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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: 3 page challenge

Scriptnotes, Episode 531: Scene to Scene, Transcript

February 2, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/scene-to-scene).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name’s Craig Mazin.

**John August:** This is Episode 531 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we’re looking at how you move from scene to scene. That’s right, transitions. It’s a clip show where we listen back to past John and past Craig as they offer their advice, which for all we know, is better than our current advice, because we were younger then, and fresher.

**Craig Mazin:** So much younger than today.

**John August:** Now we actually got an email in from a listener recently saying like, “Oh, I went back and listened to your early episodes, expecting it to be different, that John and Craig would’ve grown and changed a lot.” She said, “No, actually, you know what? It was the same. Your microphones weren’t as good, but it was the same show,” which I was heartened by.

**Craig Mazin:** Yes, I think it might’ve been a man.

**John August:** Oh. It could’ve been either one.

**Craig Mazin:** I think based on that name I think it’s a guy, but either way, I wanted to say to that fellow that no, of course we weren’t great at that then, and we have gotten better. Maybe it’s just that we found something where we weren’t accountable to anybody at all. Sometimes the key is that if you have something where you’re completely free within it to do whatever you want, how you want to do it, without any accountability whatsoever, and no expectation or ambition or anything, then there is a purity to it, and people who are going to like that purity are going to like it. If you dig Scriptnotes Episode 500, yeah, you’ll probably like 1 through 10. If you hate Episode 500, I guarantee you’ll hate 1 through 10. We’ve said a lot.

Don’t get fooled by the way things look on the other side of stuff. Here, hopefully you just listen to me talk about how ashamed I am all the time and how I feel bad about myself, and I try and work on that really, really hard. Don’t compare yourself to anybody. Basically in your letter you said, “To be honest, I was hoping that you guys weren’t as good at the beginning. It would’ve given me hope to get better myself at my stuff.” You have plenty of hope. You’re doing a hard thing. You’re trying to do a hard thing. You’re going to move at the speed you move.

**John August:** Yeah, and I always also say at the beginning we were new to podcasting, but we weren’t necessarily new to screenwriting and offering advice to screenwriters. That was a not a new thing for us to do. It was just sticking a mic in front of us was the new aspect of it.

Let’s travel back in time and look at transitions. These are three conversations we’ve had over the years. We’re going to start with Episode 446: Back To Basics, where we talk about the origin of screenwriting, opening scenes, what a scene is, what it means, and the difference between formatting and transition versus the psychology of what a transition actually does, like how you’re moving from scene to scene versus the actual words you’re using.

In 493 on our Opening Scenes conversation, we talk about how you begin a screenplay, the process for thinking about opening scenes, the rules and expectations. We talk about Chernobyl some. It feels like a lot of what we’re talking about in this is really relevant to transitions, basically how are we going to get the story started and how are we going to get the audience moving with us into the plot.

Finally, we’re going to go back to Episode 89, which is probably, wow, eight years ago?

**Craig Mazin:** Peesh.

**John August:** Yeah. We’re looking at technical approaches to different types of transitions, so literally what are the words on a page that is signaling to the reader that this is how we are going to be moving from this scene to that scene. Literally it’s the right-hand margin stuff we’ll get into in that last
segment.

Three segments here. We’ll also put a link in the show notes to some blog posts where we talk about transitions. If you’re a Premium member stick around, because when we come back at the end, we are going to be discussing how to get out of a conversation, so it’s really the transition between I am talking with you right now and I don’t want to be talking with you any longer. We’ll be discussing how to end conversations, both in person and online.

Now let me make a transition out of this opening segment into our three pre-recorded bits. Craig, can you help me out with this transition?

**Craig Mazin:** No.

**John August:** Perfect.

All right. This is a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters, and so I thought we might actually take this time in Episode 446 to define screenwriting and what screenwriting actually is, because I don’t know if we’ve actually talked about it in actually that much depth, weirdly, over the course of this, because Craig, you did your solo episode about how to write a screenplay. That was really fundamentally 101 the things about writing a screenplay, but I wanted to do some backstory about the origin of screenwriting and how screenwriting began to what it’s become now and what those transitions were.

I have three things I want to keep in mind as we talk about what a screenwriter does and what screenwriting is, and maybe tease them apart a little bit, because I think especially newer people who are approaching screenwriting, which we have a bunch of new people listening, just because they watched Ryan Reynolds and Phoebe Waller-Bridge last week, really talk about what the screenwriter does and what screenwriting is about.

**Craig Mazin:** I hope that my understanding of it is correct. I’ll be very embarrassed if I’m wrong.

**John August:** I think you will probably be very, very correct. Let’s talk about the origin of screenwriting, because screenwriting as an art form is only about a century old, because movies are only about a century old. When the first motion picture cameras were aimed at things and it went beyond just photographing a train coming into a station, to actually trying to tell a story with a camera, at some point people recognized, oh, you know what, it would help if we wrote down the plan for what we’re going to do before we actually shot this stuff. Those initial things that would become screenplays were just a list of shots, or a plan for how you’re going to do the things. When we talk about screenwriting being like architecture, that’s what we’re getting to is that sense of like it’s a plan for the thing you’re going to make. It is a blueprint for what the ultimate finished product is going to be, which is the finished film, the thing that a person is going to watch, which is not the literary document or not the paper document that we’re starting off with. Craig, I don’t know if you’ve seen any of those first screenplays, but they don’t closely resemble what we do now.

**Craig Mazin:** No. I think that when people say a screenplay is a blueprint, I always get a little fussy about it, but in this aspect of it, that’s exactly what it is. Part of a screenplay, a screenplay is many, many things at once, one of the things a screenplay is and has always been, going back to those first ones, is essentially a business plan. It is an outline of where you need to be and how long you need to be there and what needs to be seen. There’s not a lot of art to it. It really is more of an organizational thing, and the modern counterpart to it I guess would just be sometimes a director will come in and make a little shot list for the day. That is appropriate to blueprint.

**John August:** Yeah, or agenda. It’s basically these are the steps. This is how we’re going to do it. Because it’s written on eight and a half by 11 paper and it’s done with words rather than a flowchart, it feels somewhat literary. The words you pick matter a little bit, but not a tremendous amount. It’s basically as long as you’re going to be able to communicate what your intention is to the other people who need to see this document, that’s all that really matters.

**Craig Mazin:** That tradition carries through to this day when a screenplay still uses interior, exterior. Every scene must give you blueprint information that is not literary information. There is nothing literary about exterior, house, day, rain, or whatever you say there. The literary part comes in this other stuff that started to emerge as our craft of filmmaking and writing evolved.

**John August:** Now, that evolution, I’m not enough of a student of the history of cinema to tell you exactly when the screenplay became more what we talk about today, but often you’ll hear Casablanca referenced as a turning point between this list of shots to something that’s more like a modern screenplay in the sense of it’s a document that you can read, and in reading this document, you get a sense of what the actual film is supposed to feel like. It’s not just the pure blueprint. It’s more like this gives you a sense of where you are, what’s going on. It gives you a preview of what the film is actually going to look and feel like, versus just a straightforward list of these are the things you’re seeing.

**Craig Mazin:** This is not necessarily historically … You can’t call me a professor here, by any stretch of the imagination, but my understanding when I look at the early stuff is that it was the American movie business that was very blueprint-y and shot list-y. There is a pretty famous … You’ve probably seen the silent film A Trip to the Moon.

**John August:** Oh yes, yeah.

**Craig Mazin:** Yes, remember where the moon gets shot in the eye.

**John August:** The Brothers Lumière.

**Craig Mazin:** Exactly. George Méliès. Méliès? Méliès? Méliès? If you look at the script for that, it actually feels quite modern. There is a literary aspect to it. It’s more descriptive. I think in Europe probably there was a little bit more of a literary aspect to this much earlier than there was in the United States, but eventually by the time you get to films like Casablanca you’re fully in the swing of a literary screenplay that is combining two things at once, a non-literary production plan and art.

**John August:** Now, in both the literary form and in the blueprint-y construction plan form, the fundamental unit that you come back to is the scene. Even novels have scenes, that sense of there is a moment in space and time when generally characters are saying something or doing something. It’s one carved out moment of a place and a time where things are happening. That idea of a scene you see in both the really clinical early versions of screenplays and you see them in modern screenplays. That sense of like this is a chunk of time in which these things are happening.

I want to suss out three different kinds of things we mean by scene. First is that moment of space and time where characters are doing a thing. That’s scene version A. Scene version B is the writing of that scene. By the writing I mean this is what the characters are saying and doing. It’s where we’re coming into that moment. It’s how we’re getting out of that moment. It is the words we’re using to describe the world in which the characters are happening, the actions they’re taking, basically everything we call scene description, which you compare to stage plays, which is the other natural version of this, the scene description in stage plays tends to be incredibly minimalist. It’s much more robust in screenplays, because you are trying to really visually describe this world in which the characters are inhabiting. That’s an important transition. That’s version B is really the writing.

The third version of a scene I want to distinguish between is all the formatting stuff. All the basically the grammar of screenplays that we use that make them, the conventions that make it easier for people who read a lot of screenplays to understand what’s actually happening. The same way that commas and periods become invisible to a reader, people who are used to reading screenplays, they don’t even see INT and EXT and DAYS. Your brain just skips over those things and is able to concentrate on the meat of those. All that other information is there, but it’s invisible to a person who is used to reading them. Being able to understand those conventions and use them properly really does affect how a person perceives a screenplay. That formatting, that syntax choices and all that stuff, is really a different thing I would say than the words you’re using to describe stuff. It’s really grammar versus the actual creative act of writing.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah, and that grammar is eventually going to be analyzed by a grammar specialist known as the First AD, who along with the production managers, are going to be taking those scene headings and asking, “Okay, are these scene headings accurate to what we think we’re going to be actually doing in terms of the locations we found? How can we group them together? We need to make a timeline, night, day.” All those things have huge production implications. None of them have to do specifically with art. You’re guessing at what you think the ultimate grammar will be, but then you make adjustments once you get into production. Individual first ADs will have different ways of adjusting that grammar.

You’re right that for most people reading it, those things serve weirdly as just paragraph breaks. They’re paragraph breaks, which are incredibly helpful. It’s one of the reasons why my formatting preference is to put two lines before a new scene, because the scene, the EXTERIOR or the INTERIOR, is serving as a break in the visual flow of the reading, so I make it one, because I agree with you. I think that that’s really what it’s doing. If you took out all the interiors and exteriors and just mentioned those things in action lines, the script would become a book and it would be harder to read.

**John August:** Yeah. In thinking about scenes in three different waves, so there’s the visualization, the imagination of what’s happening with those characters in space and time, that is a thing that a screenwriter does, but it’s also the kind of thing a director does. It’s a thing that other creative people can do. It’s a thing an author does, is envision people in a place and a time doing a thing or saying a thing. Directors often do that scene version A a lot. They’re really imagining what that scene is like. They’re thinking about it through their own specialties. They’re imagining it’s like, “Okay, so I’m envisioning this scene, this moment happening,” and then they’re thinking, “Okay, where would I put the camera? What are the opportunities I have here? How would I use my tool set to make this happen best? What am I going to tell the cinematographer about what I’m looking at? What am I going to tell the editor about how I imagine this being paced? What are the costumes? What are all the things that I will need to be able to describe to other people about this moment?” That’s a version of crafting the scene.

The screenwriter has to do all that stuff, but then take a second level abstraction, thinking, “Okay, having thought through all that stuff, what are the words I’m going to use to describe what’s most important about this moment? Because I could describe everything, but that would be exhausting, and it would actually hurt the process of being able to understand what’s important. How am I’m going to synthesize that down to the most important things for people to understand if they’re reading this scene about what it’s going to feel like, what’s important, what they need to focus on?”

Most of what Craig and I really are talking about on the podcast is this second level, is the B version of that scene, which is how do we find the best way to describe and tell the reader what they would be seeing if they were seated in a theater watching this on a screen, how are we going to convey that experience, what it feels like to be watching that moment on the big screen. That’s mostly what we talk about on this podcast.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah. There’s a weird kind of psychological game we’re playing with scene work, in the way that Walter Murch wrote this book about editing, I think it’s called In the Blink of an Eye, where he says we’re cutting in the pattern of people’s blinks, that we blink in normal moments. We’re kind of predictable this way. We have a rhythm. We’re editing slightly on that basis. Editing feels like music. It’s all about timing. You just know, there, cut there, that’s the spot.
It’s kind of the same thing with scenes. What you’re doing is feeling a psychological impact and then there’s a blink, a story blink, that just needs to happen. We have reached a point where something should happen and the story should blink and reset, and in a different place or a different time or with a different person, a different perspective. That to me is where the scene begins and ends.

Inside of the scene, we may have additional slug lines or scene headers, because we’re giving that blueprint information, that nonliterary blueprint information, to our production friends. For the purpose of being artistic and literary, the scene is the psychological unit. I don’t know how else to describe it other than something blinks and the story moves.

**John August:** Here’s an example. Imagine you could take a real life thing that’s happening. We’re in a room. There are people talking. Imagine we’re at a cocktail party. There’s a cocktail party happening. It’s maybe six people in this room. There’s discussions happening. We could invite three screenwriters in and have them see all of this, and then each of them goes off and writes their own version of this scene. There would be three very different scenes, because those screenwriters would be choosing to focus on different things.

Even though we all encountered the same moment, we’re writing different scenes, because we are choosing to focus on different things and we want to direct the reader’s attention to different moments. It’s what snippets of conversations we’re using. It is who we’re choosing to focus on. The same way the director is choosing where to put the camera, we are choosing where to put the reader’s attention. That is mostly what we talk about on this podcast is how as a writer you make the decisions about what you’re going to emphasize and what you’re going to ignore about a moment that is happening in front of us as an audience.

**Craig Mazin:** It’s one of the reasons I stress transitions so much. We have a podcast we’ve done about transitions. I can’t remember offhand the number, but we’ll put it in the show notes. Transitions help the audience demarcate the blink, the beginning and end of the scene, because inside of scenes, once you get away from the page and you’re just watching a television show or a movie, there is the montage effect, which is essentially, in the old sense of the word, not the, “We’re doing a montage,” but rather when you show something and then you cut to something else, we understand that time is continuing even though we have moved the camera and cut. These things are constantly happening. So how do you know when one thing begins and one thing ends? Since it’s all cut cut cut cut cut, why does one cut signal the beginning of something, and why does one cut signal the end, and why do others feel like they’re just part of a continuity? Transitions. They let you know when the scene has begun, and they let you know when it’s over.

**John August:** Absolutely. That’s a great segue to really this third version of what I’m describing. It’s this scene which is all of the formatting and the standard conventions and grammar that we’ve come to expect out of screenplays. It’s different from the transition that Craig is talking about, because Craig is really talking psychologically what are we trying to do by ending the scene there and getting to the next scene. That will also have a reflection in literally the words and how we’re formatting that moment to get us from one scene to the next scene. All the stuff that your screenwriting software does for you, that is the technical details that makes screenplays look so strange and different.

As I was reading through all these entries for the Three Page Challenge, picking them for the episode we’re recording tomorrow, I was struck by many of our listeners really get it, they know exactly what they’re doing, but some of them are actually still struggling with that third kind of scene writing, which is basically understanding how standard screenplay conventions are so helpful in letting the reader understand what’s important in this moment. Some of them are still struggling with that stuff. That’s the kind of thing I think you can actually teach and be taught. The best way to do it is to read a ton of screenplays and see just how it is, just so it becomes really natural. You read a bunch, you write a bunch to try to match up to that thing, but you will very quickly get a sense of how screenplays are formatted and how to make that feel effortless, make it feel like it’s not in your way but it’s actually helping you. What’s much harder for us to try to teach you is that second part, that part of how to very naturally convey what a moment feels like. I want to make sure we keep that distinction clear, because being able to type “cut to” and understand how to get down a page is a different thing than being able to really shape what a scene is going to feel like for the reader.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah. Literally anyone can put something into a screenplay format. It’s never been easier. saying “cut to” and then “exterior such-and-such” will make something look like a scene has ended and a new scene has begun on the page, but it actually will not translate whatsoever to the actual viewing experience. The only thing that you have in your arsenal to demarcate that for the viewer is creativity. A sense of rhythm. A sense of conclusion. A sense of propulsion. A sense of surprise. Contrast. All the things that we talk about when we think of transitions that have nothing to do with formatting, because alas, there is no sign flashing in the movie or on your television set that says, “New scene has begun.” This is the craft part. Man, if I were teaching a screenwriting class at USC or UCLA or one of those places, I think honestly I would just begin with that. I would just begin with please let’s just talk about the art of letting people know something has begun and something has ended.

**John August:** Yeah, because “cut to” is not when a scene ends. The scene ends when the scene is ending. So often you feel like, okay, that scene is over, but there’s a couple more lines. When you actually film that you’re going to realize you don’t need this extra. You recognize that that moment is over and therefore the scene should be over. It’s a hard thing to learn until you’ve gone through it.

**Craig Mazin:** That is where the talent and instinct is. Obviously experience helps as you go on, as it does with everything, but there is an innate sense that something has concluded. Even for those of us who have been doing this for a while and we’re professionals, we will often make a mistake of going a little bit too far or not far enough, and then somebody will come and say, “I feel like maybe the scene ended here.” The key is that when somebody says that, you can look at it and go, “No, it hasn’t, and here’s why,” or, “Yeah, you’re right. That’s where it ended.” There is a sense.

**John August:** Having written the Arlo Finch books, one of the great advantages to traditional literary fiction is that if you’re lucky, you have a publisher, and that publisher provides an editor, who is going through that work and doing some of this actual checking with you. Whereas I might send Craig a script and he can say like, “Oh, I think your scene really ended here,” the editor’s job is much more clinical, saying, “Okay, now I’m … ” She’s actually cutting some stuff, saying, “No, you’re done here.” Sometimes you’ll get to a line editor or a copy editor who is going through and actually fixing your mistakes.

Screenwriters generally don’t have anybody like that, so we are responsible for doing all of that ourselves. I do sometimes wonder if sometimes there are people who are really pretty good at that stage A of writing a scene and stage B of writing a scene, but are really kind of terrible at stage three, that stage C of writing a scene and doing the actual making it work right as a screenplay kind of thing, would just be so helped out by having someone who could just go through and make it read better, make it read more conventionally on the page, so that we can really see what the intention is, versus being hung up on the strange mistakes they’re making.

**Craig Mazin:** I was a guest for a webinar, a Zoominar. A Zoominar through Princeton University. I did it yesterday. They open it up to members of that community. I don’t know, there was 100 people or something like that watching, which is kind of fun to see all the little Zoom faces. Someone asked a question and it essentially went to this, which was, when you look at how screenplays work as opposed to a novel, there are so many other things that you have to be thinking about. In a novel you’re just thinking about what people are saying and doing and thinking. In a screenplay you’re managing all this other stuff, like time and the camera and the visual space and how it will be structured and when things move from one place to another. Unfortunately, that’s true. If you want to be a good screenwriter, you’re going to have to be a little bit of a Swiss Army knife. It’s very hard to be a good screenwriter but only be good at one thing.

Every now and then you’ll hear somebody say, “Oh, we’re bringing them in, but they’re doing a character pass.” I’m like, what the hell does that mean? What’s the difference between character and story? They’re exactly the same thing to me. They’re interwoven. I don’t know how to separate these things. Or sometimes they’ll say, “We’re bringing somebody in to do a comedy pass.” Okay, so is that just like somebody’s going to stop in the middle of the movie and do some standup? The comedy has to come out of who they are and what the situations are. We have to do all of it at the same time, which is why it’s so hard. It’s really, really hard. There are, I don’t know, 4,000 times as many successful novelists as there are screenwriters.

**John August:** That is true. What I will say though about the Princeton question is the things that student was asking about, like, oh, you have to do all these other things, those become really automatic and much simpler with experience, so you stop having to worry about them so much. The same way like once you really learn how to use a semicolon, you can just use a semicolon. A lot of the detritus and the weird things about our modern screenplay format, once you get used to it, you stop thinking about it, it becomes less of an obstacle. I’m never, as a screenwriter, frustrated by like, “Oh, I don’t know how I’m going to do this in a screenplay format.” It just becomes really straightforward after a time.

**Craig Mazin:** It does take time, but eventually … It’s like touch typing. I don’t think about where the W is. My finger just goes there.

**John August:** What we can do is talk about really specific crafty things, which I feel like you and I are much better in our element to discuss. This actually comes from a question that Martin in Sandringham, Australia wrote in to ask. “I’m curious about the process to decide on the beginning point of your screenplays. Have you noticed a pattern of thinking that you tend to follow when choosing that first line of the script to be in the story, or is it purely driven by the unique nature of the story that you’re telling?”

Craig, it occurs to me that often we do a Three Page Challenge, and we’re looking at the first three pages of a script, so we’re really looking at these opening scenes, and yet because we’re only looking at that scene, we don’t really have a sense of what that scene is doing for the telling of the rest of the movie. We’re really just focused on what is the experience reading these scenes, what are the words on the page, but not what is that scene doing to establish the bigger picture of the movie. I thought today we’d spend some time really looking at opening scenes and our process as we go into thinking about an opening scene for a movie, or writing one.

**Craig Mazin:** It’s a great question, Martin. It I think has changed over time stylistically, which is no surprise. When we were kids and we saw movies from 30 years earlier, meaning the ’50s, the opening scenes seemed a lot different than the opening scenes we were used to. We’re sitting at home watching a VHS tape of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and we see how that opening goes. Then maybe dad shows us a movie from 1955 and it’s much slower and more expository in a flat sort of way. Perhaps there’s jaunty music happening or sweeping violins. These days as time has gone on it seems like opening scenes more and more are about a strange kind of disorientation, a giving to you of a puzzle that the implied contract is this will all make sense. I think of maybe the most influential opening sequence or scene in recent television history was the opening sequence of Breaking Bad, which was designed specifically to be what the hell is going on? What is that? Why are there pants there? Why is there an RV? What is happening? Why are there bullet holes? Then the puzzle gets solved.

**John August:** I like that you’re bringing up the change from earlier movies to present day movies in how openings work, because I think you could make the same observation about how teasers and trailers for movies from a previous time worked versus how they work now. You look at those old trailers and you’re like, “Oh my god, this is just so boring. This is not selling me on the movie at all.” In many ways we now look for these opening scenes and opening sequences to really be like a trailer for the movie you’re about to see. They’re really setting stuff up and getting you excited to watch this movie you’re about to watch and to reward you for like, thank you for sitting down in your seat and giving me your attention, because this is what’s going to happen.

Let’s maybe start by talking about what are the story elements that need to happen in these opening scenes or opening sequences, they don’t have to happen, but tend to happen in these opening sequences. What are we trying to do story-wise, plot-wise, or character-wise in these scenes?

