• 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, Ep: 400, Movies They Don’t Make Anymore Transcript

May 24, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

Craig Mazin: Hi folks. On today’s episode there is some language, some salty language, so if you’re in the car with your children go ahead and stop playing it or put the earmuff’s on them.

Male Voice: What the F are you talking about?

Craig: Wow.

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

Craig: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 400 of Scriptnotes.

Craig: Wow.

John: A podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: Today on this, our quartercentenary, we are going to be talking about movie genres and sub-genres that aren’t getting made anymore, and how we can fix this. To help us out we are joined by a guest from exactly 100 episodes ago. Chris McQuarrie is a writer and director whose credits include The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie, Jack Reacher, the last two Mission: Impossibles, the next two as well. Chris McQuarrie, welcome back.

Chris McQuarrie: Thank you very much for having me.

Craig: So the deal is every 100 episodes we have worked up enough tolerance to have McQuarrie back.

Chris: You know, Craig–

Craig: Here we go.

Chris: You weren’t here for the last one.

Craig: That’s why it wasn’t very good. [laughs]

Chris: And I miss that.

Craig: I can tell. Chris McQuarrie and I have been engaged in a, what, 15-year-long argument about everything.

Chris: About everything.

Craig: Literally everything.

Chris: I don’t think it’s even much – it’s not so much an argument as it is a–

Craig: It’s a love story at this point.

Chris: It’s the duelists.

Craig: Yes, exactly.

Chris: I think that’s how you would describe our relationship.

Craig: Correct. You wake up in the morning, you go to work, fighting this man you must fight.

John: So back in Episode 300 I was talking to you and we were both living in Paris because you were directing Mission: Impossible. It hadn’t come out yet. You were in the middle of shooting it. It turned out really well, so congratulations on that.

Chris: Thank you.

Craig: Amazing.

Chris: Thank you very much.

Craig: And two more to come.

Chris: Two more to come.

Craig: So the idea is you’ll make these until they kill you? Meaning the movies are going to kill you.

Chris: It’s more likely that they will kill me than they will kill Tom Cruise.

Craig: No, nothing kills Tom Cruise. You’ve proven that. By the way, openly attempting to murder him through film. I mean, everyone knows what you’re doing.

Chris: I have been described as his enabler. He describes me as his enabler. I’m not actually trying to kill him, I’m just trying to–

Craig: Could have fooled me.

Chris: I’m trying to just – no, he would – he would be doing most of this stuff–

Craig: Movie number one, let’s drown him. Movie number two, oh, hang him off a plane–

Chris: Well the drowning I don’t think he would try to do.

Craig: Oh, hang him off of a plane. Then let’s drown him. Then let’s make him hurtle from a roof. Oh, he broke a bone. Too bad. Keep going.

Chris: Yeah, that’s true.

Craig: Wow. You’re killing him in front of us.

Chris: I’m whittling him away. But when you see him in Top Gun–

Craig: That’s right, Top Gun Deuce.

Chris: Top Gun Maverick.

Craig: Maverick.

Chris: He looks younger in Top Gun than he did in Fallout. And I can tell you it’s not surgical because there was absolutely no time in between for him to do that.

Craig: So magic?

John: Just magic.

Chris: No. You know what it is? It’s incredible. It’s diet and exercise.

Craig: No, I don’t like that.

Chris: He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t drink booze. Look, we know what the agers are. Stay out of the sun. Don’t drink alcohol. Don’t smoke cigarettes.

Craig: You just said three things that I hate.

Chris: Love what you do.

Craig: Love what you do, exactly.

Chris: And there’s a book you can read called Younger Next Year and it’s all about–

Craig: I’m not reading that shit. [laughs]

Chris: You should definitely read it.

Craig: Not gonna.

Chris: Because guys our age, we all have to read it. And essentially what the book says is once you start rounding the horn into your 50s you just start–

Craig: Dying.

Chris: Not dying. It’s decay. And that the more you exercise–

Craig: Sweet decay. Sweet decay.

Chris: The more you exercise the more you hold off that decay. Tom has been on a regimen for 30 years now that’s–

Craig: I’m going to argue that none of us are going to do that. That we will be here at 500–

Chris: Sitting at this table I can tell you there are three guys sitting at this table who don’t work out the recommended one-hour a day, six days a week.

Craig: Not a chance. Nah, but you know what, we know words.

John: We do know the words.

Craig: I mean, the vocabulary between the three of us is astonishing.

John: It’s got to be a lot. All of those words. Craig?

Craig: Yes.

John: This episode is a milestone not only in that it’s 400 but it’s also the first episode we’re recording after Chernobyl has reached the air.

Craig: Yes, we are post-Chernobyl.

John: We are post-Chernobyl.

Chris: Has it reached the air?

John: Yes.

Craig: Last night.

John: We’re recording this on a Tuesday. Monday was the first night that it aired.

Chris: I cannot wait to see it.

Craig: You don’t have to wait. It’s on the air.

John: It’s on demand already.

Chris: No, I know. From where we’re sitting right now I will run home and watch it.

Craig: Very good.

Chris: This evening on HBO.

Craig: You’ve always been a big backer of the show.

Chris: I have deep personal feelings of resentment about Chernobyl.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: I wanted to make that show.

Craig: Here’s what Chris said. Chris said, “I would like to direct Chernobyl.” And I said, but Chris, you’re making Mission: Impossible. And he said, “No problem.” And I said, I think a problem.

Chris: Well, actually, before that though I wasn’t making Mission: Impossible.

Craig: Sure. And then you were again. And you kept saying–

Chris: But in the window where I wasn’t making it.

Craig: Right.

Chris: I went to HBO and said I’ll make it. And HBO, they were very polite but I could see in their eyes they were thinking, “Well if he wants to direct it who else can we get?”

John: No.

Craig: Oh no. I don’t think so.

Chris: For sure.

Craig: I think maybe what they were saying was, “So in post he’s going to be prepping a Mission: Impossible movie.”

Chris: I would have been–

Craig: I think that may have been what it was.

Chris: Is this why I can’t get a job doing anything else? This is why nobody else will offer me movies just because they all think I’m just going to be in post on Mission: Impossible.

Craig: No, it’s because I’ve gone around town just killing you.

So, Chernobyl on the air at long last. Five years. I looked in my little folder. Do you guys keep a folder of all your–?

John: Old drafts?

Craig: Yeah.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: And so the oldest document I have in my Chernobyl folder is from like May 12, 2014. Almost exactly five years ago. And it was actually very comforting because the header was “Stuff to Figure Out.” And it was just like what’s this about, who’s in it, what would the episodes be? It was just a bunch of questions that any idiot could ask. I guess they all start that way, don’t they?

Chris: No. I need to do that more often. I don’t ask myself those questions, which is probably why–

Craig: We’ll get into that.

Chris: Yeah. I will say this, the other thing I said, you remember you sent me the script. I was on the east coast getting on a plane.

Craig: Yes, you read them on a plane.

Chris: And you texted them to me just before the plane took off so I had two scripts to read. And I landed and I called you up and I said I would cut one word and I would change one word.

John: That’s why you did not get the job.

Craig: I threw a fit. How dare you?

Chris: Exactly. I guess the guy who they hired didn’t cut that word or change that word.

John: You’re not to do those things.

Craig: By the way, I tried to change that word many, many times and could never do it. I couldn’t come up with anything better.

Chris: Just couldn’t come up with anything better. Well, I could have made a suggestion.

Craig: Probably.

Chris: But more importantly that was a damn good script. Scripts. I read two episodes.

Craig: So now it’s a show and I don’t know what like ratings are per se, but the response has been very positive.

John: Part of the reason why you’ve gone for some episodes is you were talking at the UN. You were at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Craig: Yes.

John: You got to do all these amazing things.

Chris: Dear god.

John: You recorded a whole other podcast series with Peter Sagal.

Craig: Yes.

John: Which I started listening to which is great.

Craig: Yes, yes. So the idea there was because so much of what the show is about is the cost of lies and narrative and the way narrative distorts truth I felt that it was important that we hold ourselves accountable for the ways we changed things to be able to tell the story. So Peter Sagal of NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me and I recorded a companion piece. So after each episode airs on HBO or on Sky Atlantic over there in the UK then there is this little companion piece that comes along that you can download from Stitcher or Apple or any of those podcast places. I’ve learned, by the way, that Stitcher is a thing. I had to learn that for this.

And we just have a discussion about what we changed and why and illuminate other various topics of interest.

Chris: We did something like that on Valkyrie actually. Nathan and I did a second commentary track where we went through and said here’s all the things we changed and what really happened.

Craig: Why do you think people – I think it was incredibly – I thought very satisfying to do it. I felt honest and good. And I didn’t sense that, and John, you listened to it so I’m going to ask you. Did you feel like maybe by learning that some things had been changed that I had in any way undermined the experience of watching the show?

John: No. In the first episode you talk–

Chris: You mean the fact that Chernobyl didn’t really happen?

Craig: There is no place called Chernobyl.

John: It’s all made up in fairy land. For example, that a key character actually had a family and you portray him as not having a family.

Craig: Correct.

John: That is a big distinction in a character’s life, but it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the event that happened.

Craig: Correct. And that kind of was the rule that we tried to follow which is I really did not want to change anything that would fundamentally make things more dramatic or–

John: You didn’t want to chat to make it more exciting.

Craig: I didn’t want to cheat.

Chris: Because the events surrounding Chernobyl need punching up. [laughs]

Craig: Yeah. Kind of like let’s just let the truth be the truth here.

Chris: Well, and I remember calling you and saying, OK, what of this, having done of adaptations of like what is true, what did you gin up? And we had had a conversation very early on before you started writing it.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: You were in London. We all went out to dinner.

Craig: Yes. And then I think you were on a plane to Alaska or something like that.

Chris: Yes. I was going to the Ice Cap, which didn’t happen.

Craig: As one does.

Chris: As one does.

Craig: That’s what McQuarrie does.

Chris: I was going to do research and I was on my way to the Ice Cap and from London to get to the Ice Cap you have to fly from London to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Seattle, Seattle to Alaska, where you get off the plane and go across the airport to where the military C130 with skis on it is waiting to take you to this ice station.

Craig: Jews don’t do this. Ever.

Chris: And the Ice Cap – I got to Vegas and turned my phone on and there were all these text messages saying the Ice Cap is breaking up and they are going to evacuate the ice station and you’re not going this year. And I have never made it.

Craig: Well, at the very least it was a short flight from London to Las Vegas.

Chris: Well, I got to spend the night in Vegas.

Craig: Oh, hey!

Chris: Which is better than an Ice Cap.

Craig: This podcast is absolutely out of control. John’s eyelid must be twitching by now.

John: It’s fine. We’re vaguely on the outline still. I mean, the Ice Cap was a diversion, but–

Chris: Yes. I see on the outline it says lose the plot.

John: Lose the plot.

Craig: Exactly.

John: To get back on plot, we should also say that we actually have a live show coming up.

Craig: Yes.

John: Every year we do a benefit for Hollywood Heart, which is a great charity that provides services to homeless youth and youth with HIV. We always have great guests. This year we will again have great guests for our live show on June 13th. The big change this time is we are trying to sell out the Ace Hotel. Which is a much bigger venue.

Craig: It’s a great theater. It’s a big venue. It’s a great venue. Definitely please come see us. Buy tickets. We always deliver on the guests. Don’t worry about that. But really aren’t we enough?

John: We should be enough.

Craig: We should be enough.

John: But the guests are really the topping on the ice cream sundae.

Craig: The guests are the topping.

John: So it’s Thursday June 13 at the Ace Hotel. Tickets are available now and there will be a link in the show notes for those.

Craig: For charity.

John: For charity.

Craig: And this is a charity that our good mutual friend, John Gatins, is on the board.

Chris: Oh lovely.

Craig: So this is all part of Gatins’ world.

Chris: We love John Gatins.

Craig: We do.

John: Also in celebration of 400 episodes we have new Scriptnotes shirts. So I’m showing these to Craig and Chris right now. So this is–

Craig: Those are so great.

John: This is the light version of the shirt. This is Scriptnotes 400. It has a sort of blank VHS videotape, was the feel I was going for with these shirts.

Craig: You nailed it.

Chris: You nailed it.

Craig: That’s amazing. I love it.

John: The dark version of the shirt.

Craig: Ooh, dark is nice. Dark kind of gives me a little bit of an Atari vibe. Yeah, I love it. That’s a little bit Breakout. I love it. This is a good shirt.

John: Good shirt.

Craig: Percentage of proceeds that go to me?

John: Are none.

Craig: Consistently zero. 400 episodes.

John: Still not making any money out of this.

Craig: Still not making any money.

John: But at least you don’t have to pay money. Early on in the first like 50 episodes Craig would have to write a check for hosting fees and all that kind of stuff.

Craig: Now John drives a Rolls Royce that’s tacked on top of a Maserati.

Chris: Is it sponsored the podcast?

Craig: No, we don’t do ads.

John: We have no ads. We have nothing.

Craig: We are free in every freaking way.

Chris: In every freaking way. You do this out of the goodness of your heart?

Craig: This is the only thing I do out of the goodness – first of all, I don’t have a heart, as you know.

Chris: Or goodness.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: I was looking at John.

Craig: But I simulate – it’s how I simulate humanity.

Chris: Yes.

John: So these shirts which Craig gets no money for are available in black and white and navy. We also have hoodies this time, so check them out.

Craig: Ooh, I’m getting a hoodie. You know I love a hoodie.

John: We all love a hoodie. Now we finally get back on outline to talk about the feature topic. And so every once and a while we do a This Kind of Movie, where we took a look at a genre, a sub-genre of movie that is not currently popular and we discuss how we would make that movie in 2019 or really 2020, or 2021 realistically. As we’re recording this Disney just put out a list of all their upcoming movies through 2023.

Craig: Right. Which are all Star Wars.

John: They’re all Star Wars or princess movies. But if we wanted to try to make one of these movies what we would need to do to get those on the Disney schedule?

Chris: Oh, onto the Disney schedule?

John: Or really any schedule. Any schedule.

Craig: Witchcraft at this point I think.

Chris: Not true.

Craig: Oh, here we go. Oh, look, I’m having an argument with Chris McQuarrie.

Chris: It’s not an argument. An argument would be a conflict of two different opinions.

Craig: He’s arguing about us having an argument. [laughs]

John: No, no, we’re not having an argument. You don’t understand. This is not an argument.

Craig: How dare you?

Chris: I’d like an argument please.

Craig: I love that sketch.

Chris: See, an argument would be if you had an opinion and I had an opinion, but you’re not allowed to have an opinion anymore.

Craig: Ugh.

Chris: If you just avoid opinions and stick to facts.

John: 100 percent facts.

Chris: Yes, then I can’t get into any trouble.

John: Chernobyl.

Chris: Don’t have an opinion. And that’s why we are not arguing.

Craig: The truth matters. The truth matters.

Chris: Because I’m right.

Craig: Let’s get back to the topic at hand. It’s turning into The Morning Zoo.

John: In previous installments of this segment we have saved romantic comedies. I mean, I think we can all agree that romantic comedies were dead and then we brought them back to life.

Craig: We did. We resuscitated them.

John: I think we also did some work on westerns.

Craig: They’re back.

John: So I went on Twitter and asked people for other genres or sub-genres that need saving.

Craig: That have been sort of underserved.

Chris: So I have a long suffering script. A script that’s been sitting around for years and years and years. I don’t own it. I was commissioned to write it by a producer. You would put it in the category of it’s a redemption story, personal drama, you put it in that kind of Verdict sort of–

Craig: Oh, OK. What is the genre-genre?

Chris: It’s a drama.

Craig: Just sort of people?

Chris: It is a female-driven drama. Woman goes to prison.

Craig: OK, prison.

Chris: No, beginning of the story she goes to prison. Two scenes later she gets out of prison 14 years later and is trying to reconnect with her sister who was four-years-old when she went into prison and has been lost in the system.

Craig: OK.

Chris: OK. So the kind of movie that in 1973 would have been released every other weekend.

John: Totally.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: And Netflix. Post Mission: Impossible Netflix said we want to do this. And what Netflix is after now, they’re fairly genre-agnostic. They’re really looking for, A, content.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: They’re frantically trying to line their pockets with content.

Craig: That appears to be the case.

Chris: Before Disney fires up the whatever they’re doing. But also building relationships with talent. And they looked at this thing and said this is imminently cast-able. There is now, I can’t say who but there is a great actress interested in the role. And Netflix is just standing by and they’re going to do it.

Craig: That’s awesome.

Chris: The kind of movie that even two, three years ago would have been inconceivable. Another project that I was briefly attached to, I’m attached to it now as a producer, was a WWII movie, but a WWII drama. It’s not a WWII–

Craig: Shoot-shoot-bang-bang.

Chris: It isn’t Saving Private Ryan. It’s a guy behind enemy lines personal drama. Again, the kind of thing, you hear WWII and you just start falling asleep.

Craig: Even if there were explosions it would be a hard sell.

Chris: Yes. It’s dead in the water. And so you have with that mechanism if you can attach the right elements to a piece of material–

Craig: You can get yourself on Netflix or Hulu or Amazon or HBO.

John: With each of these categories I want to talk about venue basically. Is it still a big screen idea or is it something that is more designed for a smaller screen, be it streaming, be it some other way to do it. But also I want to talk about what is the essence of this kind of movie. What is the biggest difference between making this movie now versus when it was originally popular? Who are the characters and then with those characters who would you cast in this kind of movie? Who writes it? Who directs it? And what are the big obstacles getting in the way of making this kind of movie again?

Craig: All right.

John: So, let’s start with sports comedies. Sports comedies used to be incredibly popular.

Craig: The Ron Shelton area.

John: So Ron Shelton had Bull Durham, White Men Can’t Jump. But we also have things like Dodgeball. Happy Gilmore. Major League. Caddyshack. Bad News Bears. A League of Their Own.

Craig, I’ll start with you. What is the essence of a sports comedy to you?

Craig: Underdogs. Generally speaking we have underdogs. And usually there’s somebody struggling with a – you know, there’s a term in baseball, I don’t know if carries to other sports, the yips. Oh, yeah, actually in golf too the yips are when you just psychologically are struggling with something and so your game falls apart. So typically in these movies somebody with innate skill is struggling with something and so–

Chris: Tin Cup.

Craig: Tin Cup is the best example because it’s literally about a therapist helping a guy with the yips.

Chris: Bull Durham.

Craig: Bull Durham. I mean, all of them. All of them. There’s a romance falling apart in White Men Can’t Jump. And Caddyshack which is I guess probably the broadest of these there’s still a romance at the heart of it that goes bad and has to be put back together. So it’s really about – the essence of these things is an athlete’s personal life is disrupting their game. And they have to fix their personal life to fix their game.

Chris: Wow.

John: I think that’s a fair assessment.

Chris: I hate to say this. Craig is right.

Craig: Hold that. Repeat it.

Chris: Pains me. Pains me to say it.

Craig: Put it on a loop.

John: What’s so interesting is the sport itself is incredibly important for the marketing and sort of what the visual language of the movie will be, but it’s probably not very important for what the actual story will be. The sport rarely has a very direct connection to what the character’s journey is. The unique thing about that sport is probably not a big factor. I guess whether it’s an individual sport versus a team sport that’s a big factor. But, you know.

Chris: It can’t rely on the sport.

Craig: Right.

Chris: Somebody who doesn’t know anything about the sport ideally would be able to watch the movie.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: Which means you generally–

John: You teach them the rules of the sport.

Craig: And one of the stock characters in these movies is somebody that doesn’t know the sport.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So they are the people that are asking questions or just looking around going well none of this matters, but that personal part matters.

Chris: Yes.

John: So looking at the biggest difference between doing it now versus doing it then, one of the things as we list these movies is they’re almost all male characters driving this. And so–

Chris: My next question.

John: So I think honestly centering this around a female character is going to probably be your best way in. Whether the whole team is women or it’s unusual for a woman to be in that sport. Something about a female athlete feels more promising.

Chris: Is that going to alienate the men as well? Are you trying to make a four-quadrant movie?

John: That’s a great question. I mean, I think we always use to think about big screen comedies needed to, if not four-quadrant than sort of broadly successful. But if you’re making it not for a big screen movie maybe it’s even better that it’s not kind of for everyone.

Craig: A League of Their Own was pretty much four-quadrant.

Chris: Without question.

Craig: Of this list it’s maybe my favorite of them.

Chris: Well, and Tom Hanks is a hugely important character in the movie.

Craig: Yes, he’s part of it.

Chris: And quite wisely not the dominant character in the movie. It’s also a movie directed by a woman.

Craig: It is. And so you can obviously if you’re centering your new sports comedy on let’s say a female, like a Bend it like Beckham which is a female sports comedy, which I think a lot of male footie fans enjoyed, you will have male characters. The fascinating thing about this list to me is how white it is.

John: It’s super white.

Craig: I mean, sports are one of the areas in American culture where people of color dominate in terms of numbers they’re far over-represented. And yet in this list they’re almost nowhere with the exception of White Men Can’t Jump. I mean, it’s crazy now that I’m looking at it. It’s pretty white.

Chris: I’m wracking my brain.

Craig: It’s kind of nuts. And if you keep going you’ll see it more and more and more. Like a lot of baseball movies take place in the distant past, so when Roy Hobbes is out there in The Natural it’s sort of like, you know, there they are, the nine white guys. And Dodgeball is just sort of lily white. I mean, it’s not lily white. That’s not true. Because Chris Williams is in it.

John: Yeah, but it’s goofy.

Craig: These are largely white casts. And it seems like they’re largely for white guys.

John: So I think we’re talking sort of women, non-white characters centering. Also, you know, there’s a chance that maybe the sport you’re picking is not a sport that is currently popular in the US. So if you’re to make an American cricket movie about like a cricket team that needed to sort of – that was part of the obstacle they overcome. Like they don’t even know what cricket is or sort of that aspect.

Craig: So it’s kind of like the – what’s it, the Jamaican bobsledding team, Cool Running. So Americans try and go to cricket but they’re basically in India or Pakistan getting their asses handed to them.

Chris: Adam Sandler is working on this movie right now. Yes, he’s working on this movie.

Craig: Cricket!

Chris: But when you’re pinpointing these things, you know, about women and diversity, are you suggesting the way to make an outlier or to get it made? Because I have to imagine–

Craig: I’d go get it made on that one, for me, because I actually feel like – I mean, it’s not that you can’t make a movie like this again in the same mold. But it will be in the same mold. There’s something so familiar about it.

Chris: Oh, of course.

Craig: And this list barely even scrapes the surface of what there is. So, it seems like something new would be great in some way or another. New is good. And I think in this category–

Chris: So the Bad News Bears, but done–

Craig: Well, I mean, and they tried to remake it.

Chris: But they tried to remake it–

Craig: They did. They remade it.

Chris: They remade it and they remade it kind of in the same mold but with none of the things you could do.

Craig: Well, that’s the thing.

Chris: The spirt of it.

Craig: This is one of those interesting areas where over time we’ve gotten less permissive. You could not make the actual – I mean, the Bad News Bears was Rated R. There was alcohol. There was smoking. There was racism. And they were children. That’s not doable now in any way, shape, or form.

Chris: No. Because it in no way reflected reality and movies have to reflect reality now.

Craig: Hold on, let’s wield the soap box on.

Chris: No, no, this is what I read. I got the email.

Craig: There it is.

John: But here’s what I’ll say. I feel like a sports comedy is still a movie. And that it’s more of a movie than it is a TV show, than a series.

Craig: Yes.

John: Because I feel like a game of sport, whatever sport you want to pick – I knew you were going to laugh, I said a game of sport.

Chris: Remember there was a TV show. Do you remember Ball Four?

John: I do not remember Ball Four.

Craig: Oh, based on, what’s his name, Jim Bouton’s book.

Chris: Jim Bouton’s book. Lasted for about seven episodes.

Craig: It turns out that in sports there is this built-in ticking clock. Are you going to win or not? I mean, there’s a big game in the beginning, there’s a big game at the end. There’s a big fight in the beginning and there’s a big fight at the end.

John: And Friday Night Lights is an exception but it’s not a comedy. It’s an ensemble drama that is centered around a football team.

Craig: Correct. About family life.

Chris: And the culture. And it’s high school. So it’s not pro and it’s–

Craig: But it started as a movie. Started as a movie.

John: It did. Next category, ensemble dramedies. So we used to make things like St. Elmo’s Fire, The Big Chill, Breakfast Club, Big Fish, Terms of Endearment. So we used to make things that had big casts, where a bunch of folks came together, where characters did grow and change but it was an ensemble. It wasn’t sort of one character’s story. Is that a thing we’re going to be making on the big screen soon? We’ll start with what is the essence of that kind of story. What is the essence of an ensemble dramedy?

Craig: Let’s make McQuarrie take a shot at that one.

Chris: It seems to me as I’m running through the list that you just – nostalgia is a big part of it. It’s my understanding that somebody did a breakdown of why people go to see movies and the number one reason was to have a nostalgic experience. An emotional nostalgic experience. I think that probably plays into sports as well, especially plays into why a lot of sports movies seem to go–

Craig: Back in time.

Chris: Back to that. And you look at The Big Chill. The Big Chill was very much a nostalgic movie.

John: It’s a reunion of friends who had separated. St. Elmo’s Fire, while it wasn’t a nostalgic movie, they were at a specific turning point in their life. They were kind of looking back at—

Craig: See, to me that’s it. We have a group of people that represent some kind of contemporary arrangement. Whether we’re catching them later or they were contemporary or we’re in their contemporariness like for instance The Breakfast Club. But they are at a moment where things are changing.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: And we watch that happen. That to me is the essence of these things. But for the love of god I cannot imagine anyone putting this on a screen anymore. It just doesn’t seem like they will. It’s a bummer.

John: Yeah, it’s tragic. I mean, on a big screen. I think you can absolutely make these for streaming.

Craig: No question.

John: But in so many ways though the one-hour series have sort of taken, even like short series have taken the place of these, where you can see those characters grow over the course–

Chris: Oh, This is Us.

Craig: This is Us.

John: This is Us as a movie.

Chris: Modern Family.

Craig: Correct. And interestingly Dan Fogelman–

John: Yeah, he tried to do it as a movie.

Craig: He sort of tried to do it as a movie. He tried This is Us as a movie and it didn’t connect with audiences. But he’s obviously incredibly good at it because tens of millions of people watch This is Us and it gets all these awards. There is something, I don’t know, we used to be able to go and watch this – maybe it’s just that we used to expect less. You know, we would go to the movie theater and we weren’t asking to have our brains blown out the back of our skulls.

Chris: I went to see Hell or High Water.

