• 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 361: From Indie to Action Comedy — Transcript

August 7, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig is off on assignment this week but luckily we have not one but two people on deck to fill in. Susanna Fogel is a writer-producer whose credits include Life Partners, Chasing Life, and this new movie The Spy Who Dumped Me, which she also directed. Welcome Susanna.

Susanna Fogel: Hi, thanks for having me.

John: And also we have her writing partner on that film, David Iserson. His credits as a writer and producer include Graves, Mr. Robot, Mad Man, New Girl, Up All Night, and Saturday Night Live.

David Iserson: Hi.

John: David, welcome.

David: Thank you for having me. I’m a big fan of the show. So this is like – I can live in my fan boy fantasy of being on Scriptnotes.

John: Well, with the two of you here I want to talk about some film and TV stuff, because you’ve both worked in film and in television. I want to talk about action comedies. But mostly I want to get started by talking about how you guys came to write this movie together, because when I went to the screening last night I had assumed that you guys were always writing partners and that I would go through your credits and they would all be the same credits and your only shared credit that I could find was The Spy Who Dumped Me. So what caused you two guys to write this movie together?

Susanna: And it will be the last shared credit. I will be taking credit for everything from now on.

David: Once we leave this recording we will never speak again. Susanna and I met a few years ago at a Christmas dinner that a different writer friend threw. And we had a ton of mutual friends. It was weird that we had never met. And we just became sort of instant pals, shared a lot of the same taste, and we looked at each other’s work and we realized that we had a lot of shared things in common. And then we just started writing our own things in the same room as each other. We would go to the same coffee shops.

Susanna: Like a workout buddy.

David: Yeah, just kind of keep each other honest. We would go work on our own things at the same table and talk about whatever problems we were having in our own scripts. And we did that for a while.

Susanna: And then we sort of saw each other through creative heartbreaks on both of our sides. You know, we both had projects we were excited about crumble before our very eyes and supported each other through that and then it became like a shared venting about how hard it was to get anything produced, especially in our sort of small indie dramedy tone. And then we started dreaming really big about sort of seeing if there was a way to combine that with our fanboy and fangirl attitude towards these big tent pole movies that we never thought of writing but loved to see. And wondered if maybe there was a way to sort of adjust the framework of telling the same kinds of stories.

John: So, before you guys are working in the same shared space, same shared coffee shop, you had very different trajectories. So the first time I became aware of your stuff, Susanna, was you’d done Life Partners which was a Sundance Labs project. And so talk about that journey. Did you really see yourself as a person who was supposed to be doing indie film and TV was another thing that came up? How did you see your career over the last ten years? What did you think your trajectory was going to be?

Susanna: Well, I had sort of grown up in that sort of mid-‘90s New York indie film world. I’m from the east coast. I went to college in New York City. I did internships at Good Machine and Fine Line and all those companies in Downtown New York where I really did dream of being like Nicole Holofcener and that was kind of where it stopped and started. Started and stopped.

And I think the reality was that by the time I moved out to LA to sort of figure out how I could try to become that the industry was starting to change really quickly and, you know, both because of the economic collapse and the writers’ strike and also just because of the Internet and the nature of the over-saturation of content it sort of became less and less hospitable to movies like that, at least in the cinematic like first-run movie world that you dream about when you’re trying to become a director.

So, to me it sort of was a moment of just trying to figure out how to actually get something produced because I would keep writing these small heartfelt like indie dramedies with women in the lead roles and they just weren’t getting made. So, to support myself I sort of got in the studio writing assignment game which is one where it’s a total crap shoot whether you get something made or not. You have no control over that often as a writer.

So, it wasn’t creatively rewarding but it was just enough to sort of stay afloat. But I started to adjust my idea of what I could sort of actually do as a director and see get produced and how I could start to climb that ladder. And then, you know, after having a project fall apart that I loved, it was a Black List script that I wrote with a friend who I wrote with for many years, we kind of had one heartbreak too many and we decided to write a one-act play just to actually put something up that wouldn’t cost very much that we could actually just direct and see in front of an audience. And that one-act became the script for Life Partners, which then became a Sundance Lab project and then actually did – we did find financing for that, but it kind of felt like a lightning in a bottle situation. And then after making that movie, which was rewarding, I noticed that the landscape didn’t change that much.

Like it’s not like there were a lot of opportunities to make more movies like that now that I had proven myself. It was more that that market was still tiny. And at the same time we had the opportunity to adapt a Mexican format, like sort of My So-Called Life with Cancer for lack of a better description, Mexican show that became Chasing Life which was our Lionsgate ABC Family show that was on for a couple of seasons.

So, that was a great opportunity to write and see things produced. And I got to direct a few episodes and that was great. But my dream was still to go back to writing and directing features. I just wasn’t sure how to do that in the sort of current climate of getting movies made.

John: Now, David, looking at your credits it looks like you’re mostly a television writer, but were you also writing features during that time, too?

David: When I moved out to Los Angeles after college, my intention was purely to be a feature writer. My dream was to sit in a movie theater and see my name on a movie. And when I started, when I moved out here I got a job in development. I read a bunch of scripts. And I answered phones and I was a receptionist. And I did that job for like a year and a half. And those jobs really suck all of your kind of life force out of you. And I came out here to write but I was not able to write.

So, at like kind of this spur of hubris I quit that job, but I knew I just kind of had like less than three weeks of money before I needed to find a different job. So I burst out like a feature script that I’d had just sort of brewing in my head forever and I was excited and encouraged. And then a year passed and no one read it, but eventually that script got me representation and that script got me a bunch of jobs. And I did a lot of feature work, but not any feature work that had been made. And in the meantime before that I almost sort of like stumbled into a joke-writing job.

I started emailing jokes to Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live. And I got enough of those on the air that they hired me for the following season. And my tenure at SNL was – what’s the word – inauspicious. And then I came back to LA and I wrote these movies that never got produced. And then the writer’s strike that was 10 years ago happened and I realized, oh, I don’t know any writers. I have this very lonely job. Every time I write a script and it doesn’t get made I feel like I have to start all over again. And TV had just started becoming something really special and what has now just sort of blown up since then.

So then I started working in TV and all the while I was trying to write movies in between, on weekends, kept sort of hustling through doing that as well all the while while I was sort of juggling my TV jobs.

John: A question for both of you. I mean, you had the opportunity to do TV shows. You could have done your own TV shows or kept going in TV show land. Why keep going back to features? It feels like you both had a bunch of hidden work where you’re writing these features that never got made. At a certain point don’t you just decide to make what they’re making and just go into television? Why keep going back to the feature land?

David: I mean, for me I feel that decision was made for me. I mean, my creative heartbreak that brought us together to write this was a pilot that I loved that died. And I’ve had a lot of pilots that never got made. I think that for me the part of my brain that writes TV and the part of my brain that writes film are pretty similar. So I think that we just somehow got a movie that we loved that was written in the way that we wanted it written and produced in the way we wanted it produced, got made in a time when film is seemingly virtually dead and all of the attention is on TV, that just happened to be our moment to make the movie we wanted to make.

Susanna: Yeah. I mean, I think part of it is just seeing the feature business that does exist and feeling like there was something missing there. To the extent that movies were getting made and there weren’t a lot of good female-driven movies getting made, or female-driven movies getting made that had like sort of a more muscular tone to them. I just felt like there was a lack of that. And that there would be a hunger for it the way that I feel like every few years there would be a movie like Bridesmaids that people would think was going to sort of change the tides of what movies got made and it never really had that seismic effect that we all thought it would.

But there just seemed to be this lack of a certain kind of story and I think just as a viewer and consumer it bothered me. It just felt like an injustice. So, I think that frustration sparked the conversation that led to the movie. So, it was more just kind of almost like an act of rebellion and less a need to work in that format.

John: So, let’s talk about that conversation that led to the movie. So, what do you guys separately and together remember about those first discussions of this idea and should we write this idea together and what it would be? What was that conversation like, or conversations?

Susanna: Well, there are a few parts to this. The first part was that we decided that we were going to try to write something together that was a big fun comedy that we would encourage each other to not fall into some of our like indie traps that we normally would fall into that make things smaller, and smaller, and smaller.

John: What are those traps? Can we talk through some more of those pitfalls?

David: Let’s see, it’s stifling yourself when it comes to budget. You know, thinking like we can’t do that. That’s too big, too much. Kind of ending things, not necessarily in triumphs.

John: Ending things in ambiguity or reality, sort of a mixed bag.

Susanna: Trying to have more of a bittersweet slice of life kind of ending, which is our personal – those are the movies that, you know, we love seeing movies like Sing Street that sort of make you feel sad and laugh through your tears which I think is our personal shared taste sometimes. But we were like, you know what, let’s try to just have fun with this and make each other laugh and see if we can’t come up with something that just feels a little bit more like a feel good entertaining movie.

So, we then embarked on a series of walks around the Silver Lake Reservoir where we brainstormed. No bad ideas. Safe space. The biggest ideas we could think of. The most high concept ideas. This reminded me of when I was 21 and trying to do this and had some exceptionally bad ideas.

David: We had some exceptionally bad ideas.

Susanna: We had some bad ideas. I mean—

David: We had some great ideas that she thinks is bad.

Susanna: We still debate about whether a movie entitled Ghost Hookup would or would not be a good movie.

David: It would be a great movie.

Susanna: I think it’s – I think we’ve moved past it.

John: I mean, it could potentially be a great movie, but it’s also a great parody for that kind of movie.

Susanna: Therein lies the debate.

John: Absolutely. Is it a 30-second skit or is it actually a movie.

David: Exactly.

Susanna: We’re still not – we still have not settled that discussion.

David: So, Susanna – I woke up one morning to an email from Susanna where she sent me an article, a New York Times article, about World War II or something like that. And I don’t remember what the article was about, but there was something in the subject line that was like, “This is an interesting story. This is not the kind of movie that they would let us write.” And we had lunch that day and I started thinking about the kind of movie that we would not be expected to write. Some sort of big, muscular action movie. But then we started talking about what kind of characters we love. Like characters that are like us.

I write a lot of female-driven things and Susanna does too, so we talked about two friends who are ill-equipped to belong in a very big action, muscular, explosion-filled car chase world.

Susanna: Like what would really – there’s a whole world of observational humor that we find endlessly fascinating. And what if you put that sort of lens on this very glossy genre. Like if you think about Jason Bourne having to pee in the middle of something and he just really has to pee and it’s not a good time but he has to do it. Just the very human things that these characters do that those movies never focus on. And then we figured there would be some comedy there and that that was worth looking at, without making a parody of a spy movie or like making an arch action comedy. Could we actually just drop ourselves, or our avatars for us into a big movie and see if it felt original?

John: Our last episode of Scriptnotes was about relationships and the sense that all movies are fundamentally about relationships and that you don’t – you can say that you have a character and you’re following that character, but you can’t understand anything about that character unless there’s someone for that character to interact with, a relationship that they can have.

And so in your case you have these two women and we’d have a very hard time understanding either woman independently if we didn’t have the other one there to sort of mirror back and sort of fill in the details of who that person is and let us see the differences between the two going into it.

Now, some of the tropes we would expect though is if we have these two women, at some point they’re going to fight and they’re going to break up and have to come back together. And that the relationship has to grow and arc and change over the course of it. Your movie doesn’t really do that at all. So is that a conscious decision?

Susanna: Yeah. That’s something that we felt really strongly about. I mean, you can speak to that a bit, too.

David: Yeah. The earliest conversation we felt that a movie like this typically would build these false stakes into the characters breaking up. And I think that a lot of times in screenwriting I think people confuse what conflict needs to be. And we didn’t feel like we needed to build a false conflict between these two characters where they’re breaking up over something small when their lives and the world is at stake. We felt that the conflict came so rapid fire at them, while people are shooting at them, while people are chasing them, while people are dying all around them that we didn’t need to have some sort of what we call in writers’ rooms “schmuck bait” where they break up and we know that they’re going to get back together in the end.

It just didn’t feel exciting to us. And we just wanted to tell a story about friendship where these people love each other and they’re going to be friends before, they’re going to be friends after, and they’re going to be friends through whatever we put them through in this movie.

John: What was the writing process like for you guys? You talked through probably the broad strokes of the idea. And what point did you sit down to officially start writing? Were you writing together? Were you dividing up scenes? What was the writing process like for you guys to work together?

Susanna: We were both unemployed at the time, so we had a lot of time. And we started a sort of obsessive flow state few weeks sitting in the lobby of the Lion Hotel, surrounded by other people writing screenplays in the lobby of the Lion Hotel. And just we’d get there first thing in the morning and we would basically just kind of channel these characters and talk as the characters and someone would write it down and we would actually just – we started with an outline that we did together. And once we had that we would just open your screenwriting program, Highland, and start riffing and start writing things down, even the bad version. And it sort of came out of us really quickly.

Now we’re trying to write something else and it’s a much harder process. And I think we realized that we – you can’t necessarily expect things to be as easy and fun as they are when they are at their most easy and fun. And it doesn’t mean the script is not good, but in that case I think just fueled by this like we had nothing to lose in a weird way. We didn’t have anything to do. We wanted to prove ourselves.

David: We were really angry.

Susanna: Yeah. We were annoyed. We would like take breaks to check the industry news, which you should never do anyway. But we did and we’d see people selling stuff that felt like, god, I’ve seen that before. And we’re going to do something really original. And just kind of leveraging that to make ourselves work harder and up our game basically. I don’t know.

David: Yeah. I had written with other people on TV shows, but I’d never really had a partner before. So for me there was no value in just having her write a scene, me write a scene, and us merging it together. We wanted to elevate both of us by just sitting there and make each other laugh. And we would start to adopt the voices of the different character and we would just start speaking like that. And we would do that publicly. And we were shameless about it. But we wrote this script incredibly fast and–

John: How many weeks or how long to write it?

David: I’m only going to brag about this because we’ve had things go so slowly and not happen at all, so from the idea to the completion of the script was a month. And then a year from there we were in front of the cameras, or we were behind the cameras. We weren’t in front of the cameras. The cameras were rolling.

Susanna: You had a cameo in front of the camera.

David: I had one line. And then a year from that we were filming the movie in a year, from that is now.

Susanna: Yeah.

John: That’s crazy. So that’s an incredibly fast turnaround on that. Before we get into production, I want to make sure we circle back and highlight the fact that you said that you wrote this in Highland, the application that I made. And Highland gets a frequent callout in the movie because Highland is…?

David: Highland is the bad guy organization behind it which we named because we looked at our program and that was the first word we saw. I don’t know if we’re on the show just to pitch Highland, but we will do it anyway. For writing a script fast and making it fun and having the flow go really, really smoothly, we used Highland and it was great.

Susanna: Yeah. I used to write everything in Microsoft Word just because I wanted to see all the dialogue in one page. I just wanted to see a whole scene laid out in a simpler way where I could look at the totality of it and not get bogged down in formatting. And not have everything spaced out so much that I would have to engage with my computer to just read a scene. And this reminded me of that. Like I trained myself not to have to write in Word just to save time, but Highland enables you to do that, which is great.

John: Thank you. That’s really not an ad for it.

Susanna: We know. But we are more than happy to advertise it. I’ve been pushing it on everyone.

David: Yeah. We paid full price for it.

John: Nice. So, you’ve written the script in a month. At what point do you start to show it to other folks? Do you show it to your representatives? At what point do you feel like this is a script that we might take out on the town or get to people who might be able to make this movie?

David: Immediately.

Susanna: Yeah. We had both – I think in part because we felt like we had nothing to lose because we had no jobs and no one was expecting this of us and we didn’t really talk about it with agents or anyone too much because we – understandably they would have probably been like, “What are you talking about? That’s not your thing. What do you mean? Ok, you guys can…”

We just didn’t want to hear any discouragement or even questions. We just wanted to prove it to them. And I think to us that was kind of – I don’t know, I think that that was for the best. And I’m glad that we – it’s kind of a lesson in – I used to constantly ask agents and managers kind of for permission to write a thing or “What do you think.? Do you like this idea? Do you like that idea?” And then very rarely did they say, “Yes, that’s a great idea.” Their job is to say here are the other things that are like that and here’s why it’s not.

So, we kind of just decided to incubate the process and not expose it to that, which I think was a really good decision and one that I wish I learned earlier. Who knows what scripts could have been written that I stopped thinking about after one phone call to an agent?

But I don’t know. We also talked a lot about what our attitudes would be for getting it made, kind of anticipating that people would want to attach a director that was experienced with movies like this and they were kind of all older male directors. And that seemed wrong. It didn’t have to be a woman, but we couldn’t even think of the right guy to do this. And so we were like kind of preemptively wondering how to empower ourselves the best and asking that question of what do we need. Do we need to sell something quickly because we have bills to pay or can we take the longer game approach and kind of keep ownership of this as long as possible? And that’s just a decision that’s personal to everyone, but I think this one we approached it very differently in terms of a strategy than we ever had approached anything either of us had ever done by deciding to hang onto it and be aggressively—

You know, when it started to pick up steam a bit, we didn’t want to sell it. We didn’t want to sort of give up that power, which was not always an easy decision because we were also struggling and unemployed.

John: Well, let’s talk about the process. So you sent it to your representative. They’ve read it. They said this is great. Traditionally you make a list of these are the people we would want to go out to. You sort of sign off on that list. It leaks out beyond those places. But in that initial conversation with your reps you have to say like, “And Susanna is going to direct it?” Or we want to hold onto it in some producorial way? Like what were you actually saying to your reps at that point?

David: We wanted it to get made. And I think that was the biggest thing that we were contending with. We didn’t want a scenario where we were going to just develop this forever and then let it sort of peter away. So I think we discussed amongst ourselves that if there was too much resistance in having you direct it then we would reassess that. But weirdly there wasn’t a lot of resistance to it, which was great.

Susanna: There was sort of – I mean, I think it’s that thing where it’s the sort of waiting for permission to do a thing problem where in the moment when we said even, OK, if we can’t get it made – even floating the idea out there was kind of a scary thing, but like ultimately it was – when we talked to our teams they were like, “Well, you know, it is a really big leap and maybe it’s too…” You know, it’s hard to make a movie of this scope because we had blue-skied everything and not thought about budget. That’s a really big jump. My first movie was well under $1 million. I had no action experience whatsoever. The only proof that I could do it is that I wrote it, so I understood the tone of it and what it wanted to be. But beyond that executionally there wasn’t any proof of that.

I feel like if I had hedged on that, or said, “Yeah, I’d love to, but let’s see what the options are,” I think that could have opened up space for more doubt and more trying different other paths.

John: So maybe the good advice here would be say like you came in strongly saying I’m directing this movie, and if there were no takers you were prepared between the two of you to sort of go to another place that someone could have made the movie, as long as it was getting made. Your priority was the movie getting made, and you being attached as the director was really part of that goal of getting it made.

Because we’ve all been through situations where a director is attached and then suddenly that director has three other projects he’s attached to and you fall back on the list. And it doesn’t happen.

Susanna: Yeah. I guess if there’s a lesson there it’s obviously have a plan B and be flexible privately, but don’t lead with that because if people are just generally a little bit more risk averse they’re going to take that seed of doubt and maybe everything will just get confusing and diffused. But if you just come in strong with something, you wait till someone says, “I will make it, but not with you directing it, but here’s this other director.” Let them sell you on another option and then make that decision.

But it did start to feel like things were changing a bit in terms of the female director conversation and people feeling like they really needed to clean up their acts in terms of that. When we left for Europe we kind of left and it was sort of one way. And then we got back, it had totally exploded and it seemed like it was so, so receptive. But we kind of like were out of the country for that shift.

John: Did Weinstein happen while you guys were overseas?

David: Weinstein happened right after we got back.

Susanna: Yeah. It seemed like people were excited about making a female-driven movie. Actresses were excited to be sent something like this because there wasn’t anything else like this out there for them. And it came together pretty quickly because of – I don’t want to skip ahead of the step-by-step of it all – but basically Kate’s Saturday Night Live schedule expedited everything. And gave us I think this unique position of leverage to say like we have to make the movie this summer. Who is doing it with us? It is happening. As opposed to that usual dance where you’re kind of like – your schedule is the least important. I mean, you’re sort of waiting to see when actors are free, but it’s always this chicken and egg that’s like endless until there’s a green light, in my experience.

But, yeah, in this case we had just one window and that was that.

John: That was it. So, let’s figure out sort of how pieces came together.

Susanna: We’ll get back.

John: So your reps have the script. You’re starting to send out the script. People are reading it. So Kate McKinnon reads it before it’s actually set up some place? Is that correct?

David: We had gotten a producer at that point.

John: And producer was Imagine, or produced with somebody else?

David: Producer was Imagine.

Susanna: And honestly that was an interesting thing because the agents have their ideas and their lists. And what they know is what companies tell them they’re looking for. And so they’ve got a targeted list, but it’s not necessarily exhaustively covering all the people who secretly want to do movies like that. So, I happened to randomly have a meeting – I was in New York working on a book. And I had a random meeting with this producer named Julie Oh who was Imagine’s New York person. And she was kind of in her 20s, really hungry. Had worked at the Weinstein Company and various places but kind of had the spirit of an indie producer in this job working for Ron Howard.

And I just really loved her and got along with her and she seemed to have this fearlessness that I associated with indie producers. And just confidence. And so she said, “You know, this is not an Imagine movie. This isn’t like our usual thing, but like screw it, I’m going to bring it to the staff meeting. Let’s just see. Let them say no.”

So even though it was sort of not their brand, she walked it in there and then they were like, oh, well, why couldn’t this be our brand? Let’s do it. We have the infrastructure. And that’s how Imagine came to the project.

John: Great. So Imagine comes on as producer. Traditionally they would go through Universal, but it wasn’t a Universal movie. It felt like it could have been a Universal movie.

David: They had just changed their deal. They didn’t have Universal at that moment.

Susanna: And so we went to Kate first just because she had had a small cameo in my first movie. And I knew her a little bit. And we had heard that she was looking for an action comedy with women. So we met her and she was excited to do it. And then with that package we took it out to the studios with our super aggressive, pushy like ultimatum of you have to do the movie this summer, which is kind of an unheard of schedule for a studio at that budget level.

John: Yeah. But I mean also I think what’s potentially exciting for a studio is they want a movie and suddenly there’s going to be a movie. So they see like, “OK, this is a thing. If we actually pull the trigger here we can make a movie and have it come out a year from now.”

Susanna: Yeah. I mean, I think we’ve re-fallen in love with the idea of writing spec scripts as opposed to trying to set things up or pitch them. Which doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do that. But we had a very positive experience just putting down our ideas and our words in our style and then having a thing to really talk about instead of the time you spend trying to explain why something is funny or why something is compelling.

David: Yeah, I mean, Susanna and I want to get a tattoo that say “Specs Forever.” And when I was starting out and I would pitch things I would get a call back from my agent and say, “Well, you know, they said you seemed really nervous.” Which of course I was nervous. But the movie was never going to be me standing in front of the screen dictating what happened. But, you know, pitches are nerve-wracking and it rewards people who are really—

Susanna: Performative.

David: Performative. I get that. Which is not necessarily anything to do with the process of when you’re sitting there writing. And so it is a big time risk, I suppose, to write a script, to write a spec script. But pitches also take a long time to put together. And when you write a spec script you’re putting everything on the page. You’re telling them what the tone is. You’re telling them who the character is in a way that is hard to describe but—

Susanna: Especially in comedy.

David: Yeah. But exists on the page. And they can see it. And they can love it or they can hate it. And they can make that decision. And to us it felt very empowering. Now, I know, spec market isn’t what it was when I moved out here, but I think that it’s hopeful that we were somehow able to work within it.

John: So you say “Specs Forever.” And I definitely get the logic of that, or sort of the emotional logic of this, because right now I’m writing something for a studio and it’s a project I’m really excited about, but in the pitching of it I realized that of the five people in the room each of them has a slightly different version in their head about what I’m actually going to be turning in in a couple of weeks. And that’s a thing we always go through when we set up something as a pitch. It’s like it’s great that we were able to set it up as a pitch, but everyone is expecting something a little bit different. And so when I do turn in this script they’re going to have opinions based on what their preconceptions of it were. And if had just been able to write the script and give it to them without all that pitch process it would have been a very different thing.

