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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: beat sheet

Scriptnotes, Episode 593: The Ref with Richard LaGravenese, Transcript

May 11, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/the-ref-with-richard-lagravenese).

**Craig Mazin:** Hi, folks. This upcoming episode does feature some naughty language, so if you are in the car with children, put the earmuffs on or wait to play this when you’re at home.

Hello, my name is Craig Mazin, and this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. This is 593rd episode of Scriptnotes, which is upsetting.

John is not with me today, also upsetting, but to counteract that, today on the show we have one of the best screenwriters simply of all time, and also one of the nicest people in Hollywood, which I agree is a low bar if that’s what you were thinking, but he would be a nice guy pretty much anywhere. We welcome Richard, AKA Richie as I call, Richard LaGravenese. Welcome to Scriptnotes.

**Richard LaGravenese:** Thank you, Craig. This is great. Good to see you.

**Craig:** It’s good to see you too. We are looking at each other over Zoom. Richie and I have known each other for many, many years. I have been a fan of his for many more years than I’ve known him. I’m going to run down a short list of some of the movies that he’s written, so that you can go ahead and drop your jaw like I do when I look at it all together like this.

The Fisher King, The Bridges of Madison County, The Mirror Has Two Faces, The Horse Whisperer, Beloved, Behind the Candelabra. These are all remarkable, highly acclaimed films, and yet we’re not going to be talking about any of those today, nor are we going to be talking about the seven other movies that Richie has directed.

What we are going to be talking about today is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is the 1994 film The Ref. The Ref was a criminally under-seen film. That’s why I want to dig into it, because I think from a screenwriting point of view, it’s remarkable.

Then in our Bonus Segment for Premium members, we’ll be talking about men without friends, how and why men should make friends, and how friendless men emotionally burden the women in their lives. That ought to be fun.

Normally, this is where John would do news and follow-up, but I simply have none. Instead, we’re just going to get right into The Ref. The Ref was released in 1994. It was, I believe, a Touchstone movie. Touchstone was one of the, I was about to say adult film arms of Disney, but that doesn’t sound right. Non-family movie wing of Disney. It was a Christmas movie, and that’s why of course they released it in March. Why would they have done that, Richie? Do you know?

**Richard:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** It certainly impacted the movie’s prospects. When it came out at the time, it was a bit of a box office bum. I think looking at how much money it made, if it came out today and made that amount of money, everybody would be dancing in the streets, but the business was different back then. The expectations were a little higher for theatrical releases. The fact that it didn’t necessarily make money right away didn’t mean that it wasn’t going to catch on as a cult hit and maybe even more than a cult hit.

The story is by Marie Weiss, screenplay by Richie LaGravenese and Marie Weiss, and directed by the late, great Ted Demme. I’ll do the quick summary, and then we’ll dive into the origin story of The Ref.

Quick summary. It’s Christmas Eve. Caroline and Lloyd, a middle-aged couple living in an affluent and very white and uptight Old Bay Bridge, Connecticut… Is that right, Old Bay Bridge? Is that the town?

**Richard:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Are having a marriage crisis. As they debate the past, present, and future of their relationship, they’re taken hostage by Gus, a thief on the run, but who has captured whom? Gus is forced to listen to their ceaseless bickering, as well as pretend to be a marriage counselor when Lloyd’s extended family arrives for the holiday, but his intervention, ultimately at the point of a gun, is what finally leads Lloyd and Caroline to be honest and open with each other.

This always struck me as a modern Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf take on Ransom of Red Chief, the old O. Henry story.

**Richard:** That’s right.

**Craig:** Is that where it began for you?

**Richard:** Absolutely. It started as a take on The Ransom of Red Chief. It was an idea by my then-sister-in-law, Marie Weiss, who was coming out of advertising and wanted to work in the movies, and her then-husband, Jeff Weiss, who is one of the producers on it.

I had a deal at Disney, because originally, Disney had bought Fisher King but didn’t make it but then put me under contract for three movies. You give them an idea. They give you an idea. They never take your ideas and usually do things off the shelf. That’s where Little Princess happened. The first thing was Widows, which just recently got made by McQueen. That was originally there.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Richard:** That was the longest development thing. That’s when Touchstone and Disney used to give you literally 16 pages of notes in development. At the time, we were making it a comedy for Bette Midler and Goldie Hawn, so it didn’t turn out that way. I was on that for months, like a year. It was terrible.

Anyway, the last deal was we brought to them this idea of The Ref. That’s how it began. She had this idea of a Ransom of Red Chief idea with an arguing couple and a family and stuff. With me guaranteeing it, she got to do a first draft, and then I came in.

**Craig:** Then you came in and you started doing what you do. The movie, I suspect, given the fact that it was 1994, which was thick in the middle of every movie makes money because it’s going to be out on VHS and DVD. I suspect that all it really needed was a star. Then along comes Denis Leary. Now, Denis Leary was a bit of a phenomenon at the time.

**Richard:** He and Teddy, they had a partnership, kind of.

**Craig:** I see. Denis Leary was, I think at that point, primarily a stand-up comic. Then he was doing some stuff for MTV.

**Richard:** Yes. Interstitials they call them.

**Craig:** Yeah, interstitials.

**Richard:** Teddy directed them. They were all Cindy Crawford-centric and really funny. When I hired Teddy, when we met on the movie, he brought in Denis.

**Craig:** One question to start with is, Denis Leary has a very specific comic persona. That comic persona is brought through here. As a character, he’s a quasi-chain-smoking, fast-talking, angry guy. That was his thing was he’s angry, he’s very verbal, he doesn’t have time. Every frustrates him. It is a perfect match, really.

The first question is, did he just pick that script up and go, “Oh yeah, if I just be me and say these lines, everything will be fine,” or did you say, “Ah, okay, now that it’s Denis Leary, I need to adjust the character of Gus to fit Denis Leary.”

**Richard:** I remember I always loved those fast-talking comedies of the ‘30s and ‘40s. He’s perfect for that, because he’s rapid fire. I now remember there were a few drafts that were going through, again, Disney development, Disney development. Then once we had a producer on it, it still wasn’t really clicking.

I remember it was me, Denis, Judy Davis, Kevin Spacey, and Bruckheimer. I rewrote the script in 4 days, bringing in 30 pages and 60 pages and reading with the actors the next day, the next day, the next day, and built it like that.

One of the greatest feelings you can ever have as a writer, it happened with Robin Williams too, is when you make someone like Denis laugh from reading the script. He was reading it cold, and he would start laughing.

Then we found the voice of it. In those four days, I think we really found the rhythm and the voice of it a lot. It’s easy to write for Denis, because he has a kind of 1940s delivery. You know what I mean?

**Craig:** “Here’s the thing. I’m going to do this. I’m going to do that. Hey, ho.”

**Richard:** Breathy and fast and just quick. I know there was a couple of bits he improved, like biting the baby Jesus cooking and things like that. We stuck to the script pretty much. It was a free form on the script. On the floor, we needed to come up with something funnier. That was it. It was finding the rhythm and then his ear.

I had known Denis also earlier. We went to Emerson together. We were in different groups, because I was in the theater thing and he was in the comedy thing. He started the Comedy Workshop there. I remember his shows with his little troupe. They were always really, really funny.

**Craig:** I’m fascinated by the fact that so much came out of those four days. There is this interesting intensity that can happen when you almost have a theater setting. It’s crazy. You have to deliver.

You’re working with Judy Davis, Kevin Spacey, who we will discuss purely as an actor in this podcast and not deal with all the other stuff. Those two alone, what’s interesting about them is how verbal they are as actors and how they’ve maybe never been more verbal than this. I want to give a little example here.

Right in the beginning, there’s two things that happen. The first thing is you establish the town. As the credits are coming on screen, the camera moves to this town, and we learn that it is a picture-perfect place, although there’s maybe the undercurrent of an issue, like the fact that the baby Jesus is missing from the [inaudible 00:09:44] in town square.

We eventually get to a marriage counselor, played by BD Wong. He is dealing with the angriest couple in the world. As they go back and forth, I always feel like the first five minutes of a movie teaches you how to watch the movie, and it teaches you a few things here. One of them is, tonally, these people are so hyper-verbal and hyper-literate in the way they talk to each other. I’m going to give an example here, because I’m fascinated by the way dialog works like this.

**Caroline Chasseur:** You took out a loan. I mean, it was your decision, not mine. You took out a loan from Satan Mom.

**Lloyd Chasseur:** She blames my mother for everything that’s gone wrong in her life. In the meantime, she never finishes anything she starts. Photography courses, existential philosophy courses, Scandinavian cooking classes.

**Caroline:** At least I go after my dreams.

**Lloyd:** To be what, somebody who takes photographs of lutefisk to prove the nothingness of being? No wonder our son’s so confused.

**Craig:** That’s gorgeous, right? He listed three classes, and then without a pause to think or put it together, he can come up with this imaginary idiot who’s used all the knowledge of those three classes. It really teaches you how this movie’s going to function and how these characters work. They both speak like this.

Talk a little bit about dancing on the edge of… One of the classic notes is, “This line feels written.” When you have actors like this, they can do it. There’s something almost play-like about it. Talk to me a little about how you addressed the manner in which they would speak and how literate and how many words and how writerly it would be.

**Richard:** I keep thinking of those first 15 minutes of His Girl Friday, when it’s Cary Grant and Ros Russell in the room. I’ve watched that scene about a million times. The rapidity and how they cram things into their references and you know exactly what they’re saying, and they’re insulting each other, they’re undermining and they’re funny, that rhythm was in my head as much as possible.

I’ve always over-written. I like literate movies. I like movies that are a little theatrical, that are not all exactly like real life. They’re just a little heightened. I think for comedy, it works.

Comedy, like music, goes through different grooves and different rhythms and stuff like that. It doesn’t always work, but I really think the classics do still work today, because there’s an intelligence behind them.

The rhythm was always in my head. I wanted to maintain it as much as possible. I had these two great theater actors, Judy and Kevin, who knew exactly how to find those rhythms. It’s funny when there are certain actors who just don’t know how to do that, today’s actors who don’t know how to talk fast. I was lucky. I was lucky with that and Christine Baranski, of course, later on.

**Craig:** We’ll get to her. You’re bringing up an interesting thing, which is that over time… It is a little distressing to me how much time has gone by, because this movie is almost 30 years old now, which is, I know, horrifying. Over time, actors have notoriously become mumblers, kind of introverts. I think acting quality has been too associated with that kind of navel-gazing and muttering. Here is this, where it’s a little bit like… There are certain bands where the singer is… Freddie Mercury is a great example. You understood every word he’s saying.

**Richard:** Articulation.

**Craig:** Articulation. There’s something so articulated about everybody here. The articulation of everyone is remarkable. I love that.

There’s another thing that happens here. First, we briefly meet Gus as a burglar who goes a little too far in trying to empty out a safe completely, but not before he’s sprayed by cat piss, as a very strange booby trap.

When we get back to the therapy session, one of the things that you do brilliant here is, inside of this one scene, in what John and I often refer to as this precious real estate of the first 5 or 10 minutes of a movie, you deliver so much exposition through therapy and through argument.

When that one scene is over, without us really noticing that anything has happened other than terrific entertainment and quite a few laughs, I know that Caroline has had an affair, that they haven’t had sex in a really long time, that they are in debt to Lloyd’s mother, whom Caroline hates and Lloyd defends, instinctively. Their son Jesse is a budding criminal delinquent.

Shortly after, in a connected scene where they’re driving home, I also understand that Caroline wants a divorce, and Lloyd isn’t going to agree to it. That choice is really interesting to me, because after a lot of this interesting exposition, all of which we will see echoed back at us, I’m not going to lead the witness. Why was it important that Caroline wanted a divorce and Lloyd wouldn’t agree to that?

**Richard:** Because I wanted there to be somewhere to go, because him agreeing to the divorce ultimately would be like an act of love, really. Right now, it’s about who’s got power and who’s going to get their way. That kept it open, so that there was conflict, like an engine going forward. If they both agree to the divorce, they’ve been decided, nothing is moving forward on that. I guess it could’ve worked, but it was more interesting to me leaving it open.

**Craig:** I think you made the right choice. Yes, it could’ve worked. They could’ve both agreed that they were going to get a divorce, and then at the end of it, they decide to call it off.

What I loved about the choice was that it felt… She says, “We’re miserable.” It felt like, okay, they are suspended in misery. These two people are stuck in this permanent misery where one wants to leave, one won’t let her leave. They can’t stand each other, but they can’t go anywhere. If nothing happens to them, this is going to be the way they are for the rest of their lives. That’s what I felt, because that is exactly when Gus enters. He is confronted now. It’s immediate. You guys don’t hide the premise. It’s right away, boom, “What did I do?”

There’s this wonderful scene where he gets in the car with them. We have a little bit of plot logic. I want to talk a little bit about the plot logic, actually, because it’s the most annoying part of writing these kinds of movies, but it’s essential. Gus has stolen jewels from, I think he’s the amusement park king.

**Richard:** I don’t remember.

**Craig:** It’s an old Willard. I think his name’s Willard. He’s out of town. There’s something about Willard, I guess his connections or whatever, that basically the theft of his stuff leads to this state police manhunt for the guy who’s done it. Why the manhunt? Why escalating it to the state police? Talk me through that storyline.

**Richard:** I can barely remember. Obviously, these are the least interesting parts of these movies for me to write. I’d rather just have people in a car or in a room talking for two hours and Virginia Woolf-ing it the whole time.

Making up this had to do with the McGuffin of the whole thing, because what happens at the end? If people aren’t searching for him, and it isn’t that big a thing, then there’s no tension of him having to hide in the house and pretend to be a therapist until he can figure out how to escape. We had to create this outside pressure cooker for him to stay inside the house. That really was all it was.

Again, it probably could’ve been better. It could’ve been a lot more logical or I just didn’t care. That’s the problem with me. I don’t outline. I get bored with that stuff. I just, “All right, that’s fine.” [inaudible 00:18:06].

**Craig:** In its own way, it works beautifully, because it’s simple. I can’t say that I understood necessarily why the one theft here led the whole state police manhunt to happen, but also, I kind of didn’t care, because when logic is in place to help me have a good time, I don’t interrogate it too much.

**Richard:** I think if you want to take the ride, you take the ride and you accept those things-

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Richard:** … because they’re not that important.

**Craig:** The way you set up the rules, it’s really simple. I don’t have to think much about it, because you don’t want me thinking about it. He can’t leave. He’s waiting for Murray, his getaway car guy, to call back and say he’s gotten a boat for them to escape. That’s it. He’s stuck in the house until-

**Richard:** Which is Richard Bright from The Godfather.

**Craig:** It is?

**Richard:** Yeah, he was in The Godfather.

**Craig:** He was in The Godfather?

**Richard:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Who was he in The Godfather?

**Richard:** He’s one of the younger… You’ll see him.

**Craig:** Oh, really?

**Richard:** He’s one of the assassins. He was a great guy. It was Richard Bright, wasn’t it? Yeah, it was Richard Bright. He was Murray.

**Craig:** Was he the one that was in the police uniform and shoots Barzini on the steps?

**Richard:** Yes.

**Craig:** Wow. I had no idea.

**Richard:** He’s in it throughout if you see. He’s in it throughout.

**Craig:** I had no idea. Oh my god.

**Richard:** Yeah, that’s Richard. He’s in a lot of movies.

**Craig:** That’s a connection I didn’t realize. Here’s another interesting fact for those of you following along at home. This movie I think was JK Simmons’s debut on screen.

**Richard:** It might’ve been.

**Craig:** I think it was. He plays Siskel. He’s a teacher at this military academy where Jesse, the son, is. We’ll talk about him in a bit.

We’ve set up everything we need to set up. You’ve done this beautifully. In the first, I don’t know, whatever it is, 10 minutes, I know everything about this town, I know everything about their relationship, I know everything about the rules that Gus has to deal with. Now we begin this triangle of characters for a while.

I’m also fascinated by this structure, because what you do is, once he meets them, once he takes them hostage, the movie splits into two halves. The first half is the three of them, that triangle. Then the second half is the larger family coming over. Talk a little bit about why and how you did that and focused in on the three of them first for quite an extended bit before bringing the family in.

**Richard:** They’re the heart. They’re the core of it. Then it was about showing the shark that’s coming towards the house to create some suspense and anticipation for what that collision is going to look like.

It was like a three-character play almost up until… I had ideas about turning this into a play, because it’s a one-set thing. You could have the whole thing in the house, in the living room for the entire evening.

**Craig:** Would you please do that?

**Richard:** I thought of doing that. It’d be really fun to do that. It was also for cutaways, because we had to skip time for them to prepare for the house. Denis had come up with the idea, had the idea of being the therapist. The fun of seeing this family coming towards them, I thought the audience was like, “Oh god, this is going to make complications in a farce kind of way, even better.”

**Craig:** It was incredible escalation. I appreciated, in a way, the quiet time, even though it was anything but quiet, between the three of them, because there’s a really interesting thing that happens almost immediately. First, as they’re driving to Caroline and Lloyd’s house, Lloyd blows right through a stop sign, which he says he didn’t see. There is no stop sign. Then when Gus gets them into the house and he’s got them tied up, he wants a cigarette. Lloyd says, “I don’t smoke, and Caroline quit.” As a smoker… Were you a smoker?

**Richard:** Yeah. Not like Denis, but yeah, I was.

**Craig:** I was as well, and so there was something absolutely delicious about a smoker seeing right into another smoker’s brain and going, “Where are they?” He knows she has has them. He knows instantly that there’s a hidden pack of cigarettes somewhere, and sure enough-

**Richard:** There are.

**Craig:** Because he has a gun, she has to reveal if they’re there. He says something to both of them that I think is kind of magical. In the film, he’s pushed them both over. They were in their chairs tied up.

**Richard:** [Crosstalk 00:22:28].

**Craig:** He’s pushed them backwards because they were bickering and they wouldn’t shut up. He comes over them. They’re accusing each other of being a liar. Gus says to Caroline, “You said you quit, didn’t you?” because she was like, “I never said I quit.” “You said you quit.” She admits it. Then he says to Lloyd, “You saw the stop sign, didn’t you?” Lloyd admits it.

In a way, what I love about this is the brilliance of starting the two of them in a marital counseling session with a completely ineffective counselor who cannot control them, and now here a guy with a gun is starting to make it happen. Talk a little bit, if you could, about the idea, even before Gus has to pretend to be a marriage counselor, the actual marriage counseling that he’s doing right here.

**Richard:** The joy of this for me, the most fun to me, was getting inside a marriage, and having been there myself. I don’t know if you’ve ever done this, but we used to do this a lot, where you get so into bickering with each other, doesn’t matter if you’re in public, doesn’t matter who’s there, everything goes away, and it’s just about who’s winning and who’s going to win. It’s like a match. It’s the information you use and the information you hold back and what you admit to and what you don’t admit to. This is how this marriage works. I was in the midst of that myself, and it was driving me crazy.

Having a character who just puts a gun to your head and says, “Tell me. Say what it was,” it’s like ah, then you finally get the truth. That’s how the marriage can heal, because they’re not really telling the truth to each other. It’s a power thing going on. They’re trying to each save their own skin. You lose the sight of the relationship, of the marriage. I think we do that a lot inside relationships when we bicker.

That idea was so real to me, of getting so lost in the bickering that you don’t care who is there, who’s around, you just have to get your point across kind of a thing. That was the fun of writing all that stuff, and then having him just cut right through it.

**Craig:** Cutting right through it is fantastic. There’s another thing that you set up so smartly. I would say to everybody, one of the things to do here is read this screenplay. Watch the movie. Read the screenplay. What Richie does in that first scene with BD Wong, who’s the failing marital counselor, is set up a situation where the marriage counselor says, “I’m not here to take sides. Basically, I’m not a referee. I don’t blow the whistle and say who created the foul.”

**Richard:** That’s right.

**Craig:** Here’s a guy who’s absolutely doing that, whether he realizes it or not. He is a referee. He’s saying, “This is what’s true, and this is what’s true.” In doing so, you start to see what they need, which I thought was a fascinating thing.

You described the incoming family as a shark. Talk to me about this. We meet the incoming family. They’re at dinner at a restaurant. They’re eating there because they know that Caroline is going to serve them something horrible and inedible, so they’re getting food first. Talk a little bit about this family now, these other ones.

**Richard:** Again, pulling from personal experience, the idea of a rich, controlling in-law that was a matriarch that was crippling the marriage, I liked. It wasn’t exactly my situation, but it was close, in a way, about how money can infantilize adult people around them. I wanted to get back at my in-laws for doing that, so I put all of the venom that I… You know when you have to be quiet at family gatherings and you want to say [inaudible 00:26:17]. I would just put it in the movie, like nailing yourself to a cross kind of a thing.

Out of that came her never approving of Judy Davis’s character, of her over her son and being too maternal love for the son and controlling and crippling him. I saw adult people crippled by their parents because their parents had money. My parents never had money. They always had problems. My dad was a cab driver. They never had that power over me. It was the first time I had witnessed it in that family. I played with that idea.

Her other son also being a soft doughboy. No one could stand up to her. He’s married to Christine Baranski, who’s just full of resentment and is trying to get along, is trying to make it through, but then when she sees what happens with Judy and Kevin, it gives her the liberation to finally tell the truth as well. It was really just a revenge thing for me to just get back at people who were too controlling.

**Craig:** I have to ask, since so much of this has been pulled from your own marriage, your own family, your in-laws, when the movie came out, did you get any difficult phone calls or no?

**Richard:** Went right over their head. No.

**Craig:** Isn’t that amazing?

**Richard:** Yep.

**Craig:** That’s amazing. People just can’t see themselves.

**Richard:** It’s I guess a good thing.

**Craig:** Were you worried about it?

**Richard:** No.

**Craig:** You knew that it would go like that. Wow. That’s amazing. It’s one of my favorite scenes in the movie, because we’ve been with this very literate, bickering, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf trio, and then we go to this other group that is not that. They seem regular in one sense.

I think this was my first exposure to Christine Baranski. She is brilliant, because she’s so frustrated and angry about this entire situation and constantly takes it out on her kids. I think she says something like, “Be happy. It’s Christmas! It’s Christmas!” I do that all the time. Every time Christmas rolls around, I say it just like her, so angry.

We also, I think, meet the antagonist here in the purist dramatic sense, Glynis Johns, who is absolutely brilliant in this movie as Mother Rose. Appears to be the antagonist. Myself, when I’m writing, I don’t necessarily think about who’s the protagonist, who’s the antagonist.

**Richard:** I don’t either.

**Craig:** I’m wondering if in retrospect you would agree that she is the villain if there is a villain.

**Richard:** Yes.

**Craig:** That comes through pretty clearly. There’s something that happens prior to the family arriving, and that is a connection between Caroline and Gus that struck me as really interesting. They have a conversation as she’s leading him upstairs to find some band-aids for his dog bite that he got when he was escaping the crime. She tells him things. She tells him that she and Lloyd weren’t always like this and that they, in fact, had a restaurant, she worked, and they had a dream, and it fell apart.

I’m curious what you were thinking, because this feels so natural to me. What drew her to him? Why does she open up to him so easily? Why does she want to take care of him like that?

**Richard:** I don’t know that she’s taking care of him. I think she respects him. He’s about the truth. There’s no lying with him. I think that’s in the line too where he turns to her and says, “What are we, girl friends?” That was when Denis laughed at the script when he read that for the first time.

**Craig:** It’s so funny. “What are we, girl friends?”

**Richard:** She starts to warm up. She needs someone to talk to, and she doesn’t have anyone. He is this symbol of… He’s all about the truth. He’s all about no bullshit. It’s life or death. I think she feels the need.

I wanted to humanize. I had to start planting what was good about what they had and how do I bring that out, so that you understand there was something there. Otherwise, they’re just bickering. What are they fighting for? I had to bring up the past any way I could figure it out. Then later on, when it all explodes and then they start saying what happened in the past, then you understand. I had to give little seeds of that, so that there was something, a dream there.

I got too sentimental with it, so he undercuts it. He doesn’t want to hear it. I think she wants to open up and figure it out and thinks he can help.

**Craig:** There’s an interesting theme that’s going through, that exists separate from… I think the main takeaway of the movie really is, in a very simple way, that communication and honesty is really the only way to salvation when you’re dealing with a relationship that is not working.

There’s this other theme going on, which is the haves versus the have-nots. It’s throughout the whole thing. It comes out here when they’re walking up the stairs, specifically because he notes that they have a shagol [ph], an actual shagol. She’s like, “If you want it, you can have it.” She doesn’t care, be presumably, it’s something that Mother Rose paid for or bought. He finds that so offensive and points out that, “You people, you probably never even worked a day.” It did strike me that she wanted his approval as well, when she says that’s not true.

**Richard:** She wants his respect. She wants him on her side, which also happens in bickering couples, no matter who’s around. Whatever witnesses are there to the bickering, you want them on your side, so I think so. I think he’s pointing to the fact that, “You don’t even know what you have. You don’t value what you have.” She’s like, “No, you don’t understand. That’s not the point. It’s the cost. Is it worth it?”

**Craig:** That is an interesting idea that I hadn’t considered, that she’s buttering up the ref. She’s getting him on her side.

**Richard:** As a friend almost, yeah, like an odd liaison.

**Craig:** That leads to this big second movement of this story, and that is when the family arrives. There is something that happens here that I think is really educational for anybody that’s writing farce, because it definitely becomes farcical, at least for a while, in a fun way.

What you do here, and again, there’s just an elegance to it, is rules. The rules are simple. Jesse, the son, has come home. They’ve tied him up and put him upstairs. No one can go upstairs. Rule number one, no one can go upstairs. Rule number two, the three of us always have to be together. That is enough. That’s enough.

**Richard:** That’s hard enough.

**Craig:** That’s hard enough. The family arrives. A question about the family. You are Italian. You come from, I assume, a Catholic background, Catholic upbringing?

**Richard:** Yep.

**Craig:** I’m Jewish. I come from a Jewish upbringing. You’re a New York Catholic. I’m a New York Jew. It’s essentially the same thing. It’s basically the same, but this family is not. My wife is Episcopalian from New England. This reminds me more of that world. Talk a little bit about how you were able to present that kind of WASPiness so accurately and beautifully?

**Richard:** I remember, I think Marie came up with, which I thought was just funny, that they were Huguenots.

**Craig:** French Huguenots. We’re French Huguenots.

**Richard:** That cracked me up when she told me that.

**Craig:** Mid-18th century French Huguenot.

**Richard:** Yeah, which I thought was really funny at the time. I’m speaking at the time, because my situation is very different now. At the time, the in-laws were Scarsdale Jewish.

**Craig:** Got it. Let me translate for everybody else, Scarsdale Jewish. It’s in Westchester. It’s fancier, richer, but still Jewish. You’ve got one foot in the old ways, and you’ve got one foot in the golf club and all that, but you’re not old money rich.

**Richard:** There still were a lot of, I want to say there were affectations, but the way things are done, how things are done, the kind of dinner parties and what you say. The contrast was, when the shit hit the fan, all that went right out the window, and they were just like Italians, emotional and brutal and all that stuff, but all the upper crust stuff. Part of it was from that. I think it was just osmosis of watching a lot of films and reading things about how those families work and the Philip Barry world of Philadelphia Story and Holiday and those kind of things.

**Craig:** It’s interesting.

**Richard:** It’s a New York sensibility too, to a certain extent, an Upper East Side sensibility.

**Craig:** I think outsiders often do those things the best, because we have been watching them. Like you say, you’ve been watching those things.

**Richard:** You absorb it.

**Craig:** It’s funny. I was at a party a couple of weeks ago, and Maureen McCormick was there, Maureen McCormick who played Marcia on The Brady Bunch. I told her how my sister and I used to watch her and that show and yearn for that kind of… We thought of that as the best kind of life, this WASPy… Nobody yelled. Nobody was screaming. Nobody got hit.

**Richard:** Nobody got hit.

**Craig:** It was so wonderful.

**Richard:** No plates were thrown.

**Craig:** No plates were thrown. Your mother and father weren’t screaming at each other constantly. I love the notion of the outsider creating this but then also going, “There are worms in the dirt underneath this.”

