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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: book rights

Scriptnotes, Episode 520: You Can’t Even Imagine, Transcript

October 22, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/you-cant-even-imagine).

**John August:** Hey, so on today’s show Craig says the F-word a couple times because he gets angry about a writer who is taking advantage of people. So that’s a warning if you’re in the car with your kids or someplace where you could just put in headphones, do that.

**Craig Mazin:** The kids need to know, too.

**John:** The kids need to be warned about Svengalis.

**Craig:** That’s right.

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 520 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show the screenplay is often described as the blueprint for a movie, but how do the artists and craftspeople who actually make movies use these blueprints. We’ll look at some of the most important people to read a script and how they do their jobs. We’ll also talk about predatory writers, getting in over your head, and what it’s like to have no visual imagination.

And in our bonus segment for premium members, fine, let’s get into that whole bad art friend situation. The thing that was all over my Twitter that Craig sent to me as an – ugh, now I had to read this.

**Craig:** I mean, kinda.

**John:** Kinda. You sort of kinda had to read it. You missed out on the episode where I think Liz Hannah was on the show and she and I talked through the Cat Person discourse. And so it’s another round of that. And Cat Person is actually referenced in it, so it’s all nesting dolls of appropriation.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s pretty screwed up. Yeah. I enjoyed reading about. And I enjoyed not being a part of it more than anything.

**John:** Yes. I really enjoyed not being involved in any of those text chains.

**Craig:** My new sort of joy is not being involved in things.

**John:** Yes. Love it. I love that for you. It’s a good look. But first some follow up. Last week we discussed the upcoming IATSE strike authorization vote. Craig, what was the result of the strike authorization vote?

**Craig:** A resounding yes. Not only did 98% of the vote come back in as a yes, which is not uncommon for these things, but the really fascinating number was that 90% of IATSE actually showed up to vote. If 90% of the Writers Guild shows up to vote that’s a pretty great number, but it represents a few thousand people. If 90% of IATSE shows up to vote we’re talking tens of thousands of people.

**John:** Yeah. Good sized towns of people.

**Craig:** Yes. So there is no question about IATSE’s willingness to go on strike. And this was not kind of even a show vote. They weren’t even doing the thing that the Writers Guild annoyingly does where it’s like you have to vote yes. They were like, no, no, no, everyone was like, please, give me the ballot. I insist on voting yes right now because there is a pent up demand for action. And it is justified.

So, what happens is they go back and they sit down with the AMPTP who at this point would be beyond foolish if they didn’t arrive at a place that thwarted a strike in my opinion.

**John:** Absolutely. Because we recorded this show on a Saturday and it comes out on a Tuesday maybe it will all be resolved by then and we’ll again be living in the past. So, for our listeners who are living in the future, hey, tell us what happened because we don’t know yet.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, my gut tells me there will not be a strike. I still keep thinking that because I feel like the impact of an IATSE strike is so dramatic. And because it would open that can of worms permanently. I just feel, I feel like the companies are going to have to give on a number of issues. If they don’t it is almost tantamount to them declaring that the era of unionization of labor in the entertainment business is over and that the Amazonian era has begun. And we don’t want that.

**John:** No, we don’t.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** In last week’s episode we wondered aloud why Netflix was choosing two minutes as the threshold for viewing a program. Craig was mocking them and asking, hey, why are you doing that. Several writers wrote in with possible answers. So, the first one really comes down to intentionality. Doug writes, “Viewing something for two minutes is long enough to say ‘that person was interested in this’ and that is a valuable metric for Netflix because the constant release of curiosity-worthy material is enough to keep people subscribing, even if they don’t finish everything they start.”

So if you clicked that and you’re watching it for two minutes you meant to click it and it wasn’t accidental. This was something that you thought was going to be interesting to you. And so that’s really kind of what they’re most concerned about. Because remember they kind of don’t care whether you watch the whole thing. They’d be delighted if you did watch the whole thing. They basically don’t want you to stop subscribing to Netflix. That’s really their goal.

**Craig:** Yeah. I get that completely. But I think Doug is stating something as fact in which I don’t really know if it is. If everybody constantly watched just two minutes of stuff on Netflix and went “garbage, moving on,” and then never found stuff that they really, really loved at some point people would turn it off. The two minutes is not a threshold – I mean, we’re acknowledging there is a threshold that implies interested in. But at that point why is it two minutes? Why isn’t it one minute? Why isn’t it 40 seconds?

It seems to me that there has to be a number that implies interested in and appreciated to some small amount. And two minutes ain’t it. At all. So I would suggest that Netflix has picked two minutes because more than anything it makes their numbers look amazing. That’s why.

**John:** That’s very, very possible. I would also be certain that if people are actually watching two minutes, if there’s that kind of churn from program to program to program to program Netflix has a whole team that’s studying that, too, to make sure that that’s not going to be a person that we’re going to lose. So, they certainly have their data scientists there. Another listener wrote in to point out that when you buy a ticket to see a movie in a theater no one kind of cares whether you actually sat through the whole movie. So it’s like buying the ticket is sort of the intentionality. That’s the money coming into the thing so that’s kind of all you care about. And so it’s not about did this person watch the whole thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s also a weird point.

**John:** It’s a weird point.

**Craig:** Because we don’t pay per view on Netflix, we pay for months. It’s really more akin to you got a MoviePass, remember those John?

**John:** Oh, I remember MoviePass. Yeah. Why didn’t that work? I was rooting for MoviePass.

**Craig:** It seemed like a great idea. The fundamentals were sound.

So if you got a MoviePass and then you hopped into a movie and then walked out after two minutes should Universal declare a victory? I don’t think so.

**John:** Well, I think Universal got paid, though. They got the money from MoviePass for it, so.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** MoviePass was not happy.

