• 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 139: The Crossover Episode — Transcript

April 18, 2014 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/the-crossover-episode).

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

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

**Ben Blacker:** My name is Ben Blacker.

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes/Nerdist Writers Panel special crossover episode.

So, we are recording this live at the sort of special Nerdist place at the back of the Meltdown Comics place.

**Ben:** The Nerdist Theater here at Meltdown Comics.

**John:** And so for people who are listening to this at home you might not understand that it sort of feels like, I don’t know, some kind of weird under the subway church kind of thing. There’s like a lot of pillars in the background. There’s a lot of dark faces. There’s those special little light bulbs in glowing cages over us. It’s nice. But it’s a little odd.

**Craig:** It’s appropriate.

**Ben:** We always say it’s like recording a podcast in your mom’s basement.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** No, this is not what my mom’s basement looks like at all.

**Ben:** No, no, not yours specifically. [laughs]

**Craig:** No, I mean, she’s not a criminal. This is a disturbing space. [laughs]

**Ben:** This is from the Hannibal set.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Pretty much. I mean, yeah. What’s that song, All the Pretty Horses? Yeah, I want that, yeah, that guy.

**John:** So, this is a crossover episode and crossover episodes are actually fascinating things, because it’s that idea where you take a story and you start it in one medium or one vessel of story unit and then you transfer it over to another one. So, we’re actually going to do this as two back-to-back episodes, but in different whole series.

So, crossover episodes, we think back to Mad About You and Friends would do crossover episodes. Comic books do crossover episodes.

**Ben:** Like when Richard Belzer’s character appeared on the X-Files. Remember that? His character from Homicide.

**John:** And so it’s unsettling because it makes you feel like natural boundaries between this and that are not being respected. And so you have Lisa Kudrow play Phoebe and her twin sister at the same time — it’s all very disturbing. But it can be good.

**Ben:** You think it can be good, Craig?

**Craig:** No. Because, you have to ask why — this is a lovely crossover. I like this one.

**Ben:** Before we get into this lovely crossover, I actually have a question for you guys. Craig, are you trained in improvisation at all?

**Craig:** No.

**Ben:** Because you’re good at the “No, but…”

**John:** You’re supposed to say yes!

**Craig:** Oh, no.

**Ben:** He does the “No, but…” It’s not “Yes, and…” It’s “No, but…” And I have a great respect for it.

**Craig:** I do the “No, but…?”

**Ben:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, good, so I’m doing it right?

**Ben:** You’re doing it correctly.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** See, Ben, you can’t make him feel good. That’s going to ruin the whole dynamic of things.

The other thing which we should do at the start of a podcast is introduce our guest. And this is Ben Blacker who’s the host of the Nerdist Writers Panel. Hey, Ben Blacker.

So, we are crashing his place to talk about some feature things, some screenwriter things, some comic book things. Thank you very much for being with us here today.

**Ben:** Thank you for being here. I feel like this has been generations in the making.

**John:** It really has been. How long have you been doing your podcast?

**Craig:** Since Austin, right? We started talking about this in Austin.

**Ben:** Yeah, we actually met in Austin. I’ve been doing the Nerdist Writers Panel for about 2.5 years, something like that.

**John:** Which is ancient history in podcasting terms.

**Ben:** It is. Yeah. And then you guys started around that time, too. I remember we both kind of popped up around the same time. And then we were the only players in the game.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We’re still the only players in the game, man. Everybody else pretending. They’ve got nothing! It’s us and you. That’s it. Is there any other good one?

**Ben:** There actually is.

**Craig:** Ugh.

**Ben:** It’s just started. Are you familiar with The Children of Tendu podcast? Have you heard this? It’s great. It’s two TV writers, Javier Grillo-Marxuach and Jose Molina. And they are doing kind of what we all started doing right at the beginning which was being very nuts and bolts, very basic.

So, it’s a great jumping on point for a lot of people. You know, where ours has a deep mythology. [laughs]

**John:** A very deep mythology. And one of the things I sort of wanted to get into is you guys talk a lot with TV writers. You don’t talk so much about feature writer people. And we mostly talk feature stuff, although we get into some television. But there are things that are just very different about the experience of writing for features and writing for television.

And I want to sort of dig in a little bit on that, partly because sort of selfishly in the way I would sort of talk about my own life, they’ve asked me to come in and run a room on a feature. Basically it’s a feature that’s going to be going into production and they want me to sort of go and sit with a bunch of other writers to work through for a day on that movie.

And usually feature writers are off by themselves and they do things. So we scribble away on our scripts and then we bring them to the executives, or to the studio people, to the director, and talk with them there. But, TV people are dealing with other writers all the time. It’s a different thing for us to do.

You’ve done more writing on features with rooms, right?

**Craig:** Well, yeah, there’s — in comedy you will more typically run into a team situation. It’s not quite like a television room. In sitcom rooms there are a lot of writers. On a comedy usually you’re talking about the director and a writer and then maybe a couple of other people that might be there as producers or helping out.

**Ben:** But when you’re thrown into or hired onto a comedy writer’s room, usually the script already exists, right, and you’re doing some sort of punch-up situation?

**Craig:** No, I mean, well there’s two kinds. I mean, there’s the kind where you write a movie from the start and you do have other people in the room with you that are listening and kicking around ideas.

What you’re talking about I think is more like a roundtable, where I’ll get called for — comedies or non-comedies, it’s both kinds of movies — where they’ll do this thing before they’re going to make a movie they ask seven or eight screenwriters to come and sit in a room. And after they’ve read the screenplay just talk it through in a simulation of what they ought to have been doing themselves as studio executives, but somehow failed to do.

So, we will go in and we’ll help out in that regard. Sometimes it’ll turn also into, like, hey, I’ve heard some alternate ideas, lines of dialogue, and things like that. It used to be that that was all it was. It was just get a bunch of comedy guys in a room and just start pitching jokes.

**John:** And it’s really the punching up. Basically finding other great jokes for these moments. Like what are some other gags? I’ve done those before. I’ve done those with you.

**Craig:** Yeah, but those have kind of… — It’s weird. They’ve sort of fallen out of favor. And it’s kind of evolved into more of a, “Hey, what do you think about the characters, and the plot, and the pacing, and the narrative and the rest of that?” which I think is good because frankly in my experience having gone through these things, there are some jokes and some things you get that are really funny in the moment, but they don’t belong in the movie. Maybe a joke, or two. I’d much rather hear what other writers thought about the characters and stuff like that.

**Ben:** I’m really curious about the first one you described, because I am totally unfamiliar with that for feature writers. I mean, I jokingly often when we have feature writers on the podcast I refer to them as “lonely weirdos” who sit in their rooms by themselves.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Ben:** But I didn’t realize that there are rooms —

**Craig:** No, well this is the case where not that lonely weirdos, but we’re still weirdos.

**John:** We’re lonely weirdos sitting together at a room in this hotel for a day to talk though stuff. And what’s fascinating is that so much of the process of breaking any story or figuring something out or solving problems is looking at all of the alternatives behind things. And it can be very useful to have other brains there to do stuff.

What’s odd about it in feature land is ultimately one writer is going to go off and do that again. So, the thing that I’m coming on to do, that screenwriter who wrote the original draft is still going to be there. So, I’m trying to figure out the best way to sort of be supportive of him, of everything that he has done to this point, and also get them to the next stage.

**Ben:** So who else is in the room in this sort of situation?

**John:** So, that’s one of my questions. I don’t know who —

**Ben:** Do you have to put that room together:

**John:** I put that room together. And I’m looking for Craig’s advice on this, too.

**Craig:** Well, you know, when I did the spoof movies with David Zucker, it was David, and Jim Abrahams, and Pat Proft, and myself, and a guy named Phil Dornfeld who is sort of like a younger producer type. And then occasionally we would have another writer named Scott Tomlinson who would come in as well. And then we had a producer, Bob Weiss.

So, there were a lot of writers in the room together. Now, ultimately I ended up writing. And I do think it’s important. Ultimately one person has to end up writing. And you figure out the credits and who is a writer, and who is a producer, and all that. You try and figure that out ahead of time and then don’t care about it, just move it aside.

But, you do need one person kind of focusing it through their keyboard because there needs to be some sort of continuity of style and shape and pace more than anything. Different writers have just different fingerprints of pace. But, that’s how we did those.

Now, that doesn’t really work, I think, on other kinds of movies. I mean, those movies were joke books. What’s the nature of your movie?

**John:** It’s an animated movie. In animation it’s more common that you’re going to see these kind of things happening.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And so I remember going up to give a little speech at Pixar. And they were giving a tour around and they were describing this other movie. It’s like, “Yeah, we’re going to do a three-day offsite to work on this one moment at the end of the second act.” And I’m like, I would kill myself if I had to spend that much time looking at one specific little moment. But it’s been incredibly successful for Pixar to have that kind of thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Ben:** And I would imagine those actually do run more like a TV writer’s room where it is six, seven people and in the room throwing ideas around. Someone is putting it on the board. Someone else is taking notes. And then it goes off to one writer.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** So, what I found so good about your podcast when you have — recently you had a bunch of TV writers on talking about how different rooms work and how sometimes it’s really everybody together in a room and there’s little magic tiles that they’re moving around, like whiteboard tiles that they’re moving around. And other times it’s people are going off and just coming in and pitching their episodes.

It got me thinking about why do feature writers become these little lonely weirdos, because there’s nothing necessary about it had to be this way. And we’re in a comic book store, so I think it’s actually fun to imagine scenarios where it would all just turn out differently. Sort of like Red Son where Superman has landed in Russia and he was like the Russian hero.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** You haven’t read Red Son?

**Craig:** What?!

**John:** All right.

**Ben:** Someone go get him Red Son.

**John:** Or Marvel Zombies. That’s sort of more your —

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** Who…There are other ways this could have worked. And so I think it may be fun to do some sort of what-if’ing on what would be different if things didn’t become just one screenwriter working on a project at a time. Because there was a studio system. There was a studio system where they had the writer’s room. But I don’t see that as being —

**Craig:** I prefer this way.

**John:** Why?

**Ben:** The weirdo loner working alone?

**Craig:** I prefer the weirdo loner thing, even as somebody that’s worked with other people, I personally prefer the weirdo loner thing. In part because, and it may just be a reflection of how I’m changing as a writer and how I’m writing different things. But I think that it’s very hard to do your most honest work when you don’t have the space, even if it’s temporary space, to write and think whatever you want and to express it however you want. It is the only protected space there is before the wolves come. And when they come it’s just waves and waves of endless wolves. I’m sure there’s a comic book describing this.

But, so I like the idea of I get my one lonely chance. And out of those lonely protected moments, sometimes the most interesting things happen. So, I like that part of it. I also really like then expanding it very incrementally to just writer and director, which I think is a great combination of people.

And then you slightly expand to a producer, if you trust that producer, you know. So, I’m not in any rush to get back into a big room to be honest. Maybe because I’ve done it a lot.

**John:** But let’s take the counterpoint here. Like let’s assume that the writers were getting together and were working on things. Maybe part of the reason why it works in television is television is fundamentally writer-driven. And so if writers work together on making features, if there was a group of writers working it, isn’t it possible there’d be a writing showrunner who is really sort of behind the scenes, the powerful person there?

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, the thing is that in television the format, the requirement to create multiple episodes of something with a continuity between characters and basic idea essentially suggests that there was a mastermind who wrote a pilot and now they are instructing craftspeople to make versions of it, knockoffs essentially. That’s what episodes are. And for movies that is the pilot. It’s a one episode TV show. That’s what a movie is.

And, look, I give my scripts to my friends and I have them read them and I get great feedback from them, but that’s different than sort of putting together a group of feature writers. I mean, we type things up —

**John:** Is Marvel essentially doing that, though? You look at essentially the Marvel series and sort of how that universe is being sort of combined and sort of managed, it does feel like it’s a writer-driven —

**Ben:** And there is certainly — Kevin Feige is the showrunner of the Marvel universe of movies.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. Yes.

**Ben:** But then you have two guys who are in charge of Captain America and two guys who are in charge of Iron Man.

**Craig:** Yeah. And what will happen in features is that sometimes they’ll create a writing room in sequence as opposed to in parallel. So, very powerful producers who have a stamp on the material because they own the underlying material that’s valuable or they just have a sensibility. We’re talking about Jerry Bruckheimer or Kevin Feige and Marvel, they can kind of plug in and plug out writers as they wish because ultimately they are possessing some kind of master plan of there will be this many Pirates movies and this many…

But, you still want Markus and McFeely to have their private moment as a shared high of mind unit where they go, “Okay, now I’m going to make something. But we’re not going to have a room full of people sitting with us while we do it.” That room will come, but I like that. I like my private little…

**John:** So, David Goyer is a person in the DC universe who is doing I think probably the most of that kind of organization of things. So, you have Constantine which is, you know, a DC property which has sort of all the magic using kind of people there. You have the crossovers between the movies. There’s that sense of, you know, distantly reaching for something where they can be sort of combined.

But I wonder if you can apply this to things beyond just these giant super movie tent poles. I just wonder if there is, you know, back in the days of United Artists where, you know, I wonder if there is a writer-driven studio that could actually run that way.

**Ben:** I don’t know that it needs necessarily to be writer-driven, although having only worked in television I can say that I think there is something incredibly valuable about the collaboration that comes from eight smart people in a room, even if there are only six and two are duds. Still, eight smart people in a room putting together this thing, because ultimately one person does go off and take it and make it his own.

That said, by the time that person — or at least in my experience, by the time that person goes off to take that episode, which I love the idea of it’s just a knockoff of episode one, it’s broken within an inch of its life.

**Craig:** Sure.

**Ben:** You know, there’s very little imagination there.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Ben:** But, the imagination you do get to do, which is how do these two characters talk to each other, or what do they specifically say to each other —

**Craig:** Right.

**Ben:** Is really fun. And I think the reason that TV has developed this way, obviously, is it’s practical. You need to do — it’s a moving train.

**Craig:** Yeah. There is a churn in television that is remarkable and that beast must be fed. And there is simply no time to allow any individual to kind of wander off the reservation.

**Ben:** But it reminds me of this thing I’ve been hearing about a lot lately where the group mind is smarter than the individual, no matter how smart the individual is.

**John:** The wisdom of crowds.

**Ben:** Yeah. Exactly. And I’ve been hearing too much about it lately. But, you know, look at all of the great television we’ve had in the past five years.

**Craig:** Yeah. But now let me rebut. Not a huge fan of crowds, or as I call them, mobs.

Yes, crowds can be very smart and often if you’re looking for efficiency crowds will deliver you efficiency. What they don’t deliver you is the bizarre and they don’t deliver you the unexpected or the surprising. In fact, they’re designed to suppress that. When you’re talking about say a show like Breaking Bad or Mad Men, these are outliers coming from people who were outliers, creating something that frankly shouldn’t have worked and just kind of did to everyone’s surprise.

And a lot of times people make things that should work and do work, except that nobody watches them, which is a shame. But Vince Gilligan created Breaking Bad in every sense of the word. The people that wrote for him were essentially servicing his vision and doing so brilliantly. There were great writers — Moira Walley-Beckett, and Tom Schnauz. These are terrific writers. But he made that, you know.

And that you don’t get from a crowd. You’ll never get from a crowd.

**Ben:** Let me rebut.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** No.

**Ben:** Vince did make that, but arguably he just set a template for that where he could then bring in brilliant people to play in that playground. You know, he had a plan to get from A to B but he didn’t know how he was going to get there. And it takes that group mind to come up with the —

**Craig:** Absolutely. I’m not suggesting that… — The people who write on a show write on a show. They create moments that Vince would not have created on his own. No question. I don’t mean to take anything away from them. All I mean to say is that there is a prime mover in the Aristotelian sense. And you can’t get the prime mover from a group. You can only get it from an individual.

So, if you look at the history of Apple, the people that were working on the Mac, I mean, some of the most amazing people, brilliant people who each brought something incredibly vital. But there was a prime mover. And we can argue about which one it was.

**Ben:** I absolutely agree.

**Craig:** Team Wozniak.

**John:** Yeah. [laughs]

**Craig:** But I guess that’s my point is that there is a time and place for groups, but I wouldn’t let them encroach into the area of innovation, because ultimately they’re not well tuned for that.

**Ben:** Yeah. You don’t want a group writing a pilot, because that’s going to be a pretty shitty pilot.

**Craig:** That would be bad, yeah.

**Ben:** Yeah.

**John:** That would be challenging. But my question for us is then could a J.J. Abrams or a Joss Whedon or a Vince Gilligan make movies the way you make television, essentially oversee the writers making things? Is there a reason why that couldn’t work?

**Craig:** I think there is, yeah. Because there is a self-contained story and even in writer’s rooms where people can pitch in on one story, then they go off and they write their story. This is one story. And at some point you’re going to end up with this patchwork.

**John:** But I wonder if we’re essentially — so many of the movies that we encounter have multiple writers on them except they work sequentially. And if you honestly had hired those writers at the same time and sat them down together and had them work, solve these problems together, you might end up with a movie that you would not have sort of the mind of Frankenstein so much.

**Craig:** It’s possible. But also when you’re writing with people what happens is there’s a natural kindness that is sometimes a bad thing. Okay, well we’re not going to just simply steamroll over your ideas; let’s figure out how to work together as a team. When you work in succession, you come in, you’re like, “All right. I’m just getting rid of huge chunks of this. I don’t like it. I’m going to replace it with something that is not only different but thematically consistent with everything else I’m going to write.” So, there is a wholeness to it.

You’re right, though. Once a studio goes down the line of hiring the 12th writer to work on a little piece, they have essentially created the writing room.

**John:** But without letting the writers talk to each other.

**Craig:** Correct. And that’s a terrible thing.

**John:** And so that’s why when I get brought in on a project, one of the first things that I try to do is talk to the original writer and the most recent writers to say like, “What is actually going on here? And is there stuff that is back there that was actually better that’s been buried underneath all of this stuff? And I see the crazy decisions in the script. Tell me why this is here, because this doesn’t make sense.” And it’s generally like that was one executive’s pet thing that had to sort of stay in there.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so much of what gets screwed up in features right now I think is because there weren’t writers talking to each other from the very start.

**Craig:** I agree.

**Ben:** Without burning bridges, can you think of instances where you have had that conversation and had something illuminated that you could then bring out in the draft that you were hired to do?

**John:** Let’s think about that. I’m trying to think of which ones won’t be upset that I say it.

Well, very classically — oh, actually the second Charlie’s Angels is a great example. The second Charlie’s Angels, the short version of the first Charlie’s Angels, I wrote that for Drew and then McG came on board and we started shooting. And shortly before we started production one of the producers came to me and said like, “We really want to do a roundtable with a bunch of writers to do a comedy punch up.” And I said absolutely not. Over my dead body will you do this. And they did it anyway and I was not happy.

So, I left the movie but I was busy doing other things, and 12 writers did come in and did like a day’s work here, a day’s work here, a day’s work here. But it’s because we had a cast that was very demanding. There were a lot of moving pieces. And everybody was — all the writers who worked on it are friends. They’re lovely and everything turned out great. And then I came back in and like really cleaned up a lot of stuff at the end.

To do the sequel to Charlie’s Angels, first off I went to each sort of party member and said, “Okay, last time was crazy. Let’s not be crazy this time. And specifically let’s not do all the things you do in a sequel. So, let’s not have Cameron dancing in every scene. Let’s be tasteful — ”

**Craig:** I like that.

**John:** “Let’s do some playful, teasing sexuality, but not like gratuitous sex stuff.”

**Craig:** Ugh.

**John:** And so there was a list of things and I made each of these people like sign the bottom saying like we’re not going to do these things. And it became the checklist of things we ended up doing, because it happens in a sequel.

**Craig:** I like that — some of those were good, though.

**John:** The writer handoff thing, at a certain point I just couldn’t take it anymore. And so Simon Kindberg came in and did some work. And the Wibberleys came in and did some work. And that’s how I actually met the Wibberleys, who are great friends now, was when they called me and said like, “What the hell is going on here?” I was like, let me tell you what’s going on here. And that was actually a great experience. All of us became friends because we were working on this train wreck of a movie and trying to make it not be so crazy.

So, even when we were recording the DVD commentary for the sequel, the Wibbs and I, we were trying to figure out what is the deal with the ring there. Like how did the ring end up happening? It was from your draft? We had no idea sort of how some of these things got into the movie.

Had we all been together in the room at the start, you know, some of the same problems would have probably happened, because people are crazy, but I think there also would have been — I think the writers as a whole would have been more powerful because there would have been more of us together united. That’s my hunch.

**Ben:** I want to make sure we have time for questions from the audience. You guys have questions? So, I’m going to ask these guys at least one more question. While I do that I want you all to make a lot of noise and if you have a question come up and stand by this black pole right here. And we will get to as many questions as we can.

So, what I want to ask you guys, and I don’t know that this has been addressed on Scriptnotes — and tell me if it has and I’ll just go listen to that instead of answering — do you guys like writing? Do you enjoy the writing process?

**John:** No, I don’t. I generally don’t. I really don’t like it. And I will do whatever I can to avoid writing. I love having written. I love like, “Oh, look at this thing I wrote. I want to read that again. That’s awesome!” But, no —

**Ben:** That is like the dirty secret of writers, by the way. We like to write — read the stuff that we wrote.

**John:** But I do like to imagine — I like the imagination of it all. And so it’s really fun to be looping the scene in my head. I’m like, oh, that’s really fun. But then to actually get it down and get it perfect on the page is a lot of work. And it’s because it’s a thousand decisions and each word you choose in that sentence, it’s like what’s the next word? Well, that’s ten more thousand choices for the next thing. So, it’s really taxing and nobody likes that. It’s exhausting.

**Craig:** Yes. I mean, I hate starting writing. Hate it. Every day when I start I hate it. I’ll do almost anything to not start writing. But if I know in my mind what I’m supposed to write and I have some clarity and I finally start writing, somewhere after the nausea begins to fade I do slip into this very lovely state, fugue state. I don’t know, whatever you want to call it.

**John:** There’s flow. And sometimes flow happens and it’s great. Like when you’re in that, oh, I can just keep going, and going, and going.

**Craig:** And I do really like that.

**Ben:** Can you maintain that?

**Craig:** Well, for a bit. You know, you can maintain it for a bit. And usually it’s connected to the idea of a sequence, which is one of the things we’ve been talking about with trying to reimagine the screenplay format, because it has nothing to do with location. It’s about sequence. And when you’re in the sequence and you’re watching that sequence you are experiencing on some very bone level what you want the audience to experience, which is tension, and confusion, and then realization, and relief, or sadness. Whatever the hell it is. But you get into there and you do it. And it is very nice.

I like that part. I just hate starting.

**John:** Yeah. When you’re really in flow it sort of feels like you’re not actually writing stuff down, but you’re erasing — the words were already there and you’re just erasing the stuff that was over them. It’s like, oh, the words were already there and you have like one of those magic pens that reveals what was actually there. That’s when it’s the best.

That doesn’t always happen and you can’t sit around waiting for that to happen because it just won’t.

**Craig:** You’ve just got to start.

**Ben:** So, yeah, what are your methods for kick-starting? Is it just writing garbage?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. No garbage. My method are just you loop the scene until you —

**Craig:** How dare you. [laughs]

**John:** You loop the scene until you see it. And then I do what is called a scribble version. And so it’s not garbage, but it’s the quickest, dirtiest version of what it looks like, often just handwritten down so that I get this looped version in some sort of memorable form. And then you start to make the better version of that, so you’re polishing that idea.

So, the scribble version is often just the dialogue and enough of the action to sort of show what is there so you can piece together.

**Ben:** Handwriting, it sounds really invaluable, too, because it’s so temporary, right? You know you’re not committing to this thing because it’s not going in your document —

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Yeah, I don’t handwrite anything. My hands don’t even work anymore.

**Ben:** Sorry. How do you kick-start? How do you get through that nausea at the beginning?

**Craig:** You just do. You do it. This is the discipline. It’s a job. People are paying you, or you wish to be paid one day. You have a wife or a husband. You have children, or a dog. You’ve got mortgage or rent. This is what adults do.

And so I’ve had this discussion with my son a number of times about his homework and it’s not always — we don’t always get to do what we want to do. And there are rewards for getting through an initial pain. And I know that those rewards are greater than the avoidance of that initial pain. I just have to do it. And then you do it. And it never goes away, so make your peace with it.

**Ben:** And very quickly before we get to these questions, another just quick process thing. Do you listen to music when you write? Do you listen to anything when you write?

**John:** I generally don’t listen to music while I’m writing, but when I start on a project, when I’m sort of putting it all together I will make myself sort of the soundtrack of what that project sounds like. So, in iTunes I’ll put together all the tracks that sort of remind me of it. It’s just a good way of kicking your brain into thinking, oh, I’m writing a movie that would have this soundtrack and that’s really helpful.

But rarely do I actually have that music playing while I’m writing stuff.

**Craig:** I will if I’m writing something that is specifically without dialogue. It’s an action sequence or just a bit of expository. Like, I have the scene in the Cowboy Ninja Viking where we’re sort of drifting through this abandoned hospital. And there’s a great song by Pink Floyd called If. And so I would just play it while I was writing. I sort of had it on loop while I was writing because that’s what I want to be in the movie, you know.

That’s nice. But never — if people are talking in the scene, why would I want music on? I can’t hear them.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ben:** All right. Let’s get some questions here.

**Action Details:** First off, thanks for being awesome.

**Ben:** You’re welcome.

**Action Details:** Mostly there. So, I had a quick question —

**Ben:** This is my house.

**Action Details:** I wanted to talk to you a little bit about action sequences. I know neither one of you are really specifically action guys, but I’m thinking of something like The Bourne Identity where you’ve got a character that’s responding to his situation and the geography of the position that he or she is in. You can get really bogged down on like, oh, here’s how this building looks, and here’s how these stairs go. What’s the kind of percentage that you go to with how you’re explaining the action and how you’re explaining the surroundings as well?

And how do you not fall into the pitfall of like, oh, then there’s 27 steps, and then he goes around the, you know?

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, there’s a YouTube video I did where I took an action scene and rewrote it sort of real time to sort of show sort of how I would do that on the thing. Because you’re exactly right. Your instincts are right that you need to create this sense of what it feels like without being so specific and pedantic about every little detail.

If you’re trying to track every punch thrown it’s just going to be awful. So, you need to be in a weird way poetic about what the fight feels like, what the action sequence feels like, and let the people who are actually going to do it figure out what that is. I mean, always remember that a screenplay should give you the sense of watching a movie, but it doesn’t have to give you every last little detail. The same way you’re not describing every bit of costume. You’re not describing every bit of an action sequence.

**Craig:** Yeah. I try and apply — because I’ve been writing more action lately. And I try and apply a need-to-know basis rule. What does the reader need to know so that they can make sense of the scene. The important parts of the scene, the only important part of an action scene are the choices that the hero is making in relation to the action that reflects on who they are and how they are changing, growing, defying something, beating — whatever it is.

That’s what we’re connecting to. We’re much less, when we’re reading a script, we’re much less interested in how gorgeous that car pirouette is, because we can’t quite see it. So, need-to-know. I need to have a general sense of geography. I don’t want people to not have any idea where this person is. And I need to really key in on the moments where choices are made and I need to support those choices with the information that clarifies them to the reader. All that matters is that you’re getting your dramatic intention across.

I guarantee you, you already know what is essential. And you already know what isn’t. Now, we sometimes — we like to play with our Legos and get all get all excited about the building. Just concentrate on your dramatic intention. I think the rest of the stuff will fall away.

**Action Details:** I thank you all of you for doing your podcasts.

**John:** Thanks.

**Craig:** Oh, thank you.

**Killing Babies:** In the first part of this podcast you were talking about how as feature writers you go into writer’s rooms sometimes like on television. You have television writers how sometimes they have to kill that baby for the sake of a story. But as guys who are going to rewrite features, sometimes not even talking to the guy who wrote the original draft, sometimes you have to kill someone else’s baby whether you like it or not.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**Killing Babies:** Do you sometimes struggle with that decision where this guy wrote something amazing but for my vision of this it doesn’t work?

**John:** Yes. The answer is absolutely yes. Sometimes you will recognize that there was intention, this person had this vision of the movie and these moments happen in their version of this movie, but that movie is not going to get made. No one is making that movie. They’re trying to make this movie and this movie is going to have these needs and it’s now this way.

And it can be based on who the director was, what the casting is, what the studio is, what other movies are out there. There are some reasons that have happened why that other movie isn’t getting made. And so that’s why I try to reach out to the original writer to let them know that I’m on their side. I’m not a contract killer in here to do something terrible. It’s just that that’s the reality of where we’re at.

**Craig:** Yeah. I always talk to the prior writer. I wouldn’t necessarily say I’m on their side, because I’m kind of not. I mean, I’m on the movie’s side.