John: Oh, which is fantastic.

Chris: Which I loved. And I was talking to Tim Talbot shortly thereafter and I said did you see Hell or High Water? And he said, “Yes.” And what did you think about it? “That was a great movie.” In 1987 that would have been a good movie. But he’s right in that that sort of stuff – I remember going to the movies every weekend. It was not an event. Now when you ask anybody under the age of 25 why they go to the movies they will say in one form or another, “Because I have to go.” They want to be part of a discussion.

I tried to get to see Avengers, which I finally saw yesterday, as quickly as I could because I was tired of having a self-imposed media bubble. There were things in that movie I really didn’t want ruined. Getting to that state. Whereas the stories that we’re talking about, what television does so well now especially is there is a collective history.

If you tried to tune into Game of Thrones now you don’t understand and it wouldn’t – the number of people who are saying three years into Mad Men going, “Yeah, I tried to get into that show and I just couldn’t.” It’s like, of course not, if you turn middle of season three none of this makes any sense.

Craig: Start at the beginning. That’s true. But I do think that one of the problems for – like I remember going to see St. Elmo’s Fire. And my expectation was that I was going to see a group of people that were somewhat older than me dealing with problems. And I knew at some point somebody was going to like, I think Rob Lowe was going to light a torch on fire with some hairspray or something, and Demi Moore was in a corner super dramatic. And I think thought, OK, I’m going to see some sort of human drama. That would not do it anymore. Now when people go to the movie theater it’s like, well, this is going to pin me back and it’s going to blow my mind. And I’m going to see stuff and it’s going to be an event.

Chris: An event.

Craig: An event. I just think people go to the movies for a different reason now.

Chris: But don’t you think also what you can get from television is very different than what we could get from television.

Craig: No question.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: No question.

Chris: You could not make Game of Thrones as a feature film. Any of the content in Game of Thrones would be NC17.

Craig: Nor could you have made it for television prior to this kind of strange change.

Chris: Yes. It’s the networks. As soon as basic cable met the British model of television which was you make a good television show and when it stops being good you – when it reaches the end you stop.

Craig: Isn’t that nice?

Chris: Yes, it’s lovely.

Craig: You know what? This is going to be six episodes long. Great.

Chris: Yeah, or six episodes this season instead of 22 every season.

Craig: Which is why I take my hat off to people like Derek Haas who are still doing it, not just on one show, but multiple show. I mean, the amount of story that has to be generated by those guys is bananas. But, yes, the format has become not just flexible but there is not format. It doesn’t matter.

Chris: Yeah.

John: Let’s get back to movies. Next let’s save the legal thriller or the courtroom thriller. We’ll put these things together. So, obviously we have all the John Grisham based ones, The Pelican Brief, The Firm, The Client, A Time to Kill, The Rainmaker. We have Michael Clayton. We have Primal Fear.

Craig: Love Primal Fear.

John: Love Primal Fear. Presumed Innocent. Disclosure. A Few Good Men.

Chris: The Verdict.

Craig: The Verdict.

John: The Verdict. I hadn’t thought of The Verdict.

Chris: One of the all-time–

Craig: Well, and 12 Angry Men.

Chris: Yes, oh my god.

Craig: Which is sort of the [unintelligible] courtroom drama.

Chris: Well, 12 Angry Men and And Justice for All.

Craig: And Justice for All.

Chris: We can probably go on.

John: We can.

Craig: Yes, I think we could.

John: So what is the essence of these kind of thrillers? So traditionally I think you have an authority figure who is generally the prosecutor or could be working for the defense who is very smart at the law who has to intercede in a specific situation. They generally didn’t commit the situation. They’re there to solve a problem and in trying to solve the problem they uncover something remarkable that puts themselves either in moral jeopardy or literal jeopardy. We don’t make these. We haven’t made them for a while.

Chris: No. Well, when we were talking about 12 Angry Men and The Verdict, both Lumet movies. 12 Angry Men is a morality tale, sort of a study of–

John: And it feels like a play.

Chris: Yeah, feels very much like a play. The Verdict is a redemption story. The Verdict is in a lot of ways a boxing movie.

Craig: Mm-hmm.

Chris: It’s the palooka who comes back for–

Craig: And I think that that’s a good distinction because some of these movies like A Few Good Men also feels like a boxing movie where basically a guy whose dad was a great boxer and who has decided to throw fights instead for a living is going to come back and take on the all-time champ and go down dying if he has to. So, there are those.

And then there are these movies that are they turn on grand questions of justice. What is justice?

Chris: That’s And Justice for All.

Craig: And Justice for All. Or A Time to Kill is very much like that. So those are two different, I mean they always have fireworks. They always have the certain venues that we know. And there is a verdict that is a little bit like the game in the sports movies.

Chris: The Verdict actually ended without the verdict.

Craig: Without the verdict. Well.

John: But here’s a distinction is like a sports movie they want to be a single movie because it’s not a thing that’s going to continue well over time. And so like Murder One was an attempt to take one case–

Craig: Kelley I think.

John: Over the course of a whole season and it just didn’t work. It wanted to be part of one thing.

Chris: I don’t want a mystery to last that long.

Craig: Right.

John: No.

Chris: And first of all the struggle in television, they referred to it for years as the Twin Peaks problem. That you can only lose audience. You couldn’t gain audience. Because when that show was on unless you videotaped it you couldn’t catch up on Netflix, you couldn’t binge it. And there was something fascinating about that. To think about it now, that television actually just spilled out into the universe and that was it.

Craig: And you either caught it with your hands or you missed it. It was gone on the floor.

Chris: Yes. It comes back to urgency. The urgency, how and why one watches a television show or a movie is very different now.

John: I think people should write a legal thriller, I mean, I feel like it’s the kind of movie that you could still imagine making today. I mean, what do you need to make a great legal thriller? You need a star. It is actually a star vehicle. It’s that person you cast as the central lawyer is great. You look at, you know, I think you can make Primal Fear at any point where you also have a great supporting character. Like you look at Edward Norton–

Chris: Well that’s a thriller, like that and Jagged Edge.

John: Oh, of course. Oh yes.

Chris: Have you watched that recently?

Craig: Yeah, it’s amazing.

Chris: I’ve been going back and watching the–

John: He is innocent!

Chris: Yes.

Craig: So great.

Chris: And the other one I went back and watched recently, which was fascinating artifact is–

Craig: Artifact.

Chris: Basic Instinct.

John: Oh yeah. We’re going to get to sexual/erotic thrillers. And that’s there.

Craig: Thank god.

Chris: Can we just skip to that?

John: We can skip to that next.

Craig: I think that there is some space for it, the problem is it is the most trod-upon ground. Because we have 4,000 episodes of Law & Order. And it will never stop. Neither will CSI. NCIS. That arena, the courtroom procedural aspects of it have been just beaten to death. So the question is how can you do it – I think you could go back all the way to 12 Angry Men and that kind of idea.

Chris: Yes. If you ask what they all have in common as I’m sitting here [unintelligible] is the discovery. There is some reveal. There is a hidden secret that sort of turns the case. Those are hard to do.

Craig: What’s the Dershowitz one with–?

Chris: Claus von Bulow.

Craig: Yeah. Claus von Bulow.

Chris: Reversal of Fortune.

John: Reversal of Fortune.

Craig: “No one shook Sunny.” That’s my favorite line.

Chris: And what I love about that is the reversal is the last line.

Craig: The reversal is the last line of the movie.

Chris: “You have no idea.”

Craig: “You have no idea.” And then weirdly Alan Dershowitz has had his own fascinating reversal. But that’s for other podcasts.

John: Absolutely. But I think we can make a legal thriller. And so do you make a legal thriller for the big screen? Maybe. A really good legal thriller I think could also be an awards contender. The same way like The Post was a journalism thriller. That was back in that space.

Craig: Yes. It has be specifically crafted for the Academy Awards. I would think you would need two huge stars. I could see—

Chris: Let’s talk about who those huge stars are.

Craig: Streep v. Washington.

Chris: Regardless of our genre.

Craig: Meryl Streep v. Denzel Washington. Two lawyers going head-to-head over something that is actually legitimately relevant to our society now.

Chris: Well, you’d be talking about abortion, gun control, really hot topic issues.

Craig: Police brutality.

Chris: Police brutality. And then the trick of making that movie is making a movie that is for both halves of the audience, not one.

John: Yeah. I don’t know that you need like a marquee issue. So if it was about sort of corporate control, some way to do it–

Craig: Yeah, you know, he’s not wrong.

John: Because you want a thriller. You still want the thriller. You also want the legal drama.

Craig: You still want the thriller aspect. Because the truth is the thing at the heart of A Few Good Men is not a hot-button issue. There’s an interesting theme to it, but it isn’t a hot-button issue. And maybe it would actually be better without one. Maybe I just want two people – you know what also was really good? The Insider.

John: You know who would also be really good in this? Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise could do a good job.

Craig: Well, he’s done it though.

John: He’s done it.

Craig: Can he come back and do it again?

Chris: Well, I would love to see Tom do a version of The Verdict. I’d love to see him do the broken down. Jerry Maguire is his Verdict.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Oh my god. We could talk about Jerry Maguire forever.

John: We can.

Craig: I’ve got huge love for that script.

Chris: Talk about a weird. What’s the pitch to Jerry Maguire? I’m going to make a movie about a sports agent who is having an emotional crisis.

Craig: My pitch for Jerry Maguire is imagine a man whose life is deeply flawed who has a moment of clarity where he describes exactly who he should be. And that’s the beginning of the movie. And then the entire movie is him trying to become that guy.

Chris: But would you have picked a sports agent?

Craig: No, but that’s fun. I get it.

Chris: No, I mean, it’s such a – the fact that the movie works and resonates–

Craig: There’s comebacks. Makes sense.

Chris: Well, that helps.

Craig: Finding a scum-baggy kind of job like sports agent. I don’t know any sports agents. I apologize.

Chris: Well, yeah, so you just blanket called them all scumbags.

Craig: A little bit. Sorry.

Chris: It’s the whole agent thing.

Craig: Should we go to the erotic thrillers.

John: Erotic thrillers.

Chris: Erotic thrillers.

John: We’ve got Fatal Attraction. We’ve got Basic Instinct.

Chris: Now what does an erotic thriller need? What’s the central elements of an erotic thriller?

Craig: I believe boobs are high on the list.

Chris: Yes.

John: Color of Night. Killing Me Softly. American Gigolo. Gone Girl I would say is an erotic thriller. Or has aspects of that.

Chris: Yeah.

Craig: Well…

John: It’s definitely a thriller. There’s a sexual aspect to it.

Craig: I don’t think of it’s an erotic – I don’t think of it as–

Chris: It’s a neurotic thriller.

Craig: Neurotic.

John: But it’s pulpy in the way that you want an erotic thriller to be.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: Sea of Love. Nice pull. So I’ve got to go back and watch that one.

Craig: It’s good.

John: So erotic thrillers, at the time it was sexual content on screen that you just couldn’t see other places. You certainly couldn’t see it on TV.

Chris: And now you can’t see it in theaters and there’s nothing but on television.

John: That’s absolutely true.

Craig: Or your phone. You can just see it on your phone.

Chris: Yes.

John: Literal pornography.

Craig: There should be a list of – there’s probably a website that has a list of perfectly reasonable civil Google searches that will absolutely blow your mind with the images that come up. I just feel like old people are always, you know, like–

Chris: There’s no parental control strict enough–

Craig: They’re just like, oh, I’m just searching for something normal. Yeah, and then look what just came up.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So what distinguishes an erotic thriller from just–?

Craig: Porn.

John: From porn or from things that have–?

Chris: Sexual obsession.

John: Sexual obsession. All right.

Chris: Sexual obsession. So in Jagged Edge it’s the forbidden nature of the sexual relationship. There is an inappropriate boundary that is being crossed. Michael Douglas is investigating Sharon Stone so he should not be having sex with Sharon Stone.

John: Yeah.

Chris: And Glenn Close is representing Jeff Bridges so she should not be having sex with Jeff Bridges.

John: You know what we left off this list though is Fifty Shades of Grey which really would fit underneath this general category. So it’s romance–

Craig: A thriller?

John: But, I mean, it actually has thriller elements. There’s bad people doing bad stuff in it, too. Her life is in danger.

Chris: Yes.

John: So I think it would fall into this general category. So there clearly is a market for making that kind of movie. We just don’t make it–

Craig: Yeah. I mean, look, this kind of old school classic ‘90s, or early ‘90s/late ‘80s erotic thrillers were weirdly in their own way Puritanistic because they would basically reinforce that transgressive sexual behavior would automatically lead to blood on the floor. It’s all basically a lesson in staying monogamous and don’t get out of your lane and don’t give into temptation.

And people who were overtly sexual are equated with evil. And you see it come up over and over and over. If there’s any reason why we don’t make these now beyond the obvious, which is that there’s kind of no market for them, it’s probably that our sexual mores have kind of come further than anything else.

John: Yeah.

Chris: Can I point out one common thread? There are these erotic thrillers that are starring men as the protagonist and erotic thrillers that are starring women as the protagonist. The ones starring men, the men are kind of bastards. Fatal Attraction, Michael Douglas is sort of perfect in that role. You have a character who is violating the audience’s trust.

Craig: Yes.

John: Cheating on his wife.

Chris: If Tom Hanks was in Fatal Attraction and made the decision that quickly to have sex with Glenn Close you’d be like, what, Tom? Whereas Michael Douglas you kind of believed it.

Craig: Yeah. A little lizardy.

Chris: Yes. And I’m looking at Richard Gere who in that stage of his career loved playing an abrasive bastard. There was almost something where he was antagonizing the audience. Cruel Intentions, Ryan Phillippe in that movie is playing a version of Valmont and is enjoying being a bastard. Al Pacino in Sea of Love, that’s like The Verdict meets erotic thriller. He’s that drunken messed up cop. An element that I’m seeing in this is the casting and the writing of the male character they all seem to be – and, by the way, Douglas comes back in Basic Instinct – a little bit of it seems to be the audience enjoying watching this guy get his comeuppance for having broken the rules.

Craig: Right.

John: Yes.

Craig: Morality plays.

Chris: And casting the right actor in a morality play is a big part.

Craig: But they also in some way start to turn these men into passive movers. Because these women come along and tempt them and turn their heads and confuse them. You know, I don’t know, I just think it’s all a bit old-fashioned.

Chris: There was nothing confused in Michael Douglas’s performance in Fatal Attraction. They’re out having a drink after having had a meeting and he makes a decision instantaneously.

Craig: Sure. Yes, he does. But then the movie basically says, OK, fine, that happened. But look how crazy she is.

Chris: Have you watched it recently?

Craig: No.

Chris: Go back and watch it. There’s the whole thing that she’s pregnant. And all he’s trying to do is shut it down. She’s definitely got issues.

Craig: She won’t be ignored.

Chris: But Michael Douglas is not – he handles it the way a panicking male would, not the way the hero of a movie would. The other great thing about that movie is Anne Archer.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Amazing.

Chris: Anne Archer is this–

Craig: I do remember her being like–

Chris: She was the ideal. And for Glenn Close, that’s kind of an unconventional role for Glenn Close. And it’s interesting that she is in almost back-to-back erotic thrillers. And if you go back and watch, look at those two movies which are shot within a few years of each other. And by the way, The Natural was right in there, too. So you look at Glenn Close playing three–

Craig: This like luminous angel.

Chris: Yes, she’s the Madonna. She was this tough lawyer, a little bit corrupt, kind of compromised. And then playing that woman in Fatal Attraction.

Craig: Sort of on the edge, mentally on the edge.

Chris: Who you cast in an erotic thriller is a big, big deal.

Craig: Well, Glenn Close is pretty, pretty good at her job. I think we can all agree on that.

John: Although we’re probably not casting her in the next erotic thriller.

Chris: Expecting great things.

Craig: I don’t think we’re going to be seeing the likes of those.

John: Craig, can we skip ahead to something that you know especially well? Spoofs and parodies.

Craig: Spoofs and parodies.

Chris: Spoofs and parodies.

John: So movies like Airplane, Spaceballs, Not Another Teen Movie, Scary Movie series, MacGruber, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Superhero Movie. Tropic Thunder. Shaun of the Dead. Vampires Suck. Austin Powers. Blazing Saddles. We’re not making many of these movies now. And I have a theory why, but I’m curious what your theory is why we don’t make these movies.

Craig: As David Zucker would repeatedly say, “Spoof is dead.” And his thing is that he would say spoof is dead, he said it before spoof came back. Spoof was dead. I remember Jim Abrahams saying that he was mixing mafia, a Jane Austen movie, Jane Austen’s Mafia.

Chris: Jane Austen’s Mafia.

Craig: And he walked down the hall where they were mixing and on another mixing stage they were mixing There’s Something About Mary. And he just sort of watched a few minutes of it and then went back and said, “Yeah, we’re fucked. Our time is over.”

And it was over. And then the Wayans Brothers brought it back with Scary Movie. But following the success of Scary Movie, and 2, and 3, and 4, there was this sudden – suddenly they were everywhere. And the marketplace was flooded with a lot of cheap stuff. And honestly as one of the people that wrote Scary Movie 3 and 4, I mean, the pressure that we were under from the Weinsteins to make those movies as quickly as possible was brutal. And we couldn’t do them as well as we wanted to do them. And we did them with David Zucker and Pat Proft and Jim Abrahams.

So by the time all that unraveled it was mostly I think killed at the moment by just the marketplace being flooded. But also you got the sense pretty quickly that the Internet was essentially mooting the entire point of this.

John: Yes. That was my instinct.

Craig: Because every joke, I mean, we used to be like, OK, you want to make fun of this movie. Well, four or five nights from now Leno is going to do the joke. Well, now they’re doing the jokes while they’re watching things. There’s no more time. It’s over.

Chris: That’s very true.

Craig: It’s over.

Chris: Everything is – yeah, the Internet is a spoof.

Craig: The Internet is essentially a spoof machine.

John: There’s no way to make the movie quick enough to do it. And even like on YouTube they can do the crappy effects version of that joke anyway.

Chris: But Blazing Saddles is on this list. It is a spoof but it is a spoof with a higher purpose.

John: So it’s not a spoof of any one movie, it’s taking genre conventions–

Craig: Of a genre.

Chris: Of a genre.

John: And Shaun of the Dead is a great example of like taking the genre conventions and upending them in a way that’s—

Chris: Well that’s a mashup.

John: Yeah.

Chris: And a great one.

John: Fantastic.

Craig: It’s still I would say really hard now. I mean, Airplane was a direct spoof of a movie called Zero Hour from 1956 or something, or 1955, which no one had seen. That was sort of the oddity of Airplane that they just did this random thing. But somewhere along the line spoofs became connected to either genres as a whole or when it got really bad pop culture. And that’s when it just all to me absolutely fell apart.

There’s probably room for somebody to make a spoof of some weird movie that has been forgotten.

Chris: Well, but and Austin Powers is taking shots at movies along with Bond. Matt Helm. And some really–

Craig: In Like Flint.

Chris: Yeah, In Like Flint. When the phone rings, that’s directly taken from In Like Flint.

John: But you look at the ones of these that we feel like you could still make is that these films actually have individualized characters who sort of have an arc and have a point of view. And the movie doesn’t exist just to make fun of the movie that came before it. The character is existing within a world and is consistent within a world. So Austin Powers is a spoof of another kind of character, but is also a character himself. And Dr. Evil is a character himself.

Chris: Yes. And it’s a time travel comedy in a way. They both are, at least two of the three, are.

Craig: I mean, the people that kind of come the closest now to doing spoof and parody in their own way is Chris and Phil.

John: Lord and Miller. Yeah.

Craig: Yeah. Lord and Miller in a weird way do. I mean, Lego has certain spoof aspects to it.

John: Their Spider Man also has aspects of like it’s an awareness of where this is fitting inside the culture.

Chris: Meta.

Craig: Yeah, it’s Meta. Their Jump Street movies are kind of spoofing Jump Street.

John: Oh yes.

Craig: Like it’s a self-spoof. But it’s different. It’s not like, I mean, thank god, by the way. Because honestly nothing is harder than writing those things. I will never work harder in my life than I did writing Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4. It was just—

Chris: It’s one of the reasons Chernobyl is not as funny.

Craig: Yeah, I know. It took the jokes out.

John: It took all the comedy out of me.

Chris: You didn’t make the effort. I know.

John: Let’s take the jokes out of biblical epics, and/or sword and sandals movies. So things like Gladiator, Ben-Hur, Noah, Passion of the Christ. King in Heaven. Spartacus. Ten Commandments. Braveheart, to some degree. Lawrence of Arabia. Like we used to make these things. That was actually a staple of original Hollywood. We have the giant ranches here because we used to make these epics.

Chris: Giant movies.

John: Giant movies. We don’t make them anymore.

Chris: No.

John: So here’s–

Chris: Because they don’t win awards anymore.

John: They don’t win awards anymore.

Craig: Precisely.

John: Even though Game of Thrones is being show on smaller screens, it is that kind of sword and sandals thing.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: Yes.

John: And so we’re making them, but we’re making them for smaller screen.

Craig: TV. No question.

Chris: But is TV – I have a very large television. It’s not terribly expensive. I would imagine a lot of people have maxed their credit cards for a large TV.

Craig: You’re comparing your large TV to the TV you grew up, which was like the TV I grew up. That 9-inch black and white thing in the kitchen, with the single antenna shooting out.

Chris: It was a letterbox.

Craig: Correct. But my kids only know those TVs. But those TVs are still not – I mean, they’re not movies.

Chris: No.

Craig: It’s not a movie screen.

Chris: No. But most people, the way their viewing habits are now, we’re making a Mission: Impossible. We have an IMAX segment in it. And people are saying well why don’t you just shoot the whole thing in IMAX.

Craig: No one is going to watch it.

Chris: It’s never going to be seen again. You’re making this balance. And there are times I’ll be framing a shot and Cruise will walk up to me and go, “You know when this is on the big screen and I pull my phone out of my pocket—“

Craig: Here it is.

Chris: This is the screen now. It’s not that it will only be watched on television, but for the life of the film.

Craig: For the life of it. Primarily.

Chris: The theatrical lifespan of a movie is 12 weeks.

Craig: Whoa. 12 weeks. What is this hit movie you’ve got that’s in there 12 weeks?

Chris: I’m talking like by the end it’s in eight theaters

Craig: Yes. Correct.

Chris: I’m giving a conservative—

Craig: Really it’s four weeks is what it is.

Chris: Four weeks. Yeah.

Craig: It used to be months.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: It is now about four weeks.

John: So what is the essence of these biblical epics we’re talking about? So, if you’re talking about a Gladiator or a Ben-Hur, it is a character in a long ago time, typically a Roman time, who is coming up against an authority system. He is leading, it’s always a he in these movies, is leading–

Chris: It’s a Christ figure against Rome.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Christ figure against Rome.

Craig: That’s exactly what it is. Every single time. Christ figure against Rome. Doesn’t matter what you do.

Chris: Doesn’t matter if it’s Rome or not Rome. Doesn’t matter if it’s Christ or not Christ.

Craig: That’s what Braveheart is. That’s what Ten Commandments is. Even when it’s Jews it’s still a Christ figure against Rome. Some hero will rise in a kind of faded destiny way, usually out of nothing. And they have special powers, special abilities. They are spat on, tortured, hurt. Their family is killed. They are persecuted. And ultimately they do some incredibly self-sacrificial thing and the world is saved. And the last scene is people sitting around going, “God, he was awesome.”

Chris: He was a great man.

Craig: He was a great man.

Chris: And it’s always a man.

Craig: And it’s always a man. Patriarchy.

Chris: As a matter of fact there’s a biblical epic with a woman. Mary Magdalene is coming soon.

John: Yes.

Craig: Really?

Chris: Rooney Mara.

John: Rooney Mara plays that.

Craig: Wasn’t there already one of those that like [Murray Bowen’s] company did? Didn’t he do? Oh, I thought he did.

Chris: Maybe we’re talking about the same one.

Craig: No, no, that one was [crosstalk].

Chris: But, yes, I saw a trailer. Joaquin Phoenix is Jesus.

Craig: Ooh. Jesus is a phoenix. I’m down with that.

Chris: Pretty interesting. It’s an interesting Jesus.

John: Yeah. So I guess that’s the question. Is this type of movie really about the setting or is it about specifically that sort of Jesus against Rome kind of thing? Because even Braveheart you could sort of look at as Jesus against Rome.

Craig: Directly.

John: Yeah, so it’s the same concept.

Craig: No question.

John: And to what degree do they need to be big screen movies versus – in a weird way–

Chris: Time.

John: Time.

Chris: Time and distance. When you want to talk epic scale, Lawrence of Arabia is a giant event.

John: But isn’t a miniseries better suited up for this kind of epic storytelling? I think it could have been kind of a fluke that the only thing we had were movies. And so we had to tell the Ten Commandments as a movie.

Craig: And they were very long movies.

John: They’re very long movies.

Craig: Ben-Hur is endless.

John: But the better form would have been as a series.

Craig: I agree with you. I think that there is – these things will generally work better, live better, as series. I think it’s probably where they’re generally going to happen. But one of the few segments of audience that still reliably goes to movies are faith-based audiences.

John: Yes.

Craig: And I’m not a faith-based person. I don’t even really know what faith is. I mean, I know the definition. I’ve just never felt it before. But regardless, they will go to these things. And so you have this other weird segment of movie where every now and then you’ll look at like on Deadline what were the top five movies this weekend and number four is, wait, what the? What? It’s a Prayer for Jimmy? And what is this?

Chris: And it’s why they made that last remake of Ben-Hur.

Craig: No question. Oh yes, yes. Ben-Hur was—

Chris: Was a direct calculated aimed – it was very much targeted at that group.

Craig: I mean, nothing is more cynical as far as I’m concerned.

Chris: No, no, The Passion of the Christ caught everybody off guard.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: Nobody expected. And that was kind of the thing. And remember it came out at a weird time of year. It was January, when January was–

Craig: A cold, dead January.

Chris: That’s the place where movies went to die.

Craig: January, February. By the way, is there any month now where movies go to die? I don’t think there is.

Chris: Yes. Back to school week. The first week of September is still – somebody’s going to do it. But that is–

Craig: Actually a great idea for just a movie is back to school week, let’s go see every movie. It’s just one horrible movie where all of the junk gets dumped.

Chris: Oh yes.

John: All right, let’s maybe wrap up with buddy cop, which was a frequent suggestion. Buddy cop, come on, there have been amazing buddy cop movies. 21 Jump Street. The Other Guys. Hot Fuzz. The Heat. Bad Boys. Men in Black. K-9. Lethal Weapon. White Chicks. Shanghai Noon. That idea that you have two mismatched people who have to work together to solve a crime and to do things. It’s a classic paradigm. You know, Abbott and Castello. We’ve always seen these two, this [unintelligible] go through things. But we’re not doing a lot of them now. So what’s – how do we get to it?