**Richard:** Something underneath there. Absolutely. Absolutely.

**Craig:** There’s a fantastic moment in this dinner where as things devolve, and they devolve rather quickly, Mother Rose mentions, quite casually, Caroline’s infidelity, the fact that Caroline cheated on her precious son, whom she’s awful to anyway. The fact that-

**Richard:** That he told his mother.

**Craig:** That he told his mother, that fact just sends her into a rage.

**Richard:** As it would.

**Craig:** As it would. She storms off, which means that Gus and Lloyd both have to follow her. They go into the kitchen, and there’s the following exchange.

**Richard:** I love this scene.

**Craig:** This is one of my favorites. She says, “You won’t talk about it in therapy, but you’ll discuss it behind my back, with that bitch.” Lloyd says, “Hey, she’s my mother.” Gus says, “She’s a fucking bitch, Lloyd.”

**Richard:** He’s telling the truth.

**Craig:** That is the best referee moment in the entire movie, because somebody has to say it.

**Richard:** Somebody has to say it. Exactly.

**Craig:** Somebody has to say, “No, I just showed up here. I have no vested interest in this fight, but I’m telling you, she’s a fucking bitch, Lloyd,” which my wife and I have been saying just as a general phrase about anybody we think is a bitch. We’ll just say, whether it’s a man or a woman, “He’s a fucking bitch, Lloyd.” We always just put Lloyd at the end.

**Richard:** That means so much. I love that. That’s fantastic. That makes me really happy.

**Craig:** A fucking bitch, Lloyd. It’s the ultimate referee moment. It goes by very quickly. It’s not this big, dramatic… Nor does the conversation stop. It keeps rolling. That is almost like the match that lights the fuse that eventually inevitably leads to everybody saying everything they think.

Talk about how to do that scene, where you’ve brilliantly jammed all this gunpowder into a barrel. How do you blow these things up? How do you create a sequence in one room, where no one’s really moving around that much, and yet everything explodes?

**Richard:** The event is the act of opening presents at Christmas. That’s what you hang it on, like a tree. Then the heartbeat of it was the relationship between Kevin and Judy and them speaking again as if no one’s in the room and then getting everything out. Then you have all these people now who have somewhat of an interest invested in it, which is different than what we’ve had before, so they get to throw in their stuff and bring up their own stuff. The motor is the couple. Then all these other pieces come around when the timing and the moment feels right. Example is they’re talking the gifts, and Christine Baranski shouts, “Isotoners.”

**Craig:** Slipper socks.

**Richard:** The slipper socks. I think one version was Isotoner. “Slipper socks, medium.” All the resentments start to come out. The focus was on the relationship. That was the steady. That was the through line. Then everything else could jump off of it when it felt right.

**Craig:** There is this amazing moment where after watching an entire movie of these two tearing into each other and then watching this entire dinner with them tearing into each other and then this sequence here where they’re really tearing into each other, it finally comes out that Caroline wants a divorce, and they are. He’s fine. “We’re going to get divorced.” Gary, the stupid brother, says, “Why?”

**Richard:** He was so sweet.

**Craig:** It is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in my life. He’s so wonderfully innocent.

**Richard:** He’s very sweet.

**Craig:** So sweet. Oh my god, the look in his eyes where he looks like he was stunned by this thing. Everybody else is like, “What?” In this discussion, they finally get to the truth. What’s interesting is the ref, Denis Leary, in this sequence, says, “I don’t think anything.” He just-

**Richard:** Stands back.

**Craig:** Yes. You understood that the scam that he’s playing here, just for the purposes of the rest of the family, is that he’s posing as the marriage counselor. That’s to excuse his presence. He, as it turns out, is kind of the perfect marriage counselor. He knows exactly when to say, “You’re a liar. No, you’re a liar. She is a fucking bitch, Lloyd.” Here, it’s as if he actually gets invested. It feels like he’s invested.

**Richard:** This is the moment when it’s not about him hiding and it’s not about the robbery and it’s not about anything. He actually has been with these people all night, and he’s seeing what’s happening and is like, “No, this has to happen.” He just steps back.

He could’ve stopped it. He could’ve rerouted it, but he doesn’t, because he has heard her side of it, and he kind of is understanding Kevin’s side a little bit more. He knows this thing has to happen, and so he steps back and he just watches it. It’s an act of grace that he gives it. It’s not about him in that moment at all.

**Craig:** It’s a really interesting decision. It goes again to, I think there are a lot of movies when people are thinking about them or talking about them or when they try and write them and they’re wondering who the main character is, they will sometimes confuse main character and protagonist as the same thing.

What’s interesting is Gus maybe is the main… Denis Leary I suppose is the main character in a sense, but he’s certainly not the protagonist here. To the extent that it’s about people changing, it does feel like it’s about both Lloyd and Caroline, although I would argue ultimately, as is the case with almost every story, it comes down to one person making one choice that finally changes things.

I think for me, that moment is when in the middle of their arguing, Mother Rose says, “What does it even matter? They’re getting divorced,” and Lloyd turns to her and says, “Mother, is it possible for you to shut the fuck up for 10 seconds?” That to me is the moment where the protagonist there, I think-

**Richard:** Is Lloyd.

**Craig:** … is Lloyd.

**Richard:** That’s what the marriage needed all along.

**Craig:** All along.

**Richard:** To stand up to his mother.

**Craig:** There is this wonderful tradition in movies about psychological issues, relationship problems, and therapy, where it often comes down to one thing. I assume you go to therapy. You’re like me.

**Richard:** Been there 24 years now.

**Craig:** It would be great if therapy worked like this. In real life, it doesn’t, but in the movies, it often does come down to these little moments, like, “It’s not your fault,” or, “Mother, shut the fuck up. It’s almost like the walls come tumbling down.

**Richard:** One-word truths and then all the walls come tumbling down.

**Craig:** Everybody starts saying the truth. It is a wonderful conclusion of things. Before the family can be healed, there’s also the story of the son. What’s interesting about him, we’ve given him short shrift here, is that he is a criminal delinquent. It seems to be a reflection of the fact that his family home is broken. That’s what it feels like. He wants to go with Gus.

This is where there is this pathos to Gus’s sadness and a weight to him, even though he’s a funny character and he’s a burglar and he has the gun. We like him quite a bit, because he didn’t shoot anybody. He actually made things better. He expresses a sadness here. I just wanted you to talk a little bit about what is the story of Gus. Does it matter? Is he like one of the Greek gods that shows up in The Odyssey and then leaves?

**Richard:** It’s close to that, I guess. When I think about it, I don’t know that there was a lot of backstory. I think he had a lot of empathy for the kid. I have to be honest. This was the one part of the movie that I had… I wasn’t crazy about the casting. I like that kid, but I didn’t think he was right for the part. There wasn’t enough edge to him for me.

When I think about this storyline, I have to say, when Teddy and I hired Simpson and Bruckheimer to be our producers, because we had to pick from the Disney stable-

**Craig:** Got it.

**Richard:** We wouldn’t pick anyone that wouldn’t drink with us. Each one of the candidates we met at a bar. Teddy would lean [inaudible 00:46:08] go, “No, he’s a spy. We can’t hire him. No, he works for the studio.”

Simpson and Bruckheimer were a little bit insane. They had already had Top Gun and all this stuff. Then they made a deal. They saw this as, “Oh, Denis Leary, MTV. This is going to be a comedy for teenagers,” which was a big mistake. Don Simpson, who was a character in his own right, he detoured the script by making me do a rewrite that was all about the kid, because that was his thing. He wanted it to be about the kid.

We had the reading with the actors. The script had changed so much that Judy Davis got up and went, “This isn’t the part,” all of a sudden. I said, “I know. I agree with you. Please. I’m fast.” That’s when the four days happened, after that.

**Craig:** Oh, interesting.

**Richard:** The kid, that storyline was always, for me, a little… All I remember is we wanted to Gus to have this sort of humanity, hinting at a past, that he understood this kid in a way that his parents didn’t. I don’t know that we had any big past for him. We didn’t want to get too sentimental or too bogged down in that. He was going to help the kid in some way as well by his presence being there. Maybe you’re right. Maybe it was more like a Greek god that comes in and out.

**Craig:** Yeah, or like The Rainmaker. I always think of The Rainmaker, because I love that movie and just the idea of someone who shows up with bad intentions, a con artist, a thief, and yet is exactly what is required to un-suspend the misery, basically.

**Richard:** And get the truth out.

**Craig:** And get the truth out, exactly. Finally, at the end, the family is healed. Gus escapes. There is one of the greatest lines ever in history. Lloyd and Caroline are about to kiss, finally, when they are interrupted by Lloyd’s nephew, who says, “Sorry, but Grandma’s eating through her gag.” “Sorry, but Grandma’s eating through her gag.” It’s one of the greatest lines in history.

**Richard:** I love the way Denis did it. There’s an earlier line where he’s so upset with her, he wants to punch her. He goes, “Your husband isn’t dead. He’s hiding.”

**Craig:** “He’s hiding.” It’s so great.

**Richard:** Denis was great in that. The whole time he loses his shit.

**Craig:** [Crosstalk 00:48:34].

**Richard:** He’s like, “[inaudible 00:48:35]. Let me at her.”

**Craig:** They get it. They’re like, “We get it, but you can’t.”

**Richard:** They were holding him back.

**Craig:** They were holding him back.

**Richard:** I love that. Denis was so good in that.

**Craig:** “Mothers are supposed to be nice and sweet and patient and forgiving.” She really is horrible. With that wonderful mid-Atlantic accent, that not American, not British, kind of moneyed way of talking is absolutely wonderful.

Now, I read somewhere that the end here, which is a very happy ending, because Gus does escape with Murray on a boat, that that end was not originally the end.

**Richard:** It was re-shot.

**Craig:** Re-shot.

**Richard:** I believe we re-shot it, yeah. The original ending was Gus sacrifices himself for them in some way and gives himself up. Disney, they wanted it to be-

**Craig:** Happy.

**Richard:** Yeah. We had to re-shoot the ending.

**Craig:** It’s really interesting, because I remember those days.

**Richard:** They’re still here.

**Craig:** Studios still give notes and stuff, but there was something about the 90s. Maybe it was cocaine. I don’t know. There were so many notes. So many notes.

**Richard:** They’re still here. They’re still here. Streaming services are like that.

**Craig:** They’re still doing it. Through the crisis of writing drafts that you didn’t want to write, featuring storylines you didn’t want to feature, having Disney tell you to change the ending, all of that stuff, and then ultimately, all of it goes away in the crucible of those four days where you could just do the work.

**Richard:** Exactly, with the people that you’re doing it with, and not the executives, who are five steps removed and don’t really know how things work and don’t really know how things are made.

**Craig:** And also don’t know to release Christmas movies at Christmas. It’s the weirdest. Actually, March is the worst possible month, because Christmas happened, but it’s not a funny, ironic thing that it’s in the summer. It’s fucking March.

**Richard:** I also think we opened on the same day as Four Weddings and a Funeral, which was huge.

**Craig:** Oof.

**Richard:** Huge. I think it was the same weekend.

**Craig:** Lots of reasons why the movie initially didn’t do well, but it is something that I think adds character.

**Richard:** It was more, like I said, for a teenage MTV audience instead of an adult audience. I think that was part of the problem.

**Craig:** They must’ve been incredibly confused by that first scene, which I still think, if you understand what the movie is and who it’s meant for, is absolutely wonderful. Richie, we’re going to do a little segment now we call Drew Has A Question.

**Drew Marquardt:** I have a quick question on The Ref, because in the presents scene, I realized as I was watching it that we’re watching Lloyd do a monologue in a lot of ways, but it doesn’t feel that way. You’re hanging on every word. Very often, monologues aren’t done very well in movies. I was wondering if you could speak to how you set us up for that. Were you building to that the whole way through, or is that about following the logic of the moment?

**Richard:** I think it’s a few things. Like you said, it was building up all the way through. You want the audience to feel the way Judy Davis and Denis feel. They want this guy to blow up. They want this guy to tell the truth finally, especially when the mother enters the scene. You’re anticipating that, and you’re going, “Oh, here it comes. Now here it is.” You’re ready for it.

Another testament is that it’s just Kevin Spacey is a great actor, and he knew how to time it and he knew how to deliver it. The way Teddy directed it, with all the different characters there and their reactions and how to make it keep moving forward, keep moving forward. A lot of the energy of that is because of Kevin’s performance and everything that we set up along the way.

Finally, he’s blowing his top. In the first scene with the therapist, he’s snide, he’s sarcastic. They’re playing the game with each other of how they communicate, which isn’t the truth. It’s one-upmanship. This is finally taking the mask off. Okay, this is it.

It was revealing to me, and this happens in relationships, where everybody has their story, everybody has their side, but it’s not the whole story. Everything she said was true, but she forgot this. She forgot she wasn’t happy in that little apartment. She forgot this part of it. She didn’t understand the pressure he was under. To me, that was very honest.

It happens in all relationships, where you just get into the bickering, and you’re not really getting to how different people see things and their experiences and go, “Oh, I never thought of that. I never thought you were feeling that. I didn’t understand that. I thought it was power or something, and it wasn’t.” It was honest, and it was a lot of Kevin’s performance.

**Craig:** It’s also really interesting that you pull a little trick in that monologue, which is you don’t let him finish it. Everyone basically interrupts him, as if they’re too busy with their own crap. He has to pick up a fireplace poker and whack the Christmas tree over and over.

**Richard:** To get a symbol of why they’re there.

**Craig:** Exactly. “Shut up. I’m not done.” Then he gets-

**Richard:** The corpse has the floor.

**Craig:** The corpse has the floor. That reminds me so much of something that my dad used to say, which I won’t say on the air. It was the idea of feeling like you weren’t alive, the notion that you were being treated like a corpse that had been stuffed and stood up against the wall, not to be listened to and not to be considered.

**Richard:** Your father said that?

**Craig:** He would say something like that.

**Richard:** Wow.

**Craig:** I’ll save that for one of our confessional episodes. Richie, that was a fantastic discussion.

**Richard:** Thank you. This was great.

**Craig:** It’s amazing. I hope people do watch The Ref. I know for a fact it’s available to watch on Amazon Prime Video.

**Richard:** Is it on Disney Plus? I don’t know if they have it. Do they have it?

**Craig:** That’s a great question. I don’t know.

**Drew:** I don’t think it’s on Disney Plus, but we’ll put a link to it in the show.

**Craig:** Classic Disney.

**Richard:** [Crosstalk 00:54:43].

**Craig:** They’re still screwing this movie over. Guys, come on, put The Ref on. It’s so good. It is a fantastic Christmas, holiday tradition. We like to watch it every Christmas.

**Richard:** That makes me happy. Thank you.

**Craig:** We love it so much. Thank you for it. Now at the end of our regular show, we like to do something called One Cool Thing.

**Richard:** What’s yours?

**Craig:** I’ll tell you. I like to solve puzzles. I’m a big puzzle guy. For those of you out there who do enjoy, as I do, solving lots of puzzles, you will find oftentimes that you need to refer to the letters as number, so A as 1, B is 2, and so forth. Braille, binary, there’s something called a pigpen cipher, Morse code. You have to go around looking for all these things.

There’s an organization called Puzzled Pint. I think they’ve been my One Cool Thing before. They have, in one easy pdf, basically not all of, but a lot of the codes you would need to use, like NATO alphabet and semaphore and all the other ones I’ve mentioned, including binary, ternary, and hex. It’s incredibly useful, all in one sheet of puzzle solving, if you are, like me, a puzzle solver. We’ll include that link.

**Richard:** I love puzzles.

**Craig:** Oh, then listen.

**Richard:** I do the crossword on the subway every day.

**Craig:** Fantastic. You may find this interesting, especially if you expand into some of the stranger puzzles out there, which have begun to occupy me daily.

**Richard:** Did you Wordle?

**Craig:** Of course I do Wordle. Yes, I do Wordle.

**Richard:** I do Wordle.

**Craig:** We had Josh. What’s Josh Wordle’s actual name? Is it Wordle? It’s not Wordle. What’s his name?

**Drew:** It’s Josh Wardle.

**Craig:** Wardle. Wardle.

**Richard:** Wardle? Really?

**Drew:** Yeah.

**Richard:** Wow.

**Craig:** We had Josh Wardle on the show, who invented Wordle.

**Richard:** Wow.

**Craig:** Big Wordle fan, and also the Spelling Bee and the regular crossword as well. Do you have One Cool Thing for us, Richie?

**Richard:** Oh, man. I thought about this, and all I could think about was food.

**Craig:** Oh, we love food. Last week, my One Cool Thing was food. What’s yours?

**Richard:** There’s a place in New York, a couple of them, called Levain Bakery. Levain Bakery comes up with these cookies that are gigantic. One of them is a chocolate peanut butter. Literally, it’s a meal. You can only take little bites of it every day, because you eat the whole thing, you’re dead.

**Craig:** You’re dead.

**Richard:** It’s that big. They have a sour cream coffee cake. My mother and I always had this thing where we had to have cake, because she used to say it helps just to make the coffee go down. This is what she used to say. I had this thing in my head that I need cake to drink coffee or I can’t drink coffee.

**Craig:** It won’t go down.

**Richard:** It won’t go down. They have this sour cream coffee cake. I literally go to be at night thinking, “When I wake up, I can have the sour cream coffee cake.” I get so excited by it. It’s really good. It’s dense. It’s got all this sugar and maple stuff in the middle of it, and sour cream.

**Craig:** Oh, wow.

**Richard:** It’s a really great coffee cake. The other thing I can recommend is I discovered the benefits of celery juice. I buy this big bottle of Suji, I think it’s S-U-J-I or something, celery juice. It actually helps, because I have a terrible, terrible, acidic, nervous, ulceric kind of stomach, and it really helped. That kind of juice helps. There’s a couple things.

**Craig:** Those are both excellent recommendations. It’s Levain? Is that what it is, Levain Bakery?

**Richard:** L-E-V-A-I-N.

**Craig:** Levain.

**Richard:** Bakery. Great cookies. They deliver.

**Craig:** Do they ship?

**Richard:** Yeah, I think so. I use Try Caviar. They’re on that. I think they could ship to you. Their cookies are amazing. They have an oatmeal. All their cookies are gigantic.

**Craig:** Just like manhole covers.

**Richard:** They’re really good. They’re dense.

**Craig:** I love it. I’m going to unfortunately have to go and buy some of that stuff now. Thank you for that.

**Richard:** Thank you for this. This was really wonderful, because I don’t think anybody remembers the movie or thinks about it. Thank you. This meant a lot to me. Thank you very much.

**Craig:** I hope that we bring a whole new generation in.

**Richard:** And to Teddy.

**Craig:** Yes, and to Teddy, wherever he is, watching or listening.

**Richard:** And Denis too.

**Craig:** He’s wonderful.

**Richard:** That’s right.

**Craig:** That’s right. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro today is by Matt Davis. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That is also where you will find transcripts and the signup for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts, and they’re great. Cotton Bureau. So soft. Highly recommend them, Richie. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we are about to record now. Richie, Drew, thank you so much for a terrific episode.

**Richard:** Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Drew.

**Drew:** Thank you, Richie.

[Bonus Segment]

**Craig:** Premium members, welcome back. Little, short treat for you here. Little bonus. I want to talk with Richie about… Because we’re both middle-aged guys. Apparently, middle-aged men have problems making and keeping friends.

There’s been some really interesting articles about this. There was one in the New York Times. This one was back in November of ’22, an article by Catherine Pearson titled Why is it So Hard for Men to Make Close Friends? “American men are stuck in a friendship recession. Here’s how to climb out.”

There’s also a slightly different view here back in May of 2019. This was in Harper’s Bazaar, written by Melanie Hamlett, Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden. “Toxic masculinity and the persistent idea that feelings are a female thing has left a generation of straight men stranded on emotionally stunted islands, unable to forge intimate relationships with other men. It’s women who are paying the price.”

First of all, I guess one question I have is, friends-wise… I have a lot of friends. Have you encountered the middle-age man not having friends issue?

**Richard:** First of all, I’m not a straight man. That’s one.

**Craig:** Boom.

**Richard:** That’s been a change since we saw each other last.

**Craig:** You were.

**Richard:** Not really.

**Craig:** I know.

**Richard:** I pretty much assumed everyone knew so I didn’t have to say anything. No, not really. My wife knew before we were married. It was a second coming out. Sorry, I came out-

**Craig:** Second coming is a much more [crosstalk 01:01:43].

**Richard:** I came out when I was 18, but only halfway, not with my family. I don’t know that it’s about toxic masculinity or anything like that. I do have friends. They’re mostly writers, like you, that I know. I used to have friends through the marriage. I don’t have them as much anymore.

It is hard to meet people. I also don’t like a lot of people now. The world is so fucked up. I really can’t stand people. I’m becoming a hermit. It’s hard to meet people when you’re a hermit. You meet them through work. I just directed this movie and made lovely new friends there. Again, it’s through work. I think something that women don’t understand, maybe not, this is probably wrong, but we’re defined by what we do.

**Craig:** Men, you mean?

**Richard:** Yeah. When we’re not doing what we do, we are invisible. We disappear. There’s a lot of pressure about that. I think we find friends through what we do. I don’t really have sport hobbies or stuff like that. I have a trainer, a gym guy that I love, that I talk to a lot and I’m with a lot. I don’t know. How about you? Are most of your friends in the business, or do you have outside friends?

**Craig:** Most of my friends are in the business. Most of my friends are writers. We do get an interesting built-in fraternity, I think, in a sense, because there are a lot of people that do what we do, and we’re all complainers. I find that complaining about things really can bring people together.

**Richard:** Absolutely. Absolutely. Also, writing is a solitary activity. Years and years ago, because we’re in New York and not LA, where you guys know each other and see each other more, Robert Kamen used to live here and he started this dinner thing. It was me, Robert Kamen, Tony Gilroy, and at the time Stephen Schiff, but now Scott Frank is here. We would have monthly dinners just to check in. That was really nice. We went out of our way and had a beautiful dinner, complained, drank. It was really a great thing that we did every month almost. Now that’s dissipated as well. I think especially for writers, male writers, it’s a good thing to do, to reach out and create those groups.

**Craig:** I talked about my father briefly before in the episode. It did strike me that in his later years, I never really thought about my dad and friends. It wasn’t like my dad had a group of guy friends.

**Richard:** No, my dad either. He was alone. It was all for my mother, all for my mom.

**Craig:** Exactly. It was that way until my dad died. His relationships came down to his wife, and that was it, and then family if you had to have those family holidays and things. It does strike me as sad. It is an interesting concept that men who can’t keep a friend group of men start to overburden their wife or their partner, because that’s the only person they deal with. That’s the only person who hears their problems.

**Richard:** Their only outlet.

**Craig:** There is no way to process.

**Richard:** I think that’s true.

**Craig:** Part of what they discuss here is how hard it is, like you said, for men to meet each other. You’re looking for a friend version of Grinder, basically. I don’t know what we would call it. Women do seem to just meet each other and become friends so easily.

**Richard:** Open up to each other more easily.

**Craig:** Exactly. I guess we don’t have the solution here. How old are you, Drew?

**Drew:** I’m 33. I’m getting married this fall. I’m doing the list for the bachelor party. There’s my brother.

**Richard:** Who do you want to spend time with? Who do you want to hang out with?

**Craig:** It’s happened to you.

**Drew:** It’s happening slowly, in little bits. It’s strange. I think honestly, I’m closer with women than I am with men, for the most part. It’s also interesting talking about burdening your wives too. I found a little book called Point Omega where one of the characters has a thing. He’s fresh off a divorce and doesn’t know why it fell apart. One of the characters says, “It’s because you told her everything, not because you told her anything.” I always think about that. If you burden your wife or anything with that oversharing and feeling like they have to be responsible for all your feelings-

**Richard:** That’s too much. No one person should be responsible for everything. That’s why friends are really good to have, to share other things with. We got to fix this. I don’t know how we do this.

**Craig:** I don’t know either, but I urge men to make an effort. I think part of it is just making an effort and not being afraid to say, “Hey look, I’m actually fucking lonely.” You have to show a little bit of vulnerability, because if you’re just like, “Hey, you want to get lunch?” guys are like, “No, not really.” If I hear a guy say, “Hey, listen, I’m actually having some problems and I need advice. Do you want to have lunch?” absolutely.

**Richard:** I’d be right there for them, yeah.

**Craig:** Then you start to create… You also get perspective. Richie, you were married for I don’t know how long, a long time.

**Richard:** 35, yeah.

**Craig:** 35 years. I’m getting close. I’m at 27, I think. When you can talk to other people who are in marriages that are that long, the complaining feels very good, because you realize this is normal.

**Richard:** You’re not alone. You’re not alone in it. That’s a really important thing. That’s really important.

**Craig:** Otherwise, it just feels like you’re stuck in something. You don’t realize that other people are like, “Oh, it’s fine. I feel that. It’s okay. It’s totally normal.” I don’t think we solved the problem necessarily, but at least we can urge you out there, if you are a man, particularly if you are heading into your middle ages, make an effort. It’s worth it to have some buds. Richie, thanks again.

**Richard:** Thank you very much. You’re a bud.

Links:

* The Ref on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKthobV2JU4), [Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B006RXQ1EI/ref=atv_dp_share_cu_r) and [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110955/)
* [Richard LaGravenese](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0481418/) on IMDb
* [The Ransom of Red Chief](https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Henry_Red_Chief.pdf) by O. Henry
* The Ref’s [Opening Scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAa3zP1ysqo)
* [Puzzled Pint’s Code Sheet](http://puzzledpint.com/files/2415/7835/9513/CodeSheet-201912.pdf)
* [Levain Bakery](https://levainbakery.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/) on Instagram
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matt Davis ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Drew Marquardt](https://www.instagram.com/marquardtam/) 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/593standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 573: Three Page Challenge Live in Austin, Transcript

February 24, 2023 News

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/three-page-challenge-live-in-austin).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode was recorded live last week at the Austin Film Festival. This was the day after our big, raucous live show. This is a more sedated affair, but still a pretty full house. We have a bunch of the writers who wrote their scenes for the Three Page Challenge in the audience. We’re going to talk to them about what they wrote, why they wrote it, and get some real feedback from them. If you’re a Premium Member, stick around after the credits, because we’ll do some Q and A with the audience. Some really good questions were asked and hopefully answered. Enjoy.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is a sort of version of Scriptnotes, which is a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. We’re here live in Austin, Texas. How many people in this room have submitted a Three Page Challenge to Scriptnotes, either now or at some point? That’s a lot of hands here in the audience, a lot of brave screenwriters here.

For folks who are not aware, the Three Page Challenge is a thing we’ve been doing on the Scriptnotes podcast for 10 years, where we invite people to send in the first three pages of their screenplay, their teleplay, and we give them our honest feedback. It’s criticism, but hopefully really genuinely constructive criticism about what we’re seeing on the page, what’s working great, and what could maybe possibly work a little bit better. Craig Mazin, my cohost and I, we talk through this. We do it every couple of weeks. It’s been really fun and educational for everybody, because it’s great to have a podcast about screenwriting, but it’s really hard to talk about screenwriting without talking about the words on the page.

Today is all about the words on the page. We have some other brave writers here who submitted samples so we can talk through these things. If you’re listening to this at home, later on it’ll be attached to the podcast episode. You just click on those links. A good chance to see what these things look like on the page, what we’re talking about literally, like transitions and the language choices that you’re seeing.

When we ask people to send in these script pages, I don’t read them, Craig doesn’t read them. It’s Megana Rao who reads them. Let’s bring up Megana Rao, our producer. Megana Rao, when we call for Three Page Challenges, we’ll put it on Twitter or we’ll announce it on the podcast. How many submissions do we typically get?

**Megana Rao:** We usually get a couple hundred.

**John:** A couple hundred submissions. These are writers who are writing in, saying, “Please talk about my thing on air.” For Austin, how many people did you get? We had a special little tick box like, “I’m going to be here at Austin.” How many did you read through?

**Megana:** Oh god, I didn’t count this time. I’m sorry.

**John:** It was a lot. It was a good number. These are people who could actually join us up on stage, because that’s what’s fun about the Austin Film Festival is we can actually talk through with these people about what they did and what their intentions were and what we saw versus what they were attempting to do, because so often it’s just a vacuum.

**Megana:** Totally. We’re just assuming, and we don’t get that feedback.

**John:** Talk me through your general selection process, because this isn’t a competition. You’re not looking for the best scripts pages. What’s helpful for you in picking a Three Page Challenge?

