to be led around by a guy who becomes like her eyes. And then they’re separated and she starts killing people because the guy helps her to kill people. So they start falling in love while she’s killing people, but then he gets taken away and she has to go rescue this guy. But he is her eyes. She’s blind. And she has to find her eyes in the dark.

And…and…has to jump on a horse. [laughs]

**John:** OK. These are fascinating choices. But what I will say–

**Craig:** Did I not get the job?

**John:** So, Craig, we really liked a lot of what you did there, but I would say–

**Craig:** Congratulations on the first–

**John:** Congratulations, yes. But what I will say that in a romantic comedy the villain, the antagonist, often is the other person in the romantic comedy. So I’m wondering if this other mentor character actually is a romance about that which feels very good for like Regency period. It could be sort of like an Emma. It could be like an Emma like this character who you don’t ever think of as being a possible love interest because they’ve always been older or a teacher figure, like oh this is the person. So maybe a young female assassin falls for her assassin–

**Craig:** Daddy figure.

**John:** Daddy figure.

**Craig:** Well, this is getting problematic.

**Emily:** Can we make it a woman?

**Craig:** Can we make it a young woman who falls for an older woman?

**Emily:** Yes.

**Craig:** Why not.

**Emily:** Takes away a little bit of the problematic-ness.

**Craig:** Yeah, we’re going to come up with other problematics.

**Emily:** Slightly.

**John:** There will be problematics.

**Craig:** The presence of the tank will definitely be problematic.

**Emily:** Carry on.

**Craig:** All right, so this is a lesbian romance in Regency England between two assassins, a December-May romance between assassins, but one of them is – so the older one has ruined the young one? No, the young one has ruined the older one’s career, what about that? That’s a natural kind of thing. You trained me to take your place and I did. And now the older one does not want to let go.

**John:** Yes. It’s an All About Eve.

**Craig:** I just got rehired.

**John:** Yeah. Craig brought it back through.

**Emily:** Turned it around.

**John:** So here’s what’s good about that is their relationship is fascinating and why am I forgetting the name of this movie that’s the Rachel Weisz movie—

**Audience:** The Favourite.

**John:** The Favourite. Like that’s sort of The Favourite is what you’re pitching. It’s a funnier version of The Favourite.

**Craig:** Yes. I’m getting replaced by the younger, newer thing.

**John:** Yes. And so that’s a good dynamic and that tension is really interesting between the two of them.

**Craig:** And it’s also something that is always relevant. I mean, doesn’t matter what time period and doesn’t matter what their jobs are. Doesn’t matter what their sexuality is. The notion that you are going to be eclipsed by somebody that you love is something every parent probably on some level considers.

**Emily:** I feel like I’m putting on this development hat and I have so many questions.

**Craig:** Do it. Go.

**John:** Go. Ask your questions.

**Emily:** What is the driving plot thing of our story? Has our older assassin been pushed out at the beginning of our story and it’s a story about them – what’s our driver there?

**Craig:** I think they’re in love in the beginning of the story. I think it’s perfectly good. But there’s a little bit of a thing, right, where the older one feels that the younger one isn’t ready, and the younger one is kind of thinking the older one is holding them back. And then the older one realizes that the younger one is better than her, everyone thinks the younger one is better than her. That’s a terrible moment. She retreats. And now she has to prove herself. But she doesn’t want to let on.

But then she’s going to try to kill the person that the younger one has to kill. So they’re both racing to kill that person. And then I think where it has to go is she has to ultimately probably sacrifice herself because she loves that younger person somehow.

**John:** So I’m going to be Tess Morris here.

**Craig:** Do it.

**John:** I worry we’re losing the rom-com quality of it.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** That’s the only thing I want to say here.

**Emily:** I think that’s fair.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** What you’re pitching didn’t feel especially comedic. So–

**Craig:** I don’t like rom-coms. [laughs]

**John:** Ah, after all this you don’t like – we saved rom-coms and Craig still doesn’t like them.

**Craig:** No, you guys saved them. I mean, I was happy for it, but it’s not like my jam. You know, I’m like, meh.

**Emily:** I feel like maybe if you don’t have her pushed out at the beginning but she’s starting to feel like a little instable – unstable/instable? Why can’t I? You know, all of those things. So that the journey is like a lighter journey between two people who are–

**Craig:** OK, so then here’s the question. So then comedy wise what’s – so when we’re talking about a comedy between two characters and a situation. What is the thing between them that now starts to be this fuel for funny situations? What’s the funny fuel? Because if they are – if one of them is helping the other – if one of them is the person the other one has to kill and they know that but they don’t want to get killed, then you could see some farce happening maybe. Or–

**John:** But I think we don’t want to just make a farce most likely. I think we want some real emotional stakes there.

**Craig:** I agree. Where’s the machine? Where’s the machine of the funny?

**Emily:** I also sort of feel like from a rom-com perspective we either need them to – you need some – like they’ve just broken up at the beginning or it has always been a very strict mentor/mentee relationship that is like–

**Craig:** Or it’s in that bed-death phase where they had it but they’re losing it and they’re on their way to losing it.

**Emily:** Yeah. A little bit like – I feel like that’s hard. That’s a hard place to–

**John:** Well it’s interesting when you have characters who are part of Regency England. They have a very rigid social structure. And yet they’re also assassins.

**Emily:** I forgot about the Regency England part. [laughs]

**John:** But they’re also assassins so they’re already outsiders.

**Craig:** And don’t forget the horse.

**John:** And the horse. So they jump off the horse onto the water tank. It didn’t say a tank-tank.

**Craig:** Rejection. It’s not exactly a great trailer moment. Like wah!

**John:** Yeah. Can you turn the tank and water it now. It’s not so good.

**Craig:** Whilst is there a tanketh in our midst?

**John:** At dinner we were talking about sort of naïve characters and so we were talking about Inside Out and the Joy character in there is so – she’s just – I don’t want to say she’s one note, but she has one drive, one focus, and she’s so naïve. And yet she’s not annoying and she’s not dumb. How do you find that balance? And that feels like the kind of situation where on a weekly basis you’re asking like does this actually make sense. Is this actually going to track? I want to talk about naïve characters because I think Pixar has a lot of those naïve characters.

**Craig:** Buzz Lightyear.

**John:** Buzz Lightyear. Wall-E.

**Craig:** Wall-E.

**John:** They’re very naïve characters, and yet they’re not idiots.

**Emily:** Although Buzz is not like the driver of that story, so his naiveté is sort of there for humor and there for comedy as opposed to him being sort of the emotional drive of the story.

**Craig:** Until that moment where he actually has to come face to face with the fact that he is naïve.

**Emily:** Right. Right.

**Craig:** That’s the one value I think of naïve characters is that they always provide that moment. The same thing happens to Joy. This is Pixar. God, they define a terrible weakness that would just ultimately murder this person emotionally and then they do it to them. That’s kind of the gift of those characters I think. I think Pixar does them really well.

**Emily:** And I will say with Joy especially like that character didn’t work for a long time because she was – I guess I can say she was really annoying. She was so happy and peppy and then we played with a whole bunch of different versions of her where she had more edge and less edge. I’ve never been a part of a project that noodled with a character that much. And really honestly the difference was Amy Poehler signed on and Amy Poehler has a level of joy and enthusiasm to her that is kind of infectious. And she’s peppy but she is like pumped about it in a way that we weren’t able to find on the page. And then when she walks in the room and you’re so rooting – like it’s so earnest and it’s so genuine and so even when it’s like over the top and if somebody else did it you’d want to punch them, when she does it it’s like you’re with her and you feel the joy and infectious energy she has.

**Craig:** Well she had this thing in her performance, but I also give all the writers and animators credit for also putting it there in the character and the conception of the character, that Joy isn’t just happy and naïve and loves to be joyful. There’s a desperation underneath all of it which is I’ve got to keep dancing because the second I step dancing I have to look at some painful things I don’t want to look at.

**Emily:** For sure.

**Craig:** And that was fascinating to me. It’s a little bit of a cheat, right? So one of the things about Inside Out that was a little cheaty and it had to happen—

**Emily:** Am I going to be mad at you?

**Craig:** No! Is that you’re taking a human being and you’re fragmenting them into these parts of their personality. But we’re with those parts of the personality and inevitably what we need is to see that that individual part has parts inside of the part. It just has to be there otherwise it doesn’t work.

**John:** Because Joy has to get sad in order for–

**Craig:** Joy has to be aware of it. Joy has to almost be joyful because if I just stop being joyful, whereas Sadness also kind of needs to understand – Sadness is sad that she’s sad. That’s a different thing, right? So that I thought was kind of fascinating. I mean, obviously you have side characters where they can just – Anger is anger, just be angry, it’s funny.

**John:** So we had Pamela Ribon on the Christmas episode and she was talking about–

**Emily:** Oh, I love Pam.

**John:** She’s so great. And she was talking about Ralph Breaks the Internet. And so during the process of that she played Penelope. She played that throughout the whole process. Does a similar kind of thing happen in Pixar where you have temp voices and you’re just trying to do stuff?

**Emily:** Yeah.

**John:** And so somebody else had to play that character who wasn’t Amy Poehler and is that part of the reason why you couldn’t find the voice and the approach?