David: I do this weird thing. This I do in TV. I don’t think I can do it features. But almost every time I’ve pitched a TV show I’ve secretly written the script first. Or I’ve secretly written a good deal of it. And if you’re writing a half-hour script that is not a huge time constraint.

John: You could write a half-hour script probably faster than you could put together a pitch for it.

David: Without a doubt. And sometimes a 60-page one. And I think hearing the characters speak on the page, feeling what it feels like for them to interact, that gives you something when you walk into a room and describe what it is that you are doing in a way that just kind of blue-skying it, talking about what other movies it feels like, kind of telling a joke that might exist in it. It just doesn’t work the same way. I think that particularly if you write very character-driven things you kind of need to have the characters speak at least privately before you could ever describe it to somebody else.

John: So let’s talk about some of the writing, especially your action writing, because I’ve not had a chance to read your actual script, but Susanna your action sequences are fantastic. One of the things I was not expecting when I saw the movie last night was sort of how intensely sort of R-rated kind of action sequences they are. And so some of them are not with our leads. They’re with characters who are technically spies. But other scenes have to have our comedy leads also be part of those sequences.

What was it like writing those things together and then what was it like figuring out how you were going to direct those sequences which are so ambitious?

Susanna: Thank you, first of all. I’m glad you liked the brutality that we brought to the screen in today’s hyper-violent world. Dave and I had read a lot of – in preparation to write this – we had read a handful of action scripts. And there was a tone to the way that they were written, both in the action and just in the muscularity of the style that was – it was less kind of literary than we were used to. We’re both novelists, too, so we were used to writing these kind of beautiful on the page dramedies. And here we are reading these scripts that have like a lot of incomplete sentences and dash dashes and sounds and, you know, caps lock. And it just was not our style.

But there was an undeniable sort of like power to reading those. So we were like let’s just as an experiment try to mimic the style and see if we can kind of get into it. And we found it really fun, even though it was a completely different kind of style of writing.

And so we tried to sort of, yeah, I mean, I would say writing them was really fun because we found that we secretly loved that kind of aggressive style. It made us feel empowered. We kind of got an adrenaline rush from it. And we really just pushed ourselves to come up with action that felt situationally interesting or funny where there was like a comedic game to this scene, but then the scene itself played out in a pretty straightforward serious action way. And I think dissecting that partly happened on the page and then happened throughout the process of directing which I’ll get to in a second.

But it’s a little bit like, you’ve got these comedic scenes that feel somewhat grounded within the context of a spy movie. Friends interacting in a grounded way. And then you are kind of expecting people to sit through pretty violent sequences and then go back to a scene where Kate McKinnon is making them laugh about something banal. So in writing those action sequences it’s like you don’t want people to have whiplash reading or watching that from tone to tone and feel like they’re watching two different movies that don’t kind of meld well.

And so it’s about figuring out ways to put cleverness or wit into the action sequences, both on the page and in directing them so that people can feel a bit of distance from the violence in a way. They can have a smile on their face the way that they do in like a Bond action sequence where between his witty quips and the creativity of the scenes there’s usually something just fun about them that inoculates you from being aware of how many people are actually falling off cliffs and getting shot in the head. Not in my movie. That’s not a spoiler. In Bond movies.

But so I think it was partly on the page but then we were like what’s a funny way for this person to die.

John: The body count in your movie is really high.

Susanna: It’s really high.

John: What is the actual number? Have you counted up?

David: I did figure it out once. It is definitely–

John: Is it more than 20?

David: It’s more than 20. It’s probably 35.

Susanna: I think it was 35-ish. Yeah. And then the directing piece was just I think – it felt like a revision. You know, I wanted the action to feel really visceral and fun, so I brought on this incredible stunt coordinator and second unit director named Gary Powell who had done the Bond and Bourne movies.

John: Legendary.

Susanna: He’s amazing. His whole family is legendary. His brother. His dad. His wife. They’re all stunt people which is incredible. And Gary, you know, it kind of felt like another phase of writing. We’d sit there and it felt like for that process he was my cowriter and we would kind of just do a beat sheet. We’d look at what we had. We’d talk about it. And then it was just a dialogue like anything else. You know, he would pull out the toys or pitch different toys or things and oftentimes they were too brutal and they would crossover into that like this is disturbing and I’m not going to want to – I’m not having fun anymore level.

So, I don’t know, it was like constantly negotiating that with him. But we made a beat sheet together. We broke things down. And tried to just come up with – Dave and I would try to sort of come up with the sort of funny observational humor twist on whatever Gary would bring.

John: OK.

David: And I would have to have a cordial argument with Gary about if it’s possible to kill somebody with a salami. In which he said it wasn’t, but I was insisting we try.

Susanna: And I think Gary, too, has his own pet peeves. You know, the way that as writers there are probably things in movies that you see and you’re like I hate when they do that, or I hate this type of joke, or I hate when they have characters do XYZ thing. Gary has his own list of things coming from a completely different place. Like he hates zip lines. He’s like, “I hate them.” He got in a big argument with other people on the crew about whether or not to have a zip line. Those are just his things.

And the salami came down to the fact that it crossed over into broad for him, but also the technicality of it bothered him.

David: Yeah, he was talking about how salami is constructed and how the human body is constructed. And it was, you know, it was illuminating for sure.

John: So this beat sheet that you’re doing with Gary Powell, how much of that beat sheet makes it back into the script, or how much of it exists as a separate document of just like when we do this sequence this is the beat sheet for that sequence?

Susanna: I mean, we had a pretty fleshed out, pretty specific description of the action in the script. The thing that changes is that it’s like what you’re actually watching, you can kind of write around or glibly write through – I don’t know if you’ve experienced this, too – but you can kind of like breeze through something to make it a fun read and then when you’re actually making a shot list and going down to the props department and looking at the knives that are going to be used and the fake blood. And you’re actually looking at it in a really granular way, some things you realize are impossible or some things are too goofy. Like Gary would argue the salami. And Dave would argue the salami was not goofy, it was subtle.

David: My argument was subtle.

Susanna: But when you’re actually translating it, sometimes you just have to adjust. So it was pretty written out and what you see is pretty much what was there, but you have to make certain adjustments. Also, you know, there’s a big action sequence in an old Soviet gym that used to be in the script in an ice rink. And it wasn’t until we were scouting and we couldn’t find the right ice rink in the middle of rural Hungary that we changed it. But we kept seeing these gyms.

John: Great.

Susanna: So you kind of have to be flexible in that way. And then it was a combination of Dave and me kind of rewriting it and then Gary presenting the reality of what that would mean and what that will really look like and whether it will look goofy or not.

John: As people will see in the movie, one of the things I want to sort of key them into and be aware of is as we’re intercutting between some of the spy stuff at the beginning and sort of the real world stuff you’ve done some very clever but simple visual things to say like, OK, no, that scene really was supposed to come here before this moment. There’s a moment with a cue ball which exists on both sides of the cut. And these little small visual rhymes and sort of idea rhymes that let us know that like, no, these really are the same movie. You really are in the same space, the same universe. Nicely done I’m just saying.

Susanna: Oh, thank you.

David: Thank you. I mean, we talked a lot about, and I think this was Susanna as a director talking to us collectively as a writer is transitions were incredibly important. And I don’t know if that’s always a thing that I think about when I’m writing, and I’m sure she can speak more to it, but when you’re putting together shots and actually trying to direct things moving from one scene in a totally different place to another scene should feel like it has some sort of connective tissue.

So a lot of that was her coming back to me and to us when we were rewriting and challenging us to have these transitions which I’m glad you noticed.

Susanna: I know. Thank you.

John: Also, on the page classically the last line of a certain scene sort of informs the first line of the next scene, but when you’re dealing with action sequences there often are no lines and so it’s a matter of sort of visually finding a way to like just characters moving in the same direction, a prop, an idea, an image, you know, brightness/darkness. There’s ways you find to sort of match that.

And you won’t always be able to get those into the script. It won’t always make sense in the script. But you have to think as you move from writer-director you’re thinking, you know, visually how I’m going to signal that this really is supposed to be moving from this scene to this scene.

Susanna: Yeah. I mean, I’m working on something now as a director on a pilot that I didn’t write and getting ready to figure out how to shoot that. I’m working with the writer on that. And we’re talking about the transitions and looking at each one and kind of having conversations about “What is like an object, a prop, an image, a character moment? Like what do we want to be feeling as we enter a scene and seeing?” And if it’s not a visual transition, because you can’t find the neat tidy one that works, it’s got to have an idea to it in one way or another.

And the earlier you can think about that the more prepared you can be to actually like get all the departments’ hands on deck to like really make that feel very designed, which I think then just adds a level – it elevates the thing I think.

John: Something Aline Brosh McKenna often says is you have to remember that the screenwriter is the only person who has already seen the movie. And so in your case you’re two screenwriters so you both saw the movie, but do you think you saw the same movie? I mean, it may be hard because you’ve actually gone through production and seen so many cuts, but David do you think you saw the same movie originally that she saw?

David: I think we saw the same movie. I think where it became different, not different but where our ways of seeing it was different, was on set where as a director there were just a million other things that she needed to address and deal with and see and discuss and lenses or whatever directors do. And then for me my job was almost entirely just to hold the script inside my head. And I think we leaned on each other for being able to balance that out. But truly I think we saw the same movie and we continue to see the same movie, but on set the like minutia of script stuff and if you move one character here, cut this line, or cut this scene how that will change, you know, 15 dominoes ahead, that became what I had to focus most on.

Susanna: And that also includes an actor asking me a question or wanting to change something and me in the moment being like, “Yeah, yeah, OK, fine,” and then Dave coming over to me at crafty and being like, “Actually, if she changes that line this other thing is going to follow.” But just him being there which was something that as people who had worked in TV and also feeling like the depth of the partnership that we had it was really important for me that the be there the entire time on the set, which I know for features is not always the case.

I cannot imagine making the movie without him there. It always seemed unjust to me that you’d write something and you’re the one who has seen it in your head and then somebody kind of comes on with good intentions or bad intentions and just does whatever they want and you have no oversight. And it doesn’t always work as harmoniously between the writer and director. They don’t always have the shorthand and that ease. But to me I just can’t imagine doing it another way and I’m glad that I didn’t have to. So, I would encourage–

David: Me too.

Susanna: You know, for writer-directors or people that have writing partners or whatever, I just think the movie cohered so much better for having that unity. I wish that studios would encourage more of that, or accept that as the goal if they can possibly do it.

John: So, let’s talk about the actual production schedule. So, how much was shot in the states and how much was shot overseas? What was the split between how you made the movie?

David: A day and a half in LA, right?

Susanna: We had several, when you watch the end of the movie there’s like all of these Hungarian names and then there’s like an Atlanta unit, an LA second unit, another LA second unit. And there’s all of these names. But basically we intended to shoot the whole thing in Europe. We were based in Budapest. And then we had this one sort of one day older actor’s sort of cameo type role that it was just hard to get people to fly halfway around the world to do. So as production got closer and closer we just kind of decided to move it when we get back to LA and do some establishing shots and some plate shots for the driving sequences let’s just pick up that day. So we had that.

And then we had a couple other moments when there were things we had to do as a separate unit. Like we reshot one of the action sequences at the end just because in the edit we felt like this could be better and we had a little bit – they always have a reserve fund in case of emergency and we had that to use. And so we figured let’s just try to get this sequence up to the level of the other ones. And so we went to Atlanta for a few weeks and had four days of just Gary Powell and like action people and a giant trapeze. That was kind of the most fun shoot because the movie was already almost done. People were happy with it. Kate had seen it. Kate was excited about it, so she was so game to strap on the harness and go all the way up in the air and fly around and have a Cirque du Soleil moment.

John: A mad trapeze battle.

David: We did a Silverlake bar in Budapest. We did a LA sort of strip mall in a strip mall in Budapest.

Susanna: Which ironically was like I think they said that one of the designers had also designed the Spanish style malls in like Camarillo. And so there’s this Spanish style mall in Budapest.

John: I would never have guessed that that wasn’t LA. That was very convincing.

Susanna: Yeah. I mean it just exists there. And the only way you can tell that it’s definitely not LA is that the names of the stores are just a little bit wrong. Like my favorite one was Wall Street Fashion of the Wolf.

John: I remember there was that thing like that was a deliberate in joke that you put there.

Susanna: Oh yeah. Nope.

David: And the parking lot was full of every Prius that existed in central Europe.

Susanna: Of which there were about three.

David: About five of them, yeah.

John: So the movie comes out now. So what are your responsibilities with the film that’s coming out into the world? You’re on Scriptnotes which is of course the biggest platform–

Susanna: The zenith.

John: The zenith of it all.

David: Don’t be self-deprecating. This is a platform.

Susanna: But actually though.

John: But really?

David: Oh really.

John: So you have premieres coming up. You have other stuff. What does this next week look like for you?

Susanna: Well, the premiere is tomorrow, so it looks like–

David: When we recorded.

Susanna: Oh yes, sorry. The premiere is on the 25th. I don’t know. I mean, it’s a combination of really banal stresses like is my mom going to be able to find her seat at the premiere combined with having to go to the Four Seasons and put makeup on which is not my comfort zone and get my picture taken, also not my comfort zone, for this piece they’re doing on Mila, Kate, and me, and women doing stuff.

So, yeah, it’s a combination of talking about the movie a lot to a lot of really intelligent people who I really love talking to about it. But it’s, you know, I hope I’m saying the right things and I’m always a little paranoid that I’ll say something that can be taken out of context. So a little of that anxiety combined with just like the neurosis of getting a dress to wear and stuff. So, yeah. So that. I don’t know if that answers the question but yeah.

John: David have you picked your dress? Is it all about the dress?

David: I mean, the suit that I got for the premiere is quite a feat. Hopefully by the time this posts you can look for that in Getty Images.

John: You’ll find links in the show notes.

David: You’ll find links in the show notes to my suit which I put a lot of thought into. It has owls on it. And for me the week is dealing with my parents and my sisters and my brother-in-law are all coming out for the premiere. And then it is doing searches for the movies when I shouldn’t.

John: Absolutely. Just seeing what everyone is saying about it.

David: Exactly.

Susanna: We have a plan is which like the day that the review embargo is lifted. Our plan is just to meet at the Lion Hotel where we wrote the script and just sit there probably disengaged from each other, like refreshing the Internet all day and like probably drinking eight cappuccinos.

David: Crying over them.

John: Celebrating the good ones and despairing over the bad ones.

Susanna: Yes, celebrating the good ones.

David: Crying a little bit about the bad ones.

Susanna: I mean, no review could be worse than the very first review that my first movie got which was – I won’t go into incriminating detail but it was an absolute blood bath. And nothing could be worse than that.

David: We’ll see. Fingers crossed.

Susanna: Nothing could be worse than that, but in a moment of poetic justice a subsequent article about that reviewer revealed that he is now in prison for some sort of a child porn thing.

John: Oh man.

Susanna: Which like you never really get – I don’t want to say you never get that satisfaction because I’m sorry for the victims. But, he got what he deserved.

David: Remember when Susanna said that she was worried that she would say something that could be taken out of context?

John: Absolutely. That’s going to be the next the She-Hulk controversy on this is you saying something controversial about a reviewer and sexual misconduct.

Susanna: He’s not going to be reading or listening to this podcast, because he is in jail.

John: That’s good. Susanna, you’re headed off to shoot a pilot next. And how many days is a pilot? Is a pilot like a 20-day thing? I don’t have a sense of what pilots are these days.

Susanna: It varies. This is an hour-long pilot. We’re shooting on location in New Zealand.

John: Oh lord.

Susanna: Which I’m excited about. I love shooting around the world. I never did the traveling thing in my early 20s. I just was here working, you know, bad receptionist jobs and trying to be a screenwriter so now it’s my chance.

The pilot shoot is somewhere around 15 days. Yeah.

John: And David what are you up to next?

David: Well, Susanna and I are writing another thing, another couple things together, but while she is shooting I have a script that I wrote that I would like to direct that I’m starting to send out into the world. A Mars-set dramedy. And I have a teen time travel script that I’m sending out into the world. I have things that I love that hit my very, very specific sweet spot.

But I’m also excited for the thing – our follow up things that Susanna and I are working on.

John: Also we should plug books while we’re here, because I just bought both of your books while I was reading your stuff coming over here. What prompted you to write the book and how is your actual experience with the book? Because I’ve enjoyed – I’m writing a series of three books and I’ve enjoyed it but also, man, it’s a lot of words. It’s a very different world than what we normally do.

David: What prompted me was a similar prompt for us writing this movie. It’s that I was working in TV for a while and I had worked on great shows and I did things I was incredibly proud of but I felt like I just didn’t have anything that felt like it was mine that I could say slide something across a table and say this is a thing and it exists in the world.

And I had this character, sort of acerbic 17-year-old teen named Astrid Krieger, the book is called Firecracker. It’s a young adult book. And she just sort of existed in my brain for a long time. And I have a problem as a writer, I have a hard time letting go of things. So I started writing her as a character in a pilot and then a series of short stories and then a feature and then I was like none of it quite felt right. And I wanted to give her a longer treatment. And so then I wrote this novel. And it takes incredible amount of time and effort to write a book, as you know, and the financial rewards are few unless you are like a rare unicorn in there. But it’s worth it because it’s a thing that I love and it’s out in the world.

John: Great. And Susanna your book Nuclear Family, is that while you were in New York for Imagine?

Susanna: Well I had been working on this other project, this movie that I had thought was about to get made and it kind of fell apart at the last minute. And so I decided that – I kind of got into that like post-breakup space where I was like, “OK, I have to have the rebound script right now,” which is the burst of energy that led to Spy. And then my goal was just to leave and travel far, far away from here and just forget about the industry and my broken dreams.

So I went to New York to finish this book that I owed pages on. I had sold a proposal for this book based on some short comedic pieces that I was writing about my family for The New Yorker. And then just decided to go to New York and be around book people for a while and finish the book, which ironically led me to meet the person who produced the movie.

But just one thing I wanted to say about the book that I wrote was that in a moment of, or in a five-month moment of writer’s block after my show ended, I just wasn’t sure what to write. I was feeling really frustrated. I felt like I was right back to the beginning again. I was in the same coffee shop surrounded by frustrated writers. And I decided to set like a very small goal of just writing a one-page basically monologue, just to try to submit to like the McSweeney’s short imagined monologues, just to try to have a thing that I generated that I could send out that wasn’t like an entire script of 100 pages.

And so I have a younger half-brother who at the time was six years old and he’s very formal. He wears blazers and puts truffle oil on his food. And I wanted to write something in his voice because it was so specific. I’ve always wanted to write about people in my family that are that specific but felt like it’s either a really affected quirk in an indie movie. It’s like too broad to be real. So the only format that seemed to work was this weird monologue format, which I was comfortable with because of all the dialogue writing that I’d done in scripts.

And so that led to writing a few more letters which led to the book. It wasn’t like I thought I was going to write a book. It just was something that felt easier to do than writing a script at the time. I think like sometimes the story tells you what it wants to be.

John: Definitely.

Susanna: And I think just to circle back to your initial question about why a movie and not TV, there’s just certain stories that I think in the vein of a Greek tragedy like they just don’t want to be extended that long. There’s an arc and there’s a finiteness to the storytelling and a discreteness to it that requires that the beginning, middle, and end happen kind of like right in front of your eyes. So I think that some things feel like they could just go on, and on, and on, and others start to lose the thread.

So, in a way coming up with stories, you have to kind of follow what it’s telling you it wants to be. I don’t know if you’ve had the same experience.

John: Oh absolutely. And that’s why Arlo Finch is a book rather than a movie. And there’s ideas which I’ve written as TV versus films because they want to sort of keep going, versus in movies it’s meant to be a two-hour experience. You’re in, you’re out, and you’re done.

Congratulations on your film.

David: Thank you.

Susanna: Thank you. Thanks so much.

John: So this is the part of Scriptnotes where we do our One Cool Things. You guys were warned about this. Do you have One Cool Things?

David: Yeah. Sure.

John: David first.

David: OK, this is not a new book, but this is a book that I pick up from time to time and I recommend from time to time which I think is very pertinent to our industry, but not about our industry at all, called Banvard’s Folly by Paul Collins. It came out probably 18 years ago. And it’s sort of chapter long sketches of people’s lives who are incredibly famous in their own time and then forgotten completely to history. And it’s just a really fun, fascinating, easy to read book. It’s not available on audio books, so I think you have to read it like a person, which I hate recommending to people. But otherwise it’s great.

Susanna: I am obsessed with this book American Kingpin which is the story of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road. This book reads like the most compelling long form journalism article in Rolling Stone ever. And it just takes a look at all of the sides of this guy and all of the people in his life and sort of the more banal parts of his life that you don’t hear about in articles that are about him getting busted for Silk Road. So, you know, the women he had relationships with. The family. The people he was lying to. Their sides of the story. It’s just great. I mean, it’s such an interesting human lens on this person that I find to be incredibly fascinating. Dave recommended it to me actually.

David: Yeah. It’s great. I love it.

John: Nice. My One Cool Thing is Natalie Walker’s Twitter Auditions.

David: Oh yes.

John: So Natalie Walker is an actress comedian in New York City. But what I love about the auditions she posts in her Twitter feed, they’re for character roles that aren’t like real roles, but then you recognize what she’s doing. It’s like, oh my god, that is such an archetype of a character who I have never seen really fleshed out that way, or really sort of explored that way. So, I will read you a couple of descriptions.

“Here is my audition to be in a movie as lady we hate because she is temporarily keeping the people with symmetrical faces from being together.” So basically she’s that hateful character in a romantic comedy who the guy is dating. It’s fantastic.

“Here is my audition to be the lady who shakes vaguely dissatisfied white men out of malaise with her accessible eccentricity and views.” So she’s that one who just exists to make the male character a little looser. So they’re all ingenious. I highly recommend them.

Sometimes you will see one of these characters and you will realize like, oh, I can’t write that character anymore because she’s totally called me out on it.

David: She definitely has our number for sure.

John: There’s a character on Saturday Night Live in the monologues sometimes who is the boxer’s wife in a movie. I don’t know if you’ve seen this character. It’s just a brilliant characterization of what it’s like to be the wife character in a movie about boxing. And once you see it like well that’s just – that is a thing there. So, it’s important for us to have people out there who are calling attention to these tropes and hopefully stopping them.

That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. 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 questions for us to answer, long ones.

But short questions on Twitter are easy. Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Are you guys on Twitter? Do you want to be on Twitter?

David: Yes. I’m @davidiserson.

Susanna: I’m @susannafogel.

John: After you see their movie you should tweet at them and tell them how much you enjoyed it. Or buy their books and tell them how much you enjoyed their books.

You can find Scriptnotes on Apple Podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a review. That helps.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all the back episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you can find the photo of David’s tuxedo, or not a tuxedo. What you are wearing to this premiere? It’s a suit, correct?

David: It’s a suit. It’ll be a suit.

John: I don’t want to overbill it, but you should check out what he’s wearing to this premiere.

David: You may be under-billing it.

John: All right. It’s also where you can find the transcripts for the show. You can find the back episodes of Scriptnotes at Scriptnotes.net. It’s $2 a month for access to the whole back catalog. We also sell seasons for $5. You can download a 50-episode season that has all the bonus episodes and transcripts as well. So, David, Susanna, congratulations on your movie. Thank you for coming on Scriptnotes.

David: Oh, it’s our pleasure. This is dream come true.

Susanna: Thank you for having us. This has been awesome.

Links:

  • Thanks to Susanna Fogel and David Iserson for joining us! The Spy Who Dumped Me is in theaters now.
  • David’s much-anticipated premiere suit
  • Banvard’s Folly by Paul Collins
  • American Kingpin by Nick Bilton
  • Natalie Walker’s Twitter Auditions
  • Also, as promised in episode 357, this is Craig’s fancy corkboard!
  • The USB drives!
  • David Iserson on Twitter
  • Susanna Fogel on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Find past episodes
  • Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Outro by Rajesh Naroth (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 349: Putting Words on the Page — Transcript

May 15, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/putting-words-on-the-page).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 349 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’ll be talking about the tools we use to get things written. For me that’s Highland 2, the screenwriting app that is finally coming out of beta. But there’s also outlining and treatments and all the other peripheral things that writers write. We’ll be talking about that. We’ll also be answering questions from the huge stack that have piled up over the past few weeks.

But first, Craig, we have guests for our live show finally.