**Megana:** I think first of all, I want to make sure that no one ever feels embarrassed and that these are pages that I would be comfortable if I had written being on our website and seen by people. I want to make sure there’s no formatting issues or too many typos or anything like that, that there’s a certain level of professionalism.

Then typically, they are pages where I am surprised or excited. I feel like there’s something new, there’s something I’m rooting for in those pages, but maybe it’s not quite landing on every point. I really feel like I want to champion those writers and those pages to be the best that they can be. I usually put those in a selection pile, and then you and I go through the top five or seven and narrow it down from there.

**John:** Absolutely. It’d be great to be like, “Here’s three perfect pages. Everyone do these three perfect pages.” Then we wouldn’t have a lot to talk about. We could just say, “Oh, these are great. I want to read the next 30 pages of the script.” It’s the ones who have some like, “Oh, there’s something really promising here, but there’s also something we can work on, that we can discuss.” As you’re looking through, why we picked these three samples is because we saw things that were really promising but also things that we could discuss.

**Megana:** Totally.

**John:** We don’t have Craig here with us today, but we do have, luckily, someone who has to read scripts for a living. Can we welcome up Marc Velez? Marc, you are a production executive. You are working at Universal?

**Marc Velez:** Yes. I oversee development for a division at Universal Studio Group. There’s many television studios within the studio, and so I work at one of them.

**John:** Great. What is your experience on a daily basis with scripts? Are you reading submissions from writers you’ve never hear of, or are you reading to help put together staffing for shows? What is your experience working with scripts on a daily basis?

**Marc:** I would say it’s a combination of all three. We have overall deals with a lot of different writers and directors and production companies. They will send us material that they want us to option and work with them and then take to platforms, so there’s that. Then agents will call us and say, “Hey, you should know this writer. They have a really great script,” so there’s that. Then there’s, third, I guess, submissions that are just being considered for pilots.

**John:** Great. What was your background before this? You were working with Lee Daniels’s company.

**Marc:** My first job was at Planet Hollywood.

**John:** Wow. That’s a whole origin story.

**Marc:** That’s a whole story.

**John:** You went from all the props in movies to actually working with the people who make those things.

**Marc:** I didn’t know anybody in Hollywood. I thought the way to get to Hollywood was work at Planet Hollywood.

**John:** Of course. It’s got Hollywood in the name, so you’d figure. You were that close.

**Marc:** Prior to working at UCP, I ran Lee Daniels’s company for the last six years as a producer. We did Empire. We did the new Wonder Years. We did a Sammy Davis limited series on Hulu.

**John:** For something like that, you are helping to staff up those shows. You’re helping to find writers who could be making these things possible. You must get a lot of submissions. You’re probably going through a lot. You may not be stopping at three pages, but what gets you excited to finish a script, and what makes you go like, “Oh, you know what? I think I can set that down and never pick it up again.”

**Marc:** That’s a really good question. I would say it’s just a gut thing that I connect with the material at the core of it, the character, the point of view, the emotion in the script.

**John:** Sometimes you’re reading specifically for staffing on a given show, and so does this fit this thing. Also, I bet you can recognize this is a writer with a voice, this is a writer who feels confident on the page.

**Marc:** Yeah. I would say it’s almost like three buckets. There’s, like you said, the staffing where if I’m staffing a specific show knowing that I need to mimic something in let’s say the spy genre or if it’s an agent who has just sent a script in just for a general meeting and I’m just writing it for their voice. Then there’s the third, which I always think is the hardest. I’m reading the script to see if we want to option it to actually make a show, which just has a different kind of structure to it.

**John:** Yeah, because within a third one, you’re really looking like, “Can I see Episode 2? Does it feel like there’s a thing here to keep going?”

**Marc:** Exactly.

**John:** Which is challenging. Let’s apply some of that structure and thinking to these three pages that we’re looking at from these three samples today.

**Megana:** We’re going to start with Michael Heiligenstein, who wrote The Encyclopedists. The summary, “King Lear the 15th smiles to himself as he seals an order and passes it to his attendant. As we watch the order travel from the palace to the police barracks through the streets of Paris, we hear Denny Diderot in VoiceOver describe the corruption of the monarchy and society. We see scenes of Denny writing in his apartment until the police show up to his home with the royal order and drag him out and throw him in a police carriage.”

**John:** The Encyclopedists. Marc, let’s say this landed on your desk, virtually or physically printed, The Encyclopedists, a pilot for a limited series. Just even on the cover page, we have Michael’s name, written by, copyright. Everything looks good to me. Anything trip you up at all?

**Marc:** No, it looks great.

**John:** Cool. Let’s get on to first instincts after reading these three pages. Did you see what this show was going to be? What was your feeling after the three pages?

**Marc:** I would say a couple things, Michael. I would say the first, actually I didn’t know this story, so then I did a real deep dive after, which was really cool.

**John:** Which is great when you get that.

**Marc:** It’s rare to have somebody educate me on something that I didn’t know. That was really cool. I would say overall, I got what the premise was of the show and this man being persecuted obviously for writing encyclopedia within this world. It was a pretty clean, clear premise within the first three pages.

**John:** I would agree. I had a sense that this is going to be this guy’s story, Diderot’s story. I could see there’s going to be a journey here. I was excited to see what happened. He gets thrown in jail by the end of the three pages. Things were moving quickly. We’re essentially intercutting between Denny Diderot writing this thing about the abuse of power and how kings work, while we see his arrest order come through. The intercutting was nice.

I did have some questions though. We’re in a time period, but I don’t really know the time period. I didn’t know the year. I wasn’t anchored into a moment or a year. I didn’t know King Louis the 15th’s age. I like that the writer was telling us to call him Denny, D-E-N-N-Y, so we would actually pronounce it right in our head, because the French name would be Denis Diderot. It didn’t have a great visual on him. I knew that his hair kept falling in front of his eyes, but I couldn’t quite see him. In these three pages introducing this central character, I need to have a clear visual on who he is and be able to cast him in my head.

**Marc:** If you had the timeframe on there, it would’ve just been more helpful to clarify. I know voiceover’s always really tricky. I felt like in those three pages specifically, what did you want to say in the VoiceOver, because the VoiceOver jumped around a little bit from explaining the king is beholden to the realm to then the king, if he is corrupt, makes bad decisions, and then there was something about the guards basically deciding what they want to do. I was looking for a little bit more consistency in tracking that VoiceOver, because I think that VoiceOver was really key in the first three pages.

**John:** It’s an interesting use of VoiceOver, because it’s not a VoiceOver that’s directed just to us as an audience. We’re supposed to believe that this is what he’s writing, because he’s going to get stopped mid-sentence as he’s writing this thing. Essentially, he has that compulsion to write. What he’s writing is what we’re hearing in our heads.

Other things I noticed as we went through on the page, we’re lacking ages on people. I was lacking some sort of physical details on some people that could’ve been helpful. I didn’t necessarily believe at the bottom of Page 1 that Rene Berryer was eating a steak at his desk. That just felt like a modern thing versus a whatever year this is supposed to be thing, a horse-drawn carriage kind of year thing.

Then on Page 2, midway through, “Over his left shoulder, a window; through it you may notice the police pull up outside.” I had trouble visualizing that, because for some reason I saw us on the second floor, and that was a challenge. The “you may notice,” it’s either we notice or we don’t notice. Are we supposed to notice or are we not supposed to notice? I needed a little bit stronger of a choice there.

**Marc:** Yeah. Then for me a little bit on Page 3, I was curious what happened to the blade and if he put that in his pocket for later and what that reveal was to come. I was curious where it went, because for me it dropped out a little bit. Then I just was curious in terms of his point of view. He seemed so nonchalant about getting whisked off by the police. It was just curious getting in his POV a little bit, as well as, if he knew that they were taking him because he was a writer, would he not hide the stuff he was currently writing in that first scene?

**John:** We approach things with an expectation based on… We see this person writing. We see the police coming. We’re setting this up. For his writing just to be out there felt a little bit of a risk.

**Marc:** Yeah. I will say I did not see the reveal coming at the end. That was great. I thought they were going to apprehend somebody else, and you were just cutting between the two when he was narrating the story. That was a really nice reveal that I didn’t see.

**John:** Great. One of the things we love about doing the live Three Page Challenge is we actually get to talk to the folks who wrote the script. Could we have you come up and talk to us about your pages here, Michael?

**Michael Heiligenstein:** I think I’ve gotten so good at taking feedback in the past couple years, I’m finally ready to do it live on stage.

**John:** Nothing at all nerve-wracking about this. Michael, did we misunderstand anything you were trying to do in these three pages?

**Michael:** No, I think that you pointed out a couple things that were unclear and could be clearer on the page. You get the premise. I’m glad that you understood where it was going, what was going on.

**John:** Great. Talk to us about what’s going to be happening on the next 10 pages. What goes next?

**Michael:** I love the next 10 pages. This is a script where the final 30 pages of this pilot I’m less sure about, but the first 15 are why I wrote it. When he gets thrown in that police carriage, Denny is about to find out he is not being arrested for what he wrote. He is being arrested for who he loves, because France is so restrictive at this time, the union of the clergy and the king are such that even though Denny is 33, he needs his father’s permission to get married, who he’s estranged from.

He writes his father to ask permission, and his father calls in a favor from the king to have Denny arrested. He is hauled 80 miles from Paris and imprisoned in this monastery where the monks hate him, because he scammed them at one point in the past. They beat him. They starve him. After a couple weeks, all he wants to do is get back to Annette, who is the woman he’s in love with.

After a couple of weeks, in the middle of a rainstorm, he jumps out the second floor window and hikes back to Paris 80 miles in the rain, shows up at her doorstep sopping wet and 20 pounds lighter than last she saw him. He says, “Annette, I don’t care what my father says. I don’t care what he does. Come what may, I want to be with you. Will you marry me?” She says no. That’s the next 10 pages.

After that, he gets involved in the Encyclopedia Project. His friend Rousseau pulls him out of his slump and is like, “Look, you need to work. You can’t stay in this apartment. You need to rent someplace else, so you need money. This project pays well.” He gets pulled into this Encyclopedia Project that’s already going on. By the end of the episode, he’ll become the co-editor of the encyclopedia.

**John:** Great. Talk to us about tone then, because what you say, having this romance, he feels like a romantic character who’s drawn to great extremes to get back to this woman he loves. Is that the tone? Is it serious romantic?

**Michael:** My overall impression of it is it’s about his life and it’s about both his relationships as well as this political philosophy bent where he’s somebody who wants to write about the world as it is. There’s two fronts, but you see so much of it is about his personal life and the relationships as well, his relationship with the woman who becomes his wife, as well as with eventually his mistress, this other affair. To me, it’s both sides.

**John:** Marc, let’s say this is a project that crosses your desk. There may be these people, things attached, or there’s nothing attached. What is helpful for you to think about this as a property that you could develop at Universal or with Lee Daniels’s company? What are the things that we’d say, oh, these are the comps, this is the framework in which you can see making this series? What else would he need to bring?

**Marc:** I would just ask you thematically your point of view and why you wanted to tell the story from a thematic principle, because I think that would help.

**Michael:** To me, Denny’s situation is not that different from the situation that any writer is in. Some writers are going to chafe at it more than others, but everybody works under some ruling system. For us, that is capitalism. Look, I’m cool with it on some level. I’m here to make stuff that sells and finds that audience. There are constraints. If you’ve got to pull together $30 million, $50 million to put something together, that’s the constraints that we work with, and that colors the storytelling, and not just the storytelling, but what we write about in the world.

I work in marketing currently. I worked at a website in content stuff. The topics that get covered online, working through that industry, I saw how the stuff that gets covered extensively and written about in detail is all stuff that makes money. There are subjects, for instance, like history, American history. I love history. You can’t find really great information about it online. There’s subjects that are just not covered well. To me, that’s because you don’t make money off of that, so it’s not important, I guess.

**John:** What is the pitch for somebody who doesn’t know anything about the Encyclopedia Project? Is that the Wikipedia of its day? How do you talk about that in a way that resonates with somebody who is just… It’s 2022. Tell me why this matters.

**Michael:** It’s a banned book. He’s not just a philosopher. He’s a fugitive philosopher. He’s a renegade philosopher. The book is not able to be published in France, so he has to go back channel through all this stuff. He’s arrested twice in the course of his life. This is the book that eventually is going to be considered foundational to the French Revolution. This is the precursor to the part that we all know about. There’s other fun stuff in there. You get the salon culture, the intellectual culture in France at the time. To me, the core of the pitch is this contrast. He’s a philosopher and he’s a fugitive.

**John:** Now, Marc, I asked about what else he needs for a series. Talk about a pitch book or a pitch deck. If you were taking this to buyers, what would you need?

**Marc:** I would say the first script, it’s a format. It’s between a bible and a format, and so it’s about 10 to 15 pages where you map out episodically where the show goes. Ideally, we would send the script around, buyers would be interested, then basically you would go and you would pitch how you see the show, and then you could leave behind that format for them to decide.

**John:** Since the pandemic, those going around towns have resulted in a lot of Zooms with slideshows, where Megana’s driving the slides. It’s complicated, but it works, and so it does feel possible to do. Michael, thank you so much for sharing this.

**Michael:** Thank you.

**John:** Thank you for coming up here.

**Marc:** It was really good.

**Michael:** Thanks.

**Marc:** It was really good.

**John:** What script should we talk about next?

**Megana:** Next we are going to talk to Liliana Liu. “Nicole, 22, sleeps in the control of a facility where she monitors conversations. She’s woken up, and we see her travel in a driverless pod through the Mojave Desert on her way to her mobile home. At home, Nicole makes instant ramen and exercises in front of a series of monitors. We cut to baby Sophie’s room and see her parents put her to sleep. In the living room, we see Sophie’s mom accept a call from Sophie dated April 22, 2032. They speak, and we cut to Sophie, age seven, in a pod with her dad. Her dad encourages her to talk on the phone to her mom normally. Sophie refuses until she hears her mom’s lullaby. We cut to the control room where Nicole watches the scene.”

**John:** Great. I’m so excited to talk about this because I love near-future. I love this space. The premise feels like a Black Mirror kind of premise, like there’s something, what if you could do this, and what are the consequences of being able to do this, which is really exciting.

There’s also some challenges on the page I think we could really talk through and clean up, because sometimes you don’t recognize what’s confusing in a bad way on a page. By clearing those up, you can actually really lock your reader in, because we always talk about there’s a difference between confusion and mystery. Mystery’s great, because that makes us want to keep going. Confusion’s like, I don’t know, and I lose some confidence. Let’s figure out ways to make us more confident about what’s happening on these three pages. Marc, what was your first read on this?

**Marc:** I would say I love the tone. I think you really created a beautiful minimalist tone that I thought was really cool. I definitely was leaning in. Then honestly, after the three pages were over, I did have some confusion, to John’s point, but I still was leaning in, curious to see what the show was about that I didn’t quite understand, but I think in a good way too.

**John:** I want to focus on something on Page 2 which I thought worked nicely and just the description of what’s inside Nicole’s home. I’ll just read a little bit here. “She closes the door. Boots off. Black backpack and a pair of red over ear headphones go on a hook next to the door. Small yet not cozy. Only the essentials: a table, one chair. Rustic. Retro. Wood and white dotted with red. No photos. Nothing personal. Nicole (22), maroon tunic over black tights, turns to the kitchenette. She is also unadorned, small, not cozy. She grabs a red kettle, fills it, taps it on. Psst – boils in an instant. Grrl – straight to a Nongshim spicy cup noodle.”

I can see it all. I can see what’s happening here. I can see the order of things, which is really nice. It’s giving me that near-future vibe. I get a sense of who she is and where that is. That moment works really well. I think I want to try to bring that clarity to the rest of this, because I got lost a few other places.

**Marc:** Yeah. I loved your description. I thought it was so beautifully crafted, but I was looking for a little bit more of a POV from Nicole at times, because her description was pretty thin, but maybe that was a choice you chose. You had a full page of the surroundings, and I was looking for a little bit more of her as a character within that page.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s go back to Page 1. We open with, “Over black. Silence. Flat green line. Steady. Then a small ripple.” Really what we’re seeing, we’re going to see the voice pattern go past. There were a lot of words to say that there’s a green line on a black screen. I think we can be a little more minimalist here, so, “Flat green line on a black screen. Steady. Then it ripples.”

“A distinctive voice, deep, smoky.” Then we go into the Older Woman and Younger Woman’s dialog here. It was mysterious. That’s mysterious, and then the next moment’s mysterious, and the next moment’s mysterious, and you’re not telling us people’s names. They’re just figures. I need to be a little more anchored in what I’m actually seeing and who these people are, because there’s apparently Nicole that we’re seeing in this control room. Great. Just tell us her name then and don’t keep the mystery until we finally reveal her at her little mobile home pod, to me.

**Marc:** I agree. I was searching, like I said earlier, just for a little bit more Nicole up top and getting in her POV, because I think you beautifully crafted the world really well and the tone. I was looking for a little bit more of the character up top.

**John:** Then on Page 2, we’re moving between Nicole’s home and Sophie’s home. There’s projections in both places. I got really confused. I didn’t know that we’d gone to a different place and that we were establishing a new location and a new time. Give us a transition line. Just make it clear that this really is a jump to a new place that we’ve not been to before. Also, it took me three times to read it to realize that by mobile you meant a phone. I thought it was actually a mobile, like he was running in with-

**Siri:** I’m not sure I understand.

**John:** Sorry, Siri. Sorry, Siri. I thought he was running in with some sort of mobile to hang over the baby’s crib or something. This is really confusing. It’s a phone. Again, it’s one of those American English versus British English things that I read it the wrong way.

The only other point I’ll make is that the premise of what you seem to be setting up, the Black Mirror of it all, is what if you could set up a call between someone who’s 7.14 years ahead or behind. Intriguing. It’s a little strange that we’re in Nicole’s POV for so much of this rather than Sophie’s POV, that we’re starting with this tech worker rather than the actual family at the heart of it.

**Marc:** Also similar, I think the transitions I had to read a couple times to make sure I was tracking timeline, in addition to then when Nicole was back at work watching Sophie, I was a little confused of the point of view that we were in.

**John:** Luckily, we don’t have to stay confused, because we have the writer herself here. Could you come up here? Liliana, thank you so much for being here with us.

**Liliana Liu:** Hi.

**John:** Hi. Talk to us about this script. What’s the status of it? Is the whole thing written or just these three pages?

**Liliana:** Completely out of my depths here, just to say that. My husband is the only one that has ever read any pages, were those pages.

**Marc:** Wow.

**John:** Wow. Brave choices here. Nicely done, Liliana.

**Liliana:** Just a little background, I’m a full-time mom and a part-time software developer. I literally started writing sometime last year. This is a kick in the ass for me to do something, just to embarrass myself and get it out there.

**John:** You did. You’ve done a great job. Black Mirror, is that right? Is that what you’re going for? Is that the feel?

**Liliana:** Yeah. I discovered that all my ideas were all sort of sci-fi-ish but sort of a little realism, grounded in real life, sci-fi. This is my first feature script. In fact, it’s still in the middle of writing this, as I’m trying to propel myself to actually finish writing it. I would say the genesis is very personal, even though the theory behind it is not. I’m a sensitive person. I think a lot of writers are. I grew up in a home where my mom was ultra-sensitive. A lot of times, there’s this thing about going back. You replay things. You talk to people or make decisions or you didn’t say certain things or even make certain decisions. It plays back in your mind. It haunts you. Then you wish you could go back. It could be something very small. You want really hard to say something or do the thing that you didn’t, stuff like that. That’s the genesis of where this whole thing comes from.

**John:** There’s this phrase, esprit d’escalier, that thing you realize you should’ve said as you left the place. This is with a seven-year time period, a bigger gap. It’s a great premise. You’re saying this is a feature. Who is our central character, and who protagonates over the course of your feature?

**Liliana:** Nicole is the central figure. This is a big company. I think the only other thing I found was some movie with Daniel Quaid about, I think, firefighters calling between dinner times. This is more like there’s a company now, like Amazon or something, that provides this service. She is working behind the scenes. There’s some complications around… People think this is an artificial intelligence provide the service, but in the background, because a lot of times this happens, I work in the background software, that that’s not real, there’s no AI yet. She’s one of the people behind it that’s actually making it happen. People don’t know that it’s her job. I guess another complexity layer is that originally I wanted to do something like Lives of Others where she is just almost in the background.

**John:** An observer, yeah.

**Liliana:** Nobody knows she exists. Then she makes an impact to a particular client. I don’t know if this is the right direction. I wanted to make it more personal for her, where she wasn’t just opaque character who just is an observer, like you say. I’ve found basically an angle where she has something very, very key in her own life.

What you see in the first page, that first conversation, now that I think about it, maybe it’s too mysterious. The Older Woman is her mother, and she is the younger woman. She left home when she was 15 and had basically a broken relationship with her mother. Even though she won’t admit it to herself, that’s what’s been haunting her all this time.

It’ll come to pass in the first 10 pages or so that her mother is going to become a client that comes in, but she works behind the scenes. It’s a voice thing. She overhears another worker there that talks to her mother. She’s been listening to these conversations with her mom day in, day out, but she hasn’t talked to her or seen her for seven years. That’s the inciting incident is that her mom is now a client.

**John:** A pitch, and not necessarily a thing you need to do, but the story you’re describing, it may make sense to have an opening vignette that sets up the premise of what this is and what the service does and if we can establish that she works at this company that’s doing this thing, just so we’re clearly anchored in like, oh, this is what normal life is like before things get upended. Right now, it feels like you’re trying to set up so many mysteries, and we get a little bit lost in that.

Marc, let’s say that the cleaned up version of this script crosses your desk. It’s a feature length thing. Is it something you would say, “Okay, this is great. Let’s think about it as a series.” How much does that happen, where you take something that shows up as a feature, you think, “We could do this as a series.”

**Marc:** I’ve actually done it a couple times. I’m doing it recently, where there was a feature script I read that I loved. You met with the writer. You could easily see how you could open up the world. We’re just breaking it up into episodic now. I’m super impressed that this is your first thing you’ve ever written, because it’s a really clear, concise, high-concept, grounded genre piece. There’s something really fresh and cool about it.

**John:** Absolutely. I’m also thinking the cleaned up version of this could be really good staffing, because it reads well for that. This writer can do near-future sci-fi, grounded sci-fi, which is not easy to do. We’re making a fair number of those shows right now. The Nolans would need to have people like you to do that stuff.

**Marc:** It reminded me of Arrival the movie or Severance, a little bit in that tone.

**John:** Cool. Now she’s excited that you did this. Liliana, thank you so much. Thank you very much for coming up here. Thank you so much for coming up here. We have a third and final Three Page Challenge here to talk through. Megana, I think we have a listener question that is relevant here. Why don’t you start with a listener question?

**Megana:** Carrie asked, “Are there legitimately good reasons for the protestant adherence to the unexpressive screenplay format we all use, as in more than, ‘Well, that’s because that’s the way we’ve always done it.’ Several episodes ago, you read a Three Page Challenge with a title page designed like a wake flier, and everyone was so delighted. As a career graphic designer, it seems obvious to me that typography, layout, color, imagery are evocative storytelling tools, but screenwriters are still debating whether bolding a slug line is showing too much ankle. What are some of the good reasons we’re using our great-grandfather’s typewriter constraints in 2022?”

**John:** Provocative question there. We talk a lot about the formatting on the page on normal episodes. I really want to focus on title pages. Marc, if you see a title page that is designed versus just the 12-point Courier, maybe underlined title, what do you think?

**Marc:** It doesn’t really register.

**John:** It doesn’t register for you?

**Marc:** As long as there’s the title, I’m good.

**John:** Great. It doesn’t help you? It doesn’t scare you?

**Marc:** Me, no.

**John:** Our third Three Page Challenge has a very well-designed or a very graphic cover page. I’m holding it up here. For our listeners at home who can’t see this, it’s The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman. The title is very big on the page. It’s single words in probably 72-point font, “Original teleplay by Rudi O’Meara.” The background is a photo that is a gradient from red to blue. It’s stylish. It’s big. It’s not anywhere like a normal title page would be. It’s a very strong, bold choice. Megana, could you give us a synopsis of what we see in these three pages?

**Megana:** Yes. This is The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman by Rudi O’Meara. “We open on a middle-aged man floating facedown in a pool, wearing a kimono and covered in blood. In VoiceOver, Clay, early 20s, aspiring screenwriter, tells us he can’t believe that David, the man facedown in the pool, is dead and that he’s one of the ones trying to figure out who did it. Clay warns us that David wasn’t usually this calm. We hard cut to production offices, where we see David Schwartzman, a famous indie producer, storm in and scream at Clay about work, looking for some guy named Phil, and picking him up food from Canter’s.”

**John:** Great. Marc, this producer did not remind you of anybody you’ve ever heard of, right?

**Marc:** Many a producer I worked for back in the day as an assistant.

**John:** Back in the days. This is a story about Hollywood. It’s focused on that. There’s a little bit of PTSD that comes up as I read these things, both from having experienced these people and also having read things about these people and the Swimming with Sharks and all this stuff. As I sit down at this, I’m like, oh, so it’s a Sunset Boulevard opening with someone floating in a pool and a screenwriter talking, the narration that’s going onto this. As you finished these three pages, what was your first thought? What was your first feeling?

**Marc:** I would say I love the title.

**John:** I think the title is fantastic.

**Marc:** Yeah, that definitely brought me in. I would say after that, if I was looking at it for development, it would be a harder point of view, just because Hollywood stories are just really hard to sell. I would then assess more of as a staffing sample.

**John:** The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman is a really strong title. We’ve talked on the show before. There’s been periods at which spec scripts with very provocative titles would get a lot of attention. Then they would always be released as something completely different than the actual movie. I’m going to remember that. Saying That Awful David Schwartzman is really great. This is apparently Episode 1: Who the F is Phil.

Some other things I’m noticing on the title page here, we’re given an address, we’re given a phone number, we’re given an email address. Once upon a time, we maybe wanted all those things. Email address is great. We don’t need anything more than that. WGA registration number, you don’t need it. We don’t care. It honestly looks to me a little unprofessional. I just don’t trust that people know what they’re doing if they’re putting that number on there.

**Marc:** I agree.

**John:** As everyone who listens to the podcast knows, I’m the one on the podcast who actually is pro-WGA. I think WGA is a fantastic organization. I don’t think WGA registration is meaningful for almost anything. If you decide to do it, great, if it makes you feel good. It’s not any more protective than copyright is in general. Do it if you feel like it, but you definitely don’t need to put that registration number on here. I haven’t registered anything with the WGA for 20 years. Don’t worry about doing it.

**Megana:** Also, it’s because you email drafts. That’s important.

**John:** Emailing a draft around is also a proof that it existed at a certain point of time. That’s all the WGA registration does is just prove that this thing actually did exist at a certain point in time. There’s other ways to prove that.

**Marc:** Also, if you have an agent manager or a lawyer, they’re going to protect you when you submit things to production companies and studios.

**John:** Our point of view is Clay. Clay is giving us the VoiceOver. He’s the one who’s working for That Awful David Schwartzman. He has a VoiceOver power in the story. Not only does he have VoiceOver power, he has ability to stop time and freeze-frame us and be live in scenes while he’s talking to camera. It’s a lot. Did it work for you?

**Marc:** I think at points it worked for me. I think the thing that was hard for me to track was Clay as a character, because in the VoiceOver he was really brash and confident, but then in the description he was fresh-eyed and young. I was trying to find a way to track him as a character when you’re introducing him in the first three pages.

**John:** Yeah. We have basically two characters we’re setting up here. Let’s talk about David Schwartzman. He’s described as “mid-50s, long, thinning gray hair, wire rim glasses.” Love it. “An infamous independent producer with a checkered past” in the description, no. That’s too much for me. I’m always a fan of being able to cheat a little bit on that first character introduction in terms of a thing that an actor can play but is not necessarily visual or something we’re going to see. “An infamous independent producer with a checkered past,” we don’t know that from just that description. If you can quickly get that out there, we’re going to feel it. That just felt like cheating to stick that in his parenthetical there.

