• 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. 37: Let’s talk about dialogue — Transcript

May 18, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/dialogue).

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

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

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

**Craig:** Feeling good, buddy, how about you?

**John:** Good. What did you write today?

**Craig:** Nothing. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] I wrote a lot today.

**Craig:** Oh, well, screw you.

**John:** Well good for me. There are many days I don’t get stuff written, so I’m happy today. But I was writing action, and action is just so not fun most times. I actually tweeted about it last night because I tweeted something like, “I think about writing action sequences the same way a tailor must approach doing button holes.”

**Craig:** I saw that. Yup.

**John:** Because, you know, you absolutely need them, and it’s such fine detailed work, and no one is ever going to notice it.

**Craig:** Yeah, because the action itself on the screen is obviously so much more impactful than what you see on the page. And when you write it on the page it really does feel like technical writing, like writing an instruction manual or something.

I remember talking about this with Richard LaGravenese who is a spectacular screenwriter, and he and I both bonded over our shared hatred and boredom of writing out action.

**John:** Yeah. And you can’t really skip it. I mean, it’s crucial to provide a sense of what the reader is going to see if this were a movie. I mean, I always treat writing a screenplay as I’m sitting in the theater watching a movie up on the big screen, so I’m writing what I’m seeing, or writing what the experience is of watching the movie. And that includes action, so you have to get that in there; the challenge is to make that interesting for the reader in a way that they just don’t want to kill themselves, or that they’re going to skip over it, because that’s the temptation that they are going to be like, “Okay, this paragraph is too long, I’m going to skip over it and just read the next bit of dialogue; this makes my eyes feel happy.”

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a chore.

**John:** And there are times where you can summarize a bit, where you can just give a taste of… — Sometimes if there’s like a football game you can get a sense of after a few plays we’re up by three, and you are getting sort of a lyrical sense of what is happening there, and it’s going to be left to the filmmakers to sort of show what that is. But there are also times where you need to be fairly specific because there’s comedy that’s happening because of what’s going on there. There are distinct moments in that action and you really do have to script them and choreograph them.

And that’s what I had to do for this. This was a sports thing, but there was comedy that needed to happen during it. And so it needed to be specific enough, and that’s where it just gets to be tough.

**Craig:** Yeah. And then eventually if the movie goes into production you will have to sit there… — And I remember sitting with Todd Phillips and the second unit director for The Hangover Part II. And sort of laying out exactly how the car chase would work. Every single bullet fired, because everybody has to know. Everybody needs to know, “Okay, where does the bullet hit, because we’re going to need a car that has a bullet hole, and da-da-da.”

And then you’re sitting after that meeting literally doing technical writing. I like to say this to screenwriters when they complain about how we have no power: Everybody is staring at it like it’s the Bible at that point. Every single word becomes incredibly informative.

**John:** What you were saying about that moment in The Hangover, I know exactly the sequence you’re describing. It becomes so important because there’s a change in state of the set that you’re in, which I guess is a car, so that joke can only happen at a certain time because you can’t take a moment from earlier in the scene later because you’ve changed the nature of the car. So you can’t move stuff around once you’re in there.

Versus a lot of times, if it’s just two people in a normal car that’s driving, you can change any of the lines around. Characters can adlib and do a whole bunch of different stuff because the car is staying exactly the same the whole time. If something is changing physically in the scene so that you can’t go back and forward in time, you’re locked in. And that can be really tough.

**Craig:** Right. And you have to choreograph it. And you are choreographing it just for the point of view of the production. Any kind of action becomes a very highly choreographed thing, to avoid accidents, and to avoid — and sadly there was an accident on that movie. That had nothing to do with our writing or anything. But, you are trying to make sure that everything is choreographed down to the slightest little movement.

And, so, yeah, when you’re talking about something that in a movie when you watch you think is a little nothing, like they shoot out the rear windshield — that’s a big deal. Because you’re right; every shot after that needs a missing windshield. So it just becomes, it’s a grind. I find writing action to be a grind for sure.

**John:** I was describing to somebody else that is working on a musical right now: Musicals are a lot like action movies in that every few minutes there’s a song being song rather than a big action set piece happening. And, working on several movie musicals, yes, everything has to be sort of carefully planned, but you have some flexibility, you can move stuff around.

Working on the stage show, it’s been really interesting that every day the script would change because we literally had moved one lyric in front of one line, or some character’s entrance was just a little bit later. And you had to accommodate all that stuff because it wasn’t just the script or the dancing, or the speaking; it was also the music department. Everything had to fit together in a way that was very, very tough.

And so you wanted to create as much room for the moment, for the acting, and for the possibility. But you’re on rails; you basically had to stay on this track or it wasn’t going to work.

**Craig:** In production, I honestly feel production of all kinds is so awful. I’ve never been on a movie where I didn’t look around at least once and think, “There’s got to be a better way.”

And I understand why directors, particularly very successful directors who reach a certain age and have done a certain amount of movies suddenly say, “You know what? Let’s just do this mo-cap then, you know. Let’s make Tintin on a green stage.” Because, it just takes away so much of the misery of production. It’s a very arduous task.

**John:** We should tell everybody that you’re on set for — our friends Derek Haas and Michael Brandt just had their show picked up, Chicago Fire.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so you’re doing a little production rewrite there for them, helping them out, getting a few jokes in there.

**Craig:** Yeah. Chicago Fire is going to be the funniest show on TV. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] It’s an NBC show.

Change in topics, this is a very exciting week because this is the week of Upfronts. So this is where all of the…

**Craig:** Exciting for you. [laughs]

**John:** Exciting for people who care about TV. Not exciting at all for Craig Mazin. This is where all the networks decide which shows are going to be on the fall season, and which shows are not coming back, and which ones they’re most excited about, which ones they’re nervous about, which ones they’re gonna stick in mid-season and cross their fingers and pray.

So we have several friends who have shows being picked up which is fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah. A lot of them.

**John:** And we have friends whose shows didn’t get picked up and we’re sad for them. But what I’ve said before on the podcast is the amazing, wonderful thing about TV is that not getting your show picked up isn’t really considered a failure because most shows aren’t supposed to get picked up. Most pilots aren’t supposed to get picked up. So it’s not a big mark against you.

**Craig:** Right. If you got to pilot you have succeeded in some big way.

**John:** Yeah. I think I told you about this off-air last week, but I cheated on you. You know that?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I went and did another podcast. I recorded an episode of Jay Mohr’s podcast, Jay Mohr who I knew from Go, who I hadn’t seen for like 20 years or something so it was great to catch up. And so as I was driving over to Jay Mohr’s house to do his podcast, and he does one of those old school podcasts where they people actually look at each other…

**Craig:** Weird.

**John:** …unlike our podcast where I haven’t seen you in months.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Which is a blessing.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s beautiful. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] So one of the things in our mutual contract was that we couldn’t see each other.

**Craig:** Never see each other. Yeah. It was one of my demands.

**John:** So, as I was driving over to Jay’s house I listened to an episode of his show because I figured, you know that’s probably good preparation to listen to one episode of the guy’s show before you’re on his show. And so his guest that week was Ralph Garman who is a very, very funny radio personality on KROQ. He’s on the Kevin and Bean show. You don’t listen to the radio either, do you?

**Craig:** Actually I used to listen to whatever those — Kevin and Bean in the morning. And Ralph does the Hollywood…

**John:** He does the Hollywood Showbiz.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know. He’s a funny guy.

**John:** He’s a very funny guy. So, both he and Jay are impressionists; they do a lot of impersonations. So they got talking about that and it was really fascinating to hear people talk about their craft, and especially when they can do things that I can’t do at all.

And so Ralph Garman was talking about this one other guy he had met who could do a dead-on Jason Lee impression.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** And so Jason Lee, who’s the guy on My Name is Earl, he was in the Chipmunks movies, and Ralph was saying like he had no idea how to even begin a Jason Lee impression. His quote, I think, was, “I wouldn’t even know where to hang my hat on that,” which is that when you are doing an impersonation there has to be something that you can start and you can build out from.

So, if you are doing a Christopher Walken thing you have this weird phrasing and sort of how he falls back into it. With an Al Pacino you sort of have his physicality that becomes sort of his voice. And like how do you do a Jason Lee impersonation?

And it is amazing when you see somebody doing an impression or impersonation that you’ve never even considered before. Like I remember when Jay Pharoah joined Saturday Night Live, Jay Pharoah does this brilliant Denzel Washington.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** He also does Will Smith and Jay-Z. But particularly the Denzel Washington, it’s like you never even thought there could be a Denzel Washington impression, and he just nails it. And there’s not always comedy to back it up, but it’s just uncanny that he’s able to do this Denzel Washington.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think his thing is like he went in on the “my man,” like that’s his thing, you know?

**John:** Mm-hmm. He found something very specific and he sort of built out from that thing. And there is a difference between sort of voice acting; there’s people who can double and what we think about impressions or impersonations is really kind of a caricature. It’s like they are taking that one thing and blowing it out to this crazy distortion.

I mean, Ralph Garman describes it as like when you go to visit the Santa Monica pier and there’s those guys who will draw cartoon caricatures of you. And so they will pick like one thing on your face and make your head huge, and then give you a skateboard for some reason. That’s what a lot of that comedy is. But you have to find that one little thing.

And their conversation about finding a character’s voice, finding an actor’s voice for an impression got me thinking about what a character’s voice is. And so I thought we might start talking about that.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Because to me, the mark of good writing is never really about structure, or where the beats are falling. I can tell if it’s a good writer or a bad writer mostly by whether they can handle a character’s voice. If they can convince me that the characters I’m reading on the page are distinct, and alive, and unique. I would happily read many scripts that are kind of a mess story wise, but you can tell someone’s a good writer because their characters have a voice.

**Craig:** Right. You can suggest ways to improve story structure. And you can always come up with ideas for interesting scenes. But what you can’t do is tell somebody to write characters convincingly. Either they can do it or they can’t.

**John:** Yeah. So this isn’t going to be a how-to-give-your-characters-a-voice thing, because I think it is one of those inherent skills; like you sort of have it or you don’t. You can work on it, and you can sort of notice when things are missing and apply yourself again. And, there are sometimes where… — There is a project that has been sitting on a shelf for awhile that a friend and I are going to take another look at. And looking through it again I realized that the biggest problem here is that our hero could sort of be anybody. We made him such an everyman that he kind of is every man. And because of that you don’t really care about him.

And so I thought of four questions, sort of four tests, to see whether character’s voices are working. So here are my four tests and maybe you can think of some more.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** First test — could you take the dialogue from one character in the script and have another character say it?

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a common complaint that you’ll hear from producers or executives that the character voice is not unique, that the characters all sound the same. And that’s a common error — I don’t even say a common rookie error. I think people misuse the term rookie error. It’s really a common stinky writer error, because rookies who are good writers I think automatically know to not do this. And that they write the characters as them, so they’re speaking through cardboard cutouts. They’re speaking through policeman. They’re speaking through Lady on Street.

**John:** Or worse, they’re just talking as “cop.” They’re talking like a cop. And they’re not talking like a specific human being; they’re talking like, “this is what a cop would say.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Well, that’s actually not especially helpful for your movie because this is not supposed to be any cop; it’s supposed to be a specific cop with a back story, and a name, and a role in your specific movie. And so if you’re making someone the generic version of that, that’s going to be a problem.

You already hit on my next thing which is is a character speaking for himself or is he speaking for the writer.

**Craig:** A-ha, I read your mind.

**John:** You did read my mind. And so that is the thing. Are you speaking really through your own voice? And some screenwriters are very, very funny. And so they have very funny voices themselves. But if every character in the movie has their same funny voice, that’s not going to be an especially successful outcome.

It may be an amusing read, but I doubt that the final product is going to be the best it could be.

**Craig:** Some people will say that there’re highly stylized writers who do a little bit of that, and I actually disagree. Like some people say, “Well in Mamet everybody sounds so hype literate and in Tarantino everybody sounds so deliberate, and quirky, and fascinated with pop culture, and thoughtful.” But the truth is, if you watch those movies you realize that he actually is crafting — yes, he has a style; yes, both of those brilliant writers have unique styles, but they do shade them for the different characters.

Sorkin is another one who… — It’s interesting. There’s a group of writers who have a very distinct style that exists through the movie. And yet the characters are distinct. That’s pretty advanced stuff to me.

**John:** Yeah. Diablo Cody often gets that knock. And she gets that knock off of her first movie, but then if you see Young Adult, those characters aren’t talking the same way.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** Those characters are very specific and very unique.

**Craig:** That’s a good example.

**John:** Sort of a corollary to that, maybe I should break it out to its own point — is the character saying what he wants to say, or what the movie needs him to say? And that is is the character expressing his or her own feeling in the moment, or is he expressing what needs to happen next so that we can get on to the next thing? And that’s the subtle line that the screenwriter works is that screenwriting is always about what’s next. And you as a screenwriter have to be in control of the scene and make sure that this scene is existing so that we can get to the next story point.

At the same time, you can really feel it when a character is just giving exposition or setting up the ball so another character can spike it. And those are not good things to have happen.

**Craig:** No. You don’t want to set up straw dummies. And you don’t’ want to put things in their mouth because the screenwriter needed people to hear it. And frankly, I think of all those things as great opportunities. We all run into moments where we need the audience to learn information, or we need another character to learn information. So then it’s a great opportunity to sort of sit there and think, “Well how can I do this in a crafty way? How can I do this in a surprising way?”

Sometimes the answer is to be completely contradictory and to have people say the opposite of what they think and then be clear through the writing that you’re using subtext or you’re relying on performance.

I mean, the other thing is bad characters, and maybe I’m cheating ahead again, bad characters tend to speak like they’re on radio. And their dialogue ignores the fact that their faces will speak louder than any words coming out of their mouth. Was that number four?

**John:** No, no. That’s good. Not radio. So I’m going to add Not Radio Voices.

**Craig:** No radio plays.

**John:** In situations, I don’t want to get too off track talking about exposition, but in situations where you need to have the audience understand something, or you need to make it clear that a character has been caught up with another character, like the characters split up and now they’re back together and you need to make sure the audience understands that they all have the same information. Characters in real life cut each other off a lot, and they are often ahead of each other. So there may be opportunities to literally have one character stop the other and tell what they already know so that we don’t have to sort of walk through all of those conversations again.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, there’s all sorts of ways to kind of recap. Simple rule of thumb is if the audience hears it once, don’t make them hear it twice. So, if you need to catch somebody up on what that bank robbery was like, and it was a crazy bank robbery, then the scene begins with the person who has been listening staring at the other person. They’re both silent. And then the person who was listening says, “Wow. That was insane.” “I know. You don’t have to tell me.”

The only important matter is that they they’re reacting to what they just heard, but certainly you don’t want to repeat anything ever.

**John:** Wherever possible, characters should speak in order to communicate their inner emotion and not to communicate just information.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** This is what I would throw out. What would a joke sound like from that character? And this is actually from… — Jane Espenson was on a recent edition of the Nerdist Writers Panel; Jane Espenson, who is a TV writer who has done a lot of stuff and had a blog.

**Craig:** And a lovely woman.

**John:** And a lovely woman. During the strike our three blogs came together and we all picketed at Warner Bros. Lovely woman. And so smart about comedy, and especially TV. She was on the Nerdist Writers Panel talking about Once Upon A Time, which is what she’s writing on right now. And she’s talking about having the Snow White character tell a joke, and that it was tough because it’s not a very particularly funny character, but you needed to find specific moments that she could be funny. And in finding what kind of joke can she tell is where you really get a sense of like, “Okay, I know who this person is.”

And so even if you’re not writing a comedy, I think it’s worthwhile thinking about how can that character be funny. Because almost everybody is funny in some way, or at least tries to be funny in some way, so what is the nature of their humor? What is the nature of their comedy? And when you know that, then you will also have a sense of how they are going to respond in stressful situations. How they’re going to respond in sad situations. It gives you an insight into them.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I also like to think about power. I always think in terms of the power dynamic between any two or three characters or four, whatever you have in your scene. Who holds the gun? And how does that change the way they talk to the other person? Obviously the gun in this instance could be anything. It could be anything from information, to an actual gun, to “you’re in love with me, and I’m not in love with you.”

And then is there a way to change who holds the gun in the middle of the scene? And allow the character’s voice to adapt to what we would normally adapt to. I mean, think of how many times in life we have had conversations where we thought we were unassailable at the beginning and by the end we were getting our lunches handed to us? No, our lunches eaten, and our hats handed to us. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** And so use that. Scenes are all to me, they are all about variation, and they’re all about growth. So, allow the voices to respond to the dynamics of the moment.

**John:** Agreed. My last test, and we’ll think of some more after this — can you picture a given actor in the role? Or at least preclude certain actors from the role because it doesn’t feel like they would say those things?

And so my example here is Angelina Jolie. So let’s say you’re writing a woman’s role and she’s funny. It’s not going to be Angelina Jolie.

**Craig:** Yeah. Probably not.

**John:** Probably not. Angelina Jolie has done at least comedy I know, but you don’t think of Angelina Jolie as being funny.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, it depends. I guess, like Mr. & Mrs. Smith, I thought she was very funny, but it was…

**John:** But it’s not telling a joke funny.

**Craig:** No, it was sort of clipped and wry which is…

**John:** Perfect.

**Craig:** She has a great arched brow, so to me like, it’s funny — when you think about doing impressions, I guess in my head I’m always doing impressions of actors as I’m writing for them. And so I think, okay, what’s that thing where I would go, okay, I can see her sort of arching her brow. And I always think of Angelina Jolie as somebody that has power. So, she can be confident and cut you down with one or two words.

I mean, in writing ID Theft for Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy, I kept thinking about how Melissa was sort of, you know, she’s somebody who would ramble and Jason is somebody who would be very short. And it was an interesting thing because it goes counter to the normal thing which is the rambler is the weak one and the short talking person, the terse person is the strong one.

But in this case it’s the opposite. You have the terse person who is weak, interestingly, and the rambler is strong. And that was actually fun; that was a fun dynamic to play around with because it felt, it just made those scenes more interesting to me. And if you’re not thinking in those terms of how language, the quantity, the quality, the size of the words, how many pauses, the speed; I mean, language is music and you should be musical about it, I think.