**John:** Yeah. That’s where you are.

**Craig:** And there are times when there’s something in their script that I really love, and I really work and work to try and keep it in there until I realize it’s just not fitting anymore, you know. And so I try and be respectful of anything that I think is going to be good. And if it’s not, then it’s not. And I have to give myself the opportunity to make that choice. And should it come to pass that somebody then comes in after me, well, they’ll be doing the same thing.

So, yeah, it sucks. What are you going to do?

**John:** I like that you say you’re on the movie’s side. You’re also on the audience’s side. And you’re really looking at like I’m imagining this final vision of the movie and I’m sitting in the theater watching it. What is the best experience for that audience member? And you’re as responsible to that person as you are to the writer, or to the director, or anybody else.

**Multiple Partners:** Thanks John and Craig. My question is about —

**John:** And Ben.

**Multiple Partners:** My bad. Thanks Ben.

**Craig:** His name is Ben.

**Multiple Partners:** My question is really about we have so little writers and writing partners. In the music world you have people that have multiple projects. You know, they’ll play drums in one band and they sing in another band and they have multiple things. And I find myself in that situation in screenwriting where I have multiple projects. I have writing partners that are very different and I also have a solo project. Is this common? Is this something you see happening? What are some implications for this?

**Craig:** It’s not common.

**John:** But I think it could become more common.

**Craig:** It could. Look, you always have to be weary of dilettantism, you know, of sort of — I’m the sort of person that just likes to snack on lots of little things. And the new is always exciting. New men are exciting. New women are exciting. It’s always exciting, right?

So, you know, you can get caught up in the new shiny thing and suddenly you realize I’ve got 12 things that are all 20% done. I think that writing takes extraordinary focus, even bad writing takes extraordinary focus. If you find that you are finishing things and you find that you are in productive relationships and you’re able to balance them all, god bless you. If you don’t, then I think you need to consider cutting back and focusing, because it is a rare person that can handle multiple relationships and multiple projects, a little bit like multiple families with multiple children. It’s super hard. You’ve got to lie to the one wife. You’re on the road. You call the one the wrong name. Dude, it’s a mess.

**John:** I think your band analogy is actually really interesting, too. Because a band, yes, it can make an album. But an album is a lesser period of time than writing a whole screenplay. It’s a more contained process. But also it’s really performing. You’re out there entertaining people. So, I know funny people who are in multiple comedy groups and that’s great. That makes a lot of sense, because they’re dropping in. It’s all about that live performance and doing stuff together.

But really writing, especially writing something as long as a feature, I think you’re not going to be able to do your best work on all those projects simultaneously. You’re going to have to make some choices. But I will say in general I think there are going to be more cases where writers are teamed up with different people on different things and that’s going to be really confusing and complicated for the Writers Guild stuff which really perceives things like you’re a team or you’re not a team. And they want you to sort of be one or the other.

**Ben:** Are you writing just features?

**Multiple Partners:** Features and television.

**Ben:** Yeah. Because as soon as that television pilot sells that you wrote with one partner, that’s your partner on television stuff.

**John:** You’re married.

**Ben:** They’re pretty specific about that.

**Craig:** True. True.

**Multiple Partners:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Cool shirt.

**John:** Great shirt.

**Team Umbrage:** Oh, thank you. Actually I identify more with Team Umbrage, but orange looks horrible with my skin complexion.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’m with you, man. I get it. I feel the same way. You realize that I got screwed on that, right? I mean, you know that I got screwed.

**Team Umbrage:** All right. Well, I guess I have two questions if I may. But the first one is that you often, Craig, mention that you ruminate a lot in the shower and you think a lot about —

**Craig:** That’s a word.

**Team Umbrage:** You know where this is going, right? No, but I guess my question is what does your water bill look like?

**Craig:** It’s substantial.

**Team Umbrage:** Substantial, yeah. I figured.

Okay, no, but actually I have a serious question. So, we talk a lot about film and television and as someone who writes specs mostly, or at least that’s my experience, I can imagine, what features look like, or like what that process, like the lonely writer process.

But anyway with television, to me it’s just like I can’t imagine what it’s like. So, if you guys could — like if you were Vince Gilligan, just to narrow the scope here, right, and you’re writing Breaking Bad and you’re the mastermind of this first episode, the pilot episode. But then like do you have an outline for what’s going to happen in the next five seasons? And you show that to the executives and they’re like, okay, we like this first episode, and we like this outline. Or is it more like we just create this episode and then it’s over?

**Craig:** No, you generally do need to provide them — I mean, there are different words for it. Sometimes they call it a bible, a show bible. In order to purchase a show, unless you are Vince, which I honestly think they would just give him a blank check. But if you’re just a regular person and you’re trying to sell them on a show and you have a script for the pilot, they’re also going to want to know from you — prove to me at least with some summaries that this is actually a show you could write many, many episodes of. Because we’re not in the business, I mean, even in basic cable we need episodes. We need episodes to sell. And certainly in network their goal is 100.

So, you need to be able to prove to them that you have multiple story ideas that will, in fact, pour out of this concept. And you need to give them a general sense of the arcs of the characters over the — I mean, sometimes they even ask you for up to two seasons worth. I mean, they understand that at that point you’re just lying anyway, [laughs], but the point is at least, okay, in theory you can write this — you can write a whole mess of episodes based on this concept. You will need to show that.

**John:** Jordan Mechner and I did a pilot called Ops for Fox and we ended up writing two separate pilots because of changes in regimes and things. But on the website you can also see the documents we turned in with those, because that actually shows the other sort of episode summaries of like other future episodes. Because it wasn’t a heavily serialized show, but they needed to see like what kind of things were going to happen week after week.

So, had we actually gotten to series we weren’t committed to like those would have to be those episodes. They just needed a sense of what was going to be possible. Had we sort of gotten the series order we would have brought writers in and we would have really broken stuff apart and board what we wanted to do, but they need to know what else is possible there and sort of what directions you’re heading into.

**Ben:** And I would add, maybe this goes without saying, but it needs to be evident from your pilot that this series can have more than just a pilot. They need to know what episodes two through 99 look like.

**Team Umbrage:** Okay. Thank you.

**Ben:** I would also add —

**John:** I would also listen to Ben’s podcast, because they talk about this a lot.

**Ben:** That’s what I was going to add.

**Team Umbrage:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Pitching:** Hi guys. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about pitching and more about going in and pitching on something that a lot of writers are going in and they want to see who has the best take. Or if you have an original idea as opposed to a spec, going in and saying, “Hey, what about doing something like this?” I don’t know if that’s how it works or whatever.

**Craig:** It can.

**John:** It can. It can. So, classically a pitch is really that second thing. You would think a pitch would be like I have this great idea for a movie and so I’m going and I’m pitching it and so I’m setting up the whole everything in this.

The sweepstakes pitching is more what you’re describing in that first scenario which is where you have — there’s a project that’s out there, so an adaptation of a book, an existing property, Slinkies, or some sort of like — “We’re going to make the Slinky movie. Come in and pitch us a take on the Slinky movie.”

And that happens. And so you have to decide, like, am I going to be one of the 15 writers going in on the Slinky pitch and that’s really tough? Because how am I going to differentiate my pitch from every other pitch. How are they going to remember mine versus the other one?

The very first thing I, my paid writing job, was kind of that situation, though. It was a book called How to Eat Fried Worms. And it was by Thomas Rockwell. And it was me versus all of these really funny Simpsons writers with their funny Simpsons episodes. And my writing samples for this was the Natural Born Killers novelization and a romantic tragedy, so I was like the worst person going into it.

But everyone was pitching their things, and so I brought in worms. And it felt very stunty, but I really wanted people to remember like this is what we’re actually talking about. It’s like taking worms out of the dirt and eating those. I didn’t eat them in the room; I wasn’t that gross.

But, I was going in there and I spent weeks working on that pitch and I could have not gotten it. And that’s really the danger of sweepstakes pitching is you have a bunch of writers spending a tremendous amount of time and almost none of them are going to be working on it.

**Ben:** What did that pitch actually look like? You come in, you throw down a box of worms. But how did the pitch actually sound? Do you remember?

**John:** Every pitch should have the spirit of I just saw an amazing movie and let me tell you what it’s like. And this is sort of what happens. And when you try to convince your best friend to see a movie you’re not going to tell them every detail. You’re going to really set up the world. You’re going to set up the main characters, sort of how it all begins, the complications along the way, and then you’re going to wrap it up nicely.

And so after establishing the world, the tone, I described sort of how the world — we were showing the movie from sort of a three-foot tall point of view rather than a five-foot tall point of view. Just that sense like it’s not adults looking down at it. It’s all from this side and adults are sort of a little bit above everything else.

I described that and then I also — then I dumped out the worms on a plate a brought so they could writhe around and people could see like “and this is what we’re sort of getting into are these worms.” And talked them through the beats. But I did it like three times for different executives and things like that. I only brought the worms once.

**Craig:** Pitching is — sometimes you pitch an original idea. It’s rare that they will hear new writers pitching original ideas because they just don’t want to waste their time because 99.999 out of whatever that number is, it just won’t be very good. At least that’s what they think.

But you will, yeah, there are times when you have to go pitch on a job. The only thing I can add to what John said, because it was all very good, very insightful and very good advice, is that people respond to things that they don’t tell you they’re responding to. They’ll tell you that they respond to story and content. What they’re actually responding to is passion and your ability to inspire confidence in them and comfort them.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That’s — and they can’t tell you that because then they — it’s kind of embarrassing, isn’t it? But that’s what they respond to. And so part of the game for you is to figure out what you are passionate, where the passion is for you in your pitch. And push that.

And then also to understand how to be comforting to a person who has to spend a lot of money on something they cannot control but for which they will be held accountable.

**Ben:** Just like we had talked about, you know, people can tell when there’s passion in a script. If you can make them feel something with that pitch, that goes a long way.

**Craig:** It does. It does.

**Expectations:** Hi, okay.

**Craig:** You should have let her touch them.

**Ben:** I am married!

**Expectations:** I have a question. I just started with “I.” Wow.

**Craig:** By the way, everyone did. I don’t know if you noticed that. Everyone did.

**Expectations:** So, it’s about an episode, the one with Mike Birbiglia, and I sort of had a follow up. I was just listening to that recently about having that one moment that you’re working toward that as the writer you’re the only one who knows what that is. And my question was sort of about expectations and how that plays in. And how often when you’re writing are you actually thinking about that moment in your head and whether or not it’s important if that moment is satisfying the expectations of the audience or completely defying the expectations.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. Well, it depends on what the moment is. But there are times when you have a twist. A big reveal. A thing that recontextualizes everything that comes before it. And you need to be sure that as a craftsperson that you are leading the audience precisely where you need them to be in a way that retroactively makes sense and also then you go, oh my god, everything is not — I realize now that it’s like one of those things, am I looking at the old woman or the young woman depending, you know, it’s the optical illusion. You need to have both that somehow function at the same time.

However, there are times when you realize, you know, I built a little too much into this twist for what it’s revealing. That in fact I’m kind of losing some good story meat here because I’m playing hide the ball so much.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And you have to kind of evaluate on a case-by-case basis. And sometimes it’s okay to say, “I’m going to kind of give that away,” because the valuable part of it isn’t that it’s recontextualizing anything. The valuable part of it is that somebody is starting to catch onto something but is going to be in denial that it’s true.

These choices are up to you. There’s no one answer. It’s good that you’re thinking about it. I think that’s what you have to do is really make sure that you are thinking about that twist and that it makes sense and is valuable for your script because if it isn’t, oh my god, you got to get rid of it.

**John:** The real challenge of all writing is you know what’s going to happen next and you have to at the same time not know what’s going to happen next. And so you have to be able to read the story and experience the story without any sense of what’s coming down the road.

So, in general expectation is your best friend because people will approach a story with a set of expectations about the genre, about the kind of thing this is. And because they have those expectations you get a lot of things for free. So, if you’re writing a western you don’t have to explain horses and saddles and cattle. Like all that stuff just comes for free. Or even that the railroad is trouble. We get all that. You only have to do the work to explain what’s different in your world, and that’s if the railroad people are the good people in your world, you have to sort of do that work.

But expectation can also help you with surprise. And so all the things that you get for free with those expectations, sometimes you can use this to your advantage to actually like pull a surprise. And you get one or two or maybe three surprises in a script where like no one saw that coming. But if you did that all the time people would lose trust in you. People would be like, “I don’t know what this is. I give up.” That’s a really careful thing to balance.

**Craig:** That’s right. It’s about making — and when I say twist I didn’t mean to imply that everything, or just the big moment where you know that this person is going to get run over by a car. It’s not a twist. It’s an event. But that when you pervert the audience’s expectations, that you’re doing so meaningfully. And then you, having shattered their trust in your storytelling, in a good way, now give them the replacement that should ideally be better. Writing those kinds of things, that’s good advanced screenwriting stuff. And people blow it all the time.

So, don’t blow it. [laughs]

**Ben:** We have time for one more.

**Research:** Can you guys talk about doing research when you’re inspired for a project? Do you look to other movies? Do you look to articles on the internet? And can you talk about when you’re just looking at Wikipedia articles and you’re going on a sink hole versus actually, you know, finding out information that’s relevant?

**John:** Yeah. Research is a great way to sort of waste time and not write. It’s a really great time, because it feels like you’re working — I’m doing research, but I’m actually just sort of in a Wikipedia K-hole. But I will say what’s great about research and the reason why I never farm off research on somebody else is because that process of researching is sort of creating the questions in my head that I sort of want to answer. And it’s leading me down all these paths, making me think of stuff, or just the weird turns of phrase that I find there are great, or that random image I stumbled across, that no one would know, would click for me, are really, really useful.

So, research is fantastic when it’s helpful. But it’s just so easy to make that a distraction like, oh, before I start this scene I need to watch the whole Godfather trilogy again. Well, that’s a great way to not write.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, if you want to jerk off, just jerk off, you know. Right?

**Ben:** Right. That’s how we end every podcast.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is the official, this is it.

**Ben:** Talking about it.

**John:** [laughs] Oh no!

**Craig:** Oh. Um. Research to me is something that I do in the moment. I don’t usually let a story be led by research, rather the other way around. So, I’m writing something and I think, okay, I need a cool place. I need like a really interesting slummy place that I haven’t seen before that’s dangerous, but I want it to be in Europe. Where’s the weird slum in Northern Europe? And I’ll just start looking around. So, that’s good, but it’s purposeful and it’s goal-oriented. It’s a very specific thing that I need to satisfy. And then, okay, I’ve got my answer and off I go.

You know, maybe early on in a project you can kind of give yourself a week or two to do research if it’s that kind of movie, but I think John is write. Usually people are just stalling. Don’t be a staller.

**John:** Because this is a crossover episode, we’re going to cut this part short so we can move over to yours.

**Ben:** We have more time.

**John:** Well, I’m excited to do this. So, let’s do this.

**Craig:** Don’t get in his way, man.

**Ben:** You know what we didn’t get to do? You didn’t get to plug your live show.

**John:** That’s what I’m going to do right now.

**Ben:** I’m so excited for it, John.

**John:** It’s very, very exciting. So, you people are the first people except for the people who heard it yesterday — you are the first people to hear about our next live show. And so the Writers Guild Foundation came to Craig and I and said like, “Hey, how about you do another live show?” And we said that sounds great. And like how about we use the little room at the WGA theater at the WGA building. And Craig said…

**Craig:** No, I hate that room.

**John:** And what do you say about that room?

**Craig:** It’s the multi-purpose room.

**John:** The multi-purpose room, yeah. Craig said it’s where dreams go to die.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, it is the most institutional, dead room. It’s got that pediatrician office carpet. It’s like a slightly melted square. It’s the worst. You cannot enjoy or experience any vitality in that room. Well done, WGA. Well done.

**John:** So Craig said hell no, but like in every good negotiation by saying no sometimes you get them to come back and they like, “Well, but what if…” And so they’re giving us the big WGA theater in Beverly Hills. And so we are having that on May 15, which is a Thursday.

**Craig:** Now we’ve got to fill that thing.

**John:** Yeah. We’re going to fill that thing. Don’t worry about that.

**Craig:** He always thinks we’re going to fill everything. He’s amazing.

**John:** I’m the optimist of the podcast.

**Ben:** You guys will all be there, right? They’ll come.

**John:** Well, I think you’re going to come when you know our special guest. So, our guest —

**Craig:** This crowd might appreciate these —

**Ben:** You guys have 10 more minutes for plugs, right?

**John:** Yeah. So, we’re billing this as Scriptnotes, the Summer Superhero Spectacular, because our guests are Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely of Captain America and Thor.

**Ben:** Oh, listen to them on the Nerdist Writers Panel next week everyone.

**John:** Don’t listen to that show, no. Listen to them live!

**Craig:** If you guys want like a lesser experience of those people, fine.

**Ben:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** If you want the real, you know —

**Ben:** If you want them raw you go to the Scriptnotes show.

**Craig:** But also…

**John:** But also David Goyer of Batman movies, the Batman Versus Superman.

**Craig:** We’ve got Marvel and DC clashing.

**Ben:** That’s a crossover!

**John:** it is a crossover episode live on stage. By the way, they also have the Superman movie and the Captain America movie are scheduled for like the same weekend, so we’re going to solve that on the stage and get that all sorted out. So, that’s going to be done and dealt with. And you know what it’s done and dealt with? Because the writers got together and figured it out. And that’s what we’re saying —

**Craig:** I’m going to get those guys to punch. You guys show up, I swear I will get them to fight.

**John:** I think there should be some whole-hand boxing is really —

**Craig:** Have you guys ever seen David Goyer or Markus or McFeely? That fight could go on for hours because there’s no upper body strength there. It could be so entertaining, just like a constant this. I’m going to get them to fight. Or, now apparently they’re going to fight me.

**John:** Yeah. We’re also going to do our Three Page Challenge, but live. So, we will be going through the three pages. We will have those people up on stage. We will tell them what we thought. They will tell us what they were actually planning to do. So, it will be terrifying. We’re going to have a special guest judge up there with us to help us out.

**Ben:** Is it me?

**Craig:** Who’s that?

**John:** It’s a surprise.

**Ben:** It’s not me.

**Craig:** Did you tell me?

**John:** No, I…

**Craig:** Oh, you haven’t figured it out yet.

**John:** But we’re going to have somebody awesome up on stage with us.

**Ben:** I’m available you guys.

**Craig:** Hey, Ben, I’m sorry. John is talking.

**Ben:** That’s fine.

**John:** And there’s one more thing. So, we’re going to do a cocktail party beforehand. So, there’s going to be a cocktail party, so if you guys want to come join us for that, there’s a special ticket you can get for that. It’s like a very limited number. Aline Brosh McKenna is hosting that for us.

**Craig:** Yes she is.

**John:** So that’s going to be great. So come. Tickets go on sale for all of this this Thursday, April 17th. Yes, Thursday April 17, 10am.

Last time we had troubles with people and time and stuff like that. So, it’s Thursday the 17th at 10am is the live show.

**Ben:** We will all be there.

**John:** All right. So…

**Craig:** That’s almost true.

**John:** So, Ben, we have a thing on our show. You don’t have any rituals really on your show.

**Ben:** No, we always end the show in the same way.

**John:** Maybe I never made it to the end.

**Ben:** You never made it to the end?

**Craig:** I didn’t even know you had a show until today!

**Ben:** Craig, you’re going to see some fisticuffs.

**Craig:** Awesome! Oh, this could take awhile, too.

**Ben:** You guys do your thing first. I still haven’t thought of anything.

**John:** All right. So, we do One Cool Thing. So, my One Cool Thing feels especially appropriate for the space that we’re in because it is a book called Alternative Movie Posters by Matthew Chojnacki. And it is really a great book. So, I love when people go back and retroactively make a poster for a movie that I love and just go a completely different style. And so this is a book of those.

I love that idea so much that I actually started a Tumblr called Unsheets that I kept updated for like three weeks and then just sort of gave up on. But this guy fortunately made a whole book. And so now I can feel free not to do it. It’s a really great book of just amazing posters. Of course, a thousand versions of The Shining, but other really great things, too.

**Craig:** There’s always versions of The Shining. This isn’t related to the Polish One Sheets is it, because have you seen those?

**John:** Yeah, they’re great.

**Craig:** Unbelievable. So disturbing.

**John:** There’s also African One Sheets where they just make crazy posters for movies that are nothing like the actual movie.

What’s your One Cool Thing, Craig?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is this app, Entrain.

I hate jet lag. I’m becoming obsessed with how much I hate jet lag. I don’t want to travel anymore. I don’t even want to go — I’ll go north and south now. That’s it. And partly I hate it because of jet lag. And the scientists have figured out this method. I mean, they’ve always kind of known the best way to trick your body out of jet lag as quickly as you can and it has to do with not only when you should be exposing yourself to light and not, but also when you are exposing yourself to light in your normal day.

So, there’s this app called Entrain. It’s free. And basically you plug in where you are, when you normally wake up, when you normally go to bed, where you’re going, and it also figures out do you spend most of your time in bright light, so for instance you’re a healthy person that works outside, or do you work here in what is essentially a cavern?

And then it tells you, and then it asks you where you’re going to be, and then it figures out. Now, depressingly it’s like, okay, if you want to do this right you have 300 hours of adjustment. It’s kind of — in that way it’s annoying because really we just want to go there and be happy. But I thought it was pretty smart, so check it out, Entrain, if you’re ever going anywhere that is not north or south.

**John:** Very nice.

**Craig:** Which I don’t recommend.

**John:** My favorite experience of jet lag is actually coming back from Europe because you end up just getting so tired at like 8pm. It’s like I can just go to bed. And like going to bed at 8pm is such a great luxury.

**Craig:** Yeah. Until you wake up at two in the morning hearing sirens in your head. And you’re like, what happened?

**John:** That’s most days for Craig.

Ben, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Ben:** I sure do. But before I get to it…

**Craig:** Stalling. Doesn’t have one.

**Ben:** I’d like to remind folks to hear the second half of this podcast that they should go to Nerdist.com, click on the podcast link, and then click on the orange Nerdist Writers Panel logo, because that will take you to all of the Nerdist Writers Panel podcasts. Also go to Facebook.com/NerdistWritersPanel.

**John:** Great.

**Ben:** My One Cool Thing is this. I have recently — my writing partner and I have recently begun writing comic books. And it’s a lot of fun. And it’s like screenwriting and unlike screenwriting. And it’s really an interesting experience. And thus I’ve taken a deep dive back into comic books, after not reading them for a few years. And the best thing going right now, and you guys, please make noise if you are reading this, is Matt Fraction’s Sex Criminals. Have you read this book?

**Craig:** Wow. You just out-nerded the nerdiest group of people in the world.

**John:** Well done Ben Blacker.

**Craig:** Unbelievable.

**Ben:** Listen, it’s an Image Comic. It’s so great.

**Craig:** I don’t understand that joke. [laughs]

**Ben:** You’ve seen The Walking Dead, right?

**Craig:** Oh, yeah.

**Ben:** All right. It’s those guys. Sex Criminals is hilarious and weird and romantic and funny and a little scary and definitely disturbing. And Matt Fraction has a lot of things going wrong in his brain. But it’s about a couple who find each other in the first issue who whenever either of them reaches orgasm time freezes. And they use that to go and rob a bank. [laughs]

**Craig:** Why wouldn’t they just use them for more orgasms? I don’t understand like —

**Ben:** Because when they’re ready to again time starts again. So, they have to maintain that for a little while. Yeah, it’s fucked up. But it’s great in a way that you totally would not expect. And I am a horrible prude from New England and I thought I would hate this thing and it is the best thing I’m reading these days, including novels.

Yeah, I read novels.

**John:** Ah-ha! There’s a little mic drop there. Great. So, we got some Sex Criminals. We got some sleeping apps. And we got some alternative posters.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** You could combine them all.

**Ben:** That’s a hell of a weekend.

**Craig:** I say we kick this table over and walk on out of here.

**John:** You have that and some cough syrup and you have a good weekend. So, that wraps up this part of the show and so I’ll just do the standard boilerplate stuff when I get home.

**Ben:** You can do it now.

**John:** Okay, I’ll do it now. If you would like to listen to more episodes of Scriptnotes, I was seeing if Craig even knows how to do it. You can find us on iTunes. Just search for Scriptnotes right there. You can leave us a comment while you’re there. If you want to have a transcript of this episode or any episode they are always online. So, just go to johnaugust.com/scriptnotes and you’ll see all the transcripts are right there.

We have an app for your phone.

**Craig:** For iOS and for Android.

**John:** That’s correct.

**Ben:** A Scriptnotes specific app?

**John:** Ben, you don’t even know we have an app? All right.

**Ben:** I have a flip phone.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** We actually have an app for the flip phone.

**Ben:** I have a princess phone.

**Craig:** Yeah. We have an app for that. Yeah, we have an app for, hi princess. Yeah, if anybody is still rocking a Treo we have a fully functional Treo app.

**Ben:** What happens with this app?

**John:** So, the best thing about the app is you can get to all of the back episodes. Because we only keep the most recent 25 episodes on iTunes, but the entire back catalog is there. So, it’s a great way to get to the back catalog. If the first 100 episodes are your thing, we also have some USB drives that you can have all the 100 episodes of that. Those are at store.johnaugust.com. And that’s this part of the show.

**Craig:** If you want to ask, have any questions or comments, you can email John and myself at ask@johnaugust.com. But for shorter comments or questions —

**John:** You’re doing very well, Craig. You really are.

**Craig:** John is @johnaugust and I am @clmazin.

**John:** And you @benblacker, correct?

**Ben:** Yeah, I got my whole name. Early adopter.

**John:** Nicely done.

**Craig:** Sweet.

**John:** Sweet. And thank you very much for this part. So, this is a crossover episode so we need to think of some sort of cliffhanger to go from one to the next.

**Ben:** Did you guys watch Scandal last week?

**Craig:** What?

**John:** Find out the answer on the next episode!

Links:

* [Nerdist Writers Panel](http://www.nerdist.com/podcast/nerdist-writers-panel/)
* [826 LA](http://826la.org/)
* [NerdMelt](https://www.nerdmeltla.com/) at [Meltdown Comics](http://www.meltcomics.com/blog/)
* The [Children of Tendu](http://childrenoftendu.libsyn.com/) podcast, and [on iTunes](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/children-of-tendu/id833831151?mt=2)
* [Superman: Red Son](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1401201911/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) and [Marvel Zombies](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0785185380/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) on Amazon
* John’s Scriptcast on [writing better action](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPHIb1RweeI&list=PLa3qqbMuNy-q05OxwIqEfxTTHA0lDV0K3)
* [Ops](http://johnaugust.com/library#ops) in the John August Library
* Scriptnotes, Episode 121: [My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend’s Screenwriter](http://johnaugust.com/2013/my-girlfriends-boyfriends-screenwriter)
* Tickets for the Scriptnotes Summer Superhero Spectacular will be available April 17th on the [Writers Guild Foundation’s website](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/scriptnotes-summer-superhero-spectacular/)
* [Alternative Movie Posters: Film Art from the Underground](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764345664/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Matthew Chojnacki
* [Unsheets](http://unsheets.tumblr.com/) on tumblr
* Fight jet lag with [Entrain](http://entrain.math.lsa.umich.edu/)
* [Sex Criminals](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1607069466/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Matt Fraction, and on [Image Comics](https://imagecomics.com/comics/series/sex-criminals)

Scriptnotes, Ep 138: The Deal with the Deal — Transcript

April 11, 2014 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/the-deal-with-the-deal).

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

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

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

Craig, you’re at home, your son was using up all the bandwidth. We’ve had some challenges but I think we’re doing better now.

**Craig:** Yeah, basically I just yelled at him and now everything is fine.

**John:** That’s great, great parenting.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Last weekend I had a parenting challenge and we actually did something new where I asked five questions on a piece of paper and had her sort of fill out like what she thought was like the right amount of screen time, what she thought would be the right consequences of these kind of actions, and drew up a little agreement. And so far so good. Better.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know if it’s a gender thing or if it’s just an individual thing. With my son, I find that what seems to work best is a kind of a military precision with him. So generally speaking to help guide him we don’t discuss the why he’s doing things or why it’s wrong or what it’s supposed to be. Instead it’s just very like, here’s the rules, this and this and this. And he says, got it. [laughs] Then he just does it.

But we do have this interesting thing we do where sometimes at night he’ll write up a little something where he expresses his feelings. It’s easier for him to just write it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then he gives it to me and he goes to bed because he doesn’t want to talk about it. And then I read it and then I write back a response. It’s very parental and nice. And then I slip it under his door and when he wakes up in the morning he reads it. And in a very kind of father-son way that works really well for us. We are allowed to be kind of vulnerable and sweet with each other that way.