**Emily:** I don’t think so. I mean, the woman who did Joy for us is a woman named Alyssa Knight who is fantastic and actually a very good actress in her own right. Sort of the thing that you’re talking about – we didn’t have a lock on Joy. We couldn’t figure out what was happening inside of her that was – it just took a long time. Literally I think I was on that project for four years and it took us – yeah, which is like oh my god.

**John:** Four years on a movie.

**Emily:** It took a good two of those years just to find where her center was.

**John:** So I want to talk through this part because during those two years of trying to find her, you know, how she was going to work you did have to map out the rest of the movie. So there were people whose job it was to figure out set pieces and all this stuff. But you still weren’t sure if you had the right character at the centerpiece of this movie who is in almost every scene.

**Emily:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s got to be scary.

**Emily:** Yeah. Almost all the movies hit a point where they hit the skids and it’s really – they’re bad, and they’re really, really bad. And we’re totally lost in the woods. Like quite literally, I mean Pete our director would spend two weeks walking in the woods like at some point.

**Craig:** Oh, he was legitimately lost in the woods.

**Emily:** Legitimately he went into the woods.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Emily:** And he walked around.

**Craig:** He knows that’s just an expression though, right? He doesn’t have to go out there.

**Emily:** He’s a very literal person.

**Craig:** Fair enough. Works for him.

**Emily:** It worked. It worked really well.

**John:** But talk me through that it’s bad because at this point is it bad in a way that there are reels of temp animation that you can look at and it’s like well that doesn’t work and everyone can see that that movie is not actually a movie? You’re looking at a real thing and not just words on a page?

**Emily:** Yeah. What we’re looking at is storyboards that have been edited together with music and sound and voices and all that kind of stuff. And we’re watching it through. You know, the big reboot – we did a giant reboot on the middle of Inside Out where the primary relationship changed. And I think I can say this because I think it’s on the DVD. It used to be Joy and Fear. And the main story was between those two characters which felt like it made sense for a really long time. And it wasn’t until Pete sort of had this revelation that the movie was going to be about connection and the way that we get to connection is allowing ourselves to be vulnerable around people. And that we have to go through sadness sometimes to get back to joy. And it fundamentally shifted the primary movie.

And it shifted those two characters. And so that was about the time that Meg LeFauve came on and she was sort of part of that reboot of rebooting our story so that it was about Joy and Sadness and that being the central relationship.

**Craig:** This requires an enormous amount of creative bravery.

**Emily:** I think so.

**Craig:** Because everybody who has ever written anything I think in part is desperate to believe that they’ve got it. Because writing is hard. So the last thing you want to think is, well, my job was to dig a hole and I dug the hole and oh my god this is not a hole. And you have to do it again. Nobody wants that, but sometimes you just have to do it again.

**Emily:** Well and I found it really – I mean, he’s going to get tired of me singing his praises, but I found working with Pete I found that to be the gift of working with Pete is Pete will do that. He will say I don’t have it and he will go spend the time and the energy and the cycles to find it. And you know I also think there was a gift in there, too, to work on you know this movie that ended up being this huge movie for the studio and to know firsthand that the middle of the movie – somewhere in the middle it was not a movie that any of you would have paid to see. I find that really comforting actually. I find it really comforting to remind myself time and time again that the creative process takes time and it does take that bravery. It takes the bravery to say I don’t have it.

**Craig:** I don’t have it.

**Emily:** And I’m going to go ask people to help me find it.

**Craig:** And isn’t that kind of the story of Pixar. The movie that launched them, Toy Story, was just a different movie. And then they went, no, you know what – animating which was enormously expensive, to dump actual animation was unheard of. And they just said we don’t have it yet.

**Emily:** And we talk about the creatives a lot which we should, but I think there’s also enormous bravery that’s sort of shouldered by the producers because they are at the end of the day the bottom line matters for them. And that is their responsibility. And yet I think they’ve sort of assembled a group of producers who are willing to sit in that discomfort – I sound like Renee Brown. But they’re willing to sit in the discomfort in how messy it is to make something good and creative. And they’re all really, really there for their director.

**John:** That’s so in a world that’s completely different than any live action producer we’ve known.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** “What do you mean it’s not right?” They’re freaking out at all moments. And an animation producer just can’t do that.

**Emily:** Well, I mean, in fairness there’s a point in every process where it’s like, OK, like we’re done.

**John:** We got to release the movie here.

**Emily:** We’re done. It’s going out like this. We don’t have a choice. But, you know, they really do do a remarkable job of shielding the directors when they need to be shielded. And I think it’s one of the most remarkable things about that place.

**Craig:** God, I wish that they would learn this lesson – Hollywood.

**Emily:** Oh, Hollywood.

**Craig:** If you treat the people that make the stories well then they will have a chance to make the stories well. That’s it. It’s so simple. And they don’t – thank you. They don’t do it. They refuse to do it because they don’t – I think on some level they’re cynical and don’t really believe it matters. Like, ah, you could do it twice as fast. Doesn’t matter. Who cares? They all talk like this. I don’t know.

**John:** Yeah. Stereotypes.

**Craig:** Meh.

**John:** Argh.

**Craig:** You know what.

**John:** We’re going to do our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** We should do our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is really simple. It is the third season of Man in the High Castle, which I had let sort of sit back for a while, and then I watched the third season and it was just terrific. And so if you have fallen off watching that show, I wasn’t nuts about everything in the second season. There were a lot of pieces sort of moving around. But the third season they did really well.

And this is a very live action thing I’m about to say here, but I watched the first episode and I’m like, wow, that’s a really expensive set. I hope they use that set well, and they use those sets really well. They build all new sets and every character of that show gets dragged through almost every of the new sets they built. And as a person who has seen those line items on a budget they knew what they were doing. They planned that very carefully. They block shot.

**Craig:** I bet you they did not plan it carefully and then someone said, “If you want us to build this go back—“

**John:** And make sure every character walks on that set.

**Craig:** Through this set that we paid for.

**John:** It was really good. Craig, what’s your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is, so you know I’m a big escape room fan. And there are a lot of sort of escape room in a box things that they’re selling now, which are kind of fun. It’s not the proper escape room experience of course, but in its own way it’s actually really entertaining. Some of them are better than others. There’s a series of them called Exit The Game that I really like. There’s a lot of them – they’re great if you have kids and if you have kids that aren’t dummies, you know.

**John:** You know if your kids are dumb.

**Craig:** I’m just being honest. You know if your kid is an idiot. They don’t like this. Just send them out there to play their sports. But, no, shut up. But roomful of writers. “Oh, you’re being mean to the jocks.” All right. But if you have a smarty in your house the Exit The Game series are great. They have a very interesting mechanism where as you think you’ve solved a puzzle there’s a little wheel and you enter a code and that takes you a card and it shows you a thing, and then success. It’s fun and you don’t have to worry about the timer. Take your time.

And it’s put out by a company called, well I guess I would pronounce it like the River Thames, but it’s spelled Thames. Thames and Kosmos. That’s with a K. So give it a shot. And they rank the games by level of difficulty. So, you can start with one of the easier ones. That’s actually a way to figure out if your kid is smart or not, so try that.

**John:** Yeah. A little IQ test. Nice.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Emily, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Emily:** Yes. So I watched, this isn’t my One Cool Thing, but I watched one of those Fyre documentaries which was just–

**John:** Fyre Festival.

**Craig:** Fyre Festival.

**Emily:** Insane. But it made me think about the book Bad Blood. Has anybody read this book? Oh my god, OK, it’s amazing.

**Craig:** Do the voice. Do the voice.

**Emily:** No, I can’t do the voice. So it’s a story about Theranos which was that start up that imploded in spectacular fashion and the book is totally riveting. It’s fascinating. It’s like the best beach read you’ve ever read. And it’s all true. It’s insane.

**Craig:** Great villain.

**Emily:** Great. Oh my god, it’s amazing. And they’re going to make it into a movie, so go read it before you watch it.

**John:** Figure out how you would do it and then see how they did it. And yours is probably different/better.

**Craig:** Probably won’t be as good. I’m just being honest. They’re going to get somebody amazing. It’s going to be Sorkin.

**John:** They’ll get Sorkin probably.

**Craig:** I can’t – you can’t–

**Emily:** Yeah. They will get Sorkin. It’s a very Sorkin.

**Craig:** I mean, I’m just being reasonable. Come on.

**Emily:** Anyway, go read it. It’s fantastic.

**John:** Great. We are going to do some questions from the audience. So you questions are going to be fantastic. What’s your question?

**Female Audience Member:** It’s going to be fantastic. OK, my question is you told us at the beginning to go to Hollywood and learn how to do it there and what do you want us to do when we go there? What kind of job would you send a writer from here down there to go do? Because I’ve heard other shows where you said you need to go and you need to make sure that you are on a set. And you want to learn how to write for real actors and write for people who are actually going to be using your stuff. So what kind of a job would we look for even if we were doing an internship or any kind of work? What would we do?

**Craig:** Well, I mean, I don’t know – it is incredibly useful to be on a set, but you got to – you don’t just get there right away. I mean, you can, but that’s more of like a production assistant job where you’re running around and you’re on the walkie-talkie and you’re learning the basics of film production. I’ll tell you what I did, because I didn’t know anybody. I drove out there and I went to a temp agency. Actually I went to three temp agencies. And I took their tests, which is mostly typing. And then they started sending me out for jobs.

But there’s a few of them in Los Angeles that service the entertainment business essentially exclusively. And one of them placed me in a position where I was mostly a file clerk at a little ad agency. And I did that. I did that and then I kind of found an opportunity to write something and show somebody. And then they’re like, OK, you can be a writer now. Sort of like that.