**Craig Mazin:** You have choices. You don’t actually have to do anything. Sometimes the opening is just about meeting a person. You are accentuating the lack of story. They’re happy. They’re carefree. Everything’s fine. I agree with you. More and more there is a kind of trailerification of the opening of a movie or a television show. There is the indication of a thing, and it’s often a thing that the characters don’t even see, or if they do see it, they’re looking at it from a different time, this is later, or this is earlier, whatever it is, but there is an indication of something, that there is a crack in reality that needs to be healed somehow.

**John August:** Yeah. From a story perspective you’re generally meeting characters. If you’re not meeting your central character, you’re meeting another character who is important or a character who represents an important part of the story. In that opening scene you might be meeting a character who ends up dying at the end of that scene or sequence, but it’s setting up an important thing about what’s going to happen in the course of your story, the course of your movie. You’re hopefully learning about the tone of this piece and what it feels like to be watching this movie, the setting of this world, how the movie kind of works, and some of the rules of this world. If you’re in a fantasy universe, is there magic, how does gravity work, what are the edges of what this kind of movie can be, because in that opening scene you want to have a sense of like this is the general kind of movie that we’re watching, so that you can benefit from all the expectations that an audience brings into that, because of the genre, because of the type of movie that you’re setting up.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah. I think about openings that have always stuck with me as being confusing and challenging, which I’ve always loved. I often look at the very curious opening to Blade Runner, which was not the original opening that they had planned, but it’s the opening they ended up with. Neither of the characters in that scene are main characters. There is an unknown investigator, and there is a replicant who we don’t know is a replicant. He’s not the important one. He’s not the head villain. He’s a henchman, essentially. You have no idea what the hell is going on. There’s one man in a very strange device that might be futuristic or antique, asking strange questions of this guy and seemingly zeroing in on something important. Then the man, feeling somewhat trapped by the series of very abstract questions, kills the investigator.

What happens there is a challenge to you to try and keep up, and a promise that it will make sense later. In addition, I know that this world looks a certain way. I know people are going to dress a certain way. I also know that it is going to expect some things of me. It’s good if the first scene gives the audience a difficulty level. It doesn’t have to be high difficulty. Sometimes your first scene says this is going to be an easy play. Let people know what the difficulty is with that first scene.

**John August:** As you’re talking about that, I’m now recalling that scene. It works really well and it’s setting up that this is a mystery story, that there’s going to be questions of identity and existential issues here. Even though you don’t know that it’s necessarily a science-fiction world it’s a pretty grounded science-fiction, if it is a science-fiction world, so all these things are really important.
Now Craig, an experience I’ve had sometimes reading a friend’s script or someone I’m working with’s script is that I will really enjoy the movie that they’ve written, but I’ll come back and say, “This is not your first scene. You have written a first scene that does not actually match your movie and does not actually help your movie.” It’s a weird thing to run into, but I often find that some scripts I really like, they just don’t start right, they start on the wrong beat, or as you dig deeper, you find that the writer wrote that scene first, but then they kind of wrote a different movie, and they need to write a new first scene that actually helps set up the movie they actually really wrote. Is that a common experience you’ve had?

**Craig Mazin:** I’ve noticed this. I think sometimes it’s hard to hit that mark, because nothing else has been written yet, so it’s your first swing. Sometimes the first scene suffers from a sense of, oh, you’ve been thinking about this as a short film for about seven years and you finally got the nerve worked up to finish it, but the problem is this thing feels like it’s a seven-year-long thoughtful short film, and then the rest of it is just a movie. Sometimes it’s the opposite. Sometimes there’s a sense that the opening is fine, but it is not special. The opening is our chance to be brave. I think that we have two moments in movies, or in any particular episode of television, where the audience will forgive us a lot. It’s at the very beginning and it’s at the very end. In the middle you’ve got to stay in between the lines on the road, but in the beginning and the end you get to have fun.

**John August:** Let’s talk about why you have that special relationship with the audience at the start, because they’ve deliberately sat down to watch the thing that you’ve created. If they’re going into a movie theater to watch it there, they’ve put forth a lot of effort. They bought a ticket. They’ve driven themselves to that theater. They’re going to probably watch your whole movie, whether they love it or they don’t love it. In those first minutes, they really, really, really want to love what you’re giving them. Their guards are down. In TV they could flip away more easily, so there’s some issues there, but their expectations are very malleable at that start. You really can take them anywhere. You get a lot of things for free. They come in with a bit of trust. If you can honor that trust and honor that expectation and get them to keep trusting you, they’re going to go on your story. If you don’t set that hook well, they may just wander off and they may never really fully engage with the story you’re trying to tell.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah. They’re hungry at the beginning. They’re hungry. Don’t just immediately shove all the food down their throat. You can have some fun here. You know that they want to feel that anticipation. When you go to a concert and there’s the opening act, and then they’re done and they leave, and then the PA system is playing just songs and you’re waiting, and then the lights go down. It’s not like the lights go down and then the band comes out, “Here we are! Let’s go!” and then they immediately start a song. There’s usually some sort of wah.

They get you ready. That can go on for a while, because everybody knows, oh my god it’s happening. Let it be happening, don’t let it just happen, if that makes sense.

**John August:** Yeah. Let’s talk about some of our own writing and our own opening scenes and what our experience was for this. I’m going back, thinking back to Chernobyl. Chernobyl, if I recall correctly, opens with an old woman and a cow.

**Craig Mazin:** That is how Episode Four or Three opens.

**John August:** That’s right. It was later on. It’s not the very first image of it. What is the first image of the first episode?

**Craig Mazin:** The first image of the first episode is a couch with an afghan type thing of a deer, and we hear a man talking. We actually hear his voice before we ever see anything.

**John August:** Yeah. We don’t realize at the time it’s going to be a Stuart Special, that we are setting up a thing, the past, and that we’re going to be jumping back and forth. I think the reason why I was remembering that cow scene is that it’s an example of we don’t have context for who these characters are, why what’s happening is happening. Are these characters going to be important? No, not really. You were just setting up the question of that episode and that world and what kind of story this episode is going to be. I thought it just worked really well.

**Craig Mazin:** Thank you. Every episode needs its own beginning. I’m pretty sure that’s beginning of Episode Four. It’s sad that it’s all mushing together now. That was designed to be a bit confusing, because we don’t know what exactly this guy is doing there, and we’re not sure what his orders are, and we definitely aren’t sure what her deal is, and we don’t know he’s just standing there, and so this goes on. Then at the end of it we know. We know a lot. That is a standalone intro, which we didn’t do much of, and generally I don’t. Sometimes it’s okay to make this opening its own thing that announces something about the world, and then we catch up to the people that we know and care about. We think, oh, do they know that they’re in a world where that other thing is happening? Certainly one way to go.

**John August:** Completely analogous situation is the opening of the Charlie’s Angels movie. Of course, again, you’re establishing a place and a time and a world, except that it’s in a very candy-colored … We’re in a plane and we see all these characters. We see LL Cool J is the first recognizable star that we see. There’s clearly some sort of heist thing happening. It’s only as the sequence plays on that we realize, oh, the Angels were actually part of this the entire time and this is this elaborate sequence to get this guy, this terrorist off this plane before he does something dastardly. That sequence was important to establish the tone and feeling of this movie and what the rules are of this movie and the heightened gravity-optional nature of this movie and what it’s going to feel like to watch this movie. Nothing that actually happens in that becomes important for the plot. It’s just introducing you to who the Angels are in a very general sense, the fact that they could go into slow motion at any point if it’s glamorous, and just how it feels. It was one of the only sequences that made it all the way through from very early, before I came onboard to the movie, through to the end, because it just felt like a good, goofy, fun start to this franchise.

**Craig Mazin:** With a punchline. I always feel like your openings need punchlines. It’s weird to say, okay, the punchline of the opening of the first episode of Chernobyl is a man hangs himself, but that’s the punchline in the sense of there’s a surprise end. Similarly, the old woman and the cow, you’re pretty sure that soldier is going to shoot her and he doesn’t shoot her. He shoots the cow. Punchline. You need to land something surprising. If you can, then the additional benefit you get from your opening is you’re putting the audience on alert that you are one step ahead of them so far. This is a good thing. Now they’re leaning in. They’re trying to see what comes next, but also they are aware that you’re not just going to feed them straight up stuff, which is good.

**John August:** The most difficult opening sequence I ever did was Big Fish. I’m trying to establish so many things. I’m establishing two different worlds, a real world and a story world, that there are two protagonists, and that both of them have storytelling power. Getting through those first eight pages of Big Fish and setting up the storytelling dynamic of Big Fish was really, really tough, yet crucial. That was the case where if I didn’t have that opening sequence, the movie just couldn’t have worked, because you wouldn’t know what to follow and what to pay attention to.

**Craig Mazin:** This is kind of high anxiety time. I like that you care. I think sometimes when I read these scripts, and we’ve said I think the word precious real estate about, or phrase, a thousand times, you need to nail it. You’ve got to make that opening fascinating so that the audience says, “I will keep watching.” If it’s just kind of meh, then you could’ve done anything there. The moment you have an opening, you have limited what can come next. There’s a narrow possibility for what comes next.

**John August:** You build a funnel.

**Craig Mazin:** You make a funnel, a logical funnel, but not in the beginning. In the beginning there’s no funnel. You can do anything. If you don’t do anything interesting I don’t see why people would think, “This will get better.” It won’t.

**John August:** No. Weirdly, it is probably the scene or sequence that as writers we spend the most time looking at, just because by nature we’re going to end up rereading it and tweaking it a zillion times. I do wonder if sometimes, let’s just talk process here, at what point do you figure out that opening scene versus figuring out everything else in your story? Sometimes I think the best approach would be to figure out where your story overall wants to go before you write that opening scene, because so often you can be trapped in that opening scene and love that opening scene, but it’s not actually doing the best job possible establishing the rest of the things you want to do in your story.

**Craig Mazin:** 100%. If you do know what your end is, it would be lovely if you had that in mind when you wrote your beginning. Certainly I did when I did Chernobyl, because it works like Pink Floyd’s The Wall album. It begins with, I think it’s maybe David Gilmore saying, “Where we came in,” and then the song starts and then that album happens, and at the very end you hear him say, “Isn’t this where?” You go, “Ah, aha!” in a very Pink Floyd cool way. I see what you did there, Pink Floyd. I like that. I like the sense that you catch up and you complete the circle. It doesn’t have to be temporal like that. It can just be commentary. It can be somebody’s face ending in a similar position to how it began.

Here’s an example. Social Network. Opening scene, fantastic, and down to nothing but dialogue and performance, two people sitting and talking. That’s it. Excellently written and excellently performed and excellently shot. At the very, very end of the movie, he goes back to looking at that girl’s profile on Facebook. She is not mentioned or referred to at any other time. It’s just the beginning and then the end, and you go, “Oh man, this guy.” That’s how you can think about these things. The beginning is the end. The end is the beginning. Know them both. It will help you define that opening scene much, much more sharply.

**John August:** Cool. Now as we look at Three Page Challenges going forward, let’s also try to remember to ask that question in terms of like what movie do we think this opening scene is setting up, because that’s really a fundamental question. We’ve talked so much about how those first three pages, that first opening scene is so crucial to getting people to read more of your script, but let’s also be thinking about what movie we think it’s actually establishing because we have strong expectations off the start of that. Just a note for ourselves. We will start, try to think about how those opening scenes are setting our expectation for the rest of the movie that we’re not reading.

Let’s talk about transitions, because it’s an important part of screenwriting that we really haven’t touched on so much over our 88 episodes.

**Craig Mazin:** One thing that we should probably say right off the bat is that there are people out there in the screenwriting advice world who spread this nonsense that writers shouldn’t direct on the page, “Don’t tell the director what to do.” Oh, please! We’re not selling screenplays to directors. Directors aren’t hiring us to write. We’re writing screenplays for people to read, so that they can see a movie. Part of our intention when we write screenplays is to show what the movie should look like. The director doesn’t have to do what you say on the page, but you know what? I find that they tend to appreciate that you’ve written with transitions in mind, because it’s really important to them. Frankly, if you don’t write with transitions in mind, some directors aren’t going to notice and they’re just going to shoot what you wrote and then it won’t connect. Transitions are a super important part of moving from one scene to the next so you don’t feel like you’re just dragging your feet through a swamp of story, but rather being propelled forward through it.

**John August:** Let’s clarify some terms. There’s two things we mean when we talk about transitions. One is literally just the all uppercase on the right hand margin of the page, CUT TO or TRANSITION TO or FADE TO or CROSS-FADE TO. That is the element of transition. That is a physical thing that exists in the syntax of screenwriting. We’re only half talking about that. That’s a way of indicating that you are moving to something new. Most modern screenplays don’t use CUT TOs after every scene. That’s a thing that you were originally taught to do. You can tell first-time screenwriters because they will always use a CUT TO. In most cases you won’t really use a CUT TO. In personal life, I only use CUT TO if I have to really show that it’s a hard cut from something to another thing, to really show that I’m breaking time and space to go to this next thing. Usually you won’t do that. Usually what you’ll do is … You want a scene to flow into the next scene. That’s really what I think we should talk about today is how do you get that feeling of we’re in this scene, and now we’re moving into the next scene, and there’s a reason why we left that scene at this moment, why we’re coming into this scene at this moment.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah. This is a very nuts and bolts craft thing. They’re techniques. I wrote down a few techniques, which I’ll run through, and you tell me what you think.

**John August:** Great.

**Craig Mazin:** The first and the easiest one is size. A size transition is to go from a very tight shot to a super wide shot, or to go from a very wide shot to a super close shot. Sometimes you can even be in a medium shot where two people are talking, and then the next thing you see is a close-up of a watch, and then we’re into a scene where somebody is checking the time. Just using the juxtaposition of size in and of itself helps feel like things are happening and they’re connected in their own way.

**John August:** Let’s talk about what that actually looks like on the page, because you’re not describing every shot in a movie, obviously. If you were in a dialogue situation where it was two characters talking, and they’d been talking for awhile, the assumption is that you are going to get into some fairly close coverage there. If it’s just it’s about those two people, then if your next shot is described as a giant panorama of something something something, that is a big size transition. Similarly, if you were to cut to the close-up of the watch, or some fine little detailed thing, then we’d see, okay, that’s a huge size transition. Even if you’re not describing what that shot was on the outside, we have a sense of relative scales there. You don’t have to necessarily draw our attention to it, because we’ll notice that something different has happened.

**Craig Mazin:** It will help your reader see your movie instead of read it. It’s just real simple things like that. Another simple one is music or sound. There’s nothing wrong with calling out a piece of music. It doesn’t have to even be a specific song. You may just say, okay, like we’re looking at two cops and they’re in the break room, they’re chitchatting, and then over the sound of hip-hop we are, and now we’re South Central LA, rolling down Crenshaw, just to help the reader understand there’s a connection here. Similarly, you can use sounds. Two people are talking quietly about what needs to happen, and the next thing we hear is a siren. By the way, you can pre-lap that audio, or you can have it just be a hard cut. Something that jolts us. In a weird way, the funny thing about transitions is they’re almost anti-transitional at times, because the point is you want people to understand I’m in a new place at a new time. If it all just flows together like mush, it’s almost too transitional.

**John August:** Absolutely. There are times where we want that really smooth, legato flow from one thing to the next thing, and there’s times where you want big, giant, abrupt things, like that cliché flashbulb, to tell us we are at a new place at a new time, and there’s brand new information going to be coming your way.

**Craig Mazin:** Exactly. One cool thing you can do, I wouldn’t overdo it, but it’s fun here and there, is what I call a misdirect transition. A guy says, “They’ll never see us coming,” or whatever, and he’s got a gun. We go to a close-up, bullets going into the gun. Pull back to reveal, interior, it’s another character loading a gun.

**John August:** Exactly.

**Craig Mazin:** Little tricks, basically.

**John August:** Yeah. Again, that’s a thing where if you did that three times in a movie, you’d be golden. If you did that 10 times in a movie, we would want to strangle you.

**Craig Mazin:** Probably, unless it was just like everything was so clever and it’s like a, I don’t know, a Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels kind of movie or something.

**John August:** Yeah. I was going to say the Asian action films might do that more often. Yeah, if that’s your style, then it’s going to work, but otherwise it’s going to probably feel too much. A similar related thing is Archer does these amazing transitions from scene to scene where a character will, they’ll pre-lap the character. They will pull a line of dialogue up above the cut, that seems to be about the scene that you’re in, but it’s actually about a completely different moment that’s happening on the other side of the scene. It’s very clever how they do it. That’s a way of misdirecting you comedically from what you thought you were talking about to something completely different.

**Craig Mazin:** Exactly. Exactly. I suppose the most conventional transition is the pre-lapped audio. Two people say, “That didn’t go very well.” The next shot is a courthouse. Over the courthouse we see, “Everyone please come to order.” It’s the most standard TV-ish thing, but it helps you move at least inside and outside in ways that are not so clunky. Another tricky dialogue method is the question-and-answer transition.

**John August:** Exactly.

**Craig Mazin:** Where someone will say, “Someone isn’t telling us the truth,” and the next shot is a woman smiling. It doesn’t even have to be a dialogue answer, in other words, but just that the transition itself is giving us information.

**John August:** That’s very much a TV procedural kind of thing. That’s a thing you would see in Law & Order where the, “We need to find a witness who can,” and then the next shot is going to be the witness who can do that, or like, “This is the question we need to have answered.” You ask a question on one side of the cut and you come to a possible answer on the other side of the cut.

**Craig Mazin:** Right. “Does anyone know where Luke is?” Cut. A guy on a boat, drunk.

**John August:** In a very general sense, what you’re trying to do as you end a scene is you’re trying to put the reader’s head, and really the viewer’s head, in a place where they have a certain image in their head, and so when you come to the far side of that cut, that is changed or that is addressed in some meaningful way. Thematic cuts are another common way of doing this. A classic is Lawrence of Arabia, the match that transitions to the sunset. That is a fire. There’s fire on both sides of the cut. You’re thinking fire, and then you see this giant image of a fiery sun. That is a natural transition. Sometimes you’ll do that with imagery. Sometimes you’ll do that with a word that matches. Sometimes you’ll do it with a question that seems to be answered on the far side. Those are natural ways to get people across the bridge there.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah. The ones we’ve gone through here are very rudimentary. They’re generic, because we’re discussing them in generic terms. Find your own and find ones that are meaningful to you and your story, but really do make sure as you’re writing that you’re not just bone-on-bone here, that there’s something that helps move us through, little tiny things. It makes an enormous difference. It really, really does. Frankly, it puts you in greater control over the movie that will eventually exist.

**John August:** I would agree. Another thing I would stress is that you probably want to save your powder a bit, and use those big transitional moments for big transitional moments. Don’t paint a big, giant landscape of something if it’s not an important moment that we’re going to something new. Don’t always give us those big transitions. Some things should be straight, simple cuts, where we’re just getting from one thing to the next, so that when we do the bigger thing, we as the reader will notice, okay, something big and different has changed here.

When you’re reading through scripts, after awhile … The first couple scripts you read, you probably read every word, because it’s all a new form to you, but after you’ve read like 30 scripts, you recognize that you stop actually reading the INT/EXT lines basically. They just skip past you. You can sometimes jump back to them if you’re curious, but you’re really just looking for the flow of things, and so most times you’re just jumping over that. You don’t really know or care where you are. Even though we tell people to be very specific in those things and give us those details, a lot of times people aren’t going to read those. They’re just going to read the first line of action that happens after the scene header, if you’re lucky. Save those bigger moments for the bigger moments that you really need that reader to stop and slow down and pay attention to the fact that we are in a new place, a new time, this is a new section of the movie.

**Craig Mazin:** Well said. Well said.

**John August:** Great.

All right, we are back in the present, which in our case is 2021, but by the time you’re listening to this it’s 2022. It’s time for our One Cool Things.

Craig forgot to do a One Cool Thing. He forgot to have a One Cool Thing, so he’s hopping on a phone call while Megana and I are going to do our One Cool Things.

My One Cool Thing is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. I love me a good fallacy. I think I’d heard of this fallacy, but never had it described to me before. Basically it’s why, when you have a whole bunch of data and you are looking for patterns in the data, you can find things that really aren’t there. The actual description of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is like, “Oh wow, look, this person hits the bullseye every time.” If you’re shooting at a barn, basically if you shoot first and then paint the target afterwards, you’re going to find patterns there that aren’t really there. I just really like that as an idea.

It reminded me of, this is something that Megana knows what I’m talking about, but I’m going to be a little vague here, I went in to pitch a project at a studio or a streamer, and they said, “Oh, we decided looking at the data we no longer do that genre of project, because it’s not successful.” I’m 100% convinced it’s really a Texas sharpshooter fallacy, that basically they looked at all their data and said, “Oh, this thing doesn’t work for us,” but I think they’re really after the fact trying to find a pattern for a couple failures that really don’t make sense.

**Megana Rao:** Just so I’m clear, because I haven’t heard of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, so it’s that you paint the target after you already have …

**John August:** Yeah, basically you’ve taken all the shots. Basically you have all the data there, and then you are trying to paint the target after the fact. You’re basically picking a small subset of the data to describe what the bigger thing is, and you’re saying, “Oh, this is the finding, the conclusion we’ve had,” but you didn’t actually have a hypothesis, a thesis going into it, so you weren’t really looking for anything. You noticed something and said, “This must be significant.” It’s a problem whenever you have a large big batch of data, it’s very likely that you’re going to some subset of the data that indicates a certain thing, but if you weren’t actually systematically looking for that thing, it’s not probably a valid result.

**Megana Rao:** It’s how you guys talk about screenwriting structure, screenwriting books.

**John August:** Oh yeah, absolutely, because if you’re looking at all these things and you’re trying to say, “These are the patterns that are in there,” it’s like, are they really the patterns that are in there or are you basically just deciding that’s a thing you’re going to look for, describe being in there, but that was never the intention, that was never the actual goal behind it. When this studio or streamer says, “Oh, this genre does not perform well for us,” it’s like, okay, did you go through and systematically say, “Okay, let’s take a look at all of the examples of this genre we’ve ever done,” and then seeing how they performed, or you’re just saying, “Of the five biggest disappointments of movies we’ve made in the last couple years, were they in the genre?” You’re being choosy with what data you’re letting in and letting out of that criteria.

**Megana Rao:** Very cool.

**John August:** Now since Craig doesn’t have a One Cool Thing, Megana, can you pinch hit for him?

**Megana Rao:** Yes. In our last bonus segment where we talked about New Years Resolutions, I talked about data privacy and data rights and trying to be more digitally hygienic. My One Cool Thing is this movie Ron’s Gone Wrong, which is delightful and funny and has a lot of themes about data privacy that I think are accessible and rendered in a family-fun way.

**John August:** Cool. I saw that mostly [inaudible 00:57:26] bus board advertisements. I never actually saw a trailer for it. When I actually looked at the trailer for it, it looks delightful and definitely worth checking out. Now I see it’s on all the … I got a screener for it, so I know that they’re going for the typical awards for it.