**Craig:** Oh, it’s going to be a good one. Now these live shows, these are the ones we do to benefit Hollywood Heart. These tend to be our kind of biggest live shows. These are the live shows where we’ve had our Rian Johnsons. And we’ve had our David Benioff and Dan Weisses. And we’ve had all sorts of big fancy–

**John:** Our Jason Bateman.

**Craig:** We got our Jason Batemans for these. And this one, no exception. Maybe honestly our best lineup yet.

**John:** So what I love about this lineup is they are people doing very different things but also kind of similar things when you think about it. So our guests are Lisa Joy and Jonah Nolan, they are the co-creators and showrunners of Westworld, an HBO show that is fantastic. It’s one of my favorite shows because I am a robot and therefore I am rooting for the robots.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** But we didn’t stop there. We also invited Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. They are the co-creators and showrunners of The Avengers franchise. So they are the folks who are writing the Captain America movies. They wrote the most recent Avengers movie, upcoming Avengers movie. So, we are going to be talking with all four of them about writing big cinematic stories that take place over multiple episodes that are hugely complicated that have spoilers and secrets. They’re under intense spotlights. I think it’s going to be a great conversation.

**Craig:** Just to point out that Christopher and Stephen, their movie Avengers: Infinity War I believe had the biggest opening weekend of any movie of all time.

**John:** Yes. So it is superlative in many senses. And I should stress that we are going to spoil things. So you’re buying a ticket that is three weeks from now, or a little less than three weeks from now when the episode comes out, so you’ve got to see the movie. You’ve got to understand what’s happening on Westworld because we are going to spoil things. So this is not going to be one of those like oh cover your ears. No, no. You are buying this knowing that we are going to spoil things.

**Craig:** Well, and if you are familiar with the Avengers movies and you’re familiar with Westworld, I’m going to go out on a limb and guarantee something, OK. Even if we have to cut it out of the actual episode that airs for all the poor saps that don’t show up, if you show up one of these folks is going to give you a piece of juicy info that you can’t get anywhere else.

**John:** Yeah. Right after we finish the show one of these four will pull us aside and say, “Can you please, please, please cut out the part where I said this thing?”

**Craig:** It’s inevitable. Happens every time.

**John:** And we will.

**Craig:** But if you’re there in the audience and remember this benefits kids, and I believe they’re nice children. I don’t think it benefits like jerks.

**John:** We only let the nice children benefit from these shows.

**Craig:** And so if you go to Scriptnotes.brownpapertickets.com, you can help these kids and also help yourself. And honestly even if Markus and McFeely hadn’t written the biggest movie of all time, and even if Joy and Nolan hadn’t written this incredible TV show, you would get to see me. Also John will be there. Yeah, no, John will be there.

**John:** I’ll be there as well. Yes.

**Craig:** But you’ll get to see me.

**John:** The show is May 22nd. It is at the ArcLight in Hollywood at 8pm. You cannot buy tickets through the ArcLight. You have to buy them through Scriptnotes.brownpapertickets.com. There’s also some special VIP tickets we found out about, so there’s going to be a little VIP after-party show thing. So if you want that that is a chance to talk with us and get more information about the things that were spoiled in the course of the episode.

**Craig:** I’m so excited.

**John:** I’m very, very excited about this. All right, next we have some follow up. So Jack wrote in about default white. Do you want to take what Jack wrote in?

**Craig:** Sure. Here we go. So he says, “I’ve worked in casting for more than ten years, both inside the company that releases the majority of the casting breakdowns for the industry, and as a casting director. Right now breakdowns are generally prepared in one of two ways. A casting director either submits a fully prepared breakdown ready for release, or production sends the script to the breakdown company where an in-house writer will read it and create the character breakdown which is then sent back for approval.

“If the character does not have a defined race in the script, the role is listed on the breakdown for all ethnicities.”

**John:** So this is a topic that Christina Hodson and I got into on Episode 346 which is basically how much should the screenwriter be defining who those characters are in the script so that the breakdown comes out the way you want it to. So, let’s continue with what Jack says.

**Craig:** So Jack says, “Once the breakdown is released, agents and actors begin submitting. The casting director will receive an overwhelming number of white submissions for ‘all ethnicity roles.’ Part of the reason is because the database of actors is primarily white. Another part of the reason is that agents will always submit their ‘best’ first. That’s defined as the people who will make them the most money. These actors have historically been white. And, finally, casting directors will reach out to actors they know and trust first, again mostly white.

“So if the role is ‘all ethnicities,’ chances are very good that a white person will be hired. There is no conspiracy here. No effort to deny anybody anything. It’s just people doing what is familiar and easy. I understand that it is uncomfortable to define race. If you select one race you are eliminating all others, including white, and that’s not fair. But the reality is that the odds are stacked against people of color. That’s not an opinion. It’s a numerical fact.

“If, however, a writer defines a character as Asian, agents will submit Asian talent. Casting directors will audition Asian talent. Producers will hire Asian talent. It’s that simple. Those best lists will start to change as more people of color are hired. If you cannot bring yourself to define your lead roles, please consider at least defining your day players. Describing that under-five lines’ Chatty Waitress as Asian will make a difference. And why not throw in Over 40 while you’re at it.

“There’s a Japanese actor who hasn’t had an audition all month who will thank you.”

All right, well that’s a pretty good summary there. What do you think about all that, John?

**John:** I thought it was great. So first off, we have fantastic listeners. So, Jack, thank you for writing in with that because that is a perspective we wouldn’t have known. So, telling us basically how breakdowns are happening and urging us as writers to just be more explicit on race because it does actually make a difference.

Now sometimes I’ll say that if we define a race in a script we can get called out for it. Basically like why are you being so specific? This gives us some ammunition on our side for why it is useful to be so specific for races in scripts because it’s going to help change things a bit.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s another axis that I want to bring up just because it often gets overshadowed in the discussion about race and gender. We have something like 108 speaking parts in Chernobyl. There’s a lot. And everybody – every character – is a citizen of the Soviet Union from one of the many various republics, but primarily we’re talking about Ukrainians and Russians and Belarusians. And because we’re casting out of the UK and Scandinavia, one of the inherent biases in casting came up immediately. And that was that actors tend to be really good-looking. So when we talk about sort of historical biases, actors – both men and women – tend to be people that are attractive, they have facial symmetry, they have good hair. They don’t have – well, the quirkier facial features that you see in what we’ll call just regular people. And, of course, they are typically in good shape.

And for us we thought a lot of this is about having believable people as part of this cast. And that doesn’t mean that we’re saying we wanted a cast of people that are not attractive. It’s not about that. But it’s rather we want a spectrum of people and we’re not going to allow traditional facial attraction be our definition of what attractive is. Nor are we going to limit ourselves to certain body types. So I think as we’re writing and we’re listening to people like Jack telling us how this actually works, how the food is cooked in the kitchen so to speak, to think about body type as well and facial types. Even things like hair and hair color. All these things – anything to kind of add some flavor and get yourself out of a lot of these default positions.

You know, if we kind of come up with a bunch of defaults, let’s start pushing against them where we think it will help us out and, I don’t know, set us apart a little bit.

**John:** Yeah. Another way to sort of reach beyond sort of the usual people that we’re always seeing for these kind of things might be to early on bring in some folks who are interesting for a project. I’m really more talking for the writer-directors out there. But Mike Birbiglia when he was doing his movies he does these table readings – not even table readings, just like sit around in his apartment reading through the script. And it’s a useful process for him to hear his script and figure it out. But I think it’s also useful for getting a sense of what if we tried to mix things up. What if I tried some different people in these roles? What if I consider this actor who sort of seems like a reach or a stretch for this, but I can see what they can actually bring to that role?

This last week I was at a table reading for Alan Yang’s new script. And he brought in these actors who were fantastic. And it was a chance for them all to sort of hear each other and for everyone in the room to sort of experience these actors. And I made notes of some of these actors who I never would have encountered before. And like, wow, I want to write something for that person because they are great.

So, just reaching out and broadening past the first instinct on casting can be a great thing. And that can start by what you’re specifically saying about that character in the script.

**Craig:** No question. By the way, funny, I went to one of those readings in Mike Birbiglia’s place and one of the roles was being read by this lovely gentleman, he was an older guy, and he seemed familiar to me and his voice seemed familiar. But I don’t think he’s an actor, so I think he might just be a friend. But he did such a good job and I just thought, “Wow, Mike Birbiglia is so lucky that he just has a friend who is like a 65-year-old guy who is just really good at being a guy at a table read.” And then afterwards I found out it was Frank Oz. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] That’s awesome.

**Craig:** Because I didn’t know exactly what Frank Oz looked like. You know, I know what he sounds like. I know that he’s Miss Piggy and that he’s Yoda and Grover. And obviously he’s a wonderful filmmaker, an amazing filmmaker. And I was just like “This guy is so great. I wonder who he is. Oh, he’s Frank Oz, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.”

And another interesting story like the one you were just describing with Alan’s table reading was a table reading that we had all the way back in 2003 for Scary Movie 3. And when you are pretty early on and you’re still casting a lot of times casting agents will help you fill your round table by bringing in actors that are just there to read for the roundtable. That’s it. And this young actor that no one had ever heard of named Kevin Hart showed up. And we thought Kevin was just the funniest guy. And I was like let’s just make him – this guy is him. Let’s just keep writing it for him. And so we cast him in Scary Movie 3, and in Scary Movie 4, and in Superhero Movie. He’s just great.

And it was all because he just was sort of a fill in guy in 2003 at a table reading.

**John:** Yeah. I think what’s nice about table readings is the stakes are just lower. Because if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and the world doesn’t come crashing to an end. And it’s a chance to experiment and play a bit. And so I always wonder about sort of you don’t want actors to be exploited by being brought in for table reads where they’re not actually going to be able to land that part maybe. But what you described with Kevin Hart is a great example of you got to know who he was just because of that table reading. And that’s a great bit of exposure.

**Craig:** And they’re aware of the deal. They are told, listen they’re not offering you this part. This is just a show up for the day, make a few hundred bucks, get some exposure in front of some people that are making movies, and that’s it. No promises beyond that. And it’s not surprising to me that Kevin did that because he is just, I know from my own work with him but also just watching him do everything since, he’s like one of those guys that fits the hardest working man in show business category. He never stops. He’s just amazing that way.

So, that’s all pretty great. Just, you know, as people go through this and they’re writing their scripts if they can just think about – I love what Jack said about day players, too. It’s not just the big parts. That you have these roles where people run into a waiter, or a bus driver, or a delivery person and the default is going to be, oh, that’s an incredibly handsome or beautiful waiter or delivery person. But then it almost weirdly takes you out of things. I mean, Hollywood distorts the way people actually look. People don’t look like they do in movies. At all. They look how they look. You know? So what’s wrong with kind of edging back towards that reality? I like that.

**John:** It’s a nice thing.

Our final little bit of follow up on race and ethnicity is you had talked in a previous episode that you and Megan Amram are distant cousins. You found out through 23andMe. I just got my 23andMe back. So we just checked to see whether we are related and sadly we are not.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, to start with I’m an organic life form.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** It was not likely.

**John:** It was going to be a reach. It would be a surprise.

**Craig:** It would have been a real shock. Also I’m Jew-y as hell. And you are not.

**John:** I’m not. So I’m 100% European and British and Irish and French and German. We are on different Haplogroups coming out of Africa. And I am slightly more Neanderthal than you are. That’s sort of a surprise.

**Craig:** I like that. I like that you’re slightly more Neanderthal. I feel that. I got to be honest with you. I sense sometimes there’s a certain kind of club you on the head rage just lurking behind your eyes. I am also 100% European, like you. I am 98% Ashkenazi Jewish. That is incredibly Jewish. That is almost like a weaponized level of Judaism.

I am 0.6% random Eastern European. So perhaps a Lithuanian in my past. And then I love this 1.1% broadly European, so from everywhere. And then 0.1% Finnish.

**John:** Oh nice.

**Craig:** Oh I like that.

**John:** I love that Finnish is so specific. Yes.

**Craig:** It is. The Finnish language is very specific. Related to the Estonian language, interestingly enough. But I like that I’m just a little bit Finnish.

**John:** Mm-hmm. Nice.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I sent through my 23andMe kit a couple weeks ago and in the meantime they caught the Golden State Killer basically using this genetic information, which does give me some pause about like, “Oh, yeah, that’s right. Now my genetic information is in a database someplace and they’ll be able to track me down when I do something horrible.” Or not something horrible. That information could be used in ways that I would not like. So that does give me some pause now.

**Craig:** You know, I realize now at my age, and you and I are basically the same age, that our time for doing terrible things is essentially over. I think we would have been doing them, right?

**John:** I could have been doing them the whole time and just blacked them out.

**Craig:** There’s no maybe about that. That’s for sure.

**John:** People are either going to be nodding along or slightly horrified. Sometimes when you hear about a murder do you ever get that little moment like, “Wait, did I do that?”

**Craig:** Oh no. No, John. I don’t. And nobody does except for murderers. I am one of the people that is just starring in horror right now at my own microphone. [laughs] Because you hear about murders and go, “Oh, was that one of mine? Did I do that one?”

**John:** Yeah. Did I do that one? No.

**Craig:** God.

**John:** For the record I have committed no murders that I’m aware of. But I always do wonder what if I’m that character in a movie who has no idea that they’re actually the villain?

**Craig:** If I am that character my villainy is definitely sort of like petty nonsense. Removing the tags from furniture before it is sold. That kind of thing.

**John:** I have seen you sneaking into bedding stores and cutting off those tags.

**Craig:** Oh, that just sent a frisson down my spine in delight.

**John:** Let’s get back to our Neanderthal things because I am a toolmaker and I have a tool that–

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** Yes. That just came out – well, this week it’s coming out. So it may be out by the time this episode drops. It might be out Thursday of the week this drops. But for the last three years we’ve been working on a sequel to Highland, the screenwriting app my company makes. Highland 2 is still a screenwriting app, but it also does a lot more things. It’s what I wrote both Arlo Finch books in. It’s what I wrote Aladdin in. It’s pretty much the only thing that’s ever open all the time on my computer.

And it’s finally available for people to use and download. And so I want to talk a little bit about that and sort of why I built it and why I love it. But more generally sort of like what stuff we actually use to get things written. Because you’ve talked on the program about Fade In which is your preferred screenwriting app. But I’ve never actually asked you what do you use to write treatments and outlines and the peripheral documents that you’re doing for things like Chernobyl. What are you using for that?

**Craig:** It’s a little embarrassing, but I use Word.

**John:** Oh my.

**Craig:** I know. And the thing is I know I don’t have to. I’ve got Pages for instance which is the Apple version. It’s just become this sort of thing. And especially now, I’m such an idiot because I’m on the stupid Office 365 thing now where now I’m apparently renting software and I can’t even buy it. But when I do treatments and like the show bible for Chernobyl, I did it in Word. Possibly just because I have some sort of blah-de-blah kind of familiarity with it. And unfortunately I do get a ton of stuff in .docx format. I presume that these other applications open .docx files with ease. But, you know, then you’ve got to export it back out I guess for other people. So that part’s annoying.

**John:** Yeah. So I would say Word is sort of the default. I mean, sort of like we talked about casting default white, it’s sort of default Word. So for things that aren’t a screenplay it becomes sort of default Word. And even for Arlo Finch I turn in all my early drafts as PDFs and I get notes back on the PDF. But at a certain point it goes into copy editing and I have to turn in the book in Word. And it’s just so horrifying because a thing I hadn’t really realized until these last two passes on Arlo Finch and having to convert the document is Word is really slow. Word is really slow at long documents. Not even just converting it, but actually opening it and scrolling through it, it lags even on a fast machine.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I’ll put a link to the video. I did in a speed test I downloaded from Project Gutenberg the text of War and Peace. And I opened them in Word, iaWriter which is a plain text editor, Pages, and in Highland 2. How long do you think it would take to open War and Peace in Word? Just a plain text document.

**Craig:** Um, what’s my benchmark here? A MacBook Pro?

**John:** A recent iMac desktop computer.

**Craig:** That’s a pretty good computer. Well, just knowing the way it is with all the dumb baloney it has that you never use, I’m going to say it takes eight seconds.

**John:** It took six minutes and ten seconds.

**Craig:** Wait, what?

**John:** There’s a link here in the video for it. It took so long that I actually ended up putting a little marker in the video so people can speed through to where it gets done. It’s crazy.

**Craig:** That’s insane.

**John:** So Pages took 47 seconds. iaWriter takes a minute ten. Highland opens in less than eight seconds. And that’s what it should be.

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** I mean, it’s just text. It should just be able to speed through it. And that’s – and Arlo Finch is only 80,000 words, but when you deal with big documents you realize like, man, that is just brutally slow.

**Craig:** It is brutally slow.

**John:** It’s just not a good way to work.

**Craig:** I presume it’s because Microsoft Word is bloatware. I mean, it’s the definition of bloatware. It’s essentially offering you every possible freaking thing that you would ever theoretically need and then some. And so it’s got to chug all the text into its own proprietary burdened/over-burdened document format with all of the metadata that it’s generating.

I mean, Microsoft Word is – I find it useful when I’m dealing with tracking.

**John:** That’s the only reason why we have to do the Arlo Finch last changes in it, because it has this track changes and the copy editor will change things and I’ll say yes or I’ll rewrite them or I’ll stet them. And that’s a process, but brutal. Just brutal.

**Craig:** Yeah. Wow. That’s really freaking long. So maybe I should get Highland 2. And how much does that cost, John?

**John:** Highland 2 is a free download.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** And if you like it then it’s a $49 in-app purchase to unlock everything, or $29 for the first week. So it is a much cheaper application. And it’s a one-time purchase. It’s not rental.

**Craig:** So if I buy it today it’s $30.

**John:** If you buy it today it’s $30.

**Craig:** I’m buying it right now. It is on the store?

**John:** It will be on the Mac App Store.

**Craig:** It is on the App Store right now? It is available now?

**John:** Not as we’re recording this, but it will be either by the time the episode comes out or afterwards. But I sent you an unlocked version. So you already have it.

**Craig:** Oh. I should really go through my emails.

**John:** We talked in the episode before on conflict of interest, and this is so clearly I need to disclose a conflict of interest because I’m talking about this thing that I love but also I’m the company that makes it and profits from it. So, full conflict of interest disclaimers here. But I want to talk about why the app is the way it is because it’s just basically I wanted the app a certain way and it’s very particular to sort of my taste in how things should be. But there are also just tools in there that were useful for me.

So, here’s an example. Craig, as you’re working through stuff if you have things you want to cut but you want to hold on to what do you do with those things? Like a scene or a line of dialogue?

**Craig:** Sure. So I used to take that scene or dialogue, open a new file, for instance in Fade In, and then dump it into a new file, retitle that something, some descriptive word, and snip it and keep it in the same folder. But now Fade In, because I asked Kent to do it and he just did it because he’s a cool guy. Now there’s this kind of versioning alt system where I can create an Alt within the document itself, and so it’s holding it there.

**John:** So you’re just doing that for dialogue or you’re doing alts for like a scene?

**Craig:** I can do it for anything. But yeah, if there’s a scene that I’m like oh, you know what, this doesn’t belong in this episode anymore. I’ll just kind of alt it out. So it’s in there but it’s not visible or printable. I have options but that’s kind of what I do.

**John:** So for me I was always frustrated that when you use video editing software you have a bin where you can just throw all the little clips and bits and bobs and stuff. And so we added that for Highland 2.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So you can take any bit of text and just drag it over to the side and it sticks in a bin. And it holds there. So it’s useful for those things you want to hold onto, but it’s also good when you need to rearrange a lot of stuff. Because I’m sure you’ve been in situations where you have to move this scene and this scene and that scene and the copying and pasting of it all becomes quite ornate, because you have to remember what is going where, where are things.

So this way you can just drag that scene over to the bin, then move it and drag it back out where you want to do it. So it’s useful for sort of the rearranging function as well.

**Craig:** I like that. Here’s the truth. There are times in my life where I suddenly go, “Oh my god, if I don’t break out of this rut of some tool, like Microsoft Word, I’m just going to become the annoying person for my kids when they’re an adult.” Like I had to get my mother-in-law off of AOL. And I failed.

But, yeah, I don’t want Jack and Jessie to be like, “Oh god, Dad still uses Microsoft Word. It’s embarrassing.” So maybe I’m just going to switch over and use Highland for like–

**John:** Yeah, use it for that stuff first. And then if you like it for that stuff you might try writing some scenes in Highland. See if you like how it feels for that. Because it’s just very different underneath your fingers.

**Craig:** Now I’m very dizzy.

**John:** So two other tools which I think you might find useful, even if you’re not using it fulltime. Highland’s sort of big marquee feature when we first launched it, version 1.0, was that you can take a screenplay PDF, drag it onto Highland, and it will basically melt the PDF down and give you an editable script.

And so since we did that, I think Fade In can do that.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Final Draft still can’t do it. We’re still the best, and I’ll say that pretty confidently, because between Highland and Weekend Read we just do it a lot. So we just have a much bigger database of how to work through those scripts and so our algorithms are just sort of tighter on that.

But a thing we added for this most recent version, which is also fun for people to play with, is gender analysis. And so you can take a script you’re working on, a Final Draft script, a PDF, anything and throw it on Highland and underneath Tools there’s a new tool called Gender Analysis. And so it goes through your script, it takes a look at all the characters. You can flag them whether they are male/female/or undefined. And it will give you a chart showing the breakdown of the dialogue in the script, who has the lines, whether two female characters are interacting with each other in any scenes.

**Craig:** Ah, the Bechdel Test section.

**John:** Yes. And so it gives you a quick look at sort of what that is. So two scripts I looked at recently, first was La La Land. And so where do you think the breakdown is going to be for La La Land? Do you think it’s going to be equal male/female? What are you guessing?

**Craig:** I’m going to say that La La Land edged toward female.

**John:** You are correct. So character wise, La La Land has 20 male characters, 11 female characters. I left ten unspecified. These are people like waiter or things that are just not necessarily clear or it doesn’t have to be one way or the other. But in the actual dialogue spoken it was basically even. Men had 49% of the lines, women had 48% of the lines. When you actually look at words spoken, which Highland can also track, it’s exactly equal. So 49%/49%. That’s a pretty useful thing.

If you take a look at Thor, 2011 Thor, what would you guess the split is there?

**Craig:** It’s going to be weighted quite male.

**John:** Yeah. You are correct. 70% of the lines spoken are by men. So even though there’s two female characters – well, there’s more than two – but there’s two principal female characters in Thor, it’s Thor and he does most of the speaking.

**Craig:** Oh, god, wait until you run Chernobyl through this thing.

**John:** Well, you can.

**Craig:** Well, I could tell you what the answer is. I mean, we’re talking about a situation in a male-dominated society in a power plant full of men and an army full of men. We’ve tried to put women everywhere we can. We really have. We’ve made the best of what we can. We’re also like weirdly by definition the whitest show that’s ever existed because they were all white.

But what I really like about this is in a sense the value that you’re providing with this feature may be in the use of the feature rather than the output of the feature. Just having to do it forces you to think about it and you might even start changing things before you even do it just because you kind of know what you’re in for if you haven’t really, you know, kind of thought it through right.

**John:** Yeah. So I wanted it to be sort of not a scolding kind of thing but actually a tool you can use along the way. So because you can click and change a character from male to female you can say like, “Well, what if I took this character and made it female. Oh, that actually does balance things out a lot more.” Or if you see that the chart is just wildly off and it doesn’t feel like you’re making a Chernobyl where it’s very difficult to adjust those things you might say, “Oh, this is a thing I could do to get you through this.”

This all came from, you know, over the past year there have been these big studies of going back through past scripts and you talk to them about how they actually did it and they were going through and hand-coding all this stuff to figure out whether things are male or female and counting lines individually. That’s something computers should do.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** So we’re doing it.

**Craig:** Excellent.

**John:** Excellent. What are you using for outlining or do you outline?

**Craig:** I do. Oh, yes.

**John:** I started using Workflowy for some outlining stuff, but what are you using for outlines?

**Craig:** Microsoft Word. [laughs] Well, so–

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** Again, one of the things I actually like about Microsoft Word is when I’m doing a proper outline it does have a very simple kind of scheme to roman numeral to number one to letter to little roman numeral. It kind of does that for you. And it does that well with tab and return.