Craig: Well, you know what? I think the Too Fast Too Furious, I just always give Derek Haas credit for that. And let’s so also say RIP John Singleton, the director of Too Fast Too Furious. But the Fast and Furious franchise is kind of a buddy cop writ large with multiple buddies.

John: True.

Chris: Dragged Across Concrete is coming out.

Craig: Yeah. I think they still do these.

Chris: I don’t know that that’s a comedy.

John: Central Intelligence is essentially a buddy cop movie.

Craig: That’s right. That’s buddy cop. And there was just a movie, wasn’t there a movie with Regina Hall just out and – I think that they keep making these.

Chris: Oh, well the Sandra Bullock, Miss Congeniality.

John: Oh, The Heat.

Craig: Oh, that’s way back. But then there’s The Heat with Melissa McCarthy. Yeah, I think they still make buddy cop movies.

John: So I think we may need to step away from the idea of cops. So as long as there are two people who are tasted in a professional job of doing some kind of police-y thing.

Chris: The Odd Couple with guns.

John: An Odd Couple with guns. Thank you.

Craig: Odd Couple with guns. That’s pretty much what it is.

Chris: What it boils down to.

Craig: And they become each other’s family.

Chris: Yes.

John: And so as long as, you know, you can make them for the big screen. You have to have a certain production value and a certain size to make them for the big screen. Weirdly you don’t see as many of them in TV shows anymore. So I guess right now on the air we have MacGyver, we have Magnum PI which is sort of–

Chris: Yeah, cop shows on TV are definitely more dramas.

Craig: Procedurals. Well, because the essence of the buddy cop is that they don’t start as buddies and they end up as buddies. But you can’t end up as anything on a serialized show. You have to keep going. So it kind of has to be a movie.

Chris: Yes. A lot of this conversation seems to be about how technology has disrupted what we imagined the plain of cinema to be. There seems to be a really clear shift.

Craig: And just wait.

Chris: From no home video, to home video, to no home video again. Now it’s home theater. Now it’s home – it’s content. That’s where I think the line is blurring. It’s big screen/small screen.

Craig: And the amount that’s available now is – and the resources that are being poured into it. I mean, better or worse, however you want to chop up the money, there was just way less money. I mean, there were five studios and they gave you some studio. And there were three networks and they gave you some money.

But now we’ve got just billions and billions rushing in to make more and more stuff. It is transforming things. But there aren’t that many more screens. In fact, I’d probably argue there are fewer screens than there used to be.

John: Well, there’s not more time. There’s not more time for people to view things. And so even though we have new people coming in and new distribution outlets, we have new money chasing new things–

Craig: Time is a flat circle.

John: Yes. And so we don’t have the ability to watch more things. And so we have to choose how we’re going to do this.

Chris: I’m looking at the–

John: So I skipped over some things. Is there a genre there you want to tackle?

Chris: Westerns.

John: Let’s talk about westerns.

Craig: Hmm, westerns.

John: On this show we’ve talked about Unforgiven. We’ve talked about 3:10 to Yuma. We’ve talked about sort of westerns. But what is it about westerns that you think can be suited towards the big screen. Because also we had Scott Frank on who talked about his great Netflix show.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: Godless.

John: Godless. Which was sort of exploding what a normal western—

Craig: Meant to be a movie. Written as a script.

Chris: He struggled with it for years, right? He was trying to get it down to something movie size.

Craig: Well, and he does it with all of his movies. But, I mean, look, it was movie size. It’s just that what he was struggling was to get somebody to pay for it as a movie. Because essentially people kept saying well the western is dead, the western is dead, the western is dead.

Chris: And that which is the WWII movie is dead. You hear about this all the time. And then the number of times I’ve seen a dead genre—

Craig: Everything is dead until it’s not.

Chris: Yeah. Dunkirk was a really great example of a dead genre that people don’t go to see anymore.

Craig: My favorite example is nothing could have been a deader genre than pirate movies.

John: Oh yeah, of course.

Craig: Pirate movies. Not only dead—

Chris: Do you remember Pirates with Walter Matthau?

Craig: Yes.

John: Yes.

Chris: Oh my god.

Craig: But before they made Pirates of the Caribbean we had Cutthroat Island which had sank an entire, like a hedge fund disappeared.

Chris: It killed Carolco.

Craig: Yeah, Carolco. An entire company was dead. And before that–

Chris: Killed careers.

Craig: Careers. Renny Harlin. And then – and the thought of making a pirates movie was considered almost obscene.

John: Yeah.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: And…

John: Pirates of the Caribbean. Just takes one.

Craig: There we go.

John: It didn’t start a new genre. There weren’t like other pirates movies coming after that. It was only the one pirate movie.

Craig: Exactly. Everybody else was like you know what, let’s let them have it. We’re still not making pirate movies.

Chris: We’re still not making pirate movies. And it so specifically hinges around a kind of storytelling and a character. Johnny Depp.

Craig: And a brand.

Chris: Exactly.

Craig: I mean, just built in.

John: It was also supernatural. So you had a supernatural vibe to it which is different than other stuff.

Chris: But the western, Unforgiven represented a shift towards deconstructionist from which the genre never seemed to – 3:10 to Yuma was its own darker western. Godless was its own. What I miss – what I’d love to see is—

Craig: Shane.

Chris: The Magnificent 7. And Shane. Silverado. The Big Country. Movies that are more of an adventure and more a morality tale as opposed to – watch slow west.

Craig: It’s never going to happen. It’s gone. It’s over.

Chris: I will fight you on that.

Craig: Well, look, I think as a country and a culture we have lost the ability to go back to the kind of idealized west. We just know too much.

Chris: No, I don’t think it’s idealized. I think – you look at The Big Country, it’s not idealized. The country is rough, but a man walks into it who refuses to play by those rules. And I think that’s – if you take westerns there are two kinds. There are kind of westerns noirs where the west just chews you up and spits you out. And there’s the place where one can prove one’s self.

Craig: Sure.

Chris: And it’s this rough and lawless place where somebody, you know.

Craig: Maybe a book would do it.

John: A book might do it. I mean, I think it comes back to the discussion we had with the ensemble dramedies which his that we used to go to see those movies that didn’t have a lot of high stakes in them because that was fine. We needed to go see a movie.

Craig: What the hell else were you going to do on a Saturday afternoon?

John: And so I just wonder that this non-deconstructed western that is just truly a western whether it’s actually going to get people to go out to see it on a screen.

Chris: Hell or High Water.

John: Hell or High Water—

Chris: It was contemporary but it’s a western.

John: It totally is.

Chris: It’s a bank-robbing—

John: It’s a pickup truck western and I loved it for what it was able to do. But that was not a breakout smash hit. It was a good performer, but it was not—

Chris: I think it did OK financially and it got nominated for Best Picture.

John: It did, absolutely.

Chris: Which for movies of that size is kind of the – that’s your life blood to keep in the theaters for another—

Craig: John Lee Hancock has kind of made a western in a sense with The Highwaymen.

Chris: The Highwaymen. Sure.

Craig: But, again, Netflix. I mean, and that’s where John Lee lives now. You know, those are the movies he’s going to be making now because – and here’s a guy who made, I don’t know, $14 billion for Warner Bros and Alcon with The Blind Side. And today I don’t think they make The Blind Side for theatrical. That’s what’s happened. I fear that we have lost something kind of permanently in the economics of making these movies.

And it may have literally just come down to the cost of marketing. Because—

Chris: That’s everything.

Craig: Right. I mean, Netflix, the way they market their movie is they don’t. It’s just there.

Chris: When you turn on Netflix they’re like, hey, do you want to watch this?

Craig: Correct.

John: Absolutely. And they bought every billboard in Los Angeles but that’s just for us.

Chris: But here’s the upside to that. Here’s the less than dystopian way of looking at that. In the current culture where the business is suddenly waking up to the fact that they have to diversify, this is something I experience a lot on the movies that I get called in to come in and do fixes on. The business was predicated on a male director makes a $5 million movie that makes $50 million. Let’s give him $200 million in hopes it makes $1 billion. Women were not afforded those same undeserved opportunities.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: Which they are now.

Craig: And were punished—

Chris: And were punished – exactly.

Craig: If they didn’t do the impossible.

Chris: Whereas the way to look at Netflix is Netflix could be the farm system. Now there’s many more movies being made for lower budgets creating – and I see lots of women directing television now.

Craig: Way more opportunity.

Chris: The director lists that I’m now being handed for the TV shows I’m working on are 50/50 and you’re actually looking at, oh, that person is being hired for the quality of their work, which is very encouraging. Is it possible that what we end up with is – you know how the Oscars have sort of divided into—?

Craig: Yes.

Chris: You know, there’s Oscar movies and there’s money-making movies. Now could there be there’s Netflix movies and there’s feature films? And that the feature films because of marketing requirements need to be bigger movies that make more money. And then Netflix becomes the farm system that teaches people how to do stuff.

You could live within the Netflix bubble and make a 14, a 25, and a $60 million movie.

Craig: Yeah. I think we’re there. I mean, I think that’s where we are. The real question, is there any kind – well, question number one. Is there mobility from Netflix type of movies or other TV movies to the big ones? Or do people even want to go? Because here’s the thing. I think a lot of filmmakers don’t – you know, we were talking to Mari Heller about this. Mari Heller made this incredible movie, Diary of a Teenage Girl. It was amazing. And people came to her and they’re like here’s this huge superhero movie, you want to do it? And she was like I feel like I’m supposed to, because we’re trying to advance the cause of female directors and we’re trying to get into those big seats, but I don’t want to.

I want to do this.

Chris: Well, there’s no point in making it if – you look at her and that dilemma knowing that – having nothing to do with who is directing a movie how those movies get made. The script is not ready.

Craig: Yep. [laughs]

Chris: The movie is going in three weeks.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: You’ve never done anything like this.

Craig: The actor is kind of in charge.

Chris: The producer, whose name is on a bunch of giant movies, will not be there.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: And this is all going to be your fault. Do you still want to do it?

Craig: It is really terrifying.

Chris: Correct. And again, it takes a special kind of director to get into that kind of trouble and then accept the help when they bring it in. Because you are essentially now, it’s very embarrassing. You’re at a point where you’re in way over your head. And not because – this is not hubris. They’re promised support, and then it’s just not there. So now suddenly you lose control of your movie. It takes a lot having never been through the process to know that it’s all going to be OK in the end. When the movie works you’ll still get credit.

Craig: That’s a lot to have faith in.

Chris: It’s very wounding. So I can see somebody looking at that and saying—

Craig: Nah.

Chris: But there’s the other side of that is the grass is always greener. You’re going to have people making big giant movies. Michael Bay made Pain & Gain because he really wanted to make it. Michael Bay, some part of Michael Bay – I don’t care, any filmmaker you can name at that level – some part of them wants to make their little movie about—

Craig: Their podium movie.

Chris: [laughs] They want to make their podium movie.

Craig: They want to make their podium movie.

Chris: Yes, and the same thing I would imagine is just – the Duffer Brothers have some big feature they want to do.

Craig: Big ass dumb movie they want to do.

Chris: Yes, they’ve got some big ass.

John: Well, I think Duffer Brothers are a great example because Stranger Things had an effect on popular culture which was terrific and because it was a really popular series. But if that had just been a one-off movie I don’t think it would have had that effect on popular culture—

Chris: No.

John: The way that a movie that’s released on big screens can actually bend culture in a way. So Black Panther can bend culture.

Craig: We have proof of that. Because even though I admired it, Super 8 is Stranger Things.

John: It is.

Craig: And it just doesn’t work as a movie the way Stranger Things works as a series.

John: Yeah. And that was the case where J.J. Abrams wanted to make this smaller movie.

Craig: Well, what do you say we wrap this up by heading into One Cool Things?

John: Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing this week?

Craig: I do have a One Cool Thing. I hope that you have a One Cool Thing.

Chris: I have Two Cool Things.

Craig: Well, it’s called One Cool Thing, Chris.

John: He can do two. It’s the 400th episode.

Chris: I have to pick one?

Craig: No, you can do two.

Chris: One of my Cool Things is in the other Cool Thing.

Craig: OK, fair enough.

Chris: Neither of them may be cool.

Craig: They’re nested.

Chris: They’re nerdy.

John: Kangaroos.

Craig: My One Cool Thing this week is a recommendation from grand crossword nerd Trip Payne. And it is an app called One Clue Crossword. Very clever. So you get a little – it looks like vaguely a crossword. It’s not like a proper crossword. But there are no clues except for a picture. And all of the answers—

Chris: I’m already obsessed.

Craig: Are things that are contained in that photo.

Chris: Oh, come on.

John: Oh great.

Craig: And you’ve got to figure out what goes where in the interlocking grid.

Chris: Genius.

Craig: Starts off easy, gets harder and harder and harder.

Chris: By the way to everyone listening, this is the guy who does The New York Times Crossword Puzzle in 2.5 minutes on every Monday. You are like Mr. Crossword.

Craig: No, Trip Payne could – this dude literally was once the actual champion of all crossword puzzles. He’s amazing.

Chris: But it’s you and Megan Amram and David Kwong and Rian Johnson.

Craig: Shannon Woodward and Rian Johnson and Chris Miller.

Chris: And I was a fly on the wall watching you guys and looking at my time. I can’t type that fast. I don’t know how, right?

John: I tried, too, and I can’t.

Craig: Practice.

Chris: If you gave me all the answers.

John: I couldn’t fill it in.

Chris: If you were standing over my shoulder going, “Just type this,” I couldn’t. I couldn’t do the Wednesday in two minutes.

Craig: There was a great, one of the great, great crossword constructors of all time was a guy named Henry Hook. He would make crosswords for The Boston Globe I think. And he was notoriously fast. And one guy once raced him with a crossword, except the twist was that the guy had written the crossword. It was his crossword. And he lost to Henry Hook. Yep.

Chris: That’s amazing. So don’t you think that there’s some sort of a physical hand-eye component?

Craig: You get faster as you. What can I say?

Chris: Well, I definitely – because you’re able to track it on the app. Yeah, my times have improved but I’ve hit a wall. There’s no—

Craig: Yeah, you started too late man.

Chris: That’s the problem.

Craig: You’ve got to get in there when you’re a kid.

Chris: The brain is just rusty. You’re right. I should have done it.

John: So my One Cool Thing, this winter I had a cold and so I had my humidifier out. The humidifier worked great. And I found that I was still using the humidifier because I kind of liked the noise it made.

Craig: Nice white noise.

John: White noise. But like I didn’t need to have this thing out in my room and this fan spinning. So I ended up finding a really good white noise machine. I went on the Wirecutter and picked their best white noise machine. And you know what? They were right. It’s a really good little white noise machine. It’s called The LectroFan High Fidelity White Noise Sound Machine. $46 on Amazon. It’s a small little hockey puck that makes really good sound.

And the thing I learned is that some of these machines they just have a sample that they’re playing, a sample sound. This one generates it algorithmically so it’s always completely random.

Craig: That’s really random. Because I use an app.

John: For traveling I use an app.

Craig: And the app is on a loop. And what will happen is if you’re having a bad night—

John: You’ll hear the loop.

Craig: You start hearing the loop. And now you’re F-ed.

Chris: That’s got to be like delirium.

Craig: No, it’s super bad.

Chris: Horrible. Do you have trouble sleeping?

Craig: Not the way I used to. Not the way I used to. As I get older I find that actually I’m looking forward to going to sleep. I used to dread it. And now I’m like, oh yay, I get to give up.

Chris: Ooh, it’s nighttime.

Craig: I get to quit on life and just unplug.

Chris: I never realized that insomnia was just refusing to embrace surrender.

Craig: No question. For me, insomnia was always just like do not die.

Chris: In your sleep!

Craig: In your sleep. What are your nested Cool Things?

Chris: My nested Cool Things are I brought this computer bag.

John: It’s a good-looking computer bag. It’s a black bag.

Chris: It is a black bag. It is made by a company called eBags. And you can see how there’s one strap. There’s actually two, but you can undo this and tuck it in and it becomes—

Craig: Like a briefcase.

Chris: Like a briefcase bag.

John: Nice.

Chris: And usually the two-in-one king of thing really turns me off. This is great in terms of all its many pockets. My favorite one being this rather large pocket at the bottom.

Craig: Or?

Chris: The case itself comes with a hard shell so you can store all of your cables in here. I took it out and this is where I put my toiletries when I travel. Because you have to take all of your liquids out.

Craig: Right. You’ve got to pull out that stupid clear bag.

Chris: Yes. And this bag just places you right through security.

Craig: That’s great.

Chris: It’s a great bag.

Craig: You know what? There’s a topic, by the way – traveling for writers – that we’re going to have to cover. Because god knows I’ve done it enough this year.

Chris: Oh yes.

Craig: And I got travel wired up.

John: I’ve gotten much better because I’ve done all the book tours.

Craig: Right. Exactly.

John: You just pulled something from this. So what is this?

Craig: Is that a battery?

Chris: This is not a battery. This is a laptop stand. Because writing flat on a desk – when I travel—

Craig: It’ll screw your wrist.

Chris: It screws your wrist. This is made by a company called, I hope I’m pronouncing it correctly, AViiQ. Which is how one would spell AViiQ.

Craig: Naturally AViiQ.

Chris: And for people not watching it—

Craig: That’s everyone. [laughs]

Chris: It looks like a ruler. Right? Well I’m talking – that’s not. You guys are here.

Craig: I’m not looking.

Chris: And it’s like origami. It’s made of aluminum. It unfolds.

Craig: Oh, wow, that’s great.

Chris: And feel the weight of it?

Craig: Oh my god, I’ve got to get this.

Chris: It’s like a few sheets of paper.

Craig: And this I assume is made to fit say a MacBook Pro?

Chris: I’ve had every laptop from a Pro to an Air.

John: Oh my god, it’s so light.

Chris: Everything on it. You don’t even know it’s in your bag.

Craig: That’s great.

Chris: It’s great.

Craig: AViiQ.

Chris: AViiQ. Everybody just go and look at it online. Because there’s no way to describe it where it makes any sense.

Craig: I’m buying that. I’m buying that. That’s brilliant.

Chris: OK, good. I’m glad. And by the way—

John: It was worth the two things.

Chris: This bag, this computer bag, is like $130. It’s not extremely prohibitive.

Craig: It’s not cheap, but it’s not extremely prohibitive. It’s not made of Panda skin.

Chris: Correct.

Craig: The way one would expect Chris McQuarrie to roll.

Chris: And the AViiQ thing is like $20.

Craig: I like that.

Chris: It’s been a while since I bought it.

Craig: I hear you.

Chris: All right. It’s $10,000.

John: [laughs] It’s diamond-encrusted.

Chris: Yes. It’s made of conflict medals from—

Craig: Conflict medals!

John: As we wrap up this show we should remind people that they should buy t-shirts. The Scriptnotes 400-episode t-shirts are available. They should also buy tickets to our live show coming up at the Ace Hotel.

Craig: 400.

John: We’ll have links to both of those things.

Craig: That’s like eight years of podcasting.

John: It’s a lot of podcasting.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: It’s not even counting the special episodes, of course. So, the things that aren’t part of the number sequence—

Craig: Can’t believe it. Wow.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is 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 shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust.

Craig: Chris McQuarrie is?

Chris: Cryptically enough @chrismcquarrie.

John: @chrismcquarrie.

Chris: I’m in the midst of a Twitter moratorium.

John: It’s a good thing.

Craig: Tweet at him anyway.

Chris: Yeah. I answer questions in DMs now.

Craig: Be disagreeable with him. He loves it.

Chris: Yeah, I like being disagreeable.

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

Some folks have started doing recaps and discussion on the screenwriting sub-Reddit. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, Craig?

Craig: No.

John: If that continues that’s great. But basically they’re just recapping what happens on the show.

Craig: Oh, I hope they recap this very moment.

John: You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net. or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

And if you’re doing that you should probably check out the Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide at johnaugust.com/guide to find out which episodes our listeners recommend most. You were on Episode 300. We already have you penciled in for Episode 500.

Chris: Yes, done. I’m there.

Craig: No question. I mean, that’s our Diamond Jubilee.

Chris: OK, great. I’m there.

John: Chris McQuarrie, thank you very much.

Chris: Thank you guys.

Craig: And you know what, John? Thank you. 400 episodes.

John: It’s been nice.

Craig: Thanks man.

Links:

  • Order your Scriptnotes 400 shirts, sweatshirts, and tanks (Light) and (Dark)!
  • Join us for Scriptnotes LIVE on June 13th at the Ace Hotel to benefit Hollywood Heart. Buy your tickets here!
  • Watch Chernobyl on HBO
  • The Chernobyl Podcast with Craig and Peter Sagal
  • Scriptnotes episode 300, From Writer to Writer-Director with Chris McQuarrie
  • LectroFan High Fidelity White Noise Sound Machine
  • One Clue Crossword
  • eBags and AViiQ Portable Laptop Stand
  • Find past episodes and Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Check out the Scriptnotes Episode Guide
  • Submit to the Pitch Session here!
  • Chris McQuarrie on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Rajesh Naroth (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 393: Twenty Questions About the Agency Agreement, Transcript

April 5, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript, WGA

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

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 393 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is off in London finishing up the sound mix for Chernobyl. So this was originally going to be a repeat episode but a lot has happened this past week with the agency agreement. So instead I wanted to bring on two writers to help us make sense of it all.

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

**Chris Keyser:** Thanks John.

**John:** Chris, it’s so good to have you back. Even more exciting we have Angelina Burnett. She is a television writer who has worked on The Americans, Hannibal, Genius, and Halt and Catch Fire. She’s on the WGA board of directors and the negotiating committee. Welcome Angelina.

**Angelina Burnett:** I’m so happy to be here, John. Thank you for having me.

**John:** So over the last year I have watched you in wonder as you’ve organized people and projects and things in ways that I just didn’t know were possible. So, your background is in political organizing. You’ve done this before?

**Angelina:** I have. And in fact it’s been so interesting to go through this struggle in leadership because I was an assistant in the 2007 strike and lost my job. And I had said when I saw Barack Obama in 2004 give his DNC speech that when he ran for president I was going to quit my job and work for him. But when he announced he was running I had this assistant job that I was sure was going to turn into a staff job. And as we all know when that comes and you feel like it’s right at your fingertips I just couldn’t quit. Well, fortunately the WGA handled that for me. I lost my job and I started volunteering about 100 hours a week on the primary campaign. And then I was hired to move to Nevada and run the border state program for the general. And I went through this really intense training program with this man named Marshall Ganz who was trained in organizing with the United Farmworkers back in the ‘60s.

And so I’ve spent the last ten years of my life balancing my writing career and political organizing career. And it’s been very thrilling to be in this challenge with folks and to get to bring all those skills to bear. So it feels really good to be of service with that background.

**John:** When I see Angelina Burnett yield a shared Google sheet to organize some things I’m just like, wow, we’re in the hands of a master here.

**Angelina:** [laughs] I’m honored. Thank you.

**John:** The other thing I want to call out, because you’d said this in a meeting and it never occurred to me before, and I’ve really watched myself since is we need to stop saying “baby writers.”

**Angelina:** Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. Thank you.

**John:** Because sometimes we’ll say, and we mean it in the nicest way, baby writers like newer, younger writers, but tell me why we should not say that.

**Angelina:** Well, first of all they’re grownups. They’re grown humans. And second of all when the Weinstein thing happened and I was on the sexual harassment subcommittee which quickly sprawled into bullying and workplace harassment and just the general vibe of a writers’ room. And I believe that the language we use gives people permission to treat people certain ways. And so I think when you call someone a “baby writer” you’re infantilizing them and you’re sort of implicitly justifying demeaning behavior.

And so there is an incredible amount we have to do as a guild, as a community, to address this issues, but I think a very small thing all of us can do is just excise that phrase from our lexicon.

**John:** We’re not going to say that anymore.

**Angelina:** Thank you.

**John:** Before we get into the agency negotiation stuff, this week a big thing happened which was Fox and Disney became one thing. So Disney had announced its acquisition of Fox but this was the week it all kind of came together. And so on the film side it looks like the following pieces are going to stick around. So there’s 20th Century Fox, there’s Fox Family, Fox Searchlight, Fox Animation. It’s unclear which of those divisions are going to make theatrical films versus making stuff for the new Disney Plus Streaming. But yesterday as we’re recording this Fox 2000 it was announced is going away. And that really brought me down, because that was one of the first places I worked. And I loved that Fox 2000 was a label that you actually sort of knew what they made. They made films about issues and especially films with women in them. And Laura Ziskin was the original Fox 2000 chief. Elizabeth Gabler was great. I was really sad to see Fox 2000 go away.

**Chris:** Not good for writers. Not good for the audience.

**Angelina:** No.

**John:** No. I mean, and so all of those people are really smart and they’ll get to go to other places, but when there’s one less buyer out there.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** Or in this case sort of six less buyers out there, it really hurts us.

**Angelina:** Yeah. These mergers are not good for us fundamentally. And, you know, I think back to ’94 which I’ve heard about when I started in the business and the vertical integration of networks and studios. And this is what we have to work against. And, you know, when we have power we have to use it. We didn’t have power here. But–

**Chris:** Not to bring us back to the conversation we’re going to get to eventually, but of course the agencies use that argument against us. They say, “Well, we have these affiliated studios. Isn’t that better for you? We’ve got more buyers.” And we say yes. We love all of those studios, we just don’t want them attached to agencies.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, if Disney were to buy WME that would not be good.

**Angelina:** That would be terrible.

**John:** It would be remarkably terrible. And yet I can imagine a different scenario with a different administration where Disney and Fox would not have been allowed to merge. I think that was a mistake and I think that’s going to hurt us in the long run.

**Angelina:** I do, too. And at the guild we do have a PAC. We do have a political action arm. And we did all we could with our limited power to try to push back against this. But this is what happened. You know, elections have consequences. And the Trump Justice Department, they were not going to be our ally on this. So we use the political power we have when we have it and we didn’t have it this time.

**John:** All right. To the marquee topic which is the agency negotiation. So, we are recording this on the Friday before a week where we’re going to have a bunch of big public meetings where people can come and talk to us about their thoughts on the agency agreement. Those meetings are Tuesday March 26 at the Beverly Hilton, 7:30pm. I won’t be there for that one, but I will be there for the next two, Wednesday March 27 at Sheraton Universal, 7:30pm, and Saturday March 31 at the Writers Guild, 10:20am. There are also east coast meetings, so we will get those up on the website as well. But we’re having those meetings because we’re about to start voting on something.