**John:** Yeah. I do the exact same thing with my daughter, so it’s a good idea.

**Craig:** Oh, good.

**John:** So our parenting advice for the episode would be to do that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But we have a show chock full of other stuff today, so let’s get to it.

We’re going to talk about the Writers Guild and producers who have reached a new agreement. And so we will have Chris Keyser on to talk about that.

We are going to talk about screenplay formats and not just our sort of new format but sort of how we got to the current screenplay format and some of the alternatives that have already been out there and sort of what they look like and their pros and cons of that.

And then I also want to talk about the process of assembling a first draft, because I just today shipped in a brand new first draft of something and it was a completely different way than I had ever written before. So I want to talk about that process.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** But before we get to Chris Keyser I have a little bit of follow up. James in London emailed us two episodes ago about Courier Prime and how the underlining wasn’t right. Do you remember that?

**Craig:** Yeah, I do, yeah.

**John:** And I was like, well, you’re wrong because I underline things in script a lot. And I think the underlining in Courier Prime is really good. The underlining does actually, like the Gs carve out in the underlining, which I think is a good thing.

He emailed us back to say, “I have since looked further into the matter and I feel I owe you an apology. The difference in underlining is due to changes in Final Draft 9 and not the fonts. I have attached a couple of screenshots showing the difference.”

**Craig:** Oh! Ha, that’s weird because they did spend three years on that.

**John:** So I will describe for our listeners sort of what the difference is. Like the underline is weirdly, bizarrely thin in the Final Draft 9 version. I don’t have an answer for why it is that way. But actually it’s a Final Draft 9 thing and he was not being crazy, we were not being crazy. It was a Final Draft thing.

**Craig:** How many times they —

**John:** Final Draft.

**Craig:** Do we say, oh it’s just a Final Draft thing?

[*Intro tone*]

**John:** So on Wednesday this past week the Writers Guild and the studios reached a tentative agreement for another three years of contract, which is great news. Press releases don’t work very well on radio, so we’re so excited to have Chris Keyser, the President of the Writers Guild of America, on the show today to talk us through what is new in the deal.

Chris, welcome to the Scriptnotes podcast.

**Chris Keyser:** Thanks, guys. Thanks, John. Thanks, Craig.

I haven’t seen you in over a day, John.

**John:** It’s been a very long day without you.

So I was on the negotiating committee, so I got to see Chris in action sitting at the table right next to me as we were negotiating this deal and this contract. And you went off and shot a whole pilot in the meantime too, so.

**Chris:** I did. And now I’m editing it. So I’ve stepped out of the editing room and — but I’m glad to talk to you guys.

**John:** Good, fantastic. So what should writers know about this deal and sort of what has happened over the course of this negotiation?

**Chris:** There are actually a lot of things that I think this negotiation accomplished. Most people I think will look at it in that it’s two separate things. One is a whole bunch of stuff that we got that came off of what people will think of as the DGA pattern, a pattern that in fact we had a lot to do with because there were conversations that went on for a long time between the WGA and the DGA about all the stuff that had been negotiated. And then separately the new provisions on options and exclusivity which are the first time for those issues to be discussed in the MBA. And actually I think potentially a big step forward.

So we should probably talk about one and then the other. And I’m happy to do whichever thing you want to do first.

**John:** Let’s do the basics, because a lot of stuff going into this negotiation was about talk of really rollbacks.

So I think far in the distance as this negotiation was approaching, there’s a sense like, okay, it’s just going to be a very standard negotiation. We’re going to end up doing a lot of the same things the DGA deal did. It should not be complicated.

And then the first proposals we got from the studios were actually not what we expected.

**Chris:** No, they actually contained about $60 million in rollbacks which seemed outrageous during the time of unprecedented profitability for the companies. Nevertheless, that’s where we began. And so that’s coming off of an initial list of rollbacks and then a decision on the part of the studios, the companies not to come in for any early conversations but just to arrive on the first day with those rollbacks on the table.

We began on our end with a letter, as you probably all remember from the co-chairs of our committee, from Chip Johannessen and Billy Ray, essentially informing our members of what those rollbacks were. And I think that was a really important moment in the course of the negotiations. It put the companies on notice that we were not taking this lightly. I think it energized the membership in a way.

And we went into the room with interestingly I think a little bit of momentum. I don’t know whether it was a strategic mistake on the part of the companies. You’d have to ask them how they felt about it in the long run. But I think though it looked like it was a potentially dangerous moment and it could have been. There were many days sitting in the negotiation room when we were still at risk of some of those rollbacks actually trying — being imposed on us if we could not get out of them. But instead, what it turned out to do was to kind of invigorate us on our side and put us on the offensive almost from day one.

So first off, all of those rollbacks were off the table and those rollbacks included some major — would have — major concessions first of all in pension and health — mostly in health. Also some rollbacks on the screen side of the business that would have decreased the salary of screenwriters by raising the low budget minimum. So that was actually a very dangerous moment for us at the very beginning.

But all of that stuff actually went away. And by the way, those were the highlighted rollbacks. But the truth was as we got into the deal there were also a bunch of hidden potential rollbacks that we actually were able to avoid as we went and negotiated a number of the different specifics.

**John:** One of the things I found most interesting as I was sitting there learning about this stuff is that when we say the DGA deal, I sort of assumed that all the unions had kind of agreed on what the levels were for things. Like on the future side, what we describe as being a low budget or medium budget or high budget, I assumed those would be common across all of the guilds. And they’re not at all.

And so when the studios try to say like, oh we want to have the low budget and the medium budget things be similar to the DGA things, that can be really, really bad for our side because we may have much better definitions for what those terms mean than the DGA does.

**Chris:** Yeah, I think it — and you’re talking specifically about the rates for basic cable where the budget breaks for basic cable are different between the WGA and the DGA deal. So what ended up happening was we were looking at getting what’s called an outsized increase in the script minimums for hour-long dramatic basic cable series. And the question was, were we going to do it on our old budget breaks or would we be asked to adopt the DGA budget breaks. If we did that, we would have lost much of the gains that came with those minimums because the shows would not actually fit over those budget breaks.

But we held firm. So what ended up happening is it doesn’t look like a remarkable gain because in fact what we got — I mean, in terms of the budget breaks because the budget breaks are exactly the same as they’ve always been in the WGA deal. We do have, in fact, one of the gains we made was a 5, 5 and 5% bump in script minimums for basic cable dramatic series without a change in the budget breaks.

So that’s a good result of the negotiation that will not be clear in the materials that were put out for the negotiation.

So the DGA made a deal off of its contract and we made a deal off of our contract. And our point of view was you can’t change our minimums. That’s a rollback. And they didn’t get a rollback. We shouldn’t get a rollback either. So we didn’t. We both ended up with gains over what was existing in our current contract.

**Craig:** I want to take a step back for a second, Chris, because we’re going to go through all the points of what this deal means for us. But for the sake of context for people listening, there’s kind of a meta victory baked in to all of this. And that is a victory of prudence. I don’t know how else to put it.

The companies came to us with this jerky first offer. And there are so many ways to take the bait there. And quite expertly you and David Young and the negotiating committee and Billy Ray and Chip, you all chose the path of no bait. We’re not taking the bait at all. We’re not going to antagonize. We’re not going to throw a tantrum. We’re going to very calmly tell our membership. But basically, we’re not going to take the bait.

And they blinked. And I think it’s important for people to understand that there’s no fun victory in any of this. You never get to punch this guy in the nose and see him go down and then just dance around him. It’s always some quiet unseen victory. Those are the only victories worth having in these things.

**Chris:** Right.

**Craig:** So you guys did a really good job right off the bat of not taking the bait. And I think that the prudence paid off in a huge way. There is this saying that some used to promulgate years ago that the guild never won anything good without a strike. I would submit this negotiation as the perfect rebuttal to that. We got a lot here.

**Chris:** When the companies put out those rollbacks on the table and we came in with that firm undeniable response, I think they rightly believed that we could go back to our membership and take a strike vote. And that we would get a strike vote. That’s what the truth in the room that we were not going to put up with, in a period of unprecedented economic success for those companies, rollbacks in our P&H or for our most vulnerable members at this point, our screenwriters. That continued into the conversation about options and exclusivity throughout all of which I think they rightly assumed that they were sitting on a tinderbox.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Chris:** We didn’t explode anything but we made it very clear what was at risk if we didn’t get some deal on this.

**Craig:** It’s a great example of walking softly and carrying a big stick because, yeah sure, I’m sure they were probing with the theory that we were all just battle-weary still from 2007. And why not see if we can get away with something crazy. And so they do what they do and you guys had the perfect response.

I was really happy to see the term — we used to traditionally always get these 3% bumps in minimums. And for people that write in features, minimums are sort of irrelevant because it’s sort of an overscale business and most of us — most people who work in screenplays get more than scale. But even if you do get scale, 3% isn’t going to change your life.

But in television it’s the basis for residuals. It’s a really important term. And we would always get 3% and then suddenly it became 2%. And now I’m happy to see that it’s coming back for 2.5% and now 3% — back to 3% again.

**Chris:** Yeah. David Young calls it breaking the 2s and it was a very high priority for us. I’ll just quote him again, something — a quote that the negotiating committee heard over and over again. I think anyone who went to any of the outreach meetings, I think he quotes Einstein — whether it’s actually an accurate quote or not, who cares: that the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Chris:** So 3% every single year, year after year actually makes an enormous difference in income for writers both from their minimums they get paid but also in residuals. But in addition to that, I think that we believe that it drives eventually overscale income that as those minimums rise and at some point double over the course of a decade because of it, so too does above scale income rising. We all know that one of the pressures right now is on downward pressure on above scale income, not just for screenwriters but also for television writers.

And it’s a tough thing for us to take on because it’s not actually within WGA’s purview. But we do effect it indirectly by guarding our 3% bumps in minimums. And I —

**Craig:** Right.

**Chris:** And I agree with you. It was an important gain in this year’s negotiation.

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure.

**John:** An unusual thing about this negotiation is generally the parties sit down, they negotiate for a long period of time and hopefully by the end of this negotiation they reach a conclusion, a deal. And this time, it didn’t happen. So we got through a bunch of it and then we announced to the members that we were taking a break and that we were coming back to focus on one specific issue which was options and exclusivity.

So can you talk us through what options and exclusivity really mean, who is affected by it, and sort of why it became an issue this round?

**Chris:** Yes. It’s a little bit of a long story and that would actually happen in the negotiations as well.

Options and exclusivity became an issue because of traditional television schedule, the 22-episode television schedule or more — 22 episodes or more television schedule which had writers writing on the same schedule essentially from the beginning of June until sometime in March or April. And then taking something around a two-month break before they were either hired again when their show came back or not or had the chance to go after a different job the exact time as everyone else.

It has begun to be replaced by a new system of short orders which meant that increasingly television writers were finding themselves working for eight or 10 or 12 episodes on a series much less time and for much less pay. And then waiting under both either exclusivity or an exclusivity and an option deal with their studios, and I’ll describe what that means for a moment, unable to get work sometimes for six, nine, 10 months in a row because you — as people know who write cable programs, you may be in a room, write all the episodes. It may be some time before all the shooting is done and then some even more months until that series airs. And then who knows how long until the studio and the network decide they’re going to pick up the show again and put you back to work.

So what ended up happening was writers had small amount of pay over a small period of time attached to which they had a very long period where they were effectively unable to get other work.

Why were they unable to get other work? One of two reasons. One, because some people had exclusivity agreements which meant that they were actually not permitted even when they were not writing to go write for anyone else. The studio that had them under contract essentially had a lock on them.

But even if they didn’t have an exclusivity deal, they had an option on them in first position for when the series came back which meant that anyone who wanted — and it’s not that they weren’t free to go look for other employment in television — could only look for employment in television in second position. So I’d go to another show and say, “Hey, I’ve got some number of months off. I’d love to be on staff on your show.” And that other show would say, “Yeah, but we don’t know when your first show is going to come back on the air and they’re going to take you out of our writers’ room potentially somewhere in the middle. And we can’t afford that. At the very least, why would we hire you as opposed to somebody else who’s free and clear?”

So effectively, what was going on is that people were working for short periods of time and being held under an option to that same studio for long periods of time without pay. At some point, that becomes an untenable financial situation for people. They can’t actually make ends meet. And what’s more and the argument that we made is it’s fundamentally unfair.

**John:** So I have friends who were in exactly that situation where they were sort of in limbo because the TV show they’d been writing on had shot. It was waiting to find out whether they were going to get another season of the TV show. And during that time, they were stuck. They couldn’t write on any other shows. They weren’t even supposed to go out and do feature work during that time, which seemed crazy. And you don’t know how long that’s going to be.

So to literally be taken out of the market for such a long period of time is so damaging to writers, especially young writers, people who are just first-time staff writers. They suddenly can’t work anywhere else.

And so these are the kind of writers who end up having to go get other jobs because like literally like Starbucks kind of jobs because they cannot work in the actual industry for which they’re supposed to be employed. It was incredibly frustrating to me. But I think it’s also frustrating for television. I think it’s bad for television.

**Chris:** That’s right. I mean, it’s difficult in a couple of ways. First of all, I think you were alluding to this: Imagine somebody who beforehand was writing 22 episodes a year, that kind of experience. And now, they’re — maybe they get eight episodes in a full year and maybe the next year they don’t get that because their show doesn’t get picked up. And so you end up with people instead of who have hundreds of episodes under their belt by the time they want to run a show or move up the ladder and become co-APs or whatever it is, they now have episodes that measure in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s because that’s all they can add up to if you’re only doing a short order every season at best.

And so it’s very bad for that reason. The other reason why it’s bad is because — and we actually felt that the studios would respond to this and maybe they did even if they didn’t say so out loud — is that a marketplace where all the writers are tied up not working is bad for every television show that doesn’t have the dibs on that writer.

So if you, John, have a new show and you want to staff, you may well find out that there are five or six writers who are not currently writing but they’re not available to you.

The second argument really is that for every show, every studio that isn’t holding a given writer under contract, they’re at a huge disadvantage by this tight labor market because, for example, I said like say you, John, you have a new show that gets on the air and you’re looking to hire a writing staff. And in fact, there are many writers who are not currently working but they’re not available because they’re all sitting doing nothing because they’re under option to people who aren’t using them currently. How much better it would be if the labor market were freed up and that people who had shows and needed writing were able to hire those people? And those people would then be able to choose which show to work on.

In the long run, that benefits everybody. The companies certainly never expressed the feeling like this would in the long run be down to their benefit. But I actually feel like it’ll be beneficial to everyone to have a labor market in which people can work whenever they’re available.

**John:** I strongly agree.

Chris, can you talk us through what is new and different in this options and exclusivity agreement, because I think there’s some confusion as if, you know, we didn’t actually give up anything that was already in the contract. None of this was ever covered by WGA contract. This is sort of brand new territory for the MBA.

**Chris:** That’s right. This is the first time ever that options and exclusivity have been covered in the MBA. And like everything in the MBA, these are minimums which is to say that they only set a floor from which we can negotiate even better deals for ourselves and our individual contracts. There is nothing in the MBA that gives the companies the right to have an option over you or to exclusivity. They need to negotiate for that. The options and exclusivity provisions that are in the new MBA restrict the company’s ability to negotiate for options and exclusivity in the following way.

If you are a writer who earns after January 1st 2015 under $200,000 a year or after January 2016 under $210,000 a year, the companies are not permitted to negotiate options and exclusivity clauses with you. Instead, your treatment is governed by the MBA. And this is what it says. First of all, there’s no exclusivity anymore for any of those writers. So when you are not actually working, you are free to work for any other company. You want to go out and write — you get a chance to do a rewrite on a movie during your hiatus, you are free to do that and they cannot say to you, “No, we get a first look at your services.”

Second thing is about options. So the companies have a 90-day period after when payment is due for your writing services during which they still have a hold on you. This is roughly the same as the kind of hold that they might have had at the end of the 22 episodes, 22-episode order.

But beginning on the 91st day, you have the right to go out and look for any job you want. The requirement is that when you get a bona fide offer, you bring it back to the studio and they have two choices. Within three days, if your show has already been picked up, only if your show has been picked up, they may exercise your option and put you on that show and you need to begin being paid to write within 14 days. Or if your show has not been picked up, they leave you free to go. And you are then permitted to go and get another job in first position. And the company with which, the studio with which you originally work then retains second position.

So in other words, once your job is over, once that second job is over, if your original show gets picked up, they can come back to you and say, “Okay, we want to put you on that show under the terms of the deal that you negotiated.” Effectively, you are free to go get work in essentially any situation after those 90 days are done.

**Craig:** Unless they pay you a holding fee.

**Chris:** That’s right. So that’s the other thing. The other thing they can do is they can, after that 90 days, they can pay you to extend your option. And that holding fee is one-third of WGA minimum for either Article 13 or Article 14 writers plus pension and health. That’s fundamental for us because what we said was the right, which is not just the right of writers but of all human beings, is to actually be able to apply their trade, to go out and make money for the thing that they do. We don’t work for free nor do we forgo employment for free.

So beyond the reasonable period at the end of a season, of a show, there’s no reason why a writer should say you may hold me without either compensating me or, like I said, I wouldn’t put it that way, you can’t hold me without compensating me. And if you do not compensate me, you must let me go. The argument we made in the room over and over again, it was made very powerfully by a lot of members of the committee, was that anything less than that is a form of servitude. And that we would not live as indentured servants of the companies.

**Craig:** Well, one thing that I think is revolutionary about this — beyond the fact that it’s addressing an area that had not yet been addressed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement — is the idea, is the philosophy behind the idea that this applies to people who earn less than X. And in this case, X is $200,000 per contract year. Unless I’m incorrect, my memory of the MBA is that the only other place that there was anything like this was in relation to pseudonyms that we have a right guaranteed by the MBA to use a pseudonym unless we make more than I think it’s $200,000 or $250,000 on a project.

But what’s so brilliant about this is that one thing that we’ve always struggled with and what the companies throw in our face all the time is that this is a mature contract. And it is a mature contract. It’s — I mean, this is the product of — we’re coming up on 70 years now of negotiated settlements and it is a mature contract where we are literally arguing over whether we should get raises of 2.5% or 3% and so on and so forth. And we all know that certain residual formulae are set in stone. But this is shining a light. And I think this is the future of our guild and our negotiations with the companies.

And that is to say let us agree that certain areas here are mature, but let us now carve out exceptions and protections for new writers who are being paid what I call close to scale because those are the writers who are suffering the most from these kinds of practices. It’s harder to argue as some did.

When I was on the board people were still fighting the DVD battle and they were saying, “Well, we’re losing millions of dollars.” And I was listening to millionaires telling me that they were losing millions of dollars. And it was true.

But what was also true is that they were millionaires. And I really like the idea that we’re forgoing this need for a universal benefit for all union members and saying we’re okay to settle for getting the goods for the people who need it the most. To me, that’s what a union is for. And I think this is a big deal. I just think philosophically from an approach point of view, there’s a lot more to be mined from this tactic than there is from saying everybody deserves it or nobody gets it.

**John:** Well, I think it’s also — it’s looking structurally what are the biggest problems facing actual working writers. And you can’t be a working writer if you’re not allowed to work. And that’s I think a great place for the guild to come in and take a look at it.

But I would stress, though, it’s not necessarily just the people who are making below $200,000 or $210,000 in the second year of this that are going to be affected because I think the people who are above that level, their agents, their representatives are going to go back and say, “Hey, I know we’re above this cap but we want those same protections that the people below the cap have.” And some of those people will get it and some of those people won’t get it. But I think it sets a standard or a pattern for how you talk about options and exclusivity for even people who are making —

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Significantly above that level.

**Craig:** Sure. I agree. Yeah.

**Chris:** I think one of the problems that we’ve had is, look, it’s obvious, is that individual agents negotiating for individual clients have been unable to exert the leverage to avoid onerous options and exclusivity clauses in contracts. The philosophy of this is that there are some writers who are beginning, who make less for whom the job of negotiating this individually through their agents is an impossibility. Much like negotiating a minimum salary for those people would be an impossibility. They’d be under pressure to — downward pressure to accept less and less and less.

But having set a floor below which the companies cannot go, we hope to provide an opportunity for the agents of better paid writers to make an argument that said, “If you’re paying my staff writer and my story editor and not holding them under option, you’re not going to tell my co-producer and my producer that he or she needs to be under an onerous option.” We put the power back in the hands of the agents where that also belongs.

**Craig:** Chris, you and I have had a discussion about the free rewrite problem, whatever name we want to give it, that’s really what it is. And one thing that I’ve expressed to you before and I’m kind of hoping that maybe this is a little bit of an illuminated path to it is the idea of carving out a protection in the MBA for writers that are earning close to scale, particularly when it comes to one step deals.

I’d love to see a term where we were okay with going in there and saying, “We’re negotiating for a two-step deal guarantee. But not for everybody, just if you’re making this or under.” And I think there’s nice precedent now for that kind of work to be done.

**Chris:** Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s where we have to go after we hang up. It’s high on the list.

**Craig:** Great, good.

**John:** So Chris, talk to us about when the things in this deal go into effect because it’s not all at once.

**Chris:** No. In general, the terms of the deal go into effect May 2nd of this year. That’s when the new three-year term begins. Options and exclusivity are effective January 1st 2015. That’s because it actually is a very large change in the way business affairs has to do business. So it gives them, the companies, a bunch of months to actually get their houses in order. And actually for us to begin to educate writers and agents about how this is going to work.

**Craig:** It makes sense too because the term is based on a contractual year income and that hasn’t happened yet. It’s a little strange to look back at income that was accrued under a contract that didn’t have that provision.

**Chris:** That’s right, that’s right.

**John:** So before any of this goes into effect though we have to ratify this contract. So what is the process for that? What do writers need to do or WGA members need to do?

**Chris:** Well, they can either vote online or in the old-fashioned ways. And all of the packet of materials will be going out — I apologize, I don’t know exactly what day but in the next day or two. The contract has been recommended by both the guild — the Board of Directors of the West and the Council of the East and by the negotiating committee. So all that’s left is for the members to vote and I hope to ratify the contract.

And so you’ll get the material in the next few days. And I believe the voting deadline is the end of — it’s like the 29th of April. Don’t hold me to that. It could be just a day or — it can’t be a day or two later because it needs to be ratified or we need to turn it down by the date on which the contract expires which is May 1st. So voting needs to happen.

And I — look, it’s the same argument that we make all the time. I think a good turnout and I hope a good turnout that votes in favor of this contract continues what I think the negotiation began to suggest to the companies which is that we are, after all these years, and an argument I think that I’ve made and you’ve made, John and Craig, we’re actually much more unified than the companies might have perceived that we were or the world continues to claim that we are.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Chris:** And one — another piece of evidence of that and that means people voting.

**Craig:** I think for me, by far the most important factor and the most beneficial thing for us when dealing with them is our leadership and how they view our leadership. And again, I have to say they took our leadership this time around, which includes the two of you, seriously because our leadership behaved in a serious manner. Not in a loud manner but in a very serious manner. And if they feel they’re dealing with serious people, in their minds they know if serious people turn to the membership and say, “Hey, everyone, this is bad,” everyone will believe them and become instantly energized.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We don’t need to be marching around with pitchforks until such time as a reasonable man asks us to.

**Chris:** Yeah, I think —

**John:** That’s a very good point.

**Chris:** I think that — yes. Look, I mean it’s self-serving for me but I will agree with — one of the things that we are susceptible to and I think a fallacious argument is that ignoring the fact that science gives consent in fact and that the assumption that when our members are not active, they are inactive because they don’t care, I think many of them are inactive from time to time because they have many other things going on.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Chris:** They have their lives that are complicated both in a work sense and every way else. And if they feel as if things are going in the right direction, then they’re less likely to actually feel the need to actively engage. I don’t take that always as being a negative. Sometimes I think that’s a quiet sign of competence.

**John:** Chris Keyser, I would like to thank you personally for your quiet confidence during this whole negotiation. It was great to see this. And I really thought the team was terrific, including David Young who I had not really encountered before but just did a terrific job negotiating that contract. So my personal thanks to you for a really great negotiation.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean I’ll back that up. I would say, Chris, and this is self-serving for me because I’ve supported you strongly from the start but I think you’re going to go down as one of our great presidents. I really do. I think that you have accomplished not only an extraordinary amount of good during your time, which is of course not yet over, but you have set an example and kind of put forth proof of an argument of a way to do this that is better than the way it has been done. And that is extraordinarily valuable for us as a union going forward.

**John:** Well, Chris, we’ll let you get back to you cutting your pilot and thank you so much for joining us on here to talk about the deal and congratulations. And everybody, remember to vote.

**Chris:** Okay, thanks guys.

**Craig:** Thanks, Chris. Thank you.

**Chris:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

[*Intro tone*]

**John:** So Craig, we we’ve talking a lot about our potential new screenplay format and I thought today we could spend a few minutes talking about sort of how the screenplay format came to be and sort of what some of the other alternatives that have existed out there are. And it’s a little bit of a history lesson but also alternate history lesson of the way things could have gone.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I’m going to start with — actually, a guy wrote in — emailed us. His name is Stokely Dallison and he wrote, “I suspect you may have forgotten what it’s like to be a new screenwriter. In my view, it’s a wonderful comfort to adopt the same format as thousands of scripts that have come before. Every script the same font, the same spacing, the same three holes with two brass brads. It feels good to be part of something relatively old. It feels good to know that my script, however inadequate it might be, looks the same as all the great scripts that have come before.”

And I thought that was actually a really charming thought —

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Because I remember writing that first script and it’s like it just seems so weirdly magic that I — oh everything — it’s got to look just like a real script and the esoterica of the screenplay format is both something that sort of keeps people away, but once you sort of get inside it’s like, oh, I know how to do this. There’s something about that format and it does feel sort of special. And so whatever we do, we have to acknowledge that there is something special about it.

What’s interesting though is what we take as being the screenplay format is actually fairly recent. And there are other ways it could have gone and there are other ways — you’ve seen movies that were written in completely different ways.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so there’s not one magic way for it to work.

**Craig:** No. Well, I have to say that, first I hear — I can’t tell you how many times I will hear somebody say, “Well, you’ve probably forgotten what it’s like to be a new screenwriter.” No, I haven’t. No. [laughs] I don’t think there is a screenwriter alive who still doesn’t feel like a new screenwriter on some level. And certainly we don’t forget what it’s like. I do want to just put that out there. Never think that we’ve forgotten magically the pain of becoming a screenwriter or starting out.

There is something that’s comforting about being able to write in a format that makes your screenplay look professional. But unfortunately that’s not really important. And I would argue that a lot of new screenwriters will obsess over those things in order to avoid the other things that are unique to their screenplay like, you know, the content.

**John:** So let’s take a little history trip and figure out how the screenplay came to be. Because when the first movies were made, the first screenplays were really just a list of shots. And if you think about it, these are silent films. So literally you are just making a shot list and just like a train comes, close on a man’s face. And that’s sort of what the original screenplays were like, were just a list of these shots.

And it was almost — it was basically a set of instructions for like what the order of the shots were going to be. And if there was going to be a title card, there wasn’t really dialogue, so it could just be a title card or like one of those intercut cards that show like some line that someone is supposedly saying. But that’s as much as there would be.

It’s Thomas Ince who is often credited with sort of being the father of the modern screenplay because he’s also the father of the modern studio. He was the one who said — he bought a bunch of land in California and he’s like we’re going to make a bunch of movies. And in order to make a bunch of movies, he wanted to make sure that he could basically hand a blueprint to anyone, any of his directors, and say like this is what it’s supposed to be. Shoot exactly what I’m giving you.

And so our idea of a screenplay being the blueprint for a movie is really credited to him. And so a bit of trivia, if you actually are down in Culver City, there’s a street of Ince. There’s the Ince Gate —

**Craig:** Ince, yeah.

**John:** To the Culver Studios or one of the studios down there. You will actually see the word Ince down there.

**Craig:** Wasn’t he the guy that got murdered on a boat or something?

**John:** I’m sure there’s a fascinating story. Like all of old Hollywood is great and wonderful. And so —

**Craig:** Right. Everybody was constantly being murdered.

**John:** Well, this was the frontier. This is like a brand new town. It was all —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It was all made up from scratch. So he’s the guy who sort of I think is generally credited with being the guy who said this is a plan for making the movie. It’s typed out this way. It’s basically those shots.

Now I still, remember, he was essentially making silent films. And as we started adding dialogue in, that’s where the scripts became a little bit more like a play because you actually have to have people talking to each other.

So scripts going back to even like Casablanca, they written in what’s called a continuity style, which is sort of like a shooting script. It’s basically a sequence of shots. And even when there’s dialogue, it’s really about the shots. And it’s as if you’re sort of directing on the page. It’s like — it feels like a director’s plan for what it is that you’re shooting.