But just get a job near somebody and maybe you’re also in an apartment building where other people are just like you. And then everyone is talking. Things happen. But you’ve got to be there.

**John:** Emily, you live here. So tell us about that kind of experience living here. Two microphones.

**Emily:** Do you remember the Lady Gaga performance from the Super Bowl where somebody held the microphone like this for her? That’s what I’m into. Could you just hold it for me? No, I’m kidding. I do live up here. I’m from up here. I lived in LA for like a hot second and I did actually exactly what Craig just described. I went to like three temp agencies. I took typing tests. And they placed me at Creative Artists Agency where I was like a probably very abysmal assistant for a while. I would recommend that, too.

From up here that’s I think the best thing to do. Because unless you go down and you have all the connections in the world, which you probably don’t, I think temp agencies are the way to do it. And frankly assistant jobs turn over like left and right. So there’s always, always openings. And I would recommend that.

**John:** And I will also say when we recommend people move down to Los Angeles a lot of times it’s folks who just graduated from college. And so we say you’re going to start your life somewhere, start your life in Los Angeles if that’s what you want to do. That’s not always the same advice for somebody who is in their 30s or 40s who is looking for a career change. That’s a different thing. And I know in previous episodes, we’ll try to find a link to it, but we’ve talked about how do you know when it’s time to leave that place. It’s a different equation when you’re not at the very start of your life. 20s isn’t the start of your life, but you’re not at that transitional point.

Another question from the audience?

**Female Audience Member:** Hi. I don’t hear you guys talk much about advising screenwriters to make their own movies and what kind of exposure and success can come from that.

**John:** So I’ve made a movie for myself. You’ve directed a movie. It can be a great thing. If you are aspiring to be a writer-director you need to do both parts of that job, and so directing something you’ve written is a fantastic step.

If your goal is to be a writer, to be a television showrunner or be a television staff writer, having directed a thing may not help you out a tremendous amount. And I’m actually thinking back to even Megan McDonnell who is the Scriptnotes producer, she directed a really terrific short, and it was great, and really showed that she could direct. But that wasn’t sort of her main goal. And so it’s gotten her some attention, but it would get her more attention if she really wanted to be a director. And she really wants to be a writer. So I wouldn’t recommend somebody spend a year of their life directing a movie if that’s not their goal. Thoughts?

**Emily:** Yeah. I agree with John. I think it kind of depends on what your end goal is. And if the thing you want to do more than anything in the world is direct then you should do that. And there’s ways to do that here. There’s a lot of independent movies that do get made up here, even though I know it’s not a huge independent film town. But I agree that it’s a lot of money and it’s a lot of work if your ultimate goal is to get your writing out there.

I mean, as somebody who read a lot of scripts I can tell you there’s a lot of people out in Hollywood reading a lot of scripts all the time. So if that’s the thing you want to do I would just focus on that.

**John:** I think we can take one more question here before we wrap up.

**Female Audience Member:** So this is actually more of a craft question probably. I don’t know why I throw myself in the way of these arguments but I do. And I see the most common response to I’m having a problem with my plot/with my character/I don’t understand this that I see that drives me up the wall is, “Oh, you need to nail down your theme.” I don’t like that.

But I also understand that that means something different to every different person. So, my question is when, 1, is theme the correct solution that is something you need to look at, and 2, when is not the correct solution? When is the wrong thing?

**John:** This is a great question. So when do we need to think about themes. And you just gave a great example of that because Inside Out you had these character who represent these big thematic ideas and you had the wrong two ideas clashing together. So–

**Emily:** I will say I’m probably one of – so I’ve done a little bit of script consulting and I’m probably somebody you would hate to work with because while I don’t always call it theme I feel like theme is at the core of almost everything I’m poking at when I – I think that when you go to ask questions about what your character is doing and what it’s about and what they want and why do they really want that, I think all of that at the end of the day is theme.

So while I totally agree with you that the general note of “work on your theme” is super unhelpful.

**John:** That’s not an actionable note. You can’t–

**Emily:** It’s not an actionable note. But what is an actionable note, which is your theme actually if you dig down into it is about what is your character expecting. What do they want to have happen? What do they expect it’s going to do for their life?

So, all those questions about what your character and what’s motivating them, those are all theme questions. So I feel like when you’re getting that note what you’re actually getting – like when somebody is saying to you, “Oh, you’re theme,” what they’re actually trying to poke at I think probably not very well is that they don’t understand what your main character is doing. What do you think, Craig?

**Craig:** When we are stuck trying to describe these very nebulous things we come up with a word. And so of course when someone gives you this word it’s normal to say this isn’t – it’s not that you’re angry at them, it’s just more like you’re not helping me. What I always think about with this is what is the point of writing this. In a big way, not even inside of the characters. So like why would anybody want to go see this in the first place? Why does this deserve to be made? Why should 1,500 people in various jobs all assemble to create this thing?

And that comes down to something important to you that you’re saying. That’s you. That’s not the character. That’s not this character, or that character. It’s not about the sequence or anything. But you. That thing – that needs to be there.

And if you know what that is, this argument you’re making, this thing you want people to understand, the raison d’être of this, then I think what ends up happening is you find a way to start unifying things. So rather than having characters do things that make sense over here, and a character that is doing a thing that makes sense over here, but they don’t have necessarily some kind of relation, it’s because these things aren’t connected to the point that you’re saying the whole reason to show up is this. And once you know the whole reason to show up it actually becomes really easy to start making decisions about why people should do things. Well what should the ending be? The ending should be the opposite of the beginning and those two things are connected to this thing that you’re trying to say to everybody. This is why people should show up.

Forget people showing up in a theater. This is why people should show up to actually make the damn thing. So that’s what I think about.

**John:** And I think also there’s other useful words that are sort of thrown around that mean the same kind of thing as theme. When people talk about the conflicts, or I don’t feel like these conflicts are really advancing what the character needs, you may have thought of these great set pieces but they don’t actually do anything that your characters need to learn or achieve or accomplish. They’re just interesting set pieces that aren’t really connected to the central idea.

Sometimes we’ll talk about that central dramatic question. The thesis statement. We often talk on Scriptnotes that television sort of never fully answers that question but a movie does answer that question. As an audience member you sit down and you watch a movie expecting that it’s a character’s one-time experience that is going to transform them. And so if you’re not transforming a character, if it’s not that one unique experience then there’s something that’s not really quite figured out yet.

And what you may want to do is kind of what you’re describing here is look at what are the things we have here. What seems like they’re related? What’s the most interesting thing here? How can we bring that forward and build conflicts around it that can really explore that issue?

**Emily:** I also think it’s worth pointing out that a lot of people don’t find their theme on the first draft. So, I think sometimes we want to make it really clean and we want to say my movie is about this blank. And I think for a lot of writers I know they know they don’t have it on the first draft. So part of what you’re doing is you’re poking around and you’re trying to find out where the character wants to go and what the character wants to do. And it doesn’t even quite present itself to you until a draft or two in. And then you go, oh crap, my movie is about this. I get it. Like I had to go in this weird circuitous path to find my center, but you’ll find it.

And I guess that’s what I’m pointing out of like when you’re floating around in theme land and you can’t find it, and I think Craig is 100% right about – it’s the first time – but I think he’s 100% right about theme and that it being more about this larger question. But if you can’t find the question and you’re like, “Blech, I don’t know what it is,” I would go back to your main character and know that it might take you – you might have to just literally write a couple drafts and then it will show up.

And it might be somebody else reading your draft and saying, “You know what I think this is about? I think it’s about this.” Which is why even though this is this sort of isolating process to write something, it’s so good to have other people that you trust who can look at your stuff and help you identify those things because sometimes they’re not apparent.

**Craig:** Seems like a great advertisement for the society that has put this on.

**John:** Absolutely. Brain trust revealed. That is our show. As always our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

We need to thank Seattle.

**Craig:** Nice job, Seattle.

**John:** And there are several people in Seattle we need to thank. Certainly Jeremy and Kristen for bringing us up here. The Northwest Screenwriters Guild. TheFilmSchool, all one word. Thank you so much for having us up here. This was really fun. And have a great night. Thank you all.

**Craig:** Thank you.

Links:

* Thank you, [Northwest Screenwriters Guild](https://nwsg.org/) and [TheFilmSchool](http://thefilmschool.com/programs/) for making this event happen!
* And thank you to our incredible guest: [Emily Zulauf](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1637392/)!
* [Scriptnotes, 225: Only haters hate rom-coms](https://johnaugust.com/2015/only-haters-hate-rom-coms) with Tess Morris
* [Michael Arndt on Endings](https://johnaugust.com/2018/michael-arndt-on-endings)
* [Amy Poehler](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K25d7QIC27c) as Joy in INSIDE OUT
* [The Man In the High Castle](https://www.amazon.com/Man-High-Castle-Season/dp/B07FDKRJQC)
* [Exit The Game](https://www.thamesandkosmos.com/index.php/kosmosgames/exit-the-abandoned-cabin)
* [Bad Blood](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/549478/bad-blood-by-john-carreyrou/9781524731656/) by John Carreyrou
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [Emily Zulauf](https://twitter.com/emilyzulauf) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) “Jazz Waltz” by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/38720-20Seattle20Live20Show202019.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 385: Rules and Plans — Transcript

February 6, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 385 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about the plans your characters make and how to share them with the reader. Plus we’ll discuss rule-breakers, the techniques that absolutely no traditional screenwriting program will teach you but how they could elevate and invigorate your script.