**Megana Rao:** Yeah. It felt really fresh. Zach Galifianakis voices the robot, and he has this really flat affect that is so funny. I was just watching it by myself and chortling, laughing, chuckling. It’s a fun movie.

**John August:** Cool. Ron’s Gone Wrong.

**Megana Rao:** Yep, Ron’s Gone Wrong. I think it’s on Disney Plus and some other places too.

**John August:** Fantastic. That was our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, with one segment produced by Stuart Friedel, edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig Mazin:** Of course.

**John August:** Our outro’s by Henry Adler. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust. We have T-shirts and hoodies and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for the episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net. You’ll get all the back episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on getting out of a conversation. Craig and Megana, thank you so much.

**Craig Mazin:** Thank you guys.

**Megana Rao:** Thank you.

**John August:** All right, Craig, thinking back to times when you were at a party with actual people around you … Actually that last time I think I saw you in a party situation was at a fundraiser for Mark Kelly, who was running at that time for Senate in Arizona. That was a party filled with people I knew and some people I was just getting to know, but it was a lot of small conversations, and I needed to get into and out of those conversations. Is that an experience you recall from that night?

**Craig Mazin:** Sure. That’s a pretty common thing. You’re at a party and you start talking to people, and then sometimes it gets boring or it gets awkward or you run out of things to say. I try the best I can to not think about who else I should be talking to. I try as best I can to be as present as possible for the person I’m talking to, no matter who they are, because the notion of, “Oh I should be talking to that person,” or, “That person would be more fun to talk to,” oftentimes turns into utter disappointment anyway. My general rule is if I’m enjoying a conversation with somebody, whether it’s the most important person at the party or a waiter, I’m going to keep talking to them because it’s rare enough to enjoy a conversation.

If things are going a bit boring or slow or sluggish and it seems like the other person doesn’t feel the same, or maybe does, either way, that’s a great time to just simply say, “You know what? I’m going to go grab myself a drink, but I’ll be back around,” or I’ll say, “I’m going to run to the restroom,” or I’ll say, “I just got to go find my wife.” That’s always a good thing if your spouse, partner is there, or I’ll somebody and be like, “Oh my gosh, I promised that person I would catch up with them. I do have to, but this was so much fun talking to you.” I’ll say something like that. Of all the things I have shame on, and there are so many, that’s not one of them, and I try not to calculate how to have conversations at parties.

**John August:** I would say I’ve gotten much better at this over the years and I’ve done all the techniques that you described, and certainly having someone that you can use an excuse to go on to the next thing is great. The other technique is the handoff, which is basically someone who’s passed, who you’ve already had a conversation with or you know, you can say, “Oh hey, have you met Bill?” Then you introduce the two of them and then you can make your exit out of there. That can be a very useful way out of it. I will say this, honestly doing a lot of the WGA stuff where I’d be in these rooms where I’d have to have 50 conversations over the course of an evening, I got much better at basically being very present in a conversation and giving 100% full attention. It was clear I’d addressed that issue. I could just really make a clean exit, like, “It was great talking with you. Thanks for coming out,” and move on to the next thing. That’s more of a work function than a social function. It feels honest that I’m not looking for an excuse and basically saying, “This was great. I value our conversation. Now I’m taking two steps over this direction.”

**Megana Rao:** Are you guys sure that you want to be giving away all of your secrets for-

**Craig Mazin:** It’s not really a secret. I’ll tell people. I’m just like, “Yeah.” Look, it’s not like if I say I have to go to the bathroom at a party, I don’t want people to think, “Oh, he hates me now.” Sometimes I really have to pee. If they don’t see me go, if I don’t leave and go to the … By the way, when I say I have to go to the bathroom, I always go. I don’t not go. That would be horrible.

**John August:** Yeah, even if it’s just to shut the door and check his phone for a few minutes, he will go to the bathroom.

**Craig Mazin:** By the way, I’ll do that sometimes anyway. When I’m at a party, at some point I’ll hit a little bit of an overload. I’ll go to the restroom, close the door. It’s like when I’m on a plane. Sometimes I’ll do that, just to be alone. Just for one lovely minute I’m alone. It’s so nice. I try and be as honest as I can. When there are situations like when we would do live shows, after the show is over, there’d be a lineup of people that want to talk to us. They all have comments or questions, or sometimes they want a selfie or whatever it is. We’ll do those things, and I have no problem at some point saying, “I want to answer some of their questions too, but thank you for coming up. I really appreciate it,” so that I can just say the truth, which is I have a limited amount of time and I have to talk to these people too. The same thing would happen if I were on a panel at the Writers Guild, which occasionally I have done. Same deal. Afterwards you talk to people. At large parties, honestly I have no problem, if I get cornered by somebody and they’re awesome, I’ll talk to them all night. I don’t care. All night. I do not care. I have no FOMO when it comes to party conversations. 99% of them are just air.
What about you, Megana? It sounds like you don’t want to give away your secrets, but how do you handle let’s just say the mixing, the mixing around?

**Megana Rao:** Yeah, I think the same bathroom, drink technique. What I’m more curious to hear about is, I don’t want to shame anyone else or give away too many details, but the situation if you’re at a dinner party or a place where you’re more fixed, and the conversation is just unbearably boring, like you’re hearing about somebody’s pandemic hobbies that are just … I’m sorry, I don’t want to hear about anybody making sourdough starter. I don’t care. I have no interest in it. How do I transition out of that conversation where I can’t easily move around?

**John August:** It’s tough when you’re locked in place and you didn’t actually have a choice or you just made a wrong choice about who you sat down next to. It’s always tough, because you don’t know if it’s the kind of situation where there’s going to be one conversation for the table or if it’s going to be like there’s a conversation on your left and a conversation on your right, and if you turn to your left, then you’re shutting out the person on your right. It’s tough. I find myself trying to ask a question that will just get us off the horrible track, if possible.

**Craig Mazin:** Some people are nothing but horrible track generators. It doesn’t matter what you say to them. They will ruin everything with their monotonous, banal point of view, their rambling stories that go nowhere. This is why if there’s something where I’m fixed in position, a dinner party for example, I need to know that I know enough people there where I can’t get stuck alone with somebody that’s not doing it for me. Ideally there’s somebody I know will sit next to me. You have to protect yourself going into those situations. If you are single, you still need a friend. That friend can be somebody that you’re interested in. It can be somebody that’s just friend friend. It doesn’t matter. You need somebody you can anchor yourself to, who can help you and rescue you. Also if I get invited to a dinner party and I get stuck next to a super boring person, that goes into my ledger, and I’m not going back there ever again. Life is too short.

By the way, I will also just leave. I’ll leave. I don’t care. I’ll leave, because here’s the thing, everybody’s got limited time. I’m not saying because we’re all busy. I’m saying we’re going to die. Sitting next to boring people all night while other people are having fun five feet away from you, it’s brutal. No, I’ll just fucking go. I don’t care, because if I go home, I can do all sorts of things that are wonderful. I have video games and puzzles and television that I can catch up on. You know I’m really down to it if I’m doing that. I don’t have to stay there. Why? You know what? Shame on the party host, the dinner party host, for putting anyone at that table that that’s boring. The only time that I honestly get stuck is if sometimes if Melissa says in advance to me, “You need to do the following thing.” I’ll say, “Okay,” but she’ll be there, so I’ll be fine.

**John August:** Many dinner parties will separate spouses so that you have-

**Craig Mazin:** Nope. I don’t do that. I don’t do it. By the way, everyone knows. I’m sort of famous in my little town for not showing up, for leaving early, for going, “I don’t do crap like that,” because I don’t want to. I don’t want to. I don’t like small talk. I like big talk. I like to really get into it with people. I don’t just bland-

**John August:** Two things that I really respect about my husband is first off he’s the only person I’ve seen who can in real life click the ignore button, where someone is trying to engage with him, and I see this floating ignore button, he’s hitting that button, it’s like, “You don’t exist to me.” I love that he’s able to do that. The other thing is he’s very honest about, “We don’t want to go to your dinner for this charity we support. We will write a check. We’re delighted to write you a check. I have no interest in actually going to the event.” Where I can happily go to the political fundraisers all the time, he’s just like, “No, I don’t want to do it. I’m not going to do it.” I respect that. He is the Craig Mazin of our relationship on that whole-

**Craig Mazin:** By the way, they don’t want you at the dinner anyway. They just want your money. If you give them money and don’t show up to the dinner, you’ve given them extra money, the money that they would’ve had to spend to feed you. No one cares. I’ve been a host of multiple political fundraisers that I did not show up to.

**John August:** Yeah. There was one at your house, which was great, but it did feel like a rare exception for us to be at your house to do this thing.

**Craig Mazin:** Definitely, yeah. That was Beto O’Rourke. That was way, way early in his run, so early that indeed he was showing up to the likes of my house. It was smallish, but it was nice and we had fun people there. It was an interesting conversation. That was that. As things have gotten bigger and larger and so on and so forth, I just … God bless Billy Ray, our colleague Billy Ray, that does a lot of fundraising and is always collaring me for that stuff. Sometimes I’ll end up with my name on the hosting … By the way, so-

**John August:** You’re not going.

**Craig Mazin:** No. People, if you ever get an invitation to a political fundraiser and it lists a bunch of hosts, that doesn’t mean that they’re all sitting there figuring out who’s going to cook what. It means they all gave a certain amount of money. That’s what that means. That’s all it means.

**John August:** All right. Let’s transition to talking about not in-person gatherings, but text threads and text messages and that stuff, and how you end a text conversation, because I’ve found myself sometimes where we’ve been texting back and forth for half an hour, and sometimes it can be awkward, it’s like who’s going to end the conversation? My default move is the tap back, which is basically the thumbs up, the whatever, saying that’s it and it’s mentioned, and this conversation is done here. Is that what everyone else is doing? Megana, what are you doing when a text conversation has run its course and you need to make it clear that I’m not going to be answering your next text?

**Megana Rao:** I feel like either that or sometimes, “Hey, I’m about to hop in the shower, but I’ll answer when I’m back out.” I think the cadence with millennials is a little bit different. It’s fine if somebody doesn’t respond to my text for days or hours. I don’t know, it just doesn’t bother me and it’s fine if the conversation fades.

**John August:** Being left on read doesn’t kill you?

**Megana Rao:** If it’s just a friend, a close friend that I’m texting or a friend that I’m catching up with, no.

**Craig Mazin:** Maybe I’m a millennial, because I feel like that’s the whole point of text is … Mostly. Sometimes I will think, “Oh, I feel like I’ve run out of things to say here,” but I don’t want to send some sort of formal, “It was lovely chatting.” Then I’ll think, “Will they be upset?” Then I remember, no, no one gives a shit, because if I send you a text in a conversation, and the thing doesn’t ping back, I’m not upset. I’m relieved. It’s over. We can all move on.

**Megana Rao:** It’s almost more awkward if … The example that I even gave before is not something that I do. It’s something that some friends will do to me. It’s more awkward if you acknowledge that the conversation is ending.

**Craig Mazin:** Yeah, like can’t we just be cas and just talk to each other and not have to worry about that? Text to me, sometimes for fun, what I will do is I’ll just go, “Byee.”

**John August:** Yeah, I’ve gotten a byee.

**Craig Mazin:** I love byeeee. That’s fun. I like to do that. Basically every text conversation I have at some point will devolve into GIFs and then it’s over.

**John August:** Yeah. Fair choices.

**Megana Rao:** I do feel that I have acquired a very specific skill of knowing exactly when John is done talking, in person, via email, or via text.

**John August:** My sentences do get shorter. It goes down from three sentences to one sentence to two words and then the conversation’s done. Even in emails I do find it sometimes there’s a bounce back and forth, and I thank you, you thank me, and then it’s all resolved, because in text it’s not quite a conversation, it’s not quite an email conversation, it’s just this weird middle ground and you don’t quite know whether you’re done talking. Megana, do you find it happens in Slack? I don’t as much, but what are you finding?

**Megana Rao:** You and I aren’t casually texting that much. I only text you when I really need your attention. We casually Slack sometimes. That’s the same thing where-

**Craig Mazin:** Sounds gross.

**Megana Rao:** I’m in communication with John all the time, so I don’t really think of us having a cadence there, because I’m talking to you at all times of the day.

**John August:** Basically.

**Craig Mazin:** I feel like even though Bo and I are together every day, I probably text with her more than talk. We text all the time. Oh yeah. We’re besties. We’re texties. We’re like beep beep beep beep beep GIF lol. Yeah, we’re two 12-year-old girls. It’s wonderful.

**John August:** The advantage of texting or Slack or whatever is that you can also scroll back and get to that thing. If I said something to Megana in person, she’d have to remember it, but if I text it to her, then it’s there for her to be able to look back at and confirm.

**Megana Rao:** I do remember everything you say, but yes, I hear your point.

**John August:** You consult with everyone else about, “What did John actually mean when he said that thing?” Now if you don’t mind, I got to go to the bathroom. It’s been great talking with you both.

**Craig Mazin:** Byee.

**John August:** Byee.

**Megana Rao:** Bye.

Links:

* [Blog post on Transitions](https://johnaugust.com/2003/transitions)
* [Scriptnotes Episode, 446: Back to Basics](https://johnaugust.com/2020/back-to-basics) at 03:57 of this episode
* [Scriptnotes Episode, 493: Opening Scenes](https://johnaugust.com/2021/opening-scenes) at 26:06 of this episode
* [Scriptnotes Episode, 89: Writing Effective Transitions](https://johnaugust.com/2013/writing-effective-transitions) at 44:12 of this episode
* [A Trip to the Moon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLVChRVfZ74) the 1902 Science Fiction Film by Georges Méliès
* [The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)
* [Ron’s Gone Wrong](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7504818/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Henry Adler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao), (with a segment produced by [Stuart Friedel](https://thriftstoreprom.neocities.org/stuabout.html)!) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/531standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 533: We See and We Hear, Transcript

February 2, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/we-see-and-we-hear).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Oh, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 533 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting, and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, why are so many screenwriters worried about the word ‘we’?

**Craig:** Why? Why?

**John:** Craig and I will hopefully drive a stake to the heart of the “we hear/we see” prohibition, as we talk through some screenplay fundamentals, before looking at some of the scripts up for awards this season.

**Craig:** We will see some of those scripts. We will see them, we.

**John:** We will see them.

**Craig:** We see.

**John:** And if we were listening in a room, we could hear them-

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** -because we can hear and we can see. We have the sensors.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Then, we’ll get into some listener questions. And our bonus segment for premium members, we will discuss what is the screenwriting equivalent of bootcamp?

**Craig:** Ooh, that’s interesting.

**John:** We talk about soap operas being like actor bootcamp. Is there a boot camp for writing?

**Craig:** Oh, I see what you mean. Got it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Understood. Okay.

**John:** A place where you’re doing so much work that you’re really picking up your skills, you’re developing your craft.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. All right. [crosstalk]

**John:** I like it.

**Craig:** That’s only if you pay us.

**John:** If you pay us, you can listen to us talk about that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** If you pay enough money, you could own The CW, which is apparently up for sale.

**Megana:** [chuckles]

**Craig:** [chuckles] Wait, what? [chuckles]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The CW is for sale?

**John:** It was announced this last week or the week before that a CW may be up on the auction block. CW in the US, for our international listeners, is the home to a lot of great programs, including where Crazy Ex-Girlfriend used to air. It was a joint partnership between Warner Brothers and CBS. So, there were some shows that were CBS shows which was Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and some things. There are a lot of Warner Brothers shows that were there. Now that Warner is more focused on HBO Max stuff, and CBS is focused on Paramount+ stuff, it’s not quite clear how The CW fits in. So, it may end up becoming a new thing, it may change. But anyway, the head of CW said, “You know what? Yeah, we’re probably up for sale.”

**Craig:** The sentence you just said there, if we had just rolled back to when we started this podcast, would have made utterly no sense to us.

**John:** No. [crosstalk]

**Craig:** The HBO Max and– What?

**John:** Paramount+.

**Craig:** Paramount– CBS with Par– what? What? Para+. But it’s remarkable how much things have changed. I guess, similarly, it’s remarkable how oddly adaptable we are as human beings. We are terrified of change, but we’re really good at absorbing it and accepting it when it happens. We’re odd little creatures, aren’t we?

**John:** Obviously, it feels everything’s accelerating, but I think at any given moment in time, we would probably feel it’s accelerating to all these new things. It’s always strange to think back to 100 years ago, cars were new, the time between the first flight at Kitty Hawk to man landing on the moon was so much shorter than you think it would be.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that’s right. We are witnessing the acceleration of things in our lifetime. But everything that happened before us just feels like history that took forever.

**John:** Yeah. We’ll see what happens to The CW. One of the discussion points is that CW airs on a bunch of local stations, obviously, and the local stations are part of bigger groups. And that group might just buy out The CW instead of [crosstalk].

**Craig:** Do you have any interest in it?

**John:** Honestly, I don’t. I feel at this point, I’m all in on streaming. The normal linear broadcast and stuff is just not so appealing to me.

**Craig:** I mean, because Crazy Ex-Girlfriend was on it, right?

**John:** It was. It was great.

**Craig:** We could own that.

**John:** Crazy Ex-Girlfriend was originally going to be a premium cable show.

**Craig:** Showtime. Yeah.

**John:** And then, they retooled that. You can go back and listen to the episode where we talked to Rachel and Aline about the show back when it was a Showtime show before it became The CW show. It was filthier. There used to be a handjob in it and then the handjob became a kiss.

**Craig:** Ultimately, you’ve summed up the difference between Showtime and The CW.

**John:** I did.

**Craig:** It’s just that whatever mathematical equation converts a handjob into a kiss, that’s it.

**John:** That’s what it is.

**Craig:** That’s it.

**John:** That’s the difference between a broadcast and premium cable.

**Craig:** You’ve got it.

**John:** Do you remember Stuart Friedel?

**Craig:** Sorry, who?

**John:** Our first Scriptnotes producer, Stuart Friedel?

**Craig:** I mean, Stuart’s a part of our lives.

**John:** He is. Stuart is the reason for a lot of how Scriptnotes used to work, and of course, the reason why Scriptnotes t-shirts are so soft is because-

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** -Stuart is so sensitive and has this Stuart’s sense of softness. Stuart talked to me last week. He said, “I just had a mentor conversation with a Nebraska kid, who is my mom’s hairdresser’s nephew,” which is classic. “This guy mentioned the movie that he wanted to write. And he described the opening as a Stuart Special. He doesn’t know why it’s called that, but that’s what it’s called on Scriptnotes,” he says.

**Craig:** [chuckles]

**John:** He has no idea that it’s called a Stuart Special because of Stuart Friedel.

**Craig:** How did he miss that?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s a kind of amazing that there’s a generation of people who are going to call that a Stuart Special. The way in lore, the last shot of your day is the Martini. But the second to last shot is called the Abby or Abby Singer, because there was a first AD named Abby singer, who would call for the martini and he was always one shot off. And so, the second the last one became the Abby. And people will call it a Stuart Special, and then every now and then somebody, “You know why it’s called that by the way?” That’ll be a bit of trivia for people.

**John:** Yeah. And, of course, it’ll be like, it’s named after Stuart Friedel, who used to be a producer on Scriptnotes before he became a titan of children’s television.

**Craig:** Before he became the CEO of The CW.

[laughter]

**John:** Before he bought out The CW and turned it into–

**Craig:** I want to know what the Megana maneuver is?

**John:** Oh, yeah. Well, it has to be a term that Megana will coin here. But, Megana, I’m curious, do you know what the Stuart Special is? How would you define it as Stuart Special? Or, is it just all alien territory for you?

**Megana:** Stuart Special, I think, it’s something I encounter a lot when I read threepage challenges, which is flash forward in a script, and then, by the end of two or three pages, it’s like one week ago or six months ago.

**John:** Right. Absolutely.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s the Stuart Special.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s showing the moment right before the climax. And then going back like one month earlier. Exactly.

**Megana:** Right.

**John:** Record scratch. I bet you’re wondering how this all happened, and let me talk about this.

**Craig:** [chuckles]

**John:** Flashing back to just a few weeks ago, we had Jack Thorne on the show. We had a great conversation with him. He was talking about disability and also invisible illnesses. This last week, Annie Hayes wrote in. Annie Hayes is a friend of Scriptnotes. She has helped us out at Austin Film Festival. She had such a great letter that I thought, “Oh, it’s much better as a blog post than for us to try to read it on the air.” But Annie Hayes writes about her experience. She’s a staff writer on The CW show In the Dark, and she’s had cystic fibrosis this whole time since [crosstalk] she had cystic fibrosis. And writing about sort of the challenges of living with a chronic illness and working with a chronic illness, a lot people can’t see that you’re fighting this. She started off as an assistant. I think she was assistant at Verve before she started working as a staff writer, but it’s a great overview of what her experience has been.

One of the things she really stresses is that she’s been very open about it, but she also tries to make sure she’s always presenting a solution rather than a problem, which seems good advice in general.

**Craig:** That is. It’s funny, a little bit after that show, I talked with Jack, because he was curious, because I did mention that I had been dealing with chronic pain for a long time. He was like, “What is it?” He was actually, I think, maybe the first person I’d really talked to about it, because I’m me. I’m not that guy. It’s not related to any feelings about disabilities or physical challenges as much as just my general sense that, “Just shut up, Craig,” [chuckles] is mostly what I struggle with all the time, but it is interesting that you have to make choices when you have an invisible disability or illness or challenge. Whereas you don’t have that choice when it’s visible, at all. Both things come with their own unique difficulties. So, I appreciate Annie writing in about this.

**John:** Megana, we got another question from a listener about the Jack Throne conversation.

**Megana:** Great. Alok wrote in and said, “Your recent episode with Jack Thorne was amazing. I love Jack’s Edinburgh TV festival speech. As a person with invisible disabilities, I find his advocacy work really empowering. But I’m looking for a recommendation. My disability forces me to read text documents while simultaneously listening to them using a text-to-speech software. The one I use is called Read Aloud, which is a Chrome plugin. It’s a free software with minimal options that reads documents back to me in a deathly robotic monotone.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**Megana:** “It’s not at all suited for reading scripts.”

**Craig:** No.

**Megana:** “I was wondering if anyone at Scriptnotes was familiar with text-to-voice softwares that professional writers with disabilities could use to read their scripts. Again, it is text-to-voice that I’m looking for, not voice-to-text. If there is something on the market that you recommend suitable for script reading, I don’t mind shelling out some money to purchase it.”

**Craig:** Oh, that’s an interesting thought there. John, this seems like something you would probably know, if you knew you would know. Not me.

**John:** A couple things I can point you to. I do have friends who will listen to scripts in the car with some read aloud software. I think having similar experiences where it’s a little bit awkward, because it has no idea that you’re reading a script. Some things that could be helpful. In Highland 2, we have what’s called a narrated script. And what it does is, it’s looking at the same script, but it’s changing it to rather than like:

Tom: Welcome to my house, Mary.
Mary: It’s so nice to be here.