This evolved over time to what is called the master scene format. And I don’t even — I mean, I’ve been writing scripts for a long time but I didn’t know that the way we were writing our scripts is called the master scene. Have you seen that terminology?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ve never heard it before, but I did see it in the example that they used for an early master scene format screenplay. It’s The Apartment by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond. And they wrote that in 1959. And that does look very much like the screenplay format we use, if not exactly like the screenplay format we use today, which by the way I have to say, so on like one hand you’re right that it’s not like the movie business was founded on this format that we currently use. On the other hand, we have been using it for at least 55, 60 years, which implies that maybe it’s time for, you know, a change.

**John:** Or that we got it exactly right and nothing needs to change at all.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Well, let’s talk about The Apartment, because actually I was really struck by it. And there’s going to be links in the show notes to sort of all the scripts we’re talking about. So The Apartment, it really looks like a modern screenplay. Like if someone dropped it on your desk, it’s like, well, this is a screenplay.

But it’s considerably different from the continuity style of script. It’s literary. It’s kind of designed to be read. It’s not designed just as for a director to know what shots there are. It’s designed for a person to be able to see what a scene feels like just on the page. There’s a lot description about sort of — there is screen description. It’s really talking through what the characters are doing, what things feel like, what things looks like. And in a weird way, I think this is a good point that this site that we’re going to send you to makes, is that it actually gives the director more leeway.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right.

**John:** And so rather than calling out every shot, it’s describing sort of what the scene is like, and sometimes the suggestions were sort of like how it’s shot. But really, it’s going to be a director to figure out what those shots are in there to tell the story. So even though the writer gets to have a more free rein and more words to describe the scene, the director actually gets a little bit more leeway for figuring out how to shoot that scene. It’s a significant evolution.

**Craig:** Yeah, you can see in the Master Screen format — that’s what they’re calling it Master Screen format?

**John:** Master Scene format.

**Craig:** Master Scene format that everybody is starting to approach filmmaking in a more artistically free way. It is being unyoked from the factory. Early Hollywood was a factory. They would just burn film and lights and people would stand in spots and they would make movies in a matter of days. I mean, it was just — they would just churn them out.

And so it was really an ADs’ business if you think about it, you know. I mean, that what we currently think of as a first AD, they are the people on the set who are scheduling, figuring out how many pages you’re shooting in the day, marshaling the crew, making sure that the props people and the this and the that and everything is in place.

ADs were kind of the early directors, in some regards were like that.

**John:** They were.

**Craig:** And then as you see the influence of European cinema and also the increasing freedom, the artistic freedom of Hollywood, which I think was just naturally building on itself, getting bored with the kinds of stories they were telling and trying to find new ways to tell them, started to — and also probably because of the influx of playwrights into the process because of the demand. You can see now that the format is allowing both the writer and the director the freedom to tell a story in a creative way.

**John:** Yes. So if you look at the Master Scene format, which is really what we think about the modern screenplay format, it’s very tempting to read the dialogue and skip over everything else because the dialogue tends to be the meat of what is happening in modern screenplays.

You can get the gist of what’s going on by reading the dialogue. And so the dialogue is centered. And your eye kind of goes — falls to the center of the page. And all the scene description and the transitions and the scene headers stay towards the edges. But that’s not the only way that it can happen. And one of our listeners, Matt Markwalder, sent through a bunch of examples of Kubrick scripts which are wildly different and actually sort of do the opposite.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I think and probably in direct response to how people read scripts, he decided to do a completely different thing. So in Clockwork Orange, first off, everything is double spaced. And dialogue has wider margins and action is sort of put over to the right. And so the action is deliberately sort of minimized and sort of put over to the side, but in a way that you tend to sort of read it. It’s like the line length is really, really short and your eye goes to it. Whereas dialogue tends to be bigger, wider blocks of things.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So an example, I’m skipping to page 28 of A Clockwork Orange. Scene 22. INT. CAT LADY HOUSE. That feels kind of normal. “The cat lady enters and dials a number.” That sentence is centered in two lines in the middle of the page. So it’s like it looks in sort of the area where you would normally expect to see dialogue, that’s where that line is. And the cat lady has this long speech that’s double spaced and goes all the way to the margins of the page. Is just a really interesting way to do it.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, and then he changes it up because then when you get to Full Metal Jacket, it reads like a novel. He’s just in — he’s burying dialogue and action description into flowing paragraphs, not really breaking them out or formatting them any differently than each other.

It’s almost as if Kubrick decided I’m just going to format my screenplay the way I feel the movie is. I’m going to let the formatting reflect the tone and the vibe of what I’m going for which is awesome. And I suspect that when the entrepreneurial screenplay market really took off, the need for screenplays to be uniformly formatted became really important because now it was a commodity. And you had to formalize it. But I regret that. And I would love to see people have the freedom to write their screenplays however they choose to get across the vibe of the story they want to tell. I think that’s very powerful. And I think you and I are going to do it.

**John:** [laughs] So in Full Metal Jacket, for those who aren’t looking at this on the screen right now, the dialogue is actually in quotation marks. It just looks like a page of normal text really. It’s a very —

**Craig:** It’s like a book.

**John:** A completely different way of doing things.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I also want to take a look at some of the other types of scripts that are out there that aren’t screenplay formats or at least normal screenplay formats. The most obvious one which is similar but different is the three-camera comedy, or the multi-cam comedy. So everything you see there has a laugh track to it on television tends to be that. So I’m looking at the page from The Millers.

**Craig:** The Millers, the show, the TV show, yeah.

**John:** So in multi-cam, action is basically on the same lines, has the same margins as we sort of expect in a screenplay format, but it’s all upper case. And it’s usually minimized. They don’t try to write as much in there as you would otherwise. Everything is double spaced. The whole page is double spaced. Character names, where they expect to be. But the dialogue blocks are a little bit wider. Parentheticals fall within the dialogue block themselves.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s really different. One of the things I do sort of enjoy about multi-cam and you can see sort of why they do it is partly because you’re scheduling things sort of on the fly so quickly. Skipping to page 37 of the script I’m reading at. INT. NATHAN’S HOUSE. KITCHEN LATER, D3, D3, indicating day three. And this is a thing you’ll commonly see in TV shows indicating what day or what night it is. But underneath that line, in a parenthesis is, “(Nathan, Debbie, the Sarge),” and what it’s showing is like who is in this scene.

**Craig:** Who’s in the scene, yeah.

**John:** And that’s a really useful bit of really kind of metadata that is useful to have especially as you’re trying to schedule this thing. Who needs to be there, what characters even if they’re not speaking in the scene need to be there in the background.

**Craig:** Yeah, it is useful information. And obviously a sitcom’s script is formatted in part to serve the need of a churning production that is weekly and involves live theater essentially for most of them. But I have to say just aesthetically I find it ugly.

**John:** I find it ugly, too, but that’s what I’m used to. It’s what your — it’s what you grew up with. And I’m sure to people who are used to multi-cam, they don’t find it ugly at all.

**Craig:** I guess I would say that what I find ugly about it is that it is the most formalized, that even screenplays allow you a little more leeway about how you approach things. But it’s so rigid in that sitcom format. And, you know, my instinct now is to see how we can allow screenwriters to express a movie on the page in a way that is more idiosyncratic to the story they’re telling and how they want to tell it and their dramatic intention.

So I’m probably just reacting to that because it’s very rigid.

**John:** It’s very rigid. So actually it’s interesting because in stage plays there actually is a wide range of sort of how those stage plays look. And so something I found in Big Fish is that I was looking at other books for musicals and it’s like, oh, there isn’t really — there’s much less consensus about how those things are supposed to look.

Typically, in plays you will find action will always be put entirely in giant parentheticals, which I find maddening and really not attractive to look at. But it’s a common way to do it in stage plays. Dialogue can be sort of where we expect it now, but blocks tend to be a little bit wider. Are lyrics all the way to left, are they inset differently? Are they all upper case? That all changes.

But of course there’s another way you can do plays, which is just to have — which is more like sort of the reading plays that you and I are used to where a character name is, you know, upper case, bolded maybe even with a colon after it. And their dialogue just goes after it. Since plays are mostly people talking, that could be an efficient way to show that on the page. And it may make more sense to really let the page be dominated by the dialogue because the action is going to tend to be much more minimal than it would be under the screenplay.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, you know, the key thing — the thing that’s going to unleash us all is this getting away from pagination. The more I think about it, I just know we’re right. I just know it.

**John:** So let’s talk about what those fundamental units are, because the fundamental unit could be a scene. It can be a sequence. It could some sort of other unit. But there needs to be some area of story by which you can say like, these are the outer perimeters of what this moment is because if you look at the Kubrick scripts, it’s very difficult to tell sort of where we are at in those things. And sometimes I wouldn’t even know like are we in the same location? Have we moved to a different place in time? That’s challenging to figure out in some of these Kubrick scripts.

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah. No, I’m not an anarchist about this sort of thing. I do think that, you know, if you are — granted if you’re directing your own material, the only person that truly needs to understand it is you and you’ll explain it to everybody else around you. But for those who are writing screenplays for other people to read, I think sequences — sequences. I think letting the dramatic action delineate where the pieces begin and end is the way to do it, not location.

**John:** So the Coen brothers’ scripts, I don’t know if you’ve actually read any of them on the page. They tend to get rid of scene headers altogether. They tend to be, you can see that we’re in the new place or new time. But they’re not using the classic sort of nomenclature for sort of what those are. That may ultimately be the way to look at this is that as you’re moving from place to place you’re showing us where we’re at, but it’s not formalized in those scene header ways. So we don’t think of those scene headers as being — we don’t give them more importance than they deserve. And right now, I think they get way too —

**Craig:** They’re so important. Yeah.

**John:** I think they get elevated too high.

**Craig:** I mean, honestly, you pick up a screenplay, if you were from another planet and you came here and you picked up a screenplay you would think that the most important part of storytelling is whether you’re inside or outside.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s the dumbest thing. And half the time now the way we shoot movies, it doesn’t — you’ll say, you know, EXT. OUTSIDE OF INTERGALACTIC FEDERATION BUILDING. That means you’re inside on a stage. There’s no inside or outside. I mean half that stuff doesn’t even matter anymore. How do you write exterior/interior on a script for Avatar? Explain that. I mean what’s the point?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So I totally agree. I think the slug line thing is the weirdest thing. It forces us into categories of time. A lot of time I’m not sure if I’m supposed to say morning, afternoon, dusk, noon, or just day. What does day mean? I don’t even know what day is. What’s day?

**John:** Yeah, and how specific are you allowed to be about what time of day you’re at? Do you need to clarify if you move to a different day. Like I just like The Millers script indicated it was day three, like that is a useful bit of information yet does that need to be reflected on the page right at that moment? Perhaps not. And maybe there’s a different way that you can indicate that, so that it’s part of the metadata for that sequence, but doesn’t have to be written down the road.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. Because I’ve had this conversation with a number of ADs on a number of movies where they will sit down with me and say, “Walk me through the days of the week or the month on this? Let’s actually…” And in fact, I remember on Identify Thief, Seth and Jason and I sat down one day and really dialed in the days of the week, so we knew that this thing actually made sense and that it wasn’t taking either two days or 12 days. Because we didn’t, you know, if you have four nights in a row and then say you had a three-day road trip, it just doesn’t quite work.

So at some point, you do that. And if you want to — if we have a format that uses technology and allows us to flexibly include a file that they can pull up as they wish, that just shows a day, night, time passage summary.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That would be really cool. But I don’t need to look at it while I’m reading the script.

**John:** Exactly. So that’s a useful bit, just like costume changes. It’s one of the first things when you have a costume designer comes on to a movie is really doing that day/night breakdown to make sure like, are they still in the same outfit as they would be in the previous scene? And sometimes I will get involved with that because I need to sort of clarify like no, no, this is a different day. Like they could have changed clothes, they would have changed clothes between this time. Or no, they have to be wearing the same thing because they literary came right from there to there and it’s going to bizarre if they’re suddenly wearing new clothes.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact you’re zeroing in on something that’s really interesting about the current screenplay format, is that it overemphasizes some things, and ignores other things entirely. And what ends up happening is we go — right before you shoot a movie, right before you begin principal photography, the entire production gathers together all the heads of the department and most of their keys under them, and the director and the producers and hopefully the screenwriter is there as well. They should be. And everybody goes page by page and they ask questions.

And a lot of those questions will shock the hell out of the screenwriter because they’ll think, oh, I thought that would be obvious, but it’s technically not in the script, so yes, they don’t realize that they’re coming home in the same outfit that they went to work in, you know. But if we could help guide those things because the format allowed us to flexibly do so, that would be really cool.

**John:** Yeah. So I think that it becomes a matter of you write your script, you write what is going to be a thing. Let’s not focus on sort of what it looks like. But you’re going to write your thing and you’re going to figure, you’ll write your script, Hollywood script/screenplay. Don’t worry — we won’t worry about margins or sort of other stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But then you figure out what are the sequences? What are the units of story that are important? And within those units of story then we can sort of have those, you know, if this were the web, each of those units of story would be essentially a page and there could be extra metadata associated with that page. So you could have all the information that is about who is in the scene, day or night, where this falls in the timeline of the actual story.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And the situations where we’re in multiple locations, you can address those facts that you’re in multiple locations over the course of the sequence. So those intercut phone calls which are always a challenge, that can all be part of that because it’s — there’s a fundamental story unit that’s together.

**Craig:** What a waste of space when you have two people talking. You have interiors and exteriors, blah, blah, blah, intercut, nonsense words you don’t — it’s like, duh. You just write, you know, he calls her up. She’s sitting in her apartment. They have a discussion, on the phone. Everybody knows how phone discussions work, but somehow screenplay formats are like slogging like Frankenstein through the mud. It’s like we all know how to write our name, but if you need to program in Basic, you go 10, print name, 20, go to 10. You know, it’s just it’s so clumsy and unnecessary and we need to be free of it, John, free, free.

**John:** So the other thing I will say is, you’ve written some animation and I’ve done a lot of animation, is you recognize that they ultimately number things as sequences. And it will be a bunch of what we would consider scenes. They will consider one whole sequence. Almost more like what we think was as reel, they will think of as a sequence. And it’s a much, ultimately a much smarter way to address it because they’re not worried about sort of like this location, that location, whatever. It’s about this unit of story. And that’s probably a smarter way for us to format.

**Craig:** Yes, for sure. I mean, you start writing. Let’s say you’re writing in our new format. And when you reach the end of your first sequence, you indicate it’s time for a new sequence to begin. You might naturally say, well, how will I know when that sequence is over? You’ll know. You’ll know. [laughs] Because you’ll just know. It’s so obvious. And it will just be similarly obvious when the next — it’s like, oh god, we got to do it, John.

**John:** We got to do it. So this is actually a great segue for our last topic of the day, which is I just delivered like literary two hours ago delivered the script that I owed and so I turned it in.

**Craig:** Congrats.

**John:** But this is the first time I went hardcore on a way that I’ve kind of been working, but I went much more hardcore on it this time, which is that I wrote each bit separately. So I didn’t sit down with one file and write from the beginning to the end. I only wrote separate scenes or sequences, whatever you want to call it. And I just wrote the pieces.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I skipped all over the, you know, the story of this episode and wrote the pieces I wanted to write, I had a really good outline and I assembled it all at the end. And so I want to talk through sort of how I did it this way. And, you know, I think it’s actually useful for what we’re doing in terms of like what a format could do that could help us down the road.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** So for this time, I used WorkFlowy which was a One Cool Thing from before which is an outline or it’s an online outliner that I really just love. And so even right now, I’m looking at WorkFlowy because I keep show notes for the podcast in it. But I just made a pilot and I wrote the, you know, these scenes that were in it. Basically these are the events that happened. And I rearranged them and so it was equivalent of my index cards. But I would sort of have a list of basically these are the scenes, these are the things that are happening over the course of it.

And then as I had more details I could fill in underneath those scenes. I sometimes would start writing dialogue. I’d write the important stuff that needed to happen in those things. And when I chose to write one of the scenes, I would just open up a brand new file in Highland and just type it. And I’d write it and when I was done, I would save it, I would scratch that off the list and keep moving on to the next one.

What’s so good about this is, well, once I start on a first draft I’ll go someplace and barricade myself and write drafts by hand. And I’ll do that so that I can’t go back and edit. This was sort of the same idea, is that I would write something and then I would not go back to it and futz with it. I would go on and write the next thing. And I would write the next thing. And I wouldn’t go back through and sort of start at page one and keep building forward. I actually got a lot more done I think because I wasn’t going back and tweaking all those things I’d written before.

**Craig:** You know me, I’m a big go-backer, tweaker, you know, but that’s just my flow. I like that feeling. It just makes me — I’m happy, you know, and whatever makes you happy and whatever gets you through the process. What I very much am addicted to, I don’t know, it’s probably the wrong phrase, but I’m committed to is the notion of thoroughly outlining the movie before I start because I feel like if you do it and I do think in terms of sequences when I’m outlining as supposed to locations which is an indication that we should be writing in terms of sequences and not locations.

It helps you place all of these things within the context of character and theme and all the rest of that stuff as opposed to just, there’s a car chase. Yeah, but what happens in the car chase that makes it relevant to the character beyond, you know, chase man and get him, you know, that sort of thing.

So I like outlining a lot. But there — look, there are writers who don’t and still get there on their own and do it well. I just think that when you’re putting a first draft together, you are entitled to do whatever you need to do to get there. That’s basically my feeling. You get to use anything that supports you through the very difficult process of making something out of absolutely nothing.

And just as long as you can accept that this is — there is no end to your first draft. There is simply ceasing and then returning to it. Do what you need to do.

**John:** So in this case, I ended up with a folder full of essentially 40 — 30 to 40 scenes. And classically what I would then have to do is I’d have to open up a new document and open up each one of those individually and sort of copy and paste them into one big thing and sort of get them all arranged properly.

So being the person that I am, I asked Nima to write me a new little app called Assembler.

**Craig:** Of course you did.

**John:** And because that’s what I do.

**Craig:** It’s what you do.

**John:** So Assembler is a thing which we might end up releasing or we might not. It looks ugly right now, but it did the job. Essentially, what Assembler does is it takes a folder full of little files, little text files because that’s all Fountain is little text files. And you choose a folder, it pops up, and you can just drag the order that you want the files to be assembled in. You hit a button and it assembles them and opens up in Highland. And so I had simply an assembly.

And I think that assembly is a really good way to think about that sort of pre first draft. It’s like it’s all the basic scenes, but they’re not necessarily nipped and tucked in the right way. So it’s — it wasn’t my first draft certainly, but it resembled what the script was going to be. All the scenes were there. And then I can sort of go through and then really do that detail work of making sure that this scene is really leaning into the next scene and tumbling into the next scene in ways that was useful and meaningful. Even as I was writing, I knew what had come before, I knew what was coming after. But I want to make sure I was making great word choices that were going to send me into the first line of the next scene. All that stuff.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so that was a great way. So I went from that first assembly to this first draft in, you know, four days and felt good about it because I knew all the bits were there and so I could really focus on making everything that’s best and not sort of like struggling to get those last little bits done.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s interesting. I think what I’m doing is an analog version of what you’re doing. I’m just doing it with index cards.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** That I’m basically breaking down my pieces into index cards. And the index cards typically are sequences. And that’s how I’m sort or organizing things. And what I’m doing — when I’m doing those index cards, is there’s a depth sort of textually there’s a depth because there’s a little summary on the card. And then what I like to do it is I like to have another card next to it that’s the what does this mean? Why is this in the movie? Why did this deserve to be in the movie card?

And then underneath that, the woman that sits with me and helps me, you know, takes all the notes and puts this all together for me, she’s also then writing down a whole bunch of notes related or thoughts, bits of dialogue, concepts, purposes, points, characters, et cetera that are related to those index cards.

So by the time I’m writing my draft I have this interesting assembly of headers and what’s and why’s and then details for these sequences in a non-digital, semi-digital format. And then I just start to write. It’s funny, even though we have — they look so different, there’s something very similar about the process.

**John:** I would agree. As she’s assembling this stuff, or as you’re sort of putting these things together, is that ever one file or it is just still a bunch of cards?

**Craig:** Well, we have one file that she kind of master, she sort of has this master file. And then a lot of times as I’m heading into a section, I’ll say, well, all right, let’s — now, we are on page 60. And I know that I’m about to head into this sequence where, I don’t know, the soldier is going to fly into the temple with his parachute and do a thing.

So let’s talk about it again. Let’s just run through what was there before, but now let’s rediscuss it in light of what has led up to it now through the writing. And so she’ll take that portion out of the master document and build a new thing that’s just like, okay, here’s what you’re doing for the next few days.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** And then I’ll add more detail and layers into that. That keeps in mind what’s come before it recently. And then I’ll use that. Like it will sort of sit next to me.

Sometimes I don’t even look at it because just the fact that I’ve talked it through, now I know it. And I know what to write, you know?

**John:** There’s a story that John Gatins told before, so I apologize to listeners if I’ve told this story on the podcast before, but I think it’s such a great illustration of the trap you can fall into when you just kind of start writing, is that there was a guy who was hired to paint the stripe down the middle of a road. And so the first day he had his little bucket and his paint and he painted a mile and he came back and his boss was like, “That was really good, you painted like a whole mile. That was terrific.”

And the next day, the boss comes back to see his work, he’s like, “Oh, you painted another half mile. Okay, well, that’s great. Still pretty good. That’s better than most people.” And the next day, he came back and he’d only painted a quarter of a mile. And so the supervisor said like, “What’s going on? Like why did you slow down so much?” And he’s like, “Well, I have to keep walking back to get to the paint.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** And that can actually be what the situation you find yourself with a script, is that if you’re starting at page one every time and just like, write, sort of rewriting it to get up to the next page, and then rewriting it to get up to the next page, every day you sit back you’re going to have spent a lot of your creative energy rewriting those first couple of pages and you’re going to probably make less and less progress through your script. So yes, I bet those first pages are going to be incredibly tight because you went through them a bunch of times. But you’re not actually moving the ball forward.

So, you know, what I’m describing in terms of not letting myself, but just doing separate sequences and not letting myself assemble the whole thing is to keep myself from doing that, because it’s just a bad habit I’ve noticed.

So before I would write pages by hand and fax them through to my assistant who would type up the pages and stick them in the folder. And I would do that until I got to where I felt like I was probably halfway through the script and then start assembling and then start doing it. This was just the most hardcore version of that where I wouldn’t let myself assemble it at all until I knew I actually had all the scenes written that I thought I needed and could put them together.

**Craig:** Yeah, I do see it differently than you.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** My feeling is that, I guess I stick to my loose, rigid, you know, I have loose, rigid scheduling and I have loose, rigid rewriting. And that is to say there’s this much time to write it and I’m going to use that time. How I use it? That’s my prerogative.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I allow myself the — I’m okay with spending 40% of my time on the first 30 pages if I feel that that’s what’s going to help me efficiently write the last 70 pages. As long as I am productive I feel like I’m allowed to be productive in any direction I want to be.

Where I agree with you is the idea that you’re going to fastidiously whittle every word. Well, you can do that but just be aware that it would be really helpful if you were an awesome genius. And it would really helpful if you didn’t need money or to kind of work a lot.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So if you wanted to just write one astonishing script every five years, I’m okay with that, you know. I mean, look, Rian Johnson is not prolific.

**John:** No, he’s not.

**Craig:** But, you know, but when the script comes out and he makes the movie, it’s really good. So that’s cool, too. As long as you are, I guess the way I would — I would just hand it to the writer and say you know if you’re being productive or not.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Listen to yourself. And if you’re just rewriting to avoid writing then stop.

**John:** I agree. As we close this out I will say this is the first time I ever used Highland from start to finish on something. It was the first time working on a long script on Highland. And it was really good and illuminating in the sense that I recognized the pros and cons of Highland. So the new build that’s going to be coming out probably by the time or shortly after this episode airs actually reflects a lot of the stuff that were sort of happening while I was writing this much longer script because as something would break or something would annoy me, I could yell down to Nima and have him fix things.

And so one of the things, a situation which happens in all apps, but was particularly frustrating to me in Highland this time is you’re deep into the script, you’re on page 40 into the script or something and you need to refer back to something that happened earlier on. So how do you go back there and then find your place, find your way back to where you were at?

So assuming you’re in the middle sort of page 40, but you need to find something earlier on, how do you get back to where you were on page 40?

**Craig:** Well, I’m the worst because I’m a scroller.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** [laughs] So, I, you know, I have — most major programs have some sort of outliner available to you, but I just scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll because I can kind of like see as the pages are flying by roughly. I know where to land. So it’s not efficient, but I’m a scroller.

**John:** So the thing which we put in this next build which I really love and found myself using a lot was called Markers. And so it’s really something I took from Final Cut Pro which is the video editing software. And a marker is something you can just drop and then you can find it again. And so you hit Control M and it puts a marker wherever you are. And then you can go wherever else you want to go in the document and the Control option then will take you back there.

So you can drop as many markers as you need. It’s like a little shortcut to get back to that place you’re at.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So if you end up scrolling back and like did a little something, you know, on page 20, but you need to get back to where that thing is, Control option M it will take you back to where you were before.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s cool. And I would love to sort of see the ability, you know, we talk about our new format and obviously we’re not talking about an application to read that format, but rather we would hope that applications like Highland and others would take advantage of what the format would offer.

And I would love to see sort of tabbed sequences. That would be great. You know, so when I’m working, I could just go up and go, okay, I’m going to go back to the car chase. I’m going to go back to the beginning, I’m going to back to the middle, wherever it is.

**John:** So Final Draft 9 has an aspect of that. It’s not great. But you can add sort of the information that gets you there. Slugline already does have a really good version of that. So in Slugline you drop little hashtags and those become your sections. And so you can do things for individual scenes. And it shows you an outline view that you can hop to anything in the script at any point. So it may be worth taking another look at that because it’s really — that is really good. It’s a kind of thing that they did great.

**Craig:** Is it — yeah, I mean, like you know, for instance Fade In has the outline that’s sort of running along the right side of the screen. So I can just jump, you know, from that. But there’s something about — I like what you’re saying about Slugline where it’s I can basically say, they’re chapter headings and they’re like little — it’s almost like a little Rolodex-y kind of thing along the top of the screen —

**John:** That’s exactly what it is.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s smart. I like that.

**John:** It’s on the left side of the screen, but it’s the same idea.

**Craig:** Oh, I like it on the top

**John:** So you can either have it show all your section headings or if you have notes, it will show you the notes and you can jump to wherever those notes are.

**Craig:** All right. Good.

**John:** I have a One Cool Thing this week. Mine is a book. It is called The Way to Go by Kate Ascher. And it’s a book that I think you will love, Craig. I think, you know, most screenwriters will love because screenwriters are curious.

And so what Kate Ascher did in this book and she’s done two other books that are sort of similar to it, is she looked at how planes and trains and cars work. And it’s like a big illustrated book, almost like kind of like one of those kids books where they talk through like, you know, how engines work. But this is like really sophisticated details. So it gets into like lots of details about like the modern air transportation system and sort of like how cargo containers are constructed and how things fit together, how locks work, how the Panama Canal works. And so it’s this great, incredibly well-illustrated book that sort of shows how stuff works for transportation. So I think it’s something you will enjoy.

**Craig:** There were those — I think it was David McCullough was the guy that did the books where he broke out the buildings for you.

**John:** It’s very much in that style.

**Craig:** Yeah, I love that stuff. All right, and it’s called The Way to Go?

**John:** The Way to Go.

**Craig:** All right. Well, my One Cool Thing this week is a character. It’s a little random, but I watched Pitch Perfect last night. I hadn’t seen it before. I really, really liked it a lot. But my favorite character in the movie is the character of Lilly. Have you seen Pitch Perfect?

**John:** I saw Pitch Perfect. And I love Pitch Perfect.

**Craig:** Do you remember, Lilly?

**John:** Is Lilly Rebel Wilson?

**Craig:** No. Although Rebel Wilson was hysterical.

**John:** Oh, is Lilly the one who wouldn’t sing and then finally sings at the very end?

**Craig:** Lilly is the one that’s super-duper quiet and really, really weird.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I’m just obsessed with this character. So her name is Lilly. And the actress is Hana Mae Lee. And Kay Cannon is a very nice lady and a very good writer. I just love her name because it’s Cake And really. It’s like Kofi Annan is like Cake and On.

Anyway, so Hana Mae Lee portrays Lilly. And she is just the strangest thing. She barely speaks. She has this tiny little whisper. That’s why I did my little name that way. And in the movie does one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen any character do in any film including Lynch films. I mean it was the weirdest.

So Aubrey, this character Aubrey is the very controlling head of the group. And she’s so tightly wound that she has this problem where when she gets really upset and really emotional, she pukes, which is funny. And at one point in the movie, she gets super-duper angry at everybody and she just pukes like a ton. And it’s gross. And you’re like, okay, it’s just like one of those scenes in a comedy where somebody pukes and it’s like, ahh.