So the vote is to authorize the board and the WGA East Council to implement a code of conduct. So today we’ll talk a little bit about what the code of conduct is, why that might be a thing that comes to pass. Voting for that for members starts on Wednesday the 27 at 9pm, both Pacific time and East Coast time, so just ignore the time change in between there. It’s 9pm no matter which coast you’re on. And it goes through Sunday March 31 at 10am Eastern Time.

So big meetings coming up. A chance to sort of talk about what’s going on. But I asked people on Twitter to send in their questions and I thought we could knock out maybe twenty questions that people have right now about the agency agreement and I have two very smart people here who can answer those questions.

**Angelina:** Great. And actually before we launch into that I would love to say one thing. You know, occasionally I hear from folks that they feel that the vibe in those meetings is so guild positive and guild rah-rah that they don’t feel comfortable speaking up and sharing concerns. And I want to say at least from leadership’s perspective we want to hear concerns. We want this to be a place where people can voice dissent. This is a democratic union, warts and all, and we don’t ever want to make people feel like they can’t share their concerns. So, if you have concerns and you want to share them please come to these meetings and feel like you can speak up. Nobody is going to shout you down. We’re there to listen.

**Chris:** And even if it’s difficult to do that, and it may be difficult to do that in meetings where the majority feels like they’re on the other side, secret ballot. Vote your conscience and your heart. We don’t know who votes which way. And an honest vote from our membership tells us what to do.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** 100%. All right. Let’s get to these questions. So Marv Boogie writes, “Why did it take 42 years to renegotiate the ATA agreement?” Chris Keyser, why did it take this long? 42, 43 years. Why did we wait so long?

**Chris:** Well, it’s a complicated answer. I think it has mostly to do with the fact that the Writers Guild has a lot on its plate. Every three years we have to renegotiate the MBA. And that’s a thing that happens over the course of a couple months, but the preparation for it – and when I say the preparation, not just the preparation that has to be done by the staff and the negotiating committee, but the preparation to get the membership ready to think about that is long. It can be over a year.

When you think about what the cycle looks like when that happens and then you think about where the Writers Guild membership is, whether that membership is engaged enough to be called into action more than once in a three-year cycle. It has taken us a long time to get to the place where we could do that. I mean, to be honest with you I don’t know what might have happened earlier had we not had to strike in 2007 and 2008. That was absolutely necessary. And the benefits that we have reaped from our jurisdiction over the Internet I think are being felt by almost all writers today. I can’t remember what percentage of our income comes from that, but it has taken a little while to understand exactly why that was important. But it took a really great toll on the guild. There were people who were angry about it in the moment. There were people who suffered from the strike because strikes can be cruel things.

It took a lot of years for people to say we’re back in a place where we’re going to fight together in a place of unanimity. And I think the guild leadership after a lot of decades began to feel through 2017, the 2014 negotiations the guild was in a place where it could do that. We had the kind of staff that was prepared and so we saw this opening between 2017 and 2020 and thought we’d go for it.

It’s not that we didn’t care. It’s that it took a while for us to have a moment in time where we could do it. And then on the other side business has changed. The business has changed so that the agency business is now dominated by four agencies, small oligopoly. They have overwhelming percentage of the market share. And their control over that and packaging and the assessment of packaging fees had made this a question that we have to answer now. That’s thing two. Thing three. I probably should have identified it which is we are not going after packaging fees and other conflicts of interests just because we’re on a moral crusade. We’re going after those things because it has an economic impact on writers.

And it has been in the last decade that we’ve seen writers’ salaries plummet. So we’re in a very special, and I’m sorry for going on for a long time, but it matters to understand this, special moment in the business where, one, the studios who make our product because of the globalization of the marketplace, the accessibility of our product, their profits have doubled in the last ten years. They make $50+ billion every year. They’re doing really well.

The agencies, those big four agencies, because of the money, the influx of money from packaging fees they’re able to monetize that and their control over talent to get enormous influx of capital. So we know those agencies, indirectly we know this because their books are closed, they’re the recipients of billions of dollars in investment and those investors are reaping hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in profits. So agencies are doing well.

And at the same time writers’ salaries have gone down 23% in the last two years, double digits over the last decade. That is the contrary to the rules of economics. It ought not to happen that way and we had to look for a number of different causes for it. Some of them we’ve identified in our MBA negotiations. That’s why we negotiated, span a couple of years ago. And one of them is the fact that people who are supposed to be defending our above-scale income, the agencies, are failing in their jobs. So when you take the decline in writers’ salaries, the overwhelming control of the business that the agencies have, and a moment in time when the guild is powerful enough feels enough of a kind of common purpose to actually take on a battle like this that led us to this moment. That’s why.

**Angelina:** And I’d also say, this is my first term on the board. I’ve been a captain for ten years. And from my perspective, not having the sort of behind the scenes view that Chris does, this bubbled up from the membership. You know, I would go to membership meetings and it would come up unprompted. People would raise their hand and say what are we going to do about the agents.

And so the reality is this packaging money flowed in and then the private equity money flowed in. And then they stated these affiliate production arms. And now what we’re looking at is our agents being our bosses and I think writers started to feel the tension of that and the anxiety of what that future means. And they spoke up. And so while there were behind the scenes things happening as we investigate this, the membership was speaking very clearly about it as a problem and, again, we’re a democratic institution. We respond to the membership.

**Chris:** That’s really true. I mean, I was president for two terms as you said and we had a lot of membership meetings. And almost everything we’ve done over the last – and John you know this because you’ve been involved – almost everything that we’ve done from questions of Span which is how long writers need to work for a given episode, or issues of options and exclusivity which means how long writers are held without being paid in between seasons of shows, or forbidden to work on something else. All of that came from the membership. Every one of these questions came from outreach meetings in which members began to say here’s what’s affecting our bottom line.

**John:** Yeah. I would say the reason why it took 42 years for this to get renegotiated is as a person who is relatively well informed about the WGA business but was not on the board I didn’t even understand we had a relationship with the agents. I would complain about the agencies but I didn’t know that the WGA actually had a negotiated relationship with the agencies.

**Chris:** The AMBA. Yeah.

**John:** When writers would write in with questions and problems and would talk about horror stories and I would say why is your agent letting that happen it never occurred to me that the WGA could actually step in and do something about that.

The second answer is they started producing. And that to me is the biggest why now. Because I look five years, ten years down the road, I don’t want to be working for my agent.

**Angelina:** Uh-uh.

**John:** Jacqueline writes, “If we end up going down the route where we need to implement a code of conduct what happens the next day?”

**Angelina:** So we can’t say for sure right now, it’s going to depend on the strength of the vote. It’s going to depend on the factors on the ground. The board and negotiating committee will look at all the different factors and judge it accordingly, but we cannot pretend like there won’t be disruption if we ask the membership to walk away from their agents during staffing season. And we’ve really considered what we can do to mitigate that disruption. If the risk is worth the potential reward. And again we won’t be making that decision right now. We’ll make that decision when the vote comes in and we see how the agents respond. I mean, with everything we do they do something and we have to reorient our thinking.

But we have come to believe that by putting some programs in place and by frankly good organizing, good human-to-human community work that we can take care of each other and that we can mitigate the disruption and that we can get through a staffing season without agents. I mean, the membership has told us, 75% of our survey respondents go their last job without their agent. And that’s not to say that agents aren’t valuable. They do play a role. But the role they’re playing now is problematic and we have to adjust their power. We have to realign their incentives. And in order to do that we’re going to have to take a little time to see what life is like without them.

And speaking as someone who has always been very clear on her power, I think it might be a healthy thing for us to come together and take care of each other. And to reorient our understanding of writer’s position at the center of this business.

**Chris:** Can I add one other thing to that, to remember this which is the business is going to continue in some sense as it did before. Same number of shows that would have been picked up had we not done this are going to be picked up. The same number of people are going to be hired at the same levels. The same number of high-level writers and mid-level writers and low-level writers.

This is not a question of whether in the aftermath of an imposed code of conduct writers get work. It’s really a question of how that work is distributed. Whether the temporary change in access to that employment adversely affects some people in relation to others. And I don’t know if you want to talk about that at some point, but you’ve been working for months on programs to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

**Angelina:** Yes. And I should have started with the fact that everybody who has a job still goes to work. Like that’s the most important thing to remember. Nobody stops going to work.

**Chris:** And people who don’t have jobs, but who will be hired, still go to work.

**Angelina:** Yeah. There will still be 750 or so jobs in network staffing season and there will still be 1,500 people vying for those jobs and half of those people will get jobs. That’s what will happen.

**John:** Let’s talk about the people involved in getting those people their jobs. Because we talk about the agents as being a key force here, and they clearly are, but there’s also managers. There are studio bosses who have lists of the folks they want to – writers they want to work with. Networks have lists of people they want to work with again. Showrunners have experience with people. Showrunners talk to other showrunners about the people who are available now to be staffed on their shows. So, there’s a lot of communication happening that would happen regardless of the agencies.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I think something that – I ran for the board for a number of reasons, but a big one was to address access for diverse populations, for women, people of color, folks with disabilities. All the folks who have had a traditionally difficult time getting into our business. I wanted to be in leadership to see what little changes I might be able to make to create space for that. And so as I look at this, as we all looked at this, what does a staffing season without agents look like? The true fear is that we’ll go back to the old boys’ network, which is how it works anyway by the way. But we’ve made very like small little tip-toe gains over the last few years in cracking the doors a little bit wider.

There have plenty of showrunners who started going to Twitter. Mike Schur hires off of Twitter. Julie Plec hires off of Twitter. They’ve been going around the gatekeepers to try to find interesting, different, unique voices to bring into their room. And so my personal feeling in approaching how do we solve the problem of staffing season without agents is how do we make sure the folks who already have a hard time getting in the door and who are now losing their advocate, how do we protect them? That’s been my number one priority.

And I will say on top of the things we’re doing as a guild, which Chris is reaching out to the showrunner community and asking them to step up and systematize the thing they’re doing anyway. Showrunners recommend to other showrunners. Staff writers reach out to people they worked for and had good experiences with and say will you please give me a recommendation. So we’re asking folks to do more of that.

Additionally, we’ve developed this submission system which I hope will continue forever. I hope we’ll roll it out this staffing season, showrunners will buy into it, and will get to keep using it. And it’s a really simple way for showrunners to ask exactly for what they’re looking for, those unique voices, the specific backgrounds, the philosophy degree, experience in law enforcement, whatever it is. And then allows the membership to submit themselves in a way that speaks to those exact needs and puts it into a really clean, simple, sortable, searchable database.

So the submissions don’t feel overwhelming. You can pick out of it exactly what you need. So those are the two sort of pieces that the guild can officially put in place.

But what I have found so inspiring, this goes back to my organizing experience, problems like this always have an organizing solution. And organizing solutions are people-based. And I have met so many incredible young African-American women who want to be a part of the solution. And we are empowering them. They don’t need us to tell them what to do. The sort of paternalistic notion that the experienced white writers need to swoop in and save these people, these folks are used to working twice as hard. They’re here because they’ve been working twice as hard. All we have to do is empower them a bit. They’ve already created a network.

This stuff is already happening. All they need is a little support and a little encouragement from the guild and we can help them get their arms around that community and make those connections. So there will be mixers. We’ll be getting showrunners with lower-level writers. And I think the combination of these sort of online tools and, again, the person-to-person organizing work, I think we can get our arms around this problem and really, really create some support.

**Chris:** Do you mind if I add on a couple of things to that?

**Angelina:** Please.

**Chris:** Just to emphasize some stuff, because as you said it’s critical. And it’s a mistake we can’t make to allow—

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** To allow people to fall through the cracks. Although it’s going to be a little chaotic, a little more chaotic than before. So a couple of things. First of all, we’re asking showrunners to say that you are essentially responsible for anyone who has been on your staffs the last five years. Not just the people you’ve known forever, but everybody. It is a thing showrunners do.

So unlike the old version of showrunners talk to showrunners and the same old people get hired, we’re talking about anybody in the guild who has been employed in the last five years. And that includes low-level writers, new writers, writers of color, women, all of them. They will have better advocates in a sense than their agents, because I don’t know about you but when I run a show I just get lists of people from agents with not much information.

But if I get a phone call from a showrunner who says I worked with this young woman, or older man, or whatever it is, and hear she’s excellent in a room and a good writer, that means a lot. So I think that system is going to work really well. The other thing is when you think about the people in the system who actually make sure writers are hired, agents are not one of those people. They are the intermediaries, but it’s the studios and the networks, the producers, and the writers. We hire ourselves in a sense.

So, if we are attentive to that. If the networks and studios pay attention not just to their general staffing grids, but to the diverse grids, and we hold their feet to the fire on that and we say you can’t come out of the staffing season with worse numbers. You can come out with better numbers because in fact in some ways we’re democratizing the system. I think then we’re going to be OK.

No agent has ever hired a single writer.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** Right? The people who are still in the system are the people who end up making offers to writers. And if we knock this staffing season out of the park we’re going to have a lot of power as a guild to set things right.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I think – I just want to say one more thing to that. You know, agents open doors. And that’s the challenge we have right now is access. Agents open doors. And I’ve seen so many young writers, and I even felt it in myself as somebody who grew up in this business. I’m very privileged. I had a lot of doors already opened to me. And I still felt like I needed an agent to matter. And I needed an agent to get work.

I was very quickly disabused of that notion because I got my first job all by myself, and then I got my agent. But I think there are a lot of writers out there who really feel like they matter because of what agency they’re with. And the truth is, the thing we have to keep reminding ourselves, is we matter because we’re good writers. That’s where our power and value is. Agents open doors, we get ourselves the work. So the guild and our community, we’re going to come together and we’re going to make sure those doors open and then you’re going to have the opportunity as you always have to get yourself the job.

**John:** All right. Let’s do a quick one. Adam writes, “What do you think of the David Simon article?” This is an article we’ll link to. David Simon of The Wire wrote a long screed – I think a screed is a fair thing to say – about his experience in packaging. What did you think about it Angelina?

**Angelina:** I was a fan. I thought he did a really great job of making the problem clean and clear in a very entertaining way, considering this isn’t an entertaining problem. I was impressed that he was able to make it entertaining.

**John:** Chris Keyser, what did you think of the David Simon article?

**Chris:** I thought at the heart of it it was true. I know some people have an issue with the heightened rhetoric. It’s not a thing that you would have heard from your guild, but it’s a world in which people speak their minds and he spoke his pretty powerfully.

**John:** Yeah. I liked it, too, because everything that the three of us are saying has to have some messaging behind it. There has to be a purpose and we know what we’re trying to say. And everything that goes out of the guild has to be sort of vetted. Chris Keyser, you’ve written a bunch of pieces that are up on the website which we’ll link to about sort of my agent is not like that. You really talk through these things. But those are more diplomatic than David Simon’s article because they’re on the guild website.

We didn’t ask David Simon to write that. He just wrote that.

**Angelina:** He just did it.

**John:** And sometimes you need a bomb-thrower.

**Chris:** Right.

**Angelina:** Agreed.

**John:** Kelly McNeal writes, “Is another strike eminent?”

**Chris:** Well, first of all, there’s no strike in this.

**Angelina:** This isn’t a strike.

**Chris:** We’re not striking. No one is going to lose a job over this. We’re just talking about a different way of having access to jobs briefly. Because we’re not anti-agent.

**Angelina:** Yeah. And then going back to our agents.

**Chris:** That’s right. We’d like to go back to our agents. As to what happens in 2020 no one can predict that.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** That’s the next thing. Tom writes, “Are you guys really negotiating or is this just running out the clock?” I can take that because I was in the negotiating room yesterday.

**Angelina:** Do it.

**Chris:** Tell us. What are we doing, John?

**John:** We’re really negotiating. We are really trying to get to a place where we can figure out an agreement together and figure out sort of what this all looks like. That’s not always a simple process. It’s not always a calm and quiet process. But, yeah, we’re really negotiating.

The other thing I would stress is that negotiating, you think about it just being that last deal-making phase where you’re haggling, you’re trading off stuff. But negotiating is also communicating with your members about what it is you want, advocating for your position, seeing how much strength you have around that position. That’s negotiations. And we’re doing that and you definitely see the agencies doing that.

**Chris:** Yes. I was going to say what do you think the agencies are doing when they accuse of not negotiating? They’re negotiating.

**Angelina:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s negotiating.

**Chris:** That’s what they’re doing. I know and I think – I know this because it came out of the MBA negotiations that members don’t like the game part of it.

**John:** They don’t.

**Chris:** Because we’re really specific and we’re type A and we’re organized and we want things to be useful and based on reasonable arguments. So it drives our membership crazy. But the problem is it’s actually part of what is in some ways a bit of theater in this. That what happens outside the table as David Young says determines the shape of the table. And the shape of the table has everything to do with what you end up getting. So when they say they refuse to come back to the table and we won’t let them back until they say they’re going to compromise on everything and we say we’re not going to compromise on everything before we get back to the table. If you don’t want to hear that we won’t be coming back. And they say, “Fine, come back.” Well, that was a little victory for us.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I’ll also say, you know, this goes back to my organizing training and why I think it’s so valuable in this context is this is about building and exercising power. Negotiations come down to who has more power. And all of this rhetoric, all of the organizing we do, the outreach we do, all of it is about building power. And the more power we can build the better deal we get. And I will say that David Young is a master at building power. And there may be times where a thing is said in the press in public that feels, that makes you personally uncomfortable because you like your agent and I totally understand that. But we wouldn’t do it if we didn’t think it built our power. And all of that is driving towards getting us the best possible deal with the least amount of pain. That’s what power gives us the opportunity to do. Get a great deal for minimal risk.

So, you guys want us to be building power. I promise.

**John:** Minhail writes, “If affiliate production arms present a clear conflict of interest why did a WGA board member at the new member orientation say it was ‘all good to sell stuff to them?’ This is after a member asked whether it was OK to pitch something to Endeavor Content.” So affiliate production arms we mean Endeavor Content, we mean Wiip, we mean the ones that are closely aligned with the agencies. So why would a board member say that it was OK to sell stuff to Endeavor Content?

**Chris:** Because it’s our philosophy that the action is collective and not individual. So we are not saying to any member of our guild change the way you behave. You don’t have to refuse a package on your show right now. You don’t have to stop selling to wherever you’re selling. When the time comes for the membership as a whole exercising the power that we have as a collective decide to change the world, then you’ll have to accommodate those rules. Until then, you play in the world that exists.

**John:** Yeah. I had a couple of phone calls this last week. So I’ve been emailing a bunch of people, including my cell phone, and so my phone will ring and it’s like, oh, who is this person. But I answer. And a couple of questions have been why are you so against Endeavor Content or Wiip and I got a great deal there, and I always stress that we are not against those. We want those to exist. We just don’t want them to be part of the agency. That’s the relationship. We want Endeavor Content to stay. We want WME to stay. We just want them to be separate companies so that everybody can compete fairly. I just don’t want to be working for my agent.

**Chris:** Right. Can I speak for one second to that question? Because a lot of people have said, “But I’ve gotten a really good deal at those places.” And this is the answer that I always like to give. First is that loss leaders are an old tactic. So a lot of the early deals are going to be really good. And by the way some people with enormous amount of power in the industry are going to end up getting good deals. But here’s the basic truth of it which is these studios, these affiliate studios, have to compete eventually in the marketplace against every other studio which means they’re not going to be doing that by giving some kind of sweetheart deal to their own clients.

In fact, when you take a look at some of the information that we released about the amount of money that’s being poured into these agencies that can only be repaid by studios that are very successful, you end up with this impossible to reconcile dilemma which is effectively those studios are operating. They’re operating as producers. They make money when they reduce their costs and they increase their revenue.

When they pay us more they increase their costs and reduce their revenue. And at some point something’s got to give. And the truth is the agency business is a much smaller part of this than a very, very successful studio. That’s why in 1962 MCA decided to become Universal because that’s where they were going to make their money. We don’t want to be in a business where effectively it’s an affiliated agency to an existing studio.

**John:** Chris, someone writes, “Could we forget about agents all together? Could we live in a world without agents?”

**Angelina:** I don’t know that we need to. I don’t know that that’s what the membership wants. I mean, could we? Possibly. But I think agents are valuable. I think they’re–

**John:** I think they serve an important function.

**Angelina:** I do. And I think their interests have to be aligned with ours. I mean, I think we need agents. I just think we need their power to be commensurate with their value.

**John:** I’ve had two agents over my entire career and what they’ve been great at is connecting me with people who I would not have otherwise met. Negotiating on my behalf. Really understanding what I was worth and fighting to get every penny of what I was worth. And just being a person I could trust to help me navigate this industry because obviously they’re going to have more experience out there in the world with many deals than I ever could.

I think that’s a valuable service for 10 percent.

**Chris:** I was going to say I like my agent so much I’m willing to pay him directly for what he does for me.

**Angelina:** Yes.

**Chris:** And my agent before I would have paid her as well. That’s how much I like them.

**Angelina:** Yes. That’s right.

**John:** Lady Page writes, “Can I still wear yoga pants to business casual days?”

**Angelina:** Yes. It’s a free country. You can wear whatever you want.

**John:** Yeah. I’m a big fan of yoga pants. They’re actually very comfortable.

**Angelina:** They are.

**Chris:** Depending on what the membership decides. I mean, I don’t know whether we’ll find that out.

**John:** Well actually the membership–

**Angelina:** That’ll be our next vote.

**John:** The membership is maybe sort of the writers’ room. So I guess within a writers’ room there’s a sort of – is it a formal code or you just sort of figure out what’s cool in your room?

**Angelina:** I mean, I wore my pajamas to work for the first probably three or four years of my career before I realized I was an adult and should probably dress like one. So, nobody ever said anything.

**Chris:** That was during your baby writer phase.

**John:** [laughs]

**Angelina:** I was such a baby.

**John:** So we’re saying thumbs up on yoga pants. Aline Brosh McKenna probably would have a different opinion, but she’s not here right now.

**Angelina:** She’s a classy lady.

**John:** She’s a classy lady. Andy Lee writes, “Why are the agents so bad at negotiating?” I think that’s circular logic. He’s begging the question.

**Chris:** They’re so good at negotiating.

**John:** I think agents are good at negotiating our deals for stuff, sometimes. And my agents have gotten me really good deals on things.

**Angelina:** I think they’re uncomfortable – we are forcing them onto our playing field of collective bargaining. And they just don’t have as much experience with that and they’re very uncomfortable there. And that’s good for us because, again, we want as much power as we can get.

I think they’re very good at negotiating. I think this playing field is new to them.

**Chris:** Yeah. But I think some of this is also – this is a little bit of theater again.

**Angelina:** Yes. Correct.

**Chris:** We don’t know what’s going on.

**Angelina:** Correct.

**Chris:** This is not our way. Why are you doing it differently?

And it’s all fine. Nothing wrong with it. Let them do that. They are fully capable of negotiating this contract if and when they want to do that.

**John:** And we see them organizing, too. So they’re doing their outreach to their members. They’re having meetings. They’re doing all the same stuff that we do.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** They’re playing the game.

**Chris:** They’re not the underdogs in this.

**Angelina:** No.

**John:** They’re not.

**Angelina:** No, they are not.

**John:** Erin S. asks, “Why is your rhetoric so heated? The agencies are not our enemies. The studios are.”

**Chris:** I think there’s two parts to that question. The first is it is absolutely true the agents are not our enemies. They are our deeply conflicted allies. And in a world in which the studios against whom we negotiate are extremely powerful we need unconflicted allies. That’s what we’re fighting to get. And the truth is I understand that sometimes conflicted allies are more complicated than simple enemies. We’re writers. What’s so hard to figure out that there’s not black and white. It’s not good or bad. Why do we need to paint it that way?

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** These are people who work for us most of the time. But they’re also working for themselves in ways that the law and ethics suggests they should not and that’s what we’re putting right. The question of whether our rhetoric is too extreme or not is a more complicated question. Look, it’s a fair question. I mean, should this have been ratcheted down by 10 percent or 15 percent? I don’t know. But I think that a lot of the people who are angry at how they perceive our rhetoric as being somewhat inflammatory forget that there are thousands of members of this guild who didn’t know anything about what packaging was. And unlike an MBA negotiation they are being whispered to every day and every week by their agencies telling them one thing. And it’s necessary for us not to just name things but to characterize them. To talk about them as they are. And that may seem like more extreme rhetoric than you want to hear against somebody who has been heretofore your friend in the business, but part of our job – you know this Angelina – is to engage people and get them – they need to be a little bit riled up. They can’t be too riled up because we need to eventually make peace in all of this.

But in order to make peace properly we first need to have people understand and fully committed. So some people will find our rhetoric precisely what they need. And some people will find it a little bit too much. And some people won’t be paying attention at all. It’s impossible to get it exactly right.

I understand why some of the members are conflicted about that. But I think if you took a vote on whether our rhetoric was right on or not I think we’d still get a majority saying thank you for explaining to me exactly the scope of what this problem is.

**Angelina:** And I also, Chris you may disagree with this. You have so much more experience in these negotiations than I do. But my gut instinct is that ratcheting down our rhetoric doesn’t give us a better chance of getting a good deal. I don’t think they’re not making a deal with us because their feelings are hurt. So I understand the anxiety on a personal level because those who like their agents it can be awkward. But on a systemic level, which is what we’re really dealing with here. This actually isn’t about individual agents. This is about a system that places pressure and has frozen streams of power and money in a way that harms writers. We’re trying to undo that system. And then those agents who we love will be more effective agents in a better system. So if it’s painful for you or hard for you I would suggest maybe just thinking of it in terms of systems and not people.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Chris:** I think that’s true. Although to be completely fair to the other side, which is to say now our own members who are upset about our rhetoric, they would argue eventually you have to make peace. And if you get people too angry, if you rile them up too much the making peace becomes less possible.

**Angelina:** I understand that. I agree.

**Chris:** There is a kind of balancing that we need to that we continue to do at every point.

**Angelina:** That’s true. Yes.

**Chris:** And I would say to those members who are upset at us about that, no battle this big is waged without some disagreement about tactics or the extent of them.

**Angelina:** Correct.

**Chris:** It doesn’t fundamentally change that we’re all on the same side about this.

**Angelina:** That’s right. Well said.

**John:** Holly writes, “What percent has the salary of the agent risen compared to that of the writer they represent over the same time period? How can the agent/agency possibly be content merely repping a writer now after this? And is criminal and/or civil litigation being assessed for past wrongs?”

So on this first point, how much has the salary of the agent risen? I have no idea. We have no idea.