And then sometimes I might make an outline where I just go Act One, and then it’s 1….and then the next 2. And it does lists automatically. And if I go back and stick something between 2 and 3 it knows to bump everything down. So things like that kind of make it easy so that’s what I do for that stuff.

**John:** Yeah. I’ve started using Workflowy which is what we use for our podcast outlines. For some of that stuff and also just making lists of these are the things I need to make sure I fix in this next pass of Arlo Finch.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I like it. I don’t love it. It’s not my sort of most favorite tool. So I think I’m still looking for an outliner. Inevitably I’ll probably have the company build it for me, but I’m still looking for a thing I really like for that.

**Craig:** Put Nima to work, you know? He’s just sitting around with nothing to do. Let’s go, Nima.

**John:** Absolutely. A thing we haven’t talked about at all so far is Final Draft. So, if you want to hear the history of John and Craig and Final Draft you can go back to the one with the episode, the one with the guys from Final Draft.

I had to use Final Draft this past year for – I did a small little rewrite on a superhero movie that was in production. And so there was no getting out of just dealing with the Final Draft file they sent. And so I could have converted it and like, nope, it was going to make everything much worse if I tried. So, I did it in Final Draft with revisions on. It reminded me of why Final Draft is so maddening.

**Craig:** So bad.

**John:** To try to move stuff around, it was just not a good experience.

**Craig:** Ugh, the worst. I just went through it myself. I was rewriting something. The director had written a draft and was asking me to do a new draft. And I just needed to stay in Final Draft for them. And, first of all, you feel like you’re going back in time.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** For sure. There were moments where I would delete something, or I would say, “Oh you know what I’m going to do, I’m going to take this line of dialogue here. It’s the second sentence of this dialogue block and I’m going to actually add it in front of the first sentence of this” and it thinks, “Oh, you’re trying to make a character name that’s 14 words long.” And I’m like, what? Why would you think that’s what I want to do? Why would you think that? Who adds things onto a character’s name with cut and paste? It’s the dumbest – oh god.

**John:** Yeah. So in general I find trying – after working in Highland I get really frustrated sort of going back to that stuff because it is – every line has a definition of like what it is and you’ve had to declare like this is a character name, this is dialogue. And it’s not doing any logic about what could you actually be intending here.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that just gets really frustrating. And sometimes trying to delete across things gets to be hard because–

**Craig:** The worst.

**John:** Because you’re in different spaces. Or you get stuck in a parenthetical.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s another thing. You delete a bunch of stuff and then it just changes the format of what comes next. Why would it do that? Why would any – oh my god! What’s wrong with you, Final Draft? Why do you do that?

**John:** Yeah. It is maddening. And so these are some of the reasons I made Highland 2. If you want to see it and download it it’s for the Mac. It should be on the Mac App Store this week as we are recording this. So, I hope people enjoy it.

**Craig:** I think that’s fantastic. And I have just downloaded – now I have the beta. But, you know what John? I’m kind of beta. I’m OK with it.

**John:** [laughs] I’ll get you a magic unlock code so you can get the full power version. I will say one last thing about pricing on it is that we were trying to figure out what to price it at. And so the reason why we went from $30 to free because I wanted just a lot of people to be able to use it and try it. And we always had problems where like schools would say, “Oh hey, we want to install it on all of our school computers.” And then it was like, ugh, like we couldn’t find – you had to make a special version for them. It just got to be a whole deal.

So I wanted students to be able to use it for free. It prints a little watermark saying Made in Highland, but otherwise it’s the full app. So I wanted people to be able to try it.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So we’re going broad.

**Craig:** Well, I’m rooting for you.

**John:** All right. Let’s do some questions. Noah writes, “I’ve just been reading William Goldman’s screenplays lately and it’s hard not to take note of his formatting, in particular how he writes his scene headings. He doesn’t use INT or EXT, nor does he use day or night. Just whomever or whatever he’s directing the camera to focus on. It’s aggravating when I think about the times I’ve been instructed how to properly format while writing and then see Mr. Goldman’s work.

“There’s even a spot in Princess Bride where a scene heading is Something We Hadn’t Expected, on page 64. When I read that I laughed and swore out loud. But honestly what’s an aspiring writer to do when he’s trying to get the form right and yet he reads that?”

**Craig:** Here’s the truth. Noah, if you write like William Goldman then you just write whatever you want. William Goldman, I suspect when he was writing, as we sometimes write as like service people, you know, so you and I will be hired to help on something and then like we were using Final Draft because that’s what the production was using. When you help you stay in their format. I don’t think William Goldman was unaware of the format. But when William Goldman is adapting his own novel, The Princess Bride, into a screenplay The Princess Bride, he can write whatever the hell he wants.

And it’s also a different situation. That’s a situation where it’s sort of like, “Hey, let’s all make a movie together with this incredibly highly accomplished screenwriter adapting his own novel.” It doesn’t matter. And the truth is none of it really matters anyway. Even if you’re not William Goldman, you’re not adapting your own famous novel, and you haven’t written anything, if you write some amazing – if I just pick up your script, I open the first page, and the first three lines are gorgeous, I don’t care. In fact, at that point if you’ve just decided to reinvent the format entirely what do I care? The most important thing is as I’m reading it I have to ask this question: can I shoot this? Right?

And if you can shoot it, then it works. Something we hadn’t expected is shootable. It’s actually really interesting information. You and I say this stuff until we’re blue in the face and it doesn’t really matter. We are essentially just howling at the moon because there are a million people out there who undo the work that we do on a daily basis. Go, John, just wander over to Reddit screenwriting and witness the weekly conversation about how no one should ever write “we see”. It just blows my mind and there’s nothing we can do to stop it except to just say to those of you out there willing to come along in faith and trust us, this stuff is not that important. OK? It’s just not

If you’re writing a screenplay, probably you’re going to want to stay in the format that everybody is comfortable with. But if you want to experiment a little, or if you want to just pick a moment, a sequence in your screenplay where something wild is happening and you want to unmoor yourself from this stuff, go for it. Be creative. Have some fun for god’s sakes. This is a dumb format invented for stupid typewriters in 1920. You know what I mean? Whatever. Go nuts.

**John:** Yeah. So I would say what is important about the standard formatting is there’s just an expectation. And it’s simple and it’s clean and people sort of get it. And so the degree to which you can just stay in the format that everyone already gets, basically it’s free. Like INT and EXT and all that stuff just come for free and people don’t even notice it anymore, which is useful. So as long as you’re just doing the stuff that nobody notices they’ll actually read your words.

If you are doing something that’s really weird and strangely formatted and it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re doing and you don’t seem confident and it doesn’t seem like this is going to be worth their time, that’s when you have a problem if you’re doing strange formatting stuff. So just write brilliantly and then your formatting just won’t matter as much.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, 99% of people are going to write a bad screenplay and then it doesn’t matter if it’s properly formatted or not. And 1% are going to write to write a great screenplay and it doesn’t matter if it’s properly formatted or not. That’s basically my attitude about this.

**John:** Do you want to take a question from Lee?

**Craig:** Yeah. Sure. Lee writes, “I wrote a dark comedy horror. A guy, someone I know at a management company, liked it and thought it worked as a sample for a director who wants a co-writer on a project he’s already got sketched out. I had a call yesterday. The director is sending a beat sheet my way next week. Question number one: any advice on how to write a draft from someone else’s beat sheet?

“Question number two: they also like the piece I originally sent and seemed like they may be interested putting that together, too, if I can deliver on this one. Any general advice for a person in my situation? I want to take full advantage of this opportunity.

“And, question number three: what should I look out for misstep or danger wise?”

John, we’ve got one, two, three. What’s your answer for Lee?

**John:** My answer for Lee is that the thing that you’re thinking about doing with the director, great. And go with god and try to basically sit down with that person, figure out if there is a common vision for this movie that you’d be writing I guess together. He’s already got this beat sheet. If you agree with the approach of the movie that probably goes beyond just what this beat sheet is, I say go for it. You don’t have a lot to lose from working with somebody who probably already has some stuff happening.

In terms of this management company may want to represent you on this script, that’s great. And so I would just say let that be a separate thread of your relationship with this management company and this manager. They may not be signing you right away as this whole process begins, but get their honest feedback to see if you could work with them as a management company. And let those two things sort of go separately.

A question will naturally come up like if you do decide to write this thing with the director are you guys just working on this together? Is this your joint project? Is that person hiring you? That you’re going to have to figure out. But it’s not quite clear yet how real any of these things are.

**Craig:** Well, yes. So it says that the director wants a cowriter on a project he’s already got sketched out. So, with that in mind I think one thing to look out for, Lee, is you’ve received a beat sheet, but a beat sheet is not tablets from the top of Mount Sinai. It’s a beat sheet. And if you’re going to be a cowriter, you’re a cowriter. That means you’re an equal writer. And that means you don’t have to go down this path if you don’t quite get it.

It’s fair to say, “OK, I’ve read your beat sheet. Let’s just have some conversations. Let’s start talking about this. If we’re going to write together, let’s feel these things out. And let me tell you what I’m loving. And then I have a bunch of questions I want to ask.” That’s the way I always pose, by the way, I don’t talk about problems. I talk about questions. And sort of take that beat sheet and make a new beat sheet that is instead of His, Ours.

And then talk about how the writing is going to work before the writing happens. How does he see that happening? You do ten, I do ten, we swap? Or we sit in a room together? Here’s what you don’t want. “Oh, you’ll write a first draft and I’ll just come and sprinkle some of my magic dust on it.” That’s not actually co-writing.

**John:** That’s not writing, yeah.

**Craig:** That’s something else. So if that’s a situation then it’s story by the two of you, screenplay by you, directed by him. So these are things that are just good to work out. Do not rely on the manager to advocate for you here. If the manager is representing the director then the manager will advocate for the director. You’re going to have to advocate for yourself. Gently, but firmly.

**John:** Yep. And good luck. Again, let us know a year from now what’s happened with this. I’m really curious what happens next.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** Nick writes, “I recently finished the first episode of a TV show I’m writing. When I started the second episode I realized I didn’t know if I needed to re-highlight or capitalize the name of the first appearance of already established characters from the first episode in the second episode. Is this something I need to do or can I just leave them un-highlighted or un-capitalized?”

Craig, what would you do? What are you doing in Chernobyl? In Episode two, the first time we see one of those recurring characters are you upper-casing his name?

**Craig:** No. I uppercase the name just the first time we see them in the first episode. I don’t re-uppercase because it just seems silly. But, you could. I don’t think it would be – I mean, in the end what we’re really talking about is one instance of capitalizing, so do it or don’t do it. Generally speaking, no one is going to read the second episode if they didn’t like the first, which means they’ve seen this character and they read about them. No one is going to pick up the second one without reading the first. So there’s no concern there.

Hey, you know something I didn’t know, John? I’ve learned so many things about television all at once because I had to. So, they asked me to number the scripts. Obviously this is quite some time ago. Put scene numbers on. And so I put scene numbers on each script and we had this for all. And then eventually when we had our first AD on he said, “You know, we generally start like in episode three the first scene is scene 301, not 1.” Well, I didn’t know that.

**John:** That would make sense.

**Craig:** I did not know that. And it’s a very simple thing to do in any normal screenwriting program. But it’s so useful. And like, duh. I didn’t know. Silly me.

**John:** So even if you end up moving a scene from one episode to another episode, like that scene 302 might end up in episode two for some reason in post, but it was 302. That makes a lot of sense.

I have two things I want to address with Nick’s question here. So, first off, I want to distinguish the type [unintelligible] he wants to distinguish between capitalization and uppercase. Capitalization is the first letter of a word being capitalized. So you can say “all caps,” but really uppercase would be the better way to describe when everything is the capital letters.

Uppercase of course comes from typography where in old middle type there were two cases, the case above, the case below. The case above had all the uppercase letters. The case below had all the lowercase letters. The capitals and the lowercase. I just think it’s neat that it was actually a physical case.

In terms of uppercasing the names in that script, I bet different series do different things. And I can imagine some series, their house rules are that the first time a character appears in any given episode you uppercase it so you know that’s the first time we’re seeing that character. I bet other shows don’t do it all, more like what Craig is doing with Chernobyl.

**Craig:** Yeah. In the end – you’ll be fine, Nick. Don’t you worry.

Oh, Colin O’Connor tweets – oh, I like this, he’s tweeting. “Do you have good advice for interesting characters who are onscreen but not important yet? How about intro-ing during a heavy action scene when a character is important but you don’t want to take a break from the urgency of the scene?”

All right, so you get what he’s going for here, John, right?

**John:** Absolutely. So basically you’re trying to plant some sort of flag saying like pay attention but not too much attention to this character because we’re going to come back to this person later. Sometimes you’ll end up saying kind of that. Where it’s just like obviously you’re uppercasing their name because it’s the first time we’re seeing them. I would give the quick description and like, comma, becomes important later. Just because you want to clue into the reader like this is the first appearance of that character and it’s helpful if you remember that he existed there.

The scene in which the character is actually doing something important, you may want to actually then do the bigger description of who that person is if you didn’t want to break the flow of the action beat for example to put in a real character description of that person.

**Craig:** Absolutely. There’s a character at the end of episode four that we meet in the middle of just the final bits of that episode. And there’s no dialogue or anything. We’re just moving around, sort of a montage of different people and different places and we haven’t seen him before. And he’s going to be a big part of episode five. I’m sorry, it’s the end of three, he’s going to be a big part of episode four. And I just write here’s a young man, he’s 21, and then in parentheses “we will see him again.” That’s all.

So, OK.

**John:** Classic.

**Craig:** And then we do. So that’s all. You know, in general, I have to say folks not that – we love all these questions. We love all questions. But you know just general common sense in a weird way. Not that you guys don’t have common sense. I think you do. I think the problem is so many of you are scared of your own common sense because the screenwriting amateur net has freaked you out that you are running through some sort of minefield and your script is going to explode in your face and shrapnel everywhere if you miscapitalize or don’t introduce somebody. It’s not like that at all.

In general, I think you should take some good deep breaths. These things will never kill you. Never.

**John:** Yep. Our final question comes from Josh in Seattle. He says, “I’m reading the script for Logan in Weekend Read and I’m curious if there’s a term for the establishing material that writers insert on page two after the first instance of violence. Here’s the quote, ‘Now might be a good time to talk about the ‘fights’ described in the next 100 or so pages. Basically, if you want a hyper-choreographed gravity-defying, city block destroying CG F-athon, this isn’t your movie. In this flick people will get hurt or killed when shit falls on them. They will get just as hurt or just as killed if they get hit with something big and heavy like say a car. Should anyone in our story have the misfortune to fall off a roof or out a window, they won’t bounce. They will die.’

“I’ve never encountered this type of contextual prose in a script but I really liked it when I read it. Can a first-time screenwriter get away with this type of technique in a screenplay? Are you aware of other examples of this type of creative license?”

**Craig:** No, you can’t. I forgot to mention this is the one mine that if you step on this you will explode. Your family will die. Your pets will drown. Even if they’re not near water. And children all over the world will have nightmares.

You can do whatever – ugh. So, there’s a paragraph that I did like this for Cowboy, Ninja, Viking because it’s a weird concept and you have to explain the cinematic language of what’s going on. When I call the character this, when I call the character this, this is what you’re seeing, this is what you’re feeling. It’s just description. It’s like an aside, essentially.

In journalism sometimes you’ll see a parenthesis and then N.B. for nota bene, meaning here’s a note from the author to you on how to read this. You can do that. I tend to put these things in all italics to discriminate between onscreen action and, oh, I’m talking to you.

Let me rephrase your question, Josh, so I can give you a different answer. Can a first-time screenwriter get away with blank? The answer to you is yes.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Put anything you want in the blank.

**John:** 100% yes.

**Craig:** That is legal. That does not violate laws. Yes.

**John:** Nice. All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing came out of a sort of YouTube hole I fell down in. I’m doing some research for a period movie I may be working on. My first period movie, actually. I’m not a big period movie person. But this thing that I might be working on takes place in the ‘50s. And so I was looking at a bunch of ‘50s videos and I came across this video called Welcome to Southern California.

It is produced by the Santa Fe Railroad. It is a tourism video about how great Southern California is. And I’m going to play one little clip here because I found it absolutely fascinating.

[Clip plays]

So I find this pronunciation of the city I live in, Los Angeles, I pronounce this Los Angeles. And it’s like who is this person talking? And then as you do more research you realize like, oh, that actually was a very common pronunciation of the city at the time. And so obviously this is a Spanish name. It’s been converted a bunch of different times. We’ve finally come to a consensus that it’s Los Angeles. But at this time there was a real controversy over how to pronounce the city. And the pronunciation in this video, which is Los Angle-ease was really common. And it’s just really strange that a city that I’ve lived in all this time is that way.

I also love that he puts four syllables in California. Cali-for-nee-ah.

**Craig:** I know. I love that.

**John:** Cal-eh-for-nee-ah. Oh, five syllables. I’m sorry. California. It’s just so odd. And so he does it through the entire video. And so it’s just so funny – first off, to see these places that I know so well, but to have them narrated as if it’s some sort of alien landscape. It’s just great. I loved this video.

**Craig:** When Barton Fink shows up to the hotel in Barton Fink, the bellhop who is played by Steve Buscemi says, “Welcome to Los Angle-Ease, Mr. Fink.” And I love that Los Angle-Ease. But we have these now in Los Angeles. And my wife points them out all the time because she is fluent in Spanish, so obviously she knows how to pronounce things properly.

And these phrases grate on her all the time. Like, for instance, Los Feliz, that’s just insane. We all know it’s Feliz. There’s the song Feliz Navidad. Why are we calling it Los Feel-Is. That’s nuts. Why do we call it San Pee-dro? That’s crazy. It’s San Pedro, obviously. It’s San Pedro.

Sepulveda is Supple-Veda. We do this all the time.

**John:** And we’re also not consistent about how we change things. And so two major north/south streets in Los Angeles are La Brea and La Cienega. Both of those are “La”s. They’re both “laws.” But we’ve decided it’s Le Brea but La Cienega. Why? Who knows? But that’s how we’ve done it.

**Craig:** Right. Like why isn’t La Brea?

**John:** Because it sounds crazy to say La Brea. You could totally tell somebody does not know the name of the street if they say La Brea.

**Craig:** Do you know when I first moved to Los Angeles I was driving around looking for an apartment in North Hollywood. And I came across this very large thoroughfare and the street sign said Laurel Cyn. And I thought, oh, is this like a Welsh name? And it’s Canyon.

**John:** It’s just short for Canyon.

**Craig:** It’s just short of Canyon. I’m like, “Oh, Coldwater Cyn? Huh.”

**John:** Yeah. Even in sort of your neighborhood is also Cañada or also Canada? Some things have the Ñ and some things don’t. And I don’t know whether the Ñ got dropped off just because of the sign or if it really isn’t there. And sometimes you’ll see the Y put in there to make the sound for the Ñ. So it’s all frustrating.

**Craig:** It’s really weird. So La Cañada, the official name of La Cañada there is a tilde over the N. And usually people will include it, but when people are typing things, you know, filling out forms and such sometimes the tilde will freak out poorly designed forms. And so you’ll see like when they spit your address back it’s got some crazy ass characters shoved in there.

But my street, they just shoved a Y in because I guess–

**John:** Just because.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like back then somebody was like I don’t understand this tilde thing. Let’s just put the Y in. That’ll make it easy. No. It’s made it really hard. It’s really super annoying, because I’d love to be able to just say Canada and be done with it to the people on the phone that I’m trying to order something from. But, no. So, yeah, no, what can you do.

**John:** Nothing.

**Craig:** Well that’s excellent. My One Cool Thing is a bit – I’d like to read you something.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** It’s a short little clip. So I’m reading this book called Less. Have you heard of this book, John, Less?

**John:** I have heard of Less, but I don’t know the context of it, so tell me.

**Craig:** It just won the Pulitzer Prize. Well, I’m fairly early on. I’m say about a quarter of the way in. And it’s about a novelist who is suspicious that perhaps he might just be mediocre, but he does write things that have gotten some notice. And he was in this very long relationship with a poet who actually was really, really good, but when that guy dies he’s kind of now – and this guy was much older than him. And now he’s approaching his 50th birthday. He’s starting to panic. His younger boyfriend has gone to marry somebody else. He’s alone.

And, so you know like John we get invited to seminars and these like, “Oh, come to the such-and-such festival and be a judge at the Wichita Best Screenplay.” He decides, “Screw it, I’m going to accept all of these and just go around the world from one of these baloney things to another, whether it’s a symposium or being a judge, or having my book up for an award.” And so that’s where I am in the book.

But there’s this wonderful paragraph that he wrote that I thought was, oh my god, just so beautiful in terms of how it described the torture of writing. And he’s talking about his life living with his former lover who was this brilliant poet who won a Pulitzer Prize in the novel. And this is what he writes. And, by the way, I don’t mean to imply at all that I am saying that I or you are a genius. It’s just that he refers to this notion of a writing genius and I thought there was something fascinating about it. Oh, and the novel is called Less and it is by Andrew Sean Greer. And so here’s this little bit.

“What was it like to live with genius? Like living alone. Like living with a tiger. Everything had to be sacrificed for the work. Plans had to be canceled. Meals had to be delayed. Liquor had to be bought as soon as possible, or else all poured into the sink. Money had to be rationed or spent lavishly, changing daily. The sleep schedule was the poet’s to make, and it was often late nights as it was early mornings. The habit was the demon pet in the house. The habit. The habit. The habit. The morning coffee and books and poetry. The silence until noon. Could he be tempted by a morning stroll? He could. He always could. It was the only addiction where the sufferer longed for anything but the desired.

“But a morning walk meant work undone and suffering, suffering, suffering. Keep the habit. Help the habit. Lay out the coffee and poetry. Keep the silence. Smile when he walks sulkily out of his office to the bathroom. Take nothing personally. And did you sometimes leave an art book around with the thought that it would be the key to his mind? And did you sometimes put on music that might unlock the doubt and fear? Did you love it, the rain dance every day? Only when it rained. Where did the genius come from? Where did it go? Like allowing another lover into the house to live with you. Someone you’d never met, but whom you knew he loved more than you. Poetry every day. A novel every few years. Something happened in that room despite everything. Something beautiful happened. It was the only place in the world where time made things better. Life with doubt. Doubt in the morning with the oil beating on a cup of coffee. Doubt in the pee break, not catching his eye. Doubt in the sound of the front door opening and closing, a restless walk, no goodbye, and in the return doubt in the slow sound of typewriter keys. Doubt at lunch time taken in his room. Doubt vanishing in the afternoon like a fog. Doubt driven away. Doubt forgotten. Four in the morning, feeling him stirring awake, knowing he is staring at the darkness at doubt. Life with doubt, a memoir.”

Isn’t that great?

**John:** That’s great.

**Craig:** I just love that.

**John:** It also reminds me of sort of the worst of my habits and trying to recognize when I’m veering in that direction.

**Craig:** I know. I know. And I think he really just nails something here in terms of, you know, you and I have talked before about what it’s like to live with us. What it’s like for Mike, what it’s like for Melissa. And, again, not that we’re the geniuses of this particular summary, but I think all writers to some extent, all professional writers share these certain things. We do have these – it’s this addiction where we long for anything but the desired. And I love the notion that there’s for the people that live with the writer they are aware that there’s this other lover that this person is always chasing.

And it’s fascinating. And I just thought it was so beautifully written. I mean, I just – I’m just so enamored by this guy. Andrew Sean Greer. He’s so good at sentences. I just love him. So, I’m really enjoying this book. So I guess the larger One Cool Thing is this novel Less by Andrew Sean Greer. But at least individually and in a small component way, I love this little passage.

**John:** Very nice. All right, that is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Larry Douziech. 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 like the ones we answered today. Short questions on Twitter are great. Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes, or wherever you find your podcasts. If you want to leave us a review that is swell.

You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. There will also be transcripts. They go up about four to seven days after the episode posts.

If you want to come to our live show you should. It is May 22nd. You should buy tickets now because they will probably sell out. If you want the VIP tickets, I think those are much more limited so move on those quick if you would like those.

And you can find all the back episodes, including the previous live shows, at Scriptnotes.net. Or on one of the USB drives. So once we sell out of the 300-episode USB drives we will make some 350 episodes so that we can keep them safe for any potential world-ending calamities.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah. Because we’re important.