**Marc:** Yeah. I don’t know if this is intended to be a comedic murder mystery, but I thought when Clay says, “We’d be the ones trying to figure out who did it,” it felt like it tipped your hat to the mystery a little bit. I wanted a little bit more intrigue and not laying out all your cards in the first page.

**John:** Yep. We have another character cheating thing here when we finally get to Clay’s actual introduction. He’s been voiceover-ing, but only on Page 2 do we actually meet him in person. “The camera wheels around to reveal our narrator – Clay Wilcox,” parentheses, “early 20s,” comma, “a fresh-faced former English major and aspiring screenwriter then unaccustomed to David’s fury.” That whole last sentence there, “then unaccustomed to David’s fury,” facts not in evidence. Show us that, but you can’t just tell us that in a scene description.

**Marc:** Yeah. Similar to the way he talked in VoiceOver, and then when he was freezing, it felt like he had been doing this for a while, so it was hard to track which kind of, I guess, Clay we were tracking and following.

**John:** Yeah. That’s where I had a hard time buying Clay as a character, which is important, because he’s our POV character. He’s the one we’re going to see going through this. All that said, I’m curious and intrigued about the tone, because like you, I thought it was maybe a comedic murder mystery, sort of Only Murders in the Building. There’s something fun about that and piecing that together, we have a dead body, and figuring out who could’ve done this thing, when it seems like everybody probably did want to kill this person, because I want to kill this person, and I don’t even know him. Luckily, we can ask the question of the writer himself. Can we bring up Rudi O’Meara? Rudi, thank you very much for being here.

**Rudi O’Meara:** Thanks for having me. Great feedback though. Thank you so much.

**John:** Great. Thank you for being here. Talk to us about your experience with David Schwartzman. Was he really that bad?

**Rudi:** Yes. Actually, the title, the “That Awful,” so the person… It’s kind of from my life experience in some ways. It’s the reason I left the industry when I was younger. Later in the script, it’s mentioned that he was actually part of The Factory with Andy Warhol. When I was told that I got the job, I was working at a bookstore. The Warhol Diaries had just come out. I went to the index, and his citations were long in his name. I went to the first one. It was like, “Went to so-and-so’s house, ran into that awful David.” His last name was not Schwartzman. Next citation was exactly the same. Twenty citations later was exactly the same. That’s where the title comes from.

**John:** That’s awesome. I didn’t know that it was based on… I think it’s a sad state of Hollywood that there’s a bunch of other people who I assumed it could’ve been based on.

**Marc:** Exactly.

**John:** A bunch of terrible, terrible people, some of whom we’ve discussed on the Scriptnotes podcast, who we could assume that it was inspired by. Was our guess that it’s a comedic murder mystery at all correct? What is the tone for you?

**Rudi:** Ding ding ding.

**John:** Great. Someone killed him, and it’s Clue, and we have to figure out who could’ve done it.

**Rudi:** Correct. Like you said earlier too, it really could be anyone. That’s part of the both episodic nature, but also… Every single person from the financier, basically every aspect of the production, everyone has a motive. They’re trying to figure out how to solve it.

**John:** Talk to us about the engine of the show though, if it’s an Only Murders in the Building, or it could be The Afterparty. Are we switching POVs episode to episode? How does it work, or do you know?

**Rudi:** Clay is the protagonist. There is a time-swapping element. It jumps forward, jumps back. It’s a little bit like Only Murders but then also like The Big Lebowski meets The Maltese Falcon in some ways, where it jumps around, but it’s also a little trippy. In some ways, the narration is maybe faulted for that a little bit, because it does feel like you’re hearing from him at a different stage of his own understanding. At the same time, when he’s speaking in the first person or interacting with characters live, sometimes it’s a little bit disconnected from his later wisdom. It jumps around in time a little bit, and that can be a problem.

**John:** Making it clear to the audience that there is that gap is really challenging, and on the page, feeling the difference between that too, because we’re just seeing Clay with dialog, and so we’re not necessarily always clocking if it’s a VoiceOver dialog versus what’s happening in the scene. It’s a challenging thing to have characters be able to VoiceOver in a scene and talk in a scene, and yet many great movies do it. Clueless does it, and it works flawlessly when it happens. Maybe we’re actually looking at how those things worked on the page and what you can see and feel and steal from how they’re balancing those two things. You mentioned before, Marc, that movies about Hollywood, shows about Hollywood are really tough. They’re tough to get made, and they don’t tend to work especially well. Why is that? Do you have a sense?

**Marc:** There’s always the Entourages of the world that work. I think it’s hard because for the most part, people don’t want to access behind-the-scenes movies, TV shows about Hollywood. I think that’s been always hard. Can I ask you a question about the script though?

**Rudi:** Yeah, sure.

**Marc:** In terms of Clay, and you might not have this figured out, is there a detective that comes in? If Clay is new to this guy’s world, why does he want to figure out who killed him?

**Rudi:** There is a detective later. I’ve only written the pilot, but I’ve mapped out the first season. That’s very presumptuous, first season. In Season 4… No. There is a detective, but also at the same time, they have the motivation in that just before the murder happens, the film that has been in production is failing, and out of desperation, the producer, David, taps Clay for an idea, like, “Give me a spec script of yours.” He’s like, “Oh here it is. I got one.” It starts moving. Things go into production. David gets murdered. They want to keep that moving. Also, at the same time, they’re under threat, because they’re seen by all these other people who are also suspects as possible suspects themselves. Everyone’s on the table in terms of who could’ve killed David.

**John:** Great. Rudi, thank you so much for these three pages.

**Marc:** Thank you.

**Rudi:** Thank you very much.

**John:** I want to thank everybody who sent through the three pages for us to talk about, especially our brave writers who came up here to talk about the things they wrote, because that’s so intimidating to have us talk about problems and then you come up here and do it. Thank you very much for that. Thank Megana Rao, our producer, for reading all of these pages. Thank you to the Austin Film Festival for having us again. Thank you for a great audience. Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

It’s John back with you kind of live again. I want to thank the Austin Film Festival for having us yet again. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Jeff Graham. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. A reminder that if you want to submit your own three pages for a Three Page Challenge, the place to do that is at johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts, and they’re great. We saw so many of them at the Austin Film Festival. You can find them at Cotton Bureau, and actually only at Cotton Bureau. There’s now knockoff Scriptnotes T-shirts, which is wild. The real ones are at Cotton Bureau. You should get them there, because they’re the only ones that are soft enough to merit the Scriptnotes brand.

You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to put on the end of this episode, which has questions from the audience after our Three Page Challenge. Thanks.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** At this point in the podcast, I’d love to talk to you guys and get your questions you have in the audience about either the pages that we talked through today or the general thinking about what on the page works for a person who’s trying to get staffed on a show or get a show set up at a company like yours.

Do we have questions in the audience? Right there in the white. Just say your question. I may repeat it back so we have it on the air. The question is about the layout of each particular page and whether, especially in those early pages, are we trying to make sure there’s a cliffhanger at the bottom of the page and what those all are.

The first couple pages are incredibly crucial to make sure that you’re just drawing people down that page, and they want to keep flipping. The goal is just get them to the next page, get them to the next page. That’s not necessarily a cliffhanger. You don’t want to break the actual story to get you to the next thing. You are really thinking about how am I going to get this person to read. A very common cheat you’ll see in a lot of scripts is that putting a few extra blank lines at the top, so that the first page is just a little bit lighter and so that we’re starting about a quarter of a page down, just to get you flipping and just make it less intimidating to get through.

A thing we talk a lot about when we do Three Page Challenges is just the page feel and how dense it is on the page and how light it is. The samples we’ve gone through today are pretty good examples. The longest blocks of scene description are about three lines, four lines. There’s no 15-line things. If you look back at older scripts, sometimes they had really massive things. Those are intimidating. You might start skimming.

As a writer, you never want your reader to skim. You always want the reader to feel like every word, they got it in there and they took it. The only thing you want your reader to be able to skim is character names. At a certain point you can get into a flow where you don’t have to look at the character names anymore. You have a feeling of it’s ping-ponging back and forth between these characters. It’s great. You basically want to make sure that you’re keeping the reader glued to every word and flipping the next page.

Again, one of the things we always say at the end of each of these samples, would I want to read Page 4? Sometimes, yes. In the case of these scripts, yeah, I would keep reading a little bit longer, which is a great sign.

Right here in the first row. Julie, you’re asking a really good question, because classically, we talk about structure, especially for film structure, like, oh, the inciting incident needs to happen at a certain point, or there’s an act break and these changes. I think the thing we kept trying to stress is that even before then, by the end of three pages, we need to have a sense of what this world feels like, what this movie feels like, what ride am I going on. If you’ve done that in three pages, that’s important. If we’re hooked into who you are as a writer and feel confident, that’s greater. I asked you earlier what makes you stop a script. That’s one of the things you said is just that feeling of, “I want to keep going.”

**Marc:** I don’t think it needs to be somebody gets murdered in the first three pages. It could just be a really beautiful tone that’s intriguing, that you are excited to read more.

**John:** Another question. Right here. Great. The question is, how worried do we need to be in the first three pages of being either too irreverent or saying something, doing something on those first three pages that make someone feel like, “I don’t ever want to meet this writer.” Marc, has that ever happened to you?

**Marc:** No.

**John:** Have you ever been like, “Oh my god, this person seems like a jerk.”

**Marc:** No. Be as authentic as you want to be in your writing, I always say.

**John:** On the live show we did last night, we had two great guests, Chuck and Brenda, coming on. One of the things that they made most clear is that what was key to them getting staffed on shows finally was just writing what they uniquely themselves could write, that no one else could do this. When people read their sample, it’s like, “Oh yeah, I want that guy who did that thing.” It wasn’t a generic thing that someone else could’ve written. It was only a thing that Chuck could’ve written or that Brenda could’ve written. Using something that shows your own voice is crucial.

People also come to me and say, “Oh, I’m working through a couple different ideas. I’m not sure what I should be writing next that might be a good sample.” If there’s something you could write that the central character or premise feels like it matches you, that can be really useful, because then the person who’s reading it can have you in their mind, and so when they sit down and meet with you, they’re like, “Oh yeah, that character and her, yeah, I could see them jiving.” That can be really useful.

**Marc:** I will say there’s scripts that I’ve read in my career that are batshit crazy ideas, but I will always remember them. To John’s point, as I’m staffing a show, I might say, “I really loved that script two years ago,” and then I’ll flip it to the showrunners because it stuck with me as something that just felt noisy and different.

**John:** Noisy can be good. Right here. Marc, are you pro-splat?

**Marc:** I’m always open to a splat. Are you?

**John:** Yeah, I think so. On the podcast, we often call this a Stuart Special. Stuart Friedel, who’s one of our previous producers, as he picked Three Page Challenges, sometimes there would be this big dramatic thing happens, and it says then “two weeks earlier,” and then it goes back. We call that a Stuart Special, because it’s got that flashback thing. Those are often splats, where there’s a whole horrible death or a thing happens and then everything can go back to normal life beforehand. Those can totally work. They can be cliches, but if they’re cliches that are done really, really well or have a spin on them, they work and they can be really, really helpful. Don’t be afraid of them.

Right here. The question is about character introductions, character descriptions that have a lot of psychological insight or they really talk through the psychology of characters and how we feel about that. I want to contrast that with some of my criticisms of this last script, where they weren’t psychological insights, they weren’t things that an actor could play. They were just facts that we couldn’t see. I think that is really the distinction for me.

I haven’t read the Mare of Easttown scripts, but I suspect that if I were an actor reading through that script, I’d say, “Oh, that is really useful for me. That is a thing that I can figure out, how to embody what you’re describing there. That is great, whereas I can’t embody being a despised producer. That’s not a thing I can take into my body.” I’m great with it. You always have to recognize that if you’re throwing a lot of scene description at us, we’re going to be tempted to slow down or stop reading or we might skim it. It’s always that balance. If it works, it can be great. How do you feel when you see those things on the page?

**Marc:** I haven’t read Mare of Easttown. I’ll be actually curious to see how it maps out. I would say I agree. If you could be a little concise with your descriptions, I always think that works better just for the read and the flow.

**John:** Great. Another question. Let’s go all the way to the back. I see you, sir. Great. The question is about companion material, so if there’s a deck that comes with a script or there’s some sort of link, would you click that first or look at the deck first before you read the script?

**Marc:** I think it just depends, honestly. I would actually look at the sizzle first, just so I get the visual tone of what they want to do. Then I would read the script.

**John:** Just so we’re sure we’re defining terms, what is a sizzle to you, and how long is a sizzle reel?

**Marc:** A sizzle reel could be anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes. That’s almost like a proof of concept for the tone and the look and the feel of the series, or if it’s a deck, I’ve gotten decks anywhere between 5 and 20 pages of templates for who the characters are, the world. A lot of times with genre stuff in big world-building stuff, they tend to put a deck together so you understand the scope of the world.

**John:** I’m working on a project for the first time that has a deck that goes with it. It’s exciting. Also, it kind of feels like cheating, because I can show you what this all looks like. This is this giant movie star in this role. That’d be great. Of course you want to make that movie or that show. We didn’t used to do them, but they are helpful. Curious what you think about it. We now can embed links in scripts. We can embed links in things. Do you ever click links in a pdf?

**Marc:** The only thing I’ve seen, which I thought was super cool, was there was a Spotify playlist at the top of the title page, because it was a Southern show, and they wanted Southern music bands. It was actually just really nice at the end just to play that playlist, which I thought was cool.

**John:** That was on the title page or at the end?

**Marc:** It was on the title page, on the QR code.

**John:** Great.

**Marc:** It was pretty cool.

**John:** [inaudible 00:51:15]. A question right over here. The question is, beyond just a link, embedding images, putting other stuff in a script, and do we think that the screenplay format will evolve beyond where it is right now? Craig Mazin who’s not here, would say, “Yes, it’s going to. We’re going to break the whole script format.” Me, as the person who actually makes apps that do it, it’s like, eh. I’m maybe a little more conservative on some of it. How do you feel when you see an image in a script?

**Marc:** I would say at the end of the day, at the core, it’s about the actual script. You can jazz it up and put bells and whistles, but at the core, I think I just look at the script and assess the actual script.

**John:** Yeah, because to be the entire cliché here, the script is the plan for making a TV show. The photo is in the plan for making the TV show. The photo can be really helpful for other things. I think those decks and other stuff can be really helpful for showing what stuff is. The script is the plan for what the scenes are and how we’re going to get through this important storytelling moment. If an image is absolutely crucial for doing that or if you could not possibly understand this without that one image… Rian Johnson did it in Looper. If there’s one image that you have to see for it to make sense, great. If you can’t do it with your words, maybe there’s some reason why your words need to be improved.

**Marc:** I also thought for a deck over Zoom, for my writer friends who have to talk for 30 minutes, it’s a nice break to show visuals.

**John:** Yeah, it really is so great. Because of the pandemic, we first started having to do this. It was better, because suddenly, I can have my cheat sheet of what I’m pitching off of right close to the camera line, but the deck’s filling up some space. It does help, because I’m the person who always used to bring in boards. I would art-mount my boards and bring them in. Slides are just better.

Great. Right here. The question is, we talked about some scripts being really good for thinking about making this into production versus staffing and what the split is here. Can you define what is a useful thing to be thinking about, like, “Oh, this is a good sample for staffing,” versus, “This is something we would actually make.”

**Marc:** I would say the first step is I would talk to the creator/showrunner and say, “Ideally, what are you looking for? What are your needs?” because at the end of it, it’s the writer’s, creator’s decision on who he or she wants to hire. Then off of that conversation… Let’s say it’s a cop show. If they want somebody who has a cop procedural, then I’ll look for specific scripts that mimic that, or if it’s a genre piece, but it’s a real character piece, then look for something specific in line with what the showrunner wants. It really depends on what the show is.

**John:** Of course, back in the day, if you wanted to write on a half-hour sitcom, you would write a spec episode of Seinfeld or some existing show that was on the air. It’s like, “Oh, he can write that show.” You wouldn’t write the show that you were staffed on. It was just to show that you can actually do that thing. Mindy Kaling says she really misses those days, because she misses being able to staff off of like, “I know they understand how shows work and how to write in the voice of a given show.” We don’t do that anymore, because you probably read very few specs of existing shows anymore.

**Marc:** When I first started my career, it was a lot of CSIs, Law and Orders. I hadn’t watched CSI a lot, so it was hard for me to track if they were mimicking the show, because ideally when you’re staffing, you’re mimicking what the show and the creator is creating. Now it’s really refreshing, because it’s all about originals. There’s plenty of playwrights that I’ve staffed off just an amazing play sample that just has a really great character that tonally fits what the creator’s doing in the series too.

**John:** Marc, talk to us about reading things that are not scripts, because reading a play, do you feel like you are getting a good sense of whether they could do it?

**Marc:** Yeah, sometimes if there may be a lower-level writer, so a staff writer or story editor, where they’re not an upper-level writer, but they just have a really great, unique voice, and we just need a really unique perspective in the room, that will help. A couple years ago, I got pitched somebody who had a Twitter handle as a way to staff a show.

**John:** Great. Was it a very serious Twitter handle? It wasn’t funny at all.

**Marc:** No, it was funny. It was for a comedy room. They hadn’t written a script yet, but they had really funny tweets.

**John:** Diablo Cody, quite famously, she was funny on Twitter, and sure enough, she could actually write. Who knew? That is a way to show a very specific voice. Great.

Let’s take one more question here. Right there in the back, I see you. Great. Our question is, we were talking about specs, which is so confusing. In TV, a spec is writing an episode of an existing show that’s on the air, or are people just reading originals? For our writer there, would you recommend she spec an existing show or just do originals?

**Marc:** I’d say originals. I did read recently a Golden Girls spec. That was really fun and new. It was interesting how they told the story. I think it was noisy, the way they planned out the story. For the most part, originals. I would say have two, because you never know if there’s a great genre show that you want to get staffed on or a great drama. To have two samples is always really good.

**John:** Some things I took from this conversation today, I’m going to use the word noisy a lot as a describer, because really, a noisy thing you notice. You just notice people who are noisy, and you notice a script that is noisy. It just sticks with you. Things that are just quiet and subtle and disappear and they’re not objectionable but they’re not memorable, that’s not going to help these people.

**Marc:** I think it mimics… There are so many platforms right now. What buyers are saying, they need things that are noisy to break through the immense amount of content that’s on the air right now.

**John:** Great.

Links:

* [Marc Velez](https://deadline.com/2022/10/marc-velez-ucp-head-of-development-naketha-mattocks-universal-tv-svp-drama-1235136115/) on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5677194/)
* [The Encyclopedists](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FThe-Encyclopedists-MXH-3p.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=95fb3359c1be84f6888812633600f586b8a38fef8118d40d897a43a07798da53) by Michael X. Heiligenstein
* [Call Me 7.14 Years Ago](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FCall_Me_7_14_Years_Ago_Three_Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=7cbf886b0e5c2ddb0343817294c00fccd7cfd708a397fbafda7e3c426a5b5e30) by Liliana Liu
* [The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FUntimely_Demise_v04_AFF_3_Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=398abcf7c2b4adb0526bc8542da5a43be1da1ed4ab3b13dbe0868ceec2d16cf2) by Rudi O’Meara
* Thank you to the [Austin Film Festival!]() and all our participants in the three page challenge.
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [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 Jeff Graham ([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/573standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 562: Finish Line Blues, Transcript

August 23, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

**Craig Mazin:** Okay, okay, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** This is Episode 562 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, good lord, it’s a hodgepodge.

**Craig:** Hodgepodge.

**John:** We’ll be discussing animation, short films, post scriptum depression, parallel stories, persistence, and the Monty Hall problem.

**Craig:** Oh good, we’re back to that.

**John:** Some of those are listener questions. Some are just things we’re encountering in the world. Some are follow-up on a Bonus Segment, which is kind of cheating, but that’s okay, because this is our show.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s our show. We can do whatever we want, and also aforementioned hodgepodge.

**John:** It’s a hodgepodge. Craig, what will we do in our Bonus Segment?

**Craig:** In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we’re going to discuss the terrific board game Codenames. I don’t know if I would call it a board game. I would call it a party game.

**John:** It’s a party game, but party game makes it feel like it’s just like charades or something.

**Craig:** We’ll discuss the terrific game.

**John:** Game, yeah.

**Craig:** Word game.

**John:** Not a video game.

**Craig:** It’s a word game. We’ll discuss the terrific-

**John:** Word game.

**Craig:** … social group word game. This is so hard to do. Codenames. It’s Codenames. That’s what we’re talking about, including our favorite tips and house rules. If you’re not playing Codenames, you’ll want to after we’re done with you in our Bonus Segment.

**John:** It’s basically a sales pitch for the game Codenames.

**Craig:** For Codenames.

**John:** It’s an inexpensive game that you will love. It’s a big show. We got to get started on here.

**Craig:** Hodgepodge.

**John:** A bit of news. Last week a group of 400 animation writers and showrunners, myself included, signed a pledge stating that, quote, “We are committed to fighting for WGA coverage on all animation projects we create, write, and produce going forward. We want to be treated equal to live-action writers, not less than.” We’ve talked about this on a show before.

As a refresher, if you’re writing an animated project, you are not guaranteed WGA coverage unless you specifically negotiate for it at the outset. Unlike in live-action, WGA coverage is not automatic, and it can be very hard to get, but it is doable. I was able to get it for an animated project recently, as have several of the other showrunners who’ve signed the pledge. The hope is, with these writers and showrunners saying that they plan to fight for it on their projects, we’ll see more animated projects where the writers work under WGA deals with higher minimums, residuals, paid parental leave. It’s not going to happen overnight. The only way it happens will be writer by writer, project by project. We’ll put a link in the show notes with more details. Now, Craig, a bit of housekeeping-

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** … and some follow-up. You will be glad to know that Seasons 9 and 10 of Scriptnotes are now up in the Premium Feed, because I know that’s a thing you’ve been asking for.

**Craig:** So many seasons.

**John:** So many seasons.

**Craig:** So many. Wait, were those not in the Premium Feed?

**John:** They were in the Premium Feed. Here’s the challenge is that we now have so many Premium episodes that the feed gets to be too big, so we have to lop off them in 50-episode chunks, or else your podcast player will just crash as it tries to load them.

**Craig:** We’re now crashing software we’ve done this so long.

**John:** That’s really where we’re at is just overwhelming things. If you are a Scriptnotes Premium Member and you are listening to back seasons, and you’re getting into the 450, the 500 range, you’ll now find those in Seasons 9 and 10, which are now going to be available through the scriptnotes.net.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**John:** Love it. One other thing, Highland, which is the software that I make, we have a student edition. Now that we’re going back to school, I just want to remind our listeners that if you would like a screenwriting app to be writing your screenplays in, you can get one for free, the full version for free. If you’re a student, you go to Quote-Unquote Apps, and you will see that you can get the license as a college student or a high school student for Highlands, which is the app that I write all my stuff in.

**Craig:** This is your way of getting them addicted to Highland for free, and then later when it’s Highland 3 and they’re out of school, now you’ve got them.

**John:** We’ve got them.

**Craig:** You’ve got them.

**John:** For these next two years, if you want a really good application to be writing a script in that is not going to cost you $99 a year, there you go.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** Some follow-up. Megana, can you help us out with Andrew?

**Megana Rao:** Andrew wrote in and said, “Listening to last week’s How Would This Be A Movie segment, I was curious if any of you had come across the newsletter at The Ankler called The Optionist.”

**Craig:** That’s a no.

**Megana:** It offers maybe six to eight articles or books each Friday that are available to be optioned and who to contact if you’re interested. It was fun until it went behind a subscriber paywall. This is the part that seems insane to me.”

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**Megana:** “Subscriptions to The Optionist are $250 a month-”

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**Megana:** “… or $2,500 a year. That’s two months free if you buy the year up front. I would love to hear your thoughts on this price point. It’s bananas to me. How much does this make How Would Be a Movie worth if it was paywalled?”

**John:** That’s really going to be our future business plan is forget scriptnotes.net, it’s all How Would This Be a Movie.

**Craig:** Paywall everything.

**John:** I was not familiar with The Optionist either, but I will say that there are people who do this for a living. I was talking with Todd Hoffman, who runs a service called StoryScout. What they do is they have people who literally, they’re reading all the newspapers. They have deals with all the newspapers to get all the stuff. They’re sifting through it every week, and they’re like, “These are interesting stories.” There are people who pay them subscriptions for that. Hey, if the business model works for them, great. I think what they’re doing though is not just, “Here’s a story,” but they are actually contacting the people who are involved in the story, whoever you need to get for life rights. They can help you put together a bundle of things that might be useful for a studio. That’s not a thing that you or I or any other writer is going to be approaching. It’s something that Sony is paying however much a month. It’s not something that you and I are doing.

**Craig:** Andrew, that’s exactly what’s happened. They launched this to let people know, “Here we are, and this is how it works,” but the paywall at $250 a month is essentially an indication to you that this is not for you.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** This is a business-to-business service. $250 a month for production companies or studios is nothing. This reminds me a little bit of the way Variety used to work. Megana, do you know how expensive Variety used to be when you were a baby?

**Megana:** I do not.

**Craig:** It was like a thousand dollars a year for Variety or something like that.

**John:** For the physical print edition. It was crazy.

**Craig:** It was insane. It was some insane number, because every day there would be Daily Variety. Daily Variety was like eight pages. It was not a large magazine.

**Megana:** This was all physical?

**Craig:** Physical. There was no internet version back then, because there was no internet back then. There was, but not the way it is now. The only Variety and Hollywood Reporter that existed were print. It would be delivered daily to each office. There would be the same copy of Variety on the same coffee table, scattered about a thousand offices in Hollywood, lawyers and executives and producers. It was ridiculously expensive, because you had to get it, or else you didn’t know what was going on. If anything got shooketh by the internet, it was entertainment industry reporting.

**John:** Completely. When I was in the Stark Program at USC, one of the perks we got is all 25 of us in the Stark Program got our own copies of Variety and I think Hollywood Reporter too in our mailboxes every day.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**John:** That was a godsend, because really it was the only way to get a sense of who was where and what was happening, what deals were happening. It was really important. I think we have to credit, honestly, Nikki Finke and Deadline for really breaking the back of-

**Craig:** Credit.

**John:** Acknowledge Nikki Finke.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Of that form of journalism and the business model of that journalism, because she was doing the same kinds of scoop reporting that was happening in Variety and Hollywood Reporter, but it was just free on the internet, and that changed everything.

**Craig:** It certainly undercut them to the point where everything just came down to what it is now, and it’s less expensive to publish something on the internet than it is to publish it in actual print. It ain’t the way it used to be. That’s for sure. I remember going to newsstands. This is a typical poor kid in Hollywood move. Go to the newsstand, pretend to be browsing, randomly pick up the Daily Variety and, oh, just flip through.

**John:** Oh, flip through it.

**Craig:** The guys that ran those things all knew. They were like, “Nope. Put it back.” They were literally like, “You’re buying it. You’re not reading it. You’re buying it. That’s it. Or put it back.” They were so tired of douchey, pathetic wannabe screenwriters reading their Variety for free, such as myself.

**John:** Craig, do you read any physical magazines at this point?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I will read, I think I’ve mentioned before, Technology Review and sometimes Wired. If I’m at the airport, I’ll go through the bookstand there. I’m always fascinated by Harvard Business Review, because that thing is $25 a copy. It’s just crazy to me.

**Craig:** Who is that for?

**John:** It’s for people who want to read about Harvard business stuff, I guess. It’s very much in-depth case study things.

**Craig:** Weird.

**John:** I feel like probably if you’re an MBA, it’s the kind of thing you read.

**Craig:** Maybe on a plane.

**John:** On a plane.

**Craig:** I feel like if you are interested in reading the Harvard Business Review on a flight, you have other stuff you should be doing on that flight. You got business to do, hopefully.

**John:** Do your business. You’re a business [crosstalk 00:09:10]

**Craig:** Do your business.

**John:** Do your business.

**Craig:** You do your business. Don’t read about the Harvard business.

**John:** Megana, can you help us out with more questions or follow-up?

**Craig:** Harvard Business is Megana’s real nickname.

**Megana:** The Harvard Business Review is good though. Just a little plug.

**Craig:** A little plug.

**John:** Megana went to Harvard.

**Craig:** She sure did.

**Megana:** IP Curious in Seattle asks, “In Episode 559 during the How Would This Be a Movie segment, when discussing the Indian cricket scam, John and Craig said that you wouldn’t have to buy anything because you’d be making up most of the movie. My question is, when dealing with a true story with actual people, how much freedom do you have to invent a plot? Do you need to change the name of the main character if you’re basing a plot on something in their life but not following exactly what happened?”