**John:** The project I’m writing right now, one of the reasons I had struggled with it a bit is I was writing it with one very specific actor in mind, who is great and funny, but is a tough fit for what this story kind of needs. And so once I got past that that it has to be this, and I started thinking of the broader picture, I landed on the other actors — oh, that’s inherently funny; him in that premise is inherently funny.

Now, ultimately, will we cast either of these actors? Who knows? But it helped me figure out the voice because I could hear what it would sound like if this actor were saying it, and I could shape the lines so that it would be very, very funny coming from that person.

It doesn’t mean that that’s the only actor who can ever play it. Famously, Will Smith was not the original choice for Men in Black. And it’s hard to imagine that it was supposed to be Matthew Perry, but it was supposed to be Matthew Perry. So don’t think you have to be locked into a specific cast. But if you can’t think of someone who should play the role, that’s also probably a problem.

**Craig:** Yeah. Those things are sort of proof of concept, you know. If it’s funny with two particular actors, then at least you know it can be funny. If you can’t think of any two actors that it could be funny in combination, then screw it. It ain’t gonna work, for sure.

**John:** Any more on voice? We have a couple questions here.

**Craig:** Eh, let’s go to questions.

**John:** Let’s go to questions. James from Oregon. His question, I think, is about recycling, which, recycling is good. “My question regards ownership of your work during development. If I understand it correctly, once you sell a script to the studio they own it. Now say you have written a unique character or a specific funny gag and it is not used in the final film. Are you free to use that same gag or character in a new script? Or, does the studio own every word of every draft, and could they prevent you from incorporating that unused idea is another script?”

**Craig:** Yes and yes, kind of. I mean, for sure they own it. They are the copyright authors of that. You cannot use it in other scripts legally. In practice, however, we all will occasionally do this sort of thing where it’s like, “Look, you didn’t use it, you’re never gonna use it, I’m gonna steal it and stick it in this other thing because I wrote it really. And it has value to you.”

But you’ve got to be really careful about it, ’cause technically it is verboten.

**John:** Yeah. I had a couple thoughts here. First off, this is talking about the movie shot and they didn’t use it, and so that’s a very specific situation. So, like, that script that you wrote is never going to get made again because that already shot. Sometimes there’s things that just linger in development forever. Like I have this Shazam! project that, who knows if it’s ever going to happen over at Warner Bros. So, I would never feel safe taking anything out of that because, who knows, they could dust it off and shoot it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But if something has already shot and you know that they didn’t use it, technically they own it. But are they going to come after you for doing something that was in there? Like for the first Charlie’s Angels there was a, I think I may have mentioned this on the podcast before; there was a sequence where the Angels had to, in the script, in there’s a sequence where the Angels had to rescue somebody, and it was on top of a mountain.

And they end up in a van going down a bobsled run. And it was actually a really fun sequence. And Amy Pascal came in on like a Friday at 5pm and says, “We’re cutting $5 million out of this movie. And we’re not leaving the room until we do it.” And so she picks up the script and she rips out those five pages. They’re gone.

And so that bobsled sequence I sort of felt like was fair game. And so if another alpine action movie came up in some case, I would feel pretty good using that same kind of beat again.

**Craig:** Maybe now, but… — The only thing to be aware of is sequels because they will occasionally go back and want to re-mine the stuff that was there from the first thing. if the movie comes out and it’s a bomb, which wasn’t the case in Charlie’s Angels, I think you’re pretty much on safe ground. But if it’s a hit, you’ve got to be careful.

**John:** But we were also talking about how dialogue is sort of musical, and I think a lesson that I’ve learned from people who write musicals is that you always think like, “Oh, we cut that song out of that show.” And so I asked, “Well the song is great, why don’t you use it in a different show?” And the truth is, songs are kind of written for certain shows. It’s kind of tough to sort of take all the ideas that were in there and really apply them to this new show.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And the same happens with most stuff that’s in your movie. We were talking about voices just a second ago. If a character has a very specific joke, and that joke works in his voice, it’s unlikely that it’s going to work as well in whatever thing you’re trying to shoehorn it into.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s probably right.

**John:** There’s a script I wrote that actually I still own completely. And I considered going back through and like pulling out some of the action sequences I love in it for this other project, and the more I think about it the less likely I am to really do that, because it’s not… — Those worked really well in that movie because it was that movie. They’re not going to work at all in this one.

**Craig:** It was for that movie. Yeah. Look, you wrote one good scene, or one good line, or one good sequence before, you can do it again. Yeah. It’s better in general to be — I can’t think of any instances where I actually did lift something from an abandoned project.

**John:** Two things that came to mind, just as we were talking right now. When I was writing the novelization of Natural Born Killers a zillion years ago — it was one of the first paid things I ever did. I literally had three weeks to write an entire book. And I was also in the middle of finals in grad school, and I was working a full time job. It was a very crazy time.

And at a certain point I was like, “I just need more stuff.” And so I ended up going through my hard drive and going through like old short stories I’d written and other little things, and I found these moments that were interesting, and I did just sort of pull them in and use them. And it felt like — it was like I was making quilt out of all the little scraps I had.

And that’s okay. They’re yours. That’s fine. But you are not going to…

**Craig:** Not for something you care about.

**John:** Yeah. I did — it worked really well in the book because that book was so pastiche-y anyway. Here’s the other point I was going to make. Sometimes I will have something that I have always wanted to use, and I’ll be on a weekly. And this is nothing I used in any other project; it was something I had half developed for myself. I’ll totally use it in that weekly because I know, you know what, they are gonna probably shoot this. This idea I’ve had in my head can actually be shot and be used, and then I can stop thinking about it.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s cool. I like that.

**John:** William asks, “When writing action where a group of characters are involved, do you need to list them all in each new scene? If not, how else could this be handled?”

That’s a reasonable question. A little rookie, but not too bad.

**Craig:** I’m not quite sure. What do you mean in each new scene?

**John:** So what he’s talking about, let’s talk about The Hangover. In the second Hangover you were cutting back and forth between two groups. And do you need to remind the reader who’s in which group when we cut back to them?

**Craig:** Yeah, but there’s sort of short hand ways to do it. You don’t want to keep saying, “Phil, Allen, and Stu are still in the car.” We assume — there are certain things we presume if we’re going back and forth. I do know that Todd and I are often, we often do sort of say, “Okay, we’ve started a new scene, the guys say, ‘All right, let’s get in the car. We’ve gotta go to this place.’ And then the next shot is them in the car. Do we need to say Phil, Stu, and Allen are in the car? We actually do. We just lay out who’s driving, who’s sitting in the front seat, who’s sitting in the back.”

But in a sequence, so a group of scenes that are connected by action as opposed to location, like a car chase, running through a casino, or moving through different rooms of a house, it’s okay to sort of elide over that, or shorthand things with “the guys” or “the policemen” or whatever kind of group name you can come up with.

It’s really all about just making sure that it’s clear for the reader without it being boring and repetitive.

**John:** The thing I’m working on right now, the action sequence that I was talking about, it’s a sports thing. And so I do need to be clear about which players are actually playing at that time, because there are some characters who are back on the bench. Bu there’s also times where I can just refer to “the team” and it’s helpful just to refer to the team. And if a character needs to do something that’s distinct, I see them talking, so I know that they’re there at the moment.

But that will come up sometimes as a conversation during preproduction is they will check to make sure that who exactly is in this scene. And as the writer, that’s part of your job is to make sure that they really do have everybody in that scene who needs to be in that scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I think it’s okay to leave out certain bits of information like that for the reader of the script, as long as you know. Because eventually somebody is going to ask you, and I do feel like it’s a wonderful thing to be able to immediately say to that person, “Here’s who’s playing, here’s who’s on the bench.”

Years ago I wrote a blog piece called You Can’t Just Walk Into a Building, which Josh Olson disagreed with — imagine that.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Dope. Anyway. In that piece I basically said, “Look, you can say your characters walk into a building in a script, and that’s fine, but down the line somebody may very well ask you what kind of building exactly are you talking about here? Are we talking skyscraper, this, that, whatever?” You should know. You should know your settings. You should have a sense of all of these things in your mind at the very least, because they will ask you.

On every movie I’ve ever done, I have sat down and been asked these questions by either the AD, the director, the costume people. Everybody. It’s amazing how many people actually do directly ask the screenwriter these questions. So know the answers.

**John:** Know the answers.

Luke from Poland asks, “I follow Derek Haas’s Popcorn Fiction site,” which is great, so we’ll provide a link for that, “which is all kinds of awesome. And I know that both of you wrote short stories for Derek’s site. Therefore writing prose is not completely alien to you. So I was wondering, have you ever considered writing a novel?”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** “Is there a John August or Craig Mazin novel on the horizon?”

**Craig:** Those are two different questions. [laughs] Yes, and no. Yes I have. I have an idea for a novel. It’s really sad, and dark, and depressing, which I love. And I even have a couple of chapters of it. But I’m so fastidious about it. It’s funny, when we were talking last week about writer’s block and how you just have to keep moving. I don’t have writer’s block, but I am overly fastidious because I feel like, look, this is it. You write these sentences and they exist forever in that state, never to be amended.

So, I’m rather fastidious about it, and it’s very slow going. But I do kind of love it. I don’t know, maybe one day I’ll finish it and publish it. I don’t beat myself up over it.

**John:** How much is written?

**Craig:** I have two chapters, and they’re sizable chapters. But, I mean it’s probably one-fifteenth of what it should be, if that.

**John:** I have considered writing a novel. And it’s one of those things that loosely on the horizon, so I will talk to my agent or my lawyer about it once a year or so. And the thing I would want to write, it’s very much sort of in my wheelhouse. You could say, “Oh, what would John August write well?” John August — I adapt a lot of kid and young adult things and it would be one of those kind of projects.

So I’ve definitely considered it. I just know the amount of time it would take would pull me away from other things, and so it’s not my highest priority right now.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s where I’m at.

**John:** But, I would love to do it. And I love books, and I love writing, and I love the sense of completion and finality that you have in a book that’s wonderful. And world building, is that so much of the time I am writing these screenplays and I’m creating the world, and creating the characters in the world, but it’s only for a very specific small purpose. And I like that when you write a novel or write a series of novels you can really expand and expound and create stuff beyond the borders of just a two-hour movie. And that’s an amazing thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And also there’s an ability to express an inner world in a novel, to really go into the kind of hard to articulate consciousness that we all think we understand, which you cannot do in movies. Movies are entirely about what you see in here.

**John:** Yeah. The toolbox is much bigger in novels. And you can spend five pages on the feeling of the sheets, and you maybe shouldn’t do that, but you can. And there are amazing opportunities in novels that are great.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m a big Conrad fan. I’ve always been a big fan of his. And I always loved how impressionistic his style was, that he would sort of describe things to you in a way where almost he as the author didn’t quite see them clearly until maybe a scene later when it suddenly became clear what had happened. And that’s something, again, that you can do as a novelist. You can be impressionistic. You can have people misunderstand what they see, but in movies it’s very difficult. If someone gets stabbed…

There’s a wonderful moment in Heart of Darkness where they’re on the boat, and one of the natives who are, I guess, part of the crew of the boat. I think in the novel it’s something like, “He grasps in his hands what appears to be a cane, and then falls down.” And then only afterwards do you realize, no, a spear was thrown from the banks of the river, and pierced him through the chest and killed him. But in that moment it was like Conrad was as confused as all of us about what was going on. Can’t do that in a movie. Spear through the chest is a spear through the chest.

**John:** Yeah. In a movie you would have to pay that off within about 10 seconds, or else we would have forgotten what happened there.

**Craig:** It’s also hard to even just pretend that it’s anything other than what it is. Because we can’t — the lens is objective. It is not clouded by anxiety, or tension, or squinting.

**John:** When you write prose, we may have talked about this before, I’ve enjoyed writing stuff for Derek’s site, and it was one of the first times I have written prose in quite a few years was writing those two short stories, Snake People and The Variant which you can both find on Amazon. I found dialogue to be really frustrating. I got better at it as I would sort of go through it, but like the first day or two of trying to write those short stories, it killed me writing when characters had to speak.

Because I find that the form of dialogue in American novels incredibly frustrating the way we do the comma, open quotes, I speak a line, closed quotes, and the “he said”s. It’s really weird. Because when you read it, here’s what the difference is, I think: In screenwriting every word counts except for, of course, the character cues above dialogue. Those are ignored, you never say those. But everywhere it otherwise counts.

In books the “he said”s are supposed to be invisible, like they are supposed to not really exist. And I just find our way of writing really artificial.

**Craig:** Well, it is. And it definitely took a little bit of adjustment, but on the other hand when I would read it back I realized that they were invisible to me as well. And also I noticed that, well, a couple things. One, it definitely drives your interest in dialogue down which I think is kind of a good thing, because I don’t really like dialogue heavy books.

And it also, I noticed that if you had kind of established if there was sort of a back and forth conversation, it was legal to leave out the “he said”s/”she said”s if there was a run.

**John:** Exactly. As long as the rhythm was established, like your characters were all trading lines, then you can go through quite a bit without having to do that.

So, Craig, do you have One Cool Thing this week?

**Craig:** I do have One Cool Thing this week.

**John:** Why don’t you go first.

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing this week is 1Password. I don’t know if you use 1Password.

**John:** I use 1Password. I like 1Password.

**Craig:** It’s the greatest thing ever. So, 1Password, it’s software that you can freely purchase for money, so it’s not free, online. Available for both Mac and PC.

**John:** And iOS.

**Craig:** And iOS, that’s correct. And 1Password is kind of brilliant. So, we all have a thousand accounts for a thousand different things and we tend to use one password or maybe two passwords because we can only memorize a certain amount of passwords. And those passwords tend to be fairly low security. Go ahead — there’s sites where you can test the security of your own password, and most people fail pretty miserably.

And then of course there are some websites that demand that you use a capital, and lower case. Some ask for a number. I mean, as we said in Hangover 1, my password used to be just “bologna,” but now they make you add numbers. [laughs]

So, hundreds of these passwords, and many of them are duplicates and many of them are unsecure. So, what 1Password does brilliantly is it says “No, no. Come up with one really secure password that’s a bunch of numbers and uppercases/lowercases, whatever you want to do, and we’ll help you come up with it. That’s the one you memorize.

“Then, when you go to a website, we’ll come up with a password for you that will be a huge gobbledygook 14 string combination of nonsense that no one could possibly remember, including you — you won’t have to.

“Then, if you go to that website and you want to get in, you just click on the 1Password icon which there is an extension for Safari, Chrome, and Explorer. Type in your master password, it then plugs in the password for that site and you are unlocked.” And it is spectacular. And, you don’t even need — you might think, “Well, what if I’m not at home on my computer that has all that stuff?” No problem, because if you have a Dropbox account, a free Dropbox account, you can use a web-based version of 1Password through Dropbox.

It’s spectacular. You should all get it. It’s the greatest thing ever.

**John:** See, I’ve had less success with it than you have. And so I have had situations where, especially the plug-ins weren’t working quite right. The browser plug-ins weren’t working quite right.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** So then it would fill in the wrong thing. I may need to sort of reinstall and redo some stuff. What I have found it very useful for though is overall control of passwords, especially the things you kind of forgot about from a long time ago. And so my general password philosophy is I have a schema for sort of how passwords work that every password for every site is different, but if I stare at a site I can probably figure out what my password for it is.

Now, that may not be the most secure, because somebody else could figure out what my schema is, but I think it’s going to be challenging for them to figure out what my schema is.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t even like to wait or even do that much thinking about it. I just like knowing that I’ve got one thing. I don’t know my email password, for instance. I have no idea what it is. But I know 1Password.

**John:** Ah, that’s faith. You have a lot of faith in that 1Password.

**Craig:** Well, yeah. But the point is I am no more faith in that than I am in any password. I mean, you’re hoping that the password…

**John:** No, but you’re putting a lot of faith in that 1Password, the application, is not going to completely self-destruct.

**Craig:** Well, you can if you’re really wigged out about it use the 1Password app to print out all of them and stick them in a safe somewhere.

**John:** That’s a good idea.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I do find myself using 1Password for credit card information. And so my American Express card, I used to have it memorized for a long time, and then of course someone stole it at a certain point, and we had to get a new number, and I don’t remember my new number. So I just go to 1Password and have that plug it in.

**Craig:** Exactly. And it works out o 80% of the time. There are some sites where just the way they set up their fields, 1Password can’t figure out what the hell they are talking about. But usually it will be able to fill in your number, your security code, your expiration date, etc.

**John:** On the topic of passwords, an application that you probably don’t have to use, and you should thank god you don’t have to use, I’m just gonna bitch for one second about iTunes Connect. So, if you’re selling apps in the app store, Apple has an app for iOS called iTunes Connect which will let you know how many copies you’ve sold. So like we have Bronson Watermarker there, and FDX Reader; those are the two apps that we’re selling today.

And so we can see how many did we sell today. It asks you for your password every single time you launch it. And you can’t actually change anything. It’s not like a thing where someone could grab your phone and steal your money or anything. No, it just tells you how many you have sold. And the fact that it asks you for your password every time is infuriating. And there’s no good way to get around it so you have to type it in.

And, of course, you don’t want to have an easy password for it, so you have to have a difficult password that you are trying to type in and the dots are hiding what you’re typing.

**Craig:** Well, if the point is that there’s really no secure information on it, why not just do 123412341234?

**John:** That’s the problem, is that the password to get into it is your real master password for iTunes Connect.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s super annoying.

**John:** So it has to be your real solid fear of god password because there’s tens of thousands of dollars at stake there.

**Craig:** That’s annoying, yeah. Annoying. Well, I guess that’s why they do it.

**John:** So, my one cool thing is a guaranteed time waster. So, probably the worst thing I should ever share with screenwriters. But it’s an amazing game that I’ve been playing the whole week. I’ve been playing far too much the whole week called Ski Safari, which is not a great title by any means.