**Angelina:** We can’t know. Their books are closed.

**Chris:** We do know that the most powerful agencies, as agencies have an influx of billions of dollars in capital which happens when billions of dollars eventually are paid back to their investors, or at least hope to be paid back.

**John:** And some of that seems like inflammatory rhetoric when we point that out, but I think it’s important. The members need to know this.

**Angelina:** It’s true.

**Chris:** And by the way, I don’t care about agents being wealthy. It’s not a question of whether they have a lot of money. I think people misperceive the argument that we’re making there. It’s not about the idea that they shouldn’t pursue that. What it is is that when the agencies cease to be organizations principally concerned with raising our salaries and instead become organizations principally concerned with raising their own and those two are not connected—

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** Then we have a real problem. So if they have investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of dollars, and you can’t possibly pay that off on the ten percent commission business, therefore you’ve got to go into the business for example where you are employers of writers, that’s a problem. It’s not really that those agents individually take home a nice paycheck. It’s precluding us from doing that.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** Yeah. Last two questions. Mike Royce writes, “What did Chris Keyser think of the UTA numbers blizzard?” So this was a presentation, a PowerPoint show put out by UTA that showed that they went through their books and found that writers on UTA packaged shows versus non-UTA packaged shows the packaged shows they actually made more money. What did you make of this presentation?

**Chris:** I think it’s playing around with numbers in ways that I don’t appreciate. Thanks Mike for asking me.

**Angelina:** [laughs]

**Chris:** So a couple of things. You guys can chime in here also because I think you know these answers as well as I do. The first is there’s no comparison that we can actually make in this world between package and non-package shows. Essentially 98% of television shows are packaged. And those that aren’t are of a different quality than the ones – by quality I mean by budgets and things. They tend to be small Disney shows. So it’s meaningless to say that packaged shows have writers who earn more money than non-packaged shows. There’s no apples to apples comparison.

**John:** There’s no alternate universe where there’s a bunch of non-packaged shows we can look at. They just don’t exist.

**Chris:** That’s right. The second thing is, of course, because they’re UTA-packaged shows it means ipso facto that UTA is representing the highest paid person on that show, the showrunner. That’s the reason why they have the package. So naturally those shows should have higher – was it average?

**Angelina:** Averages.

**John:** An average. They use average.

**Chris:** And by the way that’s another reason why. So you have this enormously high starting salary for a showrunner and that skews things. The third thing is, of course, they’re including commissions in all of that which means in the end all they’re really talking about is the commissions and we’ve spoken about that and why we think that pales in comparison to a 23 percent decline in above-scale income.

So in the long run those numbers aren’t particularly good. And I know we get attacked periodically for the fact that our WGA surveys, which are pretty good, they have thousands of respondents, a huge percent, they wouldn’t be worthy of journals. You couldn’t publish them. But they’re pretty information that we have about what writers are doing and they’ve been consistent what they’re telling us over the last decade.

So, we get it UTA. It’s just part of the game.

**Angelina:** I liked their graphics.

**John:** Oh, OK. Thumbs up on graphics.

**Angelina:** It looked good.

**John:** It looked good. Yeah, we don’t do a lot of graphics.

**Angelina:** We’re not fancy.

**John:** We’re not fancy that way. So we appreciate when people are willing to be fancy. I should say–

**Chris:** I feel, by the way John, I want to say I know it’s hard because this always depends upon whether you actually implicitly believe your leadership or not, but we don’t make up numbers. We don’t twist them around. We’re not asking people to take risks for no reason. We have no incentive to engage in a battle when writers for example are not actually making less money than they made before.

I understand that in a kind of war like this, you know, you begin to use all kinds of tactics. It is disappointing that an agency would manipulate its numbers in order to say to writers you shouldn’t be upset about something. Which they certainly should be.

**John:** Talking of numbers, Ivan writes “What is the voting threshold needed to approve this code of conduct? If we are to follow through on the promise that this is a democratic decision dependent entirely upon the results of the membership vote the precise percentage needed to pass the measure must be known in advance of the vote. For the sake of protecting the integrity of the resulting action or inaction I would ask that Mr. Keyser and the leadership disclose the percentage needed to pass the code of conduct.”

So, the threshold to pass–

**Chris:** To pass it. That’s just a technical question. Somewhere over 50 percent passes the code of conduct.

**Angelina:** 50.1.

**Chris:** 50.1.

**John:** So it passes the resolution to authorize the board–

**Chris:** To consider implementing. But remember the resolution says when appropriate after the agreement expires. And that’s really important because the truth is, first of all, David Goodman has been very clear, the president of the Writers Guild of America West, that the number will need to be overwhelming. The reason why none of us can give you a precise number is I think related to what you spoke about earlier which is the decision to impose a code of conduct has everything to do with a lot of things that are going on on the ground at the moment. So, it has to do with the total number of votes that we get, the percentage of the membership votes. It has to do with some assessment of the depth of support for the measure. It has a lot to do with what’s going on in the negotiation at the present moment, and might be going on up until the day that the AMBA expires, because we have the right to continue if we want to. So that assessment is somewhat fluid.

But people need to understand if you don’t want to leave your agent, if the code of conduct is implemented, don’t vote yes.

**Angelina:** Yeah. This isn’t like the SAV where we say give us a big stick so we can go scare people and we promise not to use it unless we absolutely have to. You should vote yes only if you’re willing to walk away from your agent. The leadership wants to hear your honest vote. We want the truth. And we will act accordingly. But if you don’t want to walk away vote no.

**Chris:** And yet it is still our goal to have enough – wield enough power to get what we need with the least amount of confusion and suffering.

**Angelina:** That’s right. That’s right.

**John:** Final question. Lawant writes, “What’s to stop anyone from starting a new agency that actually does what agencies are supposed to do?”

**Angelina:** Nothing. Come on in, boys, the water is fine.

**Chris:** And it’s a good business. It made a lot of agencies in the years before packaging very well to do and very important in the business.

**John:** There’s like 196 agencies. There are a ton of agencies, but could some of these agents at these bigger places decide I want to be in the 10 percent business and take their clients and go with them?

**Angelina:** I think they could.

**Chris:** Of course.

**John:** Sure. That’s how CAA was formed. That’s how Endeavor was formed.

**Chris:** Of course.

**John:** There’s always been a history of agencies just springing up.

**Chris:** Yeah. Right. And by the way in 1962 when MCA, the biggest agency in the country, went out of the agency business to become Universal Studios, other agencies took over.

**Angelina:** It’s a profitable business.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** All right. Thank you for your questions that people wrote in. Thank you for these great answers. It’s nice to talk through that.

**Chris:** Thank you.

**Angelina:** You’re welcome.

**John:** And now it is time for our One Cool Things, where we talk about something we want to recommend to our listeners. My One Cool Thing is a book. It is Ask a Native New Yorker by Jake Dobkin. It’s just a really good book for anybody who is considering moving to New York City. And is just advice on everything that you will encounter as you move to New York City. He’s a very, very strong advocate for New York. Like almost too strong. He’s a little bit dismissive of all other cities. But sometimes that’s what you want in a person who is advocating for a city.

So, if you are considering in any way moving to New York City I would strongly recommend Ask a Native New Yorker.

**Angelina:** That’s cool. My One Cool Thing is my favorite show the last few years. It’s called Patriot. It’s on Amazon Prime. Created by Stephen Conrad. I will do it a disservice by trying to describe it. It is unlike anything I have ever seen. But it has such a huge, hard beating heart at its center. It is so optimistic while wrestling with the darkest parts of humanity that it just makes my heart sing. And I prostelytize it at every chance I get.

**John:** Hurrah. I should watch it.

**Chris:** It’s good. Can you call me back when you have One Uncool Thing? I have to admit I’ve been a little busy. I asked my writers’ room what to recommend.

**John:** You threw it out to the room for pitches.

**Chris:** Yeah. And I’m taking credit for it, which is what it’s like to do a show. They said there’s a show called Money Heist on Netflix which is a Spanish show about a group of people trying to steal from the Spanish Mint and they say it’s incredible. By the way, my favorite show in the last month or two is My Brilliant Friend on HBO.

**Angelina:** Oh, I haven’t seen that yet, but I heard it’s beautiful.

**John:** Yeah. Pen15 is also really good. There’s too much good TV.

**Angelina:** There’s a lot of good stuff out there. We should get paid for it. [laughs]

**John:** We should. We should get paid for it. That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Chuck Eyler. 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. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Are you guys on Twitter?

**Angelina:** Not anymore.

**John:** Ah, she’s off Twitter. And so is Chris Keyser.

**Chris:** Yes, off. I’ve never been on.

**John:** Smart choices you’ve made.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there, leave us a comment. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. And I may see some of you at one of these big public meetings.

**Angelina:** Yes, come join us.

**Chris:** Please come. Where are you headlining on Tuesday?

**John:** I’m out of town on Tuesday, so I won’t be able to do that, but I’m back for the Wednesday one.

**Chris:** Great.

**Angelina:** Great. We’ll see you there.

**John:** Cool. Thanks.

Links:

* [The Disney – Fox Merger](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/03/disney-fox-merger-and-future-hollywood/585481/)
* [Upcoming WGA Meetings and Voting Info](https://johnaugust.com/2019/guild-sets-dates-for-meetings-and-vote)
* [Ask a Native New Yorker](https://amzn.to/2ULv8og) by Jake Dobkin
* [Patriot](https://www.amazon.com/Patriot/dp/B017APUY62) on Amazon
* [Money Heist](https://www.netflix.com/title/80192098) on Netflix
* [My Brilliant Friend](https://www.hbo.com/my-brilliant-friend) on HBO
* We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
* You can now [order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Chuck Eyler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/393_Twenty_Questions.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 381: Becoming a Professional Screenwriter — Transcript

January 9, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. So, today’s episode comes from a panel I hosted for the Writers Guild back in October. We sat down and talked with a bunch of writers about their experience moving from being an aspiring writer to a professional writer who got paid for it.

There’s a few bad words in this episode, so if you’re driving in the car with your kids this is the warning. Enjoy.

Thank you so much. We are gathered here to celebrate – no, we are gathered here to talk about what it’s like to be starting off and hopefully offer some practical tips for beginning your career. This is hosted today by the Writers Guild of America West. I am so proud to be a board member of the Writers Guild of America West.

On all of your seats probably you got a No Writing Left Behind sticker as part of the approval process for the No Writing Left Behind sticker, but also the message. And so I think one of the things we’ll be talking about today is you’re going to be going into meetings hopefully and you’re going to be talking to folks about the things you want to write. If they are things that you own that you created by yourself, you can do anything with those. But so often you’ll be going in to talk about things that they own. You’ll be talking about the book they bought, or the remake they want to do, or their idea. And this campaign is to remind members but all screenwriters, great talk. Talk, talk, talk. Talk all you want. But writing is the thing you are paid to do. And make sure they’re paying you for writing. So don’t leave that stuff behind. Don’t email them pitches and treatments. That’s one of the things the guild can do is help protect writers from the abuses that you just encounter as a screenwriter.

But we’ll be talking about some scary things but also some really happy things hopefully with the amazing writers I’m very lucky to bring on board. So let’s bring them up. First off I want to welcome Tess Morris. Tess Morris is a writer whose credits include Man Up, she was on this most recent season of Casual.

Next up, Christina Hodson. Christina Hodson, she is a writer whose credits include the upcoming Bumblebee. Next up, Nicole Perlman. Credits include, oh, Guardians of the Galaxy, the upcoming Captain Marvel. And literally last to show up, but here, Jason Fuchs, whose credits include Wonder Woman and other great things. Jason Fuchs.

All right. Let us start a career before we started a career and let’s talk about that period of time in which you are writing but no one is paying you for your writing and what that’s like. Show of hands, who is in that stage of your career right now? Yeah! That was me. So let’s talk about that part of your career when you are hopefully a professional writer that you’re treating your craft professionally, it’s just that no one is paying you for that. Jason Fuchs?

Christina Hodson: Yes, start with him please.

John: Jason Fuchs, what was your life like before you were getting paid to write? What were you doing?

Jason Fuchs: I started off as an actor in New York City. So I was working here and there, doing the regular New York actor stuff. Law & Orders and all that. And–

John: So who did you play on Law & Order? Were you any bodies?

Jason: No, I was never a body. I was on Special Victims Unit where I was a teen rapist. I think we all remember that episode. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then it gets worse. I beat her up with a baseball bat. And the reveal at the end is the reason why I did it is because she gave me the clap. That was the big twist at the end of my episode. Oh, right, we’re in a church.

And then my dad was killed at my bar mitzvah on Criminal Intent. So I really – I played a variety of Jews in my acting career. Criminal Jews. Hasidic. But so I was acting quite a bit. My first writing gig was actually working at a place called Defense and Foreign Affairs Publications. I had an interest in the Middle East, in politics. I did an internship there. I worked there very briefly. And I was pretty young to be working there. And I thought this is kind of a weird experience and I wrote a screenplay about that on spec hoping that that would help me start a screenwriting career.

It got me an agent. Got me more unpaid work. But ultimately I still couldn’t get hired to do anything. And the script that ultimately changed my life, I wrote a spec script after that called The Last First Time, it was romantic comedy, that my agent refused to send out. And so I was really sort of at my wit’s end because I thought this was really simple – it was a guy trying to lose his virginity in the two days before a meteor hits the world and destroys all life which we know it. And my agent read it and said, “I don’t get it.”

And you can dislike it. You can think it’s kind of juvenile, but how do you not get it? And she would not send it out. And so I really was sort of at an impasse and ultimately solving that and getting that script out there is what started my career really as a professional writer.

John: So during this time where the agent wasn’t sending this out you had a day job working at this defense writing place?

Jason: I was writing at the Defense and Foreign Affairs Publications being paid very little and I was acting a bit. And so voiceover stuff really helped me sort of support myself and pay for things while I was waiting for something to happen.

John: Nicole, can you tell us about your period of time like this before your big break?

Nicole Perlman: Sure. Absolutely. After graduating from college with my undergrad degree I was just subsisting on patched together gig work. I actually counted it once. I worked 26 jobs before I was a paid writer. And that included things like running a glass bead making program for underprivileged women at Urban Glass in Brooklyn. I was a personal assistant to a felon. I installed humidity control units and industrial refrigerators. So I had like the most random hodgepodge of jobs.

But a script that I had written in college ended up winning a lot of sort of midrange festivals and it got me a little blurb, like one paragraph in Script Magazine. And that got me a meeting with an independent producer who said, “I have a similar idea, will you pitch on it?” I pitched on it. He hired me for change that he found in his pockets, but I was so excited because I was temping at the time. So I continued my day job for sure for a couple more years, but that was the first time I got paid for it.

And then after he signed the deal, after he signed the contract, his head of development was like, “Wow, we really screwed you on that, and I feel like to make it up to you we should introduce you to a junior agent.” So that’s how I got my first agent. But at the same time I was hustling. Actually it’s funny you bring up Criminal Intent because–

Jason: Did you write my episode?

Nicole: No. Not that cool, but when I was living in New York I found a list of every television show that was shooting in New York and the production offices–

Christina: You took them some glass beads?

Nicole: With some glass beads, yes. And I put my little picture that was in Script Magazine. This was 2004 I think. And I put like a few pages of one of my scripts and I put my resume and a cover letter and I sent it out to like 50 places. And one of them got back to me and it was Warren Light at Criminal Intent and he’s like, “Sure, you can do some part-time assistant work for me,” but it didn’t go anywhere. But it was nice. I mean, I worked for him for a while, so I did write some lines one some Criminal Intent shows. Not yours, though.

John: Christina Hodson, what were you doing before you were writing for money?

Christina: My transition into writing was annoyingly accelerated and it will make you be made at me, but I did do the Nicole phase trying to get into development. So before I was a writer I was a development executive. My university said that was not a viable option. Movies were not a real job. And this was when the Internet was shit. So I just Googled “film company London” and wrote down every number I could find. Cold called every receptionist, just buttered them up. Asked if I could take them for coffee or anything. Managed to wiggle my way into an internship. Ended up anyway in like I was a runner and then an intern and then an assistant. Did all of that for three years in London and three years in New York.

And I was so unhappy in my job that I would go home. I don’t know why I would take off my clothes, but I would go home, take off my clothes, drink bourbon which I’m allergic to, and wrote a very weird, dark kid’s book in verse. Makes sense. And I just got super lucky. I gave it to a friend, because I thought like this is funny. I killed a bunch of kids in some funny rhyming poems. And they thought it was funny and handed it on to a bunch of people. And a week later I got a call from ICM saying, “Hey, thank you for your submission. We would love to represent you.” And I obviously had not submitted it to them, but that gave me some glimmer of hope that I could write for money.

I got a teeny tiny book job off of that. And then I moved to LA because my husband got a job over there. And I had this 90-day period where my green card was pending and I didn’t know what to do. I had never written a screenplay. It never occurred to me to write a screenplay. But I was like what else am I going to do. I can’t get a job. So I wrote my first screenplay and I got super, super, super lucky.

My husband gave it to his agent who was a junior agent. And my husband was like no one is ever going to read this. They may give it to an intern, but it would be embarrassing for me to like pressure them. And luckily that junior agent read it on a Saturday, handed it to his boss on a Sunday, and then by Tuesday I had an agent. So I feel very guilty for it. But I paid for it earlier.

John: So what I will say, I want to put a pin in that in the sense of your work was being passed around without you knowing it, because I think that’s going to be a recurring thing that happens. I’ve seen that happen a lot. Tess, talk to us about your life before you were being paid to write.

Tess Morris: I mean, can I just talk about my life before, like generally? OK. I was born in 1977. No, I’m basically very similar to these guys, although I think Christina you’re underplaying your luck. There’s also talent involved in your script. So, I did a film and TV degree at a terrible university in England where I was taught by a lot of people who had failed in the industry. It was very inspiring. And then while I was there I wrote a short film that I submitted to a competition for Channel 4 which is one of our networks at home.

It won and it got made. So that was sort of my first introduction into sort of doing stuff. And then I took a total curveball and ended up being a journalist for a couple of years. And I worked for lots of women’s magazines and subsequently interviewed a lot of soap stars. And found out that one of the soaps – any British people here know Hollyoaks? There you go. Still going, by the way, Hollyoaks. Still going.

So I got a job writing for that. So that was kind of my first gig. And I only gave them kind of the comedy sort of stuff. So my trajectory then went from there, but I think actually what I’d like to say was very important to me is that – which I sometimes think people are loathe to admit – but I lived at home for quite a lot of my time, maybe for the first, I mean, I moved out and lived with a boyfriend and then as soon as I split up moved back home again. So I had the luxury of always having a very supportive network around me.

And I actually gave up writing for two years in my early 30s because I blamed it for the failure of all of my romantic existence. And I thought it wasn’t very healthy. But I still was able to live at home and I became a script reader for companies and I produced short films and went on the radio and reviewed movies. But all of that I was allowed to do that because I basically didn’t have a lot of rent to pay. So I think it’s important like we can all sit here and be like yeah whatever, but I was very lucky in the sense that I didn’t have a regular – before I got paid regularly. Now I pay my bills on time. Myself.

John: Yeah. So I want to talk about these sort of practical concerns of like how am I going to keep a roof over my head during this time. So we’ll talk about that, but also during this time how are you still writing every day? How are you still getting new stuff done?

Tess: I’m not writing every day. Who writes every day?

John: But there was a period of time during which no one was saying yes to you, and how do you keep working when no one is saying yes? Nicole, like you’re going through your glass beads. You’ve won some competition, so you have the notice in Script Magazine. But no traction is happening. So what are you doing to write new stuff during that time? Did you keep writing new stuff? How did you keep going every day?

Nicole: Yeah, absolutely. I think, you know, people say that you should be a writer if you can’t live a happy life doing anything but being a writer. And I could definitely live a happy life being something other than a writer. There’s a lot of things that I could do that I would be happy at. But I think I couldn’t live a happy life without collecting stories and trying to think about stories and getting excited about stories and about characters. And so during that time period which was, you know, it was kind of bleak. I found things to do that I enjoyed, but I would find stories and I would jot them down. I would write them down and it would be for me or it would be for when I have time to actually dive into another script. This is the thing I can’t wait to dive into. And I’d start tinkering with it. And a very like low risk situation. And then I started a writing group in New York.

And so I ended up writing for the writing group. And just trying to work on my craft. And so I mean I think I could definitely be happy being like the person who travels around the world getting foot rubs and whatever that job is. Sure. But I think the thing that I did for continuing to keep my head up wasn’t like, oh, I hope that I get a job in Hollywood doing this. Because I don’t think I ever really thought that was going to happen. I think I was really deep down like this probably won’t ever happen but this is something that I enjoy doing and I want to get better at and I enjoyed the process of craft. And honestly like that can be very sustaining in difficult times.

John: Do you think you got better – so talking about craft, because if you were a violinist then ever day you’re practicing and you’re getting better. Did you feel like you were getting better with each new revision?

Nicole: Yeah, absolutely. And I think, I mean, maybe I’m just a nerd. I like school. I like classes. I like panels. I go to people’s panels here. I take notes. But I think it’s very optimistic. It feels good to make progress on something that you have control over. And so much of your career you don’t have any control over somebody saying yes, or maybe they’re looking for this kind of comedy and you wrote that kind of comedy. And it has nothing to do with your worth necessarily. And so the thing that you can control and feel good about is making progress on your own terms, showing it to a group of people you trust. They might say this sucks, but it’s better than the last draft you did. You know, it feels good. It feels good to make progress. And that can be very sustaining. Yeah.

Christina: Just on a practical note in answer to your question, I think like Tess I had the luxury of being able to live at home, and I don’t even know what I thought I was saving for at the time. But I knew that I may want to have some money at some point and I may want to do something risky. So I paid myself fake rent. And my parents weren’t living in the house, so I was living in my parent’s house on my own like a weirdo and paying myself an exorbitant amount of rent that I would put into a post office account. And I saved that money and having that money I also was – while doing the assistant job in the film industry, was a waitress, a tutor, and a job that we can’t talk about because it was terrible.

But I did all of that and saved all of the money so that when I did then take the risk of moving to America without a job in hand where I maybe wanted to be in film development, maybe something else, I just wasn’t sure, I had that reserve and it was the same thing when I started writing. Is because I had been such a weirdo squirrel like putting my nuts away, I was able to take that risk of that 90 days and not, you know, not that Uber existed then, but.

John: Jason, when did you identify that you – when did you like tell the folks that you were a writer, that you were a screenwriter? That you weren’t just a person who wrote for this journal or whatever? Or an actor. That you were genuinely a screenwriter? Was it only after you had sold something? Or when did you tell people that you were–?

Jason: That was actually a process for me. I felt like I was worried about telling people I was a screenwriter, particularly as an actor because so many actors at least my perception of it was every actor thought they were a writer. Every actor had a screenplay. And I was very, I don’t know, I was very sensitive to the idea that I was just another actor who thought he was a writer. And so I really didn’t tell a lot of people that I was writing. It was kind of my secret thing.

And I think it was probably once I had my first agent. I had an agent as an actor. I had written my first screenplay about my experience working for Defense and Foreign Affairs Publications. I handed it to the literary department at that agency. They refused to read the script because the script was 180 pages. I said I can get it shorter. And the agent said I need it to be 118 pages. I said great. That was a 10am phone call on a Tuesday morning. I was at Columbia as an undergrad at that point. I cut all my classes that day. I did a rewrite that afternoon and I hand-delivered her a 116-page version of that script that evening before she left the office. And went, “Here, read this.”

And once she said yes I felt like, OK, maybe this is real. Maybe I’m a writer. But I think that at each stage of my career that persistence has been very important. Because that same agent was the agent who didn’t understand The Last First Time and said, you know, I’m going to send it to a friend to get a second opinion. And she sent it to someone who worked at AOL. And I said why are we sending it to someone who works – why do I care what someone at AOL thinks about the script? She said, “Oh, no, she really gets movies.”

She sent it to the AOL person who also read it and said, “I don’t get it either.” And she said it’s dead. And so similar to what you did I went on IMDb Pro and I went through directors who had their direct contact information listed. And I went through director after director, because no one would have their – but one guy did. It was Jonathan Lynn who directed My Cousin Vinny and the Whole Nine Yards and is this amazingly talented comedy director. And I just emailed him and I said, “Hey, I’ve got this script. Big fan of yours. Hoping you might want to read it. He emailed me back—“

Christina: And it worked?

Jason: It worked. He emailed me back and said, “You know what? Sure.” And he emailed me about a week after that and said, “I love this. I want to direct it.” And I forwarded that email to my then agent with the subject “A second opinion.” I got a real attitude problem. And fired her and kept going.

But it’s constant – at least at that stage of your career particularly – it’s constant rejection. It’s constantly people saying that you’re not a writer, that it’s not going to work out, and it takes a certain amount of healthy delusion I feel to be in that place where you’re not a writer, you haven’t sold anything, you’ve never been paid, the majority of people are telling you it’s not realistic, but you think you have this little super power and somehow you’re going to do it. And you have to sort of invest in that delusion and nurture and hopefully it turns into something real.

John: Now, one odd thing about the career that we’re going into is there are probably more professional – there are more professional football players than there are professional screenwriters. So, but for a professional football player you can tell like is that person good at doing that sport. It’s very clear. It’s measurable. It’s not measurable whether we’re good or not. And so often I think we were all really good students who often got good grades and we sort of want to have that achievement. And so we want people to tell us, oh no, you’re really, really good.

So you’ve won some awards starting off. So someone has told you you’re good. You know, Jonathan Lynn tells you you’re good. But–

Jason: I’ll be totally honest. My mom was the first person.

John: All right.

Jason: I would get bad grades in creative writing classes, because I wrote differently. I wrote in a way that probably is more suited to screenplays than anything else. And even when I was a little kid, when I was writing stories, you know, I’d get bad grades and my mom would take the paper and she’d look at it and go, “No, I think that’s…” And she’d cross out the teacher’s grade and replace it. So, I had this–

John: Aw, Jason’s mom.

Jason: And my mom is a sweet lady, but she’s actually tough. She’ll see movies of mine and go, “I didn’t like that she’s…” But in that particular instance she’d read a paper and go, “No, this is better than Miss Rothstein thought it was.” So, I was very lucky to have that kind of support from very early on. And then having someone like Jonathan Lynn say, “Yeah, I think you can do this,” was obviously encouraging. But it didn’t, you know, it didn’t stop. There were still plenty of people that didn’t buy in.

Tess: Also, I always feel like my whole life is basically about rejection. So I just added to it by being a writer. But I think, I don’t know whoever did a roundtable with me this morning because I’m going to repeat myself, but I have like my five Ts that I think you need at the beginning to sustain you. And they are – remember them – they are Temperament, because you cannot be a wanker. They are Timing and Time, so combined. They are Talent. They are Tenacity. Hang on, on four. Tenacity. And they are a Tiny bit of luck. So I think sometimes you have to wait for the fusion of those five. I sometimes like to add Tits as the sixth.