[laughs] And then at some point, they start fighting and Lilly trips and falls and lands in the puke.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then lies back in the puke and calmly begins making like a snow angel.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** And it was so shocking to me. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** I just — I just stared at it. And I watched it like three times because I couldn’t believe they did it, and I’m not even sure why they did it. And nobody in the movie really comments on the fact that she did that. But she did it.

And so anyway, I love her. And I just want to read a few lines because she doesn’t say much. She just says these individual tiny little lines. One of which is, “I ate my twin in the womb.”

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** And one of which is, “Hi, my name is Lilly Onakuramara. I was born with gills like fish.” And then she says — they’re discussing the fact that Aubrey had puked the year prior, and they’re like, “Oh, we don’t want to have what happened last year happen again.” And Lilly says, “What happened last year and do you guys want to see a dead body?” [laughs]

It’s so weird. She’s such a strange subversive character in the middle of this very mainstream comedy. So my One Cool Thing this week is Lilly.

**John:** That is awesome.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Great. And that’s our show. So you can find links to the things we talked about at johnaugust.com/scriptnotes. There you can also find transcripts to all the back episodes. You can also find the actual audio for episodes online both through the app, we have an app for Android and for iOS devices so you can listen to them there. And you can also subscribe and get to all the back episodes, back to episode one where we barely knew what we were doing.

**Craig:** Barely. Now we slightly more than barely know what we’re doing.

**John:** Yeah, we still have Skype issue sometimes. You can also buy the first 100 episodes on a few of our last remaining USB drives. That’s at store.johnaugust.com.

Scriptnotes is produced by Stuart Friedel and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Blake Kuehn. It’s great. It’s sort of this ’80s awesome kind of tribute thing. So thank you, Blake, for that. If you’d like to write us an outro, there’s a link in the show notes for how you can do that.

If you have a question for me, you can write to @johnaugust on Twitter. Craig is @clmazin. Longer questions go to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s our show.

**Craig:** That was a big, huge, long, great show.

**John:** It’s a huge episode.

**Craig:** Yeah, huge.

**John:** And cutting back and forth in time and so it’s —

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** This has been almost 90 minutes of —

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** No, it’s been 100 minutes of our taping this show.

**Craig:** Okay. Well, we need to charge people for this one. That’s it.

**John:** That’s it.

**Craig:** Yeah, see you next time.

**John:** Thanks, Craig. Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [Courier Prime](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/courierprime/)
* WGA President Chris Keyser on [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0450899/) and [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Keyser)
* Deadline’s January article on [Chip Johannessen and Billy Ray’s letter to WGA members](http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/writers-guild-producers-pension-health-contribution-cuts-new-contract/)
* [Thomas Ince](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_H._Ince) on Wikipedia
* [Sample pages](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/four-alternate-formats-final.pdf) from alternatively formatted screenplays
* Screenwriting.io on [multicamera script formatting](http://screenwriting.io/how-are-multicamera-tv-scripts-formatted/)
* [Highland](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/highland/)
* [The Way to Go](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594204683/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Kate Ascher
* Lilly Onakuramara on [the Pitch Perfect wiki](http://pitch-perfect.wikia.com/wiki/Lilly_Onakuramara), and [a YouTube compilation of some of her best moments](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdG6v7gkxm4)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes listener Blake Kuehn ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Scriptnotes, Ep 137: Draw Your Own Werewolf — Transcript

April 3, 2014 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/draw-your-own-werewolf).

*[John and Craig pretend to be one another]*

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

**”Craig”:** My name is Craig Mazin.

**”John”:** And this is Episode 137 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, how are you?

**”Craig”:** I am doing just fine, John. I got my Diet Dr Pepper here. I got a beautiful summery afternoon. It’s good here. It’s good.

**”John”:** Well, we’ve got a big show today. We should probably get started on that.

**”Craig”:** I’m going to sort of jump ahead, if I can jump ahead? Is it okay if I jump ahead?

**”John”:** Sure.

**”Craig”:** Because so often on this show, I show up and I don’t have a One Cool Thing and I sort of feel bad, but I think I may have had like the one coolest thing of all. And so, I’m worried that a catastrophe could happen and I wouldn’t be able to share my One Cool Thing. Can I just share my One Cool Thing first?

**”John”:** Absolutely.

**”Craig”:** Okay, so, as I talked about on this show once or twice, I have a Tesla. I have an electric car. It’s a Tesla Sedan and it’s the best car ever made.

**”John”:** You have mentioned it once or twice.

**”Craig”:** The Tesla is a fantastic car but like all cars, there are things that come up and there’s this normal maintenance you need to do on a car. You have to keep the car clean. And so that means you take it down the street to the carwash and there’s people in your car and they’re messing stuff up and you have to wash it. In the inside you have to vacuum it. It’s a disaster. You don’t want this to happen at all.

**”John”:** Right.

**”Craig”:** And so, I’m so excited because I think Tesla has finally figured out how to get us past this boondoggle of keeping a car clean. So if you think about the Tesla, you may not know this, but the Tesla, the hood of the car, there’s actually nothing under there. That’s like an extra trunk and you have that sort of extra storage space there. But a lot of people have been speculating like there’s some reason why that’s there. There’s like there’s a big empty space like what is the purpose behind that.

I will tell you, or Elon Musk will tell us what the purpose is behind that. The purpose is that’s there to keep your car clean. A couple of months ago, he made sort of an illusion to what it was going to be. And so people thought like, well, is it going to be like some sort of robot. Is it going to be like a Roomba for your car that comes out and like cleans your car like when it’s charging? That would be kind of cool.

**”John”:** Yes.

**”Craig”:** John, just calm down. It’s better than that.

**”John”:** Okay.

**”Craig”:** It turns out there’s a lot of stuff inside your car that requires actually some kind of a delicate touch. And so even our best robots, they couldn’t really get in there and like really clean everything. You sort of need to do that by hand, but it’s not just like not my steady fingers. You need like really small little hands. This is what they figured out. It turns out the perfect thing to clean the inside of your car is a monkey.

**”John”:** Oh, I see, a monkey. Well, that’s very smart.

**”Craig”:** Yeah. So, essentially, you have a monkey that lives in your car and cleans it. The space that looks like the hood, it’s actually for the monkey to live in there. And so the monkey is in there and then when you’re charging your car a little light goes on and the monkey can come out of a little space that the monkey lives in and clean your car. So it can clean the inside of your car any given time but also keeps supplies in there, it can clean the outside of your car. It can wash your car while you’re in sleeping or doing something else. So that monkey can be a part of your car like an assistant for your car but just like has a little place to live. And so, it’s kind of everyone wins: the monkey gets a house; you keep your car really clean.

**”John”:** Great. So there’s a monkey in your car that cleans it. Terrific.

**”Craig”:** Where is the excitement there? I mean, this is an innovative business model here, John. I don’t understand why you’re not seeing the possibility here.

**”John”:** No, I do. I think that sounds great. A monkey is in your car and he cleans it.

Well, I also have One Cool Thing this week. Craig, you probably do a lot of sleeping.

**”Craig”:** I try to sleep about four or five hours a night if I can.

**”John”:** Well, honestly, that’s not quite enough, but I understand why because sleeping is time that we lose. It’s time that we could be spending on productive things with our family or on work or organizing. There’s a wonderful product that I purchased and it — are you smoking an electronic cigarette?

**”Craig”:** No, I’m not. I’m not. It’s nothing.

**”John”:** So it’s wonderful product that I purchased. It’s not particularly expensive but it’s really well designed and I have to give the designers credit. They’ve done a terrific job. It’s called the Standing Bed. It’s just like a regular bed, the mattress is like a regular mattress but it’s vertical. So when I sleep, I’m sleeping standing and it turns out this is much better for your joints.

The bed also comes with a built in alert system to help you organize your sleep. So your sleep comes in alpha waves and light sleep and REM sleep and dreaming sleep. And the bed tells you what part of the sleep you should be in. Naturally there are also some workspace areas that are ergonomically designed so that you can take care of things while you’re standing sleeping. It’s terrific and I bought one for everyone in my house. There’s an adjustment period but I think everyone is enjoying it.

**”Craig”:** Well, you talked about on the show before that like people think that I come from a lot of money but my parents were school teachers and this seems like the kind of thing that like if my parents could have afforded it would have been amazing for our house because it would have like it would have saved some space too, right? I mean, like, you don’t have to have the big floor space of like a bed being down. It could be like up. You could stick this in your closet.

**”John”:** Right.

**”Craig”:** I think it’s a great invention. I don’t see why everyone doesn’t do it.

**”John”:** No.

**”Craig”:** Between this and your apps, I just feel like you’re working all the time and I think this is good.

**”John”:** Yes.

**”Craig”:** John, one more thing. Happy April Fools!

*[They stop pretending to be one another]*

**Craig:** I can’t do it anymore. [laughs] It’s so hard. Happy April Fools. It’s so hard to be you. It requires an enormous amount of constraint.

**John:** Yeah. It does and maintaining that level of sort of like you string a lot of sentences together in a way that I just don’t do and so I did a poor approximation of you.

**Craig:** No, but it was good. I mean, you did a really good job and it’s much easier for me because I get to be just really calm.

**John:** Yeah. [laughs]

**Craig:** I actually wonder because I can’t tell if that made me more or less anxious. I can’t tell if that raised my blood pressure or lowered my blood pressure. Was it more freeing for you or did it raise your blood pressure?

**John:** Oh, it was absolutely, it was fine for me. I didn’t feel bad at all about this. What you actually described was a very close approximation of a thing that I would love.

**Craig:** The Standing Bed.

**John:** A standing bed. [laughs]

**Craig:** I know. [laughs] That’s like the worst possible thing I can imagine, a standing bed.

**John:** I was — I wanted, here’s the thing, is like I felt like I would have done the follow-up questions about it, like I would have been horrified about the monkey and so I had a whole like line of stuff like prepared for like — that John August being horrified about what you’re doing to this monkey.

**Craig:** I know, but the thing is like I never felt like — I think the most horrified reaction you ever give me is just to restate what I’ve said and then silence. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Because I was going to talk about like the monkey disposal and it was going to be great.

**Craig:** Oh, god, that’s pretty good. Well —

**John:** It was a whole organic thing.

Well, hello, and welcome to our actual podcast.

**Craig:** Yay!

**John:** Today on the show we are going to be talking about how disruption affects TV writers —

**Craig:** And podcasts.

**John:** The process of getting a first draft done. And we’re going to answer a bunch of questions from listeners.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But first we have some follow up, on formatting, and oh, my god, this thread that I got thread-jacked into on Twitter. I just — I want — come on Twitter. Like, Twitter this last week put out an update that lets you like tag people and photos and stuff like —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** No, the thing I want you to do more than anything is to be able to like yank myself out of a thread and that I have no desire to be a part of.

**Craig:** You want an unsubscribe function.

**John:** So big. I want just that.

**Craig:** Yeah, every time I did this I just kept laughing because I knew that you were getting tweeted or tweets.

**John:** Because here’s the thing like this thread like this thread got so big that there were like five names in it, so literally, like people could put two words in addition to the thing. You couldn’t actually have a message —

**Craig:** That by the way —

**John:** Because it was all just jammed with the names.

**Craig:** That annoys me. Like I don’t understand why Twitter penalizes you for adding names on to something. Why should that eat into your message length?

**John:** What’s weird is that this last week, what they did with photo tagging, it no longer does count against it. So it’s just weird.

I suspect — I honestly think that Twitter names are going to vanish in this next year because they are confusing to new users and they’ll just get rid of them.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, in terms of just being incorporated in the messages like that.

**John:** Yeah, yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah, I just don’t understand why if I want to talk to five people why now I’m down to 14 characters. That’s just dumb.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Regardless. This is this debate that occurred, David Stripinis.

**John:** That’s what I’m guessing.

**Craig:** Stripinis, we’ll call him David, is a podcast listener and he works in the visual effects industry I believe.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And there’s also a guy named VFX Law who I’m guessing is a lawyer in the VFX business. And the two of them got quite umbraged over something that we had suggested doing as part of our hypothetical new screenplay format.

We talked about the idea that if say I were writing a scene and I wrote EXT. MOUNT RUSHMORE, that we would like that to be clickable. So if you clicked on that slug line, a little window would pop up or an image would pop up like a light box kind of thing and you could see an image of Mount Rushmore, in case people were unfamiliar.

Similarly, if I put something like music, Paradise by the Dashboard Light, if somebody clicked on that maybe they could hear a little snippet of it so they can go, “Oh, yeah that song.”

So these guys got super duper, duper upset and they’re super duper upset because they feel like this is a copyright infringement on the images that people are creating. That somebody takes a photo of Mount Rushmore; they put it on their website and now I’m basically taking it, making an illegal copy and embedding it into my screenplay and what’s worse, I’m profiting off of it by selling my screenplay with their image in it.

Now, my initial reaction was, hogwash, argle-bargle, foofaraw. And I say this as somebody that is obviously a believer in copyright because I create content myself. But my problem is that we’re not selling their images to anybody. We’re using them as reference, and this happens constantly throughout the day in any creative business. You’re constantly saying — well, here’s an image, an available image, something that has been made public by somebody. I’m showing this to you not because I’m selling this to you or representing it as my work but rather to say, “Like this. I may do something like this or this is what something looks like.” Not selling it.

And it occurred to me that this became really — I don’t know, it came really ridiculous to me when I started thinking about how this format would actually work because let’s say we’re all on our iPads and we’re all reading the new August-Mazin format on our iPads and it’s connected to the Internet.

And the way we’ve designed it with the reader that is involved is that if I tap on EXT. MOUNT RUSHMORE, essentially a browser window comes up. And the browser window is doing what browsers do, accessing images from somebody’s server somewhere. That’s what browsers do.

When you put an image on a web-hosting site, you are by default saying, you may view this through a browser. That’s okay. But if I embed the image itself somehow, that’s not okay, even though to the naked eye there is no difference whatsoever.

**John:** So let’s slice through this little part here, because you and I both had it both ways on this topic which is the difference between linking and embedding. So if we think back to the Tarantino scripts that Gawker got — Tarantino sued Gawker for his script. They are arguing, no, we linked to it, we didn’t embed it. And that’s actually — we weren’t violating copyright, we were just providing a link so viewers could find it. So I want to at least acknowledge the fact that that’s a complicated area that we sort of had both ways on.

**Craig:** It is and it isn’t, because with Tarantino’s screenplay and with the screenplay that you or I write or anybody’s screenplay, we have not put that screenplay ourselves on the Internet. It was stolen or it was put on the Internet by somebody who’s not authorized to do so. But let’s say David Stripinis has a website, I think he does, and there are images on that website. They are designed to be viewed by the public.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Anybody that writes a browser can view those including you or me.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** At some point, you have to ask if there’s no difference to the visible eye, then what’s the problem?

Well, technically, the problem is copyright is the right to make copies and you’re making a copy and that’s technically against copyright, so let’s talk about this aspect.

I started getting really annoyed by this whole thing because I just thought I was arguing nonsense. It just seemed minutia and it seemed ridiculous and one thing I know about the law is that it’s not as cut and dry as it’s supposed to be or meant to be. That in fact the law takes context into a consideration.

So I decided to talk to a lawyer. This isn’t somebody I know. I asked my attorney, who’s a great copyright attorney that you know, who would be willing to talk to me on a pro bono basis about a question that I have.

And he sent me the name of a guy that I — and I checked on, he’s top-notch. And I called him and I said, “Here’s what we’re talking about doing. The screenplay format and images that we either want to pipe in browser style or take the file from the Web and embed. The idea is that we would not be warranting that we created those images nor would we be publicly distributing those images. This would be for reference to show to people that we’re working for people we’re selling a screenplay to.”

And here’s what he said: Not a problem. He said, look, reference is a real thing especially when you’re talking about publicly available images. He said, if you were to take somebody’s raw image, if somebody took a photograph of Mount Rushmore and you got their raw data, their complete original image and you embedded that massive file into your thing, maybe somebody could possibly get you on that. But he said, there’s a lot of case laws establishing that things like thumbnails or degraded images, essentially compressed images of originals can be used for reference and, yes, it’s fair use. He said, fair use is vague. I mean, fair use is defined on a case-by-case basis. But he said, there are two issues to consider. There’s infringement and then there’s damages.

And he said, in the case of damages there are none. There’s no damage done here. If I walk into an office and I show them a printed out picture of your photograph of Mount Rushmore and I say, “Yeah, here, Mount Rushmore,” there’s no damage there because I’m not stealing anything from them nor am I pretending that it’s mine.

And he said, similarly on the infringement, he goes, look, on an infringement basis, assuming that, I mean, statutory damage is assuming that somebody had registered their work with a copyright obviously and all the rest of it and the rest of it. He said in the case that you’re describing, they would still just get laughed out of the courtroom. It’s stupid.

I mean, his point and my point was, as we discussed it, if I can sit in a conference and open up my laptop and show you the image from somebody’s website, then, frankly, I can show you the image from that website. He said, the things to consider for our format. And he said if you did this, you would be fine: Don’t use the original full resolution photographs that somebody did, but rather use compressed versions, thumbnails, those are sort of established as good reference.

If you can credit or notate from where they are, that is helpful. Place a general disclaimer at the top of the screenplay or the screenplay format that states that any image contained within is not authored by you nor is it for sale but rather for fair use as a reference and for the educational purposes of enlightening people as to what you’re talking about.

He said for music, he said in the case of music don’t play the whole song. That’s sort of the equivalent of don’t show the full res image. Play five or 10 seconds so people get a sense of it. But this argument that these guys have seems to be about something entirely different which is this fear that they’re going to get ripped off, specifically the fear that they’re going to create a work of art, a creative work of art, we’re going to look at it and then we’re going to basically steal it by changing a little bit of it and then putting it out there.

But I have news for them. If it’s on their website, then anyone can look at it right now and do that.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** What we’re talking about changes none of that.

**John:** Yeah, and that’s where I got most frustrated by this thread that I got sucked in to was that sense that, you know, we’re talking in a vague sense about this different kind of format and there’s this outrage about like, well, people are going to do this and they’re going to do these horrible things. It’s like, to me, it’s like, if you built a car, somebody could use that car to like run over people or to like drive liquor across state lines. There’s all these terrible things you could do with that new technology.

Well, it’s like, that’s not both the purpose of it but it’s also not the technology’s fault. It’s like we’re talking about like could a person commit copyright violations with something? Yes, they can do that with anything. They can do that with a photocopier. They can do that with any machine that can sort of duplicate anything, can create a copyright violation. That’s not what this is about whatsoever.

The other thing which I think that this has showed was like a — and this may have been partly, I wonder if this is sort of how where their head was at, is that, it’s very common when you’re pitching a project, especially if you’re a director pitching a project, to do what’s essentially called a rip reel.

And a rip reel is where you take existing footage from other movies and maybe some stuff you shoot yourself and paste it together to show this is what the movie feels like. This is how I would shoot it. This is what it looks like.

And if you’re doing a big VFX-heavy film, maybe you are actually grabbing a lot of sort of VFX stuff and maybe that is what they are pissed about is that that’s the kind of stuff that’s getting pulled and it looks like their work is getting used to make someone else’s movie. But it’s really, it’s getting that next person’s movie green lit. And it’s not the actual finished work. It’s just like a part of getting the job.

**Craig:** Right, and there’s this kind of bizarre thing where, like, “I got you that job.” No, you didn’t. Referring to something is referring to something. It’s not representing as yours.

The whole point is I didn’t do that. Everybody knows that in the room. If somebody goes and makes a presentation on the kind of movie they want to shoot and they take a clip from Big Fish or they take a clip from Hangover or whatever, why would I even care? I don’t even know it’s happening. It doesn’t matter. It’s not for the public. It’s not being sold.

They might as well be talking about it in their living room while they’re watching it. It’s ridiculous. Their argument is willfully oblivious to the way the world actually functions and has always functioned. And their kind of moral consternation that an image they make publicly available should be referred to without their expressed written consent is insane.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s insane. And also, not legally valid. So, there’s no legal argument there that they can stand on. There is absolutely no moral argument at all. I mean, again, I just want to draw the line between stuff the creator makes publicly available and stuff the creator gets stolen from them.

If you create an image in your house or on your computer that isn’t on the Web and somebody hacks into your computer and steals it or somebody that you give it to for private use publishes it online, that’s different. You got ripped off. You got hacked. And that was not your intention.

I understand that you’d want to withdraw that or pull that back, just as Quentin Tarantino didn’t want his script out there. But if you put it on your website, I mean, for the love of god, it’s out there in the world, people are going to talk about it. If I publish a screenplay online on a website, am I really going to be outraged when somebody goes into a meeting and hands somebody printed pages from it and says, “I like this scene, I’m going to write a scene like this.” That’s insane.

**John:** That is insane. So, to close this up, I would say, I think it’s appropriate to have moral and ethical outrage when someone takes work and represents it as their own when it was not their own. That, I don’t think anyone is going to argue about that. We’re just coming down on the side that using something as reference, saying like, we’re aiming for something like this is not the same as representing that as your work and there’s a clear distinction there.

There’s a video I put up on the site this week where Michael Arndt, our friend Michael Arndt, did this great talk about writing the first part of Toy Story 3. And so someone had tweeted a link about it and so I looked at it and I was like, oh, this is really, really great. I’m so surprised I haven’t seen it because this is like animated and like where is this is from.

And so then I checked the person whose YouTube thing it was on and it’s like, well, he obviously didn’t make this so like where is this from? And I couldn’t find it anywhere else. And so, that was a case where I felt really shady linking to it or putting it on the site because like I don’t know where this is from and this is clearly not some amateur thing.

So I wrote to Michael Arndt.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And said like where is this from? And he told me where it’s from. He told me it was an extra on the Toy Story 3 Blu-ray from a couple of years ago. He was cool with me doing it. Disney might not be cool with me doing it, and you what, if Disney’s not cool with it, I’ll just take it down.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But like it was a thing that can be out in the world and no one is getting ripped off here is the point. And I was making a moral choice about sort of what ethical choice about when I felt it was okay to link to it and when it wasn’t okay to link to it.

**Craig:** Yeah, nobody is getting ripped off and, frankly, you wouldn’t have even had that ethical choice if what you were considering was whether or not to show it to three people in an office and say, “What do you think of this?”

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** There would have been no ethical issue there whatsoever, just as there isn’t for our work. And I think that lurking behind all of this is this thing that we see in screenwriters far too often and apparently it’s the case with visual effects artists where they believe that they’re constantly being ripped off. Guess what? You’re ripping off people too.

Everybody is ripping everybody off to some extent. Copyright isn’t it a lock box where nobody can draw a werewolf anymore. We’re all allowed to draw our own werewolf and I’m allowed to look at your werewolf and say, “I like parts of this werewolf, I’m going to be inspired by that werewolf but I’m going to do my own werewolf.”

That’s life. That happens and everybody is like, you know, we just did this show where people are like, “Oh, my god, that’s my movie.” And similarly, “Oh, my god, that’s my…” and in the middle of this discussion, another person says, “Well, I’ve had my work ripped off nine times by a studio.” I don’t know what to say about that. That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. We’re just talking about reference.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Reference! [laughs]

**John:** Reference.

**Craig:** Reference!

**John:** So we won’t get into it this week but next week I want to talk through what the actual format of screenplay like material looks like because we got a great length a listener sent in from Clockwork Orange.

**Craig:** Oh, I love that, yeah.

**John:** That showed like what his layout was on the page, which was bizarre and it was sort of more like what a stage play layout would be, but it was fine. It was like recognizable. You could see sort of what things were supposed to be. We should also talk about multi-cam, because I find multi-cam incredibly frustrating to read but that’s just my own bias.

So, let’s talk about some different way of laying stuff out on the page next week.

**Craig:** Right. So we’re going to do some questions now or we’re going to do some — ?

**John:** First of all, I want to talk about TV stuff.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah.

**John:** Because there were some great links that got sent through and it’s also very applicable to what’s happening WGA wise right now. So, TV, if you’ve watched TV in the last couple of years, you’ve noticed that things have changed. And so some of the big changes are, of course, the entrance of Netflix, and to some degree, Amazon — the dominance of one-hour dramas and especially in cable.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Especially on the HBOs and the premium channels. And with these new kinds of shows, seasons have gotten a lot shorter. So rather than 22 episodes, the classic model of TV was 22 episodes. Then they’d take a break during the summer and they’d come back in the fall and that’s how everything worked.

Now seasons are a lot shorter and I think as a viewer that’s going to be kind of great, and I think the quality has actually improved partly because of these shorter seasons.

The challenge is that it puts weird pressures on writers. So some of the pressures which were referenced in the email to Writers Guild members about the negotiations is that writers on TV series are being held under options of exclusivity for all the time that they’re not — that show isn’t running.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you could have written, you know, on a show, you could have written a 13-episode order of a show. Nine months later, those episodes finally start airing and then six months later they finally decide like, “Oh, you know what? We’re going to order another season.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Well, that could have been a year that you were basically unemployed being held under contract in that original series.

**Craig:** Yeah, they’re holding you for like you’re working on a 26-episode season or something but you’re really only working on a 13-episode season or a 9-episode season. That’s a problem.

**John:** Yeah, we’ll want to talk with the WGA people about that when the negotiations are finished. But two other interesting articles that came out this last couple of weeks that I wanted to talk through.

First is by Derek Thompson for The Atlantic who asked a provocative question, “Is House of Cards really a hit?” And the question is essentially we used to know what we meant by hit, which is basically how many eyeballs, how many viewers are watching that show and how is it growing week to week.

But when you have something like House of Cards on Netflix which is distributed all at once and a person can like binge watch all 13 episodes or space them out. They can watch them in any timeframe they wish to watch them in, it becomes much harder to say whether that show is a hit or not a hit particularly because Netflix has no obligation to reveal any of its numbers. It doesn’t have advertisers. It has no incentive to say this is how many people are watching it. It’s entirely a private decision.

**Craig:** Moreover they refuse to say.

**John:** Exactly. They refuse to say.

**Craig:** They know, they just won’t say.

**John:** And this is a question that, you know, back when Sue Naegle was running HBO, I asked her at lunch one day, it’s like, “Well, how do you figure out what shows to keep and what shows to not keep? Is it about by viewers?” She’s like, “Yes, but then also you survey, you figure out what show if we didn’t have people would cancel the service.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that’s essentially what Netflix’s decision is. It’s like, they want their House of Cards and their Orange is the New Black. They want a diverse slate so that, man, you’ve got to watch them. And so there’s at least one show there that you definitely want to watch and that you’re willing to keep subscribing to that show. So it’s just a very different way of thinking about what is a hit.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, for paid television of any kind or I guess you’d call it subscriber-based television, the only way to define a hit is something that the company is willing to renew.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And their criteria for that could be whatever they feel like including fancy, including critical acclaim, attract other artists that we’re interested in, profile, general company branding. It could be anything but when you’re talking about a subscription base or a model of any kind, eyeballs are completely irrelevant. If one person watches it, but it’s talked about constantly and your actors have their faces on the cover of magazines with your company name, it’s a hit.

**John:** It is a hit.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah, I think the question should be. You’re a hit if you can get Entertainment Weekly to give you the cover and that to some degree is one of the qualifiers. If there’s a big enough segment of your possible viewing audience who desperately want to watch that show, you’re a hit.

**Craig:** Yeah, pretty much.

**John:** So the second article that was, from this last week, is also kind of about Netflix but it’s really about broadcast. And I found it really fascinating because it’s a question I’ve often had and sort of addresses that questions, which is why when you go to watch back episodes of a show in its current season can you only get the last five episodes. Because there’s been a lot of times where I would love to catch up on a show that people say is really great but you can’t actually get all of the episodes. They’ll only have a certain number of them out that are available for you to see.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Sometimes you can buy the whole — you can buy each of the episodes on iTunes but there’s no way to like on Hulu or Netflix to get stuff within the season.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so that’s called in-season stacking and it’s a fight between networks and studios. Studios basically don’t want to show you all of the season. They don’t want you to be able to get to all of the season at once because they want you to come back and watch it in reruns. Studios still want you to watch shows in reruns because that’s where they used to make their money.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Networks would be delighted to show you any episodes you want anytime you want as long as it’s going to keep building the audience for the show.

**Craig:** So let me ask you, what’s interesting about this? NBC wants to do in-season stacking and run the whole season but Universal television does not want that. What’s odd about that?

**John:** They are the same company.

**Craig:** They are the same company. Now, can someone explain this to me after all — I mean, look, it used to be easy. Studios couldn’t own networks and vice versa. There was Fin-Syn and all that and that then went away.

But now that they are all owned by the same parent company, I just don’t understand, I mean, why can’t they just figure this out internally. Why can’t ABC and Disney figure this out? Why can’t CBS and Paramount figure this out? I don’t get it.