But first, some reminders. Craig, we have a live show coming up.

**Craig:** Yes we do. In Seattle, the great city of Seattle and the great state of Washington. I’m very excited about this one. We’re going to be there February 6th at 7pm. John is going to fill you in on all these extra details. But what I’m really excited about is that we have one special guest, a very dear friend of mine, Emily Zulauf, who is a former development executive at Pixar. You may have heard of Pixar. They’re a small animation company.

**John:** Little upstart thing. They’re trying to use computer animation. We’ll see if it works.

**Craig:** And their deal is they at least claim to be good at story, so I suppose she might know something or another. And it’s going to be good. She’s a wonderful person. So I’m very excited to have Emily there. And you guys should – Seattle people come out and see us. Don’t leave us hanging. We’ve got a link. I guess it will be in the show notes. Is that right?

**John:** Yeah. The link will be in the show notes. So tickets we now know are $20 or $10 if you’re a member of the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, which apparently exists.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** Or The Film School. So, $20 or $10, but come see us. It is at the AMC Theater Pacific Place 11, I guess. We’re going to show up there and we’re going to have a great time. I’m going to be way deep into an Arlo Finch book tour. Craig is flying up just for the evening. It will be a really fun time.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** It’ll be sort of an intersectionality of Arlo Finch and Scriptnotes and Seattle. It should be a good time.

**Craig:** The Film School is the name of a film school.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** TheFilmSchool. All one word.

**John:** All one word.

**Craig:** All right. So, don’t think if you are at a film school–

**John:** Any film school–

**Craig:** You’re paying $20 if you’re at a film school.

**John:** But if you’re at The Film School.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Definite articles. Indefinite articles.

**Craig:** Hugely important.

**John:** Not every language has the distinction between them.

**Craig:** Interesting. Interesting. I love the distinction between those two things. And I will also say having been to Seattle many times, everything costs $20. Everything.

**John:** Oh, totally. Absolutely.

**Craig:** Looking at a fish costs $20. Just standing in that market, looking at a fish, $20.

**John:** Yeah. Pike Place Market, so expensive just to your eyes, everywhere they look.

**Craig:** Everywhere you look. $20. So you guys can afford it. Yeah. I love that place.

**John:** Craig, we need some photos of you catching some fish at the Pike Place Market, because otherwise people won’t believe you’re actually in Seattle.

**Craig:** I don’t think they let you catch the fish. The deal is you buy the fish and then they throw it to each other. Because otherwise, let’s face, there’s going to be fish everywhere. Have you seen the Gum Wall, John?

**John:** Oh, I’ve seen the Gum Wall. I have good photos of the Gum Wall.

**Craig:** I love the Gum Wall. I love it. Anyway, Seattle, one of my favorite places, so please buy some tickets. Come see us. We’re incredibly entertaining in person. You can’t even imagine how much fun we are. Like beyond.

**John:** We have to cut so much out of the episodes just because it would be too much joy.

**Craig:** Too much cheering.

**John:** Yeah. So, that’s February 6, but then on February 9 I will be back in Los Angeles for the Arlo Finch launch party. It’s at Chevalier’s, the bookstore on Larchmont. That’s 12:30 in the afternoon on February 9. So come see me there. I will be signing copies of Arlo Finch. It’s as simple as it can be. You come in, you buy your book, I sign it for you, I talk a little bit, I answer some questions. I think I’m going to have special cool little patches to hand out, so come see me if you want to on February 9.

But if you can’t make it on February 9, preorder the book because, good lord, I would love to hit the charts.

**Craig:** Wouldn’t that be nice?

**John:** That’s sort of how you hit the charts on a second book is by people buying it the first week.

**Craig:** They pre-buy, they load up.

**John:** They load up.

**Craig:** Don’t just do it for the patch, people.

**John:** Do it for – because you know if it does happen to cross over that threshold and show up on the bestsellers list you will know that you were the reason why it did.

**Craig:** You were the straw.

**John:** You were the straw that broke the–

**Craig:** Finch’s back.

**John:** Yeah. Something. We have a brand new feature that we are rolling out, so not in this episode but we have to prepare for it. This is a new idea that we’re going to try out. It’s called the Pitch Session. And way back in Episode 274 we had Eric Voss who I guess he pitched to you like two years ago at the Austin Film Festival. You thought it was great. You had him record the pitch and so we played it and we discussed it. And we’re going to try to do that again, but opening it up to all of our listeners.

What we’re looking for is a 60 to 90 second pitch. It can be for a TV show. It can be for a feature. But it’s 60 to 90 seconds that sort of sells the idea and you are going to send in an audio recording. We’re going to listen to the recording and put a couple of them up and then discuss them afterwards. So it’s a chance to kind of do what we do on the Three Page Challenge but with audio pitches.

**Craig:** Pitches. I love it. I think it’s going to be fun. I do this at Austin. I judge the big finals. I mean, I’m just blown away. People show up to this thing every year. It’s amazing. It’s in this big bar. They pack the place. Pack it.

**John:** Packed.

**Craig:** The thing about it that blows my mind is people are so respectful of the people that are pitching because you know how hard it is to get a roomful of people to just listen. Well, this place will quiet down and listen really well to every single pitch. I think there’s like 20 of them. So, it’s been fun to that and, yeah, I think it’s educational because like it or not sometimes pitches happen.

**John:** Yeah. So, I would say that the pitch form that we’re looking for, the 60 to 90 second pitch, that’s not the kind of thing that you’re usually going into sit down and really pitch to an executive. But it is the kind of casual thing that you would be doing at a party. It’s a little bit longer than an elevator pitch, but it’s that short distillation of the idea.

And so really we’re going to be responding to does this feel like a movie or a TV show idea. And did we get enough out of this that we can actually see what it is you’re describing that you’re going to be trying to write. So, that’s what we’re looking for. So if you have an idea like this that you want to try to pitch at us the URL you want is johnaugust.com/pitch. And there’s a whole little form you fill out. You click buttons that say that you’re submitting this of your own freewill. That you’re not going to try to sue us. And that this is all–

**Craig:** Don’t sue us.

**John:** This is not a contest. This is not a competition. This is just for the learns. So, depending on how it goes we might do it again. If it goes poorly we may deny this ever happened.

**Craig:** Correct. We erase it from the record.

**John:** Yep. Speaking of erasing things from the record–

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** We have more follow up. So this is Brooke in Los Angeles and Craig can you read what Brooke wrote to us?

**Craig:** Yes, so we recently had I guess a rerun of our Raiders episode, which is one of my favorites. Here’s what Brooke wrote. “I do have two questions about your episode on Raiders of the Lost Ark. I share your enthusiasm for the movie. It’s one of my favorites. That said, now that I’ve read the screenplay my feelings are decidedly more mixed. I always assumed Marion was being hyperbolic when she angrily accused Indiana Jones of taking advantage of her when she was ‘just a child.’ I hope Karen Allen will forgive me when I say that through my younger eyes I thought she was older than the script reveals she is supposed to be, 26. Doing the math, it turns out Lucas, Kasdan, and Spielberg intended Indy to have sex with her when she was 16 and to be completely blasé about that when confronted with her justified outrage.

“Now at first I was inclined to chalk it up to the times were different. But then on your recommendation I listened to the recorded conversations of Lucas, Kasdan, and Spielberg. And I heard Lucas arguing in favor of making Marion younger, as young as 11 when Indy was to have had sex with her. He thought making her 11 would be it ‘more interesting’ than if she were 16 or 17. Frankly, I was shocked and disgusted. And then confused.

“Here are my questions. One, when you’re creating a character that’s supposed to be a hero, albeit flawed, why would you ever want to so far as to make him a pedophile as Lucas was advocating? Can you please help me understand why these renowned creators thought that audiences would accept that kind of character? Two, why didn’t you address this issue in your podcast? You too are so wonderfully outspoken regarding things you support and don’t. Why didn’t this make the cut?”

Oh boy. You know what, John, just answer this with a yes or a no.

**John:** [laughs] Oh yeah. Simple yes/no. I’ll answer question two first because it’s the simplest answer. I didn’t know any of that backstory. And so while I had seen parts of the interview and I’d watched the movie a bunch of times I had no idea that there was this issue of how old Marion was, how old she would have been 10 years ago. It never occurred to me and I hadn’t seen that discussion from the transcripts or from the recording from before.

**Craig:** When I read this question it jogged a memory, like oh yeah, I think I remember reading that. But I had read that thing a long time ago. So, when we did the podcast it was not at all on my internal memory radar.

**John:** Yeah. So, as to the first question there, I think it’s absurd – I’m horrified. I think it’s bizarre and weird to have a conversation in which the protagonist had sex with a person who was 11 years old. That’s just bizarre and horrifying and I can’t even fathom sort of how that happens. So I can’t answer that in any meaningful way.

What I will say is that I can imagine scenarios, this isn’t apparently how this all happened, but I can imagine scenarios in which you sort of accidentally end up at that place where you didn’t do the math right. And so they knew each other this time and you cast somebody who was a certain age which would have meant they knew each other at a certain time. That is a thing you probably could find in a lot of other movies. When you actually do the math you’re like, wait, that means that she was negative four years old. That happens.