**John:** Yeah. We are important. And we are European but not related.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** If people ask. We know that now. Craig, enjoy your next week of shooting there and I hope it all goes well.

**Craig:** Thank you, sir. We’ll talk soon.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Our next live Scriptnotes with Jonah Nolan & Lisa Joy (Westworld) and Stephen McFeely & Christopher Markus (Avengers: Infinity War) will be Tuesday, May 22nd at the ArcLight in Hollywood. [Tickets are on sale now](https://scriptnotes.brownpapertickets.com) — proceeds benefit [Hollywood HEART](http://www.hollywoodheart.org), which runs special programs and summer camps for at-risk youth.
* [Frank Oz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Oz), in case you’re curious
* Look how fast [Highland 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehKDtQ3Dbhw) loads War and Peace compared to other programs!
* [Scriptnotes, Ep 125: The One with the Guys from Final Draft](http://johnaugust.com/2014/the-one-with-the-guys-from-final-draft)
* [Welcome to Southern California](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-l13UMBlkM&app=desktop) includes a 1953 pronunciation of “Los Angeles”
* [Less](https://www.amazon.com/Less-Winner-Pulitzer-Prize-Novel/dp/0316316121) by Andrew Sean Greer
* [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/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by [Larry Douziech](https://www.larrydouziech.com) ([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_349.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 337: The One with Stephen Schiff — Transcript

February 20, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/the-one-with-stephen-schiff).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August. I’m the host of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is either in Lithuania or somewhere in Los Angeles. He’s hidden away someplace, but I’m here in New York City. I’m at a bookstore on Prince Street called McNally Jackson. And this is a special little mini episode and we have a very special guest.

Our special guest is Stephen Schiff. He is the executive producer, or an executive producer, on The Americans, one of my very favorite TV shows. I’ve seen every episode.

**Stephen Schiff:** Yay.

**John:** I have so many questions for you. So we’re going to talk about TV. We’re going to talk about writing characters on an ongoing basis. We’re going to talk about writing in general. And then I’m going to sign a bunch of copies of Arlo Finch, which has nothing to do with any of that. So, Stephen Schiff, welcome.

**Stephen:** Thank you. Thank you.

**John:** So, Stephen, I saw the entire run of The Americans just last year. I had not seen it as it was coming out. We streamed the entire thing through Apple TV while we were living in Paris. And it was amazing. If people have not seen it – show of hands out here, who has seen The Americans? OK, it is an incredible show.

**Stephen:** Yay. Thank you.

**John:** And it’s remarkably well done. What I want to ask you about is we’re living with this family for so long. You’re living with this family for so long. And when I was watching the first season I was asking myself how can they sustain this premise. This premise of like this is a family that is living undercover. Those secrets are eventually going to come out. They’re living across the street from an FBI agent. That’s eventually going to be – it was sort of like this Chekhov’s gun, literally kind of Chekhov’s gun right across the street. And yet–

**Stephen:** Guns.

**John:** Guns pointed in every direction. And they’re still not going off. Well, they’re going off in ways we don’t expect. So what is it like living with the Jennings family for so many years?

**Stephen:** I’ve strangely been thinking about this recently because the years have accumulated, and I’ve sort of been thinking this show which I’m so deeply involved in and have been living for all these years, and you know, it starts from so many weird premises. The engine of it is so absurd, right? The absurdities are these people who really can pass as Americans. The show sort of began to have its inspiration with this gang of spies that were arrested by the FBI in an operation called Operation Ghost Stories in 2010. People think of them as illegals like our illegals, but no, they had Russian accents. They would not have appeared to be Americans. These people appear to be Americans. So that’s the first thing that’s – I mean, they speak perfect American English. They live perfect American lives seamlessly.

And so if you were to pitch that to me I’d say, oh yeah right. And then what happens when an FBI agent moves in next door. Oh yeah, great. This is the most ridiculous thing ever so far. And finally on top of that they wear hundreds of disguises all of which work.

**John:** Yeah.

**Stephen:** So, it’s like, really? And yet I think we have managed somehow to put aside all of that – to suspend disbelief enough so that you can have watching this show what I hope is a profound experience.

**John:** Well let’s talk about that. The progress from a pitch. So, even though it was based on some real things that happened and even though there was some underlying material or things that you’ve worked on before, it is essentially a pitch. You’re going in there saying I have this idea about a family that seems like an American family but they’re actually Russian spies. And what?

So you pitch this story, but there’s so much more to figure out after that point about, like, what is the show really about. And so when you guys are in the writing room, what is the show really about? Because clearly you’re talking about, you know, there’s the international issues. There’s the issues of what secrets you keep from your family. What secrets you keep from your spouse. You’re looking at the struggle of being a parent and not knowing what your kids are doing.

Is there a big list on the whiteboard of like these are themes, these are the interesting questions we’re asking? Or is it just internalized at this point?

**Stephen:** Well, of course, by this point it is internalized. But really your question is perfectly germane in that it’s a spy thing, but it’s also a story about a family. And maybe I shouldn’t even say also. Maybe it’s first and foremost a family drama that happens to be about a family that kills people and has hunting traps and is actually working against America. But we are always constantly aware of basically sort of having a family in a test tube. And you subject the test tube to these extraordinary conditions and yet what you’re seeing is still a family. And subjecting the family to those conditions reveals things about all of our families, we like to think and hope.

And, you know, to the degree that we are spies – all of us spies within our own lives. You know, the show addresses that and speaks to what the complications might be and might feel like. At the same time, we’re completely tethered to the facts of our premise. And so weapons must be used and concealments opened. And people pursued. And danger is skirted.

**John:** I want to dig into something you just said there. We are all spies within our own lives. So, I hear two things packed into that. That sense of as spies we are always concealing something that we don’t want other people to find out about us. And at the same time we’re always trying to scrape away and find information about the people around us. We’re always fundamentally distrusting the folks around us. Are there other layers to that that I’m not catching in terms of spies in our own lives?

**Stephen:** No, I think that’s part of it, but also another thing about a spy is that a spy has a cover. And maybe many covers as our spies do. And you’re presenting that cover to the world. And maybe we are all – we all have a cover. And we are all sort of presenting our cover. And I think something that we really try to feel in our show is what’s it like to be inside the cover. What’s it like – for instance, I did an episode two seasons ago I think it was, maybe three, in which the idea of the sexual operations that they undergo was explored a little bit. And Philip was remembering his training, his sex training. And yet he was doing it in the family master bedroom next to his wife. And they were exploring – these people are not very psychologically sophisticated. They are not – I mean, he’s gotten into EST now but they’re not analysans and they’re not people who understand that kind of language or wish to address things in that kind of way, in the way that we might be more used to in western drama.

But they do have questions. And they do want to find out things about themselves to a certain degree. And they’re trying to figure out how do I do this. How do I get into these situations where I’m in bed with someone pretending to, you know, love them or have a relationship with them and make love to them and I’m completely false in every respect?

And then how do I take that and shed it and go into my life and perform the same actions but from someplace that if I can’t find any sincerity I’m going to be lost.

**John:** Well that’s the same question that writers often ask in terms of their ability to create a completely fictitious world and make it feel real, but also your actors are doing that on a daily basis. They are like how am I supposed to be in love with this other actor while the cameras are rolling and not be in love with this person when the cameras stop rolling.

**Stephen:** Completely right. Exactly.

**John:** So I wanted to take another step back and look at this idea that everyone has a cover. That all characters have covers. And so in a show like The Americans that’s really clear. That’s the premise of the show that they’re always under cover. But all characters, everything that we’ve ever written, has a cover. They have a façade they’re putting out. There’s a real thing that’s underneath it. And that’s often the source of conflict within a scene or conflict within a character. We see the journey of them coming to terms with their façade and who they really are.

What have you learned in writing these characters and writing Philip and Elizabeth for The Americans that you think you can apply to characters who are not literally spies but have to present themselves a certain way? Are there any lessons we can take from that split?

**Stephen:** When I’m watching our actors – our actors are just the loveliest people to work with. That’s not always the case in television or movies as you well know. But they’re just wonderful lovely people. The man who plays Philip, who of course has an American accent, is Welsh but doesn’t talk like that at all. Keri Russell who plays his wife Elizabeth is this bubbly, funny, bright, sweet, and then she turns into a murderer and a scary person. And they both do that instantaneously. They’re not method-y in the least.

It is rather like what the show is about. They are spies on our show. They’re spies on our show in so many different ways. We all are doing that. I guess, you know, are there lessons that I can articulate that I draw from this that I can sort of bring into my own life and our lives and say I have learned that this is the way to do it and this is not? Not really. But watching this process and exploring this process over and over and over again and seeing what lies are, what their nature is, what they do, the damage they do, the reasons we tell them. You know, that’s something that we all deal with our lives every single day. And we all need to confront and face.

And we don’t because no one wants to say, “oh, I’m lying.” And no one wants to confront the liarness in yourself. You know, we have a TV show to do that with. But in a way it still requires an act of courage to bring that into your life and to confront it and admit to it.

**John:** Well, with Philip and Elizabeth you have professional liars. They’ve been trained in how to do this for a long time. And while we see the struggle sometimes, it’s not particularly hard for them. It has a long-term damage to them, but it’s not hard for them to flip that switch.

What’s so fascinating to see is the characters who are amateur liars, who are beginner liars. So, you see Paige trying to tell a lie. You see Nina trying to figure out, navigate those worlds where–

**Stephen:** She’s pretty good at it.

**John:** Yeah, but she gets better at it. And then you have Martha who, oh my god, Martha. We just love Martha so much. She’s not equipped for it. And that – watching the tension of someone trying to play a game that they’ve not played before. It’s like – it’s as if the NFL is happening and they’re suddenly on the field and they have to run with the ball.

**Stephen:** So what’s the difference – one difference is that for most of our series, and not entirely for all the characters, but for Philip and Elizabeth the lies are justifiable. The lies are subsumed to a greater cause. And the greater cause whether we think it’s worth subsuming anything to or not is to them a powerful overarching reason to lie no matter what. And you see them going through this. And you see the edges of a kind of agony. Maybe not the center of an agony that you or I might feel going through such a thing. But what they’re looking for to bolster themselves is the cause.

And they have the cause. And then maybe you see in Philip’s case especially a fraying of that belief in the cause. And you see what that does to him. And then he has to turn to other things. Elizabeth can always go back to that cause. In our lives, though, going back to your question, we are always creating causes that are higher causes that are worth lying for. Easy for anyone to say, well, I didn’t want to tell her that she looked fat in that dress. That’s a higher cause for us to lie in the service of. And I think most of us would agree that that’s OK. But that’s what we’re always doing. We’re justifying. We’re trying to find the cause.

It’s very interesting again as a thought experiment, which this whole show is, to look at what happens when you have this rock hard completely mistaken – because I think we all agree that the Soviet Union was not a wonderful place – cause with which to justify all the damage you do all the time.

**John:** So, with Philip and Elizabeth they’re the center of our show and most of the action circles around them. I think what I was surprised to see in the show, and it’s particularly as seasons go on, is how point of view changes, or the degree to which you stop limiting POVs so clearly. In early seasons, POV was limited to the Jennings family, sometimes their handlers were allowed to have scenes by themselves, and then Stan Beeman across the street which could take us into the FBI. But over time you decided to let other characters run with the ball basically. We can go off with Oleg and to see Oleg’s family for extended periods of time. What are those decisions like and what is the negotiations when you’re figuring out internally like do we let this character drive scenes without one of our other leads in it?

**Stephen:** I think this is something that happens with most TV shows. That you discover as the audience is discovering that you feel differently about the characters from the way you thought you were going to feel when you were first writing and pitching and all that. That almost always is an expansion. So for instance, Martha was a character who was kind of a joke in the first season. We came in and we looked at Martha and looked at Martha and we were loving Martha. We had a wonderful, wonderful actress, Alison Wright, playing her. And we thought, you know, we thought of her as a plain Jane who was just going to be duped and ruined. And now we began to say wait a sec, wait a sec, it’s not only our duty but our pleasure to go inside this person.

Well, then we had to give her a point of view. And, you know, Oleg was someone who completely changed. He was kind of like this sort of gad about playboy wearing no socks and listening to American music. And he became I think a somewhat profound person, a haunted person, a person really torn between all of the loyalties and all of the moral decisions that he has to make. That’s just more interesting.

**John:** It’s more interesting, but it’s also – I think there’s an assumption out in popular culture that all those decisions have to be made before that character shows up on screen. Basically there had to be a plan right from the very start. What I hear you saying is that in the case of Martha and in the case of Oleg you created these characters with one intention and then you saw what was possible and you changed the trajectory of where they were going to go based on what you saw. Is that accurate? Is that fair?

**Stephen:** Yes. I think that is fair. I mean, I think you see shows where you look at the characters sort of a couple seasons down the line and you say wait a sec, wait a sec, this is not the same character. You know, and that can be – I mean, I look at a show like Downton Abbey where all the bad guys became good guys and I went with it. I was like, “OK, I hated this guy, now I love this guy. It’s hard to remember hating this guy.”

**John:** The Thomas problem, yeah.

**Stephen:** The Thomas problem as it is known in the business. And we do the same thing, I hope, in a quieter way. Our characters I don’t think contradict who they were, but certainly they’re much more alive and explored and present and multidimensional than they were. It’s a little like what happens in a writer’s room in a way. You come into a writer’s room and you have an idea. And it starts bouncing around and it starts bouncing around. And you and I are people who have done movies. Movies we’re all alone really. And we bounce things off producers and what not, but basically we’re all alone. And we in a way have to grow our own.

In this world of television and in this world of a multi-season series, they grow on their own without you to a certain degree. They start – you know, you always hear from any kind of writer, playwrights, novelists, anyone, the characters tell me what to do.

I don’t know to what degree that’s really true or to what degree that’s a metaphor, but it’s about as true as it gets when you’re doing a TV show because other people are seeing the characters differently and you’re bouncing off of that. And ideas come in and they might seem like not the right idea but they spark something and pretty soon – I mean, I think probably people here will remember a memorable tooth-pulling in our show. And that began as such a different thing. It just began as there was this action scene in which her tooth was hurt, what do we do about it? And then we turned it into this thing because it starts to grow and it’s not just one person growing it. It’s all this people growing it.

Our characters are like that, too. The actors bring something. The other writers bring something. The time brings something. The story demands something else. Our interests change. And so it’s an organic process.

**John:** So the TV show right now is on cable with commercial breaks. How do you think that show would be different if it were done for premium, for Netflix, for Amazon, for something streaming? Do you think you would make the same show? And to which degree are you writing towards act breaks? Because it feels like those act breaks matter in your writing.

**Stephen:** We do write towards act breaks, but we are being streamed.

**John:** Yeah, I watched it entirely streaming.

**Stephen:** You watched it streaming. I mean, how many people here watch it streamed? Two. OK. So not a large number, but yeah, basically we don’t make that differentiation. But we do use act breaks because they’re kind of fun to use. An act break is a place where you come to an emotional plateau. We don’t do the traditional network broadcast act break of “Oh my god bite your fingers through the commercials.” We sometimes will just come to a place where we’ve gone up a set of stairs and we’re on the landing and we’re catching our breath and we’re looking around and saying, “OK, where are we going from here?”

**John:** A character decision moment or resolution of an action that clearly the nature of the story is going to have to be different after that action has happened, but not the classic sort of like, oh no, there’s somebody outside the door. You’re not doing that kind of act break on your show.

**Stephen:** That’s right. And the nature might not be any different from how it changes after any other scene in the middle of an act, for instance, but there is a feeling of what we call an act out. Act out is the last scene before you’re done with that act. And so on our show we have a teaser and four acts. So it’s a five act show. And there’s a teaser out, act one out, act two out, etc. And there’s a feeling about it. There’s a nimbus around it. There’s a kind of – it either has the glow of an act out or it doesn’t have the glow of an act out. And it’s not something that’s defined by any set of rules. It’s defined by our shared feeling about it.

**John:** Can I make a guess that one of your internal rules for an act out is it can’t be a scene where people are speaking Russian? Is that actually true? Because your show has more than sort of any show on broadcast has a lot of people with subtitles. Where you can sort of – the degree to which we all watch TV sometimes, you’re checking something on the phone, but you’re listening to it. But then it gets to a Russian scene and you’re like, ugh, I have to do some reading. I have to really stare at the screen to do it.

My question for you is there’s quite a bit of Russian, and especially this last season I felt like I heard a lot and there’s Oleg. My hunch is that you will not go – an act out scene can’t be a Russian scene. Is that true or is that not true?

**Stephen:** That is as far as I know not true. I would have to go back and look, but it’s not something we carry around with us or consciously do.

Just something interesting about our Russian, because with very, very, very, very tiny exceptions all of our Russian speaking is done by native Russian speakers, people who really speak it.

**John:** My husband speaks Russian.

**Stephen:** Oh, is he a native Russian speaker?

**John:** He’s not. He learned Russian. But he would point out, I think in the first season he heard when people were trying to speak Russian and they’re not really Russian people.

**Stephen:** We’ve completely not done that for the last – and our translator is a woman named Masha Gessen, who just won the National Book Award, so she’s the most overqualified TV translator in the history of television.

And then we have translators on set. We have the actors sort of giving their views on the Russian they’re to speak because they’re native Russian speakers. And we also have an expert in Russia who is also looking at our translation. So all of that is a very careful process. But, of course, we write it in English.

And the way we write it in English is a little bit special only in that we try to make it so completely colloquial. We try to make it as conversational. So no one is ever saying, you know, “Yes my liege,” kind of dialogue. It’s as un-stiff as anything on our show, because we want it – for one thing that translates directly into the subtitles. And for another thing that’s the mood we want. We want it to be conversational every day Russian. But Russian remains to me a very mysterious language. And to all of us who write the show it’s this vast distant thing that we know we’ll never quite conquer.

**John:** So I think you just answered a question that I had which is when a character is speaking Russian in the script, what we see in subtitles is what you have in the script, not necessarily a direct translation of what those actors are saying?

**Stephen:** Yes, that’s right.

**John:** OK. Very, very cool. So it’s not a surprise to you and your editors don’t have to worry about like is that really the thing that goes at this moment.

**Stephen:** Well, we vet that, of course. We have basically three levels of vetting that and we want it to be true and we want it to be real. But we basically – we’ve written that dialogue. And so we’re not rewriting it because it’s turned into Russian in between. Also at our table reads, by the way, when all of our actors are there we sit there reading the script and the Russian-speaking actors have Russian to read. And so we’re sitting there, and some of these scenes as you’ve mentioned are long, and so we’re reading English, English, English, English, and then suddenly someone is speaking Russian for a couple pages. And we’re like, uh, are we done with that page yet?

**John:** That’s nice. Because it’s still English in the script, but they’re just–

**Stephen:** It’s English in the script, but they already have the translation. And they’re doing it and we want them to do it the way it’s going to be because that will give us a better idea of how it flows.

**John:** Talking about the table read process is one of my last questions. So you have the script for the episode that’s about to shoot, but you’re probably doing that table read while you’re – is it on a lunch break while you’re shooting?

**Stephen:** It’s on lunch break for the, yeah.

**John:** And so those actors have gotten the script but they haven’t had a lot of time to prepare. But this is a chance for everyone to sit around a table, speak it all aloud, hear what the whole thing is. What do you get out of a table read?

**Stephen:** I hear what’s not quite there. By the time we get to a table read we’re very much there. We’ve gone through many stages of – I mean, it is a script. So we’ve gone through all the stages that precede the script: beat sheets, outlines, the whiteboard before that, all that stuff. And then we’ve gone through many iterations of the script itself that have been brought to bear by the prep process, by preparation process. So we do location scouts. And that will change some things.

We bring in the director, because the directors are not there when we’re writing, and the directors come in basically for a couple weeks, do a show, and leave. So we have meetings with them. We hear what their questions are. We talk about what we feel the scenes mean. We go through it all that way. And sometimes the director will say, well wait, I was reading this and I didn’t get that at all, or that didn’t make sense to me, or this… So we change it that way.

By the time we have the table read, all that has been gone through. Plus props, you know, we can’t get this prop. We’ve got to do this. Everything like that. And then finally you just hear. Is it working? Does it sound the way people talk? Does it sound the way our characters talk? Does it hit the emotional notes that we’re trying to hit? And then we make little adjustments, but they’re usually quite small by then.

And we don’t – and above all, I mean, because I’ve heard about this happening at table reads, we’re not judging performance. We’re not saying, “Oh, that guy gave a funny read. Let’s fire them.” You know, we’re not doing that at all. And I think that’s an awful thing to do.

**John:** For a table read like this, do you bring in day players for that table read?

**Stephen:** Yes, if we can, when we can. Sometimes they’re not even cast by then, but sometimes they are.

**John:** Very good. What season are we coming up on?

**Stephen:** We’re coming up on sixth and last.

**John:** The sixth and final season starts at the end of March.

**Stephen:** March 28.

**John:** I’m very, very excited to see it. But I’ll have to watch it week by week, which is just going to kill me.

**Stephen:** It’s so painful.

**John:** It is so – how dare you do this to us. So, usually on Scriptnotes we do a One Cool Thing, and so even though Craig is not here, let’s do our One Cool Things. And you have a very One Cool Thing.

**Stephen:** I have a One Cool Thing that has really helped me. I discovered it when I was first starting work on the show, and I don’t remember how I discovered it. And I’d be interested to remember, but I don’t. And it’s called the Google Ngram Viewer. Do you know what the Google Ngram Viewer is? Right, nobody knows what this is.

Go to books.google.com/ngram. And what that is is a compilation that they have put together. So, one of the things that’s very important to me on the show and one of the things that’s very important to all of us on the show is that we avoid anachronism. And we want to – and I’m a stickler. I’m a crazy stickler. Everything I watch on TV I’m turning to my wife and saying, “They wouldn’t have said that in 1403.” And I’m very annoying that way. And I’m annoying on our show that way.

But I’ve got to check myself, too, because there are a lot of things that ring funny in my ear. And when they do, I go to the Google Ngram Viewer. Here’s what you can do with this. You plug in words and you plug in a range of dates, and it can go back to the 19th Century, but it goes up to – I think the latest it goes up to is 2010. You can plug in I think up to three words. And then you do all your parameters and you hit Search A Lot of Books I think is what the button says.

And it goes through all the books that are in the Google book app or whatever it is. And finds the occurrence of those words. And it graphs them.

And so if I think that reference to John August is too early, we wouldn’t be talking about John August until much later. We weren’t talking about him at all in 1983.

**John:** I’m a time-traveler you’ll find out.

**Stephen:** Oh, OK. Well I haven’t done it yet, but I’ll do it when I get home. You put John August in the Google Ngram Viewer and you see that it’s way down here in 1983, and then in 1994 it goes up there and you say, OK, we can’t be doing these John August references in 1983.

So, for anyone who has any interest in writing of any kind like this, it’s a really invaluable tool. And it’s free.

**John:** It’s free in the sense that all Google things are free.

**Stephen:** Meaning we’re paying for it every second of our lives.

**John:** Here is what – so it’s not just for historical things though. Here is where I use Google Ngram Viewer, and it’s so incredibly helpful. So, for Arlo Finch, I was going back and forth with the copy editor on certain words. And one of the choices was kneeled versus knelt. And I’m like, “Oh, they’re both words that are in the dictionary. Both are in use. But which one is more common and which one is on the upswing and which one is on the downswing?”

So Google Ngram Viewer can show you the trajectory of words.

**Stephen:** Nice.

**John:** And you can see that things like knelt is going away and kneeled is coming up. So, Arlo Finch kneeled rather than knelt because of Google Ngram Viewer. So it’s very, very helpful.

**Stephen:** Yes!

**John:** My One Cool Thing is – so we’re in a bookstore, and it’s bookstore staff picks, which are a very, very good thing. And so the book I’m specifically going to recommend is Megan Hunter’s The End We Start From. And I only know about this book because three days and a lifetime ago I was in San Francisco doing an event just like this and beforehand I was talking with one of the clerks about like talk me through what happens with staff picks.

And so she was talking about why she picked the books that were on the shelf that had her little tag on them. She described it and like this book sounds incredible. And so I would not have known about it except for an actual human being in a small, independent bookstore pointing me to it.

Megan Hunter’s book, The End We Start From, it’s written in this really spare style, and I’ll show it to you. The sentences – they’re just tiny little sentences and it feels almost more like a poem. I’ll read something.