**John:** I would say yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah, usually. We’ve sort of answered this before. There is no hard answer for this, IP Curious in Seattle.

**John:** There isn’t.

**Craig:** What happens is there’s this weird needle that moves back and forth, and you let the attorneys at the company determine it for you. Some companies are tougher about this than others. Generally speaking, if you’re dealing with a true story, if you’re taking inspiration from a true story, you are going to have to change events and names. Certainly names. If you are using actual people’s names, you can, but there are way more restrictions on you. You have to be really careful about not defaming them. If you’re going to start inventing stuff and be free, why not just change the name anyway if it doesn’t have any value? With the true story itself, that’s a negotiation with the lawyers to see is this going to be too identifying, are they going to sue us for defamation if you do this or that. Generally speaking, if you’re inspired by a true story, change the names. You’re going to want to change the plot anyway, and you’ll be fine. That’s generally the case.

**John:** I would recommend IP Curious go back and listen to the episode with Liz Hannah and Liz Meriwether talking about the two series that they were doing which were based on actual events. Both of them had situations where these real life people are going to be characters in this and we’re going to use their names, and we have to be careful about this. There are other places where we’re inventing characters to do this function, and those are brand new people. That decision about when you’re doing that and how closely they resemble people in the real world are going to be factors that are going to be discussed with lawyers and other folks down the road. Craig did the same thing in Chernobyl. Some of those people are based on historical figures, but some of them are creations for the series. You’re always going to be making those choices about how you’re doing stuff.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** How about another question, Megana?

**Megana:** Janelle from San Diego wrote in and said, “I have never written in but had to start writing this email before I finished listening to Episode 560, because I could not believe my ears when I-”

**Craig:** Couldn’t believe. Couldn’t believe her ears.

**Megana:** “I could not believe my ears when I heard you tell Leah that there isn’t an audience for short films.”

**Craig:** There isn’t.

**Megana:** “As parents of two young children, my husband and I find it hard to find time to watch a feature film or follow a series, especially if the content is for adult eyes only.”

**Craig:** Oh, my.

**Megana:** “We delight in being able to watch some quality entertainment in the 20 minutes before-”

**Craig:** Megana put some spin on that.

**Megana:** “In the 20 minutes between putting the kids to bed and no longer being able to ignore the fact that neither of them is sleeping. Our friends feel the same, and it is great to be able to get together and discuss something other than the latest Pixar or Cocomelon.”

**Craig:** Great. You’ve found the audience, Janelle. It’s you and your husband and some of your friends. Is that an audience for short films?

**John:** I think audience is really the key word here. You and I were using audience in a different way than Janelle’s using the word audience.

**Craig:** Clearly.

**John:** You and I are using audience for market, like is there a way to make money off of these things.

**Craig:** There isn’t.

**John:** Generally, there isn’t. There are no short film tycoons.

**Craig:** No. Exactly. Janelle, we certainly weren’t suggesting that no one has ever seen a short film, because that seems to be the premise of your complaint here. Of course people have seen them. What we’re saying is there is no substantial audience of the kind to financially support a thriving, profitable short film industry. That’s just a fact. If you’re making a short film specifically because you want it to be seen by lots and lots of people, it won’t be. If you’re making a short film to practice, if you’re making a short film as a calling card, if you’re making a short film because you just have a passion to, all amazing reason. In fact, I would imagine most accomplished short film creators are very aware of the limited nature of the audience for short films, meaning extraordinarily limited, meaning basically you and your husband. Seriously, come on, Janelle, you know what we meant, right? Come on.

**John:** I want to state on the record that we are a pro short film podcast.

**Craig:** We love short films.

**John:** We’re also a pro reality podcast.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** Which is that you are not going to be making money off of that short film that you’re making. Make it for art. Make it for fun. Make it for practice. Make it for all those reasons. If you choose to make a short film, Inneresting from this last week was actually all about short films. It was the post I did way back in 2008. I was blogging about this in 2008, about short films and some just general guidance when you’re thinking about short films, because I see people who try to make short films are just small features, and that doesn’t work. Short films are their own form. They have to have one clear idea, one problem that is solved for the course of that one film. I’ll point you to a post on this. We’ll put a link in the show notes.

**Craig:** Janelle didn’t even list any of the short films she’s seen that she likes.

**John:** Janelle, write back in and tell us what short films you loved recently.

**Craig:** Just so we can spread some positivity, since you and your husband are super into them. Since there isn’t an audience, let’s at least help them find one, a little mini audience, by promoting them.

**John:** We have quick follow-up to that follow-up. Do you want to try this question from Joel?

**Megana:** Yes. Joel from Moorpark, California wrote in and said, “I had a chance to enjoy your short film God and noted how the end plays Walking on Sunshine by Katrina and the Waves. I’m curious if and how you secured rights for the song.”

**Craig:** If.

**John:** If. Honestly, if is a more interesting question now than when I made the film. I absolutely did officially get the rights to Walking on Sunshine. It cost maybe $2,000, which was a lot, given the limited budget for the film, but it was worth it for that moment, because Melissa hums it at one point, and then we actually play it over the end credits. For both of those uses, I needed to have the rights to the song. I needed those rights to the song, because if I were going to put this in festivals, which it played a couple places, they would ask if those rights were cleared. That was a thing that I had to be able to show, that those rights are cleared. They’re cleared in perpetuity.

A thing that’s happened in the meantime though, and I think Joel’s aware of this, is that you see a lot of things on YouTube that do not have music rights cleared because they’re using songs that exist out in the world. They get away with that because YouTube has overall licensing agreements with different artists. Even though their algorithms are detecting that that song is in there, they are monetizing it in a way that the artist is making some money. There are ways it can be figured out.

I think you’ll see some stuff on YouTube that the rights would never clear for those songs. Anything you’re doing officially, that you’re going to submit for a competition, you’re going to need to declare those rights. It’s a hassle. It generally is a hassle. You are tracking down who the music publisher is. You are going to them, asking for these specific sync rights and the publishing rights to be able to use it in your thing. I went through a music supervisor who did the music clearances for Go. That was a luxury I had. Even the short films we did back at USC, we had to clear those rights. It was a hassle.

**Craig:** It’s a hassle. No way around it. There’s no if. You do need to do it.

**John:** You do it. You do it. I would say that you don’t need those rights until you are going to do the finished version of it. Obviously, as you’re temping songs into things, or if you’re just doing scratch versions, you don’t get those rights until you actually know, okay, we’re really using this song, and then we’re going to get the contracts and pay the money to do it. For things that are internal presentations, you’re not going to do it. For things that are going to go out in the world, you’re going to want to clear those rights.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** Indeed.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** Let’s do some follow-up on the Monty Hall problem.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** This is something we talked about in our Bonus Segment last week. We were talking about when do you intervene with stupid people.

**Craig:** That’s a title of an article in the Harvard Business Journal, I’m sure.

**John:** I will say the Monty Hall problem is not about stupid people. Very many smart, smart people have a hard time intuiting the logic behind it.

**Craig:** Almost everyone.

**John:** I want to do a little follow-up here, because it came upon us spontaneously, and we were talking through it. Craig was right in that ultimately the two thirds/one third solution is how it sorts out. Let’s make sure we’re all talking about the same thing. Craig, describe the Monty Hall problem for people who weren’t listening.

**Craig:** A classic problem. You have three doors. Behind one of the doors is a car that you can win. Behind the other two doors are goats, because in this Monty Hall problem, goats are bad. No one wants one, although goats do have some value. Monty Hall, the host of Let’s Make a Deal, says, “Go ahead and pick a door that you think the car’s behind.” You pick door number one. At that point, Monty opens door number three and reveals that behind door number three is a goat. Now he says to you, “Do you want to stick with door number one, or do you want to switch to door number two?” You have a choice. Most people will say at that point it’s a 50/50 choice, you’re choosing between 1 of 2 doors, but in fact, you should switch, because it is not a 50/50 choice. It’s a one third/two thirds choice. You have a two thirds chance of getting the car behind door number and only a one third chance behind door number one.

The very simple way we talked about this is the only way you’re winning the car if you say, if you keep the door you picked initially, is if you picked it correctly the first time, and there’s a one out of three chance. By eliminating that other possibility of door number three, you now have new information. The new information is that door number two is more likely than door number one, twice as likely, in fact, to have a car behind it.

**John:** One of the things we were wrestling with is that I can kind of get that and it still doesn’t feel right. There’s still some sort of problem. I looked at the Wikipedia article on it, which is actually. I recommend everyone take a look at it. This first became popularized by Marilyn vos Savant, who wrote a weekly column for Parade, was talking about it, and she said that we should definitely switch. Everyone was like, “You can’t possibly switch.” One of the things she pointed out, which I think is a really helpful way of getting over our brain problem of it, is imagine instead of three doors, there are a million doors. You picked one of a million doors. Then they take away all the other doors and say it’s either behind the door you picked or this other door. Then you have to think about, oh, I had a one in a million chance the first time, and now it’s like, oh.

**Craig:** It’s definitely behind the other door.

**John:** It’s going to be behind the other door. That really helps me figure that out.

**Craig:** You eliminate 999,999,998 of the doors, leaving behind the one you initially picked and one other door. The car is behind the other door. You are right that the limited number of doors can really mess with our heads, because it just feels like nothing important has changed, but in fact, something important has changed. This is a weird one. It’s like you said. It is a problem that has, what’s called fooled or misled a lot of people, including people who study these things. It was so hard for people to wrap their mind around it.

**John:** Let’s also talk about the decision. If you’re the contestant who is deciding, “Oh, do I stick with the first door or do I switch?” there are some natural biases that kick in. The article also talks through what those are. We have what’s called the endowment effect. People tend to overvalue the probability that they were right the first time. It’s a loss aversion. They don’t want to lose what they already had. There’s a status quo bias as well. You’re more comfortable to stick with what you’ve got rather than take a risk.

**Craig:** When you’re playing games of chance, the entire premise is that you are going to get lucky. We tend to associate our luck with our choices in gambling, as opposed to what’s happening. If I’m playing roulette, and I put everything on 28, and 28 comes up, my luck is about the fact that I chose 28. That’s where I got lucky. It has nothing to do with the bouncing ball. It was just doing what it’s doing. We do overvalue the choices we make. That’s why it feels bad. It’s almost disloyal. Also, we have been told all of our lives to stick with your gut, and it will feel worse. If we lose with the choice we made initially, it won’t feel as bad as if we lose by giving it away somehow and switching.

**John:** I want to frame this in terms of characters making choices. This is all about choices. Characters I think naturally have an instinct at the start of a story to want to keep things the way they have always been. They’re pushing to get away from it, but generally they’re hearing that call to adventure. They may ignore that call to adventure, because they know what they have, and they don’t want to risk losing what they have. That’s a very natural thing. We encounter characters at the beginning of stories that way. They’re also facing a choice, generally later on in the story, where in order to achieve that final goal, they may risk everything they’ve gotten through all up to that point. Now they’re at this one place. They don’t want to take that last risk and basically just change doors in order to get that final prize. Those are real things that characters are facing in almost every story you can imagine.

**Craig:** Absolutely. When they lose something initially, what they’re trying to do is get back to it. They love their door. They love door one. Someone says, “You can’t have door number one anymore,” and they’re like, “Okay, I’ll open some other doors, but the point is to get back to my door number one. I love it.” Then eventually, where things get really bad is when they suddenly realize, “There’s nothing behind any of these doors. Doors are not correct. I should be doing something else entirely.” You realize that you’ve been living a false choice. That’s when characters are at their lowest, I think.

**John:** The only way to win the game is not to play the game.

**Craig:** Is not to play.

**John:** Craig, this last week I was working on a new script that I’m writing. I was encountering a thing which I’d seen before, but I’d never felt it the same way. I’m curious your perspective on this. The thing I’m writing has multiple storylines. The storylines don’t directly interact until the very end of the story. I can cut freely between the two of them, which is really, of course, helpful. Movies do this. TV shows do this all the time.

A thing I was finding though is that as a reader and as an audience, we want the same amount of time to be happening in both of them. We have a strange issue about days and nights happening. Basically, if it went to night in one of the storylines, it would be weird that it didn’t feel like it was night in the other one. Cutting back and forth between the two of them, there’s just a weird time expectation when we have multiple storylines happening, even if it’s not strict story logic. You always encounter things where it’s like, this is impossible because they are on different sides of the earth, and it shouldn’t be day in both places. I’m curious, in your features, but also in your TV show, have you encountered this issue in having to move some scenes around just because it feels like… This is also a thing you may be doing in editorial as well. It feels like the time is not working between the two different storylines.

**Craig:** This is an essential part of structure and the hardware of designing these shows or movies, because people need to understand where they are, and time is part of where they are. Cinematographers hate when I say this. I’ve said it before. I think there are three times that we can show. We can show dark, we can show light, and we can show in between. That’s basically it. If we need to know more specific levels of time, we need to indicate those with clocks or with titles, which is fine. That’s a technique.

When moving back and forth between timelines, if we need to, we have to plan it out. This is something I do with first ADs, where you write out, and with a script supervisor, what day is this. Our script coordinator actually went through and would always be like, “Okay, this is now production day four,” not meaning how many shooting days, but in the progression of what we do and to track where we are in days. It’s actually really important to do. When you’re pushing together two different stories, and you want one to be in the day, and you want the next one to be at night, or vice versa, particularly when you’re going from night to day, you need probably something to indicate the passage of time before you get to the B-side of that. An exterior shot. It’s now night.

**John:** I literally had to have an establishing shot, which wasn’t going to feel necessary, but I realized, oh, that’s actually genuinely there. It made me also realize that a lot of times in Game of Thrones when we’re going back to one of those storylines, there’s a big establishing shot, because weirdly, you just needed some time to sit and let it be a different time and different place before you got into these things.

**Craig:** We have a natural… Our minds. Thank God, because this is why editing works. Our minds will just smush things together. If I show you somebody in a basement talking, and then I show you a scene of somebody walking around in a room, we will often go, “Oh, that room must be above that basement.” We just make those connections instantly. We often need some kind of indication that something has changed. Sometimes it can be sound. We can use sound, so it’s very clear we’re in a different kind of spot, or score or something. When it comes to time, nothing is as useful as showing what the outside looks like, because that is in our cavewoman, caveman brains. Where is sun? That is time.

**John:** It’s also occurring to me that different projects, different series will establish their own grammar for what they’re going to do in terms of how time works in their shows. Station Eleven has giant title cards that say “7 days earlier.” You’re flipping around so much in times, you stop obsessing about it in a way. It’s okay that it’s a little bit impressionistic. I would say Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Little Women does the same kind of thing where you’re free-floating between these different times, and they’re different ages, and it just all works, because thematically stuff is moving forward, as opposed to Lost, which sets a very clear, like, okay, from each episode, one character will have a flashback to earlier things. Those flashbacks will progress forward in time, but they’re not tethered to any one thing happening on the island and the real world clock ticking on the island. It’s a very different way of going about things than other shows, which might be running two parallel timelines.

**Craig:** I think television narrative is becoming more and more complicated. I think Lost was viewed as a bit of a brain teaser for people at the time, and now it’s just what people do, screwing around with time and fooling people with time and location and places. Do you remember how you felt when you got to that point in the third act of Silence of the Lambs, where you realized, “Wait wait wait, that’s not his house. They went to that house, and she’s going to that house.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That amazing misdirection-

**John:** That reveal.

**Craig:** … preyed on our natural ability to put locations together. Study that one, folks, and realize what you’re up against, because what you don’t want to do is not be in control of that phenomenon. If you’re going to mess with it, mess with it intentionally, but just know that it’s real.

**John:** Megana, have you seen all of Yellowjackets?

**Megana:** I have, yes.

**John:** How does time work in Yellowjackets? I’ve only seen the first two episodes. Over the course of the series, we’re intercutting between present day and the past. Can a lot of time happen in the past over an episode, or is it more limited?

**Megana:** It does feel more limited. The past is a survival story about when their plane crashed. The teaser starts with a flashback that is after the flashback that we see through the series. It’s a couple of years after the plane crash or something.

**John:** That’s a reveal that they get to you over the course of the series, that you’re leading up to that moment?

**Megana:** Yeah, it seems like both the present timeline and the flashback are moving from a set point, except for that teaser, I guess.

**John:** That’s great. How about Where the Crawdads Sing. I see you have this on the list, but I have not read it or seen it.

**Megana:** They structured it where in the present timeline she’s awaiting her court date, but then it goes in flashback through her entire life. Most of the present timeline is very dark. She’s in this cell. Then you get all of the daylight scenes through the flashbacks. I was curious, cutting between these things, is it one of those things where it’s uncomfortable to see it being day in both of the timelines, or do you have to consciously switch between them?

**Craig:** I think that’s okay. You mean when you go from 2022 to 1982, can you go day to day?

**Megana:** Right.

**Craig:** Yeah, you could absolutely do that. You just need to design the transition in such a way that you get an instant signifier that something very… The corny version is someone’s walking around, they’re like, “Oh yeah, I’m something something,” and then you cut to Madonna playing on the radio, and someone walks around with feathered hair, and you’re in the ’80s. You need some kind of indication, or else it’ll take a moment or two. People will wonder, especially with clothes. If the clothes aren’t super obviously cheesy time period, you might not realize that it’s a different time period.

**John:** Absolutely. Some shows will rely on that misdirection. Obviously, the pilot to This is Us used that misdirection. You assume that this is all taking place in one timeline. You realize that you’re actually in two different timelines and establishing the grammar of the show, which is always going to be moving back from those timelines.

In Big Fish, we have the present day storyline, and then we have the fantasy storyline. Those are examples of every time I’m moving into a fantasy story, and to think about what is the transition into that and what is the transition out of that. Almost everything I wrote in the script really was carried out as the transitions to get us into and out of those places, because it was important to make it feel deliberate when we’re moving into one of those stories, so we could keep moving stuff forward. Again, all the fantasy stories did move forward in time, which was important. I wasn’t just flashing back to any random moment.

**Craig:** The other transitional element you have is a character. If you’re going into a character’s alternate self back in time, forward in time, in a fantasy world, their appearance, the way they match in, that stuff can sometimes bring you back in time. You don’t need to go from day to night or night to day. That’s not an essential part of time shifting.

**John:** Cool. Megana, you have a question about finishing up projects.

**Megana:** John from Madison, Wisconsin wrote, “I just came off my first weekend on set shooting a short I wrote.”

**John:** Short films.

**Megana:** “It was one of the best experiences of my life hearing and seeing amazing actors bring alive images and lines that lived in my head for so long. It was really overwhelming. I couldn’t have asked for a better experience. Now it’s Monday morning, and I’m blue as hell. Is this normal? I feel a loss, like someone has died or left me. What is this, and how do I move past it? I can imagine the advice to write something new, but that feels like telling the newly widowed to just go find someone else. Have you guys ever felt this? How do you deal with it?”

**Craig:** John, have you ever felt this?

**John:** I’ve felt generally relief at the end of a project, but I do get what John is expressing overall is that your identity and your excitement, you were building up to do this thing, and you got to do it with a group of people, and hopefully it turned out great, and then it’s done. It’s just like college is done or a semester is done. There was great stuff. It was an adventure. Now that adventure is over. You can feel kind of at sea.

**Craig:** I do feel this. I feel this intensely, almost every time. I feel this, honestly, when I finish writing a script. I really feel it when I’m done with shooting something. You did a weekend, and you’re missing it. I did a year, John from Madison. I talk to Bella and Pedro all the time, and just because we’re bummed. We’re sad. We miss each other. We miss the life.

Something that Bella was saying that is very true is when you’re shooting, it gives your life this sense of incredible structure and purpose that you just normally don’t have. You are working 12 hours every day, and your day is very clearly defined, and what you need to do is defined. It is hustle and bustle. It’s highs and lows, a lot of emotion, panic, anxiety, but you’re alive. Man, you’re alive. You’re exhausted, but you’re alive, and you’re making something. Then suddenly there’s just silence, and no one’s there, and there is no call sheet telling you what to do or where to go. You have to figure out what am I having for lunch. This is absolutely normal, John, I think. It’s normal for you and me. How about that?

**John:** I think it’s a normal experience. What you’re describing also reminds me of people talk about when they leave the military, they really miss that sense of purpose, they miss that sense of structure. You had that while you were making the short film. People have this when they’re on Survivor, when they’re doing something intense that is taking 100% of their time. When you remove that, you do kind of feel at sea. Let’s think through what are some good strategies for getting through this. First, it’s just you’re acknowledging it. I think it’s important just to acknowledge how you’re feeling and recognize that it’s not strange to feel this way, it’s natural to feel this way. You’re going to find other… You need to look for things that can revive that sense of purpose, even if it’s not so intense as making a short film over a weekend. Try to make sure that your life feels purposeful on a daily basis.

**Craig:** There are days where it isn’t. I think John’s right that acknowledging it is really important, and knowing it’s normal is important. The thing that helps the most is the thing that helps all of the things the most, and that’s time. It’s just time. You have to experience it. You’re saying you’re very into mourning, and you are mourning. There is a grief involved in these things ending. Then it ends. It fades, and you’re okay again.

Don’t lose that desire to get back in there. It is an addictive life. It is an exciting life. The more you do it, and the better you get, the more professional and impressive the people around you get. That’s when it starts to be awesome. Then you end up working with world-class actors and world-class crews, doing incredible things. The stakes get higher and higher, and the stress gets higher and higher. The scrutiny is more and more. Yet what else would we rather do? I think, John, this is good news for you in Madison, Wisconsin. You love this. See if you can’t do the things you need to do to turn this into a living. If you can’t, then do the things you need to do to turn this into an incredible pastime, hobby.

**John:** Fully agree.

**Megana:** Craig, when you describe feeling this after you finish a script, do you build in a couple of days to, I don’t know, be sad about it, or do you just keep writing?

**Craig:** I definitely build in days. I just know that there’s going to be probably a week where I’m just bummed out, because when I’m writing a script, it’s like I’m on a set in my head with all these characters in my head, and we’re all doing these things together and finding these things and seeing these things. Because every script naturally has a point where it lands and ends, it’s like that is now dead.

**John:** Now Craig, your experience on this TV show where you’re writing script after script after script after script, I suspect it was slightly different, because while you might finish a script, there’s always that other script that’s about to start shooting, and one down the road. Did you feel the same sense of closure at the end of each of these scripts as you were writing for these 10 episodes?

**Craig:** I did. I did, yeah, because like I said, each one has to end. The scripts end. When they end, it’s like that chapter is done. I’ve written that chapter. It’s over. I will never be able to write that for the first time again. There’s terrible then impending doom and panic that more had to be written. There’s a lot of weird stuff that happens when you make the insane decision to write an entire series by yourself, because then you’re imposing this feeling upon yourself over and over and over. It’s probably not healthy at all. In fact, it’s not healthy at all. A lot of what we do is not healthy.

**John:** When I wrote my three Arlo Finch books, and I committed to doing three books over the course of three years, it was that level of just like, “Oh my god, I’m just a person who writes Arlo Finch books. That’s all I do every day is write Arlo Finch books.” I loved it. I loved that structure and that discipline. I did feel a loss when a book was delivered, but also I did feel a sense of relief, just like my kid was off in college now and I actually had some free time to do some other things that were appealing to me. That’s the thing I would also remind John is it’s great that you were able to shoot this short film, fantastic, you’ll be editing, you’ll be doing all that stuff, but I bet you also have 15 other ideas that you’re chomping to get started on. When the time comes, you’ll get to write out one of those, and that’ll be exciting for you too.

**Craig:** Yeah, so good news, John, in a weird way. Good news.

**John:** Good news. Let’s do our One Cool Things. Craig, what’s your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** I may have talked about Kevin Wald and his cryptics before, but this One Cool Thing involves his latest that came out, and a little bit of a challenge to our listeners. Kevin Wald, he’s a gentleman who is a member of the National Puzzlers League, NPL. The National Puzzlers League, that is the Major Leagues of puzzle solving. They are very smart, very advanced solvers and creators. They create some of the more fiendish puzzles in existence. Kevin Wald, I’m just going to call him the evil emperor of cryptics. We’ve talked about cryptic crosswords before, which are much harder than regular crosswords. Then there’s really hard cryptics, insanely hard cryptics, and after all of that, there’s Kevin Wald cryptics, which are insane. He typically will do a group of three cryptics that are connected to the city where the National Puzzlers League is having their convention.

In 2022 the convention took place in Nashville, Tennessee. There are three cryptics. They function the way a lot of his cryptic groups do. You solve the first two, and then the answers from those feed into some of the answers for three. We’re going to put a link in here. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, you’ll see the 2022 puzzles. If you click on the first one, which is entitled “Pennsylvania Railroad, New York,” and you look at just the instructions, just the instructions-

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** … for what’s happening will scare away, I’m going to guess, 98% of you, as well they should. Then the remaining 2% of you are going to try and do this. I think maybe 10% of that 2% will complete it. It’s really hard, and it’s wonderful.

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** I do these over the course of weeks. Weeks. I finally finished all three of them. The insanity and the beauty of his construction and the way it all moves together, you just marvel at it. You also marvel at yourself for finishing it. Here’s the contest. It’s a One Cool Thing contest for our listeners. If you can solve these three puzzles, including all of the prompts in all of the puzzles, and you can send me your grids and your answers, and they’re correct, then I’ll give you something. What do you want? You tell me what you want. I’ll try and make it happen. We can negotiate a prize.

The only rule I have is that you cannot be or have been a member of the National Puzzlers League. You’ve got to be what I would call a layperson. You don’t have to be necessarily new to these, but really this is intended for people who aren’t routinely solving Kevin Wald puzzles. This is for newbies. Let’s see, you cryptic geniuses out there, if you can handle the mad emperor of cryptics, Kevin Wald.

**John:** You’re trying to create new mad puzzlers is really what you’re trying to do.

**Craig:** Yes. This is like The Last Starfighter. I’m recruiting for some sort of space battle that requires incredible cryptic ability.

**John:** I love it. Let’s send those answers to ask@johnaugust.com. It’d be fantastic if 20 people solved it.

**Craig:** 20 people are not going to solve it. Not a chance.

**John:** We’ll see how many people solve it.

**Craig:** If one person does, I will be thrilled. We can think of a prize. We’ll have a fun prize for you. We’ll certainly say your name on the air.

**John:** Love it. I have two One Cool Things. One of them is very short. Nathan Fielder did this show called Nathan For You, which I loved. It took me a while to get into it, but it’s just great. All those episodes are available online. You can find them. His new show called The Rehearsal I think is actually a masterpiece. It’s on HBO Max. You can find it. Craig, do you know the premise of the show at all?

**Craig:** I do. I’m going to watch it, but it put my stomach in knots just hearing about it.

**John:** Everything with Nathan Fielder has a wince factor. It’s like, “Oh my god, this is so uncomfortable, and yet also great and super, super funny.” The premise of the show is that Nathan Fielder will find a person who is facing a dilemma, generally a conversation they need to have with somebody or a situation they need to figure out. He will physically build sets that resemble the place where you’re going to have this conversation and recruit actors to be the other people in this. He will go to absurd lengths to create these rehearsal situations, practice this thing, exactly what you’re going to say or what you’re going to do. I don’t want to spoil what happens over the course of it, but it just gets to be so absurd and so funny. He becomes a major character in it. I strongly recommend you watch The Rehearsal, which is great.

Last is just a bit of a hooray for the WGA Pension and Health Plan added coverage for trans health issues that were long needed. I was sort of unaware of them. They are now being covered. I’m going to point you to an article by Eleanor Jean and Katrina Mathewson talking about what the process was to get really good, proper trans health care into what we always think about as being really good health insurance but was not even up to the level of MediCal before this.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** That’s great to see.