But that doesn’t seem like it would happen here. It sounds like they actually had a conversation where it’s like, oh, she could have been 11. And that is just wrong. And there’s other movies where these problematic things happen. Animal House being an example where that is not cool what happens in Animal House. And in looking at the movies you have to acknowledge that this is a thing which is problematic about the movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. Obviously Brooke is correct to say that the times were different is a thing. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept anything now about it. But things do require some context of course. I think in this case the one thing I would push back on Brooke is when you say, “Can you help me understand why these three renowned creators thought that audiences would accept that kind of character?” From what I’m reading from your question, because I haven’t actually reviewed that transcript again, so I’m just taking it off of your recollection here, it does seem like Kasdan and Spielberg were not at all in favor of Marion being 11 and in fact advocated that she be 16 or 17, which even now we would consider to be too young but not necessarily in the zone of 11 which is horrifying.

So, really the question is what the hell was Lucas thinking. And the answer is I have no idea. The only thing I can guess is that he was such a total dork that he thought in his mind that that maybe was – I have no idea.

**John:** I don’t know either and I don’t want to sort of get into places where I’m speculating on his mindset.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Or what he was actually saying or that we’re actually understanding him properly here. The larger conversation I think we can have is when you dig back into how things came to be I think you need to be mindful that there’s the movie that finally was made and then there’s the process that led to the movie. And some of the process that led to the movie will have a bunch of false steps and blind alleys and things that were not reflected in the final work.

And so it’s fair to look at sort of where stuff come from and the history of stuff, but in looking at the history of stuff how much influence should that have on your perception of the final work. And that’s an artistic question that is fair to ask, but I think it’s also fair to – if you choose to not dig back into that history I think you’re allowed to not dig back into the history and look at the finished work as well. And not having seen the script to know that she was supposed to be 26 years old and this time factor, you can forgive a person for not doing that math or sort of exploring that.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re completely right that the important thing is the choices that were made. Not the choices that were not made. I think that Brooke brings up a reasonable point that the suggestion here is so bizarre as to be disconcerting on its own. And this isn’t a comedy where, I mean, you know, when Todd Phillips and I sat in a room together and just riffed on ideas for the Hangover movies it was – terrible things were said. The point is those movies were transgressive. And of course the point being that you then make choices that you think will work, not choices that won’t or that are going to make people disgusted.

In this case that’s not that – I don’t get it and it’s not good at all. [laughs] I don’t like it.

**John:** But, so you think back to you and Todd Phillips had sort of your writers’ room of two people to talk through doing the Hangover movies. Every TV show has a writers’ room where they’re discussing how to make the show. And a lot of what they’re discussing is things that do not become the final show. And so–

**Craig:** 100 percent.

**John:** All those discussions are not – they’re not reflected in what the final thing was, but they probably had some horrible, terrible ideas or plans for like, you know, ultimately it’s going to be revealed that this was the connection and that wasn’t the thing. So that’s not canon. Like the stuff that happens in the writers’ room isn’t canon.

**Craig:** No, it’s not.

**John:** You want to be able to separate those things.

**Craig:** Absolutely. And I guess the only difference here is that if he’s saying that it’s cooler – I am – I hope that he was just maybe tripping on acid that day or something, because that’s just a crazy thing to say. So, I can’t explain it, Brooke. I can’t explain it. But, clearly by the time the movie was made all three of those guys were seeing Marion as the person that Karen Allen is.

**John:** Who is more of a peer to Harrison Ford’s character.

**Craig:** She’s a grown woman. And her age difference with Harrison Ford I don’t think was extraordinary at all. So, clearly cooler heads prevailed. Thank god.

**John:** So, while we’re talking about Indiana Jones, last week on the Slate Culture Gabfest David Plotz was talking about watching Raiders of the Lost Ark with his young kids and he said he found it really problematic racially. That there was a lot of sort of – you look at all of the non-white characters in the film and they are portrayed horribly. And that was not a thing I saw at all when I went back and watched it for this episode a couple of years ago. But I can totally see that. I can totally imagine that watching through it with that in your head you would recognize that like, oh, yeah, it is just a bunch of white people doing stuff and everyone who is not the white person in the movie does not fare well in it. And I think that’s a fair criticism to look at the actual finished work because you’re not looking back at the original intent of things.

**Craig:** Sure. I mean, at some point I – if we go way far back, every single movie – every single movie – will be problematic because society, it was in our lens of today problematic. Thoroughly. Top to bottom.

**John:** Yeah. Thoroughly.

**Craig:** I mean, so what’s the point of the exercise? Yes, the answer is yes. It’s all problematic.

**John:** Yes. And so I don’t want to sort of go back and remake Raiders of the Lost Ark to take care of that thing. But I think it’s worth noticing that about the movie so that if we’re trying to make a film in that spirit now to be mindful like, oh you know what, we can’t do that thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** If we’re making that movie in 2019 you can’t do that thing. And especially as we go into this era where we’re remaking everything there has to be a thought early on in the process is like, OK, just because we love this thing let’s also be aware of the things that just we cannot be doing in 2019 and beyond.

**Craig:** You know, maybe this is naïve but I feel like that conversation now is happening consistently across every single project in Hollywood. Am I naïve? Or do you think that it is?

**John:** You are not naïve. I would say it’s not every single project, but I would say most studio projects at an early stage are being mindful of that. And you and I both worked on some high profile ones where, yes, those conversations happened early on and frequently.

**Craig:** Yes. Which is good. And so the path of this stuff has been a somewhat promising one. Delayed, sure. Too long? Yes. But it is I think maybe a little easy to tee up some of these older movies and go, “Look, it doesn’t match our enlightened view of now.” Because that’s–

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Most movies before a certain age are going to have really, really problematic things. What I like about Brooke’s question is she was bringing up a specific thing from the script and from the conversations about stuff and thank you Brooke for writing in about it.

**Craig:** No question. And really specific answer to you Brooke about question number one. No, you would never want to go so far as to do that. I hate saying blanket things. If your character is a pedophile then we’re not going to like him ever. Period. The end.

**John:** Nope. Don’t do it.

That would be breaking a rule, wouldn’t it Craig?

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** This is Craig’s topic. So, Craig, hit us off with these rule-breakers.

**Craig:** So I’m working on this script where because of the tone of what the project is it’s very carefree and wild. And lately it seems to me that culture is starting to get a little more comfortable with acknowledging that culture exists, not necessarily dipping into the meta because not everything needs to be meta. But as we write screenplays there’s a formality that we may not necessarily need all the time. And in fact breaking some of these stuffy rules can kind of help bring your script to life and convey your intentions in fun ways if it’s done well. If it’s done for a purpose.

**John:** So, Craig, are we talking about the stuff that a writer would do physically on the page or things that movies would do or both?

**Craig:** I’m talking really about the page. This is a super writey topic. I’m not really here to talk in a big way about margins and fonts and stuff like that, although we will get into that a little bit. I guess I want to start with freeing yourself however you want, because we know that, OK, you have been taught at home by your school, or a book, or a “guru”, or the Internet, or people on Reddit that there is a format; you must follow the format; if you don’t follow the format you will be ejected into space. And I’m here to tell you that that’s only true if your script is bad.

If your script is good and it starts being free it can actually be exciting to read. If you are a reader, you are reading the same kind of thing over and over and over and over and over. It must be fun, I would imagine, to suddenly get something that’s wild and great. So, for instance, let’s start with the easiest one: breaking the fourth wall. Talking to the reader in description. If it’s cutesy and annoying, it’s bad. But if you want to have some fun, if you want to play around with their expectations, if you want to say you thought it was this didn’t you, no. You can do these things if it’s that kind of tone that allows it.

Similarly, I think, you can use any page as you want. I believe that you could put one single word on a page if it was a great word and if it required that. I think that would be awesome.

**John:** All right. So let’s talk about situations where you might want to do these things. What I like about both of these suggestions is they really are about the writing and they’re about sort of what the experience is of reading the script and how the experience of reading the script is meant to match or mimic at least the experience of watching the scene happen on a big screen in front of you.

So, in breaking the fourth wall if you’re writing Deadpool, which is constantly breaking the fourth wall, having that sort of chit-chattiness in there could be good. The Shane Black scripts are notorious for having a lot of chit-chat in them, or talking to you. That can work and that can be fine. If it works right for the tone that’s fantastic.

The thing about having a single word on a page that might be exactly the right choice if you’re making A Quiet Place. If you’re making something that actually is all about how disorienting the experience is, great. If you’re making a fast-paced thriller, a single word on a page might not be the right choice.

**Craig:** That’s right. It’s a little bit of what poets do at times. And sometimes people interestingly that write books for children will be incredibly inventive with the page and the way words are laid out. Sometimes in our scripts we need to depict disorientation or madness or the voice of an all-powerful being. Well, you could just put it in 12-point Courier. Or not. You know? You have some choices. You aren’t locked into this very dry format that was created in the, what, ‘40s?

I mean, we live in a bit of a freer time. Set yourself free a little bit.

**John:** Yeah. So the quick history of screenplays is that they were originally just a shot list basically. They morphed into what we kind of think as the modern screenplay is around the Casablanca time where it’s not just a series of camera shots. It really has a better feel for what the movie actually is like. But they were all typed. And so the reason they were 12-point Courier is because they were all typed at a certain point. No one is typing them anymore.