“This is how it comes to be, H with his complicated knowledge again, untying ropes. Packing supplies. Making ready.“

The story actually follows some sort of global apocalypse and flood but it’s told from the point of view of this woman who has a newborn baby and basically kind of what happens next. It’s brilliantly done and it sort of feels like The Road if it was from a young mother’s point of view. Really well done. So I’d just encourage people to check out this book, but also while we’re here in a bookstore look at those staff picks. Read what they’re recommending, because those are smart people who like books. So, bookstore clerks and recommendations, that’s my One Cool Thing for this week.

**Stephen:** Very cool.

**John:** Very cool. Now is the time where we can do some questions from the audience. So this can be about The Americans, this can be about Arlo Finch, it can be about Scriptnotes. It can be about anything that we might be able to talk about. Who has a question? In the back I see.

I’m just going to repeat the question so everyone can hear it so we also have it on tape. Your question is how are you dealing with the fact that we know that they’re fighting a losing cause the whole time through in The Americans. Is that something you guys talk about as you’re plotting things out?

**Stephen:** We don’t, because that has hung over our heads from the beginning, and we know it as what we sleep with and live with and eat with. It does form an irony that arches over the show.

The other thing I hear behind your question and you could just say, “No, I don’t mean that all,” is the way – because we’re a period show, and I think it’s interesting to talk about period shows in general and you handle that. How you handle the artifacts. How you handle the references. And sometimes we’ve handled the references very, very directly and blatantly. I wrote an episode called The Magic of David Copperfield 5, the Statue of Liberty Disappears, which was the title of a TV show that we showed a piece of in the show.

In a case like that, we’re referring very directly and people can get all sort of warm and gooey and nostalgic about “Oh yeah I remember that, oh my god, I was there that night. I was on the couch with my parents.” Whatever it was.

I’ll give you an example though of the kind of thing we try not to do, because this just happened. Our new season, it’s not revealing anything that hasn’t been revealed to say, jumps three years and will take place in 1987. And we have a moment when Elizabeth is spying on someone and she’s in a hotel. And I had her in this scene reading a magazine. When it came time to figure out what the magazine was, and I looked at the timing and I went, “Oh, it should be Vanity Fair because I personally was a writer for Vanity Fair at the time. And it should be December because it’s taking place in December. It can be the December issue of Vanity Fair. I did the cover story of the December issue of Vanity Fair on Bette Midler.” And so we arranged everything. We were getting ready for it. We had a disguise that we call the Vanity Fair disguise to this day.

And then we got a copy of the cover, and in the corner there was a banner referring to an article inside and it was, of course, Trump. And then we said, oh, we can’t use this.

Now, a lot of shows, I think, or some people would have said, “Oh, great. That will be so cool because everybody will be…” That’s exactly what we don’t do and never do and avoid doing. And that’s part of our – that’s our taste. That’s the flavor of the show. You didn’t ask that question, but you got that answer.

**John:** Question right here sir. So a question about whether we would ever consider doing Scriptnotes as a book. And we’ve talked about it a couple of times. People have come to us with the idea of doing it. The closest we’ve come is we’ve taken all of the transcripts and asked our listeners to figure out which are the key episodes, like if you’re catching up on stuff right now. And so people have done recommendations. So at johnaugust.com/guide you can download the Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide, which basically highlights the best episodes of those.

We might end up packaging together those transcripts in some sort of form, but neither Craig nor I really have the bandwidth or the interest in sort of doing a physical book-book. And part of it is just because we have a bristling reaction against sort of like books on screenwriting.

**Stephen:** Me too.

**John:** Yeah. So I don’t think there’s going to be a Scriptnotes book per se, but now that I have said that aloud it will inevitably happen. So I will anti-manifest that.

**Stephen:** On our show we always say there are no joke pitches. Because every time someone throws out a pitch as a joke we wind up using it.

**John:** Yeah. Right here.

**Audience Member:** Hi, this is more of a craft question and I think it can apply to novel writing as well as screenwriting for both TV and features. Just sort of asking about the process of that first draft and whether that be a book or a pilot or something of the like. I guess in my own experience and I feel like this is alluded to in the show that rewriting and refining can be more satisfying than that first pass, but how do you both as writers like just get through that first hurdle of that first thing and like getting to the end for the first time and not – like I just feel like it can be so difficult to just shuffle through it for the first time. What does that look like for you guys?

**John:** Well, there’s always that conflict between just get it done and perfectionism. And perfectionism can be this trap where you just never actually make enough progress in something to actually get through it. And so you have to recognize that you can try your very best, but there’s going to be things you’re going to be rewriting and not be afraid to write this thing right now knowing that you’re going to have to go back and do it again.

I’ll say that when I’m writing a script for myself that doesn’t have a timeline or when I’m writing a book which had a timeline but not the same kind of timeline, I had to always just hold myself to I have to generate this amount of material. I have to sort of keep moving forward or else I’m never going to get done.

But I’m curious with you, because you have a real schedule and a timeline. You can’t be precious about this draft. Like this draft is going to take an extra two weeks for you to write, the whole train goes off the rails. So, what is that first draft like for you when it’s your script?

**Stephen:** Well, I have so many answers to that question, because my process is so different working on this TV show from the way it is when I’m writing a movie, for instance. I’ve worked on the TV show, we’ve gone through a group process and we’ve gone through beat sheets and more beat sheets. And we’ve gone through unblended and blended, because we have all these storylines. And we can follow individually and then they have to blend to make an episode. And we cut off the episode in different places and see how that works. And then we do outlines.

And the outlines are much more detailed and can vary a lot in how detailed they are. And so by the time you go to what we’re calling for this little thought experiment, a first draft, it doesn’t feel like my experience of a first draft at all.

**John:** So let’s say this is a script you’re going to write. How long is the document that you have before you start writing that script? Is it a ten-page outline?

**Stephen:** You mean for the show?

**John:** For your show.

**Stephen:** Well, everything about our show is a little odd that way because you always hear that, for instance, an hour-long TV is an hour’s worth of pages. Our scripts are now down to 40 pages or fewer. Very short. And sometimes a lot of scenes, sometimes not very many scenes. So that’s not a good measure of anything particularly. What I would say is that as we’ve learned our own show, we do a lot of freedoms within it. There’s going to be a scene, for instance, in one of our episodes this year that takes up an entire act, something like eight or nine pages, something we wouldn’t have considered doing because we weren’t brave enough four years ago. But now we know our people. We have the latitude to do that.

On the other hand, when I’m writing a movie script my process is completely different. And I am kind of perfectionistic. And I find myself going inside it every day and sort of going back, almost back to the beginning sometimes and going right through and then inching ahead a little bit, and then going back again. Because I need the sound of the story and the characters deep inside me before I can even make another utterance. So it’s like waves as the tide comes in. If the tide is not coming in, if it’s going out, you’re in trouble.

**John:** So that’s a classic thing writers describe where like the first thing they’ll do in the morning is rewrite the pages from the day before and it gets them back in the flow of things. And with screenplays, screenplays are short enough that you can kind of do that. It doesn’t take that long to sort of read through and do this.

What I realized with Arlo Finch is that the book is just so long, if I went back to chapter one every day to start working I would actually start writing again at 6pm. There’s so many words. And so for that I would write each chapter as a separate file and I don’t go back. And if I can’t remember the name of a character I’ll just bracket it and come back to it later on, so I couldn’t let myself keep getting sucked back into the past of it all.

**Stephen:** One thing that people describe to me very often is they do a vomit draft. It’s coming out, I don’t care how it looks, blah, blah, blah. I find that impossible. I don’t even know what that is.

**John:** And it’s a really bad term for it, too. Grant Faulkner, who does National Novel Writing Month, you know, that is a whole process where you’re trying to generate 1,667 words per day. But even he won’t say vomit draft because it just implies it should be shitty. It should be as good as you can make it realistically while constantly moving forward.

Another question?

I see a gentleman carrying a baby.

**Stephen:** The question was do we use consultants and experts and whether we ever have to stop ourselves from revealing something real. And the answer is yes we use a phalanx of consultants and experts and people who are – in fact, we have one guy named Keith Milton who is one of the founders of the Spy Museum in Washington and has the most formidable, maybe the largest collection of spy paraphernalia in the world and has written many books, including – I’m sure there are books here – including this beautiful illustrated book about spy stuff. And it has pictures from his collection.

And when you see – a couple seasons ago, for instance, I wrote a scene in which Elizabeth is about to kill a Pakistani diplomat. And he’s swimming in a hotel swimming pool. And he’s swimming alone as he does every night and this beautiful woman, Elizabeth, slips in and starts swimming. And she has something wrapped in a towel. And that something is a cyanide gun. And the cyanide gun mixes cyanide with some vapor to form cyanide gas. And then she can push him under the water and when he comes up for a gulp she can shoot the cyanide gun. Well, that cyanide gun is a real KGB cyanide gun provided to us by Keith Milton.

So we do have these consultants. We also have, however, the peculiar situation that our show’s creator, Joe Weisberg, was in the CIA. So he knows a lot of stuff and he has to, by agreement with the CIA, vet the stuff through the CIA so that we know that we’re not endangering national security.

At the same time, that means we have his fountain of knowledge which is extraordinary. And we’ve always had this thing that we call the spy card, which is we can imagine Joe holding up the spy card, meaning “I was a spy.” What that means is we might come up with the most incredible, wonderful idea for a storyline. Oh my god, then this happens, then this happens, then he does this. And if Joe goes like that, it means OK but actually that wouldn’t happen in the real world of spying as he experienced.

So that’s very helpful to us and helps make our show very, very realistic.

**John:** We talked at the start about suspension of disbelief. And so you get a couple of those in any project that you’re doing. And the suspension of disbelief in your show is the wigs and the makeup. That somehow they are remarkably talented and fast at being able to do wigs and makeup. But there’s not a lot of other cheating in your show which I think is why it feels real and genuine while the stakes feel real. Basically this could all happen except for how good their makeup is.

**Stephen:** I think that’s exactly the point. I think those four things that I mentioned at the start of our broadcast are our four cheats. And once you say, all right, I’ll give you that, then you’re inside the show and everything else is very real. As real as we can possibly make it. And double-checked and back-stopped and everything else.

**John:** Cool. Another question?

**Stephen:** The question was is it hard to be a writer on a TV show in New York and do we have to pull from LA, or go to LA, or get writers from LA. You know, New York is full of really, really, really great writers. And I think it’s time that our industry realized that and discovered that. We need many, many, many more writer’s rooms in New York. We need tax breaks for writer’s rooms in New York, which we’ve been trying to get through the Writers Guild of America. But it’s been very hard with our legislature. I can’t figure out why because it would be so good economically for the city and for the state in every way.

New York is teeming with writers. What it’s not teeming with is people who have been in a lot of other writer’s rooms because they haven’t been in a lot of other writer’s rooms. I’ve been in this business of writing scripts, mostly for movies, but recently for TV since the late ‘80s living in New York. Never moving, never having to move.

I’m not saying that’s an easy path and that everybody can get along that way. But I really think there’s no innate reason that we can’t have writer’s rooms in New York, and certainly we have the talent.

**John:** Great. One or two more questions. That’s a great question. So the question is to what degree do you wrestle with the fact that you’re going to be compared to other things and do you make choices based on knowing that you’re going to be compared to those things. Yes. I think you do make some choices. I often talk about expectations. And so there’s expectations of genre. There’s expectations of kind, basically like it’s this kind of show. It’s a procedural, it’s this. And if there aren’t a lot of examples about them that can hold you to the most notable example of that thing.

And so most people from middle grade fiction, they’ve heard of Harry Potter. They might have heard of Percy Jackson, but anything that’s kind of like that they’re going to compare it to that.

Your show, there aren’t great comps for it. I bet when they were first looking at this show, I think like Third Rock from the Sun in a weird way is a comparison because it’s this family living with a secret they don’t want to have exposed.

**Stephen:** I had not thought of that.

**John:** You know, we’ve had other spy shows, but never from that perspective. So, are there any things with The Americans or the other stuff you’ve written where you’re dealing with – and you’ve done sequels, too – where you’re dealing with comparisons to other examples that are out there?

**Stephen:** I think it is a great question because we live in an age of such an explosion of storytelling, of widely-available, publically-available storytelling. And you’re going to see stuff addressed over, and over, and over again. It’s very hard to come up with new stuff. It’s hard to come up with a new pitch. And I did a movie that came out last year called American Assassin that was basically a straight ahead action movie. And how many zillions of action scenes have there been?

One thing that we look at all the time, and I’m sure you look at it in your work, we all do: is this unexpected? Or is this the expected thing? And you’re dying to eliminate that which is expected. And yet keep it real. I mean, one way to eliminate that which is expected is to go way over the top. I think in the last Fast and Furious movie there was a chase between a car and a submarine. And that was like, “OK, that I have never seen before. It was very, very cool.” But we can’t have that in The Americans or we couldn’t have that in my movie.

So it’s a big – it’s a constant factor. It really is. There’s no two ways.

**John:** Yeah. And you’re always asking yourself am I making this choice because it’s the right choice for this story, or am I making this choice so I just don’t get compared to something else? And sometimes you’ll see movies doing things that are just – they’re not making probably the correct choice. They’re making the choice that makes them feel cool or new or original, but it’s the expected thing.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I have a semi-answer to it that just occurs to me as a possible approach which is when you’re in that bind and when you’re asking that question, return to character. Because you can have a situation that’s the same in many, many, many different – I mean, how many secret CIA organizations have there been out there? I’ve definitely written that. American Assassin was that. And others were that. And they’re going to be bound to be in certain of the same situations over and over again. And there’s going to be someone following them and they’re going to turn the tables on them. How do you make that new?

In some ways you can’t make that part of it new. You can’t make the outline of it new. The pitch of it new. Maybe not even the weapons or the circumstances. But if you think about your characters and go what’s my guy feeling? What would he do? What would he pick up around him? What would he do with his clothes? What would he do because last night he had a bad experience with this? Whatever it is, you can begin to find your way out and back into some kind of originality.

**John:** Great. That was the most Craig answer ever, so I think we’re going to leave it there. That was a really great answer. Our show, Scriptnotes, is produced by Megan McDonnell who is fantastic. Our music is done by Matthew Chilelli. He also did all the music for Launch, the podcast, and he is remarkable as well.

I’m @johnaugust on Twitter. Are you on Twitter?

**Stephen:** No.

**John:** No. He’s not on Twitter. Don’t ask him any questions about The Americans, but do tune in to see the Americans on FX starting–

**Stephen:** March 28th at, what is it, 10? Whenever you recorded it.

**John:** Whenever your DVR finds it. Stephen Schiff, thank you so, so much for coming on the show.

**Stephen:** Thank you. I had a great time. Thank you.

Links:

* [Stephen Schiff](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0771496/) currently works on [The Americans](http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/the-americans). Its final season premieres on March 28th.
* Thank you, [McNally Jackson Independent Booksellers](http://www.mcnallyjackson.com/event/scriptnotes-live-podcast-recording-author-john-august) for hosting our live show!
* [Google Ngram Viewer](https://books.google.com/ngrams)
* Bookstore staff recommendations, which led John to [The End We Start From](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802126898/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Megan Hunter
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](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/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([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_337.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 198: Back to 100 — Transcript

May 19, 2015 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2015/back-to-100).

**Present John:** Hey this is John. I am traveling this week, and Craig is super busy, so we haven’t been able to find time to record an episode this week.

Longtime listeners know that I listen to a lot of podcasts, while Craig listens to exactly zero. Or one, if he listens to Scriptnotes, which I’m not convinced he does. So, Craig will have no idea that a lot of podcasts, like Planet Money, do episodes where they take old shows and record new stuff to provide updates on what’s happened since it first aired. So that’s what I want to do today. I’m going to be breaking in a few times during the show to fill in additional details about things that have happened.

Since we’re quickly approaching our 200th episode, I thought we’d travel back to our last centennial: episode 100, recorded live in front of an audience in July 2013.

This episode remains one my favorite experiences making Scriptnotes, because it was the first time we realized holy shit, actual people are listening to the show. Which reminds me, there is swearing in this episode, so parental guidance is recommended.

So let me set the scene. We’re in a giant warehouse space that used to be a yoga studio, but at the time was owned by The Academy, who used it for special events. If you know Hollywood, we’re right next to the Arclight theaters. In fact, that space is now the offices for BuzzFeed Motion Pictures, which in 2013 would have seemed insane.

We have about 250 people in the crowd, and because there was free alcohol, they’re especially enthusiastic.

As we start the episode, you’re going to hear theme music created by Matthew Chilleli. At the time, I’d never met him, but he’d later become the editor of the show — including the episode you’re listening to right now.

The announcer is a guy named Travis, who I found online. He’s great. Here’s a tip: if you ever need a voiceover for a project, Google Voiceover and you’ll find great freelancers. You Paypal them some money and they record whatever you want.

Craig had no idea there was going to be intro music, which was part of the fun.

**Announcer:** Live from Hollywood, California, it’s the 100th Episode of Scriptnotes.

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, it’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are inTEResting to screenwriters.

Thank you so much for being here. We’re live here in Hollywood at the Academy Lab Space Theatre. Thank you to the Academy for having us here. It’s kind of amazing.

**Craig:** Thank you. I’d like to thank the Academy. I will never say that again. Never have a chance, ever to ever say, I’d like to… — God, I’d like to thank the Academy. Let’s just do it a bunch of times. I — I — I’d like to thank the Academy.

**John:** I feel like we need to have Dennis Palumbo here to help talk you through the emotions you’re feeling right now.

**Craig:** It would be good.

**John:** Yeah. Specifically, I need to thank Greg Beal and Bettina Fisher for putting this together and their tremendous stuff.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Thank you so much — because Craig and I talked in a very general sense like, “Oh, you know we’re going to hit 100 episodes at some point.” And so then we actually looked at the calendar, it’s like, “Oh, it’s going to be some time in the end of July. We’ll both be in town and we could theoretically do a live event.” We sort of put it out in the universe in sort of a The Secret kind of way like maybe somebody will want us to do a live event. And it was the Academy. So this is amazing and thank you very much for having us here tonight.

**Craig:** It’s pretty awesome and that Nicholls Fellowship and Nicholls, you know that wonderful screenwriting, the one screenwriting contest that matters frankly.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Is sponsoring all the food and the wine and the beer. So…

**John:** Yeah. I think in some ways like we’re a fundraiser for them but they’re kind of fundraising for us and it’s kind of amazing. It’s an educational outreach. So thank you very much for this existing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, this is our hundredth episode.

**Craig:** One Hundred.

**John:** And it’s kind of remarkable. Do you have a favorite episode of the episodes we’ve recorded?

**Craig:** Well, I’m kind of partial to the one where I opened my heart up and bled all over the keyboard there…

**John:** The dark night of your soul.

**Craig:** The dark midnight of my soul.

**John:** After the terrible reviews.

**Craig:** Yeah. After the terrible…

**John:** Which of the two movies?

**Craig:** All of them.

**John:** Yeah. Right.

**Craig:** All of them. That was good. That felt good, actually.

**John:** It felt good. Yeah.

**Craig:** I actually got something out of the podcast for once which was nice.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I really liked, even though it was the one that we just did so it feels a little bit like a cheap, and I don’t know if you guys have heard podcast 99, but that’s the one we did with Dr. Dennis Palumbo and that was great.

**John:** That was great. And so that was our sort of psychotherapy for screenwriters and that was a… — It’s recent to you but we actually recorded it like three weeks ago and we knew, it was like, “God, that’s really good.” It was one of those situations where we’re actually live in a room like, “Wow, that’s going to be a good episode.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I’m happy that turned out really well.

**Craig:** But…

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Favorite podcast out of the one hundred?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Raiders.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Raiders.

**John:** The Raiders episode was probably my favorite too because it was the first time we were doing something just completely brand new. We were just focusing on one episode. And what I liked so much about Raiders is we could talk about the movie that we were watching but we could also look back at the transcript and see like, “This is the process they went through to make that movie that we loved so much.” And I thought tonight we could actually go back and do the transcripts of how this podcast came to be.

**Craig:** Because it’s as important as Raiders.

**John:** Yes. Maybe as seminal an event in film history. And so this afternoon I went through email archives and found the four emails between me and Craig Mazin about this podcast. So this is the entirety of the planning for the original Scriptnotes. So this is actually what happened.

So this is June 27, 2011, 1:17 pm, I wrote to Craig, “Subject: Podcasts. Do you listen to any? I had dismissed them as a fad but now I find myself listening to several, wondering if you would have any interest in doing a joint podcast on screenwriting?”

**Craig:** “I don’t. But then again, I didn’t read any blogs either and then I wrote one for five years. A podcast would solve my ‘I want to talk about screenwriting but I’m tired of writing about screenwriting’ problem, so, yes, count me in. What sort of thing were you thinking?”

**John:** This is at 3:04 pm, “I was thinking a weekly thing in which we would talk about the Issues of the Day for screenwriters and the film industry, loose, not edited. The first couple would probably be a cluster-fuck but we’d get better at it. Then we would go in with a mutually agreed list of things we want to discuss. Most of these podcasts seem to be done remotely on Google Talk or some such. I’ll have my guy Ryan,” — Ryan Nelson! — “look into them to see what would be involved. My guess is that at most you’d need headphones with attached mic to plug into your computer. Some of the best podcasts are the ones Dan Benjamin does on 5by5 [url]. This is the one he does with the John Gruber of Daring Fireball [url].”

**Craig:** I should mention I did not listen to any of them but 16 minutes later I wrote back, “Perfect. Sounds like it is easy and fun! And easy! And fun! At this age, that’s all I care about. I’ll check out the podcasts you cite below for inspiration.”

**John:** Yeah. It’s a lie. The first of many lies in our relationship over the course of making the show.

**Craig:** And you can see a theme emerging here at the beginning. He had the idea and then had all the details and I said, “Sure!”

**John:** Yeah. “Just tell me when to sign on.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So that was the initial sort of a spark of the show and now we’re a hundred episodes later.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**John:** And tonight we get to talk about the same stuff that we’ve been talking about for hundred episodes which is screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

**Craig:** To screenwriters.

**John:** Tonight we’re going to talk about…

**Craig:** Wait, wait, hold on.

**John:** What?

**Craig:** I have to say it’s really cool that you guys showed up. I really do. I mean, I have to say…

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s just cool. I’m a little verklempt because people really do enjoy the podcast and it’s great and I often tell people, “It’s just John and I. I always look at it as like we’re having a phone conversation for an hour each week.” But it’s great to see a little love reflected back and I really appreciate all the people, you guys bought tickets. I mean, granted, it was five dollars and so I’m not going to give you that much praise for it but still, you know, you parked, right?

**John:** Yeah. You drove to Hollywood.

**Craig:** You drove to Hollywood and you parked. Nice.

**John:** Ah! Nice.

**Craig:** And that’s the kind of ethic that we support.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** So thank you guys. That’s great.

**John:** Craig, this is an honest conversation here. Did you ever consider bailing on the podcast?

**Craig:** Not once. No.

**John:** I did.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** Right around in the 50s.

**Craig:** Was it because of me? [laughs]

**John:** No. I just had sort of, getting tired of it.

**Craig:** I mean, here’s the truth. You know I’ll never bail on it because you make it so, so easy for us. So it it’s like I just show up and there is food in front of me and I eat it. I mean, you and Stuart. — Stuart is real. The guy here tonight who is playing Stuart, we have a different guy.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Where’s our Stuart?

**John:** No, it is a real Stuart?

**Craig:** Where’s the Stuart tonight that we have?

**John:** Stuart who’s here tonight. Can you raise your hand. There is he, here’s tonight’s Stuart.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s tonight’s Stuart.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not, I mean, basically we’re like, okay, we just go, they have books of like we need a curly-haired ginger and then we get one.

Stuart does so much.

**John:** We hired Stuart from the Disney Channel. He’s actually one of the… — He was a kid actor who aged out and then that’s who we got.

**Present John:** So, Stuart Friedel is officially a real person. He’s my assistant and he also produces the show. And It’s strange that this sort of the “cult of Stuart” has arisen, really probably starting with this episode. Because people will hear his name and know that he works on the podcast. He has a sort of mythical quality that happened. He’s sort of our Snuffaluffagus, like is he a real person or is he not a real person. And it’s just weird that this sort of Stuart Friedel meme has occurred.