So here’s the thing in Ski Safari. You are this little guy who’s skiing down a hill…

**Craig:** Well first tell us what platform it’s on.

**John:** Oh, it’s for iPad.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** And so the good thing about it being for iPad is that you can’t play it on your phone, so that you’re not wasting all your time on your phone with it. And also because it’s on iPad I don’t need to play it at my computer, which is good. So, it’s not one of those things.

I’ve also set myself a rule that I will only play it while standing up because as writers we sit down way too much. So I can stand at the counter and play this. And when I get tired of standing I should just sit down. So, it’s an incredibly simple game. It’s very much like Tiny Wings if you have played Tiny Wings, and it’s an Endless Runner. So, basically you’re leaping, you’re sliding, you’re leaping, you’re sliding. But the character design and sort of the world of it is really, really nicely done. It’s incredibly smartly thought out and it feels to me like a perfect pop song. Like you know Kelly Clarkson’s Since U Been Gone…

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** …is an amazing perfect pop song, this is sort of an amazing iOS game. It feels like it does exactly what it should be doing right at this moment and just knocks it out of the park.

**Craig:** I’m going to download it. Is it S-K-I Safari?

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** I’m gonna download it tonight.

**John:** Yeah. It’s cheap. And it’s one of those things where, I think it’s $0.99, everyone who plays it will love it and will become addicted to it, I suspect. And then at some point the game designers will probably make some little change, and everyone will be up in arms about how they ruined the game, and demand their money back, their $0.99, after they played it for probably 100 hours.

**Craig:** Or maybe Zynga jerks will just copy it.

**John:** The Zynga jerks — I’m sure the Zynga people already have their photocopiers ready.

**Craig:** Are the Zynga people just the worst?

**John:** Yeah. I don’t know. They might be.

**Craig:** I think they might be. I just feel like they really are bad.

**John:** I didn’t really begrudge them for Farmville, because like, oh, great, you found a new kind of crack. Okay. Or Mafia Wars. You and I played Mafia Wars way back in the day, didn’t we?

**Craig:** Yeah. They’ve stolen, I mean, I feel like there’s 100 lawsuits against these guys.

**John:** So here’s what pushed me over the edge, is that there’s this kind of cute little iPad game called Tiny Tower where you are running this little tower and you’re building new floors, and you’re running the elevator to get people to places.

And then I saw the Zynga knock-off, which was exactly the same. I mean, completely 100% the same thing. And that’s not cool.

**Craig:** I hate it. No, it’s not cool. I mean, everybody likes to go after EA because EA… — The big crime of Electronic Arts in the gaming community is that they tend to swallow up independent game publishers or raid independent game publishers of their staff, their key personnel. And so they have a general depressing effect on game innovation and the indie game scene.

And I get that. But on the other hand, everybody’s an adult. If you own an independent game company and you feel like selling it to EA, that’s your choice. And if you work at an independent game company and you feel like going to work for EA, that’s your choice, too.

But Zynga, it seems like they’re ripping these other people off, to me, as a lay person when I read these things. And that’s kind of gross.

**John:** Yeah. That shouldn’t happen.

**Craig:** That’s One Bad Thing.

**John:** One Bad Thing.

**Craig:** One Uncool Thing. Zynga.

**John:** Zynga. Craig!

**Craig:** John!

**John:** Thank you for another fun podcast.

**Craig:** Oh, and John.

**John:** Oh, there’s more.

**Craig:** One last little addendum. I just wanted to say congratulations to you and all of my gay, lesbian, transgendered friends, because the President of the United States for the first time ever in our history has come out in support of same sex marriage, and I think that’s fantastic.

**John:** I think that is really fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a good deal.

**John:** Yeah. I was happy it happened.

**Craig:** Yeah, me too.

**John:** Yay!

**Craig:** Me too.

**John:** All right, so I’ll pick appropriately triumphant end music.

**Craig:** Yeah, something good! But not, like no I Will Survive. No Gloria Gaynor.

**John:** No, it will be some good other anthem.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** My thinking cap is already running. And, in fact, it’s already playing under our talking right now.

**Craig:** Is it It’s Raining Men? [laughs] ‘Cause no Weather Girls will do. I can’t take it.

**John:** Thank you, Craig. Have a great week.

**Craig:** Thank you, too, John. Bye-bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep. 32: Amazon’s new deal for writers — Transcript

April 12, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/amazons-new-deal-for-writers).

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

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

**John:** And you are listening to Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting, and things that are interesting to screenwriters. How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** I’m fine. How are you?

**John:** I’m good. I’m back. I’m back from four weeks in New York.

**Craig:** I love it. I can tell just from the tone of your voice.

**John:** Yes. I’m actually very tired, but I’m heavily caffeinated at the moment, so I will probably talk faster than usual.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** But I’m happy to back. I’m happy to be back in my bed. And this is a thing about being 40 years old, is I used to be able to kind of sleep anywhere. Like the first three years I lived in Los Angeles I didn’t have a mattress, I just had like two of those egg crate foam things on the floor of my apartment.

**Craig:** As did I.

**John:** Because I was broke. And, like, why spend money on a bed? But now that I am 40 years old, I have a really good bed. I have one of those Tempur-Pedic mattresses that is amazing and sort of absorbs all energy.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So for the four weeks I was in New York I just had the crappy bed that was in the apartment that I rented. You could feel the springs and all that. And I’m like, I could suffer through it. But then when you stop suffering through it and you get back to your real bed, it’s so good.

**Craig:** Yeah. I just got back from a week away with my family, and returning to your own bed is such a good feeling. What is not such a good feeling is you repeatedly pointing out that you are 40 years old knowing fully well that yesterday I turned 41. I know what you are up to.

**John:** But I’m actually 41.

**Craig:** Oh, ha-ha!

**John:** So I would be in my forties. I’m older than you. You are the younger person on this podcast.

**Craig:** When is your birthday?

**John:** August 4.

**Craig:** Oh, I got you by three months. Four months. Oh…the youth flowing through my body.

**John:** You actually have me by like nine months though if you just turned 41. I turned 41 before.

**Craig:** Oh, so you are going to turn 42. You are right. Better.

**John:** You are making feel better with each word you say.

**Craig:** I have you by eight months. Oh…

**John:** Yeah, you are the youngin’.

**Craig:** What’s it like being as old as you are?

**John:** Let me tell you, the aches and the pains…

**Craig:** Oh, yeah.

**John:** …you know, honestly, for the very first… — For like the last week or something I started to notice that I will at some point probably need reading glasses because I felt myself literally holding something a little bit further away.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** What it was, my daughter had like a little — it’s not a hang-nail, but it is that little piece of skin right around the edge of your finger nail that you just have to pull off with your finger nail, that little tag or whatever. And so she held it up to me and it was too close; I had to hold it back away. And, like, ooh, what is that?

**Craig:** My wife has to do that. She wears reading glasses now or holds things away from her face. I, as of yet, have not had that problem. But it is coming.

**John:** It’s coming.

**Craig:** You know what that is caused by, correct?

**John:** It is actually muscular changes.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Yeah, so it is not really the lenses in your eye. You can’t do a Lasik for that specifically.

**Craig:** It’s called Presbyopia. And Presby, the root, the same root of Presbyterian. And there are muscles in your eye that focus your eye on close things; and those muscles eventually get weak and tired as they have in your incredibly old eyeball. And as they get slack [laughs] and begin their inexorable slide towards non-function and death, old people like you have to wear reading glasses for close up reading. I’m so sorry.

**John:** No, it’s fine. I’ve actually come to accept the fact that this will have to happen. And I remember going on a meeting with Pete Berg. Pete Berg and I flew to New York City to meet with Will Smith — Will Smith of all people — about this movie that he ended up doing. And it was fine. But Pete Berg had like three sets of reading glasses hanging from his tee-shirt because he kept losing them and then picking them back up again.

It’s like, well, I don’t want to be that crazy person with a bunch of reading glasses. So, I’ve also noticed this really geeky trend of glasses that actually clip together, that snap together. They are magnetic and they snap together in front of your nose. So they sort of just dangle from a cord and you can snap them in front of your face.

**Craig:** I fully expect you to engage in that level of geekiness. No question.

**John:** [laughs] No question. No question at all.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** I thought we would start with a couple of questions.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** A writer writes in, “I’m writing my first spec. Think of Swingers meets Entourage,” oh, stop being Swingers meets Entourage, but okay, “located in LA. Would it be wise to include actual restaurants in the slug line, i.e. Rainbow Bar and Grill, or just something like Interior Restaurant — Day and then describe the restaurant’s features with a sentence? Keep in mind this is my first spec,” blah, blah, blah.

I flagged this question because it is about specificity. And if you are doing something that is very specific to a locale and to a group of people, if you were writing the next Swingers I think you should absolutely pick what the real locations are going to be in your script.

That may not be that you are actually going to end up shooting there, but if that specific location is important to you, use that specific location in your script.

**Craig:** Yeah, of course. I mean, this is the time when there are no clearances; there are no location fees or concerns. You can write anything you want. And there is absolutely nothing irresponsible about calling out specific locations if for no other reason than it conveys your intention to the reader.

**John:** Yes. And so the reader may not be familiar with that specific detail, so it is good to give a line of color to show what that location is like. Give us a sense of what that place is. It should be short — don’t over-describe your locations. But give us a sense of what that place is. Use the real name. Use the real everything you can so that it is meaningful to you and it is meaningful to your characters.

**Craig:** Even if people will never know what it is because it is sort of arcane to everyone, sometimes including those things helps convey a sense that you know what you are talking about. It makes the reader comfortable.

I remember when we were writing The Hangover sequel; obviously a lot of it took place in Bangkok. And we called out specific places all the time as if the reader would know just because it helped get you in the mindset of you were in a real place. So you should absolutely do that.

**John:** Now I have made it sort of my daily vow to talk about Lena Dunham’s Girls every day until the premiere of Girls. Girls is a new TV show on HBO that Lena Dunham wrote, and directed, and created. And it’s great.

And so I saw the first three episodes. HBO did a premiere in New York while I was there. And specificity is one of the main reasons why it is so good. It is so very specifically these characters at this point in their lives living in exactly this neighborhood. And its universality comes from the fact that everyone in this world is living a very specific, finely painted, detailed life.

And you believe the characters really are talking about the things that are interesting to them. So, specificity is…

**Craig:** I’m glad you pointed out that was a TV show because I had no idea what you were talking about. [laughs]

**John:** Wait, you really do not know? I feel like there has been a huge media saturation on this show.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** So there is outdoor… — Also, Craig Mazin, by the way, doesn’t watch TV or see movies. Apparently he actually closes his eyes so he can’t see outdoor ads. He can’t see…

**Craig:** I like reading books.

**John:** Oh yeah. But I feel like HBO has found a way to probably interject it into books, because they are doing a full on hard push on this show.

**Craig:** I did not even realize that this was…

**John:** Do you even know who Lena Dunham is?

**Craig:** No. [laughs] Who is that?

**John:** Wow, it’s so fascinating. So, Lena Dunham is a writer-director. Her second feature was this movie called Tiny Furniture which won awards at South by Southwest. I met with her, I loved her. Judd Apatow met with her, he loved her. He took the initiative to say, “Let’s make a show.” And so they pitched a show to HBO. They shot a great show, ten episodes. It airs, I think, next week some time. It starts April 15th I think.

**Craig:** And is it funny?

**John:** It’s really funny.

**Craig:** I like funny.

**John:** It’s like Louis C.K. or Larry David, but it is a 25-year-old young woman who has written, directed, and stars in the show. And so you meet her and you talk with her, and you are like, “Wow, you are the nicest person. I can’t believe you have survived being so incredibly busy and doing all of these things.”

**Craig:** Well, I will watch it, and I will look forward to us giggling over the fact that I had no idea who this person was.

**John:** Yeah. You have the HBO Go, so you can watch it even though you don’t watch normal TV because you do have an iPad. So you will be able to watch it.

**Craig:** I do watch Game of Thrones.

**John:** Yeah, look, who could not watch Game of Thrones?

**Craig:** And I watch Major League Baseball.

**John:** Yeah. That’s fine.

**Craig:** And that’s about it. [laughs] Yeah.

**John:** Our second question, “I recently listened to the Nerdist Writer’s Panel,” which is another podcast, which is actually quite good, so we will put a link to it because it is really good.

**Craig:** I’m sorry, what was it called?

**John:** The Nerdist Writer’s Panel.

**Craig:** Nerd-est?

**John:** Nerdist.

**Craig:** Shouldn’t it be Nerdiest?

**John:** Nope. Nope. Just Nerdist.

**Craig:** But that’s wrong.

**John:** Well, it’s not. It’s like racist but Nerdist.

**Craig:** Oh, I see. So they have an ism, like nerdism, and they are nerdists.

**John:** Yeah, exactly.

**Craig:** I thought it was Nerdest, but it is Nerdist.

**John:** Actually rather than going for racist, I should have gone for nudist. But Nerdist. The Nerdist Writer’s Panel.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** And so it is a good podcast. And they bring in different writers, TV writers, screenwriters, and they talk about the writing that they are doing. It is sort of like how we always talk about how we are going to have guests on, but we never actually have guests on. They do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, “On this podcast, Matt Nix was a guest.” So, first off, you basically need to discount anything Matt Nix says, because you and I both know that you can’t trust Matt Nix at all.

**Craig:** You can’t trust him as far as you can throw him.

**John:** What a horrible human being.

**Craig:** Bad man.

**John:** Oh, it’s actually, no — we should specify he is actually a very good guy. And he is the writer of Burn Notice, the creator of Burn Notice. And lovely, and he is involved in the WGA, and we love him to death.

**Craig:** And he lives up here by me in Pasadena, and that automatically gets you a pass as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Well pretty much all working screenwriters and TV writers have to live either in Hancock Park where I live, or over in the La Cañada Flintridge area by you. That’s a rule.

**Craig:** I insist on it.

**John:** “Matt Nix talked about his career in features before he started working in television and shared his frustrations about not getting anything made despite working steadily for eight years. I was wondering whether you were ever tempted to go into the TV world. Obviously you can also work in television development and never get on the air, but at least sometimes you get to shoot a pilot and actually see your work materialize into something. And there is the possibility of working on staff on already existing shows. Is there any particular reason why you never worked in television? Is it something that you can see yourself trying at any point in your career?”

**Craig:** Well you did work in television.

**John:** That’s right. This is Luke from Poland. So, Luke from Poland, it is a well-written question about the American TV industry from somebody in Poland, which I love.

But I did work in TV. I have done three different TV shows. The first thing I did was called D.C., which was the same year that Go came out. And it was about five young people living and working in Washington, D.C. It was basically Felicity-after-college. And it was a disaster. It was a pretty good pilot I wrote, and okay pilot that we shot, and just a really bad series that I got fired from.

I did a TV pilot for ABC called Alaska, which you can also read on my blog. I have a library section; you can read the pilot for that, which turned out pretty well, which was a crime show set in Alaska back when no one was making things in Alaska. And I developed a show with Jordan Mechner called Ops which was about a private military corporation for Fox. And it was going to be way too expensive to shoot. And I just thank god every day that we didn’t try to shoot it.

So I think TV is great. And, so Craig, you have never developed anything for TV have you?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So here is the thing about feature writers writing for TV is that it is so tempting and appealing because you actually shoot something. Like not every pilot gets shot, but a lot of pilots get shot. And if you are a decent feature writer who gets recruited to write a show for somebody, there is a decent chance you are going to shoot something. It’s going to be quick; like everything in feature land just takes forever.

At least in TV you kind of fail quickly. [laughs] You will write a script and you will turn it in, and they will call you like two hours later saying, “Nope, it’s not for us.” It’s like, “Oh, oh, oh, okay. There. Done.” And then you are done.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** So I know feature writers who sort of consider it like a trip to the ATM, because you don’t get paid a lot of money for it, but you get paid quickly, and it is something, and it is meaningful.

The challenge, and I think the frustration, and the surprise that a lot of feature writers find is that if — God help you if they say yes and they like it, because then your life is just overwhelmingly consumed by making this TV show.

So, David Benioff, who was really a feature writer before this, now doing Game of Thrones, and good luck with doing anything other than Game of Thrones for awhile, David Benioff.

**Craig:** As was Dan Weiss, his partner on that show. Yeah. I have avoided television for two reasons. One, that reason, and two, what I have heard about TV is that there is this lie that they tell us all that the writer is king in television and the writer is in charge. That is sort of true. Certainly writers are creatively more dominant in television than directors.

However, what they don’t tell you, and what many of my feature friends who have dabbled in TV bemoan is that the amount of intrusion and mishegas you get from the studio network is mindboggling.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Every single thing. They are over your shoulder, criticizing, second guessing, nay-saying, everything. You can’t cast a guy saying, “Here’s your coffee, sir,” without them demanding 14 auditions and then saying, “We like this one.” Who cares?! What?

And just the thought of that grind. And I guess on top of all of it, to be honest, it is such a different kind of storytelling, and the kind of storytelling I like to do is self-contained. I like tell stories where somebody goes from one place to another and finishes. And I don’t like telling serialized stories per se, even in sequels.

You know, I like them to have a beginning, a middle, and an absolute end. And that’s that. So, it is not for me for lots of reasons. I think I would just get too bored, frankly.

**John:** Oh, to me it’s not boring. It’s the overwhelming churn of it. When you are writing a feature you are writing something, and you hand it in, and you get a little bit of time while they are reading it. In TV land, you turn in a script, and literally an hour later they are calling you with notes. You never get that downtime that you have come to kind of crave a little bit in feature land.

Like in feature land, like three weeks pass and you haven’t heard anything, and you are going crazy. But there must be some happy medium in between there. The other big challenge of TV, of course, is let’s say you are a writer and a director in feature land. You are either writing your script, or you are shooting your script, or you are editing your movie, or figuring out the marketing stuff you are doing, one of these jobs at a time.

In TV land you are doing all of it simultaneously. So, you are in a room breaking the entire season, figuring out what the episodes are for the entire season. You are trying to write a script. You are reading another script that is about to shoot. You are shooting a script. You are dealing with the wardrobe for that thing that is coming up. You are editing an episode you have already shot, and you are dealing with the network on the marketing stuff.