We still use 12-point Courier because it is – Courier Prime if you’re fancy – we use Courier because – because it’s standard it sort of takes away distraction. And we sort of know what it’s like. We have sense of how much time it’s going to take because we’re used to it. But if you are doing something where you have a voice of god or something that is intruding and bold isn’t getting it there or italics isn’t getting it there, there could be a case to be made for using a different font for certain things.

I remember early on as I was doing lyrics in scripts I would put them in Verdana italic, partly so the lines wouldn’t break, but also so it would feel different because they were singing. In Courier Prime we added the special italics that look really cool and different largely for lyrics so you really can see that like, oh, this is a different feel. It kind of feels like it’s singing.

So, it is fine to mix it up somewhat. I remember reading a Gus Van Sant script maybe for My Own Private Idaho, or something else, where it was in a bunch of different fonts and colors. And it was annoying. I did not find it a joyful experience. But that’s not to say that you couldn’t make something great and joyful that way.

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure. And listen one person’s excitement is another person’s annoyance. But I think that there is something that translates beyond the script if you do this in a way that is effective. By freeing yourself of the rigid formatting rules here and there you’re also allowing your mind to kind of be a little freer about what could possibly happen in this movie.

So, Pulp Fiction works like a regular movie. Yes, it plays around with time and all that, but other movies have played around with time. It’s basically a regular movie. Until at one point when Uma Thurman says, “Don’t be a…” and then she makes, well, weirdly a rectangle, not a square on screen. And a square appears on screen. Which is bizarre. But if I read that in a script and her dialogue said, “Don’t be a…” And then there was just a picture of a square. I’d be like, what the – ooh. This is somebody who is not necessarily bound by limitations. They’re thinking kind of wildly. The other thing that I am really enjoying doing is lying.

Because we have this thing where when we’re writing scripts our action description is telling you what you see on screen. But so much of what we try and do when we’re shooting is misdirect. It’s magic tricks. We are essentially visually lying to you and then revealing something else. There’s this – may I read a short paragraph from my favorite book Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad?

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** “The side of his head hit the wheel twice and the end of what appeared to be a long cane clattered round and knocked over a little camp stool. It looked as though after wrenching that thing from somebody assure he had lost his balance in the effort. The thin smoke had blown away and we were clear of the snag and looking ahead I could see that in another 100 yards or so I would be free to sheer off, away from the bank, but my feet felt so very warm and wet that I had to look down. The man had rolled on his back and stared straight at me. Both his hands clutched that cane. It was the shaft of a spear that either thrown or lunged through the opening had caught him in the side just below the ribs.”

So, we have this wonderful impressionistic lying, because our eyes lie to us, and people lie to us. And in experiences somebody gets stabbed through the chest with a spear and what we see is a guy is holding a cane. And what is in fact a man bleeding to death we just feel warm wet on our feet. That’s wonderful.

You can lie to people in description. You can say this is what happened. And then somebody says something and then you can say in description, oh wait, no, it’s this. And that is an effective rule-breaking way to actually relay what is a very common and completely accepted cinematic technique.

**John:** Absolutely. So what you’re describing though is the case of is a movie supposed reality, like what you see is exactly what it is, or is it a subjective reality. And the nature of your script may lend itself to you don’t quite know. The movie Memento is full of that. You’re not quite sure how much to trust your narrator. And so the kinds of things you’re seeing in the script description would make sense for that, because you just don’t know how much to trust the narrator and therefore the script that you’re reading in terms of what’s really going on here.

So, again, the right kind of script that makes sense. And it’s a question we’ve answered before on the podcast about like should you reveal who somebody is in the script if they’re not going to be able to see who that person is in the movie?

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I always think like remember that you are the person in the theater watching this. And so what is your experience watching this? If it is ambiguous to you, you can use that ambiguity on the page as long as it doesn’t feel like you’re cheating in a bad way. If you’re cheating in a good way like this description from Heart of Darkness, go for it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Will this help the people making the movie deliver what you want them to deliver? Simple as that.

**John:** So here is a complicated thing I did – this is way back on the first Charlie’s Angels. And so it was a sequence we didn’t end up shooting the way I wanted us to shoot. But here was the idea. So, in the final sort of castle fight Lucy Liu’s character is on one side of a gate and the Thin Man is on the other side of the gate and they are running in opposite directions. And we basically split screen and we see them running in opposite directions trying to get to each other. And so it’s done in sort of real time simultaneous. You’re trying to figure out where they are. And they will punch each other through openings in this castle wall as they’re doing it.

And it was really fun to do. But to try to do that normally on the page really wouldn’t have made sense, because it really wasn’t meant to be split-screened. So what I did is at the bottom page I said, “Now turn your script counterclockwise,” and I had two parallel blocks of text running on the next two pages that were talking through what was happening. And so these are the simultaneous actions.

It was really fun. It was really cool to read. It was really fun to write because just like you have dual dialogue and there can be reasons why dual dialogue is so effective, this was really a cool way to do it. It was torturous for the line producers. And I think they didn’t like it. But it really gave you the experience of why this was going to be a cool moment that you hadn’t seen before. And ultimately when they did get back together and they were both in the same frame it was exciting.

That’s the kind of thing that I think if you were to do that in a spec script people would notice. And if they were digging your script and they got to that it would pop out to them as like this person has an interesting idea and a cinematic eye for what is interesting and possible.

**Craig:** Totally. I love that. And you know what else? It immediately informs me that you care. You cared enough to say, you know what, I have a better way of doing this. And I don’t mind talking to you because I’m confident that my way is awesome. And that confidence is something that I think frankly helps people buy into your work.

**John:** Yeah. So, to wrap this up I would say an important thing to understand about rule-breaking is you can’t break rules if you don’t understand rules to begin with. And so I think having an understanding of what the screenplay format is is essential because otherwise you could just generate chaos that isn’t doing the basic jobs of what a screenplay needs to do.

But once you understand how screenplays basically work then to break the rules or bend the rules or do things that are unexpected can be great. It can be sort of provocative and make people lean in and be excited to see what you’re going to do next. Is that a fair assessment from you, Craig?

**Craig:** It absolutely is. The only caution I would put out there to our listeners: if you are a reader at a company, please do not email us complaining that you already get thousands of screenplays that are poorly formatted or the people that write them think they’re so damn clever and are doing all this crazy stuff. Because I don’t care about those people. They’re bad writers anyway. The format is irrelevant. They’re bad. You weren’t going to buy their script. You’re not not recommending this script because the formatting was weird. You’re not recommending it because it stank. So, just – I don’t care about that complaint. Keep that complaint to yourself. It is boring to me.

**John:** Yeah. And all the rule-breaking in the world will not help you if your writing is not fantastic.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So the writing is still always paramount. We should ask our friend Kevin who is a reader how much of this he sees. How much he sees people doing clever, innovative things on the page.

**Craig:** You know what? We should have Kevin on the show.

**John:** I’ve asked Kevin and he said no.

**Craig:** Oh really? Interesting. Maybe because – well, first of all Kevin is not his real name. [laughs] His real name is–

**John:** Thaddeus.

**Craig:** Thaddeus. Because he is a working reader and perhaps that would violate some sort of thing.

**John:** Yeah. Maybe it would. So my topic for the week is planning. And I actually had this idea two weeks ago because I had a lunch with Ben Wittes who runs this great blog called Lawfare, which is all about federal policy and state security and does a lot of stuff about the Trump Administration and sort of the Russia stuff.

And I asked him a question and basically I wanted to know of all the people involved in this whole Russia mess who there do you think actually has a plan, actually sort of knows what’s going on and has a plan for what’s going to happen next. And how many of those people are just scrambling and just going one thing to the next thing to the next thing. And he said that he believed that almost everybody was scrambling.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Because nobody sort of knows enough to actually make a good plan. And so that same week I was also writing the third Arlo Finch and in the third Arlo Finch it starts with the characters having this plan. And I had to sort of reveal to the reader kind of what the plan was, but it got me thinking well how do you reveal the plan and how much plan does the reader really need to know. And how much can you hold back which is more exciting for the reader. So I thought we’d talk about characters and plans and motivation and how you share them with the reader.

**Craig:** Yeah. I would imagine that the first question you have to ask is is my character a planner or not, because there are some characters that their hallmark is that they move through the day in a kind of bizarre fashion. The Big Lebowski has no plan. Ever. And that’s part of why that character works. But if they do have a plan, then yeah, you need to figure out how much people need to know and specifically if it’s helpful to conceal part of the plan from them.

**John:** Yep. Absolutely. Sometimes you want to kind of pre-answer some questions that are naturally going to come up like why is this character doing this. What is their aim? What are they actually going after? Sometimes you need to just take away the questions. And so a script I just turned in I didn’t need a big plan for this thing, I just needed to know – the character would say, “No, I can get you in the club because my uncle is the manager.” That’s all I needed to know. I didn’t have to hear the whole plan or how we’re going to get there or what the whole set was going to be. As long as I knew you could get through the door and that everybody would believe they could get through the door that was enough. And the surprises that could come up because people didn’t really know the whole rest of the plan, that was fun.

So, it’s recognizing the minimum that an audience needs to know about the plan going forward. And by plan I don’t necessarily mean like here’s how we’re going to do the heist. It often is just the character says like, “We’ll be in Denver in two hours.” It’s like, OK, as long as I know a destination that’s great. Or, “Finals are next week.” Ok, great, you set a time and so I know that finals are a thing that’s out there. It’s kind of setting a framework for what’s going to happen in the next little bit of your story.