**John:** Well, this article we’ll link to is by Marcus Wohlsen in Wired, and what it’s arguing, I think, ultimately is that even within a company, you have to recognize that the studio side has some different goals than the network does. And the studio is looking at this property for how do we get to — it doesn’t necessarily have to be a hundred of episodes anymore, but how do we make this show make us a lot of money both in broadcast right now but also at all the other markets after it’s been off the network TV. So they’re looking at this property in a very long-term space. The network is looking at this, you know, what do we do on a Monday night, what do we do on Tuesday night.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They kind of don’t care about the long-term value of something.

**Craig:** Well, I get that the individual fiefdoms have their priorities. At some point, some one ring to rule them all must be looking in a big picture way say, “Well, this is going to make us the most money in totality in the end, so this is what we’ll all do, so the other parts of you just shut up because this is what I’ve decided.” What was interesting to me was that, Netflix pays a ton, a ton for the right to do this in-stacking, in-season stacking and they basically said, “Look, if the networks start doing this, we’ll pay you much less.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And to that I could easily see the networks saying, “Yeah, we don’t care, because, you know, then theoretically, we’ll be getting more business and your eyeballs and make you less relevant.”

**John:** It’s the ongoing evolution of what is a network. Is a network a place that distributes tonight’s television or is a network a brand like HBO and these are all the shows within that brand? And as networks try to maintain their brand, that may be sort of where they’re going to. It’s like they want you to come to NBC to watch the NBC shows.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, I would have to say currently that there is no network that is a brand. No broadcast network is a brand. I don’t know what NBC stands for.

**John:** No, nor do I.

**John:** And they don’t stand anything. I mean, that’s the whole point of —

**John:** Yeah, Fox is probably the closest I can think of to a brand and they started kind of as a brand. But —

**Craig:** Are they? I mean, they’re —

**John:** Yeah, different nights are very different. It’s true.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think the whole point of broadcasting is we’ll give you everything. We’ll give you late night. We’ll give you a comedy. We’ll give you drama. We’ll give you 8 o’clock family stuff. We’ll give you 10 o’clock not family stuff. They do everything. And there’s so much content. Oh, and we’ll do reality and we’ll do news and we’ll do this and we’ll do that. They’re everything.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so, yeah, a supermarket can’t be a mom-and-pop store or a boutique. It’s just never going to work.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Well, listen man, TV is just cuckoo nuts.

**John:** Cuckoo.

**Craig:** I can’t keep up.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to some questions.

First question comes from James and it’s actually a question about Courier Prime so I put it in here because I’m curious what your opinion is on this as well.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** James says, “I switched to Courier Prime several months ago and found it preferable to all the other versions. However, I’ve come across one aspect that has bugged me. This sounds awfully pedantic but I imagine in font design there is no such thing. I recently started working on an old script and the first thing I did was change the font from Courier Final Draft to Courier Prime. I always underline my scene headers and notice that the Prime underline is so close to the bottom of the text that they touch. In Courier Final Draft there’s a separation which I find to be much cleaner. I hope this is not perceived to be a criticism especially when it’s a free gift to writers.” So the question really is underlining. Do you underline in scripts, Craig?

**Craig:** Very rarely.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Very rarely.

**John:** So what situations do you underline?

**Craig:** If I really feel that there is a word that needs to be stressed but a reasonable reader would not know that it needs to be stressed, and I feel like an italic isn’t quite right, I will very occasionally throw an underline in there. And by the way, I use Courier Prime and I’ve never noticed an issue with where the underline is.

**John:** Yeah, I’ve never seen the touching either. So I’m sort of surprised that this is happening, but we’ll investigate and I’ll follow up with him about what his deal is.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And it could be that it’s a PC thing or there’s some other reason why that’s happening. I don’t underline very much at all but I do underline maybe once in a script if there is some line of scene description of action —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That if you missed it, like you’re going to miss a hugely important moment or thing. So it’s a way to stop skimming. It’s to give you that one underline.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But you do it too much, people are just going to stop paying attention.

**Craig:** Yeah, I guess, that’s exactly right. I will occasionally underline a line of action if it’s the big reveal or the Holy Crap moment. But I tend to use bold. I bold my slug lines. I would find that underlining to be really jarring to the eye. It would just become mush, page after page to see an underline slug line. I’m not a big fan of that. I will use italic more for emphasis then if I need to.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But I try to avoid all that stuff anyway.

**John:** Courier Prime gives you a nice italic so you can use it when you need it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A question from Tony in Long Beach. “If you write a script using the existing property, not with the intention of selling it but as a fun exercise to show off skills, will anyone read it? Can you post it online or will you be sued for stealing other people’s ideas?”

**Craig:** So, getting back to our copyright discussion, you have without permission created a derivative work of somebody else’s work and now you’re putting it online and you’re putting it online with your name on it. Another copyright holder would absolutely have the right to call you and say, “Take that down.”

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** You’re not allowed to do that without my permission. I did not put my work out there publicly for you. You’re not referencing it. You’ve made a derivative work. You have altered it and republished it publicly.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So, yeah, no, I think that that’s a no, no.

**John:** Oh, I’m going to disagree with you. So I would say weirdly there’s a long tradition of people doing this. There was a Wonder Woman script that a guy just like wrote on spec and that Warner Bros ended up buying. There is classically Aliens vs. Predator, one of the first incarnations of that was just a spec script a guy wrote that sort of combined Aliens and Predators. So that does happen.

In a very general sense, people all the time will sort of do a spec adaption of a book. It’s not usually generally a well-known book but if it’s something they really like they’ll do it. But the standard caveats apply. You’ve written something that you cannot possibly sell and you’re going to have to publicly acknowledge at all points, like, I don’t actually own or control this.

And so, there’s a downside to it but all at the same time, I don’t want you to sort of not write the thing you want to write just because of those — I don’t — better to ask forgiveness than ask permission in some cases.

**Craig:** Well, I actually don’t think we disagree. I’m totally fine with the idea of doing a fan fiction script and handing it to a studio and saying, “Look, you might not want this, but if you like the writing, hire me to do something else.” You’re right. That happens all the time. It is high risk, high reward.

I mean, we talked to Kelly Marcel about when she was writing Saving Mr. Banks. They didn’t have Disney’s permission. They’re putting all this stuff in with not only Walt Disney as a character but it’s including songs from Mary Poppins. It’s about the writing of the songs and all the rest. They’re like, “We just don’t have permission. We’re going to write it and then we’ll give it to Disney and see what they say.”

The difference here is that this guy is saying, “I want to put it online.” That I don’t think you can do. I don’t think you can distribute your work publicly if it’s derivative of somebody else.

**John:** Craig, would you consider putting it up on Blcklst.com, just putting it online?

**Craig:** No, I think that you can make the argument that that’s essentially not public. In other words, that is a curated site that is subscribed to by individuals. It’s not like just literally putting it on the web for everyone to see with your name on. That’s where I think it might get a little dicey.

**John:** Yeah, I think you’re less likely to run into issues there. So I would separate this down to what is legally the correct, what is morally correct and what is practically correct. And so, legally, you are violating copyright doing that. They may not care about it, but you’re not in the clear.

**Craig:** That’s why I’m talking about this public stuff, because when you talk about this you have to ask, well, who has been damaged and how? If you publicly distribute this script across the entire Internet for anyone to read, you can make an argument that you’ve damaged my ability to — you’ve damaged my reputation because somebody thinks I’ve licensed this or you’ve damaged my trademark or my interest in this material because you’ve disseminated it widely, as opposed to putting it on the Black List where it’s quietly looked at and understood by professionals to be an example.

**John:** One example that comes to mind is it’s incredibly common in television to write spec episodes of shows. And so, that’s a classic way people get hired on things is to write an episode of CSI or to write an episode of Sleepy Hollow as a writing sample.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that’s done all the time.

**Craig:** Constantly.

**John:** So, in television you should never feel weird about doing that because that’s business as usual.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Our next question comes from Manchester, and so I’m not sure if that’s a person who lives in Manchester or a man named Chester. It could be any of these things.

But he or she writes, “Are there good, professionally-written scripts that you’ve read that might not do so well in a Three Page Challenge because, well, those first three pages just don’t work until you get to page four or five or six?

“As an example, pages one or two set up some sort of world, then page three changes that to a seemingly different world which is often inauspicious from your good writing perspective and it make good complete sense if you were to read page. I’m not suggesting that it’s okay to be unclear on pages one through three, and if you have some amazing reveal on page five and the rest is the best written script ever. Are there some good scripts that are simply not candidates for The Challenge? And if so, how would John and Craig describe this to people thinking about submitting?”

**Craig:** It’s a very good question. My instinct is to say no, that we are not looking at these three pages as needing to give us more plot or needing to give us any plot or any story. I have no problem if the world shifts suddenly and dramatically. I just want it to be good writing and I want it to be interesting. And I would think that any good script does have two interesting pages. For instance, we talked about The Social Network the other time, the other podcast.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So it opens with dialogue. Just two people sitting at a table, in a bar, and a stream of dialogue, just ribbons of dialogue. But it’s so good. It’s just specific really good dialogue. I don’t think there’s any — I can’t imagine that we would ever look at the first three pages of a good screenplay and go, “What?”

**John:** Maybe not. So, people who are new to the show, there was actually an episode, we’ll figure it out and put in the show notes, where Craig and I did our first scripts and we did our first scripts as a Three Page Challenge. And that was revealing because they weren’t awesome and there was potential but there was also really a lot of problems in those first three pages.

And I guess, it might be interesting to take a look at the first three pages of some really good scripts and see what they’re doing and maybe make a special bonus episode where we just talk about some really good first three pages.

I can imagine there might be some scripts of movies that I ended up loving that I don’t know that I would have recognized that I would love them based on its first three pages. I think about the kinds of criticisms we often make in a Three Page Challenge, like, I don’t know what this movie is, I don’t know the world of this movie is, I don’t feel comfortable or grounded and that’s entirely possible. Like, I haven’t read the script for The Matrix, but there’s a lot going on in The Matrix and I wonder if after the three pages I might be like, “I don’t know what this is.”

**Craig:** It’s possible.

**John:** The world is big and crazy.

**Craig:** It’s possible, but I have to say that sometimes when we say, “I don’t know what the world is,” we’re not saying and we must always know what the world is.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I think sometimes we’re just saying that the writer doesn’t know what the world is. What we’re picking up on is a lack of control over your own screenplay.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I don’t mind not knowing stuff as long as I know you don’t want me to know it yet and that you want me to know what you’re showing me and what you’re showing me has purpose and is interesting in and of itself.

**John:** More than anything I would say, after reading a bunch of screenplays and a bunch of Three Page Challenges, you really quickly recognize good writing or you recognize a good writer. And that’s going to, no matter what is actually the content with those pages in some ways, you recognize like this person has a skill for slinging the words on the page and making me want to keep reading to the next page. I don’t think it’s innate. I think it’s a learned thing, but I think it’s a thing that some people are going to be great at and other people are not going to be great at and you can tell after three pages.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** Cool.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I have an actual One Cool Thing this week. Do you have an actual One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** Oh, god. No.

**John:** It’s all right. My One Cool Thing this week is a thing we started using here in the office. It’s called Slack and it’s kind of great. So it’s team management software but it’s really like chat software.

**Craig:** Just like the standing bed.

**John:** It’s just like the standing bed.

**Craig:** I really want credit. I nailed it.

**John:** You nailed it. It was great.

**Craig:** Nailed it!

**John:** So what Slack is for is basically any small group or any small project and especially software, you end up like emailing stuff back and forth a lot and you probably found this like in production, too, where like you’re constantly sending these little emails back and forth and you sort of lose track of emails and you sort of wish they could sort of all be grouped together.

This is sort of like chat software but for the small teams. And so, basically, everyone signs into this thing and it’s an app window that stays open in the corner. It’s also on your phone and you can just type in to these channels and like discuss things or drag in screenshots. You can talk through stuff. You can drag in links and it’s incredibly smart. And so now even like when on Twitter if someone tweets Quote-Unquote Apps that tweet shows up in there and we can respond to it immediately right there. It’s just genius. So it’s a subscription service. It’s all web-based and I thought it was just fantastic.

**Craig:** Well, that actually does sound pretty cool. I must admit. Although, I don’t have people that I have to do that with generally speaking.

**John:** And that’s where I would sort of stress is that it’s good if you are the right kind of small team. And so, like a small production would be fantastic for it. So, like where you have, you know, the AD needs to be able to talk to, you know, the production designer needs to be able to talk to the costume designer. Like that kind of stuff that needs to go back and forth really quickly would be fantastic for this kind of thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But for software, it’s just awesome.

**Craig:** For software, I can see it’s huge, yeah. Well, I guess, it’s funny, I realize now that I do have a One Cool Thing and it’s something that I forgot to turn on which caused me trouble in this podcast. When we’re doing the podcast and we’re recording, I don’t know about you but I’m not really — maybe you are because you’re looking at questions and stuff but I’m not touching my computer.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m not moving my mouse around. And like everybody, I’ve got my computer set to go to sleep or not go to sleep but if it’s not doing anything, the monitor will go off.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And like most people, I have a password on my computer, so now I got to put the password in or do the knock thing on the phone. It’s annoying.

And there is this tiny little app called Caffeine and it sits up in your menu bar. It’s for Mac OS. It’s just an empty coffee cup and then you click it and it’s a full coffee cup. When it’s a full coffee cup, it’s not going to go to sleep.

**John:** That’s brilliant.

**Craig:** Your computer won’t go to sleep. The display won’t go to sleep. It doesn’t matter. You can walk away for a year, it’ll still be on. And then when you’re done, you click it, coffee empty, it will go to sleep.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So I forgot to fill my coffee cup, then I did and it works so elegant.

**John:** Yes. That is our show for this week. So you can find the links to the things we talked about in our show notes at johnaugust .com/scriptnotes. It’s also there you can find transcripts to all of our previous episodes.

You can listen to all the back episodes both there on the site but also through the Scriptnotes app for the iPhone and for Android, so check your app store. And weirdly, like a bunch of people have suddenly started using the app, so we get statistics and like it just went crazy hockey stick big, so whoever is using that and enjoying that, that’s great.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** So the app is actually the best way if you want to listen to like really early episodes, you can do that. And Rawson Thurber actually emailed me saying like, “But I’d like the app but I want to be able to like download an episode for it so I can listen to it like while I’m on a plane or something.” You just tap the star. You tap the star and it downloads the episode.

**Craig:** Yeah, Rawson, tap the star.

**John:** Just tap the star. It’s actually completely unintuitive. We didn’t design the app but it’s out there.

**Craig:** God, Rawson, tap the star.

**John:** Tap the star.

**Craig:** Tap it.

**John:** But if you want to listen to some of the first hundred episodes or actually all of the first 100 episodes, we still have a few of those USB drives that have all 100 episodes so you can find those at the store.johnaugust.com.

Scriptnotes is produced by Stuart Friedel and edited by Mathew Chilelli who also wrote the outro for the show this week. So listen to that. If you have a question for me, you can write me at johnaugust or @johnaugust on Twitter. Craig is @clmazin.

If you have a longer question like the ones we answered today, you can write to ask@johnaugust.com and we occasionally open the mail bag and answer those questions.

**Craig:** [creepy Craig] Hey, John, that was a pretty good episode.

**John:** Thank you. I was going to try to do sexy Craig and I just couldn’t do it.

**Craig:** You don’t try to do sexy Craig, you just be sexy Craig.

**John:** And have a good week.

**Craig:** No, it’s terrible. You’re not doing it.

**John:** I’m not doing it. I’m not going to try to do it.

**Craig:** I know you shouldn’t try. You can’t try. Bye.

**John:** [attempts creepy voice] Yeah, yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, no, that starts to sound like Beavis. That’s the least sexy thing I’ve ever heard. Shame on you John August.

**John:** Yeah. See you.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [Tesla Model S](http://www.teslamotors.com/models)
* [Monkeys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey) on Wikipedia
* Standing beds by [Ernesto Neto](http://vectroave.com/2010/07/ernesto-neto-art-installations/ernesto-neto-art-installations-4/) and [Jamie O’Shea](http://www.gizmag.com/vertical-bed/20209/)
* The [Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/davidstripinis/status/448920986050899968) on linking to media
* [Fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) on Wikipedia
* [Is House of Cards Really a Hit?](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/is-i-house-of-cards-i-really-a-hit/284035/)
* [Netflix and In-Season Stacking](http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/netflix-wants-keep-binge-watching/)
* Scriptnotes, Episode 58: [Writing your very first screenplay](http://johnaugust.com/2012/writing-your-very-first-screenplay)
* [Slack](https://slack.com/)
* [Caffeine](http://lightheadsw.com/caffeine/) for OSX
* The Scriptnotes App for [iPhone](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scriptnotes/id739117984?mt=8) and [Android](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.johnaugust.android.scriptnotes)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes editor Matthew Chilelli

Scriptnotes, Ep 136: Ghosts Laughing at Jokes — Transcript

March 28, 2014 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/ghosts-laughing-at-jokes).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 136 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, no funny voice this week?

**Craig:** Uh, that wasn’t a funny voice?

**John:** Oh, no, that sounded like your normal voice.

**Craig:** Oh, you mean, [creepy voice] you mean this voice, John?

**John:** Yeah, no, that wasn’t the voice I wanted. I was looking for something, I don’t know, something British maybe, I don’t know. I was expecting something different. I don’t know why.

**Craig:** What are you looking for buddy?

**John:** Yeah. You’ve got a whole trench coat full of voices and you just pull one out.

**Craig:** I’ll give you what you want. Sexy Craig is back!

**John:** Sexy Craig needs to go away forever.

**Craig:** Sexy Craig! Oh yeah!

**John:** So, I think it’s because of your voice last week that I had a mild stroke. And when I said the dates for this Writers Guild Foundation event that I’m hosting a little panel on with Kelly Marcel and Linda Woolverton, I said July 12, which is completely wrong. It’s April 12. And I often get dates wrong, but that’s like really, really wrong. So, it’s April 12. It’s a Saturday.

So, if you are interested in coming to see me, and Kelly, and Linda Woolverton, and a bunch of other screenwriters, there’s a link in the show notes to that.

**Craig:** “Sexy Craig needs to go away forever.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You don’t mean that.

**John:** I think sexy Craig might have a better use inside your own home than on this podcast.

**Craig:** Sexy Craig goes where he wants.

**John:** Ah, that’s the danger of sexy Craig.

**Craig:** [laughs] He’s so dangerous. Sexy Craig honestly is nothing but trouble. Nothing but trouble.

**John:** Yeah. You feel like sexy Craig is probably the younger brother who sort of like started smoking a little too early, started drinking a little too early because the parents had kind of given up on him a little bit.

**Craig:** Hey man. I don’t need them to tell me what to do.

**John:** Exactly. The parents I feel are actually kind of old at this point and they just really can’t control him.

**Craig:** Sexy Craig doesn’t need parents.

**John:** Sexy Craig was born in the wilderness.

**Craig:** He was born fully formed. He knows what he wants. He goes out and he gets it. He doesn’t need advice. He doesn’t need guidance. He guides you.

**John:** That’s right. He’s the master of his own fate and destiny.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sexy Craig is a real sociopath, by the way.

**John:** Craig, this week I got to do something kind of amazing. I am going to qualify it down as kind of amazing. I very rarely, and I want to ask you about this, how often do you play the sort of “I work in the industry and I have a certain profile and therefore I’m going to ask permission to do a certain thing.” How often do you sort of play that, like, screenwriter card?

**Craig:** Oh my god, like zero.

**John:** I never do it at all. But my daughter’s favorite show in the entire world is Lab Rats on Disney XD, which if you don’t have a young kid you have no reason to know that this show exists at all. But it does exist. It exists on Disney XD and it is a show about these four — well, there are three bionic kids and one unbionic kid.

**Craig:** Yeah, my daughter watches it.

**John:** Yeah. And so it’s the kind of show that an eight year old watches. And it’s not my taste in a show, but my daughter absolutely loves it. And so Stuart, Stuart Friedel, who everybody on the podcast knows because Stuart is the producer of our show, he used to work for Disney. So, he said, “You know, I can totally get you in to see a taping of Lab Rats.”

And so I finally said, “You know what? I’m going to do it. I’m going to do it for my daughter.” So, on Monday we went and saw a taping of Lab Rats. It was kind of fascinating.

**Craig:** That doesn’t count as like pulling rank or throwing your weight around. I mean, you know, that’s no big deal.

**John:** Maybe not such a big deal. Except that they don’t really have an audience for their tapings.

**Craig:** Oh, you were observing a taping? I mean, I honestly thought that where this story was going was that you were going to say that I was waiting to get into an event and they weren’t letting me in and I said, “Do you know who I am?” [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** I thought this was going to be a “don’t you know who I am?” moment.

**John:** Oh, Craig, that’s every day for me. I’m pretty much always throwing my weight around that way.

**Craig:** Stomping your little foot.

**John:** Yeah. Here’s the thing. It’s because Stuart knew the people that it was very easy to sort of make those first phone calls. But because it’s not a show that normally tapes in front of a live studio audience, it was a little bit odd to go visit the set. And they weren’t used to having a lot of visitors. But they were actually terrifically nice and wonderful and helpful. The producers are Chris Peterson and Bryan Moore who created the show.

It was also just a fascinating time to sort of see what that whole universe is like because you and I don’t do that at all.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Like you’ve never written multi-cam, have you?

**Craig:** The very first stuff I was trying to do were multi-camera sitcoms. But I never actually got a job, you know. So, I watched some tapings. I went to some tapings.

**John:** Yeah. I’ve been to some tapings, too. And so it’s a show without an audience but it still has a laugh track. And so I was always curious like how do they do that? Do the actors just know to pause because that thing is supposed to be funny and therefore they’re going to fill it in with wild applause even though it doesn’t deserve wild applause?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It turns out the answer is they have this group of like six or seven people who sit in these sort of lawn chairs and watch a monitor and laugh. And these are people who I think are probably paid as extras whose whole job it is is to watch the show and laugh, take after take, and laugh the same at every joke as if it’s as funny the first time. It’s such a bizarre job and it’s such a great — I wish Ricky Gervais were still extras because it’s exactly the kind of thing you would want to see him do.

**Craig:** I’m honestly stunned. [laughs] I can’t quite absorb what you just told me. To reiterate, if I may, the show is not shot in front of a live studio audience. Obviously a laugh track is put in after. But rather than just leave some spaces and put the laugh track in as they desire, they have commandeered human beings to pretend to laugh over and over and those people do that?

**John:** I would clarify to say they are actually laughing, whether it’s genuine or not genuine. They provide a full voiced laughter that is apparently helpful for the actors in their timing to sort of know how things are supposed to feel.

**Craig:** I guess. But the thing is, A, no, it’s not natural because they’re adults. [laughs] I mean, look, I actually really enjoy the fact that there has been this resurgence of multi-cam traditional sitcom format on Disney Channel, and Nickelodeon does some as well because those were the shows you and I grew up with watching.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Laverne & Shirley, and Happy Days, and so on. And so I like that my daughter can watch them and she really enjoys them. But she’s not laughing out loud at them. Nobody really laughs out loud at them with rare exceptions.

**John:** Every once and awhile my daughter does laugh out loud at them.

**Craig:** Okay. Every once and awhile.

**John:** In some ways it’s a strange thing because I think it teaches kids that certain things are funny that actually aren’t funny. I do wonder about the dangerous quality of that laugh track.

**Craig:** There is that. But I guess my point is that adults surely wouldn’t be laughing out loud at that. Granted, when you go to a live sitcom taping, because it’s live theater and you’re in the moment, you do tend to laugh. And they do have to remind you to continue to laugh if there’s a retake, which they try and not do over and over. I mean, a lot of a sitcom is just shot, you know, okay, we’ve got it. We’re moving on.

But, there’s just six people. It’s not a big crowd. It’s just six people. They have to laugh. And I’m just a little surprised that the actors wouldn’t be completely creeped out by the fact that there’s this fake laughing going on.

**John:** Yeah. But they’re three seasons in and they’re all 17 years old and this is their job. Two years ago they were living at the Oakwood auditioning for things. So, it’s not a bad gig that they’re in right now.

I think the reason why they can’t have a normal audience for this is because they’re so — you’ve seen the show probably. There are so many stunts and effects that they can’t shoot like a normal multi-cam can, so they are doing things like four or five times and they’re having to do specific like wiring of stuff, so they couldn’t do a normal audience.

But it is just strange.

**Craig:** That’s weird. Yeah. Hey, if it works for them, god bless them.

**John:** Our mutual friend Melissa McCarthy is on a multi-cam right now. She’s on Mike & Molly. And so she’s describing how they do pre-tapes for certain things like car scenes they’ll do a pre-tape. And they’ll anticipate sort of where the laughter would be naturally, but on the day they actually film the show in front of a live studio audience they’ll just sit on apple boxes without like any of the set around them and just do the same scene again so they can get the laughter, get the jokes timed right.

**Craig:** And they’ll see where humans would naturally laugh.

**John:** Yeah. But there’s really nothing natural or human about a Disney XD show. And I’m not sort of denigrating them, and bless them for having me come over. I don’t really want to sound like I’m throwing them under the bus.

**Craig:** Why would that — that’s not denigrating.

**John:** It’s a strange thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, for you to say that there is nothing less natural, [laughs], what was it? Nothing less natural than a Disney XD show?

**John:** I may have said nothing less natural or human than a —

**Craig:** Or human, yeah. There’s nothing negative about that at all. [laughs] They did you a favor!

**John:** They did me a huge solid, so I am just being sort of a jerk now. But it was fascinating, this is a show about androids. Sorry, they’re not androids. I’m sorry, they’re bionic.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** There is something actually inherently non-human about them, so maybe that’s what makes it all work.

**Craig:** Listen. Whatever production tricks they need to do to get through the day, that makes sense. I just find it so odd. I mean, I would have never thought of that.

If somebody were to say to me do this show and you can’t have a live studio audience, but you do need to figure out the timing of the laughs, I suppose I would just say, well, I think since I’m controlling where the laughs go, and there isn’t a live studio audience to cue me where they would naturally go, it’s entirely arbitrary per my decision, so why don’t I just get a thing to playback laughs live on the stage and not have people do it over and over?

**John:** Yeah. Why don’t you actually just like push a button for where the laughter is, where you think it’s going to go.

**Craig:** Right. Have you ever seen one of those guys with their machines? Those guys are gone now. Everything is on a computer. But when I started in the business way, way back in the ’90s, there was a guy who would show up with this special patented machine and he would plug it into your mixing board.

**John:** A sweetener.

**Craig:** Yeah. And he would select the laughs. And there are stages of laughs. Little — everything from titters to guffaws and awes, and oohs, and all that. And actually the creepiest thing about it was I remember, I was talking to that guy and he goes, “You realize all the people you hear laughing on TV, they’re all dead. They were recorded in the ’50s.” And so a bunch of 50 and 60-year-old men and women in the 1950s were just recorded laughing and doing all these reactions. And they’re all gone now, so it’s like ghosts laughing at jokes that they wouldn’t even understand about iPhones. [laughs] It’s so weird!

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I love it. I love it.

**John:** Today on the show we’re going to do a Three Page Challenge. People love the Three Page Challenge. And we have three new entries for the Three Page Challenge.

**Craig:** Oh, I wish I had a thing right now so I could go, “Ahhhh.” Yeah, after everything you say I’m going to give little laughs.

**John:** Maybe Matthew Chilelli will add in a little laugh here or there. But, actually, this is sort of an interesting segue because one of the things I realized as I was watching this, I asked the guy who had written this episode like what are your scripts like, are you writing them like a single cam or like a three-camera, because there is no reason why you should kind of write it like a multi-cam, but they do write it like a multi-cam, so they write it in that format that I find so odd where dialogue can be all caps and parentheticals are in part of the dialogue. They’re not set aside as their own separate line.

But I recognize fully that my thinking it is odd is just because it’s not what I’m dealing with on a daily basis. And so a good transition to us talking about some follow up on what a screenwriting format could look like or should look like and what some of the priorities would be. Because we actually had some people email us and tweet at us this week following up on our last conversation.

**Craig:** Yeah. There was a little bit of a discussion in our last podcast we talked about how you and I have this instinct to move away from slug lines as the scene dividers and talk about sequences as the primary chunk in which to parse out a screenplay.

And there was a little bit of discussion back and forth, and it’s true that initially when we started talking about this we were saying, “Oh scenes are the thing,” but I think you and I realized fairly quickly that scene is a strange word because it means different things to different people. And I’m going to agree with a lot of people who are like, “Hey, slug line doesn’t define scene.” That’s correct.

It does, I think, in current format to some extent, maybe to the detriment of the screenplay, it does define the scene. When you’re shooting people say, “Well, what’s the scene number?” And they’re referring to something that’s connected to a slug line. Interior or Exterior, location, time of day. And what we’re saying is that’s useful information to have, and that’s important to have, but that’s actually not a great way to split up the work. A better way to split up the work is to think of a sequence and a sequence is a group of scenes that are organized around a certain narrative movement.