Christina: But let’s be honest, sometimes that’s a disadvantage.

Tess: Right. Disadvantage. But I think like the way to keep going is to keep going. And if you don’t have that in you then it might not be quite the right career for you because even the most successful people that I know have constant neuroses and constant rejection and notes and everything. So if you don’t have that in you. And that’s OK by the way, because it’s not always the greatest thing to have in you. But you do have to find a way to cope with that kind of situation, with the ongoing situation.

Christina: I would like to brag, because I have two really awards. They’re not really mine. But my first two movies I earned the two lead actresses Razzies.

John: Oh, Razzies, nice.

Christina: Two years in a row. So, I’ve only had bad, obviously I’m very grateful for my career and it’s all great and people are nice to me in the industry, but outwardly I’m only told I’m shit. And when it was announced that I was writing Batgirl, not that I’m on social media, but my sister sent me screenshots of people being like, “Christina Hodson is the worst. She’s an untalented…” Because there is no way for the outside world to really know how good you are other than the movies that you have that are made which often you are rewritten, or things were changed, or sometimes it’s your fault, sometimes it’s not. One of mine was my fault. One of them was not. And it is a weird thing where there isn’t a nice metric of a number goals that you scored. It’s hard.

The negative is very loud.

Tess: But we are not down a coal mine. So it’s not the hardest job in the world.

Jason: But it’s still kind of, the negativity is tough, but it’s also exciting because people are talking. You’re a real writer who people really hate.

Christina: Yeah.

Jason: But you matter. I remember reading things, you know, something comes up on Deadline and people talk all kinds of shit in the comments section. And I just thought this is so cool. People are talking shit about me on Deadline. It was really exciting. And I think you have to—

Tess: If only to be talked shit about on Deadline is the ultimate.

Jason: It helps to have a thick skin. But it also helps to really love what this business is. And to enjoy everything. I love every single piece of what we do. I like when something negative comes out and people – it’s like this is cool. I’m a part of this whole process.

Christina: Can’t wait to troll you now.

Nicole: I know. You’re getting it.

Jason: I think you may have written one of those comments. But I genuinely think that the other benefit, you’re asking how you sustain yourself when you’re not getting a lot of positive reinforcement, and it’s the work itself. We’re so lucky to do what we do because it’s one of the few things that at any point in the day, any point in the night, you can actually do the actual thing. Most other careers you can work on an aspect. You know, the football player example. You can go to the gym and train, you can build up a certain aspect of what you do, but you can’t actually go play the game that’s going to change your life if it’s two in the morning and you’re pulling your hair out and going what am I doing.

As a writer you can get up at two in the morning and start working on the screenplay that potentially changes your life. And so for me it felt very empowering. Like, yeah, I haven’t made it. And yeah, I’m so far from where I want to go, but I have the constant ability to go do something about it.

John: So our last question before we get to things start getting better for you is the projects you were choosing to write during this period before you’re getting paid to do it, were you thinking about is this commercial? The idea of is this a thing, a movie that gets made. Is this a commercial idea? Because that’s a thing I often hear from screenwriters. Which thing should I write? Should I write the commercial thing? So what was your decision process for what you were writing?

Tess: I think no. Definitely not. But when I wrote, I wrote Man Up, the rom-com that I wrote on spec and it’s fascinating to me now what’s happening. Like I write it seven years ago now on spec. It subsequently did get made. I wrote it because I just was – I filled up a bit. I had taken two years off writing and this guy had come up to me under the clock at Waterloo and I thought I was his blind date and I said no. And then I thought that’s a good idea for a setup of a movie. So then I wrote it.

And then what’s fascinating to me now is that obviously there’s this huge romantic comedy revival–

John: All thanks to you.

Tess: Basically it’s all me. No, no, I’m more interested in whether that would have changed – because I was operating in a genre that was constantly being told it was dead and constantly being told, no, don’t write a romantic comedy. Whereas now if you are thinking of writing one really do write one now, because suddenly everybody wants them. But I don’t think that’s necessarily thinking commercially. I think you still need to think what’s the different story that I want to tell that is going to be my voice and that is going to attract people to want to meet me and say, “Oh, who is this person with this unique perspective on love and romance or whatever?”

John: Jason, were you thinking commercial as you were writing during that period?

Jason: I’m very lucky in that my tastes are commercial. So I wasn’t thinking specifically commercial because the marketplace wants commercial. I like those kinds of films. I love Spielberg and Zemeckis and I grew up with that. So, I wanted to write those kinds of movies. And the kinds of scripts I was working on were those kinds of films. So my tastes lent to that. I think you just have to write the thing you love. You have to think what’s the movie I wish I could go see but does not exist and go do that.

John: Nicole?

Nicole: I was just writing things I loved. I wasn’t thinking about writing commercially at all. Maybe sometimes to my detriment. But I find that now that I’m a professional screenwriter the only times I ever regret taking a project other than somebody being a terrible person to work with, the only times I regret taking a project is when it’s something that deep down I didn’t really love.

Christina: I agree with all of you. And I totally think you should only write what you love. I did however do it the other way. I was thinking 100% pragmatically. I had come from development. I knew how hard getting a spec noticed was. So I deliberately wrote a movie that was in a genre – I wrote a psychological thriller horror movie because I knew you could make those movies for very little money. I wrote a movie set entirely in a house so you could make it for under a million. Those movies had a history at that point in time of being made for nothing and then making a bunch of money. So, I did do the sellout, cheeky thing.

And I also wrote deliberately provocative, gross, extreme, horror stuff that isn’t really my cup of tea. I now feel like a filthy sellout, but it did get me noticed. And it was optioned because it was makeable. So it worked out for me doing that.

But I’m 100% with Nicole. The jobs that I have taken subsequently that I did because I felt like I should have been awful and miserable and I’ve hated them.

John: Yeah. So I want to talk about the transition. And so one of the things that you brought up which is a recurring thing that I’ve seen on writers who have become successful is I’ll get a call or a text message saying, “Oh, somebody said they just read my script, but I didn’t know that they were reading my script.” And it got passed around behind the scenes. And so that happened to me with some of my early stuff. It happened with Go. It happened with a string of former assistants who are all writing now. A moment at which a project seems to have traction by itself.

One of the first things that tends to come out of that is a meeting with some person who is potentially able to make a movie, or to represent you as a client. What are those initial meetings like? You have done nothing and you are just clearly an aspiring screenwriter rather than a professional screenwriter. How do you approach those meetings? How did you approach them? And what advice would you have for the first time you’re sitting down across from somebody who has read your thing who seems to want to make it or represent you? What stuff can you tell this audience is useful to know in that moment?

Nicole: Well, I was super nervous before my very first general meeting, which by the way was at Focus. I wonder if it was one while you were there. But I was super nervous. I had no idea what to expect. I didn’t know, you know, what to talk about. I didn’t know what I should be doing.

One thing I can say that I think is good advice is that one of the very first jobs that I ever went to – as soon as I had been just repped somebody gave me a script that was written by a screenwriter whose work I loved. And the script was really not fantastic. And so I was like, wow, they must have just been having a really off day or something. And the producers get on the call and they said how would you fix this script. And I start pitching them. But then I say, you know, it’s funny, like this writer’s work is so good usually, but I don’t know why he would put this terrible set piece that has nothing to do with anything in there. And what was he thinking for this ending?

And they got very quiet and, of course, it was the producer’s note to add the set piece and change the ending. And I did not get that job. So, very good advice to know is that a lot of times the scripts are not the way they were originally envisioned by the writer.

John: Christina, you’re probably on the other side of some of those meetings too, because you probably were bringing writers in. So tell us both sides of what it’s like.

Christina: Well I think, and this is something that I talked about in a roundtable this morning, often you’re advised to have your script that you go out on the town with but also to have two in your back pocket because people will say what else have you got. I didn’t have that because it was my first script that I went out. But what I would advise everyone does, because sometimes these meetings come when you’re not ready for them and maybe you do have two scripts in your back pocket but they’re terrible and you don’t want to share them.

So, the thing that I found helpful was just talking generally about what interested me. And it was the thing that I would always try and get out of writers when I was a development exec meeting with people is what drew you to the thing, even if it’s not that genre. So with psychological thriller wasn’t particularly my thing, but telling stories about women that were kind of strange and complicated like ordinary women backed into corners and seeing what kind of primal resources they would run. Talking about those big themes and those big kind of arcs and things that I was drawn to was very helpful because then people could connect the dots and see what else I would be good for, even if it wasn’t in the same genre.

Tess: I think as well you have to treat them a bit like dates. You’re going to make some mistakes. You’re going to work with some people that you shouldn’t work with. That you just don’t have the right chemistry with creatively. So I think with everything, like when you go into your first meeting with someone, you might have the best meeting ever with them and then never hear from them again. It’s very common. They might ghost you basically. Or you might like not quite connect with them, you know, you might be like, “Oh, I don’t think we’re quite on the same page about this,” or you might sort of kind of like them and then as you get to know them further down the line go, oh, I can really work with this person.

So, I think you just have to go into it open, but then the kind of older and more cynical you get obviously then you start to become – you have to watch that as well because sometimes you can get yourself into a situation where you think you don’t trust anyone or you think everybody is an asshole and that’s not the case at all.

So, I think it’s just like a process. You’re never going to know, because there is this strange alchemy that happens when you’re finally on set and something is being made that you’ll look back at the journey towards that and think, “God that was that one moment that turned it.”

John: Yeah. I think we need to define some terms. So sometimes you’ll be going in to talk about a specific project. They’ve read your script and maybe they’re talking about making your script. Or the meeting is about representing you if they’re a manager or an agent.

Sometimes it’s a general meeting. And so a general meeting means that they just want to meet you. There’s not a specific agenda here. But even in a general meeting there becomes a moment at which you stop talking about the weather and the most recent movies and it becomes sort of like what are you working on, or they have those little cards, “These are the things we’re working on.”

And what I didn’t realize in my first like 15 meetings probably that my responsibility was to say which of those things sparked for me. And if there was one that really sparked that I felt like, oh, I know exactly how to do that that it was my responsibility to tackle that and come back with a take on how I was going to do that. That was going to lead to the next meeting where I’d be pitching on that project.

So sometimes it would just be a very general story idea, or an area, like we really want to do a movie about clog dancing. And if I had a way that like—

Tess: John, you’ve got a movie about clog dancing.

John: I know how to do the clog dancing.

If that sparked to me, it was my responsibility to say I know that, I grew up clog dancing, and here’s what people don’t know about clog dancing, and then show my enthusiasm and then be able to come back in and really–

Tess: Come back wearing clogs at the next meeting.

John: Come back in with a plan to be able to pitch the clog dancing movie.

Christina: I just have to say this because it was one of my favorite general meetings ever. Somebody had one of those lists. At the top were like movie reboots and normal things, and then it descended into words, one of which was “cloudy skies,” and the other which is my favorite was “sweaters.”

Tess: Sweaters. Sweaters.

John: You could kill the sweaters movie. I want to see your sweaters movie. Now, Jason, you were an actor so you’re used to going in and auditioning. And so can you compare and contrast what auditioning is like versus these early meetings?

Jason: They’re sort of similar. Auditions are very specific. You’re going in for a specific role in a specific show. So there is an adjustment to the sort of general type of meeting you take, particularly when you’re starting out where you’re realizing I went through a very similar process to yours where I went, “Oh, I’m supposed to jump on these ideas. I’m supposed to build on these. I’m supposed to follow up.”

If you go in for an audition, generally speaking you should not follow up with the casting director the next day and go, “Hey, I’m really interested in this role. I haven’t heard from you. But I have some thoughts.”

Writing is not that. I think a lot of times you’re rewarded for seeming aloof and not wanting things. Writing I find to be the opposite. The more passionate and enthused you are, the more you follow up, the more you engage, the better the outcome is. And I also think that early you’re also balancing you’re creative instincts with what is available to you.

So, I had exactly the way you described it. I had a script, Last First Time. Didn’t get made. Bounced around. Ended up being read by an agent at WME, then Endeavor. He read it. Said I want to rep you. He didn’t tell me until a year into repping me that he was in fact an assistant when he signed me. But a year in he calls me and goes, “Great news, I got promoted.” I said, to what? He said, “Agent.” And I said what have we been doing for the last year? He said, “He don’t worry about. The point is I’m an agent now.”

He is still my agent by the way, and has probably had the most significant impact on my professional life of anyone. But that resulted in a meeting on Ice Age: Continental Drift, the fourth Ice Age movie. And that meeting was, again, I like animation, I like family films. Ice Age was not the thing I set out necessarily to write. In fact, when they called me about it, you know, Ice Age gets treated like it’s a Marvel or a DC film, or at least back then. It was like this is big stuff.

And so they call you and they go, “OK, we couldn’t tell you what your meeting is until now but it’s for the next Ice Age film.” And they go, “Have you seen any of the Ice Age movies?” I had not. So I said yes I have. And they said, “Do you like them?” And I said, no, I love them. And the executive said, “That’s great. What do you love most about them?”

And the only thing I could think of is any time anyone from one of these movies is on like Tonight Show or whatever they kind of say the same thing. “Oh, the comedy, it’s accessible for grownups but appropriate for children.” So I said that and she said, “That is the thing we are the most proud of.”

So that night, I had the meeting the next day, I watched all three Ice Age movies back to back to back, which in isolation each of those are wonderful, charming family films. Three in a row, it’s Guantanamo. But I went in the next day as passionate about Ice Age as anything in the world and that was ultimately the first movie I had made. It changed my entire career. I owe a tremendous amount to the people who hired me for that movie.

Tess: I think it’s really important to remember with generals that you sometimes have a general that you think, oh fine, it was great. And then a year later they remember you for something else. So I think of them as just, like I go in and just talk about my life because most of the time they’ve read something of yours and they like it. You’re there just to chat really. They think that you’ve got some interesting things to say.

Then they might say, “Oh, we’re thinking about you for this or that.” And I think that you can never really be fully prepared for anything in this job. I was working on a show called Casual which is on Hulu and I had to binge watch 36 episodes of it. Like the entire first three seasons in the space of maybe four days or something before. So sometimes you’re just – I mean, I didn’t lie. I did actually watch them. But I think it’s like you sometimes have to be a bit flexible on that.

John: Well, it’s like improv. You’re saying yes.

Tess: Yes. You’re saying yes. Yes and.

John: Yes and.

Tess: Yes and.

John: Yes and I think we can do even more.

Nicole: I think one of the things that really comes through too with this is that when they meet you in the generals it’s your life experiences as much as your talent. You’re already in the door. They’re already interested in you as a talented writer. But it’s about what have you done other than write, or in addition to writing, that might make you the perfect fit for the untitled Glass Bead thriller that they’re writing.

Tess: Clogs 2.

Nicole: But being able to talk about experiences that I’ve had throughout my life was really what got me a lot of jobs honestly.

Christina: I think that and also not being a dick. Like Tess was saying, it is so much like dating. And you have to work with writers like fairly intimately. And if they’re annoying – like when I was a development executive at Focus there was a British writer who I loved. He was so talented. I had read everything he’d ever written. He’d made some TV shows. I made my boss read everything he’d ever written. We were so excited to meet him. And he came in and was just the worst. He was arrogant and annoying and angry and bitter and just all kinds of bad. And both of us just immediately like we’ll never hire – even though we would be lucky to have him and he was great – just couldn’t do it.

John: What qualities are you looking for? These people out here. Let’s say that they are meeting with agents or managers. What qualities would you think are most important for you to find in an agent?

Tess: Human being.

John: Why?

Tess: Because so many of them are not.

John: What things should they be watching out for? What are the red flags for you?

Tess: I think you need to have someone that really understands what you can do. And like Nicole says as well that you can say, “This is where I’d like to be in two years’ time.” And then they go, OK, let’s build towards that. Not just like, “Do this, do this.”

I did a deal with – I did like a blind script deal with ABC when I first moved to LA and I had a fine time and everything but as soon as it was up I was like, phew, OK, I don’t need to do that anymore. And my agent at the time went, “We’re going to get you another deal at ABC,” and I was like, no, that’s like hang on a minute. And I knew like intuitively that we were just a bit off. We weren’t quite on the same sort of page. So I think the most important thing is that you just feel like you can really talk to them and communicate with them.

Because you might not hear from them for like weeks and months at a time anyway. So when you do speak to them it’s good if you actually can have a normal conversation.

John: I have a friend who is talking with agents right now, and a thing I stressed to her is that you want to not dread when they call.

Tess: Oh yeah.

John: And so anybody you’re working with, if you’re dreading when they call that’s a bad sign. And definitely anybody who is working for you.

Tess: And that you know that they are not typing the whole time that they’re talking to you on the phone.

Christina: They’re always doing that, aren’t they? Even the ones that are humans?

Tess: So weird. Because then I just throw in a weird thing, like saying, “Yeah, I’m just sitting here naked.” And they go, “Right, great. So we’re going to call you about that thing.” You’re like they’re not listening.

John: So let’s say you’ve got an agent and a manager. You’re out for these general meetings. You’ve found a project. You pitch hard on this project. You think you have landed this project. For many people out here in this audience they have never made a deal. And so what can we tell them about the experience of making a deal on a project and what it’s like to be hearing from your representatives that like, OK, we’re getting close on this thing.

What is that like? And what do you need to listen for as a screenwriter making your first deal? Jason, what do have?

Jason: Well, I found it to be the greatest seesaw of emotion, for me anyway, you get your first big movie and you’re like oh my god these guys have entrusted me with this massive–

John: Was that Ice Age for you?

Jason: That was Ice Age. So there’s this massive franchise I’ve been entrusted with. They think I’m the man. This is so cool. And then you’re like what’s the offer. And then they tell you and they’re like – this is what? They hate me. They hate me. They think I’m an intern.

You get paid vastly less at the beginning. Maybe that’s just me. But you get paid vastly less than you expect to. You get something big, and shiny, and exciting, and that moves your career forward strategically in big ways, but the financial reward is certainly not what you imagine it’s going to be, or what I imagined it to be when I started out.

And that’s all well and good because you’re off to the races and you’re a professional writer and in truth I would have paid them to write an Ice Age movie at that point in my career.

Christina: My agent thought there was a zero missing from my first offer on my first option. He was like, “So we got their offer in but don’t worry, it’s a typo.” It was so small. But we ended up going for like a notch above that.

Basically in the beginning I would just say you kind of have to trust your representatives. Like you don’t know – that’s why I think it’s important you have representatives who are humans and who you like and who you can talk to and who you can trust, because you have to put yourselves in their hands. Like you have to trust that they don’t hate you and it’s just because that’s what deals look like in the beginning, and later on.

Tess: I think as well, these three are tent pole writers. Not tent pole writer. I mean in a complimentary way, by the way, as in like I don’t get offered anywhere–

Christina: Feel free to sell out.

Tess: Near the amount of money that you guys do. And this is not a competition, by the way, I’m trying to say this in a good way. I think that sometimes to speak from like the non-studio perspective, you know, often you are not really getting paid that much but just the mere fact that you’re getting paid is helpful. You know, like you can have – the first things that I ever wrote film wise I did not get paid a super amount of money, but just having a deadline and having a contract and having all those things in place meant that I could then allocate the amount of time I spent to those jobs and I could go, right, OK. So it’s a slightly different, you know, the deal sort of thing on my perspective now is more just like do I want to do this project? It’s clearly not going to financially be massively great for me, but if I love it then hell yeah I’ll do it.

Nicole: Can I just really quickly speak to the fact that when I first got paid scale for a project it was like the best day of my life. I had never seen that much money in my whole life. I couldn’t believe it.

I will say though that I wasn’t prepared for the lackadaisical nature of getting paid. It took the studio like nine months to pay me, and I was really struggling waiting for that check. And I didn’t want to be like desperate like I can’t make my rent if you don’t pay me, but it was really, really hard because I was like I turned in the work, why wouldn’t you pay me?

And so I’m glad you guys are doing your Start Button.

Tess: Yeah. And also scale is great, by the way. That’s the other thing.

Christina: But it’s broken up. And it’s broken up into so many different pieces.

Jason: And I would also say you don’t get scale when you write an animated film because an animated film is not covered by the Writers Guild.

John: Yeah, so many things we need to tackle here. First off, this is a WGA panel so I’m going to define some things here for everybody. Scale is a guild-defined thing which is the minimum a screenwriter can be paid for doing this work. And so there’s scale for writing a network television show. There’s scale for writing a feature film. It’s not high, but it’s enough that you can make a living. And god bless scale because every other international screenwriter would be thrilled to have scale.

Tess: That’s speaking from a UK perspective. Yes, scale is good.

John: They have not protections like what we do in the United States and that’s because of the guild. So god bless the guild for this.

You said that the WGA doesn’t cover animation. Traditionally most of the movies that you’ve seen that are animated movies have not been guild, but there are some movies that are guild. So don’t give up on animation and the guild. It’s something that we continue to sort of make little small bits of progress with.

But let’s talk about the money being broken up into chunks, because that’s a thing I did not really anticipate going in and I had to quickly reassess what I was doing. So before I got paid my first job, first scale job, I had been an assistant. And so as an assistant I got salary every week and I just sort of knew what my expenses were and it was easy. I wasn’t getting a lot of money as an assistant but it was regular money. There’s no regular money anymore when you are a professional screenwriter. So instead you are paid half at the start and half when you deliver the script. So that half at the start, well it should be before you’re starting writing. It should come quickly. It doesn’t come as quickly as it should. We’re working on that for the guild as well.

But that money and the money you’re paid in those chunks, that’s all you’ve got. And so one of the very first things I did is I would make a spreadsheet of like these are my monthly expenses. This is the money I’m getting in. And how long can I last? I could last three to six months. Weirdly I had to really cut back my expenses once I started getting paid because I just didn’t know how long the money was going to last. And it’s a real thing we need to talk about.

Christina: Billy Ray, at my induction into the WGA, said one of the best pieces of advice which was I know you’re all feeling really great right now because you’ve just earned some money as a writer. And the money does feel big, like if you’ve been in an assistant job, or film jobs on other sides, the money feels real. And he said, “Don’t lease an expensive car. Don’t buy a house. Don’t be crazy. Buy yourself one treat, like really enjoy it and feel good about it, whether it’s a really nice dress or something a little bigger. Whatever it is. But just enjoy that one thing and then save. Just save the rest of the money because you don’t know when the next check is coming.”

John: Yeah. So my big splurge was I would get Panda Express and I would get the extra egg rolls, because that was a reach for me. I was otherwise on a lentil kind of budget. So that was the reach.

Tess: Whenever I get a gig I always buy a new duvet set. It’s the weirdest.

John: She’s got a beautiful cat who needs proper–

Tess: She needs to be displayed correctly.

Jason: My big splurge is I moved out of my agent’s guest bedroom.

Tess: Oh nice.

John: Little bits of things. Yeah. One of the challenges of once you start getting paid, you’re writing this project, is ideally you would have multiple steps on this first deal. So you would write your first draft, you’d turn in your first draft, and they’d say, “This is great. Here’s some things to do on this next draft and you’re doing this next pass.” When I started, my first scale job I went through five drafts. And I got paid for five drafts which was remarkable. It was a great sort of learning about how to write for a studio. That’s really challenging to get these days. And so often I talk to these writers who they’re so excited to be hired onto write this thing but they’re only guaranteed one step. And so they’ve got that one step and then it’s like well maybe I stick around, maybe I don’t stick around. They’re so desperate. They’re doing the stuff to the script that Nicole sees in this thing because they’re desperate to stay on this project. And it’s really tough.

But at the same time you have to go out and meet with other people about other projects. And so figuring out how to be writing this thing but also be talking to other folks about writing the thing after that and do your own work, how are you guys balancing writing stuff for other folks and a sense of what you want to do in your career? Is that an active thing that you’re thinking about most days?

Nicole: Oh totally. I actually got some really good advice from Audrey Wells who has passed away recently who was a wonderful woman and a wonderful writer. And she a few years ago at Sundance – I met her at the Labs, at creative advising for the screenwriting labs. And she told me, I was talking to her about all the crazy studio work I had been doing and how it was kind of grinding me down. And she said, “You have to stop doing these jobs that your agents want to put you on to make you a lot of money. Do one every so often and then do something that makes your soul happy, because otherwise you’ll hate your life and you’ll hate yourself.”

And I absolutely agreed with her. And what I ended up doing is I started taking one thing a year that would piss off my agent because I wouldn’t get to make any money, but I would learn something from. And so I wrote a comic book. I did a directing fellowship and directed a short film, which was a fantastic adventure and I can’t wait to do it again, and I’m starting a production company. So, every year I do something that’s very time-consuming in addition to my career that is probably not necessarily going to make a lot of money but is something that–

Tess: That is the best advice ever. Because I know all three of you write, you know, big movies and it must be very important that sometimes you don’t get caught on that treadmill of only doing that. I mean, obviously it’s great, but there must be a point where you’re like, right, I need to do one for me and one for–

Nicole: It’s fear-based. It’s totally fear-based. It is. It’s fear-based. And so if you get to a point where you’re not, you know, I’m not putting kids through private school and I keep my expenses really low so that I can take risks and do things that may not ever generate me money but that make me happy.

John: Show of hands, who out here in the audience lives in Los Angeles right now, or Los Angeles area? So maybe a third of people. Talking about the creative career, at what point should a writer consider moving to Los Angeles or I guess New York.

Tess: Can I? I have a hot take on that.

John: Please give your hot take.

Tess: I don’t think now you need to live Los Angeles unless you want to be on a TV show.

John: Tell us more about this.

Tess: I think if you’d asked me five years ago I would have been like 100% you have to be in Los Angeles. I think the landscape has changed so much in the past five years that you could come for three months if you’ve got a great script that’s going to get you a rewrite job or is going to get you a commission for a pilot or going to get you a film commission. And then you can go and write where you like.

I think that we are living in a much more – I mean like my UK agent is always putting me up for stuff still. I think we live in a much more obviously international world. If you pitch something for Netflix now, you pitch something to Amazon, once you’ve got that commission you can then go off and do that. I think the only difference is if you do want to be a TV writer and be staffed. But then you can also be in New York. And also there’s a lot of rooms in London now. The room for Succession is in London. The new Game of Thrones spinoff is in London. So I’m not saying it’s not – obviously it’s Hollywood and I keep doing Joey from Friends air quotes. But I don’t think it’s as important. That’s my hot take.