**Craig:** And it’s hopefully telling us a little bit about this character’s method of interacting with the world. Some people are incredibly cautious. Prudent. Methodical. Planning can become an interesting aspect of your personality. Over-planning is an aspect of a certain kind of personality, just as under-planning is. Sometimes your plans frustrate people. What you really want to avoid are situations where your character comes up with a plan. The plan is flawed. People point out the flaws. And the character says, “Don’t worry about it. It will be fine.” And then it kind of is. You think, well, was it just that you needed the character to do that and then you realized it was a flawed plan so you had somebody say it to take the curse off of it but you didn’t actually – it makes that character into an idiot. And we do not like that at all.

**John:** Yeah. The other crucial thing about showing the plan is so that the plan can go wrong. So if we as a reader, we as an audience don’t understand what they were trying to do, or sort of what the steps were they were attempting to do then when things go amiss we won’t know that they’re going amiss. And so if we don’t know the basic requirements of what they have to do to get into this facility then we won’t know that something has gone wrong. We won’t know what they’re waiting for. So by showing the overall plan, the overall goal, we can frustrate them and a lot of plotting is frustrating your hero’s plans.

**Craig:** Yeah. One of the best planning sequences ever is in Ocean’s 11, the 1990s version of Ocean’s 11, written by Ted Griffin. And it’s so wonderful because like most heist movies you get a chance to actually just stop and literally say, OK, here is the plan. I will announce the plan. I will take you step by step through the plan. And as Brad Pitt and George Clooney relay this plan step by step part of the way they tell it is to say every single thing we’re telling you we’re going to do there doesn’t seem to be a way to do it. And they keep listing one problem after another that makes this entire thing impossible.

And that is fascinating because everybody still agrees to do it. And when that happens you realize, OK, these people are a little crazy. They’re not like you and me. They kind of like the challenge of the impossible. And also they trust these two guys. They suspect that these two guys already do have the answers, they’re just not letting on yet. And that creates a wonderful expectation in us.

So, Ted managed to set up these beautiful obstacles. He created this lovely magic trick prelude. And then left us sitting in the seats going, well, OK, I know what their plan – how would I do the plan? I don’t see how this plan will ever work. Great. That’s exactly what you want to do with a spelled-out plan.

**John:** Agreed. So Craig, I’m curious about Chernobyl. Because Chernobyl obviously the overall plan would be for things not to go horribly wrong and for nuclear waste not to be spilling out every place. But I suspect throughout your story we are seeing characters like trying to deal with the situation. And we’re hearing what they’re trying to do. And seeing those things not work properly. Is that a fair assessment? Did I spoil too much about Chernobyl?

**Craig:** Well, clearly some things go wrong. That’s not a spoiler. There are levels of plans in a story like Chernobyl. There are the plans of what was supposed to happen on the night of the accident which clearly wasn’t an accident. That was not part of the plan at all. And that’s an interesting plan because you get to explain where a plan went wrong. And you get to show how people made certain assumptions or bad decisions that started to poke holes in this plan and make it fall apart.

But the other thing that happens quite a bit with a story like Chernobyl, and I think this is very common to any kind of telling of a historical disaster, is that no matter what you do to try and fix it after it happens there are unintended consequences. And that’s always fascinating to watch characters be confronted with the truth that there is no perfect plan. That the only way ahead is to create a plan that not very well might but certainly will backfire on you at some point. And then you’re going to have to deal with that problem and there’s no way out of it.

**John:** Yep. I mean, my movie Go was all about plans, simple plans, that go very, very awry. And sort of scrambling to fix the plan that went awry. But if we didn’t understand what the original plan was there would be no movie. So Ronna is going to try to pull off this very tiny drug deal and small things keep going wrong and keep going wrong and she has to scramble to keep ahead of it. And the sort of theme of the movie is that you can’t stop and really think about it. You just have to keep plowing forward. Everyone has to just go and move forward.

Same with the guys in Vegas. It’s just going to be a fun weekend in Vegas until one character just goes too far and the idea of how to get out of Vegas just keeps going wrong.

So, none of those storylines work though if we don’t understand what the characters want, what the characters are trying to achieve, and if they haven’t articulated a basic idea of what they’re going to try to do next. It goes back to sort of trust and confidence. Do we believe that the characters actually have a notion of what they’re going to try to do next? And that the characters around them would sign off on that plan?

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And if you’re working on a story right now and you’re listening to this and you’re thinking, oh no, my characters don’t have a plan, I assure you they do. When there isn’t the presence of a clear identified plan usually the plan is better described as routine.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, very typical film noir story is woman shows up at a private detective’s office and says, “I think my husband has been cheating on me. Can you find out?” So the detective engages in his routine. That’s the deal. It’s not a plan. It’s your job. You stake the place out. You take the picture. You go inside. You check the thing. Except, oh, he’s dead.

So, your routine is disrupted. And now you are thrown off of your normal plan and you have to come up with a new plan on the fly. So don’t be afraid. You don’t necessarily need to start off with somebody going, “We’re going to A, B, C, D, and E.” Your story may just be one of a disrupted routine.

**John:** Yeah. So a great example of a disrupted routine would be Roma from this year. So your central character has no big plans. She’s not a classic protagonist who is like I’m going to achieve this thing. She’s just trying to keep normal life together and she can’t. And so she’s having to react to the stuff that’s happening around her. But the degree to which she has a plan is to keep things together. And you see her reacting to try to do that.

Compare that with Can You Ever Forgive Me? And so Melissa McCarthy’s character has to make a plan and so she sort of stumbles into this first bit of forgery, but then she has a plan for how she is going to keep it going and how she’s going to enlist other folks help her do this. It has to deal with the unintended consequences of this going a little too well.

And so characters are always making plans and they’re always – as an audience we’re always looking for what are they trying to do next. And if you don’t have a sense of that at a certain point you stop kind of following the movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. And one last thing to avoid. There are times when you may think the interesting way to tell a story is to have a character do a whole bunch of things without letting the audience in on it. Because you would think, well, if I tell you what I’m going to do before I do it while I’m doing it you will be bored. So what I’ll do is I’ll have the character do it and then afterwards someone will say, “How did you do that?” And then the character will say, “Well,” and – see not particularly effective unless what they’ve done is really amazing. Because it feels a little bit like, mm, they could have actually told us the plan, they just wouldn’t have had a very good movie if they had.

**John:** Yeah. I would also say as you get notes back from producers, from studio executives, sometimes they’re pushing for people to over-articulate the plan. Sometimes in TV, especially in TV dramas, you see people way over-articulate the plan. It’s about finding that balance. Giving the audience enough information that they are excited to see what happens next and they’re excited to see if things work out well.

Chris McQuarrie had a great piece that I linked to this last week called How Can This Possibly End Well? That in any action sequence you always know that somehow it’s going to resolve, but the question you should be asking is how can this possibly end well. And so there’s always this sense of like given enough information we can see like, OK, I get where this is going but I’m really curious to see if this is all going to fit properly.

**Craig:** And to bring it back to Raiders there’s that amazing scene where Indiana is trying to rescue Marion. She is trapped in a plane. The engines are spinning. The propellers are moving. The plane is moving in a circle. There is gasoline and fire moving toward the plane. And Indiana Jones has to fistfight an enormously muscular prize-fighting bald Nazi while ducking propellers and the gasoline is coming and Marion is stuck. How can that possibly end well?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s good stuff. All right, let’s get to some questions.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** Do you want to take Dan in Sherman Oaks?

**Craig:** I do want to take Dan in Sherman Oaks. Hi Dan. Dan says, “I’ve written a pilot with three other friends of mine and as of right now we have it credited with all of our names on the page as Written by Person 1 and 2 & 3 & 4. We all had room sessions where we broke story and one of us physically wrote the script hence the and/ampersand designations. My question is would an agent or manager or producer balk at a title page with four writers’ names on it? Should we only say it’s written by one of us but created by the four of us?”

John, I see many problems. Layers of problems.

**John:** I see many problems. So the four of you writing together is really challenging. It may be fine. It may all work out great. But that is a challenging place to start things from. But that’s already been done.

But I want to urge people: title pages should be accurate. Title pages should accurately reflect who actually did the work. Because if they don’t then you have a document that is not sort of properly credited and it’s only going to add more heartbreak down the road.

I don’t think the agent is going to feel more scared, I guess, but yes it’s a lot of names on a title page. It’s a lot of names to be looking at. Craig, do you have solutions for Dan here?

**Craig:** I think so. First of all, Dan, you say that you had room sessions where all four of you broke story, but then one of you physically wrote the script. So–

**John:** Which I guess is Person 1.

**Craig:** Right. But then 2, and 3, and 4 actually write the screenplay, or were you just story? Because there’s story. I mean, you can say Story by and then Written by, or Teleplay by. Created by is a continuation credit that the Writers Guild awards to people that are credited with separated rights and the pilot. None of that matters. None of that matters.

If you want to get all four of your names on, sometimes what you can do is come up with a name for your crew. Just say the Blah-blah-blahs. The Duffer Brothers. There could be 20 Duffer Brothers as far as I know. I mean, it turns out there’s two of them and they’re clones. But, you can do that. And somewhere in the end you can say the Duffer Brothers are and then list your four names. And there’s ways around this sort of thing.