And so any one of those jobs could be a full-time thing. I remember talking to Damon Lindelof at the height of Lost, and literally like after dinner would be the time that he actually would be able to go up and start writing. Because the whole day was spent running a TV show.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The running and the management; it’s a huge deal. But, there are some amazing things about that. And you are able to create these worlds that are unlike anything you have ever seen. And I really like TV. I would be doing a TV show right now; honestly I would be pitching a TV show if the musical hadn’t sort of sucked up every bit of time.

**Craig:** I think at this point I am starting now, even though I am so much younger than you are…

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** …I’m still old enough where I am starting to realize that I’m pretty deep into this journey and I suspect that I will continue writing features until a day comes when I am just kind of done, and want to stop in general and find something else to do with my life, and it won’t be TV.

**John:** So, Craig, are you going to direct more movies? Or are you going to mostly be writing?

**Craig:** That is something I am thinking about. I think that between now and when my kids –my youngest kid is seven, my older son is ten. So, my daughter is going to be gone in ten years, presumably college.

**John:** She won’t be taken away by aliens. She will be somewhere; she just won’t be under your roof.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know. She might be. [laughs] We don’t know.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** But I think it safe to say in ten years, in one way or another, she will be gone. And then I will have quite a bit of a different kind of day, and a different sort of obligation to my family. And at that point, and quite a bit more experience under my belt, and at that point I might consider directing. I don’t know. I’m not sure.

But right now I have to say I am very happy screenwriting. I’m happier screenwriting now than I have ever been since I started. And, so might as well ride that. But, yes, I think about it. I think that it something I will return to. Cue the gnashing and wailing of critics.

**John:** [laughs] Honestly, part of the reason why I have been careful and selective about directing projects, in addition to the musical sort of wrecking in my life, is the overwhelming time commitment it takes to actually be in production, and the fact that you are not going to see your kid for a couple of months while you are shooting a movie. And that’s a big deal.

And this last week while I was in New York, I was able to bring my daughter to visit the rehearsal for just an hour or two while we were doing stuff. And she wasn’t going to be able to see the whole show, because is it too overwhelming of a show for her to see emotionally, but I wanted her to see that it is really hard work. I didn’t want her to sort of get the experience of, “Oh, suddenly everything is lovely. It’s like Glee. And suddenly everything is happening and no one had to do a lot of work.”

She saw us like running a scene 15 times trying to figure out how to make a joke be funny. And she saw us dancing. And she saw how we are trying to correct this one little tiny moment in the choreography. And that was more meaningful to me, not for her to see the finished product, but this is what your father is doing that is taking him away for three weeks, trying to get that joke to be funny.

**Craig:** Yeah. Daddy’s got a real job. Yeah. That’s a great experience. Even though I will — I often will travel with the movies that I write, the distance apart is a different kind of distance when you are directing because I can… — For instance, for the next Hangover movie, I go with the movie. I go with Todd. I’m there every day.

So, I might be away for weeks at a time from my kids. But when the day is done and I go back to the hotel room, I get on Skype and I talk with them, and I’m relaxed. It’s different.

When you are the director you are never relaxed. And you don’t have free time. And every waking moment you are being devoured by the enormity of your responsibility. And, so it is a different kind of away. It’s a bad thing.

**John:** Yeah. This last month I was in New York. I cannot imagine, I could not have survived it if it weren’t for Skype, if I couldn’t video chat home, I wouldn’t have been able to make it through there. I would have just been a mess.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Let’s go to our next question. A reader writes, I think actually Kevin writes, “I recently decided to start a new screenplay, and when describing the plot to a friend of mine he responded, ‘Oh, it sounds a lot like [movie title redacted].’ I immediately looked up the plot synopsis of that other title and saw there were some obvious similarities. I rented the movie, and thankfully that film and my yet to be written screenplay were actually very different. But let’s say both plot were actually similar. Intellectually I know that everything is down to execution, but I probably wouldn’t have the confidence to continue. Have either of you given up on a spec idea because it was too similar to another screenplay or movie?”

**Craig:** Well, you know, in a case like that where the movie actually exists, in a weird way you are in a better spot. Because you watch it, and if you decide, “No, my screenplay, even if it is the same basic idea is such a wildly different execution,” you will not be… — No one is going to sit there and go, “Oh my god, you just rewrote blankety blank.”

No, they are going to read your script and go, “Oh, it’s a lot like that movie so-and-so, but here is how it is different, or here is how the tone is different.” I mean, the example I always famously turn to — well, it’s not famous that I turn to it. It is a famous example that I turn to is Rain Man and Midnight Run.

**John:** Oh sure.

**Craig:** Almost the same movie about sort of a straight-laced guy who has to road trip across the country with a weird sort of self-obsessive nerd who refuses to fly because he is frightened. And two completely different movies; it’s just not an issue.

Now, if somebody says, “Oh, that sounds like something I have in development over at so-and-so,” now you have got a problem.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then the problem is movie studios really — it’s already a gamble to pay a $1 for a screenplay, much less $1 million. And so if they feel like they are going to get beaten to the punch by a similarly themed…they are more concerned about marketplace confusion and marketing than they are about anything else.

That said, every now and then you get two movies about a guy and a girl who are best friends who also sleep with each other.

**John:** Yeah. And it works out okay.

**Craig:** Yeah. It works out okay. There is Dante’s Peak and Volcano. There is A Bug’s Life and Antz.

**John:** And most famously there is Armageddon and Deep Impact. And so Kevin’s question was have I ever stopped doing something because there is something similar. Yes, I had this whole plan out for an asteroid hitting the earth movie. And basically you know the asteroid is coming and you have to make decisions about what is going to happen. And they announced Armageddon and Deep Impact. I was like, “Oh, okay.” Well, that’s a case where it is probably not a good idea for me to write that movie. And that’s okay.

**Craig:** Yeah. You might be able to beat one movie in development, but not two. [laughs]

**John:** And I always look at that as “now I don’t have to write that movie,” because someone else wrote that movie. That’s great. Freedom to do something else. It’s like a snow day. It’s like a creative snow day. “Yup, I don’t have to do that anymore. I can do something else instead.”

**Craig:** Plus, a little pat on the back that your instincts were correct.

**John:** Agreed. “And I have commercial instincts. Hoorah!”

**Craig:** Yeah. Great. Let me come up with another one.

**John:** Speaking of commercial instincts, let’s talk about the actual news of this last week, which is Amazon Studios changed basically everything. It was like, “Oh, we are making some changes.” No. “Basically we are completely changing our entire business model.”

**Craig:** Yeah. They were very clever about it. They were sort of like, “Oh, we are going to make a few changes.” And they did it that way because really what they did was they went from being an awful, awful place to a very good place. And to announce it that way would have been to admit that they used to be an awful, awful place. But now they are a good place.

And here’s what happened…

**John:** So we really should give some back story, because we can’t assume that everyone knows what Amazon Studios was.

**Craig:** Back story us.

**John:** Okay, so the back story is Amazon Studios is from Amazon… — What do you even call Amazon right now? They are an internet retailer, I guess?

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Fine. They also make Kindle’s and other things.

**Craig:** Yeah. They are an e-tailer.

**John:** Perhaps you have heard of Amazon. [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. I don’t think we need that much back story, John.

**John:** But we do need back story on the studio’s part of it. So, Amazon launched this initiative called Amazon Studios which was an attempt to do an end run around the sort of classical studio development, and let anybody in America or the world submit their screenplays to the site, and other users, other readers could read the screenplays, give notes on the screenplays, could rewrite the screenplays if they chose to, and Amazon would sift through this and take the most highly rated, and reviewed, and best liked screenplays and developed them further. Give awards to those people.

They would shoot little test movies from those things. And when they announced this, this was November 2010, I had had some conversations with some of the folks about it ahead of time, but I really based my reaction on what they announced. And I thought it was a really horrible idea for a couple of reasons.

The simplest reason is why would you want to, creatively as a person, why would you want to submit yourself to this process where anyone on the internet, any person who reads your script anywhere could rewrite your script and do whatever they wanted to do with it? And that didn’t make any sense.

And then you blogged at the same time — remember back when Craig used to blog?

**Craig:** Remember that?

**John:** Craig blogged, and we will find a link to that old blog post…

**Craig:** Amazon remembers. [laughs]

**John:** …about just the really bad financial and legal concerns.

**Craig:** Yeah. You had sort of thrown this great right hook that basically said this whole thing is kind of creatively corrupt. The whole point of screenwriting is that there is an authorial voice that is relating some kind of vision on a page, and this thing is sort of blowing that all to shreds.

And then I came in with a left hook and said, oh, and also, this is a sweatshop, basically that was not only end running the union and everything that the union brings us like minimums, and pension, and healthcare, and credits, and residuals, but was even more punitive than that. I mean, they were essentially kind of getting everything and being able to use it and resell it. They literally could… — You could write something, submit it; 15 people could rewrite it and then they could put it in a book and sell it, and you wouldn’t even get a dime. I mean, the whole thing was insane.

**John:** And if I remember the right terms, I think it was like 18 months they owned stuff. Like basically once you submitted it, they had over 18 months.

**Craig:** Yeah. They had it for 18 months. And I think they had an option to get it again. And there were no… — It was really bad.

If you link to the post I wrote people will be able to sort of sift though how bad it was. And what you and I did not know at the time, but what I have now learned to be true is that the enormous, many multi-billion corporation known as Amazon read your post, and read my post, and freaked out. [laughs] They were super angry. And apparently called around and called the Writers Guild complaining.

And the Writers Guild, to its credit, and to Executive Director David Young’s credit, entered into a dialogue with them that was predicated essentially on, “No, we think that you should adhere to these basic union rules. That is what this is all about.”

And I am very excited to say, even though it is not breaking news. This was reported a few days ago, but Amazon quietly and calmly has become a WGA signatory. So, if you submit your scripts to them, first of all you now have a lovely option of saying, “Actually, I’m submitting my script to you and I don’t want anyone to be able to touch it.” In fact, you have an option that says, “I don’t even want anybody to be able to read it. I just want you to read it, Amazon.”

Amazon is now saying if we purchase this literary material, that is to say exercise the option, or if we hire you to do any writing, we do so under the full MBA. So you get credit protections, and you get residuals, and pension, and health. And all of that great stuff.

It’s a huge, huge thing. And I have to say, here is why I think it is… — Well, let me back up for a second. First of all, I have to congratulate the Writers Guild and David Young. Spectacular job. And I think it is important for us to say that there is a path to success with organizing that doesn’t involve striking. One of the things that I heard all the time during the strike from very prominent screenwriter was, “The Writers Guild has never gotten a single thing without a strike.” And that is just not true. And there is a way to do this, especially now, and it does involve influential voices, such as yours John…

**John:** And yours, Craig.

**Craig:** Well thank you. Pointing out some very embarrassing things. And I remember when I joined the board, it was actually a year into my term when Patric Verrone came into office with a bunch of his guys. They were big on this whole idea of corporate campaigning. And the notion of corporate campaigning is to embarrass companies for things that are sort of away from the field of play that you are on.

So, if you want to get them to give you reality television, you embarrass them for, I don’t know, investing in toxic chemical companies or something like that. That doesn’t really work. It’s all a bunch of bunko. What does work is your thing is bad. The thing that involves me is bad and here is why, because that is what you know and you can make an excellent case. And that is exactly what happened here. And I have to congratulate Amazon frankly for putting big boy pants on and acting gentlemanly, and recognizing that writers, professional writers, deserve to be treated with this basic minimum amount of respect.

So, that was terrific. And I think that Amazon has gone from something that I sort of viewed as this toxic repository that was abusing writers, to an excellent new option for professional screenwriters. I don’t know if Amazon and their model will ever be successful. What I do know is this: the companies for whom we work primarily, the big studios, can no longer point to Amazon and say, “Well look, we have to compete with those guys, so we have to somehow roll this contract back.” That is now off the table.

In that regard, this is a big step. It also means that if Google or Facebook or anybody else like that should try and get into this space, there is now precedent for the Writers Guild to say, “Great. Do this deal. Just like Amazon.”

**John:** So let’s talk about whether this is a good idea for the individual aspiring screenwriter. Because the original Amazon deal I thought was a bad deal for pretty much everybody, except for Amazon. If you were maybe that screenwriter who had the script that was sitting in the trunk that had never gotten any traction, maybe you submitted it to Amazon and just saw if it stuck.

Now, I don’t think it would be anyone’s first choice to go to, but if you have a script that maybe has won some contests, or got some notice in contests but hasn’t gotten you an agent, but is probably a pretty good script, it might make sense to try this process. The new terms — I think it is like a 45-day exclusivity of an option period. Amazon, if they like something, can extend it for additional time. They can pay you like $10,000 to extend it for additional time. It is not a bad deal…

A lot of times with the original deal, writers would leave comments on my original post and say, “Well, it’s a choice between this or nothing, so I am going to take this.” Well, it was worse than nothing there. Now this really is sort of an alternative to getting nothing out of your script. It is a chance to get someone to actually read it and pay attention to it, and maybe want to try to buy it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, first of all, let me address this “it was better than nothing” argument, because I got that on my blog, too, at the time. And it incenses me.

Here is why that is stupid: you are either going to be a professional screenwriter or you are not. If you are not, then it doesn’t matter because you are not going to be a professional screenwriter. It doesn’t matter if it is better than nothing; you are not going to win nothing either. You stink.

If, however, you are going to be a professional screenwriter, all you have done is weakened your own hand and weakened the hand of everybody else around you. You have begun the process of termiting through the lumber that supports the floor upon which we all sit. And down the line you will suffer. No question. Either you act like a professional who belongs in the professional game, or don’t. That is, to me, such bedrock principle. That is why I am grateful for all the people who came before me who didn’t just think about themselves at the time, but thought about writers to come. And that is why writers in their 20s should not be reluctant to make sacrifices for writers in their 30s, because they will be writers in their 30s, and so on and so forth.

It’s just a terrible argument. In the question of how writers should now view Amazon, I think they should view it as a very legitimate employer. Look, the choice of is it your first choice, I mean, I think that everybody sort of recognizes that studios that make and distribute films directly are probably still the premiere choice, because they make and distribute films. And that is a very powerful thing. If I sell a screenplay to Universal I know that they don’t have to go find a distributor; they are a distributor.

However, there are a ton of companies out there that are in the same boat as Amazon as far as I’m concerned. And if you have material that is not attracting the eyes of the gatekeepers, but you think has a chance of attracting the popular eye, well I have to say Amazon is a great choice now because one thing that I know about the gatekeepers is that they are particularly bad at determining their own value set for what good is. All they really do, in the majority, is chase what they think people want.

If people tell them what they want, chase over. And your material will get purchased. And it will eventually find its way to a studio. And at that point you are off and running.

So, I think Amazon has gone from a red flag to a perfectly legitimate, perfectly respectable avenue now for screenwriters to seek their first professional opportunity.

**John:** Yup. I have some ongoing concerns with how they are presenting this new version of themselves, which is their open writing assignments. So, an open writing assignment classically is a project that is at a studio where they are looking for a writer to come in. So, it could be a piece of property that they purchased, like they bought a book and now it is an open writing assignment. It could be a remake they are making. Or it could be a script that they have worked on and now they feel like they need to bring another writer in to do some new work.

One of the things they are pitching with this new version of Amazon Studios is, “And we have two open writing assignments. We have,” I think, “it’s Twelve Princesses and I Think My Facebook Friend is Dead and we are going to be looking for writers for those two things.” That feels a little weird to me. And it feels like every script should have new writers come in and do some work on it.

And it is entirely possible that they have worked with those original writers, and they feel like they have come to a point where they can’t go forward on the project now. But that’s, I don’t know; saying that publicly feels really weird.

**Craig:** Well, but is it…it’s the public part that is bothering, because that is all that studios do.

**John:** It is. But, I mean it’s an internal thing. It’s never announced in the world that another screenwriter is coming in to rewrite this thing.

**Craig:** You think it’s embarrassing to the writer? Is that what you’re saying?

**John:** It’s a little bit embarrassing to the writer, and even though it is the way reality often works, publicizing it like that, you should be trying to get one of these two slots to rewrite these big projects feels really weird. They are saying, like, “These are the best two things we have. And we are bringing in new writers to rewrite them.” That feels a little bit weird.

**Craig:** Well, it is weird, but it is the exact same weirdness that goes on at studios. I mean, they sort of say, “Look, this is a script that we believed in so much we spent $1 million to buy it, and then we spent $2 million more for really big shot writers to rewrite it. And now we are saying we love it so much we want a new writer to work on it.”

**John:** And you just hit on exactly why I was chaffing about it, because when you have that big show — “These are our best two things and we are bringing in someone new to work on it” — you bring in your heavy hitters. I’m the kind of person you bring in to do that work that you feel like you need to do to take it to its final level.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** You are not saying, like, “Some writer in America could be the right person to do it, some writer who has never sold a screenplay before.” You are not going to the brand new person to rewrite that thing to put it into production. That is just not how stuff works.

**Craig:** That’s right. But here is what is interesting: Amazon is going to learn just the way everybody else that first starts in this business learns. There is a learning curve for them as well. And I think that they have a certain hope that there is more talent out there than has yet to be discovered by the traditional method.

But they are going to sort of American Idol, like find Kelly Clarkson, and it is going to be great. And it might. But, I suspect it won’t.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I know that people don’t like it when I say these things, because they think I’m a snob, and they think that I am a talentless jerk anyway, so how dare I. But as talentless as I am [laughs], I think that Amazon at some point may come to say, “Look, we have a property here that Warner Brothers is actually interested in making. We have gotten as far as we can with the methods we have been employing. Maybe we should think about actually coming up with a different method, or, maybe not.” That’s their choice. But as far as I’m concerned from the business end of it, they are at least doing it honorably. They are now fulfilling the basic minimum requirements that an employer must fulfill.

**John:** And here is why I wish them every success, and this is honest, is they have a tremendous amount of money. And there are a lot of other technology companies that have a tremendous amount of money. And if Amazon has success making some movies, and making money off of some movies, I hope that will loosen the purse strings of some of these other giant companies — the Facebook’s, who just spent $1 billion to buy Instagram today, to make some movies.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** Because more money in the system really helps the whole film industry. And it especially helps screenwriters who are essentially the research and development of the film industry.