It says, “Tom says, ‘Welcome to my house,’ Mary says this.” It’s adding in the says and things, and it actually has the sense of like int and ext become interior and exterior, that may help you. It might make it a little bit easier for you to read. So, it’d just be a matter of throwing that PDF in there and exporting it as a narrated script, that could be a little bit better solution for you.

The Weekend Read beta has text-to-speech that’s actually really good, where you can actually set voices and do things so you can set the male characters to a certain male voice, female characters to a certain female voice. That’s great. It’s still in beta. So, I can’t offer that to everybody. We’ll send a copy to Alok, who can test it. And we’re also doing some new stuff in the new Highland beta that should be a little bit better for folks who need some accessibility things. We’re working with Ryan Knighton who’s our blind friend about making sure that’s fantastic for blind writers to use.

**Craig:** Well, that’s all sounds pretty useful information there. Turns out, you had all the answers right there, John.

**John:** I don’t have all the answers though, because I feel we probably have other listeners who are in similar situations. So, if you are like Alok who needs stuff read aloud, scripts read aloud, write into us and tell Megana what you’re using, and we’ll share that on a future episode.

**Craig:** It’s good idea.

**John:** Fantastic. All right. Well, let’s talk about screenplays in general and screenplay formatting, because this feels such a giant, fundamental question that we’ve addressed many times over the years. But even just this last week, Craig-

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** -you and I were both a little bit dumbfounded by someone who wrote to us and said like, “Hey, can you explain why you’re so upset against ‘we hear’ and ‘we see’?” And you replied with a GIF of–

**Craig:** [chuckles] Not sure if serious.

**John:** Not Sure If Serious. He just had fundamentally like mis–

**Craig:** Misunderstood, yeah.

**John:** -what we’re talking about here. So, just to make sure we will reiterate this a thousand times during the podcast. It’s absolutely fine to say “we hear” and “we see” on the page in screenplays. It’s also fine to not use it. You can be a writer who chooses not to use it, that’s great. But it’s an available tool for you, and you should not feel at all bad about using it. And if anyone smacks you down for using it, they’re being dumb.

**Craig:** They’re bad.

**John:** They’re bad.

**Craig:** Yeah, I use it all the time. Like John says, it’s not that we recommend using it. It’s just if you like it, great. I find it to be a useful tool. We’ve talked quite a bit about why it does something unique, that other presentations of actions do not so that it’s not simply a stylistic choice or a bit of decoration, but it has–

**John:** It’s not lazy. No.

**Craig:** No, it has purpose. I am mystified. I wish I could go find the patient zero of no one should ever write “we see” in screenplays. I don’t know who started this terrible virus, but it’s wrong. And it is metastasized throughout all of these mediocre schools. And the mediocre schools, I mean [chuckles] they’re all mediocre when it comes to this sort of thing. Waves of human beings have just keep arriving on Reddit, like teeming onto Reddit shores to explain to other people why you can’t use “we see.” And the two of us have just been standing there trying to rescue people from this nonsense because, I guess we can’t. But let’s try one more time.

**John:** We’ll try one more time. As we get into this, we’ll answer a bunch of listener simpler questions, and that’ll hopefully stack up together to a broader understanding of what we’re trying to do here on screenplay page. Megana, if you start us off with Adrian in Dublin here.

**Megana:** He asks, “I’ve been writing for years, but I’m still puzzled by the question when to use action in the quote ‘action section’ of a script and when to use it as a parenthetical.”

**John:** Adrian’s wondering, and this is a thing that every writer still makes choices, kind of every line is like, “Okay, is this going to be better as an action or scene description on the left-hand margin? Or is just the kind of thing that it’s better tucked underneath the character, the header, in parenthetical saying a small little thing that as part of that character’s direction or as a part of the overall scene direction?” You’re always making choices? for what that’s going to be. Craig, what general guidance are you thinking through when you’re making a decision about whether to use parenthetical or an action line?

**Craig:** Almost always, I’m going to use an action line for action. Parentheticals are the orthodoxies. Parentheticals are for terms that influence the way the line is read, or are there to imply that there’s a pause. However, every now and then, if there is an action that is super tiny, and is necessary to understand the dialogue properly, and the dialogue would be best served if we didn’t chop it up into two bits, then I will use the parenthetical. If I’m running a bit of dialogue and between two lines, someone lights a match, I might put that in parentheticals (lights a match).

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** And then, they keep going. But it would have to be, we’re talking about an action that could easily be described in a couple of words, and more importantly, would feel really dumb and tiny if it were its own action line.

**John:** Agreed. It’s how short the action is both in screen time and in words, because parentheticals that go on for 6 or 7 or 10 words, that should have probably been an action line. In my whole writing career, I’ve probably written two parentheticals that were that long and it was for some very specific purpose that I needed to keep them together as a parenthetical, rather than moving them in as an action line. Parentheticals, if it’s affecting how that line is going to be read, it’s really affecting the tone, the tenor, the intention of that line, that’s great for a parenthetical. If it is something that a single character is doing that is breaking their dialogue block, like a sneeze, that can fit great in a parenthetical, but anything that’s between multiple characters, beyond offering a handshake, that becomes action.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** One of the reasons why you may mix it up occasionally or decide to make something parenthetical versus a longer line is, you and I both have a preference against long columns of just two characters talking. Therefore, we’ll both look for opportunities. It’s like okay, this is a dialogue scene, but I would love to have some moments where over on the left hand margin in an action line, just to break up visually on page and not make it feel like this is just a tunnel of text.

**Craig:** Yeah, I call it ticker tape. Ticker tape screenplay page where it’s just dialogue, dialogue, dialogue, dialogue, dialogue, and just run out of things down the middle. If you require that you break it up, it forces you also to start thinking about, “Well, where are they? What are they doing? How are they moving in the space? Is there anything I can do to make this visually interesting?” Otherwise, it’s just going to be bing-bong, bing-bong, bing-bong.

**John:** Great. Another question for us, Megana.

**Megana:** Nick in LA asks, “Over the last few months, I’ve been listening through all the back episodes of Scriptnotes, and there was a string of episodes in 2014 where John and Craig brainstormed ideas for a top-to-bottom reimagining of the screenplay as we know it. This new format included things like embedded music, images, more clickable links, etc. In general, a more interactive and dynamic document than the current standard. My question is, now that we’re sevenish years later, do you still feel the same way about the standard screenplay format? Has any progress been made in terms of what is permissible to include in your script, and is changing anything a fool’s errand? What you described in those episodes sounds great and made a lot of sense to me, but it seems little has changed since 2014.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Very little has changed. I do see links in screenplays more often. I have seen clickable links in PDFs of screenplays that will link out to an image or something that explains something more fully. But no. I think you and I both had a little bit more utopian idea of this is what’s going to change, and it didn’t.

**Craig:** Well, I think we thought this is what we would like to change. This is what we would hope for change. But no, it hasn’t happened, and I think it’s still a great idea. It hasn’t happened at all. Part of the problem is Final Draft. It’s just this monster that sits on top of Hollywood and keeps this entire format back. I really do believe that. No one is sitting there at HBO or Universal or Disney saying, “We really love this 100-year-old method of putting screenplays down.” They don’t. Unfortunately, Final Draft, which is now owned by a payroll company, which is perfect, has essentially cornered the market on the format of screenplays as connecting into the format for budgeting and scheduling. There’s just no appetite for it, because everyone’s just stuck using it. It’s the Windows problem.

**John:** It’s the Windows problem. I’m not going to put all the blame at Final Draft’s feet, because I do think if Final Draft were to suddenly just explode and go away, it wouldn’t change quickly, because I think everyone’s just so used to scripts looking a certain way. You’re doing your show right now, and you could do your scripts a different way. You could choose to do something different. You’re not using Final Draft, you’re using Fade In, and you could do something different. But it’s easy to keep people doing the same thing they’re doing and it’s working for you. What I do think has changed since 2014 is, and this is also, I think, because the pandemic, because of Zoom, I see screenwriters doing a lot more work in Keynote or PowerPoint. A lot of early presentation stuff is now being done as slides. I think slide decking has become a more important part of describing a project early on. It’s not like I’m turning in a script and add a deck for things. But for some stuff, I might because it would at least show this is what this is meant to look like.

There’s a big world-building project that I may or may not do. I think if I were to take on that project, my script might be accompanied by, “Here are the images that go with it,” because everything I can describe on a page, so helpful. But to me being able to show it to you, it’s going to be more instructive.

**Craig:** I would do something else. I would write my show now in a different way if the tool were available. It’s not.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** There’s just no tool, and I don’t think there’s going to be a tool available until someone feels the amount of time, energy, and resources to create something like that would be rewarded, because it just takes a lot. If Final Draft disappeared tomorrow, there would be a period where people would have to use other things that would basically be the same thing. But there would also be a massive opening. I think you would see a lot of people trying to become the next Final Draft, and figure out how to fill that space, but do it better. If there were a tool while we were writing, there was a way to create a document that wasn’t a PDF– by the way, that’s the other issue is that PDF that format is just kind of useless. It’s useful, but useless.

**John:** Yeah, the good thing about PDF is it’s baked in and locked down. The bad thing about it is it’s baked in and locked down, and it’s hard to do anything else with it.

**Craig:** It’s a printed piece of paper, except it’s on your screen. That’s all it is. It’s static. If there were a software platform that created a document that people could open and view that was dynamic, that would be amazing, and I would use it all the time, but there isn’t.

**John:** I will tell you that for Late Night and Variety comedy writing, especially the daily shows, they are sometimes now using fully online writing software where you can– the monologue, it’s constantly updated by everybody all at once. It’s a better version of Google Docs.

**Craig:** Yeah. What’s that, Script 2.0? Ah, what’s the one–

**John:** It’s lot like WriterDuet.

**Craig:** WriterDuet, yes.

**John:** It’s like that, but very deliberately multiple users can really work on it. It’s not just you and your writing partner. Everyone can tag in. You can see who’s made what changes. And it works, but it’s very specifically set up for that kind of show to do. I think Colbert’s show does that. Some of those changes are working in places where they really need. They have very specific, very time-based needs. And so little of what we do is urgent in that way. But I will say, Craig, you’re working on a show right now that if you could update everyone live in terms of, these are the changes, it would be fantastic. But you’re probably doing some version of this just distribution lists of things go out.

**Craig:** Well, it’s Scenechronize. Scenechronize is the other big behemoth, and Scenechronize is the standard distribution software for things. Scenechronize could distribute anything. I think it’s just that there is the file format that I would love, the kind of method of creation of a screenplay document that I would love just doesn’t exist. Where when you’re talking about a song, there is a little note icon, you click it and it starts to play that song, and brings it up in a soft window, up to the right, that you can minimize or get rid of, or just click away if you chose to. There are little icons and things to say, “Okay, I want to see what this looks like.” We can’t do that, because there’s no document that we can release that other people can look at that works like that. That’s the biggest issue.

**John:** Okay. Yeah, as a person who builds the software for a living, I can see some of the solutions, but I can also see some of the issues. It’s what the shape of that container document is. Are you sending the document? Are you sending a link to something that lives on a server?

**Craig:** For privacy purposes and all the rest of it, whichever would be fine, whichever people would want. But the problem is, there isn’t the receiving thing on the other end. It’s going to be hard to create that because you’re asking people to download and they don’t want to [chuckles] and you’re asking them to try a new format, and it’s new. Change is hard. Tip of the hat to the screenplay format, as we’re talking about it, it has lasted longer than most human beings. In fact, it’s lasted longer than almost every human being.

**John:** Absolutely. I think we should also stress that what we’re describing in terms of changes to screenplay format is not the words on the page. We’re not talking about the “we hear”, “we see,” we’re not talking about the job of the writer. We’re talking about the container in which this is going out there so that your words can be accompanied by other useful material and be updated in real time in ways that aren’t so torturous. Because right now, how we handle screenplays, especially as we go into production, with star changes and such is so linked back to when we had to xerox pages and send them out, that it’s maddening.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s pretty weird.

**John:** Another question for us, Megana?

**Megana:** Scott asks, “I’ve been working on a spec script based on a true story that feels like it’s taken on the scope of a Godfather-esque crime epic. The question of whether to expand this into a longer miniseries-type structure has come up before. But my producer and I both agree this feels like a feature film. As we’ve gone back and forth on drafts, the length of the script has fluctuated from 140 pages at its longest down to 125. I’ve always been taught no one wants to read a spec from an unproven writer longer than 120 pages and I’ve tried to reach that magic number, but the notes we keep getting from colleagues is to dig deeper into the characters and to explore more, not less. So, my question is this. In our current climate with the line between film and TV forever blurring, is the 120-page rule the end-all and be-all, or 132 pages reasonable for a decade spanning crime saga? Follow-up question, why are gangster movies always so long?

[laughter]

**John:** They do seem longer as a rule. Let’s take this last part first. I think because we have expectations of the genre, that it’s going to be a bunch of characters and there’s going to be complicated family dynamics in addition to the A plot, that there’s just going to be a lot happening, and so we just allow them to be long, and also because the Godfather is long.

**Craig:** Yeah. It may have something to do with the fact that the directors who have made these things have come out of a school where length wasn’t a problem. There have been mobster movies forever, but the big ones were coming out in the 70s. But then again, you look at like Martin Scorsese’s first movie, Mean Streets, I think that was his first movie, it’s under two hours. So, it’s not necessarily always the case that they need to be super long, but I think John is right. If you’re telling the Godfather saga, then it is marked by an epic nature. They’re very Shakespearean in this regard. They are telling long family dramas, and they’re telling involved crime plots, and we seem to enjoy– otherwise, it becomes an action movie. Part of it is the opera. It’s opera. By the way, Godfather III is that– you’ve seen Godfather Part III, I assume.

**John:** I have seen it. I have seen all of them now.

**Craig:** Yeah. I love that operatic third act. It’s just lovely. Anyway, I think that’s what it is. Scott, here’s the deal, man, if the first 10 pages are awesome, people will keep reading, they really will. Especially these days, I just think the rules are not the rules anymore. They’ll be reading it wondering, “Well, maybe I could turn this into a limited series.” You never know what they’re going to be thinking.

**John:** Craig is right. Obviously, if it’s good, they’ll keep reading and you should not worry about that much. A 125-page script is a lot different than 140-page script. 140-pages, people start to go, “Oh, okay, wow. This could be a problem because it’s going to probably be longer when that one’s actually shot.” I would say that my expectations of movies are things you can watch in one sitting and we always had a sense of like it’s a story that can only happen once.

But as we look now at limited series that also feel like they’re things that can only happen once, maybe there’s nothing wrong with thinking about, does this story really work best for me sitting in a chair for two hours watching it? Or does it have natural parts in installments that build out in ways that it could fit a limited series? If the first 50 pages or 60 pages of what you wrote has a natural cliffhanger, it can be a phenomenal writing sample for you, and a phenomenal spec to take out there in the world for people to see like, “Oh, this person can write really well.” And they’re more likely to read that one-hour thing versus a two-and-a-half-hour thing, because the one-hour thing can get made because people are hungry for the one-hour thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. Also, we’re in a weird time, you could maybe make just two-hour longs or three-hour longss. You say, “Okay, it’s at 140 at its longest.” So, you’re talking about 45 pages-ish, 43 pages-ish per episode of a three-episode thing. Well, you’re probably squeezing yourself in 140 anyway. Expand a few things here and there, write some endings so that each episode has an ending and each episode is beginning. So, there you’re filling some things out. Before you know it, you’ve got three-hour long episodes.

**John:** Yeah. My one cool thing this week is going to be a six-hour thing that feels like a movie. It is cinematic and tightly focused, but it could only work a limited series, and it works really well as that. Keep that in mind.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. Let’s take a look at some movie movies, like actual movies that showed up on big screens this past year.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** I saw many of these but not all of these. But the good thing about 2021-2022 is you can read the scripts for all these movies online for free because they put them out there for award season. We will have links in the show notes to all the scripts that we’re talking through. I really encourage you, if you’re a person who’s interested in screenwriting, to read through these. You don’t have to finish them, but just look at what they actually look like on the page, either before or after you see the movie because you’ll get a real good sense of, this was the intention on the page and this is how it translated.

In most of these cases, these were the writers directing. In a couple of cases, there’s different screenwriters and directors. But they’re all really good and interesting in different ways. They’re all chock full of “we hears” and “we sees.” And we’ll not just cherry pick the ones that had them. Most movies, I would say probably do use “we hear” and “we see.”

**Craig:** Yeah, because it’s incredibly useful.

**John:** It’s incredibly useful. I want to start with a young writer named Aaron Sorkin.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** This early work, this is called Being the Ricardos. This is a story of behind the scenes of I Love Lucy. I actually really enjoyed this, I actually tweeted a little screenshot of a scene that I really liked a few weeks ago. This is all a backstage drama of an imagined week on the set of I Love Lucy and the conflict and controversies behind the scenes. The thing I tweeted about was, there’s a scene on page 5 that goes on for a long time. And it’s all OS, it’s all off screen. Basically, we are focused on a radio while Lucy is off screen and she’s listening to this thing, but having conversations with other people, and we don’t see people’s faces for a long time. It’s a deliberate choice on Sorkin’s part just to not show Nicole Kidman and Javier Bardem for a long time, so we’d be invested in them as characters before we saw their faces and had to make a judgement of like, “Oh, does she look enough like Lucille Ball?”

**Craig:** Yeah. What I love about these pages, and well done, young writer Aaron Sorkin, is how much whitespace there is. Even in scenes where there’s huge blocks. For instance, on page 5, the announcers has just got this big huge– what is it nine-line bit of dialogue all because he’s reading advertisements, and he’s doing an intro to radio stuff. All fine, because then there’s just these wonderful seas of white, as Lindsay Doran would say, “Like milk.” And it’s so useful. It’s really useful. Interesting choice, by the way. This is what the Academy voters see, is that correct, John?

**John:** Mm-hmm, it is.

**Craig:** Interesting choice. When you go into production, inevitably, they’re going to be revisions that you want to do. Just as a holdover from the old days where people would have to have binders where they would insert pages into, there are A pages and B pages, and there are pages where there’s only stuff on half a page, because they get rid of the rest, but the page numbers don’t change. I would imagine that a lot of people would just do a collapsed page unlock version. But he just sent over the other one. He also does something that I don’t do, which is at the top of the page, it says “Continued:” and then the scene number, which I don’t do.

**John:** Which we don’t. This is a thing that Final Draft and Fade In can do for you. I’ve never found it especially useful. It’s never tripped me up. So, I’ve never done it. I want to get back to the scene where we have this radio announcer talking and we’re not seeing their faces. We come out of it, and the broadcast continues as we hear the front door open.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** The next minute or so, we’ll see no faces, just out of focus arms and legs and other shards of movement as they pass through the frame, which remains on the radio, the only thing in focus. We hear and we see in the same paragraph from Mr. Aaron Sorkin, who’s won many, many awards for being a good writer.

**Craig:** How else would you even do this? I’m top of page 6, “We HEAR his face being SLAPPED–” In this case, Aaron Sorkin has capitalized word ‘HEAR’ just to stick it to all of you, ding dong “professors of screenwriting,” because how else was he supposed to describe that? Someone hears his face being– the sound of a face being slapped? Like what do you say? Of course, we hear it. We hear it.

**John:** Love it. I think that Sorkin does, which another one of our writers that we’ll to talk about today, he capitalizes every character’s name, even in scene description. You can do that, that’s not common. I would say that’s maybe 5% of scripts I would see do this, but he does it. And you know what? It’s fine. But I wouldn’t leap on that as an example, but you could do it.

**Craig:** Clearly, and because the truth is I read through some of this, and I didn’t even notice it, because it just doesn’t matter.

**John:** He doesn’t use a ton of seeing description in his things. And there are ticker tape pages where it’s just all dialogue down the page. You know what? It’s really good dialogue, that helps.

**Craig:** It does help. And if you do have pages of ticker tape, for instance, page 12, the lines are short. The longest line is three lines long. Then, okay, actually, in a weird way, that’s a ticker tape conversation, snappity, snap, snap back and forth. I like it.

**John:** We were talking about A pages and B pages. An example is page 22A. At scene 24, and it’s just one line goes over the edge of this. Lucy has a single block of dialog there. It’s a good reminder that this all comes from a time when you were distributing physical pages. So, rather than having to send people a brand-new script, when there’s a tiny change, you just send in the pages that changed. But if there was too much to fit on one page, you create an A page or B page, and it would fit in between. So, his script would go page 22, 22A, a 22B if there needed to be and then there’d be a 23. That’s historically how we’ve done it. We could still do it that way. Craig, on your show, are there A, B pages, how do you do that?

**Craig:** You know what? There are. I’m starting to wonder why I’m bothering, because I have not seen anyone with a printed script on my set. Everyone used to carry binders around, but our script supervisor, the incredible Chris Roufs, he uses an iPad, as I think almost every script supervisor at this point uses an iPad or laptop. The first AD isn’t walking around with a binder with pages in it. I’m starting to wonder if I should just get rid of that. And just [crosstalk] do it anymore.

**John:** Here’s the issue. If you were to then unlock pages, you’d have to talk about what scene it is and never talk about the page numbers again, because the page numbers will keep changing.

**Craig:** But we never talk about page numbers anyway, we just talk about–

**John:** Yeah, because they’re [crosstalk] scenes.

**Craig:** And we talk scene numbers which never change. By the way, it’s so weird. It’s been a while since I’ve worked just a couple of years now on a feature script in production. Scene numbers here looks so tiny, because in television shows you start with scene 101, because that’s Episode 1, scene 1. And then, by the time you get to your 10th episode, it’s starting with scene 1001.

**John:** On these shows, do you have scripts that have more than 100 scenes?

**Craig:** No, that would be insane. I don’t even know how– [crosstalk]

**John:** Yeah. I was just thinking really complicated Game of Thrones episodes where you’re constantly cutting back and forth between a bunch of different things, but you’re not really-

**Craig:** You would just sort of–[crosstalk]

**John:** -picking those individual scenes, because they’re all a part of–[crosstalk]

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ll just pull a random script here. I’ll take episode 5. Let’s see what the number is of this particular– how many scenes I hit. 56. I have a feeling that’s probably pretty standard for me.

**John:** Yeah, that makes sense.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Last thing I want to say about Being the Ricardos, this is on bottom page 23. The scene description reads, “We’re going to start to go in and out of LUCY’s head as the reading goes on. She’s imagining what each beat will be like in its final form the way a chess master can see the board twelve moves ahead. She can also see and hear what the audience is going to laugh at.” Basically, so the idea is, we’re intercutting between the table reading of a script, and Lucy’s imagination of how it will actually be staged. It works really well in the movie, but it’s done very simply on the page. And Sorkin trusts that the reader is going to pay attention and follow what’s happening here, and you do.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is an area where– because sometimes people will say, [in mimicking tone] “Well, if you’re directing–” and that’s yes, to an extent, that is true. He can shorthand things somewhat, because what he doesn’t have to worry about is a director coming along and going, “I don’t know what the hell it is. I guess I’ll just make something up.” When you’re writing for other people directing, and I typically am, I will at least try and put things in there to make sure that the stuff that I need to happen or want to happen is there. That said, there’s always some amounts of confusion or things that can be cleared up. And that’s why we have 4000 meetings [chuckles] before we start shooting. So many meetings. Oh, my Lord.