You can be creative because it ultimately doesn’t really matter. You’re not determining the credits.

Now, what you say you do here will be important. What you don’t want to end up with is a situation where down the line Person 1 asks for a WGA pre-arb because his point is, or her point is I wrote the screenplay. All they did with me, I mean, it’s not all they did, it’s an important thing, but they worked on the story. But I wrote the screenplay. Why are they saying they wrote the screenplay when they didn’t?

Stuff like that needs to be hammered out now.

**John:** Yeah, it does. I’m guessing that Dan in Sherman Oaks is Person 1. And Dan if you wrote this document and everybody else had story sessions and they talked about stuff, you’re going to be the writer because sitting around in a room chit-chatting isn’t probably going to get up to the stuff of having written something.

**Craig:** Yeah. Story is important. Give people credit for breaking the story. But then the screenplay is whoever wrote it.

**John:** Yep. Garrett writes in, “What do you make of the writing credits on the new High Life trailer,” which I haven’t seen but fortunately he’s listed them with us. “It says written by Claire Denis and Jean-Pol Fargeau with a collaboration of Geoff Cox and additional writing Andrew Litvak.” So this is not a WGA credit.

**Craig:** [laughs] No.

**John:** This is a foreign credit. And this is how credits work in lots of places in the world. It looks weird to us, but it’s not weird other places.

**Craig:** What I make of it is that the French – and I looked it up, too, just to make sure. But this appears to be a French production through and through. And so they don’t follow the Writers Guild of America credit guidelines. I don’t even think they have work-for-hire for instance over there anyway. So theoretically you should be able to put whatever you want on there unless there’s some kind of gentle folks agreement about these things, like a French Writers Guild or something like that.

So, what I think of it, what I make of it, is what I make of writing credits on all foreign films. That’s what they say the credits are. It’s the same thing I make of the credits on animated movies here in the United States.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** OK. That’s what you say they are. So, you know, cool.

**John:** As we talked about a lot on the show is that the WGA credits system has frustrations absolutely. But in looking at a credit on a WGA movie you have some sense of what those credits mean. I don’t know what “with the collaboration” means. I don’t know what Geoff Cox did on this. Additional writing by Andrew Litvak. OK, well Andrew Litvak I at least know must have written something because it says additional writing. But I don’t know what collaboration means. So, it is a little bit more confusing.

It’s just different. And so what do I make of it? I make of it as it’s a French film and that’s how they sometimes list credits.

**Craig:** You know, here’s the thing, Garrett, it’s France man.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s France.

**John:** It’s France. We call it the Royale with Cheese.

**Craig:** Ah.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a very, very simple game. It’s called the Domain Name Pricing Game by Martin O’Leary. And it’s a really simple stupid idea, but basically it takes two web domains that are up for sale and lists the two domains and you have to guess which one is more expensive. And it’s surprisingly addictive because who would buy this domain name, but you almost always get it right. You’re always like oh that one, no one would want that. And it’s like, you’re right, that’s $50. But you see the other one and it’s like, oh yeah, I bet somebody would pay $1,700 for that dumb name.

So, it’s just a complete waste of time but also just a fun demonstration of a little web technology.

**Craig:** Yeah. I liked it. I liked it. Cool.

**John:** Simple.

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is an app that’s been out for quite a while but I’ve been making a lot of use of it lately. It is D&D Beyond. This is the official D&D companion app from Wizards of the Coast. And here’s why I love it so much. It really doesn’t do much beyond duplicate the material that’s in the hardcover books they sell. The Player’s Handbook. The Monster Manual. The Dungeon Master’s Guide. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But, as much as I love those books, the indexes, sorry, indices of those books are tragically awful. I think we’ve said it before. I think we even said it when we were on Greg Tito’s podcast. I’ll say it to anybody. Like whoever is in charge of the index department at Wizards of the Coast should be, again, ejected into space.

So, what’s great about these things is you have this material now on your iPad, your phone, your laptop and you are able to search through and index through yourself. You can create your own bookmarks. It works beautifully. It’s very quick. It has all the art. It’s just really useful, particularly if you’re DMing kind of the way that a lot of people do DM now with a laptop or an iPad.

So, one bummer is I don’t know – I think if you bought the Player Handbook I don’t know if you can just then get the Player Handbook into – because the idea is you download, you pay for the content. So they give you the structure of it and they give you some freebies, but the big stuff you have to pay for that content, so you may end up paying for things twice. But I’ve lived my entire life paying for things four times, because I forget about them. I have like seven copies of a certain book just because I keep forgetting. So, no big deal for me. For you it may be annoying.

But, if you are a DM or a player and you hate that index, and you should, check out D&D Beyond.

**John:** Yeah. So you only recently started using it and I was surprised, a little horrified, to see you sitting back there with your iPad. But it does make sense. And it is just much faster to be able to find that stuff in such a thing. So I don’t actually have it yet. You would think I’d be the first person to have used it and I’m not. But I probably will get there.

I enjoy reading my D&D books at night. And I try not to use screens after a certain hour. So, I may still buy the books and buy the additional copies because why not.

**Craig:** Yeah, why not? There are things where the book is actually a little bit easier, but when someone says, “OK,” this is so nerdy, “Sorry cool people, but some druid says ok I’m wild, I’m taking the wild shape of a grizzly bear,” whatever.

**John:** Get those stats.

**Craig:** What are the bear stats? Well, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip through the Monster Manual, because it turns out they’re in the back. They’re not under bear at all.

**John:** But some of them might actually be in the Player’s Handbook because they’re actually normal animals, they’re not special animals.

**Craig:** So, this way I just go “bear” and it comes up and it shows me. So, it’s much better. There you go. There you go, Dorks. Be like me. D&D Beyond.

**John:** Craig, while we’re talking about bears, something I just blogged about today. What is the difference between bear spray and pepper spray?

**Craig:** I don’t even know what bear spray is.

**John:** Oh, you’ve never heard of bear spray?

**Craig:** No, what’s bear spray?

**John:** Bear spray may be a very Colorado thing, but bear spray is for fending off grizzly bears who are about to attack you.

**Craig:** That makes sense.

**John:** It’s like a big can of stuff.

**Craig:** Well bear spray is maybe like mace? And pepper spray is made of peppers?

**John:** So, it turns out they’re the same thing. But which do you think is stronger?

**Craig:** Well, this feels like a trick question. But I’m not meta gaming this. I’m going to say pepper spray and here’s why. Many years ago my wife’s cousin, Joe, he was 14. Joe by the way lives in Seattle. Maybe he’ll come see us at our show.

**John:** So he’s still alive in this story?

**Craig:** Oh yeah. A little troublemaker he was. And we were all in his step-father’s house. It was a Christmas. And there were like all the leftover presents. And I think someone had gotten his stepmom a gift of pepper spray, kind of as a gag gift.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But it was all sitting in a pile. And all the kids were sitting around, you know, the 14 to 28 year olds are sitting around, chatting. And suddenly one of them starts coughing and can’t stop coughing. And I think it’s pretty funny. It’s funny when people start coughing. But then Melissa started coughing. And then I started coughing. And I’m like something is terribly wrong here. And we looked around and there was Joe sitting there with this “ooh, damn” look on his face. And all he had done was one squirt into the air. Not even towards us. He just wanted to put it in the air and see what would happen.

And just a few particles kind of like wafted over. And we were in paroxysms from like the tiniest bit. Joe. So, is that right, is it pepper spray?

**John:** It is pepper spray. But it turns out they are the exact same ingredients. It’s just the dosage in the bear stuff is much, much lower because you use it for a very different purpose. So you spray this big wide cloud that sort of keeps the bear at bay and keeps the bear from charging. Versus pepper spray which you spray directly at somebody as a targeted thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s basically bears are smarter than humans. If you just sort of go, “Look bear, this is going to be slightly uncomfortable,” he’s like, eh, I’m good. I’ll go eat someone else. But humans are terrible. If you don’t incapacitate a bad person they’ll keep coming.

**John:** They will keep coming. That is our show for this week. As always it is produced by Megan McDonnell, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by James Launch and Jim Bond again. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. If you want to find us on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. You can find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you subscribe to podcasts, wherever you’re listening to this right now. If you leave us a rating that helps people find the show which is great.

People put us on lists of like best podcasts and–

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** That’s so lovely. Thank you for that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Ooh.

**John:** You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. I talked to somebody this week who is deaf who reads all the transcripts and so it’s so great that we have a person who gets to experience the podcast that way. So, that’s awesome.

You can find back episodes of this show at Scriptnotes.net. You subscribe there and you can get all the back episodes, the bonus episodes, as well.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** Our next two shows will be live shows, so we’ll have the William Goldman The Princess Bride conversation and the live show in Seattle.

**Craig:** Awesome. I will see you at our next event. Bye.

**John:** Thanks, bye.

Links:

* [The Seattle Live Show](https://nwsg.org/event/scriptnotes-live/?instance_id=523) is on February 6th!
* You can now [preorder Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) or come to the [launch event](https://www.chevaliersbooks.com/john-august-2019) on February 9th.
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* [Bear spray is not stronger than pepper spray](https://johnaugust.com/2019/bear-spray-is-not-stronger-than-pepper-spray)
* [Domain Name Pricing Game](https://domain-pricing.glitch.me/)
* [D&D Beyond](https://www.dndbeyond.com/)
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by James Llonch and Jim Bond ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_385.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (491)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (164)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.