Right now, a lot of the tensions we are facing are really economic tensions. There is just not enough money in the system right now to pay for as much development as we would like there to be. And I think that would greatly benefit our film industry. And two years from now there could be some real payoff. Even if Amazon hasn’t made much out of this, the fact that they are trying to do this will get other people inspired to do it.

**Craig:** No question. No question whatsoever. It surprises me that it has taken tech companies this long to sort of fallow the lead of Pixar. Pixar was this tiny little company that was making hardware, and decided to make movies to advertise their hardware, and have become a true giant, and a true studio, as big and as powerful as any. And while we say that Disney “owns” them, you can make the argument that Pixar in a weird way owns Disney. They are merged. They are one in the same, but they are enormous.

And there is no reason that these other guys couldn’t arrive at that place. What Amazon, the philosophical decision Amazon has made is to not find a genius like Lasseter and Andrew Stanton, and Peter Docter, and Joe Ranft, and so on, but rather to open it up to the vox populi and see if there are some diamonds in the rough.

I am an elitist. I tend to feel like you have to find really, really brilliant to guide these things, but again, they may arrive there. You are absolutely right: it is a great thing. And certainly for us, to have another legitimate big deep-pocketed MBA signatory — we haven’t had one of those… — You have to understand. You know this. And I’m betting most of our listeners do, too. Fox, Columbia, Universal, Disney, Paramount, Warner Brothers. Those are the big ones, right? I’m not missing any?

**John:** You got them all.

**Craig:** Okay. Those have been the primary deep moneyed employers of screenwriters since the beginning of movies.

**John:** I actually ran a post on this that Horace Deidu had done this great chart that showed basically the top six studios have always been the top six studios.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And there have been some mergers along the way, but basically you can go back to the ’20s, and it is essentially the same companies.

**Craig:** That’s right. But today there is a seventh company that is signatory to the Writers Guild that has an enormous amount of money, frankly, more than some of the studios. And that is huge news for us if it turns the way I hope it does.

I hope that Amazon eventually realizes that there is more profit developing screenplays with, I guess I would say there is more profit targeting great screenwriters than there is sort of panning for gold in a kind of fun marketing type of way.

**John:** My very first instinct with Amazon when they talked about doing a new kind of deal, and making a studio, is that you have tremendous amount of money and you also have tremendous amount of reach with everyone who comes to Amazon every day. So, you know so much about the people who are buying your products. You can target things to them.

And Facebook could do it better than anybody else could. Can you imagine Facebook running a studio? It would be nuts.

**Craig:** Well, it would be. Part of the interesting thing about it is I think each of these places has their own DNA. And they want to impose their DNA on the development process. So, some of that means Amazon’s way of saying, “Everyone can be a screenwriter, and it’s open to all, and we are throwing the doors open,” and maybe Facebook wants to make it all about social connections and people reading and liking and so forth.

But the truth is none of that crap has anything to do with developing a good screenplay. Developing a good screenplay happens when a good writer with a good idea works with a good producer, the way a novelist works with an editor, all in concert to fill the vision of a studio that is focused on making good movies of a sort. That doesn’t change.

So, what I hope happens is that Facebook and Google and Amazon jump into this, at some point realize that the way that they run their normal businesses really doesn’t have anything to do with this, but what does have to do with this is all of their money. And that they can make a ton of money doing this.

And then once they have some kind of brand that means something in the movie space the way that Pixar means something, that becomes extraordinarily powerful for them. And, the more competition that we have, you know, so if six major employers become nine major employers, this is a very good thing for us.

**John:** Agreed. Yeah. Even the small consolidations that have happened over the last few years, like we lost New Line as a separate company. It hurt. And it is one less buyer for a spec script, but it is also one less set of development projects that are out there. If New Line was developing 30 projects, well, those are 30 writers who can be employed. And when that goes away, a lot goes away.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The other reason to be hopeful, if Amazon is spending some money here, even if it is a company that doesn’t have the intention of really getting deeply into development, or trying to be their own brand, it may just take some of that digital money and push it back towards our system. And so the same way that Disney used to make movies by, they would have these investment packages where basically you could buy into a share of — I forget what it was called. I will have to look it up.

But for awhile they would basically build a slate of movies and you would invest into a slate of movies. That kind of stuff can happen and getting more money into the system helps.

**Craig:** Yeah, like a big Kickstarter for a $200 million movie.

**John:** $200 million Kickstarter is what we need.

**Craig:** Yeah. Or a Kiva Loan. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. Absolutely. [laughs] Micro-lending. Macro-lending. Something.

**Craig:** So it was good news. Good news.

**John:** It’s all good news. And it is great to be back in Los Angeles and at my proper podcasting setup. I have been on my little 13-inch MacBook Air for the last four weeks. And honest to god it is a terrific computer, I love it to death, but I don’t feel at home until I am in front of my big monitor with my weird keyboard and my actual microphone. So it is nice to be back.

**Craig:** I know how that is. I, too, am a creature of habit.

**John:** Well, creature, thank you again for a lovely podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Have a great week. And we will talk soon.

**Craig:** See you later.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep. 28, How to cut pages — Transcript

March 16, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/how-to-cut-pages-2).

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

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

**John:** And you are listening to Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Things that are interesting to people who are interested in what screenwriters are talking about, I guess.

**Craig:** Things that are interesting to people who are interested in the things that interest screenwriters.

**John:** Yeah. It’s one of those nesting things; it can keep going on and on and on…

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

**John:** Hello, Craig Mazin.

Craig Mazin, I heard your name mentioned this week because you gave a presentation at the WGA for members that was very well received. What was that about?

**Craig:** That’s great to hear. I did. It is the second time I have done it now. It is basically a seminar on how to survive and thrive during development, and to a lesser extent, during production. And this is something that you simply will not find anywhere. There is no book that can tell you how to do this because all of the people who write books are writing them for people who aren’t in development.

But people who want to be in development, and also, of course, as I have pointed out many, many times, most people writing books have never been in development because they are not really screenwriters. So this was a very focused sort of seminar for people who have to deal with the misery of writing a script, getting notes from multiple sources, navigating those notes, and somehow surviving the process. And doing well during it.

And so it is a little bit of therapy. It is a little bit of psychology. It is a little bit of strategy. And, yeah, it is the second time I have done it and people seem to dig it.

**John:** What is challenging about development is that there are things that are actually part of your contract. You have a writing period. You should be able to turn things in at the end of your writing period. They need to pay you. You have your order to commence. There are some technical things that should be there.

But there are also standard business practices, and there is all the psychology of how to really figure out when to get them to pay you for another step. So I assume you got into that kind of stuff?

**Craig:** Not really. Actually, no.

**John:** Oh.

**Craig:** I sort of stayed away from the business arrangements. I mean, there was a little bit of a sidebar on how to handle the producer draft or the so-called “free rewrite.” Most of what I talked about really was how to behave. How to behave in such a way and how to manage your own behavior in such a way as to maximize your chance of protecting your intention from the beginning, the first day you are hired, to the premiere.

How can you survive this, not lose your mind, not get fired, and protect what matters to you in the movie. So, it was really all about that, and not so much about the gears.

Although, you know, what we are talking about is the Writers Guild does something called the Television Showrunners Training Program, which was actually a get that we received in negotiations from the companies where they basically pay for it. It is not much to them, but it was kind of a smart thing for them to do because basically writers end up running shows, and the better they know how to run a show, theoretically, the better it will be for the companies.

And it is such a specific skill set. It goes far beyond writing, of course. You become, really, management — writer management, I guess. And that has been a very successful program. And since 2004, when I was first on the board, I have been kind of clamoring for an equal thing for screenwriters, not because we would ever become management — we rarely do — but just because I feel like there is a lot that most screenwriters simply don’t know.

And those of us who have been doing this for 15 to 20 years have picked up quite a bit. So, finally, they are talking about it now. And this would be part of it. And then certainly there would be other topics, like if I could design a screenwriters training program today it would be first how to survive and thrive during development.

I guess actually even before that: pitching. How to pitch. Then how to survive and thrive during development. How to work with a director. How to behave, and survive, and thrive during production. And the fifth topic probably would be how to best manage your relationship with your representation.

But I am also open to ideas. If you think there are other big topics that would make sense in a training program, tell me.

**John:** Definitely. I was just meeting with my new WGA mentees. I got assigned a group of four new members who I am going to be meeting with regularly to help them get started in their careers. And they are all tremendously gifted writers, so they don’t need any help on that front.

But, they are asking questions that are really kind of fundamental to that first part of your career which is, “I am being sent out on a thousand meetings. I don’t know which ones to sort of take seriously. I don’t know how seriously to approach that idea that the producer sort of brings up in the room that I am kind of interested in, but I don’t know if it is a real project or not a real project. How do I apportion my time between writing the stuff that I want to write for myself and pursuing these projects that may never become a real project, for which there may be six other writers also pursuing this topic? How do you figure all of that out?”

And that is the kind of stuff I hope the screenwriting training program would cover.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, the trick with some of those topics is that they are so circumstance-dependent that it is hard to kind of codify a best practice, because it really depends. It depends on the kind of work you do. It depends on, frankly, how much money you require. Are you somebody that can kind of go for a year or two before selling something? Or do you have a family and a mortgage?

So there are a lot of different circumstances, but sometimes the best way to sort of codify that is to just give people the instruction set for how to even discuss that with their representation.

**John:** Absolutely. You are not going to provide them the answer, but you are going to give them the smart questions to be asking, so they can ask themselves the question about what is important to them. At what point are they going to be willing to jump out of competition for something that may or may not become real?

**Craig:** You know, John, I think you just might be instructing that segment of the screenwriting training program.

**John:** Perhaps I will.

**Craig:** Yes. Perhaps you will. And by perhaps we mean “you will.”

**John:** I will definitely be instructing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** It’s tough. So today I wanted to talk some more crafty kind of things if we could?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Last week, you and I both got offers to run major studios, which was really flattering, but I really want to go back to our screenwriting roots and talk about the words on the page and those drafts that you have to turn in that become part of development.

And today I want to talk about cutting pages, which so much of your work as a screenwriter is to try to generate pages — to write those three, or five, or seven, or ten pages in that day, and build up to a whole script. And then, eventually, you have to start cutting it down because your script is too long. And I guess we should talk about what is too long. What is a good benchmark?

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** For feature screenwriters, 120 pages is often thrown about as like the upper limit to how long a screenplay should be. That is an invented figure. That figure basically probably came from most movies are about two hours long. Most scripts kind of average out to about a minute of paper to a minute of screen time, so the script should be about 120 pages.

It is really arbitrary, and yet it has become kind of codified as that is the upper limit. To the point where if you turn in a script that was 122 pages, your first note will always be, “You need to cut a little bit here.”

**Craig:** Well, it goes even further than that. I know that Warner Brothers, and possibly Universal, puts that in your contract. They have the right to refuse delivery of a script that is over 120 pages. And I think part of it is that even though… — It’s a funny thing; this is how you can tell a writer from a non-writer: non-writers tend to under-deliver on pages.

Those were the kids in class who turned in book reports and the teacher said, “You need three more paragraphs.” Writers are the ones who write way too much. There’s never enough pages for them. And every screenwriter I know is constantly in a panic that they are on page 50 and they have 200 more pages to go. Because they have so much they want to say, and so much they want to do in the story, and studios have been burned before by these really long drafts that ultimately are unwieldy and unproduceable, and unbudgetable.

And you would think that they could just simply go, “Well, look, obviously these 40 pages need to go.” But, they don’t know how to do that. And frankly, if the writer did, they wouldn’t have turned in that draft.

So, 120 pages is pretty hard and fast. If you are doing an epic, a historical epic, or something like Lord of the Rings, where you know that the movie is really ambitious, you just have to all agree beforehand that the draft will be longer than the average draft.

**John:** Yeah. We should state the obvious that it is not a hard and fast rule that 120 pages equals a 2 hour movie. Go was 126 pages and it is well under 2 hours.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Big Fish was the same situation. So, it is a mistaken assumption. It is a bad benchmark, but it is still what people expect. And if a producer has two scripts to read, and they were printed out, back in the days when everything was printed out, if there are two scripts to read they will flip through the end. They will read the 111-page script before they read the 120-page script every time.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s right. And your point is well taken. Go is a perfect example because there is a certain caffeination, or it is speedified, you know, the movie is on speed. And, similarly, with kind of rat-a-tat comedies — spoofs are sort of notorious. I mean, I would get into these wars with Bob Weinstein where he would insist that the script had to be 105 pages.

And I would say, “Just so you know, our script is timed at nearly 30 seconds a page. You are just simply not going to have enough movie.” And we never did. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We were also like pad… — Because it is so fast. And there is a great story recently from The Social Network, because Sorkin writes very — the dialogue is designed to be delivered at an insane pace. And he turned the script in and everybody was kind of freaking out. And he recorded that great opening sequence with Mark Zuckerberg being dumped by his girlfriend.

He recorded it the way, at the pace he thought it should be, and supposedly — this sounds true to me — Fincher basically timed everything per Sorkin. And on the day, he would sit there and his script supervisor had a stopwatch, and if they didn’t hit it, they did it again. [laughs] It had to be at that pace.

So, the one minute per page rule is something that, some standard needs to be there, but… — Like I said, if you know that it is supposed to go faster, just make sure everybody knows beforehand.

**John:** Yeah. The same also applies for TV. We should say that TV actually has much more stringent guidelines because shows are a half hour, or they are an hour long. And you can’t be long. You can’t run long. There is no arbitrariness there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you are going to have to hit your act breaks. You are going to have to hit your end times on those things. So, a lot of times you really do need to cut to match your amount of time that you have. When Melissa was working on Gilmore Girls, she said their scripts were hugely long. That is because, again, it is that rat-a-tat tempo, blasting through stuff.

**Craig:** Right. I would imagine 30 Rock scripts are probably quite long.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** I mean, they are going at this nuts-o pace. But I could also see like CSI scripts not being able to go long because there is a lot of silence, and looking around, and studying for clues.

**John:** Yeah. And then there is Family Guy, which often will have Peter staring at the camera for about 30 seconds.

**Craig:** Right. [laughs] Exactly.

**John:** So regardless, at some point you are going to be in situations where you are going to have to cut pages. So let’s talk about the situations that you might want to have to cut pages. And sometimes it is really simple. Sometimes you want to just cut a page or two.

Let’s just talk cosmetic cutting, where you aren’t really trying to change the story, you aren’t trying to change what is really happening, you are just trying to make your script look shorter.

**Craig:** Okay. So we are not talking about nibbling at content really?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** All right. Well, some simple things that I always do is I look for those gerunds that don’t need to be there. So, “He is looking through the file,” should be, “he looks through the file.” You are looking for those action descriptions that have one little word sticking off to save a line.

Sometimes you have action broken up and you think, “Yeah, I could probably pull it up and make that a paragraph.” I don’t like going more than three lines really, or four max, for an action paragraph. But if I have, like, three in a row that are just single lines, and they are not super important that they be like that, I pull them up.

Actually, I have to say: Movie Magic has a fantastic little add-on thing that scans your script and basically says, “If you could shorten this word by five letters, then your script would be pulled up by one-eighth of a page.” It is very cool. And so you can kind of go through and look for those targeted ones that actually start saving you page length.

**John:** Yeah. What you start to recognize is, because feature scripts are 120 pages, very small changes will ripple through and create huge differences because of how paragraphs are breaking up, because of dialogue that is breaking across pages. So, literally changing… — cutting one paragraph on page 20 might make your whole script a page shorter.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** And so looking for those is good. I would caution against some of the really obvious things that people attempt to do, like these screenwriters attempt to do. Don’t try to change the margins because they will know if you tried to change the margins.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Don’t try to change the font size. Don’t try to change the line spacing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Final Draft will let you do the tight spacing…

**Craig:** Uh, don’t do it.

**John:** Don’t do it.

**Craig:** Look, the first thing I do when I get a script to rewrite is I put it through my format which is a very standard AD-approved format. And so I get a 119-page script, I put it through my format. I immediately call everybody and say, “Just so you know, this is 138 pages. So there is more going on here than we realize. Don’t be surprised when things start disappearing.”

Because, you know, they — “they” meaning producers and studio executives — are just as childish as we are when it comes to page count. Prior to the green light coming on, everybody is shoving as much in as possible, and page count is sort of a fantasy. The second the green light goes on, it is a panic. And pages become absolutely critical. Because the way…

For screenwriters that haven’t been through production, they have to understand. The way the schedule is laid out, it is in eighths of pages. And every day is two and three-eighths of a page, something like that. And every eighth of a page matters. And every additional day of shooting is six figures.

So, it really becomes very… — It is just an academic grind to start removing stuff and winnowing away to what is absolutely necessary to put on screen. And what is tough is, of course, once it goes into editorial even more of that will be cut. The director that knows exactly what is going to be on screen before he shoots it is the greatest director in the world. And he doesn’t exist. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah, that’s a good point you are making there. You could be cutting this at a script stage and actually do it gracefully, or you have to cut it in the editing room and it be probably much less graceful. So for the logic and sake of your story, if there are changes you can make on the script to make it more like what you think the final movie is going to be, it is worth it to try to do that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I have two cosmetic things before we get into the actual cutting the meat issues. The first is CUT TO’s, TRANSITIONS TO. At the end of every scene, some writers use those, like every scene ends with a CUT TO.

**Craig:** Really? Wow.

**John:** Yeah. And some writers still use those. And, you don’t have to.

**Craig:** That’s crazy. No. I mean, use them for impact.

**John:** But don’t use them every time.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So there you have saved a tremendous amount of money.

**Craig:** That’s huge.

**John:** I would also say look for orphans. And orphans are those little bits and fragments of lines that are taking up a whole line of your page but actually aren’t doing anything meaningful.

So, sometimes you can rewrite a sentence to get rid of that orphan and bump everything up a line.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Other times, the only time I will occasionally cheat a margin is in a dialogue block.