And when I even say a group of scenes, I mean to say bits. You know, bits. And those bits may actually cut across slug lines as well. For instance, in one of our Three Page Challenges today we’ll come to a part where there is a bit, where a kid is upstairs and then he’s downstairs. And there is a missing slug line in there. And I missed it. But that doesn’t mean that the scene isn’t really one scene.

**John:** Absolutely. I think when we get to that Three Page Challenge you’re going to see what we’re talking about. I agree with you that I really like that our listeners have challenged and pushed back on some of our assumptions, because that’s exactly what you sort of need to do at this early stage of talking about what could be new or better.

Right now when we talk about scenes, ultimately you and I are still in two different worlds. We’re trying to write a movie and we kind of know what a scene is in a movie. It’s this chunk of a movie that it’s about this thing. And usually it’s often characters in a certain place in a certain time. And then that scene — you kind of feel like that scene is over and then you’re onto the next scene. And so location and time is often a useful way of describing the boundaries of it.

But we are always running into situations where you have people on two sides of a phone conversation and that ends up sort of being kind of two scenes, or is it one scene. Or you have people who are moving through a space and you’re trying to decide do I break this out as separate scenes, or is it continuous. And all that stuff is really just weird text baggage being put on something that’s very natural when you see it in a movie, but it’s really weird on a page.

And really what we’re talking about — and I don’t know if we’re going to end up on scene or sequence as being the right sort of defining block for it — but, yeah, we’re talking about what makes sense in a story purpose as a scene, not what necessarily needs to make sense on a budgeting or a strip board kind of thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** A lot of what is in the modern screenplay format is there as much for the AD or the line producer as it is for the reader. And so things like INT/EXT as a shorthand for are we inside or are we outside. The location and trying to be really consistent about the name of that location so you’re not calling the same place three different things. Well, it’s not maybe the best experience for the reader, but it’s meant to be sort of consistent for the person who has to figure this stuff out later on.

**Craig:** That’s right. The slug lines are there to help you figure out how to shoot the movie out of order, because you are going to shoot it out of order. But, of course, we read it in order. So, we have this strange format that straddles out of order and in order. And as you were talking it occurred to me that I guess one of the defining characteristics of this useful bit of parsed out storytelling that we’re trying to describe here is continuous time.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** That there is a section of storytelling that occurs in continuous time. So, if somebody is inside and then they walk outside and then they get in their car and then they pull up, and there is not a jump — or even if there is a jump but the jump just exists to compress, it’s about a sense of continuous time.

**John:** There are cases in screenwriting where it’s discontinuous time, but you’re continuously at a place or you’re continuously on a certain idea. And you really, I mean, yes, sometimes you really call this more sequences where you’re going back and forth between a lot of different things, but it’s really all one idea. You’d really call that one scene.

**Craig:** I agree. Or one sequence. Exactly.

**John:** So, yes, in both cases our reliance on that single line of scene header to describe what’s going on and what this feels like as a movie is really hurting us, I think.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that’s why sequence is the best word. Because scene is borrowed from stage anyway. And it probably made a lot of sense when they first started shooting movies and everything was on a stage.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it was just you enter, you talk, you leave. We really do need to switch to this notion of sequence and leave this word scene behind. Scene doesn’t even describe what the slug lines are doing anyway. All the slug line is is just an indication of location and time of day.

**John:** Absolutely. What people may not be aware of, in the origin of screenwriting the first screenwriters were largely women. And the first screenplays were essentially just a list of shots. And so they were this list of sort of like how you’re going through things and basically shot, by shot, by shot this is what you’re seeing. And it evolved into this format that we have now which is sort of like halfway like a play, halfway like a radio play. It’s its own weird beast, partly because of how it started.

And I think it doesn’t necessarily do a great job of describing what we’re actually making right now. So hopefully if there’s going to be something to replace it it would do a better job of describing that.

One of the things which people who haven’t been through production are probably also not aware of is there’s a stage in production where you take a script and you break it down. And by breaking it down you’re going down to scene by scene. And by scene I’m talking about that sense of this is the location, this is the time, this is how many pages or eighths of a page is occurring in this block of shooting.

And one of the functions that so often an AD or a line producer is doing is writing a synopsis of that scene. It’s basically like a one sentence or two sentence description of what happens in that scene.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** As a screenwriter I often, if I’m heavily involved in production, I will often ask for that and go through and rewrite that quite early on. And I’ll rewrite what the synopsis of those scenes were, because so often I’ve seen the purpose of the scene horribly misrepresented. And so it’s like they’ll describe it as being like “Susan confronts Tom about this” when it’s actually not what happens in that moment, so people can get confused. But that idea of a synopsis for a scene I think is actually a really interesting idea as an element to be part of the screenplay format from the start.

And it’s actually a thing that exists in Fountain. We have a thing where if you start a line with an equal sign that’s called a synopsis line. And it’s just a way of — a shorthand for what happens in that moment. And that can be very useful for writers. So, essentially almost that kind of what you would write on an outline or what you would write on an index card for a scene could be part of the actual document itself.

**Craig:** I think that that ability is in Fade In and Final Draft and Screenwriter. They have these kind of summary little things that are attached that you can tag onto, but what’s interesting is that none of it is really formalized, you know, because we’ll do all this stuff, but you’re right at some point it just goes through the meat grinder of an AD going, “Okay, how many pages is this? How much time do I need to shoot it? Is it a day or two days? Is it inside? Is it outside? Where is it? What time of day?” And, yeah, some brief often ham-fisted description of the action just so people…

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this. I’m fascinated. I cannot do it. It’s funny, Todd Phillips and I would talk about this all the time. We’d be on set and somebody would walk up to us and say, “Hey, listen, for scene 72 did you guys mean…,” and we both are like, “Don’t — we have no idea what that means. None.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Zero.

**John:** I do that all the time in production. Because they’re only looking at numbers.

**Craig:** And they actually memorize it. And they all do it. It’s incredible. I feel so stupid. I mean, it’s like some guy will come up to me and he’s like, “Hey, are we doing 85 tomorrow?” And I’m like, uh, how did you do that? [laughs] Where? What?

**John:** What’s fascinating is that once you start production, from production through the end, that actually is a meaningful thing because editors are looking at those scene numbers, too. So, like everyone else can talk about scene numbers, but weirdly the people who wrote the script generally have no idea what those scene numbers are.

**Craig:** None.

**John:** Which is crazy. But maybe that’s reasonable, too.

**Craig:** Well, we’re the ones that put it in. It’s just that we put it in for everybody else. But in our minds we’re, you know, we’re just thinking about the movie.

**John:** We’re thinking of the movie. We’re thinking of how you get from place to place. How you transition from that moment to the next moment.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, a couple wrote specific tweets that I thought we should address on the air. So, Alyssa Brick wrote, “Is there a danger that people could hide bad writing behind good AD presentation in a new format?” I think absolutely. There is a danger that in some ways you could forget about the writing and sort of like the importance of the writing by having all of these other gimmicks in there. And somebody else had written in with some pages of a script that they were working on that I just, I don’t know what you thought about it, I thought that was a mess and I would not be interested in reading that or seeing that. I wouldn’t want to be handed those pages and say like, okay, here’s the movie.

Did you look at those?

**Craig:** I did. They were fascinating. The problem was that the writer used every possible thing. It was a bit like, I mean, I like mustard and I like ketchup, but I don’t want mustard and ketchup and salt and pepper and this and that. I mean, they just went kitchen sink.

There were ideas in there that I thought were at least nibbling at the sort of things that could be helpful, but I do agree with the implication here. The last thing we want to do is basically imply, oh, you’ve just got to go and puke a bunch of insanity onto a page to flimflam us.

By the way, I don’t think it’ll ever work.

**John:** I don’t think it would ever work. And here’s why I thought those pages didn’t work specifically for me is that even if you’re adding more stuff into a script page than would normally be there, the experience of watching a movie is essentially linear. You can’t pause and take everything in. It’s going to keep running forward. And so, you know, a script ultimately has to be very linear because that’s the experience of watching a movie is very linear.

So, if you’re throwing out a bunch of stuff that has like two column charts and then like all these other stills in there and you have — if I’m spending like five minutes looking at this page trying to figure out what’s going on, that’s not the experience of what a movie can actually be. And that’s not going to be a great experience. So, while it’s great that you have all of these resources, I think you actually have to look at sort of what the experience of watching the movie is going to be like and how can you reflect that in a document. Because the experience of watching a movie is nothing like that page, I would hope.

**Craig:** I agree. And in fact one of the things that I think we should think about as we invent our new format is to use the flexibility of digital format, so that the reader has a choice of when to call up extra information. It’s not imposed upon you. The page isn’t a scattered pastiche of text, and image, and sound, and all the rest, but rather I understand that there’s a small icon next to a description. I can click it, a window will pop up, show it to me, and then I can make it go away.

It’s at my command, as I wish.

**John:** Yeah. So, Mr. Bowers wrote in saying, “Have you guys seen Scrivener?” Which I have seen Scrivener. “It’s very close to what you describe as your ideal new screenplay format.”

No. And I think you tweeted back saying that Scrivener is an app, it’s not a format, and I think that’s a really crucial distinction and I want to make sure that as we talk about this that that sort of comes out clearly, because I think if there’s any one app that does a bunch of this, that does all this stuff, that’s not the solution. The solution — because we’re not trying to replace Final Draft. We’re really trying to replace what screenplays are like.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** And that’s a much broader thing and that’s existed before Final Draft and everything else that generates these kind of documents, too. So, it’s really a system for like how you could display this kind of information. And what I think has worked so far about Fountain is it’s not trying to be one company and it’s not trying to be one app and it’s not trying to be one thing.

It’s about there is going to be buy-in by a bunch of different people. So, in many ways I think what you and I are talking about is incredibly utopian and would probably never actually really happen, but it might steer a conversation in an interesting way and some of these ideas could come to pass.

**Craig:** I think it’s going to happen.

**John:** All right. That’s great.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m a go-getter.

**John:** The last thing is people tweeted back saying, “Oh, you can’t get rid of one page per minute,” and so I want to have one last little bit of discussion about the one page per minute because there is a step that, again, I don’t think people realize because they haven’t been through production is that before you actually start shooting a script there’s what’s called a script timing. And that’s where a person with experienced production goes through the script literally with a stopwatch, reading through it and sort of feeling out how long each thing is supposed to be taking, often in conjunction with the director, timing it out to really get a sense of like how long the finished product would be.

Because you and I both know that there are scripts that are 140 pages that come out at 100 minutes and scripts that seem incredibly short that come out very, very long, especially in episodic, the different shows will have a completely different style, so a show that is really rapid fire like Gilmore Girls, their scripts were like 80 pages long for a show that was going to be 42 minutes because they spoke a thousand miles per hour.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I wouldn’t be surprised if True Detective was kind of the opposite where those scripts weren’t a full — wouldn’t feel like a full hour, but it’s because of the pacing of it that it wouldn’t be that. So, there is a stage called script timing which is actually designed to do exactly what we’re talking about. Even if we’re not doing this one page per minute rule, someone is going to time it out. You’re going to know how long something is.

**Craig:** No question. I still believe that you get a sense of how long a script is from reading it. And if you were to hide the page numbers from me, or hide pagination entirely and I just read it, I would be able to give you some vague sense of how long I thought the movie would be. And that would be, I think, more accurate frankly than some paginated page number.

Look at The Social Network. I mean, very famously Sorkin wrote massive — I mean, the opening scene, I don’t know how pages that it’s paginated. 15? I mean, it’s wall-to-wall dialogue but it was meant to do at a very rapid pace. And it certainly didn’t take the amount of time that the one page per minute would indicate.

Similarly, when I was doing spoof movies with David Zucker, I understood that they were done at breakneck speed. And that it was really more like 45 seconds a page if anything. The people that are clinging to this one page a minute thing I think are just afraid.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They feel, it’s like we’re taking their woobie away. But the woobie is not real.

**John:** The woobie is not real.

**Craig:** No. There is no woobie.

**John:** Craig, you brought up a topic that I think was great and incredibly apropos, so I would love you to take over this. This is about when it’s okay to work for free.

**Craig:** Yeah. This has coming up a bit lately and there’s a little bit of a confusion about it. And so I just wanted to lay the groundwork for people in terms of what the rules are, which I think frankly parallel what is best for us as screenwriters. This is not always the case. In this instance it is.

So, per the WGA and our agreement with the companies, so called “spec writing” is forbidden. And you’re like, “Well, wait a second, we write specs all the time.”

Okay, let me explain. The deal is that you can write on your own. You control the material. You own the copyright as you wish. You can write a spec screenplay, you can write a novel, you can write anything you want. And obviously no one is paying you for it because it’s yours.

You can do this even in conjunction with a producer, because remember producers don’t employ us. Producers are employed by the studios just as we are. If you were to sit down with a producer and they say, “Hey, we have an idea and we’d like for you to write it. And you could write it on spec and then we would go out and try and sell it.” You are perfectly free to say yes. And I don’t think there’s any issue with that, because you control it. That’s the most important thing. You have the copyright on it. It’s yours. You wrote it.

You don’t feel like selling it? You don’t feel like selling it for a certain number? It doesn’t happen. It’s entirely under your control.

The kind of free writing that is unacceptable is free writing that occurs as a condition for employment or free writing that occurs as part of employment. So, if somebody says to you, “We would be interested in hiring you to write this. Write me ten pages to prove that you can.” That’s a huge no-no. It’s against the MBA and it’s also something that we just shouldn’t do as writers. It’s unprofessional.

If you are hired on something and the employer says, “We know we’re supposed to pay you now for the script you just turned in, but we don’t want to. We want you to write another draft of it.” That is a no-no.

Now, there is a flexible area where producers are asking for this and this is the whole free rewrite conundrum. We’ve gotten into that before. But the biggest issue to just keep in mind is that you cannot, cannot write to get employment. You can’t accept writing as a condition for employment. They’re not allowed to ask for it. They can’t even ask you for a summary or a lead behind or an outline or a treatment. And, frankly, as writers I would strongly suggest that you not do it, that you not give them that in order to get a job.

They will put that on as a condition and one of the things that we’ve been talking about with the studios is to say to them, “Look, not only is that against the rules, but it’s going to blow up in your face because…” and this has happened now a bunch of times. Somebody is going to write one of these things to get the job. They’re not going to get the job. And now you have somebody out there with material that you don’t own. And you’re going to make a movie and as we know there are similarities and they’re going to come back and they’re going to get you, because they’re going to say you stole it.

So, anyway, that’s the basic dividing line and hopefully that clears it up for people in some way.

**John:** In some way. I think the take home from this is that there’s nothing wrong with free writing if it’s your writing. If you are writing for yourself a spec work that you are doing for yourself where you’re writing a script for yourself, yes, and that’s one of the most wonderful things about being a screenwriter is no one can stop you from writing, unless they have some exclusivity on you, which is a crazy thing, which we’ll get into at another point. But essentially no one can stop you from writing and that’s the gift you have as a writer.

One of the other gifts is you can say you want to work with somebody on a project, you can do that. And a producer who is not a guild signatory who is not a person who would be hiring you in general, you could agree that you’re going to write this thing and collaborate with this producer on getting this thing to its final best form, but it’s still yours. You’re going to own this. And you can choose whether to sell it or not sell it.

It’s when you are going into a buyer, a person who is going to pay you money to do stuff who chooses not to pay you money to do stuff, but rather is just going to have you write for free and if they like it then maybe they’ll buy it. That’s the problematic situation.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** So, where it gets complicated and where you and I both know people who have run into this situation is that conversation of like, “We would be really interested in something like this,” and so it’s like, uh, so are you telling me that you want me to spec — not telling me but they’re telling the young writer — are you telling me that you want me to spec something that’s in sort of this ballpark? And they can’t really quite say that, but they talk about the kinds of things they’re interested in and it becomes this conversation that is essentially asking you to write something for free.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, but the difference again is if you really like, yeah, you own it. They don’t want it, go sell it to somebody else, assuming that it’s something that anybody would want.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The trickiest of these for me is when a producer comes to a writer and they control a property. They have an option on a book, for instance. And they say we’d like you to adapt this on spec to see if we can go set it up somewhere. I’m not a big fan of that.

**John:** Yeah. Because it’s really clear to see how this can go wrong, essentially they decide they don’t like your script, they drop the option on the book, and suddenly you have a script that’s based on material you don’t own or control. And you can’t sell this project.

**Craig:** Precisely. So, the idea is when you’re writing on spec you need to write in an unencumbered way, so that you own the material completely. The only other thing I would say is if you really loved some underlying property that a producer controlled, it would be fair to say, “Fine, I’m going to write this on spec, but I need us to sign an agreement. And that agreement is that if you’re going to set this project up, you’re setting it up with my script.” And usually they won’t, [laughs], they won’t agree to that. And that’s why I like asking those questions because suddenly they have to show you who they are.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The leverage you have as the writer is the ability to say no. And there are times where you’re going to need to say no, or at least ask the questions that will lead you to a no.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** All right, let’s get to our Three Page Challenges this week. We have three that Stuart picked. So, Stuart, I want to just stand up for Stuart here for a second. Stuart read 70 Three Page Challenges yesterday. They had sort of backed up for awhile. And so when I asked him like, hey, could you grab some for me and Craig, he went through 70.

**Craig:** I am impressed, Stuart.

**John:** So, these are the three he picked. And some of these may have been from before this last batch of 70, but if you are new to the Three Page Challenge let me talk you through what happens here. So, we solicit our listeners to send in three pages of their script. It’s almost always the first three pages, but there’s no rule that it has to be the first three pages. But if you’re going to do that, there are rules that you have to follow.

And that is go to johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out, and we will ask you to have certain boilerplate on the email. Send only the pages. Don’t send anything else. Just send the pages. We’d love to have your name. We’d love to have a title page is great and helpful. But it’s just these three pages. And we talk about them on the air, a very small fraction of the people who send pages in actually are discussed on the air, but we really thank everyone who sent them in. And we especially thank people who are brave enough to hear us talk about their pages on the air because you guys are heroes.

If you want to read along with these pages, there are PDFs attached to this episode. So, go to the show notes either on your app device or at johnaugust.com and you’ll see the show notes and these Three Page Challenges attached.

So, what should we start with, Craig?

**Craig:** Well, you know, I just noticed. I was looking at our three submissions today and I feel like Stuart hides little themes.

**John:** Well I think I picked up a theme, but what are you going to say?

**Craig:** I think the theme he hit today was single word punchy title.

**John:** Yeah. All these are — the three scripts this week are Reactor, Bruiser, and Paragon.

**Craig:** Paragon.

**John:** They all kind of feel like they could be ABC shows. Like Scandal. Betrayed. Or Revenge.

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s right. Revenge. Well, we can start with any of them. I’m holding, well, I’ve got all three of them. Do you want me to summarize this first one here?

**John:** If it’s one that I’m not ready to summarize. Do you have Chris Sandiford?

**Craig:** I have Chris Sandiford right here. Reactor.

**John:** Reactor. Yeah, I want to talk about this one, so let’s go for it.

**Craig:** Okay. So, Reactor. We open up high above the clouds at night in moonlight and then we descend down through the clouds to realize we’re in a violent thunderstorm.

On the ocean below there is this big Maersk E-Class Ship, big cargo ship, and there’s a heavy cable, like a toe cable that fires from the sky and hits one of the containers on the ship.

Inside the ship we can now see that a helicopter is attached to this toe cable and it’s using this toe cable to sort of pull itself into the ship.

And then we go into the helicopter where Colonel Drumm is advising his pilot and some guy using a laptop to essentially take it easy and try and land thing.

We go onto the ship’s bridge where a crewman is watching his radars fizzle out and then he notices that there’s this helicopter that’s coming in. He gets on the radio to the captain who is in the mess hall eating spaghetti and basically says there is an unidentified helicopter and there are three guys with weapons coming out of it.

And we then go to the engine room of the ship where a crew person is alerting Emilia Alvarez, an engineer, that there are hostiles outside, emergency protocol. We think that she’s just working on the engine, and then it is revealed to us but not to the other crew person that in fact she is assembling some very fancy looking grenade launcher.

**John:** And I took it that she’s actually a hostile.

**Craig:** It appears that she is a hostile. Yeah, a saboteur.

And so that is Reactor by Chris Sandiford.

**John:** So, my take on this is this is essentially all action setup. And so this wasn’t like, you know, oh we’re getting to know who these characters are. We’re not getting to know the world. This feels like the start of an action movie. It feels like the start of a Die Hard or some sort of like big set piecey kind of action movie taking place on the seas.

And I actually kind of dug it for what it was doing here. There are some things that didn’t work. I thought some of the dialogue didn’t especially ring true. I don’t like Spaghetti Captain. I don’t like on page three we have, “Then, with respect, Captain, get your ass in gear! These guys have weapons!” That’s how you’re talking to your captain? That feels kind of odd.

But I liked the overall sense of scale and size and drama. I felt like I knew what kind of movie this was after these three pages. And was excited to sort of see well what is this set piece going to be like.

**Craig:** Well, I agree that there was a good sense of pacing to it. I mean, it was an example of how to introduce elements and reveal things cinematically. These are very cinematic pages. We’re watching everything and that’s great.

In a general sense, tonally this feels out of time. It feels old fashioned to me. This feels a bit like a Steven Seagal movie.

**John:** I was going to say Steven Seagal. Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. Mid-’90s. I think we’re past this. Even video games, frankly, are past this. This feels like a cut scene from like the first Splinter Cell, not something that you would see now. So, there was a kind of an old fashioned sense to it and it was not helped at all by the characterizations that Chris gave us.

Even the names. We’ve got Colonel Drumm. “Easy, ace.” And in fact, Ace says, “Aye, Colonel. This storm is something else.” All of the dialogue is very cornball, frankly. I really got puzzled, very puzzled by the interaction with the captain.

I’m just going to read this exchange. This crewman, he’s seeing this thing that — I mean, they’re on a ship in the ocean and there’s a helicopter that’s towing itself in that he does not recognize and his radars are gone. And they’re in the middle of a storm. Captain, for some reason he’s eating spaghetti, fine. The guy turns an alarm on and then calls the captain and says, “Bridge.”

And the Captain says, “This had better be good!” Why? Because it’s spaghetti time and everybody knows don’t bother the captain when he’s eating spaghetti? They’re in the middle of a storm. There’s an alarm.

“Sir, we’ve got a chopper more to the bow,” which isn’t true because it was actually more I think to a container, but fine. “You expecting anyone?” It’s already that kind of vaguely, quippy Michael Bay Armageddon-y kind of dialogue.

And the captain says, “Alarms are for emergencies, crewmen!”

I don’t know. I kind of feel like some strange helicopter that’s moored itself to your bow in the middle of a storm is sort of notable. And then, yes, the guy with the assault weapons come out and then the crewmen says, “Then, with respect, Captain, get your ass in gear! These guys have weapons.”

And then the captain slams down the receiver, turns to the other three crewmen in the mess and says, “OK, listen up!” This almost is bordering on spoof. Assuming that there’s a kind of a modernization of the dialogue and a little bit more of a professional veneer to — not professional screenwriting veneer, but professional crew person veneer to how these people behave.

What I did like was the visual of a helicopter towing itself in. I would have loved those people in the helicopter to be more serious. I like the idea of crew members going, “Whoa, what the hell is that?” And I thought it was a good reveal to see that there is this engineer who is listening to headphones and seems to just be oblivious, actually being part of the sabotage crew.

**John:** Yeah. So, where I thought this could have really benefited from is just a little bit more mystery. And so more sense of like as the audience we’re watching these two sides and we’re not sort of sure who to root for. Because I guess right now I’m not sure who to root for. But honestly if you were to take out all of the dialogue I think you have a much stronger, more compelling scene.

So, if we see this helicopter landing and we see like just quick barked commands behind like what people are doing and mounting this ship, and then if we didn’t really see, if we didn’t know much about sort of what the captain situation was — honestly, just give us less. I think you could take out almost all the dialogue in here.

And then we’re watching this thing, it’s like should we be rooting for the people in the helicopter who are boarding this ship? Should we be rooting for the people on the ship against the helicopter. Is this an invasion? Is the ship evil? Is the helicopter evil? These are all kind of fascinating question and I feel like holding back on this a little bit longer would have been great.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** I mean, even right now I don’t quite know who I’m rooting for, but I’d like to really have that heightened more.

**Craig:** I agree. My suspicion is that the helicopter guys are bad guys, but I don’t know, then they’re military. It seems like they’re acting like bad guys? I couldn’t tell.

The other advice I would give on just the plotting, just logic, is you’re a helicopter and you’re going to do this very fancy maneuver to land on this ship. And obviously you’re up to no good. Why would you start landing in a spot where they could see you? I mean, there’s this guy tapping on a computer to shut their radars down. But yet they’re just landing in front of a window. You know, it seems like it would be a good thing to show that these people are a little more competent than that and are revealed only because something goes wrong or the ship gets rolled by a wave or something.

**John:** Yeah. And if we’re going to have a guy on a laptop there may be a better way than “guy on laptop” honestly. It would be more exciting to see the physical action of what you’re doing to take down that radar thing. A person doing something is almost always more exciting than a computer doing something. So, if it’s a physical person taking something down or breaking something or changing something, that could be great to see as well.

**Craig:** Yeah. Guy on laptop in helicopter above turning radars off below, again, just feels like a cheesy misunderstanding of how computers work. And you used to be able to get away with that sort of thing, I guess, but less so these days. People do demand a little more technical verisimilitude.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, if it’s the thing where like you’re tossing something out the radar that makes it look like a lightning strike but it wasn’t a lightning strike, that you’re doing something to physically knock it out feels probably a little bit more rewarding.

A couple other things I noticed, sort of words on the page. Right now we’re starting “EXT. SKY — NIGHT. FROM A GREAT ALTITUDE WE SOAR over a thick blanket of endless CLOUD,” I think it’s clouds, “bathed in enchanting moonlight.”

I don’t think you need the “EXT. SKY — NIGHT.” The first line is telling you that we’re in the sky, so I think you’re just redundant. And I love starting a script without that scene header slug line when we don’t need it. It was a little too written for me.

**Craig:** A little purple.

**John:** It was a little too purple. And it’s like, “Thick blanket of endless bathed in enchanting moonlight,” and then we’re going through the fluff and into a violent thunder storm. Let’s just start at the thunder storm. It’s a thunder storm. Let’s be in the middle of this.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re going to end up there anyway when they cut the first part.

**John:** Yeah. You are. You’re totally going to be there.

**Craig:** You just are. You see the company logo and then, boom, you’re in the middle of a thunderstorm. It’s a cool way to start.

**John:** So, Chris Sandiford is evidently British because he spelled “storeys,” which is absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with being British. But I will say a general bit of —

**Craig:** [laughs] I think there’s something a little wrong with being British.

**John:** Just a little bit wrong.

**Craig:** I can think of somebody I know who is British who is just a little wrong.

**John:** Oh, but she’s wrong in just the right ways.

There is a general style note. Let’s talk about numbers in scripts. Because we’ve talked about how you shouldn’t really write numbers in dialogue, you should spell them out. Let’s also spell out numbers that are starting sentences. And numbers less than 10. I mean, I’m sort of talking MLA style here. But here “20 storeys,” spell out the twenty. Don’t give me numbers for that.

Later on another page he does “4 men” with the number four to start things. No, spell those out. Numbers ten and above, I would say probably better to use the numbers for those. But the smaller things, use words because they’re easier to read. It just feels more natural.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Chris, I think I’m a bigger fan of these pages than Craig was, because I was — I was honestly sort of skipping over some of the dialogue moments because I was so excited by the skill and scope of which this ship was being setup and sort of what this action was going to be.

**Craig:** All right. What are you going to do now?

**John:** I can do Paragon by Aaron Kablack.

**Craig:** Kablack.

**John:** Sure. Like Kaboom? Kablack.

**Craig:** Like Slotboom. Kablack.

**John:** Yeah. I think you’re right.

**Craig:** We never heard from Slotboom, did we?

**John:** I don’t think we did. I can check through the mail. But I don’t think we heard back from Slotboom.

**Craig:** I don’t think she listens to the show.

**John:** All right. She just sent in pages randomly.

**Craig:** Yeah, she’s too cool, man. She’s Slotboom.

**John:** Yeah, I submitted my pages but I didn’t bother listening. That’s how cool I am.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. Whatevs.

**John:** That’s the title of the script. It’s called Paragon. As this story begins we’re in an elementary school hallway. And we start with Ashley Ayers, and she’s being slammed against the lockers by Wanda, who is 10. Ashley is only 7 years old.

Wanda is going to beat her up for narcing on her that basically she was cheating off the test. Ashley ducks the blow, gets on top of Wanda, starts beating her up. And she’s fighting hard.