**John:** [crosstalk] -obviously, there’s a tone meeting, which is really talking through what are we actually going for scene by scene? What does this need to feel like? But we have so many logistical production meetings to just figure out every department what do they need? What is the intention behind this? What does Craig want? What is the director need? All these things.

**Craig:** Yes. There are questions that are legitimately, “Can you explain this?” There are questions of, “Okay, we think you’re saying this, but are you saying that?” Then, there are questions that fall into the general category of, “I don’t want to be yelled at on the day.” It says here that he stabs him. Is that meant to be through the clothes, because if it’s not, then we have to build a prosthetic. And on the day, I don’t want you to show up and be like, “What the h–?”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** They ask, and it’s reasonable. They should ask. [chuckles] Making television and movies is basically a game of how many questions can I answer today without falling apart?

**John:** Let’s move on and take a look at The Lost Daughter by Maggie Gyllenhaal. This script is based on the Elena Ferrante novel. Obviously, she has that to draw from. As I’m looking through this, especially this opening sequence, there’s not purple prose, she’s not painting every sunset, but it’s very effective, especially in terms of describing the house that the character is renting, the house that she’s moving into, and giving us a sense of the geography inside the space. I felt like, “Oh, I can see where things are.” I can feel how would I generally get from one place to another, and how this character specifically is approaching this space. I really liked what they did there.

There’s also a man who’s like a– I was in the movie, so I think it’s interesting, a supporting character man, but I liked his character description is just his white hair. From the initial description, I felt I could see him, but then he was doing very specific things along the way and saying specific stuff. That was helpful for grounding him but also the space, this [unintelligible [00:38:22] that we’re staying on.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is an example of a script that generally does things differently than I do, and I don’t care. I like to bold my scene headers. Maggie doesn’t. I like to keep my action description chunks really tiny. She will occasionally roll off one that’s 12 lines long. I don’t care. As long as it’s interesting and I can make it through it, then I’m fine. She uses CONT’Ds. When a character talks, then there’s an action description, then the same character talks. I don’t do that, don’t care.

**John:** I generally do that if it’s going to be unclear. So, I will do that.

**Craig:** Yeah, I don’t it. It just doesn’t matter. Ultimately, the point is you set yourself free, people, it’s all good. Everything works fine if the script is good. The other thing that Maggie will do, she puts up– getting back to our parenthetical question from earlier, she puts a lot of stuff in parentheticals. She’ll have two-line parentheticals, and that’s fine. There is nothing better than a good script. And there are no formatting issues that a good script can’t overcome.

**John:** One small thing that I would do if I’d had access to the script, is do a search and replace for double spaces and make them one space because there’s places where there’s one space and places where it’s two spaces, and it’s just a little bit off. That’s a personal little pet peeve of mine, that does not influence the quality of the writing.

**Craig:** Well, yeah. Look, the very title page, there’s a comma after the word ‘based on’ that shouldn’t be there. [chuckles] I would say, Maggie, John and I are available for basic stuff like that.

**John:** Punctuation consultants, that’s all we’re asking.

**Craig:** Mostly, we just want to hang out with Maggie Gyllenhaal. [crosstalk]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We just want to hang out. We want to be your friend.

**John:** I met Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal a zillion years ago back when they were children because they used to live down the street from me.

**Craig:** Oh, wow.

**John:** It’s nice to see that they’ve made something of themselves.

**Craig:** They’re doing all right. They’re doing all right, those crazy kids.

**John:** The other thing I’ll say it’s important about, as we’re reading through the script, is right from the very start, it sets up the rules of how this movie is going to work, and that we are going to be going back and forth in time, and that is important. It’s important to do that early enough in movie, so we get a sense of like, “Oh, this is this kind of movie where the back and forth will matter.”

Mitchells vs. the Machines is a film I’d love from this past year. It’s written by Mike Rianda and Jeff Rowe‎. I just really adored it and I was happy to see that so much of what I adored, starts on page 1 of the script. It is one of the busiest first pages I’ve encountered. And yet, I could follow it and really get a sense of what this movie was going to feel like. It was chaotic, but ultimately with a point.

**Craig:** The script on the page feels like it’s on cocaine, which is correct.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Lord and Miller as producers have a really good record of both kinds of paces and things, but this has that kind of fantastic growing up in the 70s, we ate way too much sugar cereal in the morning, and then just sat down and watch these strobe lights of terrible cartoons, and our attention spans are shortened to nothing. Obviously, here’s just this wonderful quality that Mike and Jeff have put down on the page, but it does also have that just crazy snap to it.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** It’s almost exhausting reading these pages. You can feel yourself like, “Oh, my God. Oh, yeah.” [onomatopoeia] [chuckles]

**John:** And then the movie does really trade on that. In the end, the movie eventually does settle into some quieter moments so it’s not this frenzy all the time, but it does kick off with a tremendous amount of energy. There are so many exclamation points on this first page, but none of them feel gratuitous. The word “we” is used constantly because we’re always there with them. Basically, it’s inviting us to be a part of this journey with the characters. I really dug it.

There is a shotgun introduction of all of our main characters. In one paragraph on page 2, “The VERY stoppable “warriors” are: RICK (40, Bearded, nature-loving Dad), LINDA (38, colorful, yet nervous Mom, worn out from trying to keep everyone together), AARON (8, nerdy blonde Muppet who wears exclusively dinosaur shirts), delightfully round pug, MONCHI. And KATIE (17, exploding with creative energy- nerdy now, but will be cool in college).

Generally, shotgun intros are not my favorite, and it works really well here because they boldfaced all the character names, so you see that, “This is important, pay attention here, we’re really going to see these people. This is our movie, is these four characters, plus this pug that looks like a loaf of bread. That is who we’re going to follow in the course of the story.”

**Craig:** The introductions feel they’re part of the tone. If you stop and did standard introductions, you’d be like, “Oh, what happened? Did you guys get tired?” Because, they’re just like, “Bah,” on page one, and then page two like, “Bah,” and then they’re like, “Okay, now let’s talk about dad is a–.” It’s wonderful, because they’re going to make a point of stopping this madness on page 4, when it literally says, “We go from this manic energy to,” boop, “a quiet, boring suburban neighborhood.” And that’s where they slowed down a bit, because they can.

**John:** It’s an animation script, and writing is not different than normal writing, there’s no fundamental difference here. This could be a live action script as well. So, we just reminded that animation writing is writing. The only thing you may notice is that parentheticals, here in this case, have been tucked in to the first line of dialogue, rather than having their own separate line. You see that more often in animation. Nothing would change if we were to do normal parentheticals here, you could absolutely do normal parentheticals in this case, and nothing would break or change. We’re not seeing scene numbers here. Numbering scenes and sequences in animation is its own special, unique beast. My advice is to do whatever they tell you to do.

**Craig:** Yeah, because it’s practical. There’s no magic to that. If you find yourself as you’re writing, dwelling on these issues of formatting, just make a mental note that you are trying to avoid writing.

**John:** 100%.

**Megana:** [laughs]

**John:** A film I greatly enjoyed watching was Passing. This is a film by Rebecca Hall. She adapted it from a novel by Nella Larsen. Here’s what I want to point out about Passing, is that the movie and the script have this kind of hallucinatory, too bright, kind of uncomfortable, kind of stagey artificial feel to it. That really works for the film. There are moments in in it I felt like, “Wait, is this somebody’s 16-millimeter project from the 90s?” And then, you realize like, “Oh, no, it’s actually the incredibly well-made best version of that film aesthetic.” I really dug that the film, partly for just how strange it is, and it feels strange on the page too. It radiates from the page to how they actually shot it.

**Craig:** Lots of little short bursts of things, then there’s longer stuff. There’s an interesting thing that happens on the bottom of page 1 where there’s a scene header.

**John:** Yeah, I saw that too.

**Craig:** Then the same starts in the next page, which we never really do. We always combine the scene header with at least the first line of the scene itself.

**John:** And who do we have to thank for that? Final Draft. Final Draft, honestly, one of the few things Final Draft did well early on in its incarnation is, making sure that scene headers don’t flow at the bottom of pages, so they always carry through the next page. It just automatically does that, and so is Highland and so does Fade In. Everyone does that.

**Craig:** That wasn’t something about the steno pool of Warner Brothers and– [crosstalk]

**John:** Oh, the steno pool did it, but, I think-

**Craig:** Oh, okay. Final Draft turned it into an automatic–

**John:** Automated, yeah. You and I don’t think about it because you and I never have to manually do that.

**Craig:** We don’t manually do it, which made me wonder if Rebecca had written this in Microsoft Word or something, because [crosstalk] notes, which is totally fine. Again, doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter.

**John:** It just doesn’t matter. And she’s capitalizing all the character names like you might in a play. It works fine.

**Craig:** Also, in the second paragraph of the first page, it says, “Dissolve to Light flaring in a static frame.” She’s capitalized the word ‘light.’ Not all caps, just the L. Um, okay. [chuckles] It’s fine.

**John:** Yeah. If we’re doing a three-page challenge [crosstalk] we’d then point out that’s unusual.

**Craig:** It’s unusual. It doesn’t kill anything, and maybe it’s intentional. I can’t tell if it’s intentional or just Rebecca is one of those people– because there is a whole generation of people, they don’t care about capitalization or punctuation. That’s all fungible to them.

**John:** We’ll see.

**Craig:** We’ll see.

**John:** I’ll quickly get through Belfast. This is a script by Kenneth Branagh. He’s a person who’s done some [unintelligible 00:46:40] movies, it’s not his first here. This is labeled as “Shooting Draft.” It’s also in Gill Sans rather than Courier. I strongly suspect that this is something that some studio put out and said, “Oh, it shouldn’t be in Courier.” I’d be willing to bet $100, this was a Courier script that’s somebody down the road ultimately put it to Gill Sans for us to read, because it’s weird that it’s in Gill Sans. I don’t think it’s helpful that’s in Gill Sans.

**Craig:** It is odd, only because of all the things that people can and can’t do, Courier is the one that just about everyone does, 99.9%. So, when it’s not in Courier, there’s a little bit of a, “Oh, so I guess you don’t need to get in line like the rest of us.”

[laughter]

**Craig:** Special, feel special, do we?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s a little tricky, but it also makes me yearn for a different time or a different day where we wouldn’t have to necessarily be in Courier, because actually on the page, it’s rather pretty. It’s just different.

**John:** It is. I wouldn’t have picked this typeface. I love a sans-serif typeface. This, I think it’s actually a little bit hard to read. I think Gill Sans is a great face for certain things. All uppercase doesn’t look great in Gill Sans. Some things are harder to read than they necessarily need to be. Again, character names are being uppercased through the whole thing for whatever reason. Maybe it’s a British thing. Maybe that’s why Rebecca Hall is doing this as well. A thing I really did appreciate about this though is there’s on page 3, the description, “The camera is high above and behind BUDDY as he starts to walk down the middle of the street. You can see clearly all the way down to the other end, where it meets a road going horizontally across, making a T junction.” Great. I can see that. Also, weird, we got a “you” rather than a “we?” Sure.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’m fine with it, because “you” and “we” are doing the same thing. They’re just saying in the audience, whether you feel like you’re a part of an audience, perhaps at this point in his career in life, Kenneth Branagh, when he watches movies, just buys up the entire thing. [chuckles] [crosstalk] So, he just presumes that everyone watches it alone.

**John:** Yeah. He doesn’t want to share armrest with anybody.

**Craig:** There’s no one else there, but you see the following.

**John:** It’s also important should point out that, we’re following a young boy through this, all the action is character limited to what he can see and experience until a certain point. Basically, there’s a mob that’s descending, and we’re only getting limited information from what he’s encountering until the mob is upon us. And then eventually, we break that limited POV and see everything, but that’s just good technique. It’s a technique that works on the page, that translates really well to visual medium. [crosstalk] -thinking of that.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s another thing that happens on page 7, which is cool. He’s doing a montage really. It’s not so much a montage, it’s just a rapid sequence of things, and he uses CUT TO: for each one of them, which he doesn’t use for other scenes. It makes everything spread out really big on that page. But in a sense, that also helps me see each one of those things. I actually quite liked it. Generally, I don’t do it even in something like this, because I’m always scrambling for paged count time, but the truth is, this is probably more accurate. Again, no problems. It’s fine.

**John:** No problems. Last one I want to look at is Tick, Tick… Boom!, a film I really enjoyed. This script is by Steven Levinson. It’s based on Jonathan Larson’s musical, directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda. On page 1 and 2– the thing I think the film does really crucially, and you see this here on the script, is it has to set up, okay, this is who Jonathan Larson was, this is why he’s famous, and we’re not going to get to that stuff at all. This is all going to take place before then. And that’s a lot to do in two pages, and it does it really, really well. Basically, framing this is how much of the story we’re going to tell, and only this part of the story is really important. I thought they did a very effective job here, starting off with making sure you understood why you’re watching the movie, and what movie you’re going to watch.

**Craig:** Yeah, totally agree. Quality-wise, obviously, great. There’s an interesting choice here that I struggle with a little bit format-wise on a script that is only 104 pages. So, you have the time, meaning you have the space, to not put that extra line break before each scene header. It just makes everything– and to not bold, the scene headers, it’s harder to read. I just find it harder to read. I get confused a little bit as I’m going through or the transitions don’t feel quite as crackly or sharp because it’s just a smudge. For me, and this is really a pure readability thing, I think people should put that extra line break before the scene header or bold the scene header, but to do neither is rough. That said, doesn’t stop things from working.

**John:** It could work. Your choices are one or more of extra line space before the scene header, underlining scene header, which some people do–[crosstalk]

**Craig:** Yup, that works.

**John:** -are choices. There’s underlining here which I think it’s really important in top of page 3. “NOTE: Throughout the film, we move back and forth between Jon in 1992 performing at the show, and the events he is narrating as they occur in 1990.” This is something that is completely obvious when you’re watching the movie, but could be perplexing as you’re reading the script. What the script does, INT – LOCATION – DAY, and then will say either 1990 or 1992, because they’re two different timelines and we can see it when I watch the movie. But on the page, it could get confusing. So, it’s important to put that note out there for the reader.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Great. These are some pretty good scripts. So, congratulations to all of our writers here. I think you did a good job, I think you have promising careers ahead of you.

**Craig:** [chuckles]

**John:** But I really do strongly encourage our listeners to click through the links and take a look at the pages that we’re discussing and describing because that’s how you learn, is by reading scripts and reading good scripts is a great way to learn how some good writers’ work.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** We have time for maybe a question. I see one here from Johnny. Megana, can you ask us that one?

**Megana:** Johnny asks, “I have this question for John about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Charlie inherited the chocolate factory from Wonka because of his good nature/personality/traits, honesty, kindness, compassion, etc. However, in the beginning, he bought the chocolate using the $10 bill on the street. He didn’t try to find the owner or turn it in. Does this behavior contradict his good nature?”

**John:** Craig, I have a question for you before we get into the actual script for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. If you find $10 on the street, do you have an ethical duty to find its owner?

**Craig:** How the hell are you going to find the owner?

**John:** That’s my question.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Money is fungible. I can’t tell you whose money that is. If I find a wallet, I’m going to find-

**Craig:** Yeah, of course.

**John:** -the owner of the wallet.

**Craig:** Of course. But if you find money on the street, there’s literally no way to identify who that came from. None. If somebody came rushing back around the street was like, “Oh, my God! Did you find a $10 bill on the street?” I’d say, “You know what? I did. Here it is.” Because there’s no way they would have known that it was a 10 or on the street if they weren’t there. But otherwise, no. That’s that’s a weird question.

**John:** It’s a strange question. But I wanted to point to Johnny to say, just go to the library, go to my johnaugust.com Library, and you can just read the script, that’s not actually what happens. And I realized like, “I’d never actually posted the scripts for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” I posted the working scripts, and then a final script for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. And just like our Aaron Sorkin script, I put in the change pages so people can see this was the white draft, here’s the blue pages, here’s the pink pages, and here’s the final script all together so you can see how this fit in. I also put in the memos that go out with those distributions so people can see like, “Oh, this is why these things are changed.” And this, again, back in the time of physical pages going out. I would put a list of, “This is the order of pages that you should see,” because sometimes it gets confusing. All those things are out there.

The reason why I point to the original script though is that doesn’t say like you won it because you were good. He says, “I invited five children to the factory, and the one who is least rotten would be the winner.” Charlie doesn’t have to be good, he just has to be the least rotten. It’s also important to share my version of Charlie and Chocolate Factory. Wonka is going through this existential crisis and self-doubt and all sorts of weird things are crashing down on him. He doesn’t really want to give up his factory. So, that’s the point of like, Wonka is protagonating over the course of this and really going through this crisis. He’s not even quite sure why he’s invited these kids in here. But it’s not because he wants to find a good-hearted kid, because that’s not even how Wonka is wired.

**Craig:** Other than getting everything wrong, Johnny’s question was great.

**John:** What Johnny’s question did, is it did motivate me to actually finally put up the scripts, which I’m not sure why I didn’t put up the scripts before, so people can read how Charlie and Chocolate Factory looked on the page. All right, I think it’s time for One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** As promised, my One Cool Thing is a limited series that I enjoyed and really loved called Vigil. This is a British show that in the US is on Peacock. I guess this is on Peacock, you don’t even have to subscribe to Peacock. Even the free Peacock would have it. It’s created by Tom Edge. Personally, I follow him on Twitter. George Northy described it as “Mare of Easttown on a nuclear submarine.” And that’s actually probably what it is. You have a female police detective investigating a murder. It’s on this British nuclear submarine, but she has family custodial drama. There’s just a lot happening in her personal life [unintelligible 00:56:11] being a claustrophobic character on a submarine. I just really dug it. I love everything that has a submarine, but I really thought it worked especially well. The twists and turns were great. There’s that classic sense of Mare of Easttown. At a certain point, you suspect that every character you’ve seen on screen somehow was involved in these murders. That’s the show, and I really, really dug it.

**Craig:** Fantastic. My one cool thing this week, is the MIT Mystery Hunt, which you cannot– Currently, it’s a week later now when you’re hearing this or five days later, and it will surely have been solved by some group of incredibly brilliant people. But I don’t know if you’re familiar with the MIT Mystery Hunt, John.

**John:** I don’t know what it is.

**Craig:** MIT Mystery Hunt has been going on for quite some time, maybe 20 years. It was always a physical hunt that took place on the MIT campus that involved solving lots and lots of puzzles, which would feed into meta puzzles. It’s like an incredibly complicated, long version of the thing that David Quang and I did at The Magic Castle that you attended.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It would take place over the course of a number of days. It would involve moving physically around the campus and finding a coin, and then you won. If you found the coin, you were the team that won. Over the years, it’s become more and more complicated. The last couple of years, it’s been virtual for obvious reasons, including this year.

One of the interesting things about the MIT Mystery Hunt is that the team that wins is responsible for creating the mystery hunt for the next year. When I tell you that this is like a full-time job, I’m not kidding. Last year, a team named Palindrome or Team Palindrome, they won, and they have won before, a couple of times, I think. Some of my friends are on it, including Dave Shukan and Mark Halpin. There’s also a guy that I’ve occasionally solved puzzles with named Eric Berlin, who I think was their captain. These folks, along with dozens of other people, this is a very large team, by all accounts created quite the hunt, and I think it legitimately took them all year to create this huge event that teams are currently working on and solving right now.

To give you a sense of how complicated it gets, the team last year, Galactic Trendsetters, they were the ones that won the year before us, they created the puzzle hunt last year, they literally created their own MMO for this event. Because you’re dealing with MIT people. They can do anything, anything. They’re coding. They created their own proprietary software for this. Anyway, it’s very exciting. I’m a decent solver. I’m just not at this level. I can solve the first tier of their puzzles, but the later tier, beyond me, definitely beyond me. It’s going on right now. I don’t think anyone’s won yet. But my guess is probably by– we’re recording on a Saturday. Probably by Sunday, there will be a winner. So, I just wanted to say one cool thing to Team Palindrome for creating all that working, so hard. It’s not a paid job. And then, congrats to everyone that solves it and participates in it. And of course, a special congratulations to the team that wins. I don’t know who they are yet.

**John:** I was going to say, I wonder why someone would do something like this when they aren’t getting paid for it, and all they could do is have some sense of satisfaction of how they made a thing, after– [crosstalk]

[laughter]

**Craig:** Well, we get to do this one hour a week. The sense I got was that this was practically a full-time job that required its own organizational structure and methods, and just review– I actually test solve quite a few puzzles for them. I think they were nice to only have me test solve the ones that I was capable of solving, but they were all really interesting. There are rafts of test solvers that are being worked on. They have this point system for evaluating. It’s incredibly com– it’s like producing a show. It’s something else. Great work on that, everyone. I’m hoping everyone’s enjoying it. I’m sure they are. Dave Shukan has told me that he will send me a collection of good ones that he thinks I [chuckles] can solve that I haven’t already solved. So, thanks, Dave. I appreciate that.

**John:** Fantastic. Also, it might be a good moment to shout out a congratulations to a friend of the show, David Kwong, who is now engaged.

**Craig:** That’s right. David Kwong is finally going to be an honest man.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** We’re incredibly happy for him.

**John:** Yeah, please don’t saw your wife in half. That’s all we’re asking.

**Craig:** Those are the people that are doing all the hard work on stage. You know that, right?

**John:** Yeah, of course. They’re the contortionists.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly.

**John:** Yeah. And that’s our show this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by William Brink. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I am @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. It’s also where you can also find the links to some of the scripts we talked about today. You’ll find the transcripts there. And you can sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have t-shirts, and they’re great. They have Stuart’s sense of softness. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. The hoodies are great. Now, Craig, did you pick up your hoodie while you’re in town or not?

**Craig:** Oh, I don’t think I did.

**John:** Okay. Well, we’ll ship it to you up in Calgary so you can keep warm.

**Craig:** Oh, thank you.

**John:** They turned out really well. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record, talking about the screenwriter equivalent of bootcamp. Until then, relax, stay chill. And we’ll see you next time on Scriptnotes. Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

[music]

**John:** Hey, Megana, we got a question from Andrew. Read the question that Andrew has?

**Megana:** Andrew asks, “I’ve heard many former or current soap opera actors refer to working on the soap as a bootcamp for them, mainly because of the production schedule and the need to get everything right the first time. Soap actors who find work elsewhere are praised for their ability to memorize and always get things right quickly. Is it the same for writers? Do writers who worked on soap operas have an insane work ethic and the ability to turn out content? If not, what is the writing equivalent of a writing boot camp?”