But people will recognize his name. Like, he was in New York and he was at a bar talking to some folks and he said his name was Stuart. It was like, “Oh wait — you’re not Stuart Friedel from Scriptnotes?” And he is Stuart Friedel from Scriptnotes. And that will probably haunt him for quite a long time.

I don’t have any plan on fixing his being haunted by Scriptnotes, but we’ve been talking about when do you actually have Stuart on the show as a real person who introduces himself and answers questions.

And that will probably come whenever it is time for Stuart to move on. He’s a writer himself; he’s written some really great scripts that are going to pull him out of this office pretty soon.

But whenever that happens, we will have him on for an exit interview, and we will talk through all the secrets of Stuart and Scriptnotes and how it all works.

So: Stuart Friedel, this is for you.

**Craig:** He aged out. Exactly and so we caught him before he went full Amanda Bynes and… [Audience: “Ohhhhh.”] — Oh, okay, well she’s crazy. It’s not my fault. Anyway, no, I’ve never thought about it, but please don’t leave me.

**John:** All right. I won’t. I won’t.

**Craig:** I can’t quit you.

**John:** We’re good. Actually, as I was putting together the music for tonight I put together a lot of sort of like the break up songs just to try to set up that idea that maybe this was going to be the end.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** It was actually the last episode of Scriptnotes, but it’s not now. So we’re good. Fine.

Tonight, we’re actually going to talk about some things that are interesting to screenwriters including something that Craig calls Screenwriter-Plus.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We’ll get into that.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** We’ll talk about that Slate article that literally everyone in the audience tweeted me saying like, “Hey, you should talk about this” Yeah. We know. We will talk about this.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So it’s Slate article about how…

**Craig:** It’s fun. There is like you get that tweet of, “I’m sure everyone’s mentioned this to you,” and that is the one you get 15,000 times.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** “I’m sure everyone has mentioned.” Well then, if you’re sure…

**John:** Yeah. Well, so we will talk about that thing because that would be useful to talk about. Before we get into that though there is a little bit of housekeeping, because there’s always housekeeping on our show.

**Craig:** Always housekeeping.

**John:** There is always a little housekeeping.

We switched our server that the podcast is on. So if for some reason episode 99 did not show up properly in your feed or your device or your app or wherever you expect it to be, that’s probably because your system logged in at just exactly the wrong moment when Ryan was switching stuff over and so if that happens delete the thing that you have there and re-add it in iTunes or however you add it into your thing. It’ll be there; it will be magic.

The reason why we switched stuff up over is because there is some cool new stuff that’s coming next week that you’ll see that we had to go to a newer server to support. So, enjoy that.

Secondly, Craig, I have here something that you’re going to be so excited to see. This is the Golden Ticket. So, when we sent out the t-shirts we said, “Oh, you know what? There should be a Golden Ticket that’s provided with one t-shirt.” This was your idea, Craig.

**Craig:** I had one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I had an idea.

**John:** It didn’t work out so well.

**Craig:** Here’s why…

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** So the idea was somebody would open up their t-shirt package and there would be this Thank You card that everybody got and then they would turn it over and it would have the special message just for them, there was one of them.

**John:** Yeah. It was handwritten.

**Craig:** Yeah. And Stuart and Ryan — it’s fair to say Stuart and Ryan, or not that guy, but the real Stuart and Ryan — they never sent it out.

**John:** Yeah. Okay. But let’s talk about why it never got sent out. So, Craig, there is this big box of the postcards that went in with t-shirts and so Craig is like, “Well, let’s do this” and so, “Okay. That’s a good idea.” It seemed like a good idea. This is when we were recording the Dennis Palumbo episode. And so we’d sign all these cards, it’s a lot of cards to sign. And so we did this one special card and Craig put it back in the box, so like, ah, I have no idea where it is in the box.

**Craig:** Right. That’s the point.

**John:** It should be the point. It’s magical and like you don’t know where it’s going to be.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But then finally like no one was writing in. So like I said, “Guys, look through the rest of the box,” and there it was.

**Craig:** Well…

**John:** Yeah. It’s kind of a bummer. What was the idea behind the golden ticket?

**Craig:** Well, the idea was you would get the golden ticket and on the back, well, here, I’ll read it.

**John:** Yeah. Well, it didn’t really quite say, but…

**Craig:** Oh, you’re right. Oh, yeah. “This is the golden ticket, email ‘Prairie’…”

**John:** Prairie was the magic word.

**Craig:** “…’Prairie’ to ask@johnaugust.com to tell us that you got it.” And then what we would tell you is, “John and I will read your script and we’ll talk to you about your script.” And we’ll, I mean, we’re not going to help you really. But we’ll give you feedback and stuff. You know.

**John:** Yeah. That would be nice.

**Craig:** Yeah. But it’s too bad. There is no…

**John:** I mean, would that have been a good thing? I mean, who would have been excited to get that? Yeah? Craig, I wish there was a way we could do that. I mean, we got to find another way to do that. I mean, whenever life sets challenges for me I usually think, “What would Oprah do?”

**Craig:** Oprah!

**John:** And it’s got me through so much.

**Craig:** What would Oprah do?

**John:** Well, you know what she would do? She would tell people to look underneath their chair; there might be something under one person’s chair.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** In the audience tonight.

**Craig:** So maybe they should look under their chairs.

**John:** Maybe everyone should look underneath their chairs.

**Craig:** Take a look under your chair.

**John:** Take a look under your chair. Take a feel under your chair.

**Craig:** Because one of you might have it. Look under your chairs.

**John:** Someone in this audience might have something that’s different than everyone else’s.

**Craig:** Someone has it. Anyone? Anyone? No?

Ya!

**John:** Oh my god! Come on up here and the audience can meet you.

**Craig:** Awesome!

**John:** What’s your name?

**Matt Smith:** My name is Matt Smith.

**John:** Matt Smith, I’m John August.

**Matt:** Hi, I met you in Chicago.

**John:** Oh, yeah! So, great.

**Craig:** What happened in Chicago?

**John:** We made a musical called Big Fish. You don’t really keep up with this…

**Craig:** Hey, hopefully you don’t have a script or anything like that. Do you?

**John:** Are you a writer?

**Matt:** Several.

**Craig:** Oh geez.

**John:** All right. So, do you have a script that you think would be appropriate for us to read?

**Matt:** Sure.

**John:** All right.

**Matt:** It’s like a pilot.

**John:** Oh pilots are great. We love.

**Craig:** It’s shorter than a screenplay!

**John:** [laughs] There’s a reason!

**Matt:** I could give you a short film if you want a short one.

**Craig:** What’s the shortest thing you got?

**John:** Yeah.

**Matt:** 130 pages.

**John:** So it’s a pilot?

**Matt:** Yeah.

**John:** I love a pilot.

**Craig:** Great! Awesome! Can we read it?

**Matt:** Sure.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** So the guy who is playing Stuart is going to track you down later on. He’s going to give you a magic email address that you’ll email to and…

**Matt:** Awesome.

**John:** We’ll talk about it.

**Matt:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** You just got Oprahed! Awesome.

**John:** All right. Thank you so much.

**Craig:** I’m glad that worked out.

**Present John:** So, a few weeks later, we read Matt’s script. And we didn’t record it as an episode; it didn’t feel like it wanted to be an episode, and he wasn’t ready to share his script with the world.

I kind of remember it — I think it was a pilot, it was a summer camp. And there were things we liked about it and things that really weren’t working about it. And that’s sort of the nature of all scripts.

A really valuable experience I think for Matt, but also for us. It was just a phone call that wasn’t recorded, but it became the template for how we would talk about an entire screenplay on the podcast, which — many episodes later, in episode 190, we looked at KC Scott’s This is Working. And that really kind of had its genesis in the Golden Ticket that was found underneath Matt Smith’s chair.

So next up, we have our first guest who truly was our first guest: Aline Brosh McKenna. She was our first guest on the episode way back when in a live show we did. She’s had the most apperances on the show to date; she probably always will. She’s the only person who Craig has given me permission to bring on the show if he’s not available to record.

We call her our Joan Rivers because, well, she is indispensable in that way.

**John:** I was terrified that was not going to work out. Yeah.

**Craig:** Some guy is going to be like, “Nah! It’s never me. I’m not looking. I won’t look under my seat.”

**John:** No. No. No.

— I’m really not just checking Twitter. This is where all my notes are here.

It’s time to get onto the real meat of our show. And our first guest, and when I say first guest she really is our first guest. She was our first guest at our live show —

**Craig:** She was.

**John:** — in Austin, Texas. This is the writer of Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses, the upcoming Cinderella. She is a friend of the show, a fan of the show. She’s kind of…

**Craig:** She’s our Joan Rivers.

**John:** She’s our Joan Rivers. This is Aline Brosh McKenna. Come on up.

**Craig:** Come on, Aline. Steps. You get yellow microphone.

**John:** Ooh!

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** You don’t have your wine.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** We talked about this before we started, because the ideal amount of wine to have before recording a podcast is…

**Craig:** Between one and two glasses.

**Aline:** Craig said between one and two glasses. So this is the half.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s your, you’re onto your half

**Aline:** That’s my half. I’m on my half. I did it.

**Craig:** I did a full. I did one. That’s technically.

**Aline:** You did? Okay.

**John:** I did a little less than one. It’s a lot, so…

**Aline:** So I’m going to be way more entertaining.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Than both of you.

**John:** Let’s get to our first topic which is…

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig suggested this topic which is what is called Screenwriter-Plus. So what is a Screenwriter-Plus? What are you talking about here?

**Craig:** Well, I’ve been thinking about this lately because as we talk to people about the way our business is changing it occurred to me that there’s been this kind of huge change and I’m not sure anyone is really specifically talking about it in nature and that is what I call screenwriter, the job of Screenwriter-Plus.

When I started in the business, and we all pretty much started at the same time, it was fairly common for feature film writers to write a screenplay and then turn it into the studio and the studio and the producer would talk to you about your screenplay and then one day they’d say, “Okay, we’re interested in making this. We’re going to go find a director and a movie star.” And then they found those people and those people would talk to you maybe briefly or not. Maybe they would have somebody else come in and do a little thing or not. And then they go make the movie.

And you would show up at the premiere. That was kind of a routine sort of thing, not always, but often. It is so different now and there is this new position, there is just like a new way of thinking about a screenwriter and that is a screenwriter who — and forget titles — don’t worry about producer, producer-director, screenwriter. Just screenwriter. A screenwriter who writes a screenplay works with the studio and the producer, works with the director, works with the actors, is there during prep, is there during shooting, is there during editing, is in meetings talking about marketing, essentially as involved as the director is and maybe even more so because they pre-date the director often.

And so I wanted to talk a little bit about what you guys think about, is that real? Is that something that’s definitely happening and if it is, is it something that you need to be doing as a screenwriter and if so how do you get into that sort of thing, particularly if you’re trying to break into the business?

**Aline:** Well, I think partly the reason that’s happened is because of television and because there is such an ascendancy of television, so people are used to writer-producers. So they’re used to writers performing those functions. And I also think it’s because there are just fewer jobs, they’re less likely to bring in multiple writers on movies now. They kind of want to get their money’s worth and towards the end your steps towards the end you’re getting paid less money and they’re like, “Oh, we have this guy and he’s around. We’ve already paid for him and he’ll do this and maybe he’ll come look at this and look at some footage and …”

So, I’ve definitely notice that. And also as we were talking about earlier, there are a lot more writers who have become producers, who really have become officially producers and produce their own stuff and produce other people’s stuff. So I’ve definitely noticed that, but I think it’s any time you’re in a position to really protect your own work and to have input, it’s a great thing whether you get the title or not.

**John:** When you said showrunners I immediately was thinking about the guys who are doing these jobs right now and Damon Lindelof comes in on a movie, he was a showrunner, he comes in like Kurtzman/Orci, they come from that TV background where the writer is responsible for the script but also for this is the whole package, this is the everything, this is the marketing, this is the running of the show. Simon Kinberg, who you worked with, is the same kind of guy who does just features but very much is that guy. You think of him as much as being the guy who sort of delivers the movie as much as the guy who is putting the words on the page.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there are guys like Chris McQuarrie who have really done almost only features but they do this kind of thing. There has also been an interesting change in the way writers and directors work with each other because there was a kind of a weird antipathy between the two camps when I first started in movies. It was, I mean, sometimes you had directors that were really imperious, sometimes you had directors that were really cool but they almost felt like it was part of their job to exclude the writer. It was like their peer group essentially pressured them to sort of say, “Well, if you have a writer on the set you’re a loser, you’re not a real director” That seems to have changed almost to the point of being obliterated and gone the other way where they want you there, which is great I think.

**John:** A writer can be the director’s best ally, because the writer is there remembering what the intention was behind things and can be someone to back you up. So if you have a great relationship with the director that’s an incredibly useful thing.

I was thinking back through sort of my own movies and there have been movies which I’ve been in that function, sort of that writer plus. My very first movie Go, I was there before we hired Doug, I was there for every frame shot in second unit, I was in the editing room the whole time through; that was very much that function.

And Charlie’s Angels was that, too. I was there before McG was there and I sort of came back in. And even though a zillion other writers worked on that movie I was the guy who sort of captured the vision of things around because I had a relationship with Drew to sort of steer through.

But the Tim Burton movies, not at all. The Tim Burton movies I’ve been the writer and I show up to give them the script and help in pre-production but I’m not there…

**Craig:** Well, that’s interesting because that’s almost a generational thing because that Tim Burton does sort of — he became powerful in the 90s when that was still going on but, you know, like so I worked with Todd Phillips. He’s not like that at all. Seth Gordon is not like that at all. Marc Forster is not like that at all. So it just…

**Aline:** I mean, it’s always been confusing to me because I don’t understand why everyone isn’t clamoring for a writer on the set. I always feel like don’t you want the guy who’s just going to sit in his trailer and then things happen, you’re on location or something is not working out with an actor, you have a costume change, whatever, don’t you want to be able to run to that guy and have them fix it and change it? Because there are situations where the director who has so much to do is trying to figure out how to figure out a new piece of dialogue to cover something. And I think it’s strange that it’s not the other way — that they’re not begging us to be on set.

**Craig:** Well, I feel like they are now in a weird way. I never understood it. A lot of screenwriters would sit around and talk about this. I remember Phil Robinson said once. He said something to me and I was like, “Oh, yeah, that’s a great point.” Like, okay, we can grouch about how we’re not there but I guess the director, they have their thing, whatever. He’s like, “There is a standby painter, there’s a guy who literally just stands there and if something has to be painted…”

**Aline:** In case there needs some painting. Yeah.

**Craig:** In case something needs to be painted. But there is not somebody to be there in case a line needs to be written? It’s kind of crazy. And it never made sense and I kept waiting around for somebody to make sense of it for me and it seemed like instead the business went, “Oh, yeah, oh, no, it doesn’t actually make sense.”

**John:** But we talked about sort of who the directors are and some of the generational shift that they may be more inclusive of the writer and I think to J.J. Abrams who is having those guys around all the time because he came up in the television world.

**Aline:** Well, he came up in both. I mean, I would say that the guys who do that come out of two things. One is TV and the other one is production rewrites. So the production rewrite guys, which is Simon, and J.J. was that guy too, and McQuarrie, you know, the kind of high end guys, they’re accustomed to being on a set, solving problems, really being there in the same way as a TV writer-producer. So those guys are really accustomed to solving problems in a production situation.

Not all writers know how to do that, really, and it’s something that I know you’ve talked about and worked on, you have to kind of be there and get that experience and if you’ve been in television or you’ve done production rewrites you’ve been on production, some of the other — if you — before you’ve done that — we’ve had this conversation before where writers don’t always know how to comport themselves.

**Craig:** Right.

**Aline:** And then there is this other kind of fascinating thing that I always think about which is there is this tremendous blind date that happens in the middle of your movie getting made which is you write a script and then it goes out to directors and it’s always like, “Well, I hope this goes okay.” Like you bring in a guy, you have a meeting, they say something. It’s like, “It sounds good. I don’t know. It seems okay.”

**John:** But it’s not even really a blind date though; it’s really an arranged marriage. Like, “This is good, this is going to work out. Right? This is going to work.”

**Aline:** Right. That’s true. A blind date implies choice.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You’re not going to throw acid on my face, right?

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Something stupid like that.

**Aline:** Yeah. But it is this incredible thing where like it’s not just creatively what they want but it’s also how they like to work and do they want writers around? Is that something that they want? Every guy is different, guy or gal.

**Craig:** Well, that’s true. And I think also that if you’re writing comedy you will likely end up in a situation where you get some of that experience because there is a certain immediacy with comedy and a lot of comedy writers end up on set trying to make things work if things are going a little sideways.

But I guess that brings up the question for all these guys. Okay, you’re starting out and the old narrative is, write a screenplay and then someone gets attached and someone gets attached and then it goes into the black box and a movie comes out. But that’s probably not going to really — that’s not necessarily what you want to aspire to anymore. What you want to aspire to is be part of the filmmaking process. To that end, it doesn’t make sense to say to budding screenwriters and aspiring screenwriters, “Don’t be — don’t settle just for I’m writing a great script. Learn how movies are made because if you don’t you’ll never know the other half of the job.” It’s like you’re a plumber that works on stuff until they turn the water on, but…

**Aline:** Well, we’ve seen that a lot of times. We know people who just — they just don’t know what to do when they get on the set. They don’t know how to behave, they don’t know where to get the food, they don’t know where to sit, they don’t know how to act… And the other thing is, younger —

**Craig:** Food is…

**Aline:** — Yeah. It’s important to know where it is and not to put your hand in the cereal box.

**John:** No. Dump out.

**Aline:** Yeah. So…

**Craig:** That happens?

**Aline:** Oh, I’ve seen that.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** But the other thing is younger people have access to production in a way that we did not.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Aline:** I mean, those guys are all making movies. Everybody has made a movie; everybody is making a movie, everybody’s shooting a video. I mean, I’m working with a young woman now who shoots and produces and directs and does her own shorts; and so they have a lot more experience with production then I think we did when we were coming up and that’s great. You really have to understand how it’s made and also how to contribute, how to really make a contribution in a positive way to being part of the crew.

**John:** The general advice I would say for the aspiring writers who wonder sort of, “How do I become the Screenwriter Plus?” First you have to be a screenwriter, you have to be able to write generally to start, but you also have to really think of yourself as a filmmaker and so your function of filmmaking is to create that initial screenplay but to also be able to change and roll with it as things happen and so a lot of times the problem-solving you’re doing on the set isn’t because of a difficult actor, although a lot of times it’s the difficult actor. It’s because you lost a location or like suddenly we can’t make this thing work. So if we have this location versus this location, how do we make this scene work in this space?

**Aline:** I think it’s helpful to say, “It’s perfect. Just do it.”

**John:** Yeah. Don’t change the line.

**Aline:** I’m kidding.

**Craig:** Sometimes that actually works.

**John:** Sometimes you do. Sometimes that is the right answer but sometimes you need to be able to explain back and so I think I often credit you with saying this but I think you may not have been the first person that…

**Craig:** He is wrongly crediting you for a thing.

**Aline:** What did I say was brilliant?

**John:** The screenwriter is the only person who’s already seen the movie.

**Aline:** I don’t think I said that but I’ll pretend I did.

**John:** Okay, the useful thing to remember as a screenwriter is that you as a screenwriter have already seen the movie and the director and everybody else has not seen the movie because they didn’t write it, and they didn’t have that in their head and so sometimes they’ll make a choice that is not the right choice because they’re just still not quite getting the movie that’s in your head. And so if you could be there to help explain that in a very tactful way about what the intention was…

**Aline:** And also just you have custody of the story. It’s like Craig said, you know, there is all these like department heads and they have custody of certain parts of it and you have custody of the story.

I once had a director call me and he said, “I’m standing here on the set and there is a character in the scene. I don’t think he’s supposed to be here…”

**John:** [laughs]

**Aline:** “I think he’s supposed to have already gone home but I’m really tired.”

**John:** [laughs]

**Aline:** “And I can’t remember if this guy is supposed to be here or not.”

And I was like, “No. He’s drunk. He was walked home before that scene.”

He was like, “Thank you.” Just to have somebody around who actually knows, that’s all you have thought of.

**John:** It’s a call sheet mistake. Like his little number got put on the call sheet.

**Aline:** Right. But that’s why when I feel like a confident filmmaker is happy to have a writer there in charge of the story department to ask questions, but part of that is I think we need to acclimate directors and producers that we are going to behave in a helpful productive manner.

**Craig:** That’s right. And then ultimately the director is responsible for what’s going on to the film or the flash drive and because they’re responsible they have to have authority. You can’t have responsibility without authority. If you can figure out how to have a respectful relationship with that person and acknowledge that they have authority and accountability for what they’re doing you’ll be the greatest help to them.

One exercise that I would suggest is if you have some material, little something short that you want to shoot yourself, even if it’s just with your phone and you have somebody that you know who is also trying this, swap and see what it’s like to interpret somebody else’s work, and watch how many choices you make and watch how off you can be from what they thought it was supposed to be. Not necessarily bad, right, but start to understand what it’s like to be in those shoes.

And the more you can understand the nature of production, the psychological nature of production and also the procedural nature of production the more useful you will be to it and the more useful you’re to it the better chance you have to actually protect what matters.

**Aline:** Yeah. I also want to say those guys like J.J. and Alex, Bob and Simon, those guys are really as they produce stuff, even producing stuff that they didn’t write, they’re just invaluable on set because they’ve done the other job, too. So they understand how to communicate with writers. I mean, that’s why I’ve really enjoyed working with those guys who are producers but were writers first because I feel like they speak writer and I have such a good shorthand with them and they understand how to solve problems in a way that I understand. So I really love that. I think those guys are uniquely equipped to deal with the writing part of it is as producers.

**John:** Well, let’s get to next topic which is talking about the writing itself. And to join us on this topic I want to invite a gentleman who was one of my first assistants. He is a frequent suggester of material for our podcasts. He is the one who suggested 15 is the new 30 and which was a whole topic that we talked about. He’s also made some movies. He wrote and directed this movie called Dodgeball, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh. He has this movie called We’re the Millers which comes out really soon. So, maybe you should go see that movie.

**Craig:** Couple of weeks.

**John:** Couple of weeks. August 7th I believe. So maybe we can hype that. This is Rawson Marshall Thurber. Rawson get up here.

**Present John:** So I think I’ve talked about this on the podcast before, but Rawson Thurber was actually one of my very first assistants, way back in the day when I was doing a terrible TV show called DC for the WB network.

I hired Rawson — he was a Starkie, he was interning at William Morris in the mailroom there. And so I first met him, he was wearing this ill-fitting suit, and it was the last time I saw him in a suit. I guess I’ve seen him in suits for like his wedding and other things, but he’s not a suit wearer by nature.

So Rawson Thurber at this time of recording the episode, he had just directed We’re the Millers. We didn’t know then it was going to be a huge hit — it was a huge hit. And it really changed the trajectory of his directing career.

He had done some other movies beforehand, but this really put him on a lot bigger lists for bigger movies.

The one he’s directing now is Central Intelligence starring Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Heart. It’s shooting in Boston right now.

Rawson is always awesome.

**Craig:** Rawson! There he is. And Rawson for those of you who don’t know is the best-looking male screenwriter.

**Aline:** Yeah. There is a competition ongoing. There’s a calendar…

**Craig:** Well, we had a little chit-chat about it. There is a calendar. One question about the calendar, that we didn’t know, and you guys just mull this over, in sexy calendars is it supposed to get sexier as you go through the year? Is December better?

**Aline:** Well, there is this thing where there are lot of screenwriters who were…

[Audience member: Yes!]

**Craig:** Yes. She says yes.

**Aline:** Are there? Is it really…?

**Craig:** She says December is the hot one.

**Aline:** Is December hotter, is better than January? I don’t think so. But a lot of the good-looking screenwriters were actors.

**Craig:** Right, but he’s not.

**Aline:** And that disqualifies them. So that rockets Rawson right up there.

**Craig:** Right.

**Rawson Marshall Thurber:** Thank you. That’s so kind.

**Craig:** We don’t count, like, so he’s made a movie with Jennifer Aniston, she’s married to Justin Theroux. He’s a screenwriter…

**Aline:** Does not count.

**John:** Does not count.

**Craig:** But he’s an actor. Doesn’t count. That’s it. It’s not fair to us to include actors.

**John:** We have to be judged against your own cohort.

**Craig:** Right. And against his own cohort…

**John:** Also pretty good. What’s weird is that I think of Rawson as like this young child who came in to interview for an assistant job and you were working at the William Morris mailroom. You came in dressed in like a suit that did not fit you very well.