John: If you wanted to go back to previous episodes of Scriptnotes, Ryan Knighton came on the show. And so he’s a writer who lives in Vancouver but works in Hollywood all the time. But his way of dealing with it was he would say I’m always available to come to Los Angeles. And he will fly down for meetings. And when he does come down he will schedule a bunch of meetings so his days are packed. And it’s worked for him.

But this last year he staffed on a TV show and had to move down to Los Angeles. And it was a big challenge.

Tess: But the other thing as well, and I don’t know whether, I mean, you live in–

Nicole: I live in San Francisco.

Tess: Yeah. I have found, I’ve been in LA for three years, and I do love it and everything, but there is a certain malaise that can happen there. And I really encourage people to live their lives elsewhere as well because I think you can run out of steam a bit and you can stop actually seeing what’s going on in the real world and you can get very kind of insular in that LA way. And it is a beautiful, wonderful place to live, but I just think you don’t want to get too caught up in that it’s the only thing.

Jason: I think the malaise-y thing can be real and I think it sort of depends person to person. I think that if you are one of the people who tries out LA and has that experience then LA is probably not the most creatively fertile place for you to live.

I would say that for me I never had that vibe. And LA in my experience has been really helpful. Not just for meetings, because so much of it is not about scheduled meetings. It’s living in a city where there are all these incredibly creative people. Creative people who can make a major difference in your life. And so there are lots of people I’ve met, whether it’s at a coffee shop, or a party, or we happen to write at the same spot every day.

You know, I’m writing Robotech for Sony right now. And it’s going to be directed by Andy Muschietti, who directed IT and Mama, and he’s one of my favorite filmmakers. And he’s now also a friend and someone I’m working with. And the reason he became a friend is because we went to the same coffee shop all the time. And we’d run into each other and we’d talk movies and then we’d see each other at parties. And all of a sudden we realized we both loved Robotech and though, well gosh, that would be something fun to team up on.

So I do think it’s not to say that you can’t run into talented, creative people in other cities, but I think in a sort of per-square-mile density oriented way LA is very unique. And if you can sort of not be impacted by the weird nature of being surrounded by people who only do what you do, then it’s a really great place to live, and work, and build a career as a writer.

Nicole: I agree with both of you. I lived in LA for eight years and I love LA. I think it’s a great city and most of my best friends are in LA. And I totally agree. I think that being in LA is really, really, really helpful for all the reasons that Jason said. I think you just tend to absorb more of what’s in the air in terms of knowledge, and rumors, and all the gossip. And you can check hall files on people and get reputation checks. You spread out, you see people at things. And I think it’s very, very helpful.

But as soon as I got to a place in my career where I could go, I decided I would rather have – for me personally – I think I like a little balance. And I think that you can definitely work elsewhere. I think it helps already to have some traction. It’s a tradeoff. I say this all the time but it takes less time to fly from San Francisco down to LA then it does to cross town during rush hour traffic.

Tess: And also I think the other trick is to leave LA regularly. Because if you are living there and you do make the move, I try every sort of three months or so I just go somewhere else. Even if it’s just for the weekend. I think that also can – I mean, maybe it’s just me. It’s just me.

Christina: Well, I think what Tess said in the beginning about like if you can do that chunk of time when you come, that is when it really does matter. When you’re breaking, if you can be in LA for a chunk of a time it will be a lifesaver. Because you can’t schedule all of those first meetings in one day, because you don’t have any power to move people’s schedule around. You’ll be lucky to meet them whenever you can.

Tess: And everyone, if you come for two weeks you’ll have something like 50 meetings scheduled. 50% of them will get rearranged. You’re like, “I’m not here then. I’m going back to England.”

Christina: So I think a chunk of time is really good. I live in LA now and honestly I’m like a hermit cat lady. I never go out. I don’t go to meetings. If I can do a meeting as a call instead I will. I had to live in New York for about six months last year for family reasons and I just lied and I was like, “Oh, I just popped in New York and you just missed me. Let’s do a call instead.” No one even really noticed. There are ways of doing it where, you know, like I’ll catch you next time I’m in LA.

John: So, I want to talk to you guys about rooms. Traditionally screenwriting is a thing that one writer is hired at a time and that writer is working on the script and working through it and getting that script hopefully into production. Sometimes it doesn’t get into production, or a different writer comes over. It’s a serial process. Versus television which is generally written as a room. A room of writers are together to come up with the story and one writer will go off and write it. But it’s a room process.

Some of you guys have worked in rooms on features. And if you are a newer writer who is invited to be part of one of those rooms what things should a writer be mindful of going into a room situation?

Nicole: Oh, by the way, we’re doing a panel about feature writers’ rooms tomorrow, so.

John: Sorry, spoilers.

Christina: Oh, I thought you were doing advertising for us.

John: Sorry, practical tips.

Nicole: I would say that usually new writers aren’t invited to be in those levels feature writers’ rooms. Those tend to be for very established people that are being brought in for anything from a roundtable to a month of advising another writer, or breaking a story. There’s a lot of different kinds which we can go into in depth. But I’ve never met a new writer in any of the feature rooms.

John: Tess, Casual was your first time. No, I guess you had done Hollyoaks before that. So you’re used to–

Tess: Yeah. I’ve done a couple of shows in the UK that were room-based. But the shows in the UK are not really room-based. I mean, Hollyoaks very much is. But Casual was great. It was eight writers. Like 13-week contract I think we were on it for. Or maybe a bit longer. 16. And then got to be there for my episode.

I’d say the biggest thing with – I mean, I love being in a room because I really like getting out of my house. And I like being around people. So I’m the over-excited person. I have to like land when I get into the room. I have to like land myself because I can feel myself being very like. But it’s a great way to really – that is an opportunity for newer people, particularly if you want to be – in Casual we had a writer’s PA and then we had a writer’s assistant. And that definitely is a way to move up. Because you’re allowed to pitch stuff if you have a good creator or showrunner then they are obviously are open to you saying things. And it’s a very collaborative obviously compared to movies and less so I suppose if you actually have got a room that you’re pitching for films. But I was like a pig in shit. I loved every second of it.

John: Yeah. So that writer’s assistant job is a thing that exists in television and doesn’t tend to exist in features in a meaningful way. Like I have an assistant and I’ve been lucky to have great assistants along the way. But most screenwriters are not going to have a fulltime assistant who is doing stuff for them. But writer’s assistants in television, that is a great entry stepping stone. And people will fight really hard to get those jobs.

Tess: And you have to be – our writer’s assistant on Casual, she has to take down everything you’re saying. So we’re pitching ideas. We’re pitching new storylines. It’s all going up on a board. And she is have to choose what she puts down. So it’s a real skill. And if you’re good at it then you can also – you’re very involved in the storyline process so it’s very easy to say, “Hey, I’ve got an idea.” And then if that showrunner or creator creates another show he’s going to say would you like to be staff writer because there’s a hierarchy and you can move up. So it is a good gig to get.

John: Last topic before we open up for questions. I want to talk about feedback you get now, or feedback you solicit now. So when you’ve written something who do you show it to, what is the context for showing it? How much do you try to keep emotion out of it? What is your process now for getting feedback? Jason, you’ve written something, who is the first person who reads the things you’ve written?

Jason: I think it’s good to have a small circle of people. You want to get outside opinions, but not too many. And ideally it’s someone whose work you respect as a writer. For me it’s a writer named Robert Mark Kamen. When I talked about a lot of people telling me I couldn’t be a writer, Robert was one of the first to agree. Robert I met at a restaurant in New York City. I was telling my parents I was dropping out of college to pursue a career as a screenwriter. Random guy turned around and said, “I overheard what you said. You’re an idiot. Everyone thinks they’re a writer. You’re not a writer. Go do something normal. I’m a writer. I’m telling you this is not for you.”

And I said, “Well what have you written?” And he went, “Ugh, Karate Kid, Lethal Weapon 2, Lethal Weapon 3, The Fifth Element.” He reeled off 20 of my favorite movies and I was like, oh, those were good movies. But I think I’m going to do this. And I would see him at this restaurant and he would look at me and go, “Are you a screenwriter yet?” And I’d go, “No, not yet.” And eventually I’d written a script I was proud of and I said why don’t you read this. And he said all right.

And he read it and he called me up and said, “All right. You’re a writer. Let’s grab lunch.” And he’s been one of my best friends ever since. And he’s the first guy I share my screenplays with.

John: Nice. Nicole, who is in your circle of trust?

Nicole: I feel very lucky now in that I have an incredible community of screenwriters. I went through sort of a weird period where before I was a professional screenwriter I had a fantastic circle of friends who I could show my work to. And then I started working professionally and having to sign NDAs and feeling a little uncomfortable with the idea of sharing it with other people who didn’t necessarily understand the NDA. And so then I went through this weird like one or two year period where I didn’t want to impose on any of my other professional screenwriting friends, but I didn’t feel comfortable sharing it with other people.

And I think it was a serious handicap because you need to be able to show your work. And so now I feel like I have an incredible network of people that I love and respect. So I show my work – first of all, I always show my work to my husband because he’s really fantastic. But then after that I show it to, if I’m doing a pilot for example, I showed my recent pilot to Amy Berg who is a good friend, Jeff Pinkner who is a good friend. My manager will give me notes. So getting stuff from people who are experts in the field. I try not to impose too much.

Christina: I’m in a terrible, terrible bad habit, so what I do is bad. I wait till the day before I absolutely have to deliver. At about 8pm I give it to my husband and I give it to my manager and I say, “I’m so sorry. I need you to read this and you need to read it before 12pm tomorrow.” And all I really need at that point is them to just say you aren’t going to destroy your career. I always when I finish a script am like this is the one that will tank me. So I just need someone to say it’s OK, this isn’t embarrassing. You can turn it in and then that’s what I do.

Tess: My manager, my best friend Amy Johnson who is not here but is on some panels, and Craig actually Mazin, I’ve tapped him a few times. Because Craig can give you one note that will solve your entire script problems. So yeah.

John: With me, I find stuff I’m writing for an assignment my assistant will have read it and so I can have a conversation with them about what I’m trying to do and if there are things that are confusing. But I don’t go big on the circle trust for that. But for stuff I’m writing for myself, like stuff to direct, stuff that’s really my own thing, then I really do seek it.

And Kelly Marcel told me once, I had given her a thing to read and she said, “Now, just so we’re clear, do you want me to tell you that it’s really good or do you want me to tell you what I actually think?” When I handed it to her. And it was a very smart way of looking at it is that sometimes you do need just somebody to tell you that you’re good. Someone just to be reassuring. And that’s totally valid.

But sometimes you are actually asking for the notes and for where the problems are. And so as you’re handing stuff to somebody at any stage in your career make it clear what you’re really trying to get out of it.

We have some time for some questions. So if you have a question. Yes, right there. So the question is the longevity of a career and what does the back half of the career look like.

Tess: I think once you’re in it it’s very hard to – it’s like the mob. It’s very hard to get out. I have regular weekly fantasies about opening a cat sanctuary in Ohai. But I think that really it’s such a great career that you can do for as long as you want, like health permitting and life permitting. So I think once you’ve gotten there there’s no reason. Unless you don’t have any other stories you want to tell. There’s like no reason to not continue. I think if it’s actually damaging you psychologically. I know people that have given it up or taken some time off because that does happen. But I think really the reason you don’t hear about it is because once you’re in you’re in. You know? You don’t tend to sidestep around unless you maybe end up producing or directing or starting your own company or whatever you’re going to do. So I think that’s probably why you don’t really hear about it so much.

John: I’ve actually seen, I mean, people who have left the business involuntarily because people just stopped hiring them. It is a weird thing where like if people stop paying you to do the thing are you really still doing the thing? And that is a thing to watch out for. You know, at a certain point people may not be wanting you to write movies for them and you may not be able to make a career doing it. And so you’ll find people who become professors or who have other things they end up doing. That is one of the frustrations.

What Jason said earlier is that the great thing about being a writer is you can just write. You don’t need anyone’s permission. But in order to be paid as a writer someone has to pay you. And I do see some people who have stopped getting paid.

Nicole: Yeah. I think ageism is a real thing. I haven’t experienced it yet. But I’m sure that I will at some point.

Tess: You’re going to get older, Nicole. It’s going to happen.

Nicole: I know. God, I mean that’s the best case scenario, right? So I think that the thing that I’m trying to do right now is to plant little seedlings for when I’m older that are things I can explore that I have more control over. I actually do read the WGA Magazine. I think I might be the only one who does. But I totally read it. And Ed Solomon said something really smart in his interview that he did a couple months ago where he said I don’t want to be the guy who in his 50s is chasing the projects that he went after in this 30s. And I think that’s really true in terms of the kinds of projects that attract you or you’re expected to write at certain time periods in your life.

I am still chasing those in my 30s. But I think the things that I’m doing right now are meant to sustain me. I do a lot of mentoring. I love mentoring. And I think I could be very happy doing that. But in terms of just paying my bills and stuff, I’m just trying to keep in mind that I won’t always be booking studio jobs when I’m like 75.

John: I think while we’re here at the WGA panel, you earn a pension. So, every project you book, some of that money goes towards the pension fund. So you get a statement that shows your pension. That pension is not enough to support you. So I think a crucial thing every writer up here will say is that you’re also saving money for retirement and it’s you’re responsibility to save extra money beyond your pension to retire because hopefully you’re going to get to that place where you’re ready to put this up.

Jason: I would also just say that if longevity is something that matters, like obviously there are writers who have other things they want to pursue and maybe plan for the latter stages of their career a little bit differently, but if you’re like me and feel a desperate need to do this till the day you die then you look at writers, or at least I do, who have had longevity and you try to figure out how they did it. And I have no idea if I’ll be able to replicate that. I perpetually feel like I’m 120 pages from not being in the business. But, I look at guys like Robert Kamen, with a career spanning from Taps to he’s now got the sequel to Olympus Has Fallen coming out. That’s a career.

You look at Eric Roth. You look at a lot of these writers who sustain careers over 30 or 40 or 50 years.

John: Alvin Sargent.

Jason: Yeah. And so I try to learn from them and how they did it. And it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, but it’s something I’m very cognizant of. From my perspective there are ways to approach it and I’m still trying to learn how.

John: Another question? So his question is we talk about No Writing Left Behind, and so if you’re going in to pitch on a project that they own, if you’re going in to pitch on Transformers don’t leave stuff behind. But let’s talk about sort of you’ve talked about your idea for something, would you send stuff after you’ve talked in a room about a thing would you send in a write-up for it? What are the pros and cons of this thing that is entirely yours, writing up a little thing to show them. What’s good and what’s bad about that?

Tess: I mean, I don’t know, because I don’t know what it’s like when you pitch – if you’re pitching on a big movie, I’ve only ever done it once and I did probably do too much work. These three would know better than me. I look back on the experience and I thought I did a little bit too much work for nothing. Because I didn’t get it. But if I got it I’d be like oh I’m so glad I did all that work. So, I don’t know. It’s difficult because I tend to work in a way where I will go in and see a producer and have an idea and then we’ll have a bit of back and forth for six months and then I’ll form something and then I’ll go pitch it. Whereas I think if you’re pitching for an actual open assignment it’s a different thing.

John: Yeah, so it’s open assignments that I really want to stress the No Writing Left Behind. But even if it’s your own idea, one of the reasons why it can be a bad idea to write up that three paragraph thing is then your idea becomes this three paragraph thing and you’re dealing with this written document rather than this idea of a document. And ultimately you are going to be writing a screenplay which is the plan for making a movie. So, the plan for writing the screenplay for making the movie, spending all your time and energy on that thing and letting that be the focus is probably not as good as the conversation about what the screenplay will be, what the movie is going to be is more useful to everybody.

Do we have time for another question? We’re all done? This was great. I want to thank our panelists and thank you to the WGA for having us.

Links:

  • Thank you, Tess Morris, Christina Hodson, Nicole Perlman, and Jason Fuchs!
  • T-shirts are available here! We’ve got new designs, including Colored Revisions, Karateka, and Highland2.
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • Tess Morris on Twitter
  • Nicole Perlman on Twitter
  • Jason Fuchs on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Find past episodes
  • Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 360: Relationships — Transcript

July 31, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/relationships).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 360 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to be talking about relationships and how writers let the reader know what’s going on between two or three or more characters in a scene. Then we’ll be looking at three new Three Page Challenges to see how these suggestions might help.

**Craig:** You said this is Episode 360?

**John:** Yep. Gone full circle.

**Craig:** Wow. We have gone full circle. And in five days we will also have a year, five days, five weeks. We will have a year of podcasts.

**John:** Yeah. The math doesn’t really kind of work the same way. Well, I guess, I think if you count the bonus episodes you could listen to an episode a day and fill a full year.

**Craig:** Right. Except the leap year.

**John:** Yeah. We don’t really count those.

**Craig:** No, we don’t count those.

**John:** But looking at calendars, I do have some things to put on your calendar for listeners.

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** Yes. I have a couple of Arlo Finch things coming up. August 25 I’ll be at the San Diego Festival of Books, talking about Arlo Finch and signing some Arlo Finches. September 22 I will be at the Orange Public Library Comic-Con. So there’s Comic-Cons in other places. So this is the City of Orange. And then the start of October I am headed to Frankfurt, Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen for the German and Scandinavian releases of Arlo Finch.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** So if you are in any of those cities or countries you can track me down.

**Craig:** That’s awesome. I kept meaning to get up to Stockholm at the very least because Lithuania, we’re right up there, you know. We’re right there.

**John:** Stockholm is amazing.

**Craig:** So like our director Johan Renck and our DP, Jakob Ihre, and then Stellan Skarsgård, they just zip back and forth as they need to. It’s easy for them to go home. It’s not so easy for me to go home when I’m there. But, yeah, so I want to go to Stockholm and Oslo would be pretty great, too. And Copenhagen. I mean, actually they all would be pretty great.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Well, you’ll have a great time doing that. And just out of curiosity when you are on tour promoting Arlo Finch do you try and shorthand it to ArFi? Do you do ArFi? ArFi?

**John:** Sorry about that loud bang.

**Craig:** Did you just shoot yourself?

**John:** I did. I shot myself.

**Craig:** That question was so horrifying to you that you just – that would have been the most amazing way to end this podcast.

**John:** Boom!

**Craig:** Yeah. John? John? John?

**John:** Episode 360.

**Craig:** John?

**John:** I never shorten it down to ArFi. He’s Arlo Finch in every market. That’s the only thing that hasn’t changed. So in France they changed the subtitle of the book to Le Mystere des Longs Bois. But otherwise it’s just Arlo Finch, something about Valley of Fire.

**Craig:** That French cover for the new book is great.

**John:** Yeah, it’s cool.

**Craig:** Love that cover.

**John:** And you and I will be together doing live shows in the Austin Film Festival. So that is October 25 that that starts.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And while I’m there that’s actually coincidentally the Texas Book Festival, so I’ll be doing events both for Texas Book Festival and Austin Film Festival at the same time.

**Craig:** Can we call the Austin Film Festival AuFi?

**John:** Yes. We can. We will officially change it to AuFi.

**Craig:** We are going to have a great Austin show this year. Some awesome people are going to be coming. We’re going to pack the stage as we usually do. And we’ve been talking to the Austin folks and I think it’s going to be pretty exciting. And I did not realize this but apparently the live show, they had to turn people away. So, we’re working on maybe a way that we don’t have to turn people away.

**John:** A bigger venue would be a great thing. So we’ll see if we can get that to happen.

**Craig:** Correct. Oh, and I should mention to those of you who are thinking about going to Austin Film Festival to participate in the pitch competition.

Apparently there was a little bit of I guess some feedback that the judges last year may have been altogether a little too easy on the contestants. And apparently the request came in that I return to provide a little bit of, I don’t know, a little more of that Simon Cowell je ne sais quoi. So I believe I will be judging the final pitch competition at Austin this year. So, you know, you want to do that, right? You want to be in that. So be in it.

**John:** Be in it.

**Craig:** Be in it.

**John:** Do it. Do it.

**Craig:** Do it.

**John:** Do it. Our episode this week is about relationships and Lawant on Twitter actually asked, “I started going through the podcast from episode number one. Do you guys happen to know if there’s an episode going into how you two met?”

And so I was thinking back and in Episode 100 we do talk about the emails that led to the creation of the podcast, but I’m not sure we’ve ever discussed on the show sort of how you and I met, sort of that backstory thing. And I think I have one memory of it, but you may have a different memory of it. So, my memory of it is that you were starting Artful Writer, your blog, and you reached out through David Kramer, my agent, who was also your agent at the time to see if we could get on the phone to talk about setting up the blog. Is that your first instinct of how we met?

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. I remember thinking that there were certain technical things. I noticed, I believe, that you were using – were you using Word Press for your site or were you using Movable Type? Remember Movable Type?

**John:** Yeah. I remember Movable Type. Movable Type is I think entirely Pearl-based, and it generated static pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. It roamed the earth once, like the dinosaurs. And has gone the way of the dinosaurs as far as I can tell.

**John:** I’m still on Word Press now, but I think I might have been on Movable Type at that point. I remember you asking a very specific question about my little brad logo and how it floated over–

**Craig:** Yes! You know what it was? I remember, so I had started up this Movable Type blog and I had just a general design, but then there were certain things I was doing to customize it. And I looked at your site and like how the hell – there’s got to be some simple, easy plug-in or something he’s done to make this logo like this. I remember talking to you and you were like, “No, that took hours,” somehow like trimming around the brad and coding it in to float and all the rest. And then I realized that I just didn’t want to spend hours.

But I think that was the first time I ever spoke with you about anything. It was just computer stuff. It wasn’t writing stuff.

**John:** No, it wasn’t at all. And then I think the first time I remember actually meeting you was at Huntington Gardens. You were there with your family. I was there with my family.

**Craig:** That was the first time?

**John:** I think. We may have met in person one time before then, but I just remember it was really weird and random that we were at the same gardens in Pasadena at the same time. And I’d only been there like twice or three times in my life, so it was a rare overlap.

**Craig:** Yeah, I remember bumping into you there. So that was a long time. But we were just, you know, not friends or anything, we just knew each other and so forth. But then we got involved in this little boondoggle we invented for Fox, but how did that start?

**John:** I think you probably called me about that, because you’d already started talking with other writers. So, for folks who don’t remember, no one would remember this history, Craig had this idea of trying to make a deal at one of the studios for a small group of writers to get real meaningful backend on their projects. And so he pitched it to me. I said it sounded like a great idea. We brought in a bunch of other writers. Craig and I went and pitched it to a bunch of studios. Fox bought into the idea. And very little actually became of it ultimately.

**Craig:** Yeah. It was an interesting thing. I remember specifically the genesis of it was I read about what they had done at Warner Bros. John Wells had put a group together at Warner Bros. And so I called John up and said, “Hey, describe this whole thing.” And he did. And it sounded like a pretty good deal. So then I was like well why don’t we do this. And the problem is I think they all went the same way. They all, every version of this has never gone well, whether it was through Sony or Warner Bros. or Fox. I think those are the three places that have done them. It just ultimately never really works. McQuarrie did one like this as well.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Nothing ever comes of them.

**John:** And I don’t know if we can say definitively why. But I will say one of the challenges is that studio leadership keeps changing, and so it becomes hard to sort of kind of not really even force the deal but sort of like keep the deal active and going when leadership keeps changing.

**Craig:** It does. And it was I think problematic in part because it required the material to come from the writer. And as we were putting these deals in place the studios’ interest in material they didn’t control kept plummeting. So ultimately you couldn’t really apply a deal like this to any project that relied on underlying property. And, well, that turned out to be essentially all they ever wanted to make.

So that was – there were a bunch of reasons why it began. I think another factor in that is just simply that the writers who qualified for consideration for these kinds of things were so freaking busy and never had a day off, ever. And somebody had always lined up some other thing with them that there was very little time for them to do the sort of work that would lead to success with one of these things.

So, all sorts of reasons why that didn’t work. But you and I went around. I think that was really when we got to know each other. Because we were kind of rowing together in a little canoe. And we made a great little team, I thought.

**John:** Yeah. I thought so, too. 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:** 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.

All right. Let’s take a look at the relationships in our Three Page Challenges. So, for folks who are knew to the podcast, every once and a while Craig and I take a look at the first three pages of people’s scripts, sometimes features, sometimes pilots. We’ve invited them to send these things in. These are not things we found online. These are not random things we’re criticizing. People have submitted these first three pages for us to look at.

So, Megan, the Scriptnotes producer, looks through them all and picks some that she thinks are going to be interesting for us to discuss. So if you want to read along with us the PDFs are going to be attached to the show notes, so go to johnaugust.com/shownotes. Look for this episode. And you can read along with us.

If you would like to submit your own Three Page Challenge you go to johnaugust.com/threepage and there’s rules for how you sort of put stuff in. So, again, not a competition. Not a contest. No one wins anything except hopefully listeners gain something from us talking about these brave people who have sent in their three pages.

**Craig:** Everybody wins.

**John:** Everybody wins. So, producer Megan McDonnell is actually going to read a summary of the things this time, so we will listen to a summary of the first script and then discuss. So the first script is Convenience by Jonathan Brown.

**Megan McDonnell:** Dee Brown and Sasha Thomas, both early 20s, avoid speaking as they shop in a convenience store. Sasha insists on undressing the unspoken issue. She’s your best friend. She can’t be so mad over some guy. Dee warns her that they’re being watched, but the cashier just reads a magazine. Sasha asks him to pick a side in their argument, but he stays out of it. Dee makes her purchase and exits. Sasha trails her out.

Sasha scolds Dee for being rude and immature saying it isn’t fair. Dee challenges her. What, that she’s not entertaining Sasha’s pity party or that she always has to be the one that pays at the register? Sasha admits that she didn’t notice whether or not there was someone else in the store. Of course she didn’t. She has a focus problem. They put on hoodies. Dee confirms that they are not friends anymore and she doesn’t care. She pulls out a gun. They put on masks and run back into the store.

**John:** Craig, talk me through Convenience.

**Craig:** OK. So, good summary by Megan. We have I think an interesting sort of scenario going on here. I understand that these – I assume that Dee is female. I believe Dee is female. So we have two women, two youngish women in their 20s, and they are both casing a joint. They’re shopping, arguing, and casing a joint and preparing to rob it, which feels like a very sort of Tarantino-y kind of thing. This reminds me of the opening of Pulp Fiction where Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer are having a chit chat in a diner and talking about hopes and dreams and then it ends with them announcing that they’re robbing the place. So that part is kind of cool.

The trouble I had with this ultimately is that it felt a bit rambly. There was a point in here. I think the point is that Sasha has done something to betray Dee. I think maybe stole a boyfriend or something, whose name is John.