**Craig:** What are some specifics of what we are now offering folks in our plan?

**John:** It’s basically gender-affirming care. There’s an organization called WPATH, World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which sets the standards for these. What the article makes clear is that WGA was currently offering what other guilds were offering, was not up to the level of what Amazon was offering, what a bigger company was offering, but it was possible. What they needed to do was really show these are the things, these are the dollar these things cost, just to do the things that are necessary for a person who needs health care, because what Eleanor Jean was saying is that in a weird way, it would make more sense for her to stop being a writer and just get on MediCal to get some of this stuff, because the disparities were so great there. It’s an encouraging story that it took a lot of people really figuring out how to do this and make it work for it to happen there, but it’s now in our health plan.

**Craig:** That sounds incredibly positive. I’m a little bit surprised, honestly, because like you say, we think of our insurance as being better than almost everybody else’s. I guess there you go. It’s like, yeah, if you aren’t transgender, it is. Then you find out from transgender people that for them it’s not. I’m glad that we are getting everybody in alignment. This is the best of what we can provide writers, and so it should be the best of what we can provide writers. Excellent move.

**John:** I’ll put a link in the show notes to their article talking through the whole process and what actually was won.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** Hooray. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Adam Pineless.

**Craig:** No pines.

**John:** Someone pointed out that you never actually say hooray after our outros.

**Craig:** That’s right. I’m glad. It took 562 episodes for somebody to notice. I’ll tell you why. Here’s why. It’s not that I’m not cheering for the people who do our outros. They’re wonderful. I do think we have to carve out some special space for Matthew and Megana or whoever might succeed Megana, may that day never come to a truth.

**Megana:** Key emphasis on might.

**Craig:** Exactly. 90-year-old Megana dealing with, whatever, our children doing this show. They need special acknowledgement. Personally, I don’t know these folks. What if somebody who wrote the outro is actually a total bastard?

**John:** Also, the reality is Craig has not heard the outro before, as I’m saying this.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** He has no idea how good it is.

**Craig:** It could be terrible. It’s never terrible.

**John:** It’s never terrible. They’re all great.

**Craig:** I’m sure none of you are bastards. Certainly, Adam Pineless at this point is wondering, “Why on my outro did this have to happen?” Adam, you get a woohoo.

**John:** Woohoo. If you have an outro, like Adam, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions or answers to Craig’s impossible puzzle challenge.

**Craig:** It’s possible.

**John:** Possible.

**Craig:** It’s possible, but unlikely.

**John:** For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish 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, along with hoodies. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on Codenames.

**Craig:** Codenames.

**John:** That’s also where you’ll find out first about our live shows that are coming up. Definitely sign up at scriptnotes.net. Craig and Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, we have to set the scene for our Codenames experience, because I never played with you, but I assumed you knew what Codenames was, because it feels like a very good board game. We were supposed to be playing D and D in person. We were all there with our laptops, because of course, our maps are on laptops now. Our character sheets are on laptops.

**Craig:** We were at our friend Chris Morgan’s house. His internet did something I’ve never encountered before.

**John:** It was wild.

**Craig:** It was weird. He has WiFi in his house. For whatever reason, his WiFi would accept no more than two or three connections. After that, no, you couldn’t get on. There were three people, like my phone, his laptop, and his laptop are working. Nobody else’s can get on, or would get on and then immediately get booted off. Then somebody would log off of theirs, and then somebody else could log on, but then other people couldn’t log on. If you’re an IT professional, if you can explain that, I’d love to hear the answer to that one.

**John:** You had 6 men in their 40s and 50s all trying to solve a WiFi problem. That’s a comedy right there.

**Craig:** It was six “actually” guys all failing completely. Legitimately, I’ve never encountered a situation where the internet was there, the WiFi was providing it beautifully, but to no more than three local IPs. Can someone explain that, somebody who knows about fricking network crap? Can you tell me why that would happen? It was really weird. We were stuck. In lieu of playing D and D, we broke out Codenames, which Chris had at his house but had actually never played. Of course, John, you and I play Codenames. I play it all the time.

**John:** Megana plays it as well. Let’s describe Codenames for people who have not played the game before.

**Craig:** Which is easy to do, actually.

**John:** It really is.

**Craig:** One of the few games where describing it is simple.

**John:** It is absolutely. This is the classic Codenames. You open the box. There are cards that have just single words on them. They’re small, little cards. You lay them out on a grid on the table, 5 by 5, so 25 cards are out on the table. There are two clue-givers. In the first round, it was me and Craig were giving clues. We are looking at a special little card that shows the grid. Some of the squares are blue. Some of the squares are red. Let’s say Craig is red, I’m blue. Craig is responsible to get his team to guess the words that match up with those red squares. He will be giving a single word clue. His team will try to figure out which words that clue could refer to. I’m going to try to do the same for the blue team to my blue words for my team. It’s surprisingly fun and challenging to do, because you’re trying to get as many words as possible in each round without getting the other team’s words or hitting this saboteur who could kill the whole thing.

**Craig:** There’s an acronym that Matt Gaffney, who does the weekly Matt Gaffney meta-crossword, uses, and that’s SAD, S-A-D, simple and difficult. Simple and difficult is basically the holy grail of game mechanics, and this one is practically the epitome of it, because it is the simplest thing to explain. There’s 25 words out there. I’m going to give you a single word and then a number. That number is an indication of how many of those words I’m cluing to. My job is if I’m like, “Okay, I need to come up with a word that connects to anvil and heart and music. Maybe I’ll say beat, B-E-A-T, beat for three.” Then the team has to look at all 25 words and hopefully land on heart, music, and anvil, because we’re using beat in different ways for each one of those words. It’s really fun. It’s really tricky. John, earlier you said we’re rooting for each other. I always feel like when I’m the clue-giver, I’m kind of rooting for my fellow clue-giver, because we’re both in a pickle. Everybody else is this innocent who can just guess.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** You’re the ones who know everything and have all the responsibility and accountability. It’s a terrific game. It, as they usually say about Othello, takes a moment to learn and a lifetime to master.

**John:** A lifetime to master.

**Craig:** It’s a terrific game. After we finished, I did talk a little bit about what I consider to be Codenames’s smarter, older sibling, Decrypto.

**John:** Decrypto, which is another good game.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** I want to talk about Decrypto, but I want to first focus on two house rules or things that I’ve noticed that were different about how you played versus how I played. I think one of the great things about playing games with new people is you see, oh, this is how they do things. A house rule we always have is that if you are the team who’s guessing word, you could talk talk talk talk talk, but ultimately, you put your finger on the card to say, “I’m choosing this card,” because otherwise, I’ve been in situations where it’s ambiguous, like are they really saying it or are they not saying it? Put your finger on the card. That is the indicator. If you touch the card, you’ve chosen it.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** That’s our rule.

**Craig:** That’s how we play as well.

**John:** A thing that you were doing, which I’d never done ourselves but is so smart, is that you made a list. You had a notebook, and you made a list of all of your words so you could see them outside of the context of the grid. That is genuinely a good, smart thing to be doing that I have not seen other players do, because you can see connections more easily when you’re not looking upside-down at the words, trying to figure out what the common threads are there.

**Craig:** Part of the little method I use is I write down the words that I know I have to clue, and then I started just looking at that list and going, “Okay, here’s some obvious things I could do. Let me circle these and draw a line. I can clue these three. I can clue these two. What do I have left over? Is there a way for me to put one of those into this other group?” The most important thing you have to consider when you do that method is you can’t get lost on your list, because you need to then look immediately. You’re like, “Okay, this word will clue these three. Now let me look back at the table, because am I also mistakenly cluing one of my opponent’s words, or is there a word that’s neither of our words, that would be the first thing they would guess?” Also, there is that one killer word that immediately loses you the game if your team guesses it. Don’t get lost in your list, but the list is a very good way to start.

**John:** Now, I think the original Codenames is a fantastic game, but Megana Rao actually gifted me what I think is actually a better version of Codenames, which is Codenames: Pictures, which I’m not sure if you ever played.

**Craig:** I’ve seen it. I haven’t played it.

**John:** It is phenomenal. Like Codenames, you have a grid of cards. I think you’re actually only putting out 20 cards at a time. They have these weirdly ambiguous images. A couple things are combined on it. It could be you see a clown, but there’s also a horse and something else. They’re well-done images. You’re still responsible for giving one-word clues. What I like is it takes the words on the table out of the picture, so you’re really just focusing on what could get people to think about these things. Are you describing the shape of something? “Pointy” might be a word I would get. It’s like, “Oh, that looks like both that sun illustration, but also that pencil.” It forces you to think differently about how you’re going to tie these clues together.

**Craig:** I should play it. I want to play it. I love the Codenames extended universe.

**John:** It is. There’s Dirty Codewords, which is fine. Basically, you’re going to say some more provocative things because of the words that are-

**Craig:** Poop.

**John:** Poop. There’s a Marvel Codenames. It’s a whole extended universe.

**Craig:** Marvel Codenames. Oh my god. “Hero.”

**John:** “Hero.”

**Craig:** “Hero” for everything.

**John:** Megana, you got me the Codenames: Pictures. Any other Codenames experience you’ve had?

**Megana:** I’ve only played the regular one we have at the office and Codenames: Pictures. I’m curious if this is how you play too, Craig, because now that I’m thinking about it, I don’t know if it’s kosher, but when John is guessing, he will go through methodically clue by clue and explain his reasoning for not picking it, which makes it easier as a clue-giver to know where there might’ve been a miss. Is that standard?

**Craig:** Legal? It is legal. It’s legal.

**Megana:** Sorry, not to put you on blast, John.

**Craig:** No, I’m glad that you’re exposing John for what he is, which is a monster. That’s totally legal. I would argue that if you have played enough as a clue-giver, that kind of insight into the guesser’s mind will probably screw you up more often than it helps you, because they will not be consistent. That’s the one thing I know. They will not at all be consistent. This is the tricky part. You clue a word, and you’re cluing it for three. They get two of them right and one of them wrong. Now they’re going to have a chance to go back and try and guess again on that one, meaning guess back on your old clue. What if you can fold that remaining word into a new clue? They won’t know. They may keep cluing back to that old clue. All of their talking does not predict a damn thing. My rule is that the guessers can talk as much as they want. They may also be giving the other team information.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** That’s the risk that they take. The only thing is that the clue-givers really have to try very hard to not say anything other than the word and the number, which is why if you’re playing online with friends, and you go to the official Codenames website, which is free, you can play for free online, what’s nice about it is you type your clue in, you hit a number, and so all your teammates get is just that feedback. There is information in saying, “Okay, this is a stretch, but shorts for nine.”

**John:** Shouldn’t be able to do that. Between the padding, the framing of stuff, and just body language, which you should try to not reveal, but of course it’s hard not to indicate like, “Oh my god, don’t pick that one, because it’s the assassin,” as clue-givers you cannot be doing that. Still, people are going to try to read for that, because it’s human nature.

**Craig:** Exactly. One of the fun parts about playing in person is if you are an experienced Codenames player and you’re the clue-giver, you should actually come to enjoy saying nothing and being as sphinxlike as possible, not having any reaction, not sighing, not looking, not smiling, nothing. In a weird way, I’m almost rooting against my team. That’s how I make sure that I don’t give them body language. One of the newer players made a classic new player mistake. It was totally normal. When they were a clue-giver, his team was like, “Hm, it’s probably this.” Then the other team was like, “You know, it could be that,” just being jerks about it. The clue-giver was like, “You guys stay out of it.” That’s information. He’s basically saying don’t distract them from what they were saying, because what they were saying is correct. The thing is, when you’re a clue-giver, you have to literally give zero information beyond the word and the amount of words you want them to guess, which is fine.

**John:** The cleanest version of this, the clue-giver would write down something, hand it across, and leave the room, but that wouldn’t be fun for a party game. That’s why you don’t do that.

**Craig:** When you are playing with people remotely over Zoom, and you’re looking at the screen, it actually is kind of fun. You can turn your camera off if you can’t handle it. I was playing once where somebody, they were great, but they honestly were like, “I can’t handle it. I’m turning my camera off,” because what happens is, as the clue-giver, you give a clue, you think it’s really good, and maybe it is. Maybe one person on the team is like, “Oh, it’s got to be these three things.” You’re like, “Yes, I’m good, you’re good.” They’re like, “Great, let’s do it.” Then one person’s like, “Just one thing,” and they bring up some dumb thing about another word that’s so stupid. People want to go along, get along with other people, like, “I don’t want to fight,” so they just end up blowing it. You’re like, “You mother… “ There are times where just inside you’re like a raging volcano. You must be quiet. You must stay zen on the outside.

**Megana:** A moment of pride for me is John’s husband, Mike, is incredibly stoic always, but especially when he is the clue-giver in Codenames. Because Mike and John aren’t allowed to play on the same team, I’m normally paired up with Mike. One time I guess my postulations were so off the wall that I brought Mike to tears. He was laughing so hard about how ridiculous my jumps were.

**Craig:** Are you an over-thinker?

**Megana:** Definitely. The clue was “sheath.” I was talking aloud.

**Craig:** “Sheath.”

**Megana:** I was like, “Could a bomb have a sheath, like a sheath that contains the dynamite or something?” I’m definitely that nightmare person you described, Craig.

**Craig:** The little strategy that I always recommend to new players to consider is, and ideally your clue-giver is working this way too, when you think, “Okay, maybe they’re cluing these two words,” ask yourself, “Okay, it’s either they’re cluing these two words, this one and this one, or it’s this first one and this other one.” Ask the question, what else would they have clued? Is there a better clue they could’ve given for those two as opposed to those two? Because if there is an obvious better clue, then they’re probably not cluing that one, because they didn’t go for the obvious clue. They’re probably cluing this one. It’s a good thing to think through. If I wanted you to pick those two, like if I wanted you to pick “Ireland” and “gold,” I would’ve said, “Leprechaun.” I would not have said what I ended up saying, which was, whatever, “Peat moss.” That was “Ireland” and “vegetable.” “Peat moss” is two words. You can’t use that, but regardless.

**Megana:** Our team typically goes high volume. We’re giving clues for four words at a time.

**Craig:** Four is hard to do.

**John:** It is.

**Megana:** High risk, high reward.

**Craig:** Sure. Everybody has their own strategies. Look, hell, if I can clue eight words, I will. One of the early games I played of Codenames, David Kwong was the clue-giver. I was the only guesser. It was just four people playing. The other team was cluing for three, cluing for two. He was like, “Clue for one. Clue for one. Clue for one.” I was like, “What the F are you doing, dude? You’re killing us.” He gave me no information.

We’re screwed. They’re next. It’s our turn. They are next. They only have one word left, and so we’re going to lose. I think we had six words or something. Then he clued something for six. I was like, “Oh, okay.” He needed to get certain words off the board to make his massive six-word clue work. He was waiting them out, because they had words that would’ve gotten in the way of his clue. He just waited for them and then dropped the bomb, and we won. I was like, “Okay, I apologize for doubting you, sensei.”

**John:** Decrypto, you’ve mentioned before, is sort of like the opposite of Codnames. Basically, there are words that everyone can see that you’re trying to say but not say, so that you can get these numbers to match up. I think it’s a really, really smart game. Megana, can you tell us why we don’t play it in the office? Is it because Nima doesn’t like it?

**Megana:** Yeah, Nima hates Decrypto, but I am always making the pitch for it.

**Craig:** Nima is wrong.

**John:** He’s wrong.

**Craig:** He’s wrong, and he needs to stop that. It’s simple, because Decrypto is Codenames all grown up. The simple way to describe Decrypto is let’s say we’re on the same team. You and John and I, the three of us, we’re on a team. We have four words. All three of us know what those four words are. Each word is numbered. We have word number 1, word number 2, word number 3, and word number 4, and we know them. Then each round, one of us is going to be a clue-giver. That rotates through on each round. The clue-giver picks a card. The card will just have three digits on it. They will be some combination of 1, 2, 3, or four . It might 324. It might be 142. That tells me, okay, it’s 142, so I need to give 3 words, so that my team can look at word 1, 2, 3, and 4, and go, “Okay, that clue is word 1, that clue is word 3, that clue is word 4.” Then they say the number back. That’s it, easy.

Why is it a game? Here’s why. Because when I give them those three words, and then they respond with what the correct answer is with the numbers, the other team hears it. The other team goes, “Okay, we don’t know what their words are, but we know that that dude clued ‘grass,’ ‘tall,’ and ‘cow,’ and then their response was ‘324,’ and that was correct, so we know now the ‘cow’ clue is word 3.”

As each round goes, you collect more and more words that keep cluing back to whatever word number 1 is. Now you have four words that somehow that other team knew was word 1. You’re asking yourselves, what do these four words clue possibly commonly? Then when you get it, it’s mind-blowing and awesome, because obviously they’re trying to mislead you. You’re doing the same thing, and they’re trying to guess your words. It’s fantastic. It’s so great. Nima has rocked me, and I’m shooketh.

**John:** I think Nima would be great at that. I agree it’s a really terrific game. I think what’s different about it is that aspect of it. It’s not even social deception. It’s really just deception. It’s basically how do I not let you think what the answer is? You’re trying to make sure that your teammates understand what you’re trying to say, without the other team being able to infer it. That’s great.

**Craig:** Exactly, because if your team gets it wrong twice, you lose. If the other team guesses your code twice, they win. There’s almost no margin for error. It’s more chess-like in that regard. I’m really shocked. Nima needs to reevaluate I think everything at this point. Everything.

**John:** We’ll have you over to the office for our Friday game block, and you’ll talk us through.

**Craig:** I’m going to make him play Decrypto. Melissa is very good at Decrypto.

**John:** I’m sure she’s great at that.

**Craig:** She’s terrifyingly good at Decrypto. We also have some little house rule versions where we’ll say, okay, this round, everybody’s three clues have to start with the same letter, or in this round, the three clues have to be thematic in some way, like “ball,” “bounce,” and “round,” or something like that. It’s fun. It’s great. It’s a great game. You should all get it and play it. I think there’s also a Decrypto online, which works really well.

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

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [WGA Animation Pledge](https://www.wga.org/the-guild/going-guild/get-involved/animation)
* [Scriptnotes Seasons 9 & 10](https://store.johnaugust.com/), subscribe for all episodes and premium perks [here](https://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Download Highland 2 for free if you’re a university student!](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/highland-2/students.php)
* Article Option Services [The Optionist](https://theoptionist.substack.com/) and [Story Scout](https://www.storyscout.com/)
* Check out the Interesting Newsletter on [Shorts](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* John’s short film [God](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d314AWqNeM)
* [WGA Offers Trans Health Coverage](https://www.wga.org/news-events/news/connect/8-8-22/how-lgbtq-writers-helped-expand-transgender-health-benefits-for-guild-members)
* [The Rehearsal](https://www.hbo.com/the-rehearsal) Nathan Fielder’s new show on HBO Max
* [Kevin Wald’s Con Cryptics](https://www.ucaoimhu.com/concryptics.html) write in to ask@johnaugust.com if you can figure it out!
* [Codenames Game](https://www.target.com/p/codenames-board-game/-/A-50364627#lnk=sametab), [Codenames with Pictures](https://www.target.com/p/codenames-pictures-board-game/-/A-51511992), and more in the [Codenames Universe!](https://codenamesgame.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [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 Adam Pineless ([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/562standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 554: Getting the Gang Back Together, Transcript

August 3, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 554 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, it is a craft compendium. We are going back to previous segments, in which we talk about how to work with groups of characters. We’ll be looking at how pairs or groups of characters can work on separate pieces of the puzzle, then come together at the end, how to manage different storylines and the dynamics in smaller breakout groups, and how we capture the feeling of community and chemistry between multiple characters.

Our guide in this process is Megana Rao, who is not only a Scriptnotes producer but also a listener. Megana, help us out. Where are we starting?

Megana Rao: We’re starting on Episode 360, called Relationships. Craig often talks about how the most important thing is the central relationship in this story.

John: Not one character, but the relationship between those two characters.

Megana: Exactly. It’s not about the main character. It’s about who that main character’s central relationship is with. In this segment, you guys first of all talk about how to set up characters and establish backstories and the challenge of locating characters and introducing the dynamics that existed before the movie began. Then you get into how you actually evolve those relationships on screen and you go into some technical scene work.

John: Relationship between two characters is almost always about conflict. What is it that they are coming into the scene? What is the problem between the two of them? How are we seeing that grow and evolve and change? How are we exposing the inner life of not just the individual characters, but what their relationship was like before this movie started?

Megana: Yeah, and how you convey that through dialog and how people actually speak to each other.

John: Great. We have that first segment. What’s our next segment.

Megana: Then we get into Episode 395, called All in This Together. In this one, you guys are looking at how you structure a story where the team functions as the central protagonist. There’s a really interesting discussion on POV here where you talk about the challenge of this type of story is that you need to serve several different characters and execute satisfying arcs for each of them.

John: It’s not just The Goonies. It’s any movie in which you have a team of characters who are working together, so the Avengers or the Fast and Furious movies. Yes, each of those characters might have individual arcs or things we know about them, but really it’s the group dynamics that are going to change over the course of the story, so how we handle those.

Megana: Exactly, yeah. It’s not just the individual, but how the whole is going to transform.

John: Fantastic. What’s our third and final segment?

Megana: Our last segment is Episode 383, Splitting the Party. I just want to warn everyone that this is a D and D-heavy chat.

John: As all chats should be, heavy D and D.

Megana: I promise it’s worth it. In this one, you guys are talking about how to split up a group of characters and the questions that writers should be asking themselves so that it’s meaningful when those characters come back together.

John: Fantastic. We will be back together at the end of these three segments to talk about what we’ve learned a little bit but also to do our One Cool Things and all the boilerplate stuff. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we are going to be talking about Stranger Things Season 4.1 I guess we’d call it, which is all about group dynamics. If you’re not a Premium Member, for the love of Steve Harrington, you have to become a Premium Member, because Megana has some very strong opinions about the characters and what’s happened in Stranger Things this first half of Season 4.

Megana: Incredibly strong opinions. By the time this episode airs, everyone should have watched it.

John: You have no excuse for not becoming a Premium Member so you can hear the Bonus Segment. Now, let’s travel back to Episode 360 and get started with our group dynamics.

And so when we first started doing the podcast I remember there was some episode early on where I said like, “Well it’s not like you and I are friends outside of this podcast,” and you were really offended by it. And I remember I was like, oh, I hurt Craig’s feelings. And Craig has feelings. And we’ve become much better friends over the course of doing the podcast, but also–

Craig Mazin: Do I have feelings? I guess I do.

John: You do have feelings.

Craig: I guess I do.

John: But we weren’t playing D&D at the start. Like all that stuff came.

Craig: No, we have become friends through this podcast. I mean, whether I was legitimately hurt or not. You had a fair point. We weren’t really that close or anything. But our relationship is a function of the work that we do together. That’s how it’s happened. And that’s by the way how relationships must happen, if I may Segue Man myself into our main topic–

John: Go for it.

Craig: Relationships have to be functional. I think sometimes people make a mistake and they think a relationship is just two people who like to chat together or sleep together. That in and of itself is not enough function.

John: Yeah. So in framing this conversation about relationships, I think there’s two challenges screenwriters face.

One is how you get the audience up to speed on relationships that began before the movie started. And so this is trying to figure out like literally letting the audience know how these two people are related. Are they siblings? Are they friends? Are they a couple? Are they ex-spouses? Getting a sense of what are the underlying conflicts that started before the movie started. And really who wants what. That’s all stuff that you as the writer hopefully know and you have to find ways to expose to the audience if it’s going to be meaningful to your story.

The second challenge screenwriters face is how do you describe the changes happening in a relationship while the movie is going on. And so it’s really the scene work. What is the nature of the conflicts within the scene? How are we showing both characters’ points of view? What is the dialogue that’s exposing their inner life and exposing the nature of their relationship?

And they’re very related things but they’re not the same things. So what Craig and I just described in terms of our backstory, that’s kind of the first part is setting up the history of who we are. But so much of the writer’s work now is to figure out how within these scenes are we moving those relationships forward and providing new things to study.

Craig: Yeah. That’s exactly right. The screenwriter has certain tasks that are homeworky kind of tasks. You do need convey information. We have this wonderful opportunity when a movie begins to have fun with that. The audience is engaged. They’re leaning forward in their seat. They haven’t yet decided that this movie stinks. So, you can have fun and tease along or misdirect what relationships are. And then reveal them in exciting and fun ways. And that’s I think really enjoyable for people.

So there’s an opportunity to maybe have – maybe it doesn’t have to be quite busy work when we’re establishing how people relate to each other factually. But the real meat of it, as the story progresses, is that fabulous space in between two or three people. The relationship I generally think of as another character. There’s what I imagine this person like alone. There’s what I imagine this person like alone. But when they’re together there’s that other thing between them. And if you think that sounds a little foofy, well, just consider the word chemistry and how often we use it to apply to actors who must perform these relationships. Because when it’s there what do we describe it as? Sparks, or whatever. It’s that thing in between.

And when it’s not there, there’s nothing.

John: Yeah. Chemistry is fundamentally the mixture of two elements that by themselves would be relatively stable. And you put them together and they create something new. And that’s what we’re really talking about in a relationship is that new thing that is created when those characters are interacting and challenging each other.

So, let’s talk about establishing these characters and I think you’re right to describe at the beginning of the movie the audience does lean in because I think partly they’re trying to figure out who these people are and sort of what slots to put them in. People approach movies with a set of expectations and there are certain kind of slots that they want people to fall into. And they’re looking for like, OK, well what slot are they falling into? And if you are aware of what the audience’s expectations are that can be really helpful.

So, some of the slots people are looking for is, well, who is the hero, the protagonist? Who is the love interest? Who is the best friend? Who is the rival? Who is the mentor? Who is the parent? That’s not to say you should have stock characters, but it’s to be aware that the audience is looking for a place to put those folks essentially. A sense of the relationship geography of the central character and the people around them.

And so be aware that the audience is trying to find those things and help them when you can. And if you need to defeat those expectations or change those expectations be aware that’s a job you’re assigning yourself.

Craig: Right.

John: That you have to make sure that the audience understands this isn’t quite what you think. You think that this person is the father, but he’s actually a step-father who has only been married to the mother for a year. If that’s important, you’re going to have to get that out there quickly so we understand.

Craig: That’s exactly right. And similarly there are times when just like you and the audience, one of the characters onscreen will also not quite understand the nature of the relationship, and so it’s important then to tie back to our perspective and point of view episode. If I’m in the perspective and point of view of somebody who has a basic understanding of what a relationship is, and if I want to subvert that I first must lay the groundwork for their wrong understanding. And create their expectation.

So, in Training Day, we have an understanding because we share a perspective with Ethan Hawke that he’s been assigned the kind of badass older veteran character who is going to train him and be his mentor. And so that’s his understanding. And then the guy just starts doing some things that are a little uh, and he goes eh, OK, and we’re all a little bit like uh. And then it gets much, much, much, much worse. And we understand that we, like Ethan Hawke, completely misunderstood the nature of this relationship. And then a different relationship begins to evolve.

John: Yeah. So, let’s talk about some of these expectations. So Ethan Hawke had a set of expectations going into it. I think so often as I read through Three Page Challenges or moments in scripts that aren’t really working I feel sometimes the screenwriter is trying to do a bunch of work to explain something that could have just been done visually. And so they’re putting a lot of work into describing something that could be done as sort of a snapshot, as an image.

So, I want to give a couple snapshots of things you might see in a movie and as an audience you see these things and you’re like, OK, I get what’s going on here, so all of that work is being done visually and therefore the dialogue can just be about what’s interesting and new and is not establishing these relationships.

So, here’s the first snapshot. You see four people seated at a table in an airport restaurant. They’re all African American. There’s a woman who is 35 and putting in eye drops. There’s a man who is 40, a little overweight, who is trying to get a six-year-old boy to stay in his seat. There’s a girl who is nine and playing a game on her phone.

So, you see these four people around a table, you’re like, OK, they are a family. They’re traveling someplace. That’s the mom. That’s the dad. Those are the kids. That’s your default assumption based on the visual I described. So therefore anything you want to do beyond that, or if you need to clarify exactly the nature of these relationships between people, that there’s like a step relationship or one is actually a cousin, you can do that but that visual sort of gave you all that stuff for free. And so therefore you can spend your time in dialogue on doing interesting things with those characters rather than establishing that they’re actually a family and they’re traveling someplace.