**Rawson:** No.

**John:** This is at Dick Wolf’s company and like you were on like a lunch break from William Morris and you kept being so insistent about like, “What my salary is going to be…?”

**Rawson:** Yeah. Yeah.

**John:** I think your dad had sort of drilled that into you, too, didn’t he?

**Rawson:** And gave me the suit. It was both of those things.

**Craig:** “Son, two bits of advice: wear my lucky suit and demand a salary over and over.”

**Rawson:** Yeah. I think I was just being paid so little at William Morris that I was like, “Look, if I’m going to leave I just, I want be able to it eat…”

**John:** Like that was it.

**Rawson:** It was really hunger. The hunger and shame. I think both of those things. The beats of a screenwriter.

**John:** There is no hunger but there is certainly some shame in the article that we’re going to be talking about from Slate. This is an article by Peter Suderman in which he argues that — I’m kind of reading of my phone here because that’s how I can read things — he argues that the reason movies feel formulaic these days is because there is a formula, a template, described by Blake Snyder in his 2005 book, Save the Cat.

This is a quote of what he said, “When Snyder published his book in 2005, it was as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood. The book offered something previous screenplay guru tomes didn’t. Instead of a broad overview of how a screen story fits together, his book broke down the three-act structure into a detailed beat sheet: 15 key story ‘beats’ — pivotal events that have to happen – and gave each of those beats a name and a screenplay page number. Given that each page of a screenplay is expected to equal a minute of film, this makes Snyder’s guide essentially a minute-to-minute movie formula.”

So before we start our discussion I want a show of hands of this audience, how many people have read Blake Snyder’s Save the Cat? It was a lot, I mean, this is common for aspiring screenwriters. Did any of you read it?

**Craig:** No!

**Rawson:** Never read it.

**Aline:** The explosion that ripped through Hollywood, I missed it when I was online shopping and eating pizza. I missed it.

**Craig:** Yeah. “Oh, did you hear there was an explosion that ripped through Hollywood the other day? Yeah, apparently now it’s a minute by minute break down.”

**Aline:** I totally missed it. I totally missed it.

**John:** Yeah. And so this article was on Slate. And a general rule I do follow is I never read the comments on articles but I figured like well, people are going to be responding. I’m curious how they’re going to be responding to this. And so the very first comment on this was from a guy name Shagbark and this is what Shagbark says. He says, “Also, other screenwriters including John August and Thomas Lennon, now quote Snyder’s numbers re. which page of the script each thing should happen on, without mentioning Snyder, as if they were universal truths instead of made-up numbers.”

Okay, first of all, fuck you Shagbark. To throw me in with this article saying like, “Oh John August got that thing from Blake Snyder…”

**Aline:** Anybody who’s a careful listener of this podcast knows that John August, who is the nicest person in the world, is secretly very angry.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not really a secret. I’m famous for letting it out.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** There is so much niceness over it that when it comes out, it’s a delight.

**Craig:** By the way, I’m Shagbark. You know that.

**John:** Oh yeah. You totally are Shagbark. Craig has been trolling me for the whole hundred episodes. So to say like, “Oh, John August said and took it from Blake Snyder.” I did not take it from Blake Snyder, I took it from like the fact that certain things tend to kind of happen at certain places.

**Craig:** Wait, wait are you saying maybe Blake Snyder took from something? Like the history of movies?

**John:** Maybe. Perhaps. Perhaps.

**Craig:** Or the history of storytelling, that either started 3000 years ago or in 2005?

**John:** I want to let our guests speak. [laughs]

**Rawson:** Thanks!

**John:** This is Rawson Thurber. So you’ve not read Blake Snyder’s book?

**Rawson:** I’ve not. No.

**John:** Are familiar with the book? Have you heard of this book?

**Rawson:** Only by title, until you sent me the article and I read the article, of course, and all the supplementary material, but I have not read the book.

**John:** Okay. And so what is your impression? Do you think there is a formula? Question: Are movies more formulaic than they have been or than they should be, is question A and if so, is there a formula?

**Rawson:** Well, I guess, I mean, I would say, are movies formulaic? I mean, yes and no. There are certain moves that need to happen in a three-act structure but, I mean, I feel like the article that — is it Peter, is that right? — that he wrote, I thought it was largely horse shit, frankly.

I think that it’s easy to kind of put all those touchstones and those beats retroactively back in and say like, “Look at Olympus Has Fallen, look at The Lone Ranger, look at all these things.” It’s really easy to do that and whether that’s right or wrong is one part of the article. The other piece that I thought was absolutely not true in my experience is that that is something that professionals in Hollywood are actively doing, which is fallacy and, I mean, I guess it makes a good article but it makes no sense. I’ve never ever in a meeting had anybody talk to me about any of these terms in any way like that.

**Craig:** Ever.

**Rawson:** Ever. Not even close.

**Craig:** Ever. Where do they make this? Is there some building where these people get together and say, “Let’s all agree that we don’t know shit and now let’s start assigning each other topics?”

**John:** Yes. It’s the new journalism. So really it’s a question of like whether it’s — if it’s journalism then you would actually interview a screenwriter to see if there was any basis of reality but it’s essentially an opinion piece based on sort of like one idea which is like a blog post…

**Aline:** Here is the thing. Here is the thing. There are tropes. There are tropes and there are things that reappear and there are people, you know, there are modes of storytelling that become fashionable and people adopt it but the idea that, I mean, when I looked at that I thought, I went to the 15 beats and I thought, “Oh maybe this will be helpful.”

**Rawson:** Yeah. I did the same thing.

**Aline:** Yeah. I was like, “Oh, maybe there is something good in here.” And you go and it’s like, it’s the same crap that everybody always says. And my feeling about those things is buy one book, buy Adventures in Screenwriting, buy Syd Field, buy this, buy one, take one class. There are sort of some basic principles and — look at Craig, he looks so horrified. There are some basic principles of storytelling that are good to sort of have run past you but the idea that anyone has — if it worked, people would do it.

**Rawson:** Of course.

**Aline:** If you could slavishly follow those things and they would work, they don’t. But I don’t think his contention that people are following it more and then it works, particularly he said it works better for male characters and then he said J.J’s whole canon is that and I really take exception to that because J.J. did Felicity and Alias and it has really nothing to do with that. No one consciously retrofits it. There are certain tropes of storytelling in the culture that will filter in; no one has ever consciously…

**Craig:** Yeah, there always have been. Narrative has, I mean, read Poetics. Aristotle talks about this stuff in Poetics. We might as well say that Poetics exploded through Hollywood in minus-2005, right.

**Aline:** “Oh, this protagonist.”

**Craig:** Right and apparently there needs to be a catharsis. Yes.

**Aline:** Whatever.

**Craig:** Yes. Storytelling — oh, we have a spider hanging out!

Sorry, I was distracted for a second.

Storytelling has a purpose and anything that has a purpose therefore will have a form to fit its function. This isn’t new and movies will vacillate in and around various different kinds of form to match their function, but I just want to be really clear for both the writer of this nonsense and anybody else that might have been susceptible to it. Nobody professionally in Hollywood, to echo what Rawson said, nobody talks about this book. I’ve never, no one has ever mentioned it to me and I mean anywhere, on any level, at any place. That’s how thorough that is. And anything inside of it that may be of some use to you is only of use to you in that regard. That it’s of use to you however it may do, but don’t think…

**Aline:** Good God, don’t mention it in a meeting.

**Craig:** Yeah. Oh, please because by the way that is literally like you might as well just stamp “rookie” on your head like, “Well, I read in Save the Cat…”

**Rawson:** I had one experience with Save the Cat, actually. There was an actor on a movie that I was directing who kept coming up to me, like about a week in he would come up and have these very strange ideas and questions about what we’re doing and where it was going. And I didn’t, you know, I would answer them and walk away sort of scratching my head. I didn’t quite understand like where this is all coming from. And he had an assistant named Jim, no Jimmy, and he would come up to me, the actor would come up to me and say, “You know, Jim was talking to me about” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and it all sounded super suspicious to me and I’m like, “Okay, okay.”

And then one day at wrap, they were leaving and I said goodbye to the actor and Jim was driving home and I saw in the backseat of Jim’s Prius was Save the Cat. And I went — Oh, you’re fucking kidding me! Of course! So that’s my only experience with Save the Cat which…

**Craig:** It’s deeply frustrating.

**John:** And how was Nick Nolte other than that?

**Rawson:** [laughs] No. It wasn’t Nick.

**Craig:** I just want to say also, just one thing that makes me nuts about this.

**Aline:** Umbrage, umbrage, umbrage.

**Craig:** It’s happening.

**John:** You know we actually seeded the article in Slate this week specifically so that it would …

**Craig:** The sad thing is like I know that and it’s still working. The purpose of these articles really if you think about it is to go, “These screenwriters, these filmmakers are just, they’re just machinists. They’re building IKEA furniture, you guys. There’s nothing special about what they do.” It’s all like, “Let’s demystify their nonsense.”

You know, I’m not going to say that we’re all amazing Mozarts, we’re not. But go ahead, Peter whatever, pick up that book and you go just as a goof, as a goof, follow it and write a screenplay. I’d love to read it and see just how amazing this explosive affair is.

**Aline:** Well, when you do pick them up, like when you do pick up those books or when you look at that I always find it so inscrutable and difficult. It’s like, “Here the hero either transcends or does not transcend the gate which he does or does not pass at which point he does triumph or does not triumph with a sidekick or without one.” And I’m always like…

**Craig:** There. Done. Problem solved.

**Rawson:** Writes itself.

**Craig:** It writes itself.

**Aline:** I wish it gave me something to use. I always find it like, “Has he crossed the threshold of the mighty river?” I don’t know. She’s got a job at a magazine. I don’t know. Is that the mighty river? It might be. I’m not sure.

**John:** My frustration with it is really the false causation, it’s the sense that, “Here I’ve noticed a pattern and therefore because I’ve noticed a pattern everything — I’m magical.” So it’s like saying like, “Many pop songs have a structure of one, six, four, five and like therefore every pop song after that point is following my structure that I identified.” No, it’s not. That’s just how songs work.

**Aline:** That’s analysis.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s the difference between reading and writing.

**John:** And so the reason why I’m willing to say three-acts for a movie is because like movies have beginnings, middles and ends. They just do. The projector turns on at a certain point, it turns off at a certain point. Like there are phases of a movie and it’s useful to be able to talk about those phases with terminology, but everything else is just inventions.

There was one thing I — because my function in the podcast is to play devil’s advocate — there is one thing I will say devil’s advocate. He calls out the, which is kind of just thrown in, but he calls out the villain who gets himself caught deliberately.

Guys, we need to stop doing that. We just need to stop doing that. It’s become the air duct.

**Aline:** And he’s in a glass room.

**John:** Yes. Right. Exactly. So, like, you know, we’ve caught the bad guy but no, no he meant to be caught. No, uh-uh. Stop. I want a ten-year moratorium on that.

**Craig:** It was cool when Heath Ledger did it.

**John:** Yeah. It was, it was great, remember when he did that?

**Craig:** I do remember that. That was awesome.

**Aline:** But that’s what I was talking about like there are these tropes that kind of filter through where there was a whole thing for a while when there were cop movies where it was like they were partners but they were shadow images, mirror images of the same person and their lives are really similar but wasn’t. That was a huge thing and culminated in Face/Off. There are kind of vogues in storytelling.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that’s normal. That book won’t even help you chase. And you know my whole thing is: never chase. You write what you write, I’ve said this a hundred times. The only thing interesting about you is what’s specific to you. That’s it. If you’re writing something, if you’re just chasing the market, there are 50 people ahead of you in line who just better writers because they’ve been it longer. So don’t that, that’s crazy. But this book won’t even help you do that. It’s useless.

**John:** Useless

**Craig:** Useless!

**Rawson:** I think what Aline is saying is right is that there are tropes at work and you’re saying there is always a beginning, middle and end and one of the ones in the list that made a lot of sense to me is the sort of Dark Night of the Soul at the end of the second act, right, where everything looks like it’s lost.

**John:** The worst of the worst.

**Rawson:** That’s right. So when John and I, we both went to USC and we had, I think, the same instructor and she talked a lot about the three-act structure and how it works typically and the big moves in it. And that’s been incredibly helpful to me in my career. And so I don’t think you shouldn’t pay attention to these things but it doesn’t mean that they’re gospel and they have to be followed lockstep. But I do think there is some value there but if you pin your hopes to it you’ll be working at Ralphs.

**John:** I was watching a movie on the plane…

**Rawson:** — Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

**John:** Good to be working at Ralphs.

**Craig:** Would have been great if like four people just stood up, “Fuck you. It’s a decent living.”

**John:** I will say there was a movie I watched on the plane as I was flying back from Europe this week and it was really well executed, like the performances were really great but like the movie just didn’t quite hold up right. And I did look at it and say like, “You know what, the problem here is that it’s kind of not doing the things that it needs to do. Like your hero, your protagonist, she’s just not actually changing that much; you’re not making things difficult enough for her. It’s never reaching a real crisis.”

And so those are the kind of things that this book would point out. And so if reading this book makes you think about story in that way that’s useful. But also a smart person reading your scripts who knows about movies would also say the same thing.

**Craig:** Yes. Agreed.

**John:** Let us go to One Cool Thing which has been a staple of the show I think since the beginning. I think we started…

**Craig:** For you it’s been a staple. For me it’s just a nightmare.

**John:** Yeah. Every once in a while Craig will remember and sometimes they’re good. But, Aline would you kick us off with a One Cool Thing?

**Aline:** I will. I found a thing that had been I believe on PBS and then I found it on iTunes and I read about it. I didn’t watch it when it was on PBS and I just watched it recently. It’s three one-hour episodes, it’s a documentary, and I gobbled it up and each episode seemed like five minutes to me and I was in tears through most of it. And it has a very bad title. It’s called Making: The Women who Made America, or Who Make America.

It’s not a good title but it’s called Making and it’s the documentary about the women’s movement and it is so well done. And the interviews are so good and it’s so well balanced. And they talked to Phyllis Schlafly and they talked to Gloria Steinem and it’s incredibly well done and if you have interest in that subject matter it just whizzes by and I loved it.

**John:** Cool. Rawson Thurber.

**Rawson:** Yeah. This is, you might not like this one, but my One Cool Thing is actually this podcast which I love dearly.

**Aline:** Oh my god. Oh, he’s not your boss anymore! You don’t have to suck up anymore.

**Rawson:** I know. I know. But sincerely, it’s the truth. Like what you guys do every week for the screenwriting community is amazing. I listen to it all the time; I know a lot of friends do. And it’s really, really cool.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Aline:** Also you guys are really good-looking.

**John:** We’re built for audio podcasts.

**Craig:** Yeah. Faces for radio.

**John:** My One Cool Thing: So my go-to pen — I’m not actually like a person who like tries to have, like obsess about sort of things like, you know, light coming through a window at certain thing, but I hate a terrible pen. And so I like a good, cheap pen that I don’t care if I lose. So my go-to, cheap pen has been the Pilot G2.

[The crowd cheers]

**Aline:** Wow!

**John:** It’s a good pen.

**Craig:** Are you serious?

**John:** Yeah.

**Rawson:** Holy shit.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**Rawson:** That was amazing.

**Craig:** I also…

**John:** Spontaneous love for the Pilot G2. It’s a really solid good pen and I love that pen. So wherever Stuart will like hand me a pen that’s not that I’m like, “Stuart, no.”

**Rawson:** Is it .05 or .07?

**John:** I like the .05 or the .07. Really the .05 is fine…

**Rawson:** That’s how I roll, too. The .05. I think I might have gotten that from you, the G2 .05.

**John:** It’s good. Well, this week…

**Craig:** They came out with the G3?

**John:** No. But Pilot has a new pen and it’s actually kind of an amazing pen. So it’s the Pilot Frixion.

**Aline:** It’s not a vibrator?

**John:** It’s not. Doesn’t it sound like it could be?

**Craig:** Aline has lost interest.

**John:** Although it has, Aline, it has a rubber component. So, here is the thing about the Pilot Frixion.

**Aline:** The Pilot Frottage.

**John:** Up until now you can only get them in Japan. You can now get them in the US on Amazon.

**Craig:** Or vibrating.

**John:** Yeah. You can get it on Amazon. They’re fairly cheap. If you lose one you’re not going to feel sad about it. They are erasable and like you would think like well an erasable pen would suck. All erasable pens have always sucked, right?

**Craig:** Yeah, like the kind in fourth grade.

**John:** Yeah.

**Rawson:** They were terrible.

**Craig:** Paper Mate or whatever.

**Rawson:** They were terrible.

**John:** They were terrible. So the way this pen works is it writes just like a normal gel pen and it’s not quite as awesome as the G2 but it’s really solid and good. It’s a good solid pen and it can erase. And so when you erase it, it’s actually, the little rubber tip — I know this sounds really pornographic — the rubber tip creates heat and the heat actually makes it go invisible.

**Aline:** This is like a John August bit. This is like somebody wrote a John August bit.

**Craig:** I could not write that perfect. That was really — that was good.

**Aline:** It heats up, it gets a little bigger.

**John:** It gets a little bigger. And so my daughter has become obsessed with it, too, now because…

**Rawson:** Oh Jesus. Good night folks. Good night.

**John:** Here is the thing, because it can erase and if you’re a kid you make mistakes and you erase. Although, if you stick it in the freezer the hidden text comes back!

**Craig:** I mean, you’re just, you’re doing this on purpose now. “Although, if you put it up your ass…”

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** “And on the surface of the moon it’s amazing.”

**John:** Yeah. It’s kind of great!

**Craig:** Frixion.

**John:** You got something better than that, Craig Mazin?

**Craig:** I have something so different than that.

**Aline:** I hope you have a vibrator.

**Present John:** So I want to point out that in episode 196, Craig’s One Cool Thing is the RocketBook Indiegogo project that is basically just the Frixion pen and a notebook.

So he is mocking me, and I’m just way ahead of the curve.

And for the record: I still like the Frixion pens. They’re not my most favorite go-to pen, but they’re still a solid pen; I would recommend them.

**Craig:** I have Two Cool Things.

**John:** Oh, yeah, he’s breaking the rules again.

**Craig:** Breaking the rules again, as always. So I don’t if you guys, on one of the podcasts we talked about our origin stories, like how we got started in the business because people often ask that question.

So tonight there are two people here, my first job, they gave me my first job in Los Angeles. It was 1992. I had just turned 21. Well, technically, my first job was temping at William Morris, typing their employee manual. And because some secretary had typed it, literally on a typewriter in the ’50s, and so I put it into Word Perfect.

But the next job I got was at this little ad agency and these two took a chance on this kid and, you know, I say all the time like luck — people overemphasize luck, chance favors the prepared and all that. And that’s true. But this was legitimately lucky that these were the people I met instead of total assholes because you there’s a lot of those, too.

And you can’t really replace what it means to be supported and valued by good human beings. So Nancy Fletcher and Julia Wayne could you please stand up?

**Aline:** Wow!

**Craig:** 21 years later. And also they would buy me lunch a lot which was really nice because I had no money. It’s great. So, you are my two. Oh, and also Julia and I, I’m not going to say what it was but she did something in front of me that is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen, ever. Nothing will ever be funnier. Sometimes when I’m sad I think about it and I still laugh again. So thank you for that.

**John:** Aw. I have a couple of special thank yous, too. Stuart Friedel, or the man playing Stuart Friedel, please stand up. This is the man who edits our podcasts and makes us sound coherent when we’re drunk. I also need to thank Ryan Nelson who I think is in the very back of the room.

**Craig:** Ryan!

**John:** Ryan Nelson. Oh Ryan is up here now. He is the actual Ryan Nelson who designs all our apps. Along with Nima Yousefi who is also up here.

**Craig:** Nima!

**John:** Where’s Nima? Nima, the magical elf, who is just this week a full-time employee at Quote-Unquote Films. So hooray!

I need to thank everyone here for coming to this thing. We really, really wondered whether anyone would show up.

**Aline:** Awesome. So awesome.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And you did and that was so cool and it really means a lot. I’ll get sort of verklempt and weepy. But since that won’t happen, because I won’t let myself get verklempt…

**Craig:** I’m not going to cry. I’m not going to cry.

**John:** I’m not going to cry. I’m not going to cry. I’m just going to thank you and we’re going to applaud and then we’re going to do some questions. So hooray!

**Craig:** Woo!

**Present John** So, that’s episode 100! Almost 100 episodes later, the podcast is largely the same, but some things have changed.

For starters, our audience has gotten a lot bigger. We were probably 15 thousand per week back then. Now we’re about 50 thousand. And that’s about three times as many — more than three times as many. And that’s great. So thank you for listening to the show.

Our audio has also improved. This was a live show, so it doesn’t really count, but if you listen to a normal episode of the show now versus episodes ten or twenty — oh, it’s a huge difference. Some of that is better microphones, but a lot of it is Matthew Chilleli, who has been editing and mixing the shows, and they’ve just gotten so much better. So thank you, Matthew.

The last thing that’s changed is really the nature of podcasts itself. As they’ve become more popular, you’ve started to see these marquee titles like StartUp or Serial that are bringing people into the world of podcasting.

But I think the form itself is also evolving. In the second hundred Scriptnotes, we tried some very different types of episodes. We’ve done those deep-dives episodes like 183, where we looked at Gravity, 129 where we sat down with the makers of Final Draft, and episode 190, where we took a look at KC Scott’s This is Working.

They’re very different kinds of shows than just me and Craig talking about stuff. But I think the show is really at its heart about me and Craig talking about stuff. So over the next hundred or howevermany more of these we do, it will mostly be those kinds of shows. But I still want to continue experimenting, trying some new things. And I hope you’ll join us for whatever it is that comes next.

As always, our show is produced by Stuart Friedel — the real Stuart Friedel. It’s edited by Matthew Chilleli, who also wrote our outro. You can find links to some of the things we talked about in our show notes at johnaugust.com, along with transcripts to every single episode of the show, including the 100th episode that we just listened to.

If you’re listening to us on the blog, do us a favor and please click over to iTunes and subscribe, and while you’re there, leave us a comment so other people can know we’re worth listening to.

Last week on the show, I mentioned that I have a Kickstarter up for a brand new game called One Hit Kill.

We’re all funded now! So thank you everybody who baked us on Kickstarter. If you would like a copy of the game before anyone else, you have about two weeks to get in on the Kickstarter and get your copy of the game now.

So head over to Kickstarter and search for One Hit Kill. You’ll get to see the video that Ryan Nelson put together, along with the music that Matthew Chilelli wrote, which is great. So take a look at that, and a listen.

If you have a question for me, find me on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust, Craig is @clmazin. Longer questions go to ask@johnaugust.com, and we will check the mailbag every once in a while for your questions there.

So for Craig Mazin, I’m John August. Thank you for listening to Scriptnotes, and we will see you next week.

Bye.

Links:

* [Scriptnotes, the 100th Episode](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-100th-episode)
* The Academy [Nicholl Fellowships](http://www.oscars.org/awards/nicholl/) in Screenwriting
* [Scriptnotes, 190: This Is Working](http://johnaugust.com/2015/this-is-working)
* [Aline Brosh McKenna](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0112459/) on IMDb
* [Rawson Thurber](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1098493/) on IMDb
* Slate’s article on [Save the Cat!](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.single.html) (and Stuart’s [review of the series](http://johnaugust.com/2012/in-which-stuart-reads-the-save-the-cat-books-and-tells-you-what-he-thought))
* [Makers: Women Who Make America](http://www.pbs.org/makers/home/) on PBS
* [Scriptnotes](http://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes): A podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters
* The classic [Pilot G2](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001GAOTSW/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) and the brand new erasable [Pilot Frixion](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009QYH644/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) on Amazon
* [Stuart](https://twitter.com/stuartfriedel), [Ryan](https://twitter.com/ryannelson) and [Nima](https://twitter.com/nyousefi) (and [Matthew](https://twitter.com/machelli))
* [One Hit Kill](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/913409803/one-hit-kill) is on Kickstarter now
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes editor Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

« 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.