**John:** John.

**Craig:** That’s a whole lot of words for what is somewhat mundane. And the relationship as we went through didn’t really change. In other words, it stayed on one level which is Sasha keeps yammering to try and get Dee to be OK with things. And Dee keeps pushing back and saying no. But it doesn’t get physical. It doesn’t get quiet. It doesn’t get stony. There’s no change in tactics which I always find troubling. I think in general people are very, very good at changing tactics when they’re trying to get something from somebody. There’s certainly plenty of conflict on display here which I think is a good thing.

Just technical things. There’s a few just odd bits in here. For instance, Sasha says, “You can’t seriously still be mad about it.” And then Dee says, “Seriously? We’re being watched.” So they’re using seriously twice but in different ways. They’re not necessarily echoing “seriously.”

Sasha says, “I’m your best friend. You can’t stop talking to me over some guy.” Nobody says that really like that. It’s a bit cliché. And I’m your best friend is just a weird thing. When we talked earlier about how to get across the specifics of a relationship, there are cooler ways to do that information than just somebody announcing it. We’re missing an apostrophe on “friend’s feelings.”

There’s a bit where they involve Bill who is the clerk in this convenience store. I assume he’s going to be important because he gets a name. The names are really generic. I don’t know quite what to do with these. Dee Brown. Sasha Thomas. Bill Frank. So I’m not sure where we are. I’d love to know also where are we in the world.

And lastly it appears that there’s some duplicated dialogue on page three where Dee says, “Look. I don’t care about John. I don’t care about you.” And then in the next line she starts, “Look. I don’t care about John. I don’t care about you.” I assume that’s not intentional. But a lot of this felt on the nose and exclamatory. And I think there’s a version of this where two people are whispering/arguing with each other in an aisle and we’re trying to suss out what they’re talking about but we can do a better job of uncorking that this is what they mean. And then one of them pulls out a gun and says “Just shut up until we’re done,” and then they rob the store.

I don’t know. It just felt very – this did not feel like an efficient use of the first three pages. What did you think, John?

**John:** I would agree with you there. So, talking about the relationship here, I think the reason why I didn’t understand the relationship well or didn’t click into the relationship is I don’t have any sense of who these two women are. I don’t – they’re just names. So, “Dee Brown, early 20s, and Sasha Thomas, early 20s, are walking through the convenient store aisles shopping.” That’s all we get for who these two women are.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so I don’t have any sense of who they are individually. I’m not given any bits of flavor to help me tell them apart. And so as I’m reading through the dialogue I had a really hard time remembering like, wait, no, who had the affair with who? I couldn’t tell them apart. And their voices are the same. So, there was really no way for me to click in on sort of what I should be looking for.

So, we talk about expectation. I didn’t really have any expectations for them because you’ve given me nothing to sort of grasp onto at the start here. Same with Bill Frank. “BILL FRANK, 20s, the cashier is flipping through his magazine.” Well, there’s a lot of cashiers and I don’t know what kind of person this is. So give me some flavor here so I have some sense of who this person is and what the nature of it is.

Specificity overall – I don’t know what kind of convenience store this is. I don’t know where we are. I don’t have a sense of the season. I don’t have a sense – just visually I’m given very little to grasp onto, so I’m just trying to listen to the dialogue and I can’t actually pull anything useful out of this other than Sasha did something bad. But I don’t know why we’re talking about it now.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And what is the inciting incident that got us to talk about this moment?

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** Well, it’s that the writer wanted to. And this is what I mean. Like, you got to come up with better reasons than this. By the way, I love what you just said about seasons. There is this fricking thing – am I aloud to say fricking without violating?

**John:** Absolutely. 100%.

**Craig:** Fricking thing where writers just – we talk about default white in screenplays. How about this? Default spring. Writers will write default spring. Because the second you actually get involved in production, somebody somewhere who has to dress these people will say when – what part of year is it? And most writers go, “Oh, uh, May.” No. May is boring. Give me the heat of summer. Give me the chill of winter. Come up with some cool stuff. And maybe if it is May it’s May, but then it’s hay fever. Whatever. Do something so that the weather matters. So that clothes are interesting. So every time the door opens there’s a wind that blows in and knocks a thing over. Use the world.

**John:** Use the world.

**Craig:** Use the world.

**John:** Other things that were just frustratingly unspecific to me, midway through page one, “Fiddles with items on the shelves. Dee continues to look around the convenience store and picks up an item to buy. Sasha follows her.” Picks up an item to buy. Got to pick up something. It’s no more words to actually say what that is that you’re buying. And anything would be more interesting than something to buy.

**Craig:** Anything. Anything. Like, somebody is stock piling the weirdest item. You know, like just ChapSticks. Just one after another after another after another. But whatever they’re doing everything has to be a choice. You’re absolutely right. And I think so much about what happened to these two girls with each other and their relationship could be helped along by just – is one tall and is one short?

**John:** Yeah. Give me something.

**Craig:** Punky haircut? Regular haircut? Give me something. It all felt incredibly bland and generic.

**John:** I had real geography problems when they left the store. And so I think what’s supposed to be happening is they’re basically doing a loop around the entire outside of the store and they’re coming back in front. But I had no real sense of where I was. So I couldn’t tell if they were still out front, where they were in terms of this. It makes sense to do the loop, but just give me the loop because I didn’t process it.

And I wasn’t ahead of the writer in terms of knowing this was going to be a stick up really. I mean, I assume they were shoplifting or something. So, I was a little excited by the, OK, now they’re going to rob and that’s the bottom of page three. But, I didn’t feel it.

And here’s the thing. If you’re going to do the reversal like, oh, they’re going to actually rob the place, the conversation leading up to that still has to be interesting. So, the thing we talked about with Pulp Fiction is like that conversation in the diner was fascinating.

**Craig:** It’s great.

**John:** Before they pulled the gun.

**Craig:** That’s why pulling the gun was such a shock. It’s not a shock here that they pull a gun because really what I get is two fairly bland, generic people are also doing a fairly bland, generic movie thing which is robbing a convenience with a bland weapon. It’s not even an interesting weapon. They haven’t even bought a can of bug spray and a lighter to use that as a flame torch. You know what I mean? It’s just, oh, here’s the usual gun. And I don’t know, it’s all just so…

One last little bit on that geography. I think sometimes if you want to do something that might be confusing to a reader then just use it to your advantage and say we’re not really sure where they’re going now and then, surprise, they’ve ended up right back at the front. Except this time they pull their heads down and pull out their – you know what I mean? Be impressionistic about it I guess.

**John:** Last little thing I will say is at the bottom of page three you commented how there’s dialogue that’s repeated. So it could be intentional. But if you’re going to repeat dialogue that way, because sometimes people do say the same thing again, give us something different in how you’re presenting it so that we know that it wasn’t a mistake.

So, the second time, like, “Listen, I don’t care about John.” Underline something. Uppercase some things to make it clear that this is not a mistake. She really is saying the same thing again, just with different emphasis, or really nailing it home.

**Craig:** Or even a parenthetical. Again. Just so that you’re letting the reader know, yeah, this is purposeful. I didn’t just screw up.

**John:** Final thing I will say is sometimes a character speaks and then there’s a line of action and the character speaks again with a continued. That can be a powerful thing, but I got confused a couple times here where I thought like we should have switched to the other character. If you’re going to do that, there has to be a real reason for why you interjected there. That there’s more happening after it. There were a lot of cases here where I felt like you should have just kept all that dialogue together and then done the action line, or put stuff in as a parenthetical because there’s a lot of cases of CONT’Ds and stuff that just confused me.

**Craig:** Yep. All right, well why don’t we move onto our second Three Page Challenge for this episode. It’s Plunder Cove by Paul Acampora and Erin Dionne. So let’s have Megan tell us a little bit about Plunder Cover.

**Megan:** A beat up car parks near a warn Plunder Cove amusement park billboard. Elliot Marker, 17, and Lilly, 9, gather their belongings from the car, her horse-shaped backpack and his hockey stick. He points out a small snake on the ground and warns Lilly to watch her step. Watching her step is the biggest part of staying safe.

Elliot pries open a hole in the chain link fence and props the gap for he and Lilly to climb through. He calls this their special family pass. They joyfully run through the amusement park and get caught by a guard just inside the wall. Elliot claims that they were just looking for a bathroom for Lilly. She asks why she always has to be the one who needs the bathroom. It’s because she always does.

They plan to meet when she’s done and go to the Merry-Go-Round. She gives him a big hug. He is an excellent big brother.

**Craig:** OK, John, what did you think of Plunder Cove? This is a pilot for a TV series.

**John:** So this is one of the most interesting Three Page Challenges I think I’ve encountered in this whole thing, because some of the writing in this was actually really nicely done and really thoughtful and the nature of the relationship between the brother and sister was interesting. The visual world of it was interesting. And yet these writers, it feels like they have not seen any other screenplays. Like they’re coming in from just some completely other universe of writing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Because they just didn’t seem to have any sense of the standard ways that things are formatted. So maybe we’ll talk about the relationships first and then we’ll go into like OK this is how things actually need to look on the page, because the actual – some of the writing was good and would have been so much stronger with proper formatting.

So, I want to talk about our expectations of these two characters and what’s working and what could work better. What I liked about, so Elliot, age 17, and his nine-year-old sister, Lilly Marker, exit sedan. “ELLIOT, solid and tall, is a little too serious for his age. LILLY is high-energy, no patience, wild hair and untied shoes.” Great. Those are good descriptions of those people. Like I get what those people are. I get what the dynamic is. With that description I’m eager to see what is actually happening.

Then what’s actually happening, they’re sneaking into the park. He uses a hockey stick to pull open the chain link fence. Cool. I got it. I get all this stuff. I get a little sense that the home life is messed up. The mom is always in a box of wine. That the brother is a little annoyed by the little sister, but also very protective of the little sister. I basically got and believed their relationship in these three pages which is an accomplishment.

**Craig:** Yeah. I liked the wardrobe, hair, and makeup of the character introductions. I mean, look, the – and I’ll ignore the formatting, because truthfully I was thrilled. To be honest with you, thrilled to see something that people had typed that had absolutely no concern whatsoever for normal formatting. Because I just thought, oh good, finally a test of this thing I keep saying which is it doesn’t matter. Well, it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter to me. I’m sure that for other people they might look at this and go, nah, these people don’t know what they’re doing. But for me, they were an enjoyable three pages, so I stopped caring about that other stuff because in the end it doesn’t really matter.

I mean, if they could keep consistent within their own mad system that would be great. So, for instance, “park guy” is a character and he’s not capitalized, but everybody else is capitalized. So there are things like that. But by and large, you know, I got – here’s the truth, after the second page I stopped caring about that stuff and I was just inside of the scene.

So, let me talk about how that works, Paul and Erin. Pretty well. I think, relationship wise, again going back to the let’s not give away stuff that we don’t have to give away, they do this all the time. Right? We have an understanding that this is not the first time they’ve done this. Correct?

**John:** That is correct.

**Craig:** Lilly is sort of talking like she’s never done this before. That a lot of these things are new. “The biggest part of staying safe is just keeping your eyes open” is what he’s saying to her. Why is he saying this to her now after they’ve done this a bunch of times? You know? And then why is she asking what’s the other part, and “How come we never use the main gate?” That was the line that implied that they do this a lot.

**John:** Yeah. And so that exchange actually worked pretty well for me. I would cut out Lilly’s talk back line at the end. So, “How come we never use the main gate?” “We’ve got a special family pass.” He uses the hockey stick to pry it open. I didn’t need her line that says, “Our family pass looks a lot like a hockey stick.”

**Craig:** Precisely. Because you’ve seen the hockey stick many, many, many, many times. And then when she says, “Why do you always say I need to use the bathroom?” that makes sense, right?

**John:** Totally.

**Craig:** Frankly, the first exchange, too, “Watch your step. The biggest part of staying safe…What’s the other part? Dumb luck.” I’d cut that, too. I would just have him pull out the hockey stick and she’s like, “Can’t we – how come we never use the main gate?” “We’ve got a special family pass.” Then I get that.

She’s a little precocious for nine and we’ve seen that character many, many, many, many, many times. But, you know, it’s not the worst of it. And I liked their whole chitchat about the carousel and demoiselle and all that stuff. It felt nice.

I mean, look, there’s absolutely nothing in this teaser that qualifies as a teaser.

**John:** No. This isn’t a teaser for a TV show at all.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s kind of a scene. Here’s what we should say about a teaser. A teaser sets up a question. Sets up a mystery. Sets up this is the start of a journey and it was just the end of three pages. It wasn’t anything.

**Craig:** Yeah. For this to be a teaser you do this scene and then at the end of the scene you realize they’re ghosts. That’s a teaser. There’s nothing here that goes, whoa, it’s just a lovely, nice little moment and then off they go. It feels like the first scene of an independent film, not a teaser to start you off and make you gripped by a television show.

So, look, in terms of formatting and stuff, honestly Paul and Erin, here’s the truth. You guys write well enough that you probably should give yourself the advantage of writing things in the “normal” format. And you can do that for free. You can do that for free using, well, Highland, there’s a free version of Highland but that’s only–

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** OK. So there’s free Highland. WriterDuet. There’s a free version of that. Just start there. At least you’ll get a sense of how the format works. But this was pretty well done.

**John:** Yeah. So a couple things, you know, using the write application will solve most of these problems, the weird way that dialogue was centered rather than blocked properly. If you’re going to do a pilot, that’s fine. Plunder Cove is the title of the series. You put the Episode on the title page. So, Episode One, Merry-Go-Round Broke Down. Teaser would generally be centered over the top of page one of the actual script. And then the application can take care of the rest of the stuff for you.

But here’s why I think it does matter. Here’s why standard formatting, or at least a semblance of standard formatting is if Megan hadn’t picked this as a Three Page Challenge and I was just like skimming through a bunch of them, I would have immediately passed over this because it didn’t look like a screenplay at all. It looked like some person who typed a play once and had never actually looked at it. And people are going to dismiss something that just looks so weird. And it’s not even consistent in how it is done. It’s not like they came up with some other system for how it was all going to be done. It just felt kind of random. And so you want everything to feel deliberate and you’ve made really good choices with words. Make really good choices in how you’re presenting those words so we actually will read your story.

**Craig:** I would have gravitated toward it. I’m just so bored of like, oh here it comes, INT…

You know, but that’s me. That’s me. I’m nuts.

**John:** All right. Let’s go to our third Three Page Challenge. It’s Savorless Salt by Mathieu Ghekiere. He’s from Belgium. I looked him up.

**Craig:** Oh, cool.

**John:** Megan, take it away.

**Megan:** Months are ripped from a calendar. Lucas, 10, sleeps. Hannah, 42, looks over a shelf of canned food with homemade labels. She selects a can and as she prepares a meal she’s careful to wipe down the containers. Jeff, 43, rides a stationary bike furiously, earning credits. Dylan, 5, wakes Lucas with excitement. It’s Christmas. Lucas looks at his wall covered in tick marks. He wipes them away with his sleeve.

Over their modest feast, Lucas challenges his mother’s assertion that it is Christmas. It’s been 412 days since last Christmas. Surprised that he’s been counting the days, she counters with an explanation that time is relative and leaves the table in a huff. Jeff encourages Lucas to keep counting and stay curious.

**John:** And we’re back. Craig, talk me through your experience with Savorless Salt.

**Craig:** What a strange and interesting title. Well I knew that Mathieu was not a native English speaker pretty quickly in. There’s something very lovely – in a lovely way it’s very backwards, the way that German is often backwards. Where he says, “Every month ends in the trash until December.” He’s talking about a calendar on a wall. “With a black marker every day before December 24th gets crossed.” Meaning every day before December 24th gets crossed off with a black marker. So it took me like three times on that sentence, but I was like, OK, I get it. And this is kind of actually awesome. I love the crazy syntax.

So generally speaking I thought this was pretty fantastic. I was gripped by the description. And I could see the space I was in. I understood, even if it said INT. BUNKER I understood that it was definitely bunker-y. That there was no need for me in the audience as it were to see the word bunker. I felt the bunkerness. I really loved that when we met Hannah she’s doing this interesting kind of ritualistic preparation of canned food. And then we get to Jeff who we, I guess are going to assume is her husband, and he’s biking. And you just infer that he’s generating energy and that the energy is measured in credits. So they have these obligations. And she throws powered bleach in the pot before putting in the vegetables. Lovely little details. I’m fascinated by what’s going on here. Fascinated.

Then I meet the brothers. I don’t know how old Lucas is. I know that his little brother Dylan is five. I’d love to know–

**John:** Lucas is 10.

**Craig:** Oh, where is that?

**John:** At the start there’s a weird scene that is underwritten. So, “INT. BEDROOM KIDS,” again.

**Craig:** Oh, there it is. Yeah.

**John:** “LUCAS, 10 years old, is sleeping”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But that was a situation where like we had no framing around that at all, so Bedroom Kids is reversed but also I don’t – what does that look like? That was an opportunity to show how this space is different than our expectations of what a bunker space should be, or the degree to which it matches those expectations.

**Craig:** Yeah, probably, Mathieu what you’d want to do is just cut that out. You can see the calendar on a concrete wall if you want. And then if you want to give us little glimpses of the space without drawing attention to people, and then go with Hannah, go with Jeff on the bike, back to Hannah, and then if you want to do the kids again. So just help us out there because I couldn’t remember from that little bloop. It didn’t even register in my brain.

So, his brother jumps on him because it’s Christmas. And in a very small bathroom, “Jeff washes himself with powder and the tiniest amount of water.” Another great little – I feel like I’m learning how whatever post-Apocalyptic nightmare these people live in, or if it’s not, regardless, I’m learning about bunker life. It’s kind of cool.

And then there’s this conversation that happens and Lucas is complaining a little bit that even though it’s Christmas the last Christmas happened 412 days ago. And this disturbs Hannah for some reason. I love the little mystery of this. Why is she upset that he’s been counting the days? She doesn’t like that, but Jeff does like that. Jeff, who is the dad-ish, kind of is pleased about this. And Hannah kind of loses her appetite. She’s having this emotional response to what seemingly is this just happy little family conversation. And smashes her elbows on the table. I’m pretty sure we want hands there. It’s very hard to smash your elbows on the table. Marches off and Jeff basically says to Lucas, you know, promise me you won’t stop counting.

Well, what I love here is I know so much. In three pages I know these people live in a bunker. I know roughly how bunker life works. I know that there’s something really creepy going on with Hannah. I know that the amount of days that they’ve been done there is at issue and that lies have been told. And I know that Jeff likes it and wants his kid to keep doing that because there’s conflict between him and Hannah. To me, that’s great.

So, you know, I say great job Mathieu. I really enjoyed these three pages.

**John:** Yeah. I was confused in the wrong way about Hannah. So I did up underlining on page three, “Her appetite is gone.” It’s like, well why I write. Because I didn’t see enough stuff there to give me a clue whether I was supposed to know that or not know that. And so, again, it’s being aware of what the reader is going to infer or not infer. I felt like Mathieu suspected I was a little more caught up than I actually was at that moment. So, that moment didn’t quite work for me. But I did like that you’re establishing these characters with a conflict already there.

It wasn’t spending a lot of time like everything is happy and now everything is fraught. This is a family that’s already in crisis even within this bunker context which is good. And that the nature of counting the days is important. I think the problem was, as a reader, I couldn’t imagine any scenario for why Hannah was acting the way she was. And so that left me a little bit frustrated.

**Craig:** Right. And I get that. I stopped a little bit when – when she lost her appetite I was a little confused by why it happened in that moment and not a little earlier. I think maybe when he makes the counting thing, maybe that’s when she puts her fork down. The losing your appetite also is a little funky one just because Mathieu makes a big deal about how this is a feast and yet it’s not a lot of food, which makes me think that they’re on rations and are hungry a lot. So, but there’s something also a bit scary about Hannah, which I like. The unpredictable emotionality was putting me on edge, and I like that.

**John:** Yeah. So in our previous episode we talked about point of view and I think one of the things, especially this last scene, could benefit from is a little bit more clear point of view. Because we established all of these characters, but whose point of view are we seeing this dinner scene through? Is it from Hannah’s point of view? Is it from Jeff’s? Is it from one of the boys? And I think making that choice will inform how the scene plays and how we as an audience are reading this moment.

If we’re supposed to be seeing this from Hannah’s point of view, that’s frustrating because we don’t understand Hannah’s point of view. If we’re seeing it from Jeff’s point of view, which seems a little bit more likely, that feels a little bit more grounded. And the boys’ point of view could be equally valid. But I think we need to give the boys a little bit more screen time and weight beforehand and see everything kind of from their POV, which might mean cutting out the Jeff in the shower and stuff like that. Just so we’re really seeing it from the boys’ point of view.

**Craig:** That’s fair. I think there’s a little bit of confusion in there about who we’re with. But I was impressed by the amount of information that I got without being smacked in the face with it. So, it was interesting.

**John:** Let’s talk about Mathieu’s English. Because his English is pretty good, but there’s things that he messes up that you’re going to mess up as a non-native speaker.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so if he’s really writing this in English rather than French or another language, I think it would serve him well to have a native speaker just do a quick run through and just flip some of the words around so it reads a little bit better as standard English. Because sometimes we stop and we trip on things like, wait, what did he actually mean there? And if it was smooth and effortless it would serve him better.

**Craig:** No question. I mean I can go through this and practically every single paragraph there is some kind of mistake in English and they are somewhat subtle. We generally call – it’s canned food. We don’t refer to them as metal food cans. We don’t say big pearls of sweat. We would say big beads or droplets of sweat. He’s eyes instead of his eyes. There’s a lot of things like this. She wipes the plastic with a paper cloth. I think in English we would say paper towel.

So there’s all these little idiomatic things. And, by the way, this is something that I had to do, even though I was writing in English for English people, for Chernobyl because it’s essentially a British production and actors and crew were sort of used to reading a certain thing. We just decided we’re just going to go with British spellings and we were going to go with British words to not confuse people. So, for instance, no more flash lights but they have–

**John:** Torches. Yep.

**Craig:** So Jane Featherstone read through the whole script and sort of went, no, no, yes, yes, change that. Colour. You know. It was all – and it doesn’t change anything, Mathieu. I mean, that’s the point, is that it’s still your writing, you’re just making it what you actually intended it to be.

**John:** Yep. All right, thank you again to our three brave entrants to the Three Page Challenge. I guess it was actually four because there was one writing team.

If you would like to read these pages, they’re at johnaugust.com. Just look for this episode and you can find the PDFs to download. Or if you want to submit your own it’s johnaugust.com/threepage.

It has come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Things are these books which you’ve seen in a bookstore, I assure you, if you live in the United States. They’re these sepia toned books that are about local history. So, the first one of these I read was on Larchmont which is the little shopping street in my neighborhood by Patricia Lombard. It was a great history of this weird little shopping street in Los Angeles. But doing research for this new project I’ve been pulling up a lot of LA history. And some of these books are fantastic. Another one I’d recommend is African-Americans in Los Angeles by Karin L. Stanford.

So these books, there’s a company that makes them called Images of America. There’s really a very set template. There’s a ton of photos. Some are really well written, some are not well written. But they’re so fascinating in their very, very, very local history of a place that I’d really encourage you to check them out for wherever you are living right now or wherever you grew up. But if you need to do research on a place, historical research on a place, they are great because they just have a ton of photos of a place that, yes, you could probably find online but you couldn’t find in context. So, I’m going to recommend these Images of America books.

**Craig:** I picked up one of those for La Cañada, the town where I live in. You know, La Cañada in many ways is an incredibly boring little town. That’s kind of why we like it. But when you read the history of La Cañada you realize it’s always been a boring a little town.

**John:** Nothing’s changed.

**Craig:** No. My One Cool Thing is the aforementioned Lindsay Doran Ted Talk. I apologize if it’s been my One Cool Thing before but I don’t care. It’s that good. It’s an evergreen. You should absolutely listen to this. It’s brilliant. It’s not long. It’s 18 minutes and 25 seconds. And in that 18 minutes and 25 seconds Lindsay Doran, who is a brilliant, brilliant producer, legendary producer, manages to convey precisely what it is about movies and relationships that draw us in. And it is such a refreshing antidote to a lot of the garbage advice that I think is handed out, particularly about endings to people, in which endings become loud, stakes-building crescendos of explosions and nonsense cacophony. And miss out on what an ending really is.

And she does this wonderful job of explaining to you through movies you’ve already seen whose endings you may have forgotten what the endings are really about. So Lindsay Doran Ted Talk. Link in the show notes.

**John:** Fantastic. So that’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Michael O’Konis. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answer on the show.

On Twitter, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. That’s a good place to go for little small questions about things.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there you can leave us a comment. That helps people find the show. But you can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

We have now seven seasons of Scriptnotes available to download. If you go to store.johnaugust.com you can download them as big files that have all the mp3s. All the related materials. And the bonus episodes. So they are $5 per season if you want to go back through those.

We also have Scriptnotes.net which is $2 a month and lets you load and download any of those episodes of the first 359 that we’ve done, plus the bonus episodes.

So, Craig, thank you again for a fun show about relationships.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. My relationship with you is better than ever.

**John:** Better than ever. Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Talk to you soon. Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Arlo Finch covers](http://johnaugust.com/2018/youd-hardly-recognize-arlo-finch-overseas) look different around the world. You can catch John at the San Diego Festival of Books on August 25, at the Orange Public Library Comic-Con on September 22, at the Texas Book Festival on October 25th, or in Frankfurt, Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen in early October.
* The [Austin Film Festival](https://austinfilmfestival.com) is also coming up on October 25th.
* In a musical, the relationship can be with the audience, like in Shrek: The Musical’s [“Big Bright Beautiful World”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sqopU4V60w) or Fiddler on the Roof’s [“If I Were a Rich Man”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_XeHLrkwTY) — as opposed to [the movie version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc).
* [Three pages](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/CONVENIENCE.pdf) by Jonathan Brown
* [Three pages](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/PLUNDER_COVE.pdf) by Paul Acampora & Erin Dionne
* [Three pages](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/SAVORLESS_SALT.pdf) by Mathieu Ghekiere
* You can submit for the three page challenge [here](http://johnaugust.com/threepage).
* [Images of America Book Series](https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/series/images-of-america-books?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5Izfyqis3AIVjeNkCh1gSANLEAAYASAAEgLEB_D_BwE&ef_id=W1EenwAABGOU1CD9:20180719232831:s)
* [Larchmont](https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9781467134118) by Patricia Lombard
* [African-Americans in Los Angeles](https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9780738580944) by Karin L. Stanford
* Lindsay Doran’s Ted Talk – [Saving the World vs. Kissing the Girl](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=752INSLlyf0)
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](http://johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Michael O’Konis ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_360.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (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.