Craig: Yeah. You suddenly don’t need to do things like have a character say, “Mom, or “Son,” or any of those annoying things that people do to hit us over the head with this sort of thing. But you’ve put some thought into how to create a relationship in a realistic way.

The fact of the matter is that many writers who struggle with this only struggle with it when they’re writing. If I take any of those people and bring them to an airport and walk them through the airport and just say you quietly look around and then describe to me the relationships you infer from what you see, they’ll get it almost all right.

John: Yep.

Craig: That’s how it works as humans. Therefore that’s what we need to do when we’re writing. I wish that writers would spend more time in their visual minds, I guess, rather than trying to just begin or stop with words, if they could maybe walk through the space in their heads and experience it. It’s amazing what you see when you do that. And then you don’t have to use dialogue.

John: Yeah. All right, so here’s another snapshot. So, next table over there’s a man and a woman. They’re sitting across from each other. They’re both early 30s in business suits. He’s white. She’s American-born Chinese. He wears a wedding ring which we see as he drinks his scotch. His eyes are red and puffy, maybe from crying. She doesn’t look at him. All her attention focused on the spreadsheet open on her laptop. So that’s the visual we’re giving to an audience at the very start.

We know there’s a conflict there. We know that something has happened. Something is going on. The nature of their relationship between each other is probably fraught. There’s something big happening there. And I think we’re leaning in to see what is the first thing that somebody says. What just happened that got them to this place?

Are they having an affair? Are they business colleagues? Something big has happened there. And you have a little bit of an understanding about their jobs, or sort of that it’s some sort of work travel. So that visual gives us a sense of who those two people are before we’ve had any words spoken.

Again, if you saw those people at the airport you would probably get that basic nature of their relationship and you’d be curious. And so I think the thing about sort of establishing people visually is that you want there to still be curiosity. You’re not trying to answer all the questions. You’re just trying to give a framework so that people are asking interesting questions about these characters in front of them.

Craig: You’re building a mystery. Right? You’re giving us clues. I have clues here. OK, these are the clues you’ve given me and I’m looking at the situation here. OK, I’ve got this man, I’ve got this woman. He’s wearing a wedding ring. He’s drinking scotch. He’s crying. He’s sad. She doesn’t seem sad at all. That’s a huge clue to me. Whatever he’s crying about, it’s not about her, because she’s looking at a spreadsheet. It’s not that she’s looking down nervously and shutting him down. She’s busy. She’s looking at a spreadsheet. This guy seems pathetic. I’m guessing his marriage has blown up and he’s crying about it for the 15th time to his associate who is subordinate to him therefore can’t tell him to shut the hell up.

She meanwhile is trying to get the work done that they need to get done so they both don’t get fired by the boss above both of them. I don’t know if that’s true. And I don’t know if you even thought it through that far.

John: I haven’t.

Craig: Right. It’s just that’s the bunch of clues there. And that’s how fast we start to assemble clues. Here’s the good news for all of you at home. What I just did is something that you can use to your advantage if you want people to get what you want them to get. It’s also what you can use to your advantage if you want people to assume something that is incorrect.

For instance, in the first scenario we see a man, a woman, two kids, they’re all sitting together in the airport, playing on a game. They’re all the same race. They all therefore technically can be related. It feels like a family. And that’s a situation where at some point you could have the nine-year-old, turn, wait, see somebody pass by and then hand 50 bucks to the man and the woman and say, “Thanks. We weren’t here.” And then she takes the six-year-old and they move along, right?

Like what the hell? Who is this little spy? But that’s the point. By giving people clues we know reliably we can get them to sort of start to think in a way. We are doing what magicians do. It’s not magic. It’s misdirection and it’s either purposeful direction or purposeful misdirection. This is the way we have fun.

John: Absolutely. And so the example you gave where they pay the money and leave, it would be very hard to establish the normalcy if you actually had to have characters having dialogue before that. We would be confused. And so by giving it to us just as a visual, like OK we get the reason why everyone around them would just assume they’re a family. But if we had to try to do that with dialogue or have somebody comment on that family, it would have been forced. It would have felt weird.

So, you have to think about sort of like what do you want the audience to know. What do you think the audience will expect based on the image that you’re presenting and how can you use that to your advantage?

Most times you want to give the audience kind of what they’re expecting so the audience feels smart. So they feel like they can trust their instincts. They can trust you as a storyteller. And maybe one time out of five defeat that expectation or sort of surpass that expectation. Give them a surprise. But you don’t want to surprise them constantly because then they won’t know what to be focusing on.

Craig: Right. Then they start to feel like this really is a magic show and they lose the emotional connection to things. So, in the beginning of something you can have fun with the details of a relationship because those are somewhat logical. And you can mess around with that. The more you do it, the more your movie just becomes a bit of a puzzle. And, by the way, that’s how whodunits work. But those are really advertising nothing more than puzzles. And that’s why I recommend all screenwriters spend time reading Agatha Christie. Just pick a sampling of two Poirots and two Marples. And just see how she does it. And see how clever she is. And see how much logical insight and brilliance is involved in designing these things, particularly in such a fashion where it works even though you are trying to figure it out while it’s happening.

John: Yeah. And so it’s not like those characters are realistic, but those characters are created in a very specific way to do a very specific function. And they have to be believable in doing their function the first time through and then when we actually have all the reveals you see like, OK, that’s what they really were doing. And I can understand why everybody else around them had made the wrong assumptions.

Craig: Well, that’s the beauty of it is that you start to realize by reading those whodunits how much stuff you’re filling in that isn’t there. You make these assumptions that that girl must be that woman’s daughter. That’s just a flat assumption you made and at no point was that ever stated clearly and why would you believe that? So, it teaches you all the ways that our minds work in a sense. So, that’s always great. But I think once you get past the technicals of portraying and conveying relationships, then the real magic and the real fun is in watching two people change each other through the act of being together, whether it is by talking, or not talking, or fighting, or regret. Whatever it is, that’s why I think we actually go to see these stories.

I don’t think we go to movies for plots. I think maybe we show up because the plot sounds exciting. We stay in our seat for the relationships. Lindsay Doran has an amazing talk about – did we – that’s going to be my One Cool Thing this week for sure. I mean, I’m sure I’ve said it before, but Lindsay Doran has a Ted Talk she’s done. It’s available online for free. That goes to the very heart of why relationships are what we demand from the stories we see.

John: Yeah. And too often you think about like is this a character moment or is this a story moment. And, of course, there is no difference.

Craig: Right.

John: You have to make sure that the character moments are married into fundamental aspects of story that are moving the story forward. Because if you have a moment that is just like two character having a witty conversation but it doesn’t have anything to do with the actual forward trajectory of the plot, it’s not going to last. And if you have a moment that just moves the plot forward but doesn’t actually have our characters engaging and interacting and changing and their relationship evolving, it’s not going to be a rewarding scene either. So, moments have to do these two things at the same time. And that’s the challenge of screenwriting. It’s that everything has to do multiple things at once.

Craig: That’s why they’re doing them, right? I mean, the whole point is you’re in charge. You can make anything happen. You can end the movie right now if you want. So, why is this happening? And if your answer is, well, it’s happening because I need it to happen so that something else happens, no. No. Stop. Go backwards. You’re in a bad spot.

John: So often I think we have an expectation of what the trajectory are going to be for these characters also. Because we’ve seen movies before, so we know that the hero and love interest will have a fight at some point. They will break up. They’ll get back together. We can see some of these things happening. And that doesn’t mean you have to avoid all those things happening but you have to avoid all those things happening but you have to be aware that the audience sees it coming. And so if the audience sees it coming and kind of feels that you’re doing that beat just because you’re doing that beat, like, oh, now they’re going to break up because of this misunderstanding and, ugh, I saw that happening way ahead of time, that’s not going to be rewarding.

They’re going to have an expectation that attractive people will fall in love. That families will fight and splinter but ultimately come back together. So, all that stuff is sort of baked into our expectation of these stories from the start. So, be aware of that and so if you get to those moments understand what the stock version of that moment is and figure out how you push past that. How do you get to a new moment between these two very specific characters, not the generic archetypes of these characters? What is it about them that makes this scene, these two people being in the scene, so unique and special?

And when you see those things happen, that’s what makes your movie not every other movie.

Craig: It strikes me that nobody really talks about relationships when they’re doing their clunky, boring screenwriting classes and lectures. I mean, I’m sure some people out there do. But so often when I skim through these books they talk about characters and plot. They don’t talk about relationships. And I guess my point is I don’t care about character at all. I only care about relationship, which encompasses character. In short, it doesn’t matter what the character of Woody is until Buzz shows up.

John: Completely.

Craig: Woody, until Buzz shows up, is – well, his character I could neatly fit it on a very small index card. Woody is the guy who is in charge and has sort of a healthy ego because he knows he’s the chosen one. So he’s kind of the benevolent dictator. OK. Boring. Don’t care. That’s why movies happen. We don’t want that to keep on going. What we want is for Shrek to leave the swamp and meet Fiona. Then the characters become things that matter because there in – go back to our conflict episode. Everything is about relationship. They should only talk about plot and relationships as far as I’m concerned. We should just stop talking about character. It’s a thing that’s separate and apart.

I think a lot of studio executives make this mistake when they take about character arcs. I hate talking about character arcs. The only arcs I’m interested in are relationship arcs.

John: Yeah. Shrek is not a character, but Shrek and Donkey together is a thing. Like that’s–

Craig: Right.

John: There’s no way to expose what’s interesting about Shrek unless you have Donkey around to be annoying to him. So you have to have some thing or person to interact with. Yes, there are – of course, there exceptions. There are movies where one solo character is on a mission by him or herself and that’s the only thing you see. But those are real exceptions. And I agree with you that so many screenwriting books treat like, “Oh, this is the hero’s journey and this is the arc of the hero,” as if he or she is alone in the entire story. And they never are. And it’s always about the people around them and the challenges.

Craig: Or an animal.

John: Or an animal.

Craig: You know what I mean? There’s some relationship that mattes. And the only place I think you can kind of get away with learning and experiencing something from a character in the absence of a relationship in a kind of impressive way is in theater and on stage and through song, but in that sense you’re there with that person, the relationship is between – so when Shrek sings his wonderful song at the beginning of “A Big, Bright, Beautiful World,” the beginning of Shrek the Musical which as you know I’m obsessed with, he’s singing it to you in the audience. And you’re with him in a room. So that’s a different experience.

But on screen, then when you watch – OK, great example if I can get Broadway for a second, Fiddler on the Roof opens in the most bizarre way any musical has ever opened. The main character walks out and starts talking to you in the audience, immediately breaking the fourth wall. And he does it occasionally and then sometimes he talks to God. And he’s alone. And then there’s the song If I Were a Rich Man. He’s alone the entire time and he’s singing it to himself and to God, who is not visible.

And when you’re in a theater watching it it’s fun, and it’s great, and you get it. Then you watch the movie, which is not a bad movie at all. I like the Fiddler on the Roof movie, but when that song comes around you’re like what is happening.

John: Yeah. Who is he talking to?

Craig: Why is he? Who are you talking to? Why are you doing this? Why are you standing in a field singing? It’s bizarre. It doesn’t work in a movie. You need a relationship.

John: Yep. You do.

John: So our main topic this week came up because yesterday I did a roundtable on a project and this project we were working on had not one hero but a big group of heroes. Or, not a big group, but four people who were sort of the central heroes of the story. And that wasn’t a mistake. That really was how the movie needed to work.

And it got me thinking that we so often talk about movies being a journey that happens to one character only once, and we always talk about sort of that hero and that hero protagonates over the course of the story and sort of those things. Even though we are not big fans of those classic templates and sort of everything has to match the three-act structure that tends to be the experience of movies is that you’re following a character on a journey. But there are a lot of movies that have these groups of heroes in them and I thought we’d spend some time talking about movies that have groups and the unique challenges of movies that have groups as their central heroes.

Craig: Smart topic because I think it’s quickly becoming the norm actually as everybody in the studio world tries to universe-ize everything. You end up, even if you start with movies with the traditional independent protagonist, sooner or later you’re going to be smooshing everybody together in some sort of team up. So it’s inevitable.

John: We’ve talked before about two-handers where you have two main characters who are doing most of the work in the movie. And sometimes it’s a classic protagonist/antagonist situation. So movies like Big Fish, Mr. And Mrs. Smith, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Romancing the Stone, Chicago, while there are other characters there’s two central characters you’re following and you could say either one of them is the main character of the story.

But what you’re describing in terms of there’s a big group of characters is more on the order of Charlie’s Angels, The Breakfast Club, X-Men, Avengers, Scooby Doo, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Lord of the Rings, Goonies, Go, all The Fast and Furious movies. These are movies where characters need to have journeys and make progress over the course of the story but they’re a part of a much larger team. And we really haven’t done a lot of talking about how those teams of characters work in movies.

Craig: Yeah. I actually wasn’t really a team movie writer until I guess The Hangovers, because those three guys kind of operated as a team. And then when you throw Mr. Chow in there it’s a team of four. It’s a crew. Now you’ve got a crew.

John: You’ve got a crew.

Craig: You got a crew.

John: We’re putting together a crew.

Craig: And you got to figure out how that crew works, because it is very different than just – even like a typical two-hander like Identity Thief. I mean, there are other characters but it’s just the two of them on a road trip. That’s pretty traditional stuff.

John: The movie is about their relationship. And so I’m sure people can argue that one is the protagonist and one is the antagonist. And, great, but really it’s about the two of them and how they are changing each other. Wicked is a two-hander.

Craig: Right. When you say, OK, now it’s really about three, or four, or five, or in Fast and Furious there’s like 12 of them at this point now, you kind of have to present them as this team. It’s a team sport now. So writing for a team requires a very different kind of thinking I think than writing for a traditional protagonist and let’s call them a sub-protagonist or something like that.

John: Yeah. So if you think about them as a group, if you think about them as one entity this should still be a one-time transformational event for this group of characters, for this team of characters, for whatever this party is that is going through this journey that has to be transformational to them as a group.

But within that bigger story there’s probably individual stories. And in those individual stories those characters are probably the protagonist of that subplot or at least that sub-story. So they’re all going to have relationships with each other, with the greater question, the greater theme, the greater plot of the movie, and it’s making sure that each of those characters feels adequately served by what the needs are. Bigger characters are going to have more screen time and probably take bigger arcs. Minor characters are at least going to enter into a place and exit a place that they hopefully have contributed to the overall success or failure of not just the plot that the characters are wrestling with but the thematic issues that the movie is trying to bring up and tackle.

Craig: Yeah. There’s a kind of a Robert Altman-y trick where you take an event and he would do this a lot in very good Robert Altman movies, but we see it in all sorts of movies, where there’s an event. And the event is so big it encompasses everyone. And so we kind of – we play a little bit of the soap opera game. So soap operas traditionally would have about three or four plots going at once. You would see a little bit of one, then it would switch over to the next one. And you’d have to wait to get back to the one you liked. At least that was my experience when I was home sick with grandma.

So in say a movie like Independence Day there are multiple stories. There is a president. There is his wife. There’s an adviser to the president who has an ex-wife. There’s his dad. There’s Will Smith. There’s a bunch of stories going on. And each one of them gets a little slice of the story pie, but ultimately it’s all viewed through the prism of this event. And in the end everybody kind of comes together in some sort of unifying act which in Magnolia was a frog rain.

John: Yes. Yes.

Craig: And we see that in fact as different as all these stories were everyone was connected and kind of working as a team. So individuals are the heroes of their mini-stories. And that’s in fact how those movies tell the story of the big story through mini-stories.

John: Yeah. Now, in some of these stories the characters enter in as some kind of family. They have a pre-existing relationship. In other movies they are thrown together by circumstances and therefore have to sort of figure out what the relationships are between them. In either situation you want those relationships to have changed by the end of the story. So just like as in a two-hander, their relationship needs to have changed by the end. In a team story the relationships need to have changed by the end and you need to see the impact they’ve had on each other over the course of this. So independent of a villain, independent of outside plot, the choices that they individually made impacted the people around them.

Craig: And that’s the matrix of relevance. So in a traditional movie it is about me. I have a problem. And I go through a course of action and at the end of the movie my problem is solved. In this kind of story the group has a problem. And what we’re rooting for is the group to survive. And in that sense very much it is a family. And we know that about the Fast and Furious, because they’re always telling us.

John: [laughs] It’s family.

Craig: They always tell us. This is a family. But it is. And so the hero of those movies is the joined relationship of them all in the family. And what the problem is in the beginning of the story is not a problem with one individual. It is a problem of family dynamic. And that is what needs to be figured out by the end of the movie.

John: Yeah. So let’s talk about the real pitfalls and challenges of doing a story with a team protagonist or with a big group at its center. The first and most obvious one is that sometimes certain characters just end up being purely functional. You see what their role is within this group and what their role is within this plot, but their character isn’t actually interesting in and of itself at all. And sometimes if it’s a minor character, OK, but if it’s a character who we’re putting some emotional weight in that we actually want to see their journey at all, they have to be more than purely functional.

The challenge is the more you – in a normal movie you can say like, oh OK, well I need to build in some back story for this character. I need to see them interact with other people and get a better sense of who this person is and what they’re trying to do, but you can’t do that for every character because the movie would just keep starting again and again. It would never get anywhere. So, finding ways that one character’s progress is impacting another character, which is sending the next thing forward. The jigsaw puzzle aspect of getting all those characters’ changes to happen over the course of the story can be really difficult.

Craig: It can be. Because, you know, the movie starts to turn into a stop-and-start. Action, quiet talk, backstory, my inner feelings. Action, quiet talk, backstory, your inner feelings. And it’s one of the reasons by the way these movies are so long. They are so long because everybody needs a story. It’s hard to justify why you have seven characters when only three really have lives and inner worlds and the other four are standing around doing stuff.

John: Yep.

Craig: So everybody has to have it. And they can get really long. You know, it wouldn’t kill these people to maybe, you know, kill one of them. If it’s not going well we’ll just kill them. No big deal.

John: I’m going to argue without a lot of supporting evidence that Alien is essentially one of these kind of group movies, and a lot of horror movies are those kind of group movie, and they winnow down the characters so that one person is left standing. But you couldn’t necessarily say that that person was the protagonist at the very start of the story.

Aliens is not really kind of what we’re talking about with the team movie. Even though there’s a team of great people in it, it is Ripley’s movie and it is her journey. You can clearly see her protagonist arc over the course of it. So, that’s a distinction. Even within the same franchise those are two different kind of setups. I would say – I’m arguing that the first Alien movie is kind of what we’re describing in this episode whereas Aliens is much more a classic, here is one character on a one-time journey.

Craig: Yeah. Don’t be afraid, if you need to write fodder characters you write fodder characters.

John: Oh, go for it.

Craig: I mean, people need to die. Somebody has to be the red shirt. But when you think about – Star Trek is a pretty good example I think of a kind of team story. All their movies feel like team stories to me. And in part it’s because, I mean, take away the science fiction aspect, they’re just sailors on a boat. And so we’re rooting for the boat to survive. That means everybody on the boat is important. However, if something blows up, a few people on the boat can die and we won’t miss them. It’s the people that we have invested in emotionally. Those need to be justifiable to us. They all need to be important. They’re all doing jobs that are really important. I don’t care about the janitor on USS Enterprise. They do have an important job. Really important. But not during your crisis.

John: Absolutely. And we should distinguish between, in television shows by their nature tend to have big casts with a lot of people doing stuff, so Star Trek as a TV show you say, oh well of course, there’s a big cast, there’s a team. But the Star Trek movies which I also love, that is what we’re talking about here because it’s a family. It is a group of characters, the five or six key people. They are the ones that we care about. And we don’t care about the red shirts. We want to see them come through this and survive and change and interact with each other. That’s why we’re buying our ticket for these movies.

Craig: You know what? I just had an idea.

John: Yes?

Craig: You know, so occasionally we do a deep dive into a movie. And I do like the idea of surprising people. I don’t think we’ve necessarily been particularly surprising in our choices. They’ve all been kind of classics. But you know what’s a really, really, really well-written movie?

John: Wrath of Khan?

Craig: It is. But that’s not the one I’m thinking of.

John: Tell me.

Craig: Star Trek: First Contact.

John: Oh great.

Craig: First Contact is a brilliantly written script. It is a gorgeous story where everything clicks and works together in the most lovely way.

John: Nice.

Craig: I would deep dive that. I’d deep dive the hell out of it.

John: It’s on the list. Nice.

Craig: Put it on the list. Put it on the list.

John: Put it on the list. Getting back to this idea that there’s sort of a jigsaw puzzle, there’s a lot of things happening at once, you and I have both worked on Charlie’s Angels films. I found that to be some of the most difficult writing I ever had to do because you have three protagonists, three angels, who each need their own storylines. They need to be interacting with each other a lot. They have to have a pretty complicated A-plot generally. So every scene ends up having to do work on more than just one of those aspects. If it’s just talking plot then you’re missing opportunity to do Angel B-story stuff, but you can’t do two or three Angel B-story scenes back to back because then you’ve lost the A-plot. They’re challenging movies for those reasons. And more challenging than you might guess from an outsider’s perspective.

Craig: Well, you’re spinning plates, right?

John: Yeah.

Craig: You watch them when they’re actually spinning plates. They spin the plate and then they move over and they keep this plate. This plate is slowing down, spin that one faster. The one you were just spinning, it’s in middle. That one over there is slowing down, get to that one. It’s the same thing. You kind of service these things in waves. When you feel like you’ve had a good satisfying amount of this person, leave them and move onto another side story or another aspect of this group. That person can hang for a while.

If you have left somebody for a while when you come back to them it’s got to be really good.

John: Yeah.

Craig: You’ve got to go, oh, you know what, it wasn’t like we were away from that person because there was nothing for them to do. We were away from them because they have a bomb to drop on us. And so that works, too. But just think of it as just servicing plates. Spinning plates and looking for the ones that have kind of been a little bit neglected for a little too long. Because you can’t do them all at once. It’s not possible.

John: Yeah. And so this, we talk about art and craft a lot. Some of that is just craft. It’s recognizing having built a bunch of cabinets you recognize like, OK, this is what I need to do to make these cabinet doors work properly. And I can’t, if I don’t measure this carefully those cabinet doors are going to bump into each other and you’re not going to be able to open them. It’s a design aspect that’s kind of hard to learn how to do until you’ve just done it a bunch. And recognizing the ins and outs of scenes and how long it’s been since we’ve seen this careful. What are we expecting to happen next?

And while doing all of that remembering like, OK, what is it thematically these storylines are all about. What is the bigger picture that these can all – how are we going to get everybody to the same place not just physically but emotionally for this moment.

Craig: Yeah. You find as you do these things that you can get away with almost nothing. I think early on you think, well, it’s been a little while and this person hasn’t said anything, but whatever, it’s fine. These scenes are good. And then you give it to people and they go, “So why is this dead weight hanging around here? That was weird.” And you go, well, you can’t actually get away with anything.

John: Yeah. We talked before about how a character who doesn’t talk in a scene can be a challenge, especially if they haven’t talked – if they’re just hanging in the background of a scene for a long time and haven’t said anything that becomes a problem. But if a character has been offstage for too long and then they come back it has to be meaningful when they come back and you have to remember who they are. There’s not a clear formula or math, but sometimes you will actually just do a list of scenes and recognize like, wow, I have not seen this character for so long that I won’t remember who they are. And so I’m going to have to remind people who they are when they come back. It’s challenging. And you’re trying to do this all at script stage, but then of course you shoot a movie and then you’re seeing it and you’re like, oh man, we dropped that scene and now this doesn’t make sense. That’s the jigsaw puzzle of it all.

Craig: Yeah. It’s why writers should be in charge of movies.

John: Yeah. I think so.

Craig: Just telling it like it is.

John: Well, we go back to the sort of writer-plus that you’re always pitching which is that aspect of writers sort of functioning as showrunners for films is especially important for these really complicated narratives where there’s just a lot of plate-spinning to be done.

Craig: Yeah. I think television has proven this. Really it’s empirical at this point. The other thing I wanted to mention, one last pitfall, when you’re dealing with a group dynamic and you’re writing for a family you have to make sure that no one person – no one person’s personal stakes outweigh the group stakes. We want to be rooting for this whole team to survive. And they’re working together. But if you tell me also that one of their little mini-stories is that they’ve discovered the cure for cancer now I just mostly care about that person. That person has to get out of the burning building. Everybody else should just light themselves on fire so that person can get out.

So you just want to make sure that no one person’s stakes overshadow or obliterate the other ones in the group. And really the biggest stake of all which is us staying together.

John: Yep. 100%. So some takeaways. I would say if you’re approaching a story that you think is going to be a team story I would stop and ask yourself is it really a team story or is it more Aliens where it’s one character’s story and there’s a bunch of other characters as well? Because if it is one character’s story that’s most movies and that is actually a good thing. So always ask yourself is there really one central character and everyone else is supporting that one central character? If that’s not the case and you really do genuinely have a family, a group, a series of characters who are addressing the same thing you’ve made your life more difficult but god bless you. That could be a great script. But recognize the challenges you’re going to have ahead for yourself and be thinking about how do you make this group feel like the protagonist so you feel like there has been a transformation of this group by the end of the movie.

Craig: Yeah. I think that’s exactly right. And I do believe that after this episode people should be able to do this. All of them.

John: Oh, all of them. Easy-peasy. Nothing hard to do there.

Craig: I mean, what else do you people want? We’ve almost done 400 of these.

John: Wow.

Craig: They should all be at the top of their game. There should be 400 Oscars a year for screenplay as far as I’m concerned.

John: Moving on, our feature topic today is splitting up the party, dividing the party. It’s that trope that you often see in – well originally in sort of Scooby Doo things. Let’s split up so we can cover more ground and so therefore everyone gets into trouble because they split the party. But it also happens a lot in D&D where it’s that idea of you don’t want to divide up the party because if you divide up the party you’re weaker separately than you are together. And it’s also just really annoying for players because then you’re not – you’re just sort of waiting around for it to be your turn again.

But as I thought about it like dividing the party is actually a crucial thing that we end up having to do in movies and especially now in the second Arlo Finch just so that we can actually tell the story the best way possible. So I want to talk about situations where it’s good to keep characters together, more importantly situations where you really want to keep the characters separated, apart, and why you might want to do that.

Craig: Yeah, it’s a really smart idea for a topic because it’s incredibly relevant to how we present challenges to our characters. And the reason that they always say – and it’s maybe the only real rule, meaning only real unwritten rule of roleplaying games – is don’t split up the party. Don’t split the party is really in response to just a phalanx of idiots who have split the party in the past and inevitably it doesn’t work because as you point out you are putting yourselves in more danger that way. But that is precisely what we want to do to the characters in our fixed concluding narratives because it is the very nature of that jeopardy that is going to test them and challenge them the most. And therefore their success will feel the most meaningful to us.

John: Absolutely. So let’s talk about some of the problems with big groups. And so one of the things you start to realize if you have eight characters in a scene is it’s very hard to keep them alive. And by alive I mean do they actually have a function in that scene? Have they said a line? What are they doing there? And if characters don’t talk every once and a while they really do tend to disappear. I mean, radio dramas is the most extreme example where if a character doesn’t speak they are not actually in the scene. But if a character is just in the background of a scene and just nodding or saying uh-huh that’s not going to be very rewarding for that actor. It’s going to pull focus from what you probably actually want to be doing.

Craig: Whenever I see it it kills me, because I notice it immediately. And it’s so fascinating to me when it happens and I don’t know if you’ve ever seen this great video. Patton Oswalt was a character on King of Queens. He was – I didn’t really watch the show, but I think he was a neighbor or something, or a coworker, so smaller part.

So there were many times I think where he was included in the scene in their living room, which was their main set for the sitcom, but other than his one thing to say at the beginning or the end he had nothing to do. And he apparently did this thing where through this very long scene he held himself perfectly still like a statue on purpose in the background. And you can see it on YouTube. It’s great. He’s amusing himself because the show has absolutely no use for him in that scene other than the beginning or the end.