**John:** All right. That’s an interesting question. There obviously are. There are actors who started out soap opera actors who are now some of our best actors out there. Not everyone who works on a soap opera is going to be the best actor out there. But that sense of being able to show up, do the work, get it done, get it right the first time, memorize a bunch of lines, that all feels great and crucial. Craig, can you think of examples of high pressure or writing jobs where there’s so much quantity that you actually do pick up good skills?

**Craig:** Sure. I think I went through it, and it’s called advertising. Copywriting in advertising is pretty brutal. You have to do a lot of different kinds of writing, is to do a lot of idea making, which is important obviously. You have to talk a lot about how to get into something and what the purpose of something is, so you learn about purposefulness. And then you have to write a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot of versions. Versions, and versions and versions. And they all have to fit to time. You’re dealing with a very limited amount of time to get your idea across, the purpose, the point, structure, beginning, middle, end. And then, you have to do it again, but for a shorter amount of time to do multiple versions of it. When you’re cutting things together for marketing like trailers and things, you need to start asking which of this stuff is emerging as important or salient or notable. And you also learn which movies are harder to market because they don’t know what they’re about either. All of that is pretty great bootcamp. You learn audio, you learn visual, you learn how to write, purpose, revisions, rewrites.

When you come out of it, you’re pretty well set up to go on to the next thing. I’m not recommending that people go seek it out as the basis for a screenwriting career, but having gone through it, I think boot camps is a pretty darn good term for it.

**John:** My freshman year of college, I was a journalism advertising major. My J54 was the basic news writing class I had to take. It was famously difficult class, it was exhausting class, because it was 8:00 in the morning, you’d show up and the professor say, “Okay, I need each of you to find a story on campus and it needs to be delivered in the next 90 minutes.” So, you’re like, “Argh.” You’re running around, trying to find something to write about. Get introduced, get notes, get back, sit down at a computer and write the story. And then, he would hover over you as you’re writing. It really made you focus in on just getting it done, getting the words out, thinking about that pyramid style, like the most important stuff at the top and being able to cut off the story at any point, and breaking some of your preciousness are the way that you can get in your own way with stuff. So, I had to learn how to write those kinds of news stories. And yeah, I did learn a lot there.

But that kind of news writing is different than longform journalism. When I would actually have the time to actually do more work and to do more than just reporting, but actually think about synthesizing and putting stuff together, those classes were much more useful in terms of my actual screenwriting, in terms of thinking about how I’m going to go from, “Here’s a bunch of ideas,” to, “Here is the way I’m going to structure and tell these ideas in a way that is interesting.” I think we have to have both. I just stayed doing news writing, it would be like when I was working at Tristar and having to write coverage on two scripts a day. It would burn a hole in your brain and limit you from doing other kind of writing.

**Craig:** That’s one of the downsides of working as a young person in something like advertising, is that the people who have remained, you can tell that they have been scarred and changed by it.

**John:** Yeah. [chuckles]

**Craig:** It’s because there is something brutal about writing that isn’t about the writing itself. That whatever you write is in service of a purpose. You learn to write with purpose, but only purpose. Whereas when you’re writing things to entertain people, there is its own intrinsic value. The point is watch this, not watch something else, or learn about something else. When are in your 20s and you’re working at these things, you often are working for people that are maybe a little roughed up. I remember meeting some wonderful people. It’s possible also that my experience and your experience was strongly informed by the year it was. The 90s, people were meaner in the 90s.

[laughter]

**Craig:** They really were. People were mean.

**John:** Well, let’s think about things that are closer to what we are actually doing for a living. People do write soap operas obviously, and soaps are covered by the WJ. There’s WJ writers who are writing soaps. I don’t see a lot of people who are moving from writing soaps into other things. It feels almost like game show writing. It’s a very unique specialty, because you’re just having to crank out so much and there’s just not time to do the kinds of other work you could be doing. But there’s obviously people write on network one-hours that are like procedural shows, and there’s a whole way procedural shows work. There’s TV sitcoms, which have a very different vibe in how it’s all geared up towards the weekly taping of the show. Those are very differing experiences, but you are on the hook for generating a lot of material each week. And it’s going to get you out of some of your preciousness about everything having to be perfect at all times.

**Craig:** Yeah. You can pick up skills in these things. Accountability is a big one. It would have been really hard as a 21- or 22-year-old to start writing a screenplay with no sense of accountability whatsoever. When you are paying your bills because of the stuff you’re writing, you learn accountability. You also learn frustration.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** The frustration of being a writer, I don’t want to say it’s a good thing, but it’s a helpful thing that we get frustrated so frequently, because we get better and better at dealing with it. There are other categories of artists in our business that I don’t think have been exposed to the frustration we’ve been exposed to. It’s harder for them to deal with. We are weathered.

**John:** We’re talking about these early jobs as being you’re accountable for doing stuff, and you haven’t just turned stuff in. Schools can be accountability mechanisms, where basically you are having to turn stuff in and therefore having to get work done on a regular basis, and be able to show it to people and actually have a conversation with people, which could be great. But, Megana, I’m thinking about the writing groups that you’re a part of. A large part of that is accountability, where you’re getting better because you’re being forced to generate stuff for each week’s meeting.

**Megana:** Absolutely. I think the social pressure of it is really helpful too. I think you lose your preciousness really fast. One thing my writing group implemented, which has been helpful during the pandemic, is that you have to say what your goal is for the next session, and if you don’t meet that you have to contribute a certain amount into a pot that we use at the end of six months to take ourselves out. So, there’s a financial repercussion if you’re not meeting your goals.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s right.

**Megana:** That is helpful. It’s like, “Ah, okay, well, I’ll send something in that I feel unsure about because I don’t want to spend 20 bucks on missing this deadline.”

**Craig:** Hmm. You don’t want to give me that option of buying my way out of writing though.

[laughter]

**John:** Well, let’s talk about– Craig and I have been bought many times. I want to think about when we do weekly work, and I’m not doing as many weeklies as I used to, but for a time I was doing a fair number of weeklies, and it wasn’t very classically that pick two motto. Something could be fast or cheap, or good, and you’re going to pick two. They would pay me really good money. I was not cheap, but I was fast and I was good. It was my ability to recognize what they needed, to be able to deliver what they needed within this short period of time that they had. If I could write great pages but I couldn’t turn them in on time, that was not helpful to them. If I was fast and I wasn’t delivering what they needed, it wouldn’t have worked. So, I did learn a lot having to generate pages that could shoot tomorrow on that timeline.

**Craig:** Everybody has their own internal clock. If you find yourself in a situation where writing has to be done really quickly and really well in a short amount of time, it may not be for you. You may not have the ability to write well that quickly. You may not have the emotional ability to write that well that quickly. One of the things that happens when you’re working on a weekly, and it’s very similar to when you’re working on short term, impulse projects like advertising and so forth, is you’re also going to be getting the same amount of compressed reviewing and critiquing in the short amount of time. So, you work on something for a week, you’re readily expecting to be rewriting and rewriting and rewriting and hearing and talking and back and forth and back and forth for the week, it’s intense. And you need to be able to do all that, and have the emotional fortitude and the mental stamina, and your mind just has to work quickly. It’s not for everybody, it really isn’t.

I love doing weeklies because they actually don’t have the level of accountability that other things have. And I don’t mean to imply that I write a bunch of crap and walk away laughing. I care very much. But it’s focused, it’s so focused, I’m not responsible for the entire movie. I’m just trying to fix the first act. And then, I’m gone. I’m doing everything I can in that moment to help, but I am not raising this child. I’m just watching them like a grandparent for three days.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s more like you’re the emergency room doctor who’s keeping the patient alive and stabilized and getting them so they can walk out of the hospital, but you’re not responsible for like, “Oh, that other thing which we detected,” you’re not going to fix all those problems.

**Craig:** I did. There was one project I’m working on where I was like, “I’m not the emergency doctor trying to stabilize this patient. I am the undertaker just trying to get you into open casket funeral.”

[laughter]

**Craig:** That’s all I’m doing. This thing is dead. I just wanted the parents to be able to see it when you wheel it out there because right now, oh, my God.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve all been there. We’ve seen some of those movies and early things. I say yes, there are some bootcamp situations. Do you need to enroll or list yourself in a bootcamp situation? I would say to our friend who wrote in, Andrew, assess what you need. Is your problem that you’re just not getting stuff done? Is your problem accountability? Then, signing up for a class or getting into a writing group might be good interest in terms of getting you to generate more pages. If the problem’s that you’re just not generating a lot, that’s great. If you’re a person who’s generating a lot of stuff, it’s just not very good, maybe what you don’t need is a bootcamp. Maybe you just need some quality control. Maybe you need to slow down a little bit more and focus on refining some stuff, and getting some people to read you, who can really help talk you through what’s working, what’s not working, so you can actually polish rather than just generate the most you can generate.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Cool. Thanks, guys.

**Craig:** Thank you, guys.

**Megana:** Thank you.

LINKS:

* [The CW is for sale!](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/the-cw-sale-nexstar-1235073465/)
* [Annie Hayes on Writing with an Invisible Illness](https://johnaugust.com/2022/writing-with-an-invisible-illness) on John’s blog
* [Being the Ricardos](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Being-The-Ricardos-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf) by Aaron Sorkin
* [The Lost Daughter](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Lost-Daughter-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf) by Maggie Gyllenhaal
* [The Mitchells vs. the Machines](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Mitchells-Vs-The-Machines-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf) by Mike Rianda And Jeff Rowe
* [Passing](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Passing-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf) by Rebecca Hall
* [Belfast](https://focusfeaturesguilds2021.com/belfast/Belfast.pdf) by Kenneth Branagh
* [Tick, Tick, Boom](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Tick-Tick-Boom-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf) by Steven Levenson
* [Willy Wonka Script](https://johnaugust.com/library) at the johnaugust.com library!
* [Vigil](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11846996/) show
* [MIT Mystery Hunt 2022](http://puzzles.mit.edu/nexthunt.html)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by William Brink ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/533standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 530: The One with Jack Thorne, Transcript

January 19, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/the-one-with-jack-thorne).

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

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

**John August:**
This is episode 530 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’ll look at making TV in the U.S. versus the UK, and what writers on either continent need to know. Then we’ll discuss disability on screen and behind screen. As we get ready to move into 2022, we’ll focus on some goals you can control. Now, Craig, since you and I are not well versed on several of these topics, could you suggest someone who could talk to us more eloquently about these issues?

**Craig Mazin:**
When you’re looking for somebody who is eloquent and you can’t find that person, you immediately to turn to Jack Thorne. One of my past One Cool Things, one of my favorite writers and one of my favorite people in the world, Jack is, among other things, very tall. He is wonderfully British and a spectacularly good and almost as importantly, spectacularly prolific writer. Among his as many brilliant credits are the The Aeronauts, National Treasure, not the looking for treasure in the U.S., but National Treasure, the sexual abuse scandal film that was done in the UK, Wonder, Enola Holmes, The Secret Garden. Television credits include His Dark Materials, Skins, Shameless, and the play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, along with the miniseries This is Britain. Basically Jack is kind of the cornerstone, as far as I’m concerned, of modern English screenwriting for feature and television, and again, one of my favorite people in the world. If he weren’t already wonderful enough, he’s gone and kind of out-sainted you, John, which is really hard to do, by giving voice to an issue that has gotten a bit of a short shrift as our industry, global industry, has attempted to rectify sins of the past and do better for everyone working within. That is advocacy for disabilities and the representation of disabilities and disabled folks on screen. Welcome Jack Thorne.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you for having me. You’re very nice.

**Craig Mazin:**
I agree.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne manages to be incredibly humble. Even in emails, you could hear his voice. This is the first time I’m really meeting him, but you could hear his humility in an email like, “Oh, I shouldn’t even be on the show.” It’s like, of course you should be on the show. Thank you very much for agreeing to join us here.

**Jack Thorne:**
You’re very kind. I feel like I sort of thrust myself upon you, but yes, all good.

**John August:**
Now we’re going to talk about these things, but I also want to, for a bonus topic, get into the differences between American English and British English and sort of how you reveal which side of the pond you’re on in your screenwriting and whether you should basically put the U’s in the words when you’re writing a British thing. We’ll get the official answer from you about writing American versus writing British.

**Craig Mazin:**
Just spoiler alert. Don’t use the phrase fanny pack when you’re writing in England.

**John August:**
Now, as I was watching your MacTaggart lecture, which we’re going to put a link in the show notes to, it was one of Craig’s previous One Cool Things, we have questions about it from our listeners, but as I started listening to it, I recognized that this is a famous lecture given every year at the Edinburgh Film Festival, Edinburgh TV Festival I guess, about television. Can you just give us a sense of what the MacTaggart lecture is? Your being chosen for it was an honor, of course, but also probably a huge responsibility. Then we can maybe transition into really talking about British television, because I kind of only barely understand it.

**Jack Thorne:**
The MacTaggart is a big thing. It’s had all sorts of different stages in its existence. More recently it’s had quite a lot of makers talk. Michaela Coel famously gave a speech which laid the groundwork for what became I May Destroy You. Before that there was a period when it just basically took the most powerful people in television and gave them a microphone, which included at one point an excruciating lecture from James Murdoch. It’s had lots of different iterations. Everyone from Dennis Potter to Troy Kennedy has done it at different points, and it was a ridiculous honor to be given it, and as you say, a huge responsibility, because coming out of COVID in particular, it was clear what I needed to talk about, but whether I had the necessary means to talk about those things, whether I had the moral power to talk about those things, were questions I really wrestled with.

**Craig Mazin:**
Let’s talk about your moral qualifications. By the way, I should apologize. The shows you work on were called This Is England, not This Is Britain, but I’m a donkey, so this’ll happen every now and again. Why were you wondering if you were morally qualified to deliver this talk? In what ways do you have any kind of personal insight into this, or why this? Why connect it to this topic for you?

**Jack Thorne:**
I walk a really weird line where disability is concerned in that I was a disabled person. I had a physical breakdown when I was 21. I got this condition called cholinergic urticaria, which left me unable to move. I became allergic to heats in all its forms. I became allergic to sunlight. I became allergic to radiators. I became allergic to my body movement. Every time I moved, I provoked an allergic reaction. I spent six months flat on my back, and then slowly but surely I worked out how to get better. I got on the right medication and I got the right doc support. It was about 12 to 15 years of my life, I was very limited in terms of what I could do, but I got better.

**Jack Thorne:**
Now during that time, there’s this theater company in the UK called Graeae. Graeae are this wonderful company, disabled-led, that’s trying tell stories about the disabled experience with disabled performers and disabled writers and disabled makers. They have this open day. I went along to this open day, unsure whether I belonged or not. I talked to a woman there called Alex Baumer, and she said, “Of course you belong here. You are a disabled person.” It felt like something just kind of … My back straightened. It was like, “Oh right, this is where my pain makes sense,” because the thing is, if you are battling pain every day as I was, you don’t really know who to talk to about it. There comes a point where people get a bit bored of hearing you talk about it, and so you sort of stop talking about it. That thing of being part of a community of people for whom pain was an everyday occurrence and who navigated these things, and it didn’t mean that I had someone to moan to, it just meant that I felt like I belong somewhere.

**Jack Thorne:**
The way I talk about myself now is I was a disabled person, I am now a member of the disabled community. Whether that’s legitimate or not, I don’t know, but it’s what I cling to because I think that that experience and what happened to me is a history that’s still very current in my body, and it’s a history that’s still very current in my head. I’m trying to, as much as I can, do disabled work and have disabled performers and disabled makers within my shows. I am in no way an angel where that is concerned. I have got it wrong a huge number of times. As I talk in the lecture, I have been a coward a huge number of times. That question as to can I talk about this, is it legitimate for me to talk about this, and how will people feel about me holding the microphone when I talk about these issues, when I’m not someone who has the stigma and the attacks, who isn’t coping currently with a disability, how will people feel about me being the one that’s holding that microphone?

**Craig Mazin:**
They seem to feel pretty good about it, from what I can tell. The response was dramatic and it was extremely well received, and for good reason. You have chosen an excellent cri de coeur, and you have delivered it beautifully. One of the things you talk about are the notion of invisible disabilities. Disability is something that affects everyone sooner or later. This is a universal condition at some point for everyone. Chronic pain is something that an enormous amount of people live with silently. I myself have lived with chronic pain now for about four years. I don’t talk about it much, or ever. Here I am. I’m okay. We carry on. I’m very British this way I suppose. I should start saying English. I’m very English this way. It is something that everybody deals with to some level or another.

**Craig Mazin:**
One of the things that I really admire about you is that while you have talked a little bit about how and why you came to be inside of this movement, you also don’t make it about yourself. You recognize that there are tiers of disability and that there are people who have been more egregiously treated and more egregiously left out. That is something that is happening on both sides of the camera, behind and in front, in terms of how people, when we create characters who are disabled, how we treat and portray them, who we hire to cast them, who is writing those characters. All these questions are now coming to the forefront in a way that I think had not happened until people like you, not only you, but people like you really started banging the gong over the last few years.

**Jack Thorne:**
The way I see it is that I’m temporarily in a spotlight for a moment. I was given that spotlight by the MacTaggart, and my job is to get out of that spotlight as fast as possible, which would be nice, personally would be nice, in order to let more legitimate people come to the front. I’m trying to do that in my working practice too, in terms of co-writing and producing and trying to change the dial so that the spotlight is filled with those people that it should be.

**John August:**
Great. Before we get to some of the recommendations about improving portrayals of disability on screen and the work behind screen, can we talk a little bit about the environment in which you’re giving this lecture? Because I don’t think we have anything equivalent to this in the United States. We have upfronts, which is the annual meeting of big advertisers where they pitch their big new shows. In the film industry we have the big exhibitor screenings where we’re talking about things. We don’t have a situation where there is one point of focus saying this is the state of the industry, this is an important thing we must focus on, whether it be you talking about this, Michaela Coel or Rupert Murdoch. We don’t have anybody talking about this and what needs to change, why it needs to change. I think you also bring up in the lecture is that television actually does have a moral responsibility because it is in everyone’s home. Can you talk to us about how television functions in the UK and if you feel like that might be different than how it functions in the U.S? I feel as an outsider, I think there is a central authority to television in the UK that does not exist in the U.S.

**Jack Thorne:**
That’s really interesting. It’s not something I’ve especially thought about in terms of comparing the two, but we do, I suppose, wrestle a bit more in this country, maybe with the general state of the industry rather than specific programs. The MacTaggart is supposed to be that conversation, what should TV be, because yeah, I think that TV is hugely important. I think it’s the stimulation of a conversation. If you look at the trajectory of where we are, I think TV, sometimes it’s reflecting society and sometimes it’s pushing society on. The movement between the West Wing to Succession is quite a stark point. What it means that we want society reflected that way, or is the reflection provoking the society that is, is I think a really, really fascinating question and something I think about an awful lot.

**Craig Mazin:**
You’ve got a situation in the UK where there seems to be a lot more state involvement in practically everything, and television is no exception. BBC, I don’t know if it is technically the most viewed channel on television, but it’s certainly-

**Jack Thorne:**
I would suspect so. I would suspect so.

**Craig Mazin:**
In the United States, PBS gets about 12 people a week watching it. I apologize, PBS. I know it’s more than that, but it’s very small. As John says, all of our gatherings, whether it’s the Television Critics Association or the upfronts as you mentioned, it’s all commerce. It’s all about selling. That’s partly because it is entirely a question of corporations and not at all a question of the state, and therefore there is no governmental interest or point of view in the United States. Television is an industry and it is not necessarily ever promoted as some kind of potential lever for good. I think that is a cultural difference between the United States and the UK that is stark. It makes a lot of sense that in the UK television and culture in general would be spoken about both in terms of commerce, but also in terms of how to promote the public good. I’m interested in how you feel things have gone practically. I know that at least in the public space of discussion, your lecture, as I mentioned before, was incredibly well received. It was reprinted and revideoed everywhere. I think it’s the kind of thing that makes people feel really good to talk about. My question is are they just talking about it or are things changing? Because ultimately I feel like the only prayer we have over here is in this instance seeing some leadership from your side of the pond.

**Jack Thorne:**
As part of what has happened in the last year, I’ve been part of this pressure group. We call ourselves a pressure group called Underlying Health Condition. We call ourselves Underlying Health Condition because we are angry at the appropriation of that phrase to describe essentially disabled people and disabled deaths. Certainly in the first half of the pandemic, the idea of dividing deaths in two seemed to go everywhere, where it was like, okay, there’s one set of deaths that we worry about and then there’s one set of deaths that we really don’t. We had our first Omicron death in this country recently. you saw the question being asked everywhere, which is, did he have an underlying health condition, in that should we be concerned or is it just happening to disabled people? We formed this pressure group, and we formed this pressure group to look at TV. My lecture came out of that pressure group, and now we’ve launched a report on the back of our findings. A number of different things have happened in the last six months, that straight after the lecture that the BBC and Netflix and Channel Four made commitments to disabled programming. There were certainly mooted commitments from Sky and Channel Five too.

**Jack Thorne:**
What we are focused on, I mean Underlying Health Condition, which isn’t just me, it’s me, Katie Player and Holly Lubran, who are two people that work behind the scenes, and Genevieve Barr, who is an actress and a co-writer of mine, we’ve done three things together, and a writer in her own right too, and what our focus has been on is accessibility, because TV is incredibly inaccessible. I’ve been sitting on panels with disabled actors and makers for the last 15 years, and at the start of every discussion, the first question that basically comes up is how do we make TV accessible to us, because we can’t use the toilet.

**Jack Thorne:**
Underlying Health Condition did a survey of facilities companies and of studio spaces. Facilities companies, one of the starkest findings was there is one accessible honey wagon. The honey wagon is our name for toilets. I don’t know whether you call the toilets-

**Craig Mazin:**
We call it that too.

**John August:**
Honey wagon, right.

**Jack Thorne:**
There’s one accessible honey wagon in the whole of the UK. For 20% of the population, there’s one toilet that they can use. I hear stories all the time from friends who are wheelchair users about trying to restrict how much they use the toilet, because using the toilet costs the production time, and they do not want to be responsible for costing the production time, because this is the reality for disabled people all the time, which is we do not want to cause trouble. If we cause trouble, we might not get hired again. On panels, every single time that would come up. From friends, every single time that would come up. We set out, trying to work out how our industry could break down the barriers, how we could reform the way that the industry functions so that if you are a disabled person, you are not excluded by the space you work in. The response to that has also been very good. We are at the start of that process. It’s going to require a big injection of time and money. Who knows what practical things will come out? Certainly at the moment I’m talking to very senior people in the BCC and Channel Four and ITV and in Sky and Amazon and Netflix, and going to find ways to address our recommendations. There is stuff happening. It’s just it’s going to take a while. It’s going to be hard.

**Jack Thorne:**
In terms of what you say about the U.S, that’s really interesting. We work closely with the One In Four Coalition, which was set up by a wonderful talent manager called Eryn Brown. What she’s done is amazing. One of our key recommendations is for an accessibility officer on every set.