Cut to principal’s office, where we see Ashley with her mother, Blair. The principal says, “This is the fourth time this year. I’m sorry, but we have no choice but to suspend Ashley. Again.”

We’re in the car. We’re driving home. Ashley says it’s not her fault. Her mom says, “We’re going to deal with this when your father gets home.” A comment about whenever dad does get home. Some setup about how he works for the news station.

And then traffic starts slowing down more and more and more and suddenly people are running past the windows, concerned. A distant wail of sirens. More people sprinting past. And suddenly a whole bunch of people are sprinting past the windows, getting away from something as we reach the end of our first three pages.

Craig, go for it.

**Craig:** Well, this is the first thing, “INT. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HALLWAY — DAY. The back of 7-year-old ASHLEY AYERS’S head SLAMS into a locker door. Her barrettes CLACK off the metal.” And here we were off and running with problems.

**John:** Yeah. There are a lot of problems in that first sentence.

**Craig:** A lot of problems. I mean, problem number one: I don’t think you know many 7 year olds, because this is not — the whole — all these pages were not appropriate for a 7-year-old character to be behaving the way this little girl was. First of all, the fight between a 10-year-old and a 7-year-old seemed way misaligned. The kind of dialogue, the fact that she calls her a bitch. And they’re back and forth and the severity of the fight just seemed way off for a 7-year-old.

I mean, I know 7 year olds. My daughter is 9, so I can remember all the —

**John:** Yeah. 7 year olds, they’re second graders.

**Craig:** They’re second graders.

**John:** They’re kind of tiny.

**Craig:** They weigh 40 pounds soaking wet. They’re sentences are all ka-jumbled. [laughs] They’re little girls.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They’re really little girls. I mean, a lot of them are still like learning to read and stuff, you know. So, just the age was nuts.

Her barrettes clack off the metal? I got really just like, huh? How?

**John:** Because here’s the thing — there’s a physics problem of like if her head is slamming against that, well that slam is going to be louder than the clack. It felt weird. And so I get the instinct behind the barrettes. It’s like it’s trying to make her younger by giving her barrettes in a way, like reminding her that she’s still a little girl. But, it doesn’t make sense.

**Craig:** I think being 7 would be the tip off. Also, let’s just be realistic. It’s impossible to shoot that. You literally can’t shoot a 7-year-old girl having her head slammed against a locker. How exactly does that work on the day, you know? So, really I guess my first thing is just say to Aaron I think you mean an older girl here. Everything that happens here seems to be asking for an 11 or 12-year-old girl.

**John:** Yeah. 7 year old girls haven’t been suspended multiple times.

**Craig:** Absolutely not.

**John:** It’s actually really hard to get suspended from school in second grade.

**Craig:** It’s really, really hard. And, frankly, if you’re fighting that much in second grade, you’re just mentally ill. [laughs] Little girls in second grade aren’t doing this.

**John:** I want to stop for one second and say like assuming that all these girls are older and that this is a fight that actually should happen, which I don’t think probably should happen, the actual beating up and the fighting was handled relatively well. I got that that slugging and stuff was kind of fine. It just didn’t make sense for this little girl at all.

**Craig:** The fight in and of itself was fine. I’ve seen it before where the girl gets on top of the person and starts punching and then they pull her off. The back and forth discussion I found very mundane. It was sort of just paper thin. Mean girl who’s super mean bullying tiny girl. Frankly, if Ashley has in fact gotten into fights this many times to the point where she was suspended this many times, pretty sure everybody would kind of give her a little bit of a wide berth. I certainly would.

We then get a scene in the principal’s office where we meet the mother. And the principal delivers some exposition. And he says, ” I have no choice but to recommend suspension.” To whom? You’re the principal. Go ahead and suspend her. Suspend her.

**John:** So, Craig, you’re familiar with stock photos?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I feel like they’re stock scenes. I feel like you could actually just go to like iStock Scenes and just buy this little thing that you can just copy and paste into your script. Because I think I’ve seen this exact scene. I mean, I actual can picture the people in the photos that would go with this thing about like this is what it looks like when you get suspended. Your kid being suspended is such a trope. I mean, it’s not even a trope. It’s sort of a super trope.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yes. Super trope.

**John:** It sort of demands to have some sort of weird spin put on it, but there’s no weird spin here at all.

**Craig:** I agree. It’s like Clip Art. These things, we’ve seen — the mean, motivation-less bully, and then she beats the bully up. She gets blamed by the glum, 50s, central casting principal. And then, frankly, we’re going to have another scene that’s Clip Art where the little girl is saying it wasn’t my fault, the mom doesn’t get it. And then the little girl starts making these pointed comments about the absentee father. And then the mom starts making very on-the-nose comments that are defensive, including a reference to his job.

It just felt so out of place.

**John:** Yeah. So, for people who don’t have the pages in front of them, let’s do the scene together.

**Craig:** Let’s do it. Would you like to be mom or daughter?

**John:** You be Ashley, I’ll be Blair.

**Craig:** Okay.

ASHLEY

It wasn’t my fault.

BLAIR

I don’t want to hear it, Ashley.

ASHLEY

It wasn’t! Why don’t you ever listen to me?

BLAIR

We will deal with this when your father gets home.

ASHLEY

Whenever that is.

BLAIR

Excuse me? What did you say?

ASHLEY

Nothing.

BLAIR

Your dad works hard to make sure that you and I have a good life.

ASHLEY

How good can it be if he’s never around for it?

BLAIR

Your dad’s job isn’t like other jobs, sweetheart. You know the Beacon’s slogan: News...

ASHLEY

...Never sleeps. I know, I know.

**Craig:** I mean —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Like even the sigh you put in, it was like, because the problem is this isn’t — people don’t talk like this.

**John:** People don’t talk like this.

So, here is what’s so fascinating though is like these pages would drive me crazy, but then on the very bottom of page three suddenly like there’s a whole stampede of people going past. And clearly this is not the movie you think it is. There’s something strange is happening here and it’s going to be, you know, something remarkable and probably supernatural is happening here.

So, there’s a bigger thing. And so it made me think like well maybe this is all meant to be sort of like, you know, stupid sort of template scene stuff to set up the banality of this kind of movie. And then it’s going to go someplace else. But it’s not played that way at all.

**Craig:** I don’t think so. Yeah, I don’t think this is intentionally off. And even this bit at the end where the action begins is Clip Art because I’ve just seen — I just saw this in World War Z. I’ve seen it in every zombie movie.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They’re in a car and suddenly there are sirens and people are running and are heroes are confused.

**John:** Yeah. So, World War Z, I mean, obviously this made me think so much of World War Z in terms of everyone running past, and it made me think back to like that opening scene in World War Z is not awesome. It’s sort of a Clip Art scene. It’s like that pancake scene. And it’s not like the best moment of everything, but there’s something to be said for something that like really lowers your expectations in a certain way. Like you’re just like — it’s just like so kind of common. And then like something supernatural happens. So, there’s nothing wrong with having some really natural, normalistic stuff, but this isn’t normalistic. It’s just —

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** It’s far too familiar.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, the opening scene in World War Z is — nothing happens in it. It’s just a family waking up in the morning and they are really happy with each other. They’re just a super self-satisfied American golly gee family. But, it does feel realistic. It feels, like you said, naturalistic. It feels like a happy family.

They didn’t jam any exposition down our throats except for one little tiny bit where we get the sense that he used to work for important people and now he doesn’t anymore. But this feels very after school special. And then zombies are going to show up.

So, I just think that — I am concerned, Aaron, about your grasp of tone and character. And I want you to take some time. Unless this was intentionally meant to be this way, I think you need to do a little remedial work, frankly. And watch some movies that are of your genre and really examine how people are set up and talk to each other.

And above all ask yourself am I — is my job to mimic stuff I’ve seen or is my job to offer something unique?

**John:** You know, actually fascinating. If this were to be intentional, I mean, even if like after the fact this sort of odd tone was deliberately intentional, wouldn’t it be fascinating to have like Ashley’s voice over, like almost like a Veronica Mars kind of voice over where she’s commenting on it or something. Like where she had this sort of beyond her years sense of who she was in this place? I feel like there’s something you could do with sort of exactly these scenes where if she had a voice over that was playing against it.

Sort of like what I think about for both Clueless and Heathers where there is this sense of like the world is sort of deliberately a little bit fake, but it’s —

**Craig:** Pushed.

**John:** It’s pushed. But it’s because these characters are able to talk directly to you that you sort of go with it. I mean, Brick, Rian Johnson’s Brick is also the same kind of way. It’s not a realistic world.

**Craig:** But we’re made to understand that. In other words, you know, we’ve talked about how the beginning of a movie teaches you how to watch the movie. And so Rian understands how to teach you to watch that movie. The problem when I’m reading this is I just think, this isn’t teaching me how to watch an interesting kind of movie. It’s just copying other movies.

And, frankly, if you’re going to copy movies, copy better movies. Because the other thing is sometimes I think it might be frustrating for people to say, “Well, look, you know, I saw a movie in the theater, maybe even one that you or I wrote. And that wasn’t very original, or that scene felt ripped off.” And I guess my point is for those people to say that’s the end. That’s the end result after maybe somebody else rewrote it, maybe somebody had a different way of shooting, maybe people got involved. Maybe actors got notes. Production problem. God knows what.

The entire process of going from page to film is a degrading process to quality in general. It’s corrosive. It’s very hard for the best to remain at that level, the best of what you can do to remain at that level. So, all the more reason to start as good as you can because it’s going to get worse from there, not better.

**John:** For sure. Well, it also goes back to that sort of plus one fallacy, which is like if it’s better than the worst thing I’ve ever seen. Well, that’s not anything to aim for at all.

**Craig:** Nobody is going to — yeah, what they’re doing is they’re actually buying brilliant screenplays and then turning those into crap. [laughs] So, you can’t start with crap.

All right, well, so our last three pager is entitled Bruiser and this is written by Jessica Wiseman.

So, we begin in William P.’s House. William P. That’s abbreviated, P. He’s 13 years old. Comes into his room, good-looking kid, starts tossing his backpack and his book bag and his gym bag aside. He’s on the phone talking to someone named Rajeev and telling him to stop freaking out. He gets on the computer and he’s basically saying to this Rajeev, and we only hear his side of the conversation, something about who cares if it’s cliché, people love that. Can we get a picture of an eagle.

It’s like he’s advising somebody who is designing something for him. And he takes a soccer ball out and starts juggling the soccer ball. He’s apparently very good at it. And then he hears a noise from downstairs. He comes downstairs. We don’t see him. We just hear him, because we’re in a different room. Heads downstairs. And he’s surprised by somebody that he knows but isn’t expecting to see. There’s an off-screen scuffle. And then William enters into a room. His nose has been bloody. He’s trying to calls somebody but he can’t.

Two people in black hoodies run in, pin him down. William is begging. Call my parents. Don’t hurt me. And another person enters the room whose face we cannot see. I assume it’s from behind. And William knows them and is asking them please to stop. This was all just fun. And the person slams his face with their boot. We cut to black.

Next day we’re in Nate’s house mourning. Nate, also 13, preppy kid, reading a book about politics. And his mom is giving him breakfast. And apparently Nate is going to be running for some sort of class office or something. Mom talks about getting together for family time. And he asks her if she has any cash she can lend him.

**John:** Yup. And so three pages. I was really excited to read page four and five and six. Of all the things we read this week, this was the thing that I was sort of most excited about. I thought it was hardly perfect, and there are some things — there’s a lot of stuff to talk through with this. But I was excited to see it.

Let’s start with what we talked about earlier in the show which was that sense of when you’re moving between two places but it’s really unclear on the page where you are. And so this happens for us on page two.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** He leaves the room, but it’s not really clear that he leaves the room. And it’s not clear that we have stayed behind in the room. You have to be clear about this people. So, that’s one of those cases where it’s appropriate to say we stay behind as he leaves and we hear him off-screen, because right now the only indication that he’d left was that he’s O.S.

**Craig:** O.S. Right.

**John:** Yeah. So right on page two. He hangs up the phone and immediately walks out of the bedroom door to check on the noise. We hear him start to descend the steps to the living room. Well, tell us that we’ve stayed behind, because otherwise we’re going to think we’re going to move with him. He’s the only character we’ve seen.

We’re not used to, as readers or as an audience, staying behind empty rooms unless you’re telling us that specifically we’re going to do that because it’s just not a thing we do in movies without a good reason.

**Craig:** That’s right. I mean, we need some kind of indication of geography here. And, frankly, I’m not a big fan of even staying in the room anyway and then coming back to the room. It’s an odd move, but I guess it could work.

**John:** I liked it. Actually I liked it a lot because it sets up tension. Because it’s an unusual thing to do. So, we know that there is something wrong but we’re not quite sure what’s wrong. And then he comes back in and he’s been bloodied and apparently it’s probably a continuous shot, so that’s going to feel great.

**Craig:** That’s my problem with it in a way is that I have an angle — I’m just imagining I’ve got to shoot this. I have an angle on this kid in his room and then he leaves and I’m stuck with that angle. So, when he runs back in I’m stuck with him just running back in. It almost feels like my camera has become a webcam or a point-of-view camera like a security monitor, because I’m locked into that angle. And in my mind, what I kind of wanted was for him to leave the room and then I’m downstairs in a living room. And I hear something off-screen and then he runs into this new room, just so I could reorient myself.

But, regardless, listen, that’s a choice, but geography is a choice and you need to get it across very clearly.

**John:** So, I think she made an interesting choice. It just wasn’t clear. It was confusing to the reader and therefore she lost a lot of the power of her interesting choice by not making it clear to the reader.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** But I actually really liked the sequence that happened here. I liked —

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** — William P. I liked that he was clearly focused on something. And you see him like — he pulls a soccer jersey out, smells it, but puts it on anyway. He’s talking to some guy on the phone. We’re not sure even what he’s talking about, but he sits — he’s working on stuff beyond his years. He senses that there already could be trouble before he hears the first sound off-screen.

I thought all of that was really well done. And I like a 13-year-old getting the shit kicked out of him. That’s surprising. And so that happens on page two and you’ve got me for another ten pages based on what happens there.

There were some surprising formatting errors and so while we were talking I actually looked to see what app made this PDF, because there are things which felt really like strange mistakes.

**Craig:** Yeah. And consistently done incorrectly.

**John:** Yeah. So, this was made in Final Draft, so this person was using a normal app but maybe hadn’t read a lot of other screenplays, because there were things that were sort of odd.

When you have a parenthetical under a name, the convention is that that parenthetical is lower case. And so all of these got upper cased for sort of no good reason.

At the bottom of page two, for whatever reason, “You gotta stop this. This…this was all just…fun. You know?” It’s centered rather than being dialogue.

**Craig:** Right dialogue is always left justified.

**John:** Yeah. Always left justified. So, just some odd things. Then, when we get into page three, she makes a choice to have the mom character be I guess almost like a Peanuts character with like a wah-wah-wah, so it says —

**Craig:** Peanuts or penis?

**John:** Peanuts.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** Sorry.

**Craig:** [creepy voice] I thought he said Penis character, John.

**John:** Have you seen the trailer for Peanuts?

**Craig:** Yeah. I did see the trailer for Peanuts.

**John:** You know, it wasn’t awful. I just don’t know what that — I know what it is. I guess it’s like the specials in a way, but just like a better version of the specials.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, it’s been a long time since we’ve seen Peanuts moving around. I mean, I love that they used the Vince Guaraldi, yes.

**John:** [hums]

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I’m positive. I mean, you know, hopefully it’ll come out nicely. I mean, I did like that they didn’t — it wasn’t like uncanny valley. It was a very subtle 3D-ification of the artwork.

**John:** So, on page three, back to the script, the unseen mom, so it’s referenced a plate of bacon, scrambled eggs, and a glass of orange is set in front of him by his unseen mom. So, by using the passive voice and saying unseen mom, you’re establishing like that you’re never really going to see her and that it’s all from this character’s perspective. I guess. It just feels like I got a little bit nervous about sort of how locked focus we’re going to be on not having adults be in this world. But it felt a little bit strange to me and it felt a little arch on page three.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I agree — I think where I was happy was on page one most of all. There’s a big chunk of action at the top and I liked it. It was good description. And it was the sort of description that I felt didn’t cheat. I just liked it. Even the part that was kind of cheaty was more hypothetically cheaty. He probably has older women cooing at him all the time.

**John:** She actually wrote “older woman cooing at him all the time.”

**Craig:** Yeah. That is true. There are a bunch of those in here. And I like what he was saying — what I liked is that William P. is really cocky. And he’s talking like an actual kid talks, which was great.

I wasn’t thrilled about him suddenly doing soccer ball tricks while on the phone and doing this because that felt very — that was an indicating movie, like he knows how to do soccer. And then the ball ends up on his head, which first of all is just annoying to shoot, but also more importantly it just felt forced.

Then we already discussed the moment where he gets attacked. Wasn’t thrilled with his dialogue once he got caught. Less is more in that circumstance. And I feel like this comment comes up all the time when we do these Three Page Challenges. Think about how many words you would be able to form and speak when your heart is racing and you’re physically hurt and you’re afraid for your life.

**John:** Yeah. I thought her scene description on him was really nice there. So, “William’s face is soaked with tears. Snot mixed with blood streams out from his nostrils.” That feels really appropriate.

I agree that less is more, and so don’t have a giant block of dialogue ahead of that. I wanted to get to that moment. And so break up your stuff. Just do something different.

**Craig:** I think that when people are hurt and they’re not action heroes of a kind of archetypal sort, archetypical sort, that they tend to regress. I think that, “I’m sorry, it was just fun,” is all he could probably be able to get out. And that’s the only part that matters anyway.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, I think less is more there. I did not really love this next scene. Again, felt a little like, okay, so it’s a kid reading a book on politics and he’s running for class office. And everything he says is sort of, I mean, “Chris Matthews doesn’t say anything about eating bacon as a key election strategy,” feels very, very contrived and not true. It’s like it’s too much.

**John:** Yeah. I agree.

**Craig:** It’s too much. The mom off-screen I actually think can be a cool choice. What I would say to you, Jessica, is that if you want to have somebody off-screen that’s unseen, what you’re telling us is that our focus should be on this kid. And if our focus is on the kid, give me more from the kid. Let me know what’s happening. Show me more than just quippy comebacks and a discussion of breakfast which is irrelevant. And show them either studiously not listening to her, not paying attention, or show me what he’s reading. Show me him, because you’re making a choice that he’s lost in something and I want to understand why.

Because right now he’s lost in something but he’s not, because he’s responding to everything she says. He’s eating. He’s talking about Gus, about bacon, and then about cash. And that last line indicates that he’s up to something.

**John:** Yeah. And I like that he’s up to something.

Getting back to the mom being off-screen, I’m counting up lines here and she has a lot more dialogue in the scene than he does and it just feels weird that — here’s one of her blocks of dialogue: “Well, I guess he would know better than me. Your dad is getting off work early tonight and he wants to know if you’re up for some family togetherness time, maybe bowling?”

That’s a lot to be sticking on an off-screen character while we’re just sitting here watching this kid with a book.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, to me, there’s an interesting choice here. If you have this kid and he’s reading this book and food gets put down in front of him while this mother is talking, and I wouldn’t have her talk about what he’s doing. I wouldn’t have her talk about the campaign or anything. She could be talking about other things. “Remember, I’m going to be gone from this to that.” We don’t see her. We just see him looking at the book. And he’s looking at a passage in the book or something about it that matters that we’re hip to. And she’s just rambling, rambling, rambling, rambling. And he’s not eating. He’s not drinking. He’s just focused.

And then at the end he sees something and then he goes, “I’m going to need some money.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** He wasn’t listening to her at all. He’s on his own track. So, if you’re going to make this choice, Jessica, you have to match the storytelling to the choice.

**John:** Absolutely. Jump back over to the first page. I like so much of it, I just felt like there was a little bit too much scene description overall. So, you were talking about getting rid of some of the soccer moments of it all. I honestly felt that the first paragraph just went on too long. So, that whole thing about older women cooing over him all the time, you need to cut off that line shorter, but it just got to be too much there. And it took me too long to sort of get to his action.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, either that or maybe just paragraph break it, because everybody — I mean, I liked the content, but six lines in a row right off the bat is a little bit of a ugh…

**John:** And it shouldn’t be, but it is. And it’s just the reality is whenever we’re faced with a paragraph that is six, or seven, eight lines long, you’re just going to go, [sighs], and I’m going to dive in and read that paragraph. Versus a two or three line paragraph, just churn right through it.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Cool. Well, thank you again to these three people who sent in their Three Page Challenges which are great. And I think Jessica, I would love — I have a suspicion that the rest of your script is probably really, really cool. And I think she can really write. I think these other guys also had some really promising stuff in their scripts to. So, thank you again for sending them in.

**Craig:** Yes. Thank you. and thanks for facing the firing squad as it were.

**John:** Yeah. Craig, my One Cool Thing this week combines two things that I suspect you love and that many of our listeners love which is technology and fire.

**Craig:** I love technology and I love fire. How did you know?

**John:** Because you are an…

**Craig:** I’m an open book.

**John:** Yeah. Because you’re Craig Mazin.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** As you recall this last week, or two weeks now when the podcast comes out, we had a little earthquake. Not a big earthquake at all. But weirdly we had just actually done all of our — every six months we do our sort of earthquake shopping and we sort of go through our food supplies and throw out the stuff that’s about to expire.

We have like a whole set aside stuff for food supplies. But one thing that I’ve been thinking about is like I really want to get a little camp stove so in case we lose power here at the house we can actually just boil water and cook food and do the normal kind of stuff.

And so I was in the market for a camp stove and I found this little thing called the BioLite Stove. Have you seen this at all?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So, it’s a wood burning stove. And it’s kind of nice it’s a wood burning stove because you can fill it with anything that burns, basically stick it inside, but really wood, cardboard —

**Craig:** Flesh.

**John:** Pine cones, anything you want to stick in there is great.

**Craig:** Human hair.

**John:** Yeah. It’s about the size of like a Folgers coffee can. It’s about that size.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** What’s clever about it is that it actually has attached to it is a battery pack that has a fan. And so what the fan does is it blows extra air into it. You know sort of how you blow on a campfire to get it started, it burns much hotter, and it really gets going. Well, this fan is blowing on it all the time. And it blows much hotter. And because of that it’s much hotter than sort of trying to boil water over a campfire. It’s a good hot flame.

And so we were able to boil water in ten minutes, like a big pot of water in ten minutes, and it was really impressive. What’s clever about this battery pack is that it has a heat exchanger in it so as the fire is burning it’s actually recharging the battery.

**Craig:** Ooh. It’s a perpetual motion machine.

**John:** Well, it’s not perpetual motion because you’re having to burn fuel, but it’s burning sticks and twigs.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** And you can also charge USB devices off of it.

**Craig:** That…now you’re talking.

**John:** See, that’s the technology thing that I thought you would really appreciate.

**Craig:** When shit goes down, and I’m dismembering people in my front yard, I want to be able to take a human hand, the hand that tried to strangle me and that I severed, [laughs], I want to take that man’s hand, put it in a tin can, light it up, and get on Twitter.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, when civilization falls apart Twitter may not really work so well, but you could at least play some Threes.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** You can pass some time.

**Craig:** I will tell you that even when everything goes down there will still be porn out there.

**John:** Oh, there has to be.

**Craig:** Has to be. Porn never goes away.

**John:** So, I’ll have a link to this in the show notes because I was really impressed by it. So, the downsides of it is it’s still essentially a fire, so we were testing it out at lunch yesterday and so I wanted to make sure it worked really well, and it did work really, really well. But your clothes smell like smoke because you’ve built a little hot campfire.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, it has that drawback. But, the fact that it can burn anything is kind of amazing.

**Craig:** That is amazing.

Well, I’ll tell you my One Cool Thing is something that I could theoretically attach to your flesh burning tin can. I’m obsessed with the idea of just putting human parts into this thing. It is — did you play Infocom games when you were a young man?

**John:** I did. Zork.

**Craig:** Zork. So, for those of you who are annoyingly young, or too cool, Infocom was an early videogame company and video is really stretching it because they created text based games. There was no artwork whatsoever except for the game boxes which were totally misleading.

So, an Infocom game was basically a text adventure. They would describe where you were and then you had choices to make — move east, west, north, south. Pick this up. Show this. Hand this to this person. Buy a thing. Limited text commands. And you had to move through an adventure. And in these adventures you could die and have to start over, which was super annoying.

And some of them were notoriously hard, verging on impossible. Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy probably the most notable example. So, when I was a kid you’d have to scrimp and save to buy an Infocom game. Well, there’s no an app called the Lost Treasures of Infocom.

**John:** Ah-ha!

**Craig:** And it has not all of them, but most of the games. It’s got all of the Zorks, which was like essentially Dungeons & Dragons. It’s got Ballyhoo and Border Zone and Cutthroats. And it’s got Trinity, which is a great one. And Infidels and Planet Fall and Leather Goddesses of Phobos. All of these games that I remember.

And you buy the app, but I think they give you Zork for free. But for $10 you get them all.

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** You get all of them. And the nice thing about text based games is that it plays so well on your iPad or your iPhone. I mean, it’s such a goof. Because I really don’t like — when they try and duplicate analog controls on the iPad or the iPhone, I don’t like it. So, anyway, if you remember those Infocom games and you love them, $10 you can have them all. And they come with hint systems and, you know, I don’t know.

**John:** And also now we have the internet, so when you really get stuck you can just go to the Wikipedia article and figure out what you’re supposed to do.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And I kind of like these apps more than anything because I feel like I’m literally laughing — not literally — figuratively laughing in the face of my younger self. Like, ha-ha, stupid. I have all the things you wanted. All of them, for $10.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** On this futuristic thing.

**John:** Yeah. If you’d only waited you could have had them this whole time.

**Craig:** Right. All of your whining, I have them all!

**John:** I do remember a couple of years ago, do you remember they sold, what was — like the old Atari joystick, but it actually had all of the games built into the joystick. Itself.

**Craig:** I bought it.

**John:** Yeah. And I played it for awhile. And then at a certain point I realized like, you know what, the other games I have are much better.

**Craig:** Yeah, they’re terrible. But that — to me that’s a great example of I’m just buying this to insult my past.

**John:** Oh yes.

**Craig:** Like look at what I can have.

**John:** A giant middle finger towards nostalgia.

**Craig:** Yeah, look what I can have that’s cheaper, smaller, and I don’t even want it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** God.

**John:** I put it in recycle.

**Craig:** What will the future bring?

**John:** Who knows?

That’s our show for this week. So, you can find links to the things we talked about in the show notes at johnaugust.com/scriptnotes. It’s also where you can find transcripts for our previous episodes.

You can listen to all of the back episodes, both on the site and through the Scriptnotes app for iPhone and Android. Check there. And, if you want to listen to all of the first 100 episodes, we still have a few of the USB drives left where it has all 100 of them on. So, you can just buy the USB drive and we will mail it to you and you will have them all.

You can find that store.johnaugust.com. We also have a few random weird sizes of t-shirts left. If you have a question for me or Craig you can find us on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust. He is @clmazin.

Scriptnotes is produces by Stuart Friedel who picked those Three Page Challenges. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

And longer questions go to ask@johnaugust.com. And our outro this week is provided by Jeff Harms. So, thank you to everybody who sent in the outros because they’re amazing. So, we have a big stack of great outros now that will last us many weeks.

**Craig:** I love those. I just love those. I just think people are so creative.

**John:** Awesome. So, if you want to hear all of the outros, in the show notes there is a link to all of the outros that have ever been used in Scriptnotes and it’s just a good sort of fall into a hole and listen to them for 45 minutes because there have been some great variations.

**Craig:** Word.

**John:** Word. Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Word! Thank you, John. Bye.

Links:

* Get tickets now for John’s [WGF panel](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/first-draft-feature/), From First Draft to Feature
* [Lab Rats](http://disneyxd.disney.com/lab-rats) on Disney XD
* Screenwriting.io on [multicamera script formatting](http://screenwriting.io/how-are-multicamera-tv-scripts-formatted/)
* Three Pages by [Chris Sandiford](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/ChrisSandiford.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Aaron Kablack](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/AaronKablack.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Jessica Wiseman](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/JessicaWiseman.pdf)
* [How to submit your Three Pages](http://johnaugust.com/threepage), and [Stuart’s post on lessons learned from the early batches](http://johnaugust.com/2012/learning-from-the-three-page-challenge)
* [BioLite Woodburning Camp Stove](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQHET9O/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00BQHET9O&linkCode=as2&tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* [BioLite KettlePot](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FYX4TW8/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00FYX4TW8&linkCode=as2&tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* [Lost Treasures of Infocom](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lost-treasures-of-infocom/id577626745?mt=8) for iOS
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes listener Jeff Harms

« 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.