John: That’s amazing. A situation we ran into with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is in Roald Dahl’s book Charlie Bucket gets the Golden Ticket and you’re allowed to bring two parents with you. And so Charlie only brings his uncle, but all the other characters, all the other little spoiled kids bring both parents. And that would be a disaster onscreen because you would have 15 people at the start of the factory tour. And trying to keep 15 people in a frame is really a challenge of cinema and television. There’s no good way to keep them all physically in a frame.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And that is a real problem. So what we did is basically everyone could bring one parent and it turned out the original Gene Wilder movie did the same thing. We made different choices about which parent. But then even when you get into like the big chocolate river room I’m splitting up those people and so they’re not all together as a pack because you just can’t keep them alive. You can’t get a group of more than four or five people together and actually have that moment be about something. And so they’re immediately splitting apart and going in different directions just so that you can have individual moments.

Craig: Even inside a group of characters where you haven’t technically split the party in terms of physical location, as a writer you begin to carve out a weird party split anyway because someone is inevitably going to lean in and have a quieter exchange with somebody else, or whisper to somebody else, or take somebody aside, even though they’re all still in the same room, because ultimately it is impossible to feel any kind of intimacy when you do have 15 co-equals all yammering at each other. Or, god forbid, three people yammering at each other and then 12 other people just standing there watching. That’s creepy.

John: Yep. The last thing I’ll say, the problem in big groups, is that there are conversations, there’s conflicts that you can really only see between two characters, maybe three characters, that just would not exist as part of a larger group. You’re not going to have an argument with your wife in a certain public place, but you would if it’s just the two of you. And so by breaking off those other people you allow for there to be moments that just couldn’t exist in a public setting.

And so that’s another reason why big groups just have a dampening effect often on what the natural conflicts you really want to see are in a story.

Craig: Even beyond the nature of certain conversations, there are certain aspects of basic character itself that change based on the context of who you’re around. Sometimes we don’t really get to know somebody properly until they’re alone with someone else. And then they say or do something that kind of surprises us because they are the sort of person that just blends in or shies away when there’s a lot going on. And they only kind of come out or blossom in intimacy.

Quiet characters are wonderful characters to kind of split off with because suddenly they can say something that matters. And you get to know who they really are. By the way, I think people work this way, too. We are brought up to think of ourselves as one person, right, that you’re John. But there’s many Johns. We are all many of us and we change based on how big of a group we’re in and who is in the group. So don’t be afraid to do that with your characters.

John: Yeah. So that ability to be specific to who that character is with that certain crowd and sort of the specificity of the conflicts that’s something you get in the smaller groups. But one of the other sort of hidden advantages you start to realize when you split the party up is that enables you to cut between the two groups. And that is amazingly useful for time compression. So basically getting through a bunch of stuff more quickly and sort of like if you were sticking with the same group you would have to just keep jumping forward in time. But by being able to ping pong back and forth between different groups and see where they’re at you can compress a lot of time down together. You can sort of short hand through some stuff. Giving yourself something to cut to is often the thing you’re looking for most as a screenwriter.

Craig: It is incredibly helpful for the movie once you get into the editing room of course, because you do have the certain flexibility there. You’re not trapped. There is a joy in the contrast, I think. If you’re going back and forth between let’s call them contemporaneous scenes. So they’re occurring at the same time, but they’re in different places, they can kind of comment on each other. It doesn’t have to be overt or meta, but there’s an interesting game of contrasts that you can play between two people who are enjoying a delicious meal in a beautiful restaurant and then a third person who is slogging her way through a rainy mud field. That’s a pretty broad example. It can be the tiniest of things.

But it gives you a chance to contrast which movie and film does really well and reality does poorly, because we are always stuck in one linear timeline in our lives. We never get that gift of I guess I’ll call it simultaneous perspective.

John: Yeah. So I mean a thing you come to appreciate as a screenwriter is how much energy you get out of a cut. And so you can find ways to get out of a scene and into the next scene that provide you with even more energy. But literally any time you’re cutting from one thing to another thing you get a little bit of momentum from that. And so being able to close a moment off and sort of tell the audience, OK, that thing is done and now we’re here is very useful and provides a pull through the story where if you had to stay with those characters as they were moving through things that could be a challenge.

But let’s talk about some of the downsides because there’s also splitting up the party that’s done poorly or doesn’t actually help.

Craig: Right.

John: So if you have a strong central protagonist, like it’s really all on this one character’s back, if you’re dividing up then suddenly you’re losing that POV. You’re losing that focus of seeing the story just from their perspective. And so the Harry Potter movies, the books and the movies, are all from Harry’s perspective. He is central to everything. And so if they were to cut off and just have whole subplots with Ron and Hermione where they’re doing stuff by themselves it would be different. There’s a way it could totally work, but it would be different. You know, if you’re making Gravity you really do want to stay with Sandra Bullock the whole time through. If you cut away to like on the ground with the NASA folks that would completely change your experience of that movie. So, there are definitely times where it does make sense to hold a group together so that you can stay with that central character because it’s really about his or her central journey.

Craig: Yeah. In those cases sometimes it’s helpful to think about the perspective character as a free agent. And so you still get to split the party by leaving a party to go to another party. And going back and forth. So Harry Potter has the Ron and Hermione party, and he has the Dumbledore party. And he has the snake party. And so he can move in between those and thus give us kind of different perspectives on things which is really helpful.

I mean, I personally feel like any time you’re writing about a group of people, basically you always are even if it’s a really small group, you should already be thinking about how you’re going to break them apart. Because it’s so valuable. It also helps you reinforce what they get out of the group in the first place. Because a very simple fundamental question every screenwriter should ask about their group of friends in their show or the movie is why are they friends.

We are friends with people who do something for us. Not overtly, but they are giving us something that we like. So, what is that? What are they doing for each other? And once you know that then you know why you have to break up the party. And then if they get back together what it means after that has been shattered.

John: Yep. I think as you’re watching something, if you were to watch an episode of Friends with the sound turned off most of the episode is not going to have the six of them together. They’re going to go off and do their separate things. But generally there’s going to be a moment at which they’re all back together in the course of the thing and that is a natural feeling you want. You want the party to break apart and then come back together. You want that sort of homecoming thing. That sense of completion is to have the group brought back together. That is the journey of your story. And so you’ll see that even in like Buffy the Vampire Slayer is another example of like let’s split up, let’s do different things. But you are expecting to see Xander and Buffy and Willow are all going to come back together at the end because that’s sort of the contract you’ve made with your audience.

Craig: Exactly. And that is something that’s very different about recurring episodic television as opposed to closed end features or closed end limited series. You can’t really break up the party in any kind of permanent way. Whereas in film and limited series television sometimes, and a lot of times, you must. You must split up the party permanently. I mean, there’s a great – if you’re making any kind of family drama it’s really helpful to think about this, the splitting of the party concept. I’m thinking of Ordinary People. Ordinary People ultimately is a movie about what happens, you know, the party and whether or not the party is going to stay together. And, spoiler alert, it breaks up. The party splits up permanently and you understand that is the way it must be.

John: You know, Broadcast News. And so if you want to take that central triangle of those three characters, they could stay all working together as a group, but that would not be dramatically interesting. You have to break them apart and see what they’re like in their separate spaces so you can understand the full journey of the story.

Craig: Precisely.

John: So let’s talk about how you split up a party. The simplest and probably hoariest way to do it is just the urgency thing. So the Scooby Doo like we can cover more ground if we split up, or there’s a deadline basically. We won’t get this done unless we split up. There’s too much to do and so therefore we’re going to divide. You do this and then we do that. The Guardians of the Galaxy does that. The Avengers movies tend to do that a lot where they just going off in separate directions and eventually the idea is that they’ll come back together to get that stuff done.

Craig: Yep.

John: That works for certain kinds of movies. It doesn’t work for a lot of movies. But it’s a way to get it done. But I think if you can find the natural rhythms that make it clear why the characters are apart, that’s probably going to be a better solution for most movies. You know, friends aren’t always together. Friends do different stuff. And friends have other friends and so they’re apart from each other.

People work. And so that sense of like you have a work family and a home family. That’s a way of separating things. And there’s people also grouped by common interest, so you can have your hero who is a marathon runner who goes off doing marathon-y stuff, marathon people, marathon-y stuff, who goes running with people which breaks him off from the normal – the group that we’re seeing the rest of the time. You can find ways to let themselves be the person pulling themselves away from the group.

Craig: Yeah. There’s also all sorts of simple easy ways where the world breaks the party apart, walls and doors drop down between people. Somebody is arrested and put in prison. Somebody is pulled away. Someone dies. Dying, by the way, great way to break up a party. That’s a terrific party split. Yeah. There’s all sorts of – somebody falls down, gets hurt, and you have to take them to the hospital. There’s a hundred different things.

And I suppose what I would advise writers is to think about using a split method that will allow you, the writer, to get the most juice out of this new circumstance of this person and this person together, which is different than what we’ve seen before. So where would that be and how would it work and why would it feel a certain way as opposed to a different way.

And you can absolutely do this, even if you have three people. I mean, you mention Broadcast News so let’s talk about James Brooks and As Good as it Gets. Once you start this road trip it’s three characters and the party splits multiple times in different ways.

John: Yeah. The reason I think I was thinking about this this week is I’m writing the third Arlo Finch. And the first Arlo Finch is a boy who comes to this mountain town. He joins the patrol and there are six people in his patrol. His two best friends are sort of the central little triad there. But there’s a big action sequence that has six characters. And supporting six characters in that sequence killed me. It was a lot to do.

In writing the second book, which is off in a summer camp, you got that patrol and that is the main family, but I was deliberately looking for ways to split them apart so that characters could have to make choices by themselves and so that Arlo Finch could have to step up and do stuff without the support of his patrol. But also allow for natural conflicts that would divide the patrol against themselves and surprises that take sort of key members out of patrol.

And that was the central sort of dramatic question of the story is like will this family sort of come back together at the end.

And then the third book is a chance to sort of match people up differently. So you get to go on trips with people who are not the normal people you would bring on a certain trip. And that’s fun to see, too. So, you can go to places that would otherwise be familiar but you’re going into these places with people who would not be the natural people to go in this part of the world.

Craig: Yeah. You get to mix and match and strange bedfellows and all that. That’s part of the fun of this stuff. We probably get a little wrapped up in the individual when we’re talking about character, but I always think about that question that Lindsay Doran is lobbing out to everybody. What is the central relationship of your story? And thereby you immediately stop thinking about individual characters. OK, this character is like this and this character – that’s why maybe more than anything I hate that thing in scripts where people say, you know, “Jim, he’s blah-blah-blah, and he used to be this, and now he’s this.” I don’t care.

I only am interested in Jim and his relationship to another human being. At least one other and hopefully more. So, I try and think about the party and the relationships and the connections between people as the stuff that matters. Because in the end mostly that’s what you’re writing.

John: Absolutely true.

We are back now in 2022. Craig is gone, because Craig was never actually really here. He just, through the magic tape, was here with us. It’s time for our One Cool Things. Megana, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

Megana: I do. My One Cool Thing is the Hydroviv under-the-sink water filtration system.

John: Fantastic.

Megana: I drink a lot of water.

John: I can testify you do drink a lot of water, which is good. It’s healthy.

Megana: I do, yeah. My favorite type of water is room temperature tap water. Living in LA, it’s sometimes hard to drink straight from the tap.

John: To clarify, it is safe to drink from the tap. Sometimes it’s just not what you want.

Megana: In my new apartment, I was drinking from the tap, and it just tasted like I was drinking from a pool. I feel like I always had this metallic tang in my mouth. I was like, “Oh, it’s not great.” I was looking at different options. The Brita filter is just one step too many for me.

John: Absolutely. That’s where you’re filling the pitcher again and again. We used to have those in the house.

Megana: There’s just never enough water. I was looking at under-the-sink systems, because that seemed like the best option. I found this company. I originally found out about them on Shark Tank. Because of that, I wasn’t going to go with that.

John: I wouldn’t.

Megana: After doing research, I felt like they were the best option. They’re a little bit pricier. Their pitch is that they design filters that respond to city-specific needs. I put in my zip code, and then they would send me a customized thing back. I installed it myself. It’s been a couple of months. My water’s delicious.

John: That’s great. How often do you change the filters on this system?

Megana: Every six months.

John: That’s not so bad. That’s not bad at all. Here at the house, the whole house is on one water filter system, which has been really nice and convenient. We used to do Brita filter pitchers, and we don’t need to anymore. The water in our house though is okay for you, right?

Megana: Yeah, it’s so delicious. It’s one of the many reasons I look forward to coming to work.

John: My One Cool Thing is called BLOT2046. It is a manifesto. I’m really not sure what this website is I’m sending people to. It’s mysterious. There’s a signup for a mailing list. I haven’t signed up for it because I’m not sure if it’s a cult or what it is. Basically, on this page there are 46 bullet points. They were intriguing and sometimes opaque and mysterious. I’ll give you a sampling of three of them. Point 16 is, “Hypnotize yourself or someone else will,” which I get, is that if you’re not able to introspect and see what is it that you would get yourself to focus on, someone else is going to take that attention and pull it through.

“Work in the semi-open. Translucency, not transparency,” which I think is actually applicable to a lot of stuff we do in film and television is that you cannot be completely transparent about the things you’re working on, because they’re not ready to be seen by the world. Yet if you’d want to lock everything down where it’s completely opaque and impossible to see too early on, no one’s going to have a sense of what it is you’re working on. Translucency feels like a good word to be using there.

The final point, point 42, “There’s no away, no elsewhere, not really.” We think, “Oh, if I could ever get away,” but you really can’t get away. You have to find a way to get away within yourself.

Megana: I feel like that’s a strong theme in film and TV. Is this a manifesto for how to live your life, or is that unclear?

John: It’s really unclear. I think some of them are actually about manufacturing and sustainability. Really any of them felt like good prompts for writing, actually, that you could take any of these ideas and use them as a thematic touchpoint for a piece of storytelling.

Megana: Cool. It’s a cool, spooky website.

John: It is a very spooky website.

Megana: I would recommend the click.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is a vintage track by Rajesh Naroth. 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’m @johnaugust. We have T-shirts. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. We also have hoodies, which are lovely. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on Stranger Things.

Megana: I cannot wait.

John: Megana Rao, thank you very much for joining me and for putting together this episode.

Megana: Of course. Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Speaking of group dynamics, there is one group we love more than any other. It is our Premium Members, so thank you for supporting the show. We are joined for this segment by Drew Marquardt, who is helping us out this summer working on the Scriptnotes book. Drew, welcome to the podcast in audio form, not text form like you’ve been dealing with.

Drew Marquardt: Thank you so much, both of you, for having me.

John: Great.

Drew: Am I Craig now?

John: You are in the Craig spot, so you have to have a lot of umbrage about all things. That’s good. That’s a good sigh.

Megana: That was a great impression.

John: It’s nice. We all just finished watching the first half of Season 4 of Stranger Things. Relevant to this episode about group dynamics, there were a lot of group dynamics at play within this first half of the season. There was a lot of place setting. There was a lot of just groups being put together and pulled apart and spread out all over. I thought, let’s talk about what we think so far of the show. Maybe start with a thumbs up, thumbs down. Megana Rao, are you thumbs up or thumbs down for this first seven episodes?

Megana: I am two thumbs up.

John: Two thumbs up. Drew, where are you?

Drew: I’m more of a single thumbs up, but I’m thumbs up.

John: I’m maybe one and a half thumbs up, if you can split a thumb, if you can divide a thumb. I liked a lot of this. I felt like the episodes were long, and longer than they needed to be in cases. I felt like they could’ve cut many of these 90-minute episodes down into 60 minutes and they would’ve been better episodes. Still, I wasn’t upset with the episodes I was watching.

Megana: I don’t know, it still felt like not enough for me.

John: You want more and more.

Megana: More and more. I love hanging out with these characters.

John: Let’s talk about the characters we’re hanging out with, because obviously this is going to be spoiler-heavy throughout. If you haven’t watched it and you aren’t planning to watch it, maybe pause this right now and come back after you’ve watched 19 hours of television. We start the season with our characters really spread out in very different places than we’ve seen before. They’re not all in our little town of Hawkins. Some are in Hawkins. Some are in California.

Megana: Some are in Russia.

John: Some are in Russia. People are spread out. Megana, controversially, you did not like any of the Russian segments?

Megana: Oh my gosh, I don’t know if I’m ready to publicly air that.

John: I think you were talking about friends of yours who had fast-forwarded through all the Russian stuff.

Megana: Friends of mine did. I watched everything. I did not fast-forward through any of the Russian plot lines. I don’t know, just where we are right now, I’m just not really interested in Russia as a villain. I just wanted everyone to be back together in Hawkins.

John: Drew, how much did they need to catch you up on who the characters were and where they were at the start of the show?

Drew: A little bit. It’s been three years or something like that.

Megana: Oh my gosh.

Drew: I felt like they did a good job jumping you right into the story. I initially felt like I was going to be confused by why Hopper was still alive. Even when Papa comes back, I thought there was going to be quite a lot of… They did a good job, I thought, of just giving you enough information to justify why it’s there and then move the story along, because we don’t really need to dwell on it.

John: I think I had a hard time remembering why was Eleven with Winona Ryder’s family and all that stuff. I knew they had left. That first episode was a lot of just putting the pieces on the table…

Megana: Totally.

John: …and reminding, okay, all these characters are still alive, and this is why they’re spread out. I thought centering it around spring break made a lot of sense, which was great. It was a lot of just reminding us who these characters were and where they are and the dynamics.

Megana: Who’s died and who’s recovering from what trauma.

Drew: I thought Jonathan had died, for some reason. I knew that Billy had died in Season 3. When he was back, I was like, “I thought he was long gone.”

John: I was ready for Jonathan to be long gone. Let’s jump forward then to the end of these seven episodes. One of the things I was talking with Megana about at lunch was I was really impressed by, when we get into Episode 7, the reveal of who the big bad is and how the big bad came to be and all that stuff. They’re actually doing the reveal split across two different plot lines and different timelines.

Megana: And dimensions.

John: And dimensions, basically, just to really expose who this character was and that this character was created by Eleven, and some strong misdirects along the way that Eleven was responsible for this horrible massacre that starts everything off this season.

Megana: I really loved the villain of the season. I think previously the villains from the Upside Down had been just these generic monsters. I love how personal this one is.

John: Keeping the characters separated though, from California to Hawkins, has been a little awkward. Eventually, it looks like they’re going to be trying to bring these characters back together. We have the California crew. Eleven is split off from them and is in a completely different environment. We have the main Hawkins group that’s sometimes in groups of two or three, small groups within there. We’re going to the sanitarium or places. Then we have all the Russia business, which is self-contained, the Alaska Russia business. It was a lot of juggling. I was noticing that most episodes would try to touch on every plot line except for one. There’d always be one group that was dropped out of it. There’d be episodes in which none of the California crew were part of it.

Megana: The one thing that I… Maybe you guys can explain this to me. I had trouble locating the Will-Mike relationship and why there was so much strife there and felt so bad for Will, because he’s been gone in the Upside Down for years.

John: He wasn’t gone for years though. Will? No.

Megana: Wasn’t he gone in the first and second season? Am I misremembering?

Drew: I think just the first season. Then he was a shadow walker in the second season, where it’s going mentally back and forth.

Megana: Got it.

Drew: I think he has a crush on Mike, right?

John: Yeah.

Drew: That’s what I was being telegraphed.

John: I think they’re trying to tap dance around his being gay or not being gay. It’s left up for audience interpretation. It feels like it’s inevitably going to come out. They’re not afraid of having gay characters, based on other gay characters they have in the show.

Megana: Then why do you think Mike was such a jerk to him?

John: I’m not quite sure why Mike is the way he is in this series at all?

Drew: That was less motivated to me. Mike hasn’t had as strong of a character, but maybe because I felt like they had abandoned Will or they didn’t know what to do with Will after Season 1 for quite a long time. At least in this, there feels like there’s much more a thrust for his character, and he’s going after something. Mike is good. Mike is moving along the plot, but he’s not really.

John: He’s not moving along the plot very much. Curious what he does in the second half of this. Let’s talk about the new characters who were added, because it’s already a giant cast, and they add just a lot of new people in. Some of them are going to be like, oh, you were established in this episode, and therefore you’ll be dead by the end of the episode, which is a classic trope. Some of those people look like they are going to be sticking around, which is surprising to me, and yet this is where we’re at.

Megana: I love Argyle. I know some of you have very strong opinions on him.

John: Argyle is pizza guy?

Megana: Pizza guy.

John: I cannot stand Argyle.

Drew: I like Argyle.

John: You like Argyle?

Drew: Yeah.

John: To me, he feels like just the broadest stereotype.

Megana: He’s California.

John: He’s California. Tell me why you like Argyle, Drew.

Drew: It might be a fondness for the actor. He was in Booksmart too. He’s great. Something about his personality I just enjoy. For some reason, he feels like a nice foil to that, because they really do make that plot line, especially when the soldiers come into the house in Episode 4 or something like that. It’s nice to have him having a bit of levity, because otherwise I think that would be very heavy.

John: It can be very heavy. I thought these soldiers storming into the house was actually one of the most effective things they’ve done all season, where they’ve established a plan for what they’re going to do, and then suddenly all bets are off, and then suddenly there are people storming in. The thing you did not expect to happen at all suddenly happens, which is nice to see. Do I believe that the army is after their own people in that way and that that one guy’s being tortured? Not really. I did like the surprise of suddenly there’s armed weapons in the house.

Drew: I may be most confused by that little bit of storyline. Then the torturing, the one survived, the guy afterwards, I’m not quite sure what that’s all about.

John: I wasn’t expecting for them to be burying bodies in the desert, that our little high school kids are burying bodies in the desert. That’s a shift there.

Megana: They seemed to move on really quickly from that.

John: These kids have been through a lot of trauma. I think there’s just so much to work through. A thing we were talking about is that in shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there’s a metaphysical explanation for why no one in Sunnydale ever talks about the weird stuff that happens in Sunnydale. There’s not a lot of acknowledgement in Hawkins that they’ve been through a tremendous amount. Somehow, nobody recognizes that something horrible is happening here. The biggest we have is the angry pitchforks mob meeting that happens. It doesn’t feel like they’re acknowledging all the stuff that we’ve seen happen in Hawkins.

Megana: I feel like if I were one of these characters, I would have a harder time keeping up all these lies that my friends and I are telling the rest of the town.

John: It’s true. Also, what’s happened to the mall? Did they rebuild the mall? What’s going on there? We never get back to the mall.

Drew: They mention the mall fire a few times. I couldn’t even remember how Season… I remembered Billy died at the end of Season 3, but I didn’t remember that that burned down.

John: Also, this season, I was impressed by… I felt like Eleven in California was really awkward. It was useful to see that she can’t do normal teen things, and she’s actually not perceived as being gifted there, but actually being slow, and so she’s undereducated and really struggling. The stuff once they actually brought her back into the lab was impressively handled. The handoff between her and the little actress who’s playing the younger version of her was very smartly done.

Drew: Do you feel like they’re challenging her character in a way that they haven’t done before? That was something that struck me but I didn’t remember in Season 2 or Season 3. It feels like this is a good escalation for her character between Vecna and all of these different things and bringing Papa back too.

Megana: I feel like I was most interested in her at school struggling, because I think the stuff with Papa and all of that… I love that she is facing and unearthing that stuff, but it feels like a place we’ve seen her before, where she’s isolated from the rest of the group, figuring stuff out with her own powers.

John: Drew, because we have you on the show, you are an actor, and so you are young enough that you could play one of these teenage characters.

Drew: That’s being very kind.

John: Are you noticing any things that they’re doing to try to seem young? They are considerably older than the characters they’re supposed to be playing.

Drew: I haven’t picked up on anything. I haven’t been acting for a while. I see them as the professionals and letting the professionals do that. I’m trying to remember. I’m really impressed with Lucas’s little sister, who I forget her name.

Megana: Erica.

Drew: Erica.

Megana: Love her.

Drew: She rules. She’s not trying to play… She’s clearly not 11 or however old she’s supposed to be in that. She’s just playing it as her age, which I think is smart, because I think to an 11-year-old too you are at the top of your intelligence all the time. She’s the person who’s coming to mind as an example of doing it correctly. I don’t really notice anyone playing younger in an awkward way or bumbling way.

John: One of the things they have to do in that first episode too is establish the baseline of this is how the characters are and how they’re going to act. We’re getting set that these characters are this age from the rest of this on. The fact that Steve seems a lot older than the rest of them, but he’s only supposed to be two years older than the rest of them, which is just… We’re going with it, for me.

Megana: He’s a couple years out of high school now.

John: He’s that old, supposed to be?

Megana: I thought so, because he graduated and is now working around town, or am I misremembering?

Drew: I’ve also lost the timeline on Steve and on Nancy, because I assumed that she had already graduated, she graduated with him, but that is totally wrong.

Megana: I think she’s still in school.

Drew: She’s still in school, because she’s doing the paper.

John: She’s still supposed to be in high school or in some sort of local college?

Megana: That kid Fred is definitely in high school, the one that she works with. I also have no idea how old Robin is. Do we ever see her at school?

Drew: That’s a good point.

Megana: I love her character.

John: I don’t know if she’s still in school or not. I don’t think we’ve seen her at school at all. We’ve seen her at school, because she is in the marching band. She’s still in school. We’ve now stalled long enough that Megana can talk about Steve Harrington and why the show should entirely be about Steve Harrington and everyone else is just there to pass the time.

Megana: I feel like I had a major funk last week where I was reading fan theories and people were like, “Steve is definitely going to die.” I’m embarrassed by how I processed that. I love Steve Harrington. I think he’s so charming. As I was telling John, he’s a big part of maybe the biggest reason that I watch the show is to get to a Steve scene.

John: Are you hoping that Steve and Nancy get back together? Is that a goal for you, or you just want Steve and whatever?

Megana: That’s interesting. I don’t know. I think Nancy and Jonathan are a good fit. I just love Steve’s friendship with Robin. The Steve-Dustin relationship/Steve and Eddie fighting over Dustin is now my favorite thing to watch.

John: Can you explain Jonathan and why Jonathan’s a character that anyone cares about?

Megana: I don’t know how I’ve gotten myself into this position. He’s a loyal older brother. I think that he’s burdened with this responsibility of taking care of his family, and he’s struggling to do that. He was more of a creep in the first season. I found him really compelling for that reason, just this misunderstood, lovesick boy who’s taking these creepy pictures of Nancy. I feel like we’ve lost that bit. Maybe him being a protective older brother.

John: I get that. Let’s wrap up with our Deadpool. Who do we think is not going to make it through the end of the full Season 4? I’ve got my opinion, but I’m curious what you think.

Drew: I hope we don’t lose Eddie, but I think we might. They’ve done a great job. I don’t know, I fell in love with him from Episode 1. I’m a big Eddie fan. I think that’s only to rip my heart out, which would be too bad, because I think he’s a really good addition to the cast. I might say Steve.

Megana: No.

Drew: I know. I’m so sorry. I think they’re going to go for it.

Megana: I think so too. I think that’s why I’m so heartbroken.

John: I’m going to guess Mike, who hasn’t done a lot this season, but I think will actually pick up a little bit. I feel like he wants to leave the show too. It doesn’t seem like he’s going to be sticking around.

Drew: That’s good.

John: I don’t know. We’ll see.

Megana: Anyone but Steve.

John: Anyone but Steve. Dustin they can’t lose. It would be very surprising to lose Dustin. I think they could lose Eleven. It would be a big shock to lose Eleven, but you could.

Drew: Maybe Will, because I think they’ve been vamping with his character for a few seasons. Now they have a little bit, but if we-

John: The problem is, you kill Will, then you’re back into the kill your gays meme, bury your gays, and that’s not good.

Drew: That’s [inaudible 01:19:15].

Megana: I did read an interesting thing about maybe Jonathan dies and then Will becomes evil or turns evil. I think that also would fall into the same meme of having a gay character as the villain.

John: That’s Willow from Buffy.

Megana: As long as Steve’s there.

John: As long as Steve’s there, it doesn’t really matter what happens to the rest of the group. Just the Steve show. Thank you guys.

Megana: Thank you.

Drew: Thank you.

John: Bye.

Links:

  • Scriptnotes Episode 360: Relationships
  • Scriptnotes Episode 395: All in this Together
  • Scriptnotes Episode 383: Splitting the Party
  • Stranger Things on Netflix
  • Hydroviv Water Filter
  • Blot 2046 Manifesto
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Rajesh Naroth (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao (ft. our summer intern Drew Marquardt and segments by Megan McDonnell) and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.