**John August:**
That’s interesting.

**Jack Thorne:**
That comes from One In Four. They have been at the forefront of that. They say the same as you, which is maybe, if Britain, which is a smaller community with more government, maybe if Britain sets about answering some of these questions, then the ripples can be felt in the U.S.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s really interesting.

**John August:**
We’re going to put links in the show notes to both the Underlying Health report and the One In Four Coalition to see the recommendations. There’s overlap between the two of them, but I want to focus on the four key recommendations that you have in your report, which they seem very practical, which really speaks to the fact that you are a person who makes television and understands that you need to actually be able to do things and achieve things and make things happen. The first recommendation is a line in every budget for needed adjustments. Talk to us about adjustments that might need to come up in a budget to make a show accessible to a disabled person.

**Jack Thorne:**
That was about making the production responsible for those adjustments. By the way, you say in terms of practicality, I am useless. I am one of the least practical people alive. Katie Player, who’s one of my co-writers on this, is a production manager. She understood behind the scenes a lot better than us. When it was coming up with these recommendations, she has been an invaluable part of that. The idea is that there is small fund, and by small we’re talking 5,000 pounds adjustable down if you’re a smaller production, which is available for interpreters, is available for ramps, is available for a stool, is available for anything that the accessibility officer or coordinator suggests that just might make the experience better. It’s not a radical sort of like, “Yeah, we’re going to have to build something specifically for a purpose.” It’s about adjusting what we’ve got.

**Jack Thorne:**
Katie worked on a show of mine a few years ago and managed to get a hold of a ramp that she now takes with her wherever she goes. She was working on another production where the ramp didn’t quite go down to the floor because the trailers were a bit higher, so someone built her a little wooden extension to the ramp. Those sorts of things, it’s not a huge amount of money, but it can make a huge difference that the production is prepared and ready and considering the adjustments that might be required for a disabled person.

**Craig Mazin:**
It doesn’t seem like that an enormous amount of resources are required. What’s required is a minimum of care. When we all started in the business and somebody was walking around, let’s say on some sort of elevated space in a scene, they would walk around and the stunt people would say, “Don’t get too close to the edge,” and you wouldn’t get too close to the edge. Now we tether people and we paint it out digitally because we have safety standards that are stricter. Yet as we have advanced the cause of safety where we can, we don’t have disabled accessible toilets or a trailer that has something other than steps on it. I watch even people who aren’t disabled but merely old struggle on sets. I struggle on sets at times just to get around and over things. It is not the most hospitable place. Changing things would not require a lot of money. It seems to me that it just needs attention, a small amount of attention, which is why I’m desperately hopeful that this kind of attention that you’re bringing to this is going to work.

**Craig Mazin:**
Normally what you hear is, “Yes, no, of course, and we’re absolutely looking into these things, but it’s a large budget item,” and rah rah blah blah blah, of course. They’re discussing this while they’re having dinner and charging it back to the production. Something for instance, you mentioned the idea of a disability coordinator I think. Is that what you called it, a disability coordinator?

**Jack Thorne:**
Accessibility.

**Craig Mazin:**
Accessibility coordinator. Even better. We have intimacy coordinators now. We never did before. In the old days there would be sex scenes, there would be scenes with nudity, and some of those sex scenes were violent and criminal in nature, and people would just do it. A lot of weird stuff happened. A lot of bad stuff happened. There was certainly an enormous amount of pressure on people and confusion about boundaries. Now we have an entire professional class of people who appear to help mitigate those problems. We’ve had somebody like that on our set, not for a sex scene, but just because there was something that involved some nudity. It was amazing having her there. She made everything really clear and simple. It was a relief. I would think that productions would want this, because it’s a relief to have somebody help you navigate through it, especially if you are running the production and you aren’t disabled and you don’t have a lot of personal experience with people with disabilities. Then let’s just hire the people who do and let’s make everybody comfortable and welcome, physically comfortable and physically welcome.

**Jack Thorne:**
Absolutely. Disability is a spectrum. It could be that there are people who identify as disabled and for whom the accessibility coordinator will make a huge, huge difference immediately. There are others on the set who won’t necessarily know how to talk about what’s going on with them. To have someone that they can talk to privately about what needs they might have that the production isn’t automatically addressing will make a huge difference to the comfort of their lives and their ability to do the job. It’s such a small thing, but it could just create an unbelievable change in how people feel going to work. It stops things happening like, a friend of mine’s a producer, the production was on the fourth floor, the lift stopped working, so they put her in the canteen. She wasn’t part of the production from then on. She was just excluded on the outside of it. That happens all the time. If you have someone that’s just there to go, “This doesn’t work. We need to address it in a different way. We need to radically think about things or just moderately think about things,” the difference could be profound.

**Craig Mazin:**
We’ll get to lift versus elevator later.

**John August:**
Our premium members can hear about the lift versus elevator debate. Now you were talking about the needs on a set or the physical needs of a place, but one of your recommendations seems more targeting who gets to actually be able to write on programs. This is freelancer funds coming out of the high-end TV pool, which is where I recognize that I don’t know how British TV works, because what is a-

**Craig Mazin:**
What is that?

**John August:**
… high-end TV pool? Your MacTaggart lecture also mentions different tiers of budgets. Can you talk us through what those are? Because it’s really confusing to me.

**Jack Thorne:**
I don’t know it all. High-end TV is everything I believe above 750,000 pounds an hour. That’s about a million dollars would it be?

**Craig Mazin:**
Yep.

**John August:**
About a million.

**Jack Thorne:**
The high-end TV pool was formed a little while ago. It was a commitment by broadcasters that if your show was above that tariff, if your show budgeted above that tariff, then you would pay not .5% of your budget into a pool, which was for training purposes for people coming into the industry. It’s run by an amazing group called Screen Skills. Screen Skills have been talking to us about whether they could be part of this freelancers fund. It would be amazing if they can. The idea is that it’s not .1% on top of that, which would just allow for disabled people who have needs to have those needs cared for.

**Jack Thorne:**
I was working on a show. Someone’s call was at 6:00 a.m. Now if their call is at 6:00 a.m. that requires a carer to be with them at 3:00 a.m. They don’t have the money in their budget, their personal budget, to have a carer with them at 3:00 a.m. If they had access to this freelancers fund, that would allow for it. Similarly, deaf people and having an interpreter around both on set and off set so that they are not excluded from the processes that are happening off set as well as on set. All these things require someone to make life work more easily for those who have impairments. A freelancers fund would allow for that.

**Jack Thorne:**
Now we have something in the UK called Access to Work, which is for disabled people to access, which is supposedly for that, for the adjustments that they need that go beyond what an industry would pay for them, so that the industry wasn’t paying for them so that the government pays that bit so that the industry still pays their wage and so people aren’t excluded from work. It’s a very, very brilliant scheme. Unfortunately, it doesn’t operate very well in the TV sector because our jobs are very transitory, can happen very quickly, and also Access To Work has had quite a few cuts to it in the last 15 years under the Tory government, which has meant that it operates a little less well than it used to, well a lot less well than it used to.

**Jack Thorne:**
We think that this fund, which the rich in the TV industry will pay for, you know that everyone that makes high-end TV is rich in comparison to the rest of the country, our industry is doing very well compared to the rest of the country, would allow for a world in which disabled creatives would have power over their own agency.

**John August:**
The point to bring up here is that it’s one thing, with it probably equivalent thing American with Disabilities Act, which requires that place of employment, place you need to go into are accessible. It’s one thing if you have an office worker who’s making sure that getting into the office building and the use of the office building is accessible, but a freelancer going from show to show to show, in television or in film, they cannot count on the fact that things are going to be accessible for them. Some sort of funds that let them bring their accessibility with them feels crucial. I think that gives me some hope that some of these changes can be implemented. As we saw with the advent of COVID that studios really wanted to be back in production as they found ways to, “Okay, we’re going to set up COVID funds. We’re going to figure out how to do this thing.” It was really difficult, but you know what? We made a lot of good film and television during the pandemic once we figured out how to do this stuff. They can spend money when it’s in their interest to spend money.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh yes. Think about this, John. Every day our production is providing health support and services to every single member of our crew in the form of COVID testing and making sure that everybody has PPE and all of that stuff. We do it. There’s an entire job now, and an entire team of people working for the guy who’s in charge of COVID compliance. We have cleaners that we didn’t used to have before. We were able to mobilize an entire new department, new division of people that cost new amounts of money so that otherwise healthy people wouldn’t get sick. We seem to struggle with anything that would help people who live with a disability. That’s just shocking. It’s the sort of thing, and Jack, don’t beat yourself up, you’re doing amazing work, I know you’ve mentioned your cowardice, I don’t note any of it. I think the sin out here in the world of not being Jack Thorne is a general obliviousness. It’s very easy to be oblivious about this sort of thing, until it gets you, and then harder, a lot harder to be oblivious.

**John August:**
Let’s talk about differences between the U.S. system and the UK system. The UK system has this sense of moral authority in television and in industry grappling with a thing. We don’t have that, but we do have unions. We do have, in ways that the UK doesn’t have, we have bodies that set standards for things. It does feel like in terms of performers being able to do their job on sets, that feels like a thing that SAG wrestles with, to a degree to which writers have the ability to participate in a writers room, to have interpreters be available for them if they need them. That feels like a WGA thing, the same with DGA. We have groups that can mobilize tremendous pressure to get some of these things done, and I would not be surprised if as we push forward here, we’ll see these unions step up to demand some of these changes happen. It won’t happen the same way. It may not happen as quickly. I think some of these things can and should happen.

**John August:**
I’m also reminded that when we added the parental leave benefit to the WGA, which is a new thing we won, one of the artist rule to make is that, listen, everybody who works for Netflix right now gets paternity leave, gets parental leave when they have a kid. It just seems right that the writer who’s creating that show should have the same benefits as the executive who’s running that thing. I can imagine a situation where people who are working for the studios right now have expectations that their workplaces can be wheelchair accessible for people who need to use wheelchairs. The same should apply to our sets. I think that logic sometimes can help and help people think about why they need to be thinking about this and why they need to be ready to spend some money to make that happen.

**Jack Thorne:**
I love that. I’d not considered that the unions could be a huge, huge role. You’re right, the power of your unions is so much bigger than the power of the unions in this country. The idea that they could provoke this change, it’s really warming, it’s really huge, really exciting to hear actually.

**Craig Mazin:**
All they have to do is work together, which they’ve never done before [inaudible 00:30:51].

**John August:**
Even working under their own self-interest though, some things can change. It tends to build upon each other, so things do happen. We have two listener questions that came in which were very specifically designed for you to come on the show, not even knowing that you’d come on the show. Megana, can you help us out with some of these questions that we’ve gotten?

**Megana Rao:**
Great. Scared of Umbrage but Desperate for Insight asks, “Craig-”

**Craig Mazin:**
Here we go.

**Megana Rao:**
“Your cool thing has broken me. Jack Thorne’s MacTaggart lecture was extremely impactful. I feel broken because I’m concerned I’m taking the wrong lessons or that I’m being selfish. Originally I was writing a story with a main character who had been disfigured in military service. Later I decided to pare it down to a mental health issue like PTSD, because I just didn’t think that I should write it, as I have no experience with physically disabled people, but I can’t help reference the embarrassingly large number of stories put to screen that have clearly been written by people who don’t have the slightest clue how their character should sound or how those events should play out.

**Megana Rao:**
“Mr. Thorne’s speech has made me think about a lot of things that I don’t have answers for. I want to write for female characters, because in my life the women around me have been so valuable and interesting that I’m inspired to write with them in mind. I listen to the voices of marginalized people speak on how they feel. They just want a place at the table, starting with their faces in popular culture. I fall immediately into self-doubt and concern for what my place is in producing that culture. I am a near radioactive level of white bread American. Should I even participate?

**Megana Rao:**
“Jack Thorne spoke passionately and with great vulnerability about a group of people that just wants dignity and a fair shake. How do I participate in the business of storytelling that doesn’t perpetuate the endless narrative of the singular white male voice telling the world what culture is?”

**Craig Mazin:**
Jack, that’s a simple question and I’m sure you can answer that in, I’ll give you seven words.

**Jack Thorne:**
I think authorship is something we’re all wrestling with right now. I write a lot of female characters. I write a lot of female character-led dramas. I always have. It’s something that I’m asking about myself why I do that and whether I have right to do that.

**Jack Thorne:**
When it comes to disability, one of the groups that spoke at our event, we had this launch event, and we didn’t want it just to be about Underlying Health Condition, we wanted it to be about all the major disability groups in British television. We had lots of different people speak. One of the people that spoke was this man called Laurence Clark who outlined how a writers room should be run for disabled people and what consideration should be given when having disabled people in the room. It’s really complicated because you’re talking about a group that have been historically excluded. It’s a very, very small group. It’s a group where being given authorship is not something that historically has happened. I don’t quite know whether no one should be writing disabled people except for disabled writers. I certainly think disabled writers need to be part of a discussion when it comes to writing disabled characters, and they need to be a senior part of that discussion, and they need to be armed so that future authorship is exclusively disabled, because as the caller says, there has been historically a huge amount of ignorance, and quite dangerous ignorance put on the screen by people who didn’t know better but should’ve known better and have perpetuated myths about the disabled experience, which has been incredibly damaging to disabled people everywhere.

**Craig Mazin:**
Well said. I think Scared of Umbrage but Desperate for Insight, don’t fear my umbrage, I have no umbrage for you. I feel for you. I would suggest that somewhere along the line in our bourgeoning and justifiable desire to include people who have been traditionally excluded and to have better, fuller, clearer, and truer representations of all sorts of people on screen, we have lost sight of what the word fiction means. Particularly when we’re talking about fiction in drama, everybody is writing something they’re not. There is only one story you can write that is perfectly true to yourself, and that is your autobiography, and even that will probably be garbage. We are professional liars, who like actors, occupy the minds of people we are not. That is literally the job. What’s happening I think is that some people are having an existential crisis about what it means to actually be a fiction writer.

**Craig Mazin:**
What I do think is critical, and we’ve said this on the show many times, is that you have to approach material with respect. You have to approach the lives of other human beings with respect. Here’s the deal. Doesn’t matter how good your intentions are. If you are a bad writer, your writing will be bad. If you are a good writer but a callous writer, your writing will be probably put off in that pile of what they call lazy or tropey or oblivious. You have to be both good and you have to have your ears open, you have to have your eyes open, and you have to have some humility. You have to talk to people. When you are writing a character, and if that character’s disabled in a way that you don’t have personal experience with, find people who do, who are already willing to discuss these things, not people that you know who that you can then burden your questions upon, but rather there are groups, advocacy groups. The Writers Guild is very good about putting you together with people who want to talk about these things, who are interested in helping. If you do get into a position, a privileged position where you can hire people, hire them. That’s important.

**Craig Mazin:**
When you are writing characters who are a different race than you are or a different gender and then you cast those people, talk to the actors and ask them, “How did we do? What did we get wrong? What did we get right? Let’s have that discussion.” What we should not do is box ourselves off into a place where we can only write who we are. If anything, that would mean fewer representations of disabled people on screen. What I like about what Jack is doing is that he’s advancing in a rising tide manner everybody’s opportunity. If you write something great that provides opportunity for better representation and employment of different people than you, then that’s a victory for everybody.

**John August:**
One moment of the current discourse I’m following closely is West Side Story. West Side Story is an iconic musical that is problematic when you look back at the original incarnation of it. You look at this new incarnation and Tony Kushner’s work on it, and you can see that like a Jack Thorne, he was very concerned about his role in telling the story and making sure to find the information about the communities he’s writing about and what the communities were like at that time and how this could all fit together. It’s a difference between letting that concern guide you to do more and harder work and letting that concern stop you from ever trying to do that work. That’s I think what Scared is wrestling with. I think you may be looking at it as a blockade, a wall preventing you from actually doing the work, when in fact it is a challenging path for you to go down, but really it’s an invitation to really explore what’s out there.

**Craig Mazin:**
Megana, what’s your take on this question?

**Megana Rao:**
I agree with all of the things that you guys have said. One other thing that came to mind is I watched an interview with Ariana DeBose, who plays Anita in West Side Story. She is a Black Latin woman. She talked about going to the interview with Steven Spielberg and saying, “I’m not going to take this role unless you honor what it means for Anita to be played by a Black Latin woman.” They were really receptive to that and made the changes in the script and worked with her on doing those things. I think that speaks to what you were saying, being open to the experiences that your actors or actresses who are representing these characters bring to that material as well, even in the later stage of the process.

**John August:**
Megana, you have one more question that feels very much on topic here.

**Megana Rao:**
Great. Mike from London asks, “I got COVID in May of 2020 and subsequently developed long COVID. Most of my symptoms have improved since then, but I’m still suffering extreme fatigue and post-exertional malaise. In short, getting COVID seems to have triggered chronic fatigue syndrome. Before this I was a healthy 27-year-old with dreams of writing for Hollywood. I improved as a writer each year and was starting to see a small amount of success. I was a semifinalist in the Nicholl last year and was getting some reads from managers and production companies, but unfortunately, getting long COVID has made everything much more difficult. I now have to be careful not to use too much energy in a single day. Even a small amount of activities, like going on a short walk and writing two or three pages, can be enough to completely exhaust me for a few days. Just writing this email feels like a huge mental drain, and because of this, I know I won’t have energy to write this evening. All of this on top of having to somehow keep my job has left me worried that I’ll never reach my goal of being a working writer. I’m wondering if you know or are aware of any working writers with similar chronic diseases. How has their disability informed the content of their writing and their process?”

**Craig Mazin:**
Rough situation there, Mike. First of all, we are still learning a lot about long-term COVID, long COVID, long-haul COVID as it’s sometimes called. We don’t know if it’s permanent. It is very tempting when you are in the middle of something difficult as, Jack, you are in the middle of your disability. I’m sure it seemed to you at the time like it would be permanent, which is terrifying, I assume. I’ve certainly felt that way about my situation.

**Jack Thorne:**
I was told by a doctor, “You won’t get better.”

**Craig Mazin:**
Even if you’re not told by a doctor, you’re told by your own fear center in your brain that you’re not going to get better. That is really terrifying. First things first, it seems to me, Mike, you just have to honor the reality that you’re in. The reality that you’re in is you can only do what you can do. You can’t do more than you can do. If I told you that the only way to be a working writer would be to climb 100,000 steps a day, no matter what your situation would be, you wouldn’t be able to do it. That’s not a failure. That’s just reality. Accept the reality that you have.

**Craig Mazin:**
Perhaps as a relatively young person, in fact rather young, half my age, sir, or ma’am, give yourself a little bit of time here. Maybe what you could do is concentrate on what you might be able to do to get a little bit better, if there is that ability, and if there’s not, then take the time to readjust your life. If you write, I think it says writing two or three pages in a day is enough to completely exhaust you for a few days. Then that’s what you can do. You can write two or three pages for every few days. By the way, I know a lot of great writers that have zero problems who do exactly that. If they’re two or three great pages a day or two or three great pages a week, that’s two or three more great pages than almost everyone else can write in the world.

**Craig Mazin:**
Count the blessings, but also accept the reality. Make your peace with it. Mourn what you’ve lost. Do anything you can that’s available to you. In terms of resources, yes, I think Google is your friend. There’s got to be some groups of writers living with disability and working with disability and chronic disease. John, does the Writers Guild have a resource or a group for something like this?

**John August:**
I don’t know that they do. I know that there are committees that have writers with disabilities, but I don’t know. This is actually I think a great question for Jack to answer, because this feels like this is not an accessibility kind of issue, this is not even a representation issue, this is like it’s hard for me to do the thing that I want to be doing situation. Do you have experience with this?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yeah. I would say try and find a community, because that’s what gave me the most solace. In terms of the UK there’s two groups I would say to go to straight away as you’re a Londoner. The first is a group called DANC, which is D-A-N-C, or also called Triple C, which is confusing, but I think it’s www.triplec.org.uk. Then there’s another group called DTPTV, deaf and disabled people in television, who are also amazing. They are on Facebook and Twitter. Both those organizations have a community of people that you can talk to about this stuff. Reach out to them. Make yourself part of it. Become a member of the community. I think you’ll find that there’s lots of other people going through similar things. My experience of that was feeling like I had a home. Once you feel like you have a home, I think everything gets a bit easier. I’m so sorry you’re struggling. I really hope it doesn’t stay with you, but if it does, there are lots of people who are going through chronic fatigue and who do produce beautiful work, behind and in front of the screen, very good friends of mine who do find ways to manage their condition, and as a result of finding ways to manage their condition, find a way to have a fruitful career in our industry.

**Craig Mazin:**
Great.

**John August:**
Great. Our last little bit is hopefully inspiring. Actually I think does fit in well with this last question, which is basically do the things you can do and control the things you can control. This comes off of a TikTok by Franchesca Ramsey, but it’s Ashley Nicole Black, friend of the show, who had retweeted it, put it on my timeline here. Let’s take a listen to what Franchesca says.

Franchesca Ramsey:
If you’re a writer, winning an Oscar or selling a $100,000 movie, those are huge goals, those are awesome, but you can’t control those right now. So many things have to happen in order for those doors to open and those opportunities to come to you. Instead, shifting your goal to something you can control, like write 10 pages a day or take a writing class, start a writing group, finish my feature, try a pilot new genre, those are things that you can control, and then you can actually cross them off your list and feel like you are accomplishing things that are helping you get to the place that you want to get in your life.

**John August:**
That’s Franchesca Ramsey. Ashley Nicole Black also had said if your goal was to be cast on Saturday Night Live, you’re giving all of your power to Lorne Michaels to cast you on Saturday Night Life, but if your goal is to learn how to write great sketches, that’s a thing you can learn how to do. Jack, as a incredibly prolific writer here, what can you tell us about the work you control versus the work that makes it out in the world ratio in your life?

**Jack Thorne:**
It’s so interesting, isn’t it, that I’m still wrestling with now, to be honest, in terms of, “Oh, but if I do this, then I can get this. Then if I get this, then maybe people will like me.” I don’t think that goes, that feeling.

**Craig Mazin:**
I already like you.

**Jack Thorne:**
You’re weird.

**Craig Mazin:**
So true.

**Jack Thorne:**
It’s strange in terms of thinking about my career. I remember ringing my parents so excited because I had a lunchtime reading at the Young Vic, and my parents being completely nonplussed by a lunchtime reading at the Young Vic and me realizing that it was a huge achievement for me, but no one else quite being able to see it. I think that thing of just constantly seeing rungs of a ladder and then going, “Oh right, if I do this and if I do that.” I suppose what she’s saying is try to avoid the ladder entirely and just celebrate what you do every day. To be honest, I’m nowhere near able to do that yet. It’s a good goal for me for 2022.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s funny, the word goal maybe is part of the problem, because I think sometimes people, what they outline as a goal is really a symptom. Winning an award is a symptom of something. So is being cast on Saturday Night Live. You have a goal, and the goal should be something that only can be things you can control. It’s not just focus on goals you can control. If you can’t control it, it’s not a goal, as far as I’m concerned, because the only purpose of the word is some target that you can hit. You try and be the funniest you can be, and then you show up for an audition and let’s see what the symptom is. You try and write the best you can write, and then you hand it out in the world, let’s see what the symptom is. Let’s see what the reaction is. Everything goal-oriented is probably a bit of a trap. The only way to get there is to immerse yourself in the process. If goal has an antonym, I suppose it’s process. Process is everything.