**Craig:** Totally.

**John:** And I will bump the right edge of a dialogue block just a few characters over to pull an orphan up.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** And no one will ever see that.

**Craig:** And, by the way, it is legal, and here’s why: That word doesn’t add time to the day. You see savvy, and this where… — You know, it’s funny, I’m going through it now on this script that is shooting at Universal. Sometimes people who aren’t savvy about what takes time on a given day will obsess over page length. ADs know. Directors know. But, others may not. And they may say, “Look, is there a way for you…we can cut the scene down if you got rid of this line of dialogue.”

That will not cut the day down at all. What takes time is setups. How many angles there are. If I am shooting two people talking in a restaurant at a table, frankly, I could double the page count and it really won’t add that much to the day.

**John:** Exactly. But if you were to add, the scene would be the same number of pages, but you added another person to that table, you have doubled the amount of shooting you have to do.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** You have to shoot all the angles to cover that.

**Craig:** And sometimes you will get suggestions where, and this is where production experience is so important, and why I urge screenwriters to go to sets and sit there and watch how they do it, as boring as it may be, because you are able to see, say, “Listen, your suggestion is to take these five lines of dialogue that are an exchange between these two people at the table and just cut them and replace them with just one waiter walking over and saying, ‘Are you guys okay?'”

That literally makes it longer. And sometimes they just don’t get it.

**John:** They don’t. Because they are not going through that and they don’t see what that is. But you are right, the AD will always see what that is.

**Craig:** Totally.

**John:** The other thing which is frustrating is when they are trying to cut stuff that is important. Like, it is kind of reader setup. As you are first introducing a character, you are first introducing one of your major heroes or one of your major villains, you may throw two or three lines at that character’s scene description lines to really setup who that person is.

That is not screen time. That is just to help the reader who is trapped with only seeing stuff on the page to understand what that person is going to be like in the movie. That is not shooting time. So…

**Craig:** Don’t obsess over that, right?

**John:** Yeah, don’t obsess over that. And if you have to cut something just for cosmetics…but that is the reason why you have it.

**Craig:** It’s free. It’s free page. And a nice rebuttal to that is to sort of say, “Not only does it not cost us time on the day. Not only do those three lines budget out to zero dollars, but in casting it is going to be enormously important.”

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** So, as long as you have some sort of practical reason for them other than, “Because my words are so precious,” then they will be cool. You can’t just say, “Well, because it is just cool. I really liked the way the words lined up there.” “Well, great. You are not writing a novel, buddy. We have to cut pages.”

**John:** So let’s say we actually have to cut some meat. You have that script that is 138 pages. You are going to have to cut some serious things. What are easy targets for cuts?

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know if there is any category that is specifically easy. I think that you have to look for… — First of all, if you really want to cut a script, you have got to ask yourself if there are any sequences that can come out. Start big, frankly.

It is a rare script that can meet a schedule when it is currently budgeted at over schedule or over dollars that can comply and conform to what they have through little tiny cuts across the whole thing. So, big question first: Is there a sequence we can just do without?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is helpful with that. Because, remember, while you are a good writer, and you have written everything with intention and purpose, many of those scenes were written before the whole script was written. In fact, all of them except the last one. So, you should be able to recontextualize some things, too.

Now you have the whole thing in front of you. Maybe one of those sequences can go.

**John:** The smaller things I sometimes try to take a look at, especially if I am being sent something for a rewrite. I will always target any scene in which a character recaps something that the audience has seen.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s wasted time. There is no reason for that to happen. And surprisingly it still happens a lot in TV, and I don’t know why. I guess, you are coming back from an act breaking, you need to sort of remind people what happened. But, yikes, it always feels very frustrating.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** If that conversation has to happen, come to the very end of that conversation and just let the audience know that that character now is up to speed.

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly. There is a logic thing.

**John:** Yeah. But take out the dialogue that actually does it.

**Craig:** Correct. You could just open up with one character just staring at the person who has told them this story off-screen, and that character just goes, “Wow, really? Yup. Okay.” [laughs]

**John:** Or a meaningful follow-up question that actually pushes the scene forward.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, but a recap is dreadful. Yeah.

**John:** Try to get out of scenes… — Classic advice for screenwriting in general, but try to come into scenes later, try to get out of scenes earlier. And so don’t let characters walk through doors, either to enter a scene or to exit a scene. And sometimes just trimming those will create some space, but will also speed up the pace of things and not make things feel so long.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I would also say to look at your setups. And this is a place where you and I may disagree a little bit, but you have said that you tend to write long first acts, and really have a lot of setup of character. I tend to have less of that. And just because in my experience a lot of times you will shoot that meaningful thing that sort of introduces the character, and then when you actually put the thing together, you go like, “I didn’t need to catch that last moment. I could catch them at this moment and follow along.”

**Craig:** You know, I think it is a little genre dependent. I tend to like shorter first acts in action movies, thrillers, even in dramas, I think. Comedies, I like a longer first act because I feel like that is the broccoli that you have to eat to enjoy all of the comedy of the second and third act.

And, I will also say that you will eventually, once you get into the editing room, decide where and how you need to kind of compress it down a little bit. And there is a magic that occurs in production where things jump out. And you realize the actor has packed an enormous amount of information in simply a look. And so things can start coming out that way.

But you don’t know that until you see the performance. So, frankly, where I like to compress things is the third act. I feel like every movie I have ever been to, with rare exception, by the time I get to an hour and 30 in my seat I’m kind of like, “Let’s finish this. Let’s wrap it up.”

So, long, drawn out climaxes are not a bad place to take a look.

**John:** I think the third act problem also comes because of the way that we write screenplays in general. We have all of this energy and drive as we are writing through the first act. And the second act we are dealing with all of the complications we have created. And by the third act we are just exhausted and we are sort of slogging through it.

So that is the process of writing the script the first time. And some of that lethargy, and some of that exhaustion sort of creeps in, just sort of stays with the script I should say, throughout its process. So, you are really tight when you are writing your first act, because you went through it a lot of times, and you have really figured out the best way to do it.

And that third act, you are like, “Well, all of this stuff has to happen. We will make it all happen.” And, writing your third act with the same vigor as the first act will often shorten it down a lot.

**Craig:** That is a great point. And there is a point under that point which again goes to — it sort of identifies who writers are. Non-writers when they get tired write less, and writers when they get tired write more. They just get long and they lose that kind of parallel construction and concision. And if you feel it happening, just take the day off. Take the day off and come back to it.

**John:** Yeah. It is also worth asking the question: Which threads do I really need to wrap up, and which threads are important? And are there ways I can wrap up multiple threads in one moment together? So rather than having to cut between all of the different characters and subplots I have set up, is there a way to bring those together in a way that is going to feel more rewarding?

Sometimes it is helpful to think about, if I had to watch this sequence with the sound turned off would I be able to understand kind of where everybody ends up at the end? And if it relies on a lot of dialogue to wrap things up, that is not probably your ideal situation.

**Craig:** That’s right. As much as I loved all of the Harry Potter books, the one criticism I have of J.K. Rowling is that she tended to talk her way through every climax.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I understood to a point, because they were all mysteries. They were all basically elaborate Scooby Doo episodes, so the whodunit and why needed long talks. But you could see how great of a job Kloves did to not do that in the movies. He deserves a huge tip of the hat for visualizing those climaxes and letting the performances…

And frankly, we also forget when we are writing that there is this other voice. We know that we have what we have written. And we know that there are camera angles. And we know that there are actors for sure. But don’t forget score. Score sometimes is the best way to think about how to save pages. Because great score against an actor’s face is writing.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And if you know what your intention is for that moment, it is amazing what you can get away with.

**John:** Yeah. It’s hard to reference the score in screenplays. I will do it sometimes. I have done things like, “As music swells we descend upon…” giving that sense of an operatic moment, or some sort of big transition. Getting a sense that this is a Lawrence of Arabia moment here can buy you that.

But the challenge is that readers, and producers, and everyone who is going to be taking a look at your script are used to going through it so fast that you have to really signal to them that, “Really we are doing this in a shot. So don’t skim it.”

**Craig:** I don’t think I have ever once referred to score on the page itself. But in my mind, if I know that that is what is going on, sometimes I will take a little bit of extra space for the action lines, break them up a little bit more, nice short sentences, and maybe underline the one that matters.

And then that sort of implies that this is one of those moments. It is just one of those ways of thinking intentionally as opposed to spelling it all out. But I honestly feel that nine times out of ten, when your script is really long it is because there is some sequence in there that just doesn’t need to be there, or could be combined with something else in a fun way.

**John:** Yeah. The other good test, which I talked about at lunch with my mentees yesterday, was you sort of take each little piece of your script out, and you hold it up to the light and say, “Is this my movie? Does this feel like my movie? Does this have to be in my movie?” And if there is a sequence that doesn’t sort of meet that criteria you have to really look at whether it belongs back in your movie, or whether something else is going to be better in its place.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And sometimes the best way to cut pages is to cut a lot of pages and write a better, shorter thing that can take its place.

**Craig:** Yeah. Every writer is familiar with the concept of killing your babies. So, we are sort of taught very early on, “Don’t get precious about those things that you love. You have to cut them.” But I actually found… Dennis Palumbo, who is a screenwriter-turned-therapist, had a more elegant explanation of why it was hard. And his explanation also allowed me to understand why — or rather made it easier for me to cut those things.

His point was it is not like… — Killing your baby sort of implies that you have written something beautiful and wonderful, but it just has to go because of some sort of circumstance. His point was: actually let’s think about why we call them our babies. Because the truth is a lot of times the things that we write that we don’t think of as our babies are fantastic.

And then there are these things that we do think of as our babies, and people are like, “I just don’t get it.” And his point was: it is your baby because the writing of that line was significant to you. That was a kind of a line that you admire, and you did it. Or, that was a kind of a thing that you have struggled with a lot and you feel like you finally grew as a writer by writing that line.

None of that is relevant to the audience’s experience.

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** So, give yourself a huge pat on the back for whatever you accomplished with that line, but if it needs to be cut, cut it.

**John:** Yeah. You are talking about sort of sunk costs. So, either you want to hold onto it because it was so hard to write, or you want to hold onto it because you felt so great about having written it. And those are completely valid for why you feel that way, and no one else can know that, until they see the director’s commentary, or the writer’s commentary…

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** …and you can say, “That’s the best line in the whole thing.” And then you sound incredibly conceited.

**Craig:** And what’s more, once you realize that that is why you care so much about that line, cutting it doesn’t take away the victory. You still have the victory. You just realized that was important for me. So I will put that on an index card and paste it to the wall, and I feel really good about that. But nobody else is going to… — It is not a gift for anyone else, so let’s not impose it upon them.

**John:** Yeah. It does become easier to cut things once you have written a lot more. So in those early scripts it was just torture to cut like three lines because, “Oh, but I love these three lines.” But then you have written 20,000 lines and you are like, “Oh, fine.”

**Craig:** It’s the “There’s more where that comes from syndrome.” I mean, you and I in a distant podcast talked about how many individual drafts we produced. I assume at this point we will eventually hit 100 at least. And at that point you become a little less concerned.

It’s the difference between hitting your first home run and hitting your 530th. It is just not that big of a deal.

**John:** So, one last piece of advice I would offer is that as you approach as section with your script where you are going to be cutting a lot of things, go into it with a plan. Know what you are going to cut. Cut on paper first if that makes sense to you, if it is helpful for you. But definitely go in with a plan because otherwise you are going to go through your script and just start moving commas.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** You have to really go in with, like, “This is the focus of what I am trying to do here.” So, if it is to write new sequences, delete the sequences that are going out and write the new things. If you are doing a major overhaul and a lot of stuff is moving around, open up a new file and just copy and paste in the stuff that stays. But don’t try to work in that original file.

And that can be freeing, too, because you are not surrounded by all of the stuff that was there.

**Craig:** Absolutely. You and I obviously approach very differently at the start. You write longhand initially. I compose on the computer. But we both finish the same way. Print it out. Do not make that first pass on your computer because there is something about physically looking at the page that makes it so much easier to cut.

And I also find it very helpful to just read it. Out loud. Read the script out loud. You will suddenly realize in the middle of a particular line that you are bored.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And that the scene is long and boring. And that there is a shorter way to get to this. Perform it for yourself. You can record it and play it back if you want. But reading it out loud, reading it with a friend — you don’t need a whole megillah of actors showing up at your house, or friends sitting around in chairs reading all the parts. Just read it with two of you. Just go through each scene. A huge help.

**John:** Well, Craig, this was a good conversation.

**Craig:** It was fantastic. I mean, you know what we should have done: we should have recorded this and then put it on the internet because it was such a useful —

**John:** Oh my god, that is so great. Because others could benefit from our conversation about our working practices.

**Craig:** Right. I don’t know why we don’t do that?

**John:** I don’t know why everyone doesn’t do that.

**Craig:** No. I know why everybody doesn’t do that. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** There are a lot of people that should not do that.

**John:** Craig, I meant to ask you. Are you listening to any other podcasts?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. You don’t watch any TV.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** You don’t listen to podcasts.

**Craig:** No, but I’m a…

**John:** Basically, you do some writing. You kind of father your children. And you play Skyrim.

**Craig:** I totally father my children. And a lot of baseball practices and games.

**John:** Oh yeah, yeah.

**Craig:** And I am waiting for Skyrim DLC. So while I am waiting for Skyrim DLC, I am now 58% of the way through Arkham City — which is spectacular, by the way.

**John:** I heard that is great, too.

**Craig:** Oh my god, it’s so good. It’s so good.

**John:** So the DLC for Skyrim is like new missions? Or are they new things, new monsters? New what?

**Craig:** No. Bethesda has a pretty longstanding tradition with all of their titles to do quest line DLCs. Some of them are very short. But most of them are rather long. Their idea is, like, you buy it for — I don’t know — maybe ten bucks or something, or $15, and we will give you another 20 hours of game play.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** So, with Skyrim, I don’t think they are anywhere near there yet, but all of the initial press seems to indicate that they are going bigger. That they kind of want…

And they did that for Fallout, too. I mean, almost like getting new games.

**John:** Yeah. I had to stop. So, I was playing Skyrim, and then eventually I had a hard time with like the marriage quest. It was like, “Oh, I’m going to get married.” And so I went through all of that, and I sort of got through all the steps, and I had a hard time finding the guy in the city who I needed to get the amulet from.

And so I finally got… — It just ended up being a lot of hassle and a lot of work. And so then I finally got married and it was like, “Yeah, now I’m bored.”

**Craig:** Oh, I killed my wife.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Yeah. You know what, here’s the thing.

**John:** That sounds better.

**Craig:** [laughs] In Skyrim you can get married. And the way you get married is you put on this particular amulet and you walk around. And if you have done nice things for people, and you have achieved enough, they will say, “Hey, I see you are wearing the amulet. Are you interested in hooking up?”

**John:** The Amulet of Mara.

**Craig:** Correct. The Amulet of Mara. And then you say, “Yeah, let’s get married,” which seems like an atrocious way to actually approach marriage in Skyrim, although they are very progressive — men can marry men, women can marry women. I don’t think you can marry animals. Regardless, my wife who is super hot, she was this warrior, and she was really badass. That’s why I married her, you know? She was really tough.

And then the second I married her she just went into my house, stayed there, and made food. And she just kept saying, “Hi, oh hello, love.” And I’m like, “Eh, you are not…” — Bait and switch, you know?

And so I chopped her head off.

**John:** Yeah, that’s not good. Can you marry again after you have committed wife-icide?

**Craig:** I just don’t want to now. Once I see…I think it is uxoricide. Is it uxoricide? I believe U-X-O-R-icide.

**John:** Well, I have Google up, so I am going to type it in right now.

**Craig:** Yeah. Let’s see if I got that one right.

**John:** Latin, murder of one’s wife.

**Craig:** Beautiful. No reason for my wife to be concerned whatsoever that I know that word.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** But uxoricide, no. Once you commit uxoricide you really shouldn’t marry again. You have a problem.

**John:** Yeah, that’s true.

**Craig:** Your problem is that you solve your marital issues with beheadings. So…

**John:** [laughs] With violence, yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, also I just feel like the domestication… — I mean, did that happen with the guy you married? Did he just become, like, a weenie?

**John:** Yeah. He became kind of a weenie. And he was sort of a pity marriage anyway. It was the guy…

**Craig:** [laughs] Which one?

**John:** Angrenor Once-Honored.

**Craig:** Oh, that guy? Really? Alright. I mean, I know something about you, John.

**John:** He had sort of a wounded Daniel Craig quality that I found sort of endearing, but then he became kind of a sop. But I married him, and then like five minutes later I stopped playing the game completely.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well marriage just killed it for you. I married Aela the Huntress. I mean, she was so cool. And then she just stopped being a huntress. She became Aela the Boring.

**John:** So she wouldn’t go out on a quest with you?

**Craig:** Well, she would, but the point is I can get anybody to go on a quest with me. I wanted her to be cool. And I wanted it to be exciting. And I didn’t want her to lose her personality just because I married her, but she just sat there and she would say, “Oh, honey, I made you a home-cooked meal.” “What?! Your head is coming off!”

**John:** Now, could she carry more as a wife? Or does she still have the same sort of burden requirements?

**Craig:** No. Same crap. And then they open a store and they give you money. But if you have played the game long enough, you don’t need that $100. It is like, “Get out of here with this. I’m rich! Look at my house. What’s wrong with you?! Why did I marry you? I hate you!” [laughs]

**John:** You should be able to marry a dragon.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, that’s kind of cool. At least then, you know, the sex would be interesting. Eh, Angrenor, really? That guy?

**John:** Yeah. I’m not saying it was the best choice. But I just sort of made the decision, and I felt bad for him. And apparently, because I was looking up sort of who was marriageable, and apparently at a certain point in the game he dies. Like if you don’t marry him, he will just die.

**Craig:** Oh, well that’s a great reason to not marry him. You shouldn’t have married him then and just let him die. I don’t remember that guy specifically.

**John:** He is the guy who didn’t just take an arrow to the knee like all the other guards. He was actually deeply wounded in some battle.

**Craig:** Oh, I remember that guy. Yeah, enough with him. I can’t believe you married that guy. By the way, it’s interesting that you and I both portray a certain amount of racism because neither one of us married like a lizard person.

**John:** Or the cat people.

**Craig:** Or the cat people. Well the cat people basically are thieves. I don’t trust them. I don’t trust them. I’m racist against cat people. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Yeah, totally racist against cat people. Lizard people I am okay with.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They are just basically drug addicts. [laughs]

**John:** So at this point we are falling into the “and things that screenwriters might be interested in.” But it’s good. And so you are not going to marry anyone in Arkham Asylum or Arkham City or whatever that is called.

**Craig:** You can’t. Batman doesn’t marry people. Batman is a tragic figure. Frankly, I don’t even know if Batman has a penis. I mean, Batman is so…

There is a little bit of a romance, like a hint of a romance between Batman and the daughter of Ra’s al Ghul. Which by the way, in the movie, it was Ra’s al Ghul. And apparently, I always feel like the videogame people are that many more clicks to the right on the nerdometer, so I think the right — they say it’s Ray-shal-ghoul.

**John:** Ra’s al Ghul.

**Craig:** Whatevs. Anyway, it is a great game. It is really cool. You should play it. Just do it.

**John:** I will never play it.

**Craig:** Oh, because you have to watch another episode of Glee?

**John:** [laughs] Exactly. But Glee is actually a thing I can watch with my family, for example.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** You used to watch American Idol, though. Are you watching American Idol?

**Craig:** No. I finally… — Well, you know what? After Simon left, I gave it a shot. I just couldn’t get into what had happened to it. I mean, Randy was always the worst judge anyway.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The worst. Jennifer Lopez is fine. Steven Tyler is bizarre. But really what I couldn’t get into was the fact that what had been so awesome about that show — that it was the first show to tell the truth ever in the history of television. That was gone. It was back to being fake praise and nonsense.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And that was a bummer.

**John:** But now that I am watching it with a six-year-old daughter I am happy to have no Simon on the screen. We don’t really even watch the judges part of it, but we do see the girls sing. And so you see like, “Oh my god, she really likes the Justin Bieber-looking guy.” Yeah. That happens early. It is hard-coded in the brain. It’s like the same way that you like puppies. A little kid with blond hair that looks like Justin Bieber. Just like him.

**Craig:** Justin Bieber really is the perfect… — I guess the idea is that girls at that age, anywhere from 6 to 12, what they are attracted to is boys that are girls.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And boys, I guess, aren’t really attracted to girls, or boys. They just want to shoot stuff. [laughs] That’s the way it goes in my family.

**John:** Yeah. But then once they start getting attracted to girls, they sort of leap up towards women. And not girls their own age.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know, because my son I have to say, he is in fifth grade. And every night we have the same discussion about this girl he likes. Every. Single. Night. And she is in his grade. And it’s adorable. It is just every night he says, “I just don’t know if she even knows I exist.” [laughs] Every night. And I just comfort him every night.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s cute.

**John:** Parenting advice from Craig Mazin and John August.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Craig, thank you very much for another great podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** Talk to you soon.

**Craig:** You got it. Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep. 13: Undervalued simplicity, and WGA coverage for videogames — Transcript

November 27, 2011 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2011/undervalued-simplicity-and-wga-coverage-for-videogames).

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

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

**John:** You are listening to Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, you are sick aren’t you?

**Craig:** I am sick. I have got the late November virus.

**John:** Is it a cold? How would you describe your illness?

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s definitely a cold. I am one of those… [clears throat] people. I am going to do this throughout the podcast, please forgive me.

**John:** Yeah, I am going to have Stuart go through and cut out every cough. It would seem like —

**Craig:** [coughs]

He’s not going to cut out that one, is he? [laughs]

Sorry. I am one of those people that rolls their eyes whenever someone says “Oh, I have the flu.” You don’t have the flu. You have a regular virus. You just have an upper respiratory infection, 99 times out of a 100. I think we have covered this before.

**John:** Yeah. I had a bit of a cold situation two nights ago, where it was one of those things where you can feel your body starting to… like my skin, I could just feel something strange about it. I will always know if I have a cold because if I try to take a shower, the water just feels really weird on my skin.

**Craig:** That is weird.

**John:** So I had that happen. I am not crazy. You have had the same thing, right?

**Craig:** I have not had that, I must admit. Not even in the worst illness have I ever experienced any kind of… I don’t know what you would call that.

**John:** Oh, whenever I get a cold I can always tell like the cold is coming on because like my skin just feels a little bit different. It’s not the surface of my skin, it’s like a few millimeters underneath my skin feels wrong and different.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** So anyway, I had that. The cure for that cold, just in case anyone is curious, is Maker’s Mark. Maker’s Mark bourbon whiskey is how you fix that. So I broke out the bottle and had a little Maker’s Mark and now I am fine.

**Craig:** That is essentially what Nyquil is. It’s just Maker’s Mark with a decongestant.

**John:** It’s cherry flavored Maker’s Mark.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** So other than being sick, have you had an okay day?

**Craig:** Yeah, pretty good. I have got a script due out in a few weeks, so I have been cranking pretty hard. On Friday, by the time you get to Friday if you have been doing a good steady five page clip a day, you kind of start feeling a little bit like a melted chunk of ice or a puddle of disintegrated brain goo. So I am excited that it’s Friday.

**John:** You get that candy-bar-in-the-car quality.

**Craig:** Yeah, kind of soft, damaged.

**John:** I did no writing at all today. So here’s my day, since we were talking about people’s workflows. I started today with a meeting with Todd Strauss-Schulson, who is a director who did the Harold and Kumar movie, which I loved.

**Craig:** The most recent one?

**John:** Yeah, the most recent one.

**Craig:** Alright.

**John:** It was great. So I had followed his short films that he made before this and this was a chance to sit down and have coffee with him. So when people talk about like “Oh, what is a general meeting?” That is a general meeting. We weren’t talking about any specific project down the pipe, just like “Hey, who are you” and “Let’s get to know each other a little bit.”

So I had that coffee. I had a meeting at the WGA to talk about… Every year, or every two years, they try to do a survey of working screenwriters to figure out what the big issues are. So this was a test run on the survey for what this next survey is going to be so that they can ask all of the feature screenwriters what the issues are about late payments and sweepstakes pitching.

This writer, Craig Mazin, was originally supposed to be there but he didn’t make it.

**Craig:** Yeah, he didn’t show up because he was writing and coughing.

**John:** He was a candy bar melting in the car.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So it’s always encouraging to be sitting down and looking at the issues ahead. Also nice to be able to think about the issues ahead without having to think about how to fix them because so many of those creative issues are really intractable. We are not going to wave a magic wand and suddenly fix sweepstakes pitching.

**Craig:** Yeah, unfortunately, most of the things that they ask about and get responses on are sort of evergreen problems. So we keep asking what are the problems and screenwriters keep saying “This, this and this.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s a little frustrating. At some point the survey itself almost becomes this weirdly mocking thing.

**John:** Yes, this is self-fulfilling prophecy.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** What’s potentially interesting about getting the data on this is that you can maybe start to recognize what studios and what mini-majors are the worst at some of these things and possibly you can effect some change based on the report card aspect of that.

So if studio X is notorious for bringing in 20 writers on a project that they don’t ever end up even making, then maybe that could be more publicly disseminated and people will know to not go in for every one of those crazy sweepstakes pitching situations.

**Craig:** Well, that would be nice. Unfortunately, I think the way that the business is right now and the economy and the level of development that is going on, writers will go in on those sweepstakes pitches. I wish they wouldn’t, but I can’t tell them not to. I certainly can’t judge anybody who needs a job who is trying to get a job. They are not illegal.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** They are just obnoxious. I would argue counterproductive. To me, the way to get studios off of that is to just make a compelling argument that the scripts will be worse because of them. I could make that argument, I just don’t know if they agree or care.

**John:** Yeah, because you are never going to be able to show that the script was worse because of it because you can’t fork the universe and show the two different development paths you took, one of which you brought in like eight writers to try to beat something out and one which you just hired the best writer who showed up.

**Craig:** That’s right. You can’t actually prove it. But the primary argument that I make about these things is when you force writers to jump through that many hoops in that kind of gladiator-style audition for work, you can be assured that when you do choose a writer and that person sits down to work, they are spending half their time working on your script and the other half doing the exact same thing they had to do for you for someone else to get the next job.

**John:** Exactly. You create a culture in which writers are only giving partial attention to the project in front of them because they have to keep looking for that next job, because the process has been drawn out for so long.

**Craig:** Exactly. I get why they do what they do. But the truth is between that factor of bifurcating the attention of the writer, the other factor is frankly, there is really no demonstrable connection in my mind between who does the best song and dance in the room and who is going to actually write the best script.

If you find somebody that you trust who has a good track record and you believe in them and they have a basically good take on it, that should be enough. But hey, I don’t run a studio.

**John:** One day, but not now.

**Craig:** One day. [laughs] God forbid.

**John:** So the rest of my day, jumping ahead, was spent working on, we suddenly have a Macintosh app that we are going to be releasing fairly soon. We were working on a different app which we will get to eventually. But along the way, there’s something I actually did for the Big Fish musical that I said “Hey Nima, we should be able to do this, right? I am not crazy. This is actually a pretty easily solvable problem.” Of course two days later he had it figured out.

**Craig:** That guy is a genius.

**John:** It’s because Nima’s a genius. Nima Yousefi, he is a listener and a friend of the show. So Nima worked on this thing and it looks like, “Hey, it’s actually really great and useful, and actually a much more useful app for many people than what we were originally working on.” Which brings me to a larger issue that came up a couple of times since last two weeks, is that this most recent project was actually really easy. It kind of feels like too easy. It feels like you are cheating because it’s just actually too simple.

In a weird way I think we undervalue things that come to us really easily because we have been through so many times where it’s been a struggle and conversely we overvalue those things. A better example might be for the Big Fish musical, we have been working on it for years and years and years. So there is maybe 20 songs. Not all of them are singing songs, but there’s 20 pieces of music. Some of them we have gone through like 14 different versions and drafts of them, like classically the “I Want” song, where the character sings about what he or she really wants. That’s the one we keep going to again and again. Or the opening number will be something we go to again and again.

There is one number that everyone loves in the show. But literally Andrew and I — it was late in an afternoon and we just banged it out three years ago. It kind of feels like cheating because we know we have worked so hard on every one else — on every other number — but that one just clicked and it was right and it was simple.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s a frustrating thing, frankly, that your success as a creative person isn’t as simple as work in, quality out. It just doesn’t work that way. You are right. It kind of violates our weirdly Calvinistic work a day ethic.

I frankly am guilty of… You know there are days when you sit down, and suddenly you have this great run. Five pages pour out of you and they are really good and you feel great about it. Then you think “Well, I am not going to work the rest of the day.” You feel guilty. Whereas I feel curiously proud of myself if I beat my brain into a mush to get three pages out over the course of the day because they were really hard.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s kind of dumb, frankly. I should stop doing that.

**John:** Yeah, you should stop doing that because one of the other dangers, I think, is that those pages that were really hard to write, you are overvaluing how good they are because you know how hard they were to write. If they are only even kind of okay, you are more reluctant to change them because you know how hard they were to write. Sometimes you are willing to throw a perfectly good scene under the bus because you just dashed it off. But you are not really aware of the actual quality of the scene. You are so keyed into how much work you put into it.

**Craig:** Yeah, that is right. I think directors get that better than anybody because you could go out and direct a scene for three days at night in the cold and it’s dangerous work and it was brutal to even get it up on its feet and you argued to get the money for it. You could pile on an enormous amount of circumstances. Then if you watch the movie and it needs to be cut, you cut it out. That is a good lesson. You are right, just because you poured in a ton of effort doesn’t mean it’s valuable.

**John:** There’s a few of my movies, Corpse Bride was a pretty quick work but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was sort of famously, was really three and a half weeks to get to my first draft. It was like “Oh, that wasn’t enough work.” I felt kind of guilty turning it in, but it was done. It was ready and they needed to shoot the movie. Most of the scenes I never went back and touched again. So you compare that situation and that movie was really successful to other movies that I have killed myself on that were either never shot or they were shot and they were a difficult process the whole time through.

You don’t know. I think you should probably just celebrate the times that they have worked out great rather than killing yourself on the times where it was a slog.

**Craig:** I totally agree. Let’s give ourselves a break.

**John:** Yup. Let’s also answer some questions because I…

**Craig:** Yes. I have got my question list right here.

**John:** I was in New York for two weeks and was away from the actual question bag. So a lot of stuff stacked up here.

So let me get to the first one here. Shannon, in Tucson asks, “I am a man with the name Shannon.”

**Craig:** Ha-ha. [laughs]

**John:** “As you may imagine, this has caused me some difficulties and embarrassing moments. I have come to think that choosing a different first name, I am thinking Andrew, would solve the problem. Is this a good reason to choose a pseudonym, or am I overreacting about my name?”

**Craig:** [laughs] Well, Shannon, it’s a personal thing. If it’s uncomfortable for you and awkward, then yeah why not change your name. It’s your name. It’s who you are. I had a friend in high school named Kevin Zeidenberg. Kevin’s mom was Filipino and his dad was Jewish. Kevin looked pretty Filipino. So he would get that look, the “you are not what I expected when I heard the name Kevin Zeidenberg.” I think some people sort of relish that slightly Ricky Gervais-style awkward moment and some people don’t. It’s your name; it’s your career. If you want to change it, do it.

**John:** Yeah, I agree. Pick a new first name, use your initials, whatever you want to do. It’s absolutely fine. As people who would look me up on Wikipedia would know, August is not my original last name. You knew that, right?

**Craig:** I did. Your original last name was… [laughs] sorry, I was going to make a joke that would get us kicked off of iTunes.

**John:** Yeah, that would not be good. It was a Germanic last name and really tough to pronounce and simple to look at, like “Oh, I could say that.” Then you actually try to say it like “Oh, wait. I don’t know what my vowel sounds are in this name.” So I recognized as I came through, having this name my entire life up through college that the first 15 seconds of any new conversation with somebody would always be about correcting how they mispronounced my name.

So I was doing myself a favor and everybody I would meet in the future a favor if I would just pick a simpler last name. So I just picked my dad’s middle name and it’s been cake since then. I legally changed it.

You don’t have to legally change your first name to use a pseudonym, but it just became easier for me to do that before I moved out to Los Angeles and started a new life. It’s made running from the police much simpler.

**Craig:** So much simpler.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah, good point.

I have a question for you.

**John:** Alright.

**Craig:** This is coming from… do we say their names?

**John:** Yeah, we do.

**Craig:** Yeah like Shannon, we can talk about Shannons, we can say this because this is Mike Amass.

Question: “To flip the coin on the helpful Movie Money episode of our podcast, would you like to air your thoughts on the current state of self-distribution. John, I know you watch the team behind One too Many Mornings, and might still be entertaining the notion of self-distribution for future personal projects. Could you shed any light on how filmmakers like Kevin Smith and Edward Burns are enjoying total freedom, total freedom, John, to create and maybe, just maybe, might be making some decent money at it?”

**John:** Yeah, I have seen this question, I racked my brain to think of who is actually doing this now. So Kevin Smith, clearly with Red State, which is a movie he made, I think, basically on his own money. Then he famously took it to Sundance, and then obviously wasn’t going to really sell it, he was going to self-distribute it.

Edward Burns, we were on a panel with Edward Burns, weren’t we?

**Craig:** In Austin, two years ago.

**John:** I had to sit next to Edward Burns, and he’s a handsome man. You don’t feel uglier then when you are sitting next to Edward Burns.

**Craig:** He is dreamy.

**John:** He is dreamy. See, objectively dreamy, and a really nice guy. He made a movie called Nice Guy Johnny, which I saw, which was good and really, really small. It has the stakes of a postage stamp, but really charming, and sort of the way he made it at a really small budget, and made exactly the movie he wanted to make.

Then the Polish Brothers, who I was on a panel with many years ago, and they have done many and bigger movies, but they did a tiny movie called For Lovers Only, which was sort of a fantasy of the kind of movies they do. They just traveled around France and shot in black and white with this beautiful actress. It looked good. I saw the trailer, I haven’t seen the movie yet.

There are some directors who are doing this, and hopefully some of them are making money. You are sort of vertically integrating yourself, so rather than going to someone to give you money, you are raising the money yourself. Rather than going to a distributor and signing over most of your future income on something, you are doing all that work yourself.

It’s a tremendous amount of work, so a movie like The Nines, I guess we could have self-distributed it, but then you have to become a master of all these things you don’t really want to have to know about, like how you book theaters, and how you collect money from theaters, which is really hard.

Because how are you going to get the money back out of the theater? You are just counting on their goodwill to report honestly and give you the money that you are owed? The advantage a distributor has is they have the next movie. If you are not paying them for the previous one, they are not going to give you the next one. You have nothing else to pull that money out down the road.

I think iTunes is one of the better ways to think about doing it. With The Remnants, which was a web series pilot that I shot a few years ago, we got the rights back to it, and we had some discussion about doing it as a teeny, tiny feature. Who knows, at some point we might still do it. I discussed with the people at iTunes what that business model is, and what cut we get, and how we could make that all work out. Also, had a conversation with Hulu about it.

There is probably ways it could work, it’s a little bit easier if you have some name and reputation, like Kevin Smith, Edward Burns, the Polish Brothers, so you could have a little bit of leverage with the distributors, the online distributors, and that you can actually generate press. That is one of the challenges you always have with an independent film, is like how are you going to get mainstream media to pay enough attention that people are actually going to find your movie?

I would have enough of that now that I could probably do it, so it’s something I am really thinking about doing. It’s just it ends up being a tremendous amount of time and effort that may not have the best payoff and reward. You may not be able to put it in front of as many people’s eyeballs as you really hope.

**Craig:** Absolutely correct, a big, uphill battle there. I should also add, I think that when Mike suggests that Kevin Smith and Edward Burns are enjoying total freedom to create. I would argue that they have less creative freedom than Gore Verbinski had on the last Pirates movie, because the biggest restriction on creative freedom is money. When you are stuck with a micro-budget, you really are squeezed. Sometimes wonderful movies come out of that because it requires tremendous discipline. But it’s a mistake to think that there’s more creative freedom with less money. It’s just a different set of problems.