**Craig Mazin:**
The work is unromantic. We talk about this on the show all the time, how unromantic writing is and how angry I get when I see portrayals of writing on screen. You want to talk about bad portrayals on screen, writers getting some sort of mystical burst of energy and typing a novel all night and then it’s celebrated and the next thing they’re at a book signing. I hate this crap. I just want to fire it into the sun.

**Craig Mazin:**
Maybe, maybe if you want to get to the next third eye in the forehead level of achievement here, don’t have any goals at all. Just try and write. How about that? Just create stuff. Try and access what feels honest and good to you and enjoy it for what it is. I will tell you the thing that I’ve done that was received the best was not a goal-oriented thing. There was absolutely no expectation that it would even get made. The goal concept sometimes is a liar that whispers stuff in our ear and turns our head from the path.

**John August:**
I think it’s so important to distinguish goals that can actually be achieved under your own efforts versus goals that you just rely on the universe working out a certain way, which I think Saturday Night Life is a universe working out a certain way. The goals that are under your own control to some degree, like wanting to run a marathon, “I want to finish a marathon,” okay, if that’s your goal, great, but what are the actual things you need to do in order to get yourself up to being able to run a marathon. Completing a marathon is a lagging indicator. If you got to that point, it’s only because all the leading indicators, which were how many short runs were you able to do, how far could you go. All the work that it would take to get up there, that’s what you could actually focus and do, which is basically putting on your shoes and starting to run. You’re not going to put on your shoes and start to run a marathon. You’re going to put on your shoes and start to run a mile and then two miles and eventually you’ll get up there. Frustratingly, writing is just that hard work of page after page, mile after mile. To be more inspiring going into this, maybe go into 2022 thinking about forget your goal, let’s focus on what you’re actually trying to do each day and make that work rewarding.

**Craig Mazin:**
What if we take the goal away, meaning let’s take the reward away. Doctors make a the bin Laden mistake. Megana and I are both unlicensed medical doctors, so I think we both understand this. Doctors put an enormous emphasis on the scale, on your weight. This is automatically a very goal-oriented thing. “You’re 240 pounds. You need to be 160 pounds.” That’s a goal. No one’s pretty much going to get there. What’s sad is for a lot of people, that goal isn’t even revenant to their well-being.

**Craig Mazin:**
If they simply just made certain changes in their life for the sake of bettering their health, with the promise of no reward, if I say to you, “Look, I’ve looked into your future. If you do the following things, you will not lose any weight at all, but you will live another 10 years,” and so we’ve taken away all the reward. You’re not going to wear the skinny pants. You’re not going to look like the person on the cover of the magazine. All that’s garbage. What you are is going to be happier and healthier. Would you take that deal or not?

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s hard for people, because what you’re saying is it’s just process. Goals that are distant and far off like that and intangible are really hard, whereas when someone says, “Okay, I’ve got a goal. I’m going to be 150 pounds. I’m going to do the thing. I’m going to be on the cover of Men’s Health,” that’s when they fail, inevitably. You’ve set yourself up for failure by turning the goal into the goal.

**Megana Rao:**
Something Ashley said in her tweet was that she added what she wants the work to feel like as part of her goals. She says, “I wanted to work in a calm, fun environment, which makes decisions easier to make.” I also think shifting from thinking about goals, how you want the experience of the process to be, I don’t know, that’s not a concept that I’d heard before, but definitely something I want to use in 2022.

**Craig Mazin:**
I like that too. Look, in the U.S. the goal always has a dollar sign in front of it. We’re trained this way from birth. The whole thing is basically fame and fortune, fame and fortune, fame and fortune. When you look among the class of the famous unfortunate, you find a lot of misery and bad behavior, because humans are human, as it turns out.

**John August:**
We should also call out Ashley Nicole Black for her new deal at Warner Brothers. She’s joining Craig over there in HBO Max land.

**Craig Mazin:**
See, that was a goal that just happened. I doubt that was her goal. It’s a symptom of her good work.

**John August:**
Indeed.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s a process symptom. Well done.

**John August:**
Any last thoughts on goals, Mr. Jack Thorne?

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m interested in the notion that, because the show that you’re referring to, which I know you probably get bored of talking about, but the show that you’re referring to happened despite setting a goal with Chernobyl, and yet that was you taking a fork in the road, wasn’t it? That was you going, “I don’t want to write the sort of shows I’ve done before, so I’m going to take a fork in the road.” That is you setting yourself a goal of working in a new genre, working in a new way, and challenging yourself in a way that you hadn’t challenged yourself before to do a certain type of work. By doing that, and I think that you’re probably the starkest example of someone that’s done that, of writers that I can think of, you changed the whole trajectory of your working life. Is that not a goal? Is that not a, “I am going to put my head down on a stone and rub it until I get to a different place for myself.”

**John August:**
What a metaphor that was.

**Craig Mazin:**
I don’t know if it was a rubbing stone. I think I wanted to do it because I felt like it was worth doing. When I did it, there was no promise of anything. Really the only promise was that it would likely just be ignored. Nor did I know if I could do it. I just wanted to. It to me very much was there was no real money involved, there was no guarantee of anything, nor was I doing it with any expectation that you would need to be watched. I honestly thought that it would mostly end up being a thing that substitute teachers would show the social studies class on a rainy day in high school. It really was not goal-oriented. A lot of what I do, I’m very haphazard about a lot of things, I have to admit. When I find that I start thinking about how to create outcomes, that’s actually where I get into trouble, because artificial things start to seep their way in. Maybe I’m a bad person to ask this question to, because my career has been weird and meandering and confusing. There’s not a lot of shape to it. I have a lot of notes on the narrative of my own life and career. It’s not a well told story. Weird fits and starts. You have a much better narrative, Jack Thorne. That’s a story. I like that story. That’s a good one.

**Jack Thorne:**
The distinction between going, “If I do this, I’m going to win an Emmy,” and, “If I do this, then I might find a tad more professional well-being in my soul,” I found your example very motivating and very interesting in terms of the choices we make for ourselves. That is a goal, is it not? I suppose it’s just that that interests me.

**Craig Mazin:**
I think that sometimes people underestimate the joy I had in prior work to all that, because I really did enjoy them.

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m not saying you didn’t. If your character was singing the I want song, you used the word I want, there would be a moment where you were making a film that you were enjoying and you said, “I want to write about the Soviet Union, and I feel like I’ve got a way of singing about the Soviet Union,” and then the audience would be on their feet.

**Craig Mazin:**
See, that’s the thing about writing. I love that this is something that was specifically targeted by Franchesca Ramsey to creatives, is that there’s nothing in between you and the doing of a creative thing, unless it requires a lot of money, but writing doesn’t. You don’t even need to get to goal step. If you want, and I did want to write something, write it. That’s the best part. It’s not even a goal. It’s there. You can do it. You can paint whatever you want. You can write whatever you want. You can sing whatever you want. All that’s there. Now are people going to watch it? Is it going to get made? Will it be popular? Are you going to get money? Will you get a big deal? All that stuff happens after.

**John August:**
It’s completely out of your control, which is of course-

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s completely out of your control, exactly. In a weird way, if your goal is to write something amazing, you can take that write out of the goal column and put it right into the I’m doing it today. You don’t have to wait. A goal to me isn’t the future. Maybe I just am confused about the concept. There’s nothing stopping you right now today from writing anything you want. It’s free, which is wonderful.

**John August:**
Now in our discussions of goals, Megana has in our little workflow here a year in review. Our goal with Scriptnotes was not to have 500 episodes in 10 years in Scriptnotes, but-

**Craig Mazin:**
Jesus.

**John August:**
We hit that-

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank god that wasn’t a goal-

**John August:**
… this last year.

**Craig Mazin:**
… because I wouldn’t have done it.

**John August:**
Lord no. We were listened to in 198 different countries.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh god.

**John August:**
We had 2.15 million downloads so far this year in 2021.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh my god. Now wait, with that 2.15 million downloads, I presume that’s just three people that just keep redownloading it over and over.

**John August:**
It’s all bots. It’s bots all the way down.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s bots. Just bots.

**John August:**
A bit of housekeeping, we’re hoping to do another random advice episode. That’s this episode where we just answer random listener questions that don’t have anything to do with writing at all. It could be about relationships. It could be about real estate. It could be about the proper fork to use for a certain meal. If you have random advice questions, send those into Megana, ask@johnaugust.com, and we’ll get a special list of those together and we’ll answer random things that are not about writing.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’ll be fun. We should have Jack on for that as well. I think Jack should be the new … Let’s just have him all the time.

**John August:**
Absolutely. It’s time for our one cool things. Craig, do you have a one cool thing?

**Craig Mazin:**
No, I don’t.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne, you got the memo. Did you find a one cool thing to bring in?

**Jack Thorne:**
I’ve got two.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank god.

**Jack Thorne:**
One of which is slightly embarrassing.

**Craig Mazin:**
Good. I’ll take that one. That one’s mine.

**Jack Thorne:**
Craig chose me for One Cool Thing six, seven years ago. I don’t know how long ago it was.

**Craig Mazin:**
I would call that early Thorne period. America still didn’t know.

**Jack Thorne:**
It was a highlight of my life and a really beautiful thing and it made me spill my water. Sounds like I wet myself. I almost said made me spill my tea, and then I was like, I don’t drink tea. I don’t drink any caffeine. One of my one cool things is Craig Mazin, who appears like he is a misanthrope and seems to present like a misanthrope, and yet is incredibly kind. I once went to lunch with him wearing Ray Bans and he laughed at me for about an hour, but it was still … His ability to give time to things that he shouldn’t give time to is a very, very kind thing, and so he is one of my one cool things.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack Thorne.

**Jack Thorne:**
If that’s all right.

**Craig Mazin:**
Jack, I think you had another less Craig-oriented one cool thing.

**Jack Thorne:**
Which is authentic and celebratory portrayals of Father Christmas, because I find it very annoying that Father Christmas, I have a five-year-old, is frequently portrayed in our modern world as a dark, despairing figure or someone with a take on it. We’ve watched Santa Claus the movie, the Dudley Moore film from 1985 twice this week, and we’re probably going to watch it a third time, purely because Elliott, my son, finds the Father Christmas in it so authentic to his impression of what Father Christmas should be. I don’t know whether Father Christmas should be white or any of those things, but a jolly person who is having a good time is a good thing, and we need more of him I think.

**Craig Mazin:**
Can I ask, this might seem like an odd question, but who’s Father Christmas? We don’t have him here. Who’s that?

**John August:**
That’s Santa Claus.

**Jack Thorne:**
Santa Claus.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh, Santa Claus. Oh, Santa Claus.

**Jack Thorne:**
You don’t call him Father Christmas?

**John August:**
No, we call him Santa Claus. There is more of this in the bonus segments. Trust me.

**Craig Mazin:**
Megana, have you ever heard of Father Christmas?

**Megana Rao:**
I have.

**John August:**
I’ve heard of it.

**Megana Rao:**
I have.

**Craig Mazin:**
Wait, hold on. Now I know. It’s from the Kinks song, (singing).

**John August:**
It’s not from the Kinks song. It’s a thing that exists and the Kinks mentioned it.

**Craig Mazin:**
I thought the Kinks invented it. All right. So much for that.

**John August:**
My one cool thing is also Christmas-related. This last week I fell down a rabbit hole of the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions, which if you have not read it, you should just spend an hour of your life looking through the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions. Mine is that the Bible does not explicitly say that three magi came to visit baby Jesus, does not mention a Father Christmas or Santa Claus either, nor does it mention that there were kings or rode on camels, that their names were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The three magi are inferred because there were three gifts. Basically the three kings who come to visit baby Jesus in the Christmas story, that was just made up sometime in the third century. We don’t really know where came from, but not part of the original Christmas story. My one cool thing. That is our show for this week. Jack Thorne, thank you so much for joining us.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you for having me. I’m very sorry for talking quite a lot.

**Craig Mazin:**
No, that’s why you’re here.

**John August:**
Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Nico Mansy, if you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes there at @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust. Jack Thorne, are you on Twitter?

**Jack Thorne:**
Not really, no. No. It sent my brain mad.

**John August:**
That’s fine.

**Craig Mazin:**
Me too.

**John August:**
You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and sweatshirts, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. The sweatshirts just came and they are actually genuinely the softest things I have experienced in a sweatshirt. Craig, your sweatshirt should be there, if you ordered that first batch. Mine came yesterday. Check your mail. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. We’ll learn from Jack Thorne what a British person would call a bonus segment and other words that don’t make sense on either side of the pond. Thank you all very much.

New Speaker:
BONUS SEGMENT

**John August:**
We’re back. Jack Thorne, as you were talking, I was writing out some of the things you said that were-

**Craig Mazin:**
Ridiculous.

**John August:**
… distinctly British. You said Graeae are this wonderful company. You used are because the company is plural, but we would say Graeae is this wonderful company. Pluralism is a thing that is different between American English and British English is you would say are and we would say is.

**Jack Thorne:**
I wouldn’t assume that I speak good English. I’m not a very educated person, so I wouldn’t assume that [crosstalk 01:04:06].

**Craig Mazin:**
This is outrageous.

**John August:**
This humility.

**Craig Mazin:**
This is outrageous.

**John August:**
You said, “I remember ringing my parents.” We never ring our parents at all here.

**Craig Mazin:**
We call them.

**John August:**
We call them. We don’t ring them.

**Craig Mazin:**
Then oddly, when people are describing names in England, they will typically say, “Oh, I met a guy, he’s called Jack,” and here we would say, “He’s named Jack.”

**John August:**
British English still does that thing like [inaudible 01:04:29] you’re calling somebody. You call somebody the same way you phone them, which is strange. Are you ringing your parents if you’re ringing them on their mobile phones?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, yes, still ringing my parents. I would still say that, yes.

**John August:**
Now you’ve written for both the UK and for American audiences. Do you change anything in your actual writing if you know it’s going to Warner Brothers rather than to the BBC?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, and will use U.S. spellings. Now I say I do that. I have an assistant called Mariella who is rather brilliant and does that and makes sure that I make sense in another country.

**Craig Mazin:**
I had the opposite experience. Jane Featherstone, who is a very small person, and yet a giant person in-

**Jack Thorne:**
She is.

**Craig Mazin:**
… British person, she was rather insistent, and I think reasonably so, that as we were a European production on Chernobyl that I ought to use English things like torch instead of flashlight. You wouldn’t go into the hospital. You would be in hospital. I was trying to think. Color and even spelling, which doesn’t show up on screen, but color and favor with a U.

**Jack Thorne:**
Honor.

**Craig Mazin:**
Honor, which is actually fun to do. Then there were certain things too like firemen. We have firemen, and you guys have fire brigade.

**John August:**
[crosstalk 01:05:55].

**Jack Thorne:**
We have firemen, but if they’re a collective then they’re a fire brigade.

**Craig Mazin:**
You call the fire brigade. There’s a line in Chernobyl where he’s like, “There’s a fire,” and he goes, “Call the fire brigade,” but originally he said, “Call the fire department,” because that’s what we call it, the fire department. She’s like, “No one calls that here.” That was it. When Jane tells you to do something, you do it.

**Jack Thorne:**
Jane is always right.

**Craig Mazin:**
Yep.

**John August:**
Growing up, sometime in about fourth grade or something I recognized that British people put the U’s in the words, and I was just obsessed with putting the U’s in the words. I’d put U’s in words that they couldn’t possibly exist. I would try to do it. All my school essays I would do it. Sometimes I’d get flagged for it, sometimes I wouldn’t. I’m wondering if it was just an early case of cultural appropriation. I just desperately wanted to not be this Colorado kid. I wanted to be this international student. Craig, did you ever do the U’s in your words?

**Craig Mazin:**
No, but I think that the cultural appropriation was taking the language and bringing it here. That’s cultural reappropriation. I never did that. That would probably get you beaten up on Staten Island, John. I got to be honest with you. That, by the way, the other thing that sometimes, we mentioned fanny pack earlier, so in America fanny is your butt, and a fanny pack is that silly pouch that travelers wear with the belt that goes around their butt and they put their money in it. In England fanny is cruel slang for vulva, I think would be fair to say. There are certain differences like that.

**John August:**
There’s a word for cigarette that we don’t use here.

**Jack Thorne:**
Do you know what we call a fanny pack?

**Craig Mazin:**
You call it a bum bag.

**Jack Thorne:**
A bum bag, yeah.

**Craig Mazin:**
Now if you say bum bag in the U.S., people will assume that that’s something that involves a hobo. It is entirely different. Also I’ve noticed in England the C word, which is quite a verboten term here, is tossed around like it’s nothing over there.

**John August:**
It becomes really challenging, because you’re not sure whether that person, a British person’s using it in a sexually offensive way, in a way that it’s going to cause a lawsuit, or if they’re just speaking their language.

**Craig Mazin:**
I think they’re speaking their language.

**Jack Thorne:**
Try being in a rehearsal full of 50 people and just using it as part of your sentences, because that’s who you are, and then just looking at their faces as they stare back at you in literal sheer horror.

**Craig Mazin:**
I actually had the reverse experience where spending so much time in Europe with Brits and then coming back to the U.S. and people like, “I’m sorry, what?” I’m like, “Oh, right, sorry. I’m not [crosstalk 01:08:33]-”

**John August:**
“You can’t say that.”

**Craig Mazin:**
“… anymore. It doesn’t work that way anymore.” We do speak a common language, but there are these fascinating. Really it’s the structural differences that get me, the things like called and named and in hospital. He’s in hospital.

**John August:**
I would say as a screenwriter, when I’m working on a production that’s going to be shooting in the UK, I’m not sticking U’s in my words where they don’t need to be there, but I am mindful if there’s a thing that’s going to translate wrong or feel different in the other place or if I can just get away from that problem. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an example of we wanted the movie to feel like it didn’t exist either in the U.S. or the UK. The cars drive down the middle of the road. The bill he picks up out of the street is not a British pound or American dollar. We’re deliberately in no place. That’s great, but then everyone speaks with a British accent, so I guess we are still in the UK.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s how that works.

**Jack Thorne:**
I love that film, and it felt very British to me. Even if it wasn’t intended to be, it felt like that to me.

**Craig Mazin:**
One of the other challenges that screenwriters face, and I think we maybe talked about this on the show before, is in the U.S. we use eight and a half by 11 paper. In the UK we use A4. They’re so close to being the same, but they’re not the same.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s outrageous.

**John August:**
A4 paper always looks wrong to me. Mathematically it makes so much more sense.

**Craig Mazin:**
Of course.

**John August:**
It’s such a smarter design for paper.

**Craig Mazin:**
As is the metric system.

**John August:**
100%.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s the nice thing about England is you guys straddle the metric system and the imperial system, which I like. You haven’t quite let it go, which is good.

**Jack Thorne:**
I think we firmly believe in the imperial system.

**Craig Mazin:**
You believe in the imperial system unless it comes down to things like liters of petrol, litres of petrol.

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, we do, but you can also see gallons. There’s a separate measure for gallons.

**Craig Mazin:**
Very good. Wow. This plus the blue passports, England is back.

**John August:**
Now on a practical matter, if you were working on something like you’re working on His Dark Materials, which was a complicated production. There were American companies involved. There were probably British companies involved as well. Were your scripts done on A4? Were they done on eight and a half by eleven? Did you just make a choice early on and just live with it?

**Jack Thorne:**
I didn’t even think about it. I just opened final draft and just used whatever format. I guess other people might’ve changed it, but I don’t think so. Those sorts of questions, I think our industry’s a lot more haphazard than yours. We don’t really ever deal with them. No one complains. I guess I just kept doing it the same way that I was doing it.

**John August:**
I ran into it on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We were using A4 paper, and the Warner Brothers script department, which is a whole notorious thing, we could talk about a whole rant about the Warner Brothers script department, would send it back to us in not A4 paper, and so the scripts would be longer and we’d get all these concerns about budget. It’s because you put it on different paper. It’s the exact same script.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh wow.

**John August:**
Drives me crazy.

**Craig Mazin:**
A4.

**John August:**
A4.

**Craig Mazin:**
A4.

**John August:**
[crosstalk 01:11:24].

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m so sorry.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne-

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s Britain.

**John August:**
Again, don’t apologize for everything. Far too much.

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m afraid my country, the imperial system and everything else that comes out of my country, gets away with the fact that we are probably responsible for more evil than any other country in the world.

**Craig Mazin:**
Certainly A4 is just maybe the worst thing that Britain ever did, A4, top of the heap, followed by the slavery and colonization.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne, thanks so much.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you so much.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack.

Links:

* [Jack Thorne’s MacTaggart Lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxUZPMBRIPU)
* [Jack Thorne Launches Underlying Health Conditions Pressure Group, Publishes Major Report Into Disabled Representation in TV Industry](https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/jack-thorne-underlying-health-conditions-1235125435/)
* [1 in 4 Coalition](https://www.1in4coalition.org/)
* [Ashley Nicole Black and Francesca Ramsey Twitter Thread](https://twitter.com/ashleyn1cole/status/1460703224285908993?s=20)
* [Santa Claus: The Movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089961/) a celebratory portrayal of Father Christmas
* [Wikipedia List of Misconceptions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions?wprov=wppw1)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Jack Thorne](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2113666/) on IMDb
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nico Mansy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/530standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 523: A Screenwriter’s Guide to Bullshitting, Transcript

November 9, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

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

**Craig:** That’s a good one.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yeah.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Right.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Sure.

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

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

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

**Craig:** What?

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

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

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

**Craig:** Bingo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** It’s all about calamari.

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

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

**Craig:** Thank you.

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

**Craig:** Right. The Olympic.

**John:** The Olympic, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Oh my god.

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

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

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

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

**John:** Bennifer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** That is a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Well Disney+.

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

**John:** Paramount Plus.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Sure.

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

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

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

**Craig:** You know, side note…

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

**John:** Taken the word meta.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** It is unreal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Oh yeah.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** So you’ve done it.

**Megana:** Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** It’s Chernobyl. I get it.

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

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

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

**John:** Mm-hmm.

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

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

**Craig:** Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

I understand it.

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

**Craig:** Well that’s a fraud.

**John:** Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** So sour about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

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

**Craig:** No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Aw.

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

**John:** That’s great.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Whoa.

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

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

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** Stalin.

**John:** Oh, yes.

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

**John:** Change history.

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

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

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Wow.

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

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

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

**John:** That’s excellent. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Henry Adler. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is sometimes @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust.

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

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

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

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

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Megana:** Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s brilliant if you’re Goldman Sachs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then I would get fired.

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

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

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

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

**John:** Yup.

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

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

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

**John:** People want Casablanca.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

**Megana:** Thanks.

Links:

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

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

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

« 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.