**John:** I will push back a little bit on that. I think creative freedom doesn’t mean that you get to do anything you possibly ever want. Creative freedom isn’t anything you can possibly imagine you can make. To me, creative freedom is no one is going to tell you no. With a smaller budget, even on The Nines, which wasn’t as small a budget as some of these things were, I did have a lot of creative freedom, because we were fewer people around to tell me no on things.

**Craig:** I get that.

**John:** When something wasn’t possible because we didn’t have the money, it was always, “Then how is the movie changing to accommodate our actual limitations?” I didn’t have to change anything to meet someone else’s taste.

**Craig:** You chose to make a movie that would fit within the preexisting constraints of your budget.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** That’s why, Mike uses the phrase “total freedom to create.” Really, I am just quibbling with the word total, and nothing else.

**John:** Yeah. I see your point now. Total freedom to create versus total creative freedom, slightly different things.

Let’s move on to Daniel from Oakland. He asks, “My brother claims that studios don’t like to see a film do better overseas, because they see less of a cut overall than if a film does better locally, in the US. Is there any truth to this?”

**Craig:** I don’t think so, unless a studio is splitting the domestic and foreign distribution with another entity. I don’t see why they would be particularly concerned. There are quite a few movies that do better overseas than here. In fact, this year, the best example I can think of is Kung Fu Panda 2, which underperformed at the domestic box office, but was an absolute blockbuster overseas.

Another great example is in fact the aforementioned Pirates of the Caribbean 4, which also underperformed here, but was even bigger overseas, it was unreal overseas. I think in the case of Pirates, Disney has a domestic distribution arm, and an international distribution arm, in Buena Vista Pictures International, sees a huge cut of that money. I don’t know, maybe I am wrong.

**John:** I would imagine in the past, probably, that could have been more of a case, where they had a harder time pulling the money back in from overseas markets. That is possibly like, once upon a time that was actually true, but now it’s actually not as true, because given that the bulk of big movies’ money comes from overseas, I am sure they have gotten much, much better at pulling that money back in.

I will say that psychologically, I think the executive at whatever studio in Culver City, would kind of prefer that the movie making a ton of money here, just because people pay attention to that. Feeling like you have a big hit is better than having a movie that underperforms.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s absolutely true. There is kind of a weird stigma about a movie that is soft here, but plays big overseas. It’s got almost an underlying xenophobia, like, “Your movie was for people that don’t even speak English.” [laughs] People that didn’t get the prior intent of the movie because it’s all color and noise, or something like that.

Look, there are other examples of movies that do extreme splits, pro-domestic and anti-overseas, and that’s also damaging. Talladega Nights comes to mind. I think it made $100 million here, and literally something like $12 million in the rest of the world.

**John:** Yeah, the thing was that it doesn’t translate, or it doesn’t travel. That can also be the case, and it was the knock against African-American actors for a long time, until Will Smith came along and broke all those barriers too, is that the Eddie Murphy comedies would do really well here, but overseas, people wouldn’t go see them. That seems to be something of the past now.

**Craig:** Seems like it, yeah. Here is a question for you from Tom. “A number of movies have made it to Broadway, and I understand Big Fish will as well. As the writer of a screenplay, what do you ask for to keep you in the mix should your script move on to the stage?”

**John:** Here’s the messed up thing about writing a Broadway show that is based on a movie, is the screenwriter of the movie has zero claim or stake to anything in his or her script. Just nothing, because the studio is considered the author of the screenplay, and that is one of those separated rights that we are not holding on to in the ways you might hope that we could hold on to. Separated rights, actually holds the story, that’s part of the whole mess.

The truth of Big Fish is that if Sony had wanted to make a musical of Big Fish, they could have gone to any other writer they wanted to, that writer could have taken any words from my script, and put them into the Broadway musical, and used them without paying me a cent, and without my name being anywhere on it, it is kind of messed up. With Big Fish, it was honestly me grabbing hold, and saying, “I really want to make this musical,” and having to get the rights back from Sony, and having to get Daniel Wallace’s book reattached, so that we could do it.

As the screenwriter, you have very little hold on the Broadway musical version of your movie, unless it’s an original screenplay that you have the retained story credit.

**Craig:** Yeah if it’s an original screenplay where you retain story credit, or if it’s an adaptation where the story of the movie was unique, to the extent that they awarded you Screen Story by.

**John:** In retrospect, I should have tried to get screen story credit on Big Fish, because if you actually compare the book to the movie, they are so different in so many ways that I suspect I probably could have gotten it.

**Craig:** Right, it sounds like you did a workaround anyway, so that’s good.

**John:** Yeah, next question. Adam asks, “As someone who wants to write/pitch comedies, what value do you place on being funny during meetings? I am not referring to acting out hilarious scenes/characters, but perhaps an anecdotal story or joke interspersed to help build rapport. In other words, how do you try to sell your own comedic brand with the expected level of professionalism?”

**Craig:** I don’t like this question very much. Look, here’s the thing. If you are funny, you are funny, and if you are not, you are not. This question, forgive me Adam, it sounds like the kind of question a not funny person asks, because you shouldn’t be trying or calculating any of that.

The idea of a pitch meeting is there’s two parts. There is the meet, where you are actually pitching the movie, and you are correct to suggesting that acting out “hilarious scenes” and characters is a tricky thing to do. The other part is just you, talking to the people who will employ you, and giving them a sense of the kind of person you are, and what it will be like to work with you, and what you think funny is, and the quality of your wit, or lack thereof.

You can’t calculate that, you shouldn’t even be thinking about calculating it. Just be yourself, and if you are a funny person, let that come through. If you are not, probably shouldn’t be working in comedy. Sorry, I hate to be a bummer.

**John:** [laughs] I can understand his concern, it’s that when you go in to pitch a story, and you are trying to tell a story that you think is funny, you really want to have laughter come back, but studio executives don’t laugh a lot. They are not hysterically entertained people. You will hear stories of like, “Oh my God, there was this hysterical pitch, and everyone was laughing. People were crying, they were laughing so hard.” That is more the exception than the rule. You want people at least nodding and smiling, and acknowledging, “Oh, I see why that would be funny.”

**Craig:** Yeah, the thing is I like being funny just in the regular I am myself, and let’s just chit chat and be funny. That’s great. When it comes to actually pitching a movie, typically what they will say is, “Look, we know that you are a funny writer, we have read your scripts. What we are interested in is what’s the story, what are the characters, what is the theme, what are the ideas behind it?” In that regard, it’s a little bit like pitching a drama.

You are not required to do vaudeville or standup for them, because like you said, they are frankly not that interested. It’s like you are talking to somebody who represents standup comedians. They have heard it, they get it. [laughs] Just act like you have been there.

**John:** Yeah. Good advice.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Craig, in the lead up to the show you had said that something you wanted to talk about was videogames, because you are kind of a connoisseur of videogames, especially now, it feels like everything came out at the same time.

**Craig:** It is that season. It’s the holiday season, and they dropped the big, the big, big, big ones. We had two huge ones come out within a week of each other.

**John:** You are talking about Scribblenauts for iPad, right?

**Craig:** [laughs] I am talking about Scribblenauts for iPad, which has moved $14 billion worth of app money. No, I am not talking about Scribblenauts. I am talking about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, and the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, both of which pulled in nearly Avatar-sized grosses within a week of their initial release. They are absolute monsters out there right now.

**John:** Here’s where I am aware that I don’t watch all that much real television, because I have seen enough Modern Warfare commercials and billboards and stuff that I have some sense of what it is. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you get to play Jonah Hill. So, can I play Jonah Hill and can I pull a grenade and just like sit on it?

**Craig:** I, I don’t…

**John:** Watching the commercials, that’s what I am getting is I get to be actually Jonah Hill and I could run into a line of fire if I chose to?

**Craig:** You can absolutely, yes, sit on a grenade if you want. You can sacrifice yourself. I mean…

**John:** But, can I be Jonah Hill while we are doing it?

**Craig:** You mean, actually be Jonah Hill?

**John:** I want to see Jonah.

[laughter]

**John:** Can I have Jonah Hill die frequently in front of me? That’s really my goal.

**Craig:** No. [laughs]

**John:** That’s what I feel like I have been promised in your commercials is…

**Craig:** You can’t.

**John:** …I can be like the guy from Avatar or I can be Jonah Hill.

**Craig:** You cannot be Jonah Hill. There’s only one Jonah Hill.

**John:** Because I don’t play any of the sports games but like Madden Football, you get to play like a famous athlete, right?

**Craig:** That’s right. The idea there, yes, in Modern Warfare you are playing some grizzled secret Black Ops dude.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Yes. In Skyrim you are an elf.

**John:** And in Skyrim you are an elf. So, you said you wanted to talk about that. I heard the name but it’s just like I thought it was like the new James Bond movie. I didn’t know what is Skyrim. I thought it was bizarre so I finally found the trailer. It looks great.

**Craig:** It is great. It’s pretty cool, and this is something that I have been kind of on about. I am getting a little wonky guilt here for the end of the podcast. This is something I have been talking about for literally five years. Our union…let me back up for a second and talk about what it means to be a militant. There’s this understanding that militants are the people that go out there and fight the companies hard to win gains and moderate are the people that just sort of talk and, maybe, get the crumbs off the table.

**John:** So, the moderates are the Scribblenauts and the militants are the Modern Warfare.

**Craig:** Correct, exactly. I have often been viewed as a Scribblenaut. [laughs] The truth of the matter is I think that I am, in fact, a real moderate…I am sorry, a real militant. I am a militant in the sense that if I see an opening where I think fighting will work, I want to fight. I think that the people we call militants in the union, sort of the Patrick Verone wing, are not actually militants, they are really suicide bombers because they just throw themselves at stuff that we can’t win at all.

They talk about sort of the glory of incinerating themselves for the cause. But as you and I both know, suicide bombers don’t ever achieve anything other than spraying themselves over a street.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So, here is where we have been a suicide bomber. In organizing, we have gone after such impenetrable suicide bombing targets like American Idol or feature animation. Why are those impenetrable? Because American Idol, one can make an argument that there is writing going on, but one can also make an argument that there isn’t writing going on.

It’s basically Ryan Seacrest chatting with judges and then people sing. Somebody, producers are nudging it towards narrative but it’s a fuzzy case. In animation, obviously, animation is written but there’s another union that already has jurisdiction over it. That’s IATSE, I-A-T-S-E, and the Animation Guild 839.

So, these are suicide bomb targets, pointless. What is not a suicide bomb target are videogames, particularly videogames that are made here in the United States.

There are some huge videogame companies that are not U.S. companies and we can’t really get jurisdiction over people that aren’t working here in the U.S. It’s just a federal labor law. So, Enix I think and Squaresoft and Ubisoft, these are all big overseas companies. But, ZeniMax and Bethesda, the companies that make Skyrim, that is an American company.

They are in Maryland, in fact, and Skyrim and the Elder scrolls before it, Oblivion, are the most obviously written videogames ever because they are based on quests. You meet characters. They have storylines that they present to you with dialog. Let me go one step further. The videogame contains hundreds of readable books that the videogame writers wrote. It’s so obviously written, and I have been talking about this for a while. I just feel like…

Okay, here’s what kills me: Skyrim just made, it just grossed in one week, I believe, $700 million worldwide. That’s in a week.

**John:** Yes, a lot of money.

**Craig:** A ton of money. The writers of the game have no credit protection. They have no residuals or income from reuse. I don’t know if they get healthcare. I don’t know if they get pension. Most importantly, I just don’t know who they are. I feel like that is a great target for the guild to try and organize, same thing with Infinity Ward which makes the Call of Duty series, same deal.

**John:** Yes. I can tell that, particularly the videogames, to me that feel like they are actually movies. You look at the Sony one I never forget, the Naughty Dog, one they also just released, the one that will actually play this Christmas because I have a break, Uncharted.

**Craig:** Uncharted, that is a very narrative videogame, yes.

**John:** Yes. I mean, it deliberately feels exactly like a movie. There are movie people who are writing that. So, it feels like that is the kind of situation where you should be able to get some people protected. Yes.

**Craig:** Frankly, what does it cost? We go to Bethesda. By the way, I believe Les Moonves sits on the board of ZeniMax. It’s not like we don’t have these sort of pre-existing relationships. We go to them and say, “Listen, we want to organize your shop. As is our right by federal law, we want to be able to talk to the employees and let them know about the union and have them take a vote.”

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** I mean, in the end what’s it going to cost that company? Are they really going to get a huge chunk removed from their $700 million of gross proceeds in the first week? Hell no, hell no. But, you don’t see us trying, and you don’t see us trying because we are repeatedly distracted by nonsense and suicide bomb targets. I really wish we would stop.

**John:** I am here with you.

**Craig:** We rant. I love it.

**John:** We rant. So, what is the next step? So, the next step is to find…

**Craig:** The next step would be for the guild to open its sleepy eye and say, “Okay, we are actually going to assign an organizing effort to this.” We would have to talk to the Writers Guild East and do it jointly with them, I suspect. Then the next step would be to actually reach out to those writers, visit the company, sit down, see if we can’t come to an agreement ahead of time if the writers are so interested, and help to find that process and to find some credits for them and get a contract in place.

Rather than doing it sort of game by game, Bethesda and ZeniMax and Infinity Ward are shops. They make a lot of games. They make incredibly successful games that are clearly written. So, let’s organize those shops.

**John:** Do you go in with, “This is the contract we would like to see” or do you go in with like, “We will figure this out but this is…” Basically, do you already figure out what exactly you want these people to be getting?

**Craig:** No. First, what you have to do is get the employees to essentially agree to allow the Writers Guild to become their collective bargaining agent. Once you have gotten to that point, essentially, it becomes a union shop. Then, the next step is to negotiate a contract.

**John:** How do you distinguish out between people who are doing writing work and people who are doing producing work?

**Craig:** Well, in the case of what we do, it’s very simple. The test is we create literary material. I would argue that it should be the exact same thing for these videogames. Are you putting words down on paper?

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** If you are putting words down on paper that are being used to make moving images on a screen in the case of these videogames, we clearly have the capacity to cover you and define your work. Nobody else is. It should be us.

**John:** I am for it, I am for it. Done.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** Resolved.

**Craig:** Resolved. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Mostly this podcast we are just talking about stuff. But, here, like clearly we fixed this whole system and we paid money for the guild. We paid health and pension for videogame people who wouldn’t otherwise have it.

**Craig:** Yes. I mean, I feel really good about myself right now.

**John:** You absolutely should. So, Craig, I am not going to be able to play all these videogames. So, which videogame should I play?

**Craig:** Because I know you, I am going to tell you, you should play Skyrim and you should be aware that I have just given you a small little piece of crack for free. If you like it, come back and get more.

**John:** Because you know I had a World of Warcraft problem that actually I had to like stop cold turkey.

**Craig:** Here is the thing: This has everything that World of Warcraft has in terms of…the stuff you liked about World of Warcraft is here. But, it’s not endless. Really what it is is probably 200 or 300 quest lines that crop up and interact, some of which are very involved, some of which are one offs.

So you get pulled through this thing because, essentially, it’s combining your love of videogames and, maybe, your love of fantasy with a writer’s need to know how the narrative ends. So, right now, I have, I don’t know, maybe, 15 active quests or more. It’s killing me because I wonder how they all end but I can only do one at a time.

**John:** Yes. See, I was banking my fantasy videogame jones for Diablo III which is going to be coming eventually from Blizzard.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** It’s in beta testing now. But, I would say the advantage of Skyrim…are we playing on X-Box or PS3 or what is it?

**Craig:** I am playing on the X-Box but it’s available for PC or PS3 as well.

**John:** Okay. So, the advantage to these games is that it wouldn’t be on the main computer, so therefore, I would know that I am not writing because I would know that I am not sitting on my chair at that computer.

**Craig:** Oh, yes, no question. We have a little out building on my property where it’s like a little rec roomy kind of thing that’s sort of standing.

**John:** It’s where you keep the Gimp, right?

**Craig:** It’s where I keep the Gimp, occasionally, when, yes, [laughs] when a little fly wonders into my web. I take the Gimp out and we have a party. But, it’s also where I play videogames. I told my wife and my kids, after 10:00 daddy goes away. Daddy goes to Skyrim. But my son, Jack, who is 10, it’s a great bonding experience for us. He just sits next to me and just watches and exhorts me to kill everyone. [laughs] It’s great. Sometimes I have to explain, “You know, daddy can’t kill this person. I need this person alive.”

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** He looks at me just in disgust, the way that Patrick Verone looks at me, like a Scribblenaut. [laughs]

**John:** Years from now when your son turns to horrific violence, they will try to know why. It’s like, “I sat beside my father and watched him kill and kill and kill.”

**Craig:** Kill and kill and kill. Yes. Actually, there is one of the quest lines is there is something in Skyrim called the dark brotherhood where you join this group of assassins and your job is to go out and kill people. There’s, maybe, 20 quests just for that alone. I just did one with him where I had to go to a wedding. [laughs]

I had to kill the bride while she was addressing her guests. It had to be while she was addressing them. I don’t know why and I did it, and he was so delighted and he kept sort of playacting it over and over. Like, “She was standing there and she was like, ‘Oh, thank you for coming to my wedding …’ and then ah” [makes sound] . It was great, great father-son moment.

**John:** I am sure as he related the story back to your wife she was charmed and delighted.

**Craig:** He probably understands already that she wouldn’t care. So, I don’t think he talks about Skyrim to her. I have no doubt that the other kids in his class are getting an earful. I will likely be called into the principal’s office.

**John:** Yes. But, a small price to pay for the enjoyable saving or destroying of some fantasy kingdom.

**Craig:** Yes, I get to play videogames and my son loves me, win-win.

**John:** Totally.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Win-win on the podcast. You did that, Craig.

**Craig:** Good podcast.

**John:** All right, and we will talk to you soon.

**Craig:** Thanks a lot.

**John:** Take care.

**Craig:** Bye.

« 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.