**Craig:** In general I don’t think they can suggest that this is a victory for them or a hit. I mean, the whole point is you want more, don’t you want another, you want a second one, you want a third movie. I don’t know. Anyway, at some point this is what happens. The Internet tries to gaslight you into believing that people watching something for two minutes and then turning it off is a good thing. It is not. Stop it.

**John:** It’s not an artistic triumph.

**Craig:** No. You’re writing into a podcast for writers. And you’re suggesting that we should be happy that people watched our thing for two minutes and then went, “Nope.” I don’t think so. It’s just not great. It’s not great for them either. They don’t – by the way you know they adjusted it. It used to be a much longer number. And then they adjusted it. Because now they can say four billion people watched a show.

**John:** Yeah. I think I probably referenced this obliquely in the past, saying like there’s a Broadway producer who is notorious for showing up for like ten minutes of a show and then walking out. And I probably didn’t give his name because I didn’t want to anger him, but now it’s Scott Rudin, because we can just say his name. Scott Rudin was notorious for just first-acting, second-acting things, or having people buy a ticket and just watch ten minutes of it and then walk out. And so frustrating as a person who is making theater, but that’s what you got with Scott Rudin.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s a bad person. There was a wonderful little story out last week. Elijah Wood, who is an excellent person. We ought to have him on the show. He’s a lovely guy. Have you met Elijah Wood by the way?

**John:** I’ve never met him.

**Craig:** He’s fantastic. He was saying that originally Bob and Harvey Weinstein – so Miramax had the rights to Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson wanted to make three movies. And Harvey said he only wanted to make two. And eventually New Line got the rights. And Peter Jackson really did not like Harvey. No one did. And so there’s an orc. Somewhere in those movies there’s an orc that is modeled after Harvey. And I’m like I’ve seen those movies so many times and I’m like I’ve got to watch again just to find the Harvey orc now.

**John:** Yeah. I’m sure Elijah could point you to him, maybe.

**Craig:** I’m going to ask him to do that. That’s fair.

**John:** Wrapping up our Netflix talk here, Quinn my friend pointed me to this Twitter thread by Trung Phan who looks at how the thumbnail artwork for a show on Netflix is generated and how it is tested. And I know they were procedurally done. I knew there was some A/B Testing. But it’s actually much more complicated than you would ever think or believe. And there’s a reason why those things are designed in the rule of thirds. They know based on what you’ve done before, what you’ve looked at before, this is what’s going to appeal to you about this particular show. So even though this actress is only in like two out of ten episodes, she might be the marquee face that they’re going to show you for that program because they know that you like her face.

So it’s a fascinating sort of dystopian look at how they make their decisions.

**Craig:** Yeah. Market research is a barren wasteland where no soul can thrive. It’s effective. There’s no question about it. We’ve always known that. It’s nothing you. You see a trailer for a movie and it makes a big deal about an actor being in it and they’re in it for two seconds. This is pretty standard stuff. But it’s a bummer.

**John:** Yeah. Normal real marketing, like when you have a movie coming out, it’s not like it’s some artistic we’re making this poster for all the right reasons. It is such a workplace of committees and random opinions and that executive hates the color blue. It’s a mess that way, too.

**Craig:** It’s a mess. And they do test everything and eventually I think if you’ve been around enough testing you start to come to the inevitable conclusion that you can use the testing to justify any answer you want.

**John:** Mm-hmm. Yeah.

**Craig:** And that pretty much is what happens.

**John:** Yup. All right, so this past week I was listening to the Slate Working podcast which I highly recommend and they had a guest on, she was a costume designer named Dana Covarrubias. And she was talking about how they came up with the wardrobe for Only Murders in the Building. And Craig you don’t watch a lot of TV, so you probably have not seen Only Murders in the Building.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I think you would genuinely love it. It is a Steve Martin, Martin Short, Selena Gomez. It is like a Serial true crime thing, but also a comedy. It’s all in this upscale Upper West Side apartment building. It’s really, really well done. And the costumes are fantastic and they’re so smart and so specific. What I loved about the conversation on the podcast though is they were really talking about what is the process of getting started to think about costumes. You would think that, oh, she must talk to the director or the showrunner or the actors. And it really starts with she reads the script. And she talked about her process of sitting down, reading the script. Reading it once just for pleasure. And really just getting a sense of the tone before she then approaches like, OK, now let me think about days and nights and where is this character coming from, where they’re going to, and building out full threads on who this person really is and why they’re making the choices they are doing.

And you and I have talked so much about hair and makeup and looks and all the other things that a writer may be thinking about for characters and for their scripts. But I don’t think we’ve talked about all the other people who are getting handed that script and having to make choices based on what they’re reading there even independently of the other folks they’re talking with. So I really want to take a look at the script as a blueprint and then look at all these incredibly talented people who have to take this blueprint and figure out how to build the thing.

**Craig:** I’ve always struggled with the word blueprints because blueprints are rather bloodless and they’re incredibly thorough in that they tell you exactly what to do. This goes here. This goes here. This goes here. And it is absolutely true that every head of every department working on a television show or a movie if they’re good, and one would hope that they are, they do read to understand. They are trying to get inside of the heart of it and they’re trying to see how it functions from a character point of view. At some point they’re going to have to put other hats on.

It is remarkable to see how essential it is to everybody that works in our business creatively to also be organized. Because each department has to feel it with their soul and understand why and how they should be dressing people a certain way, putting hair on a certain way, stunts in a certain tone, but also they need to figure out how to actually pull it off with the money they have, the time they have. And people who can do both at the same time are worth their weight in gold and that’s what makes the good ones great.

**John:** Yeah. So as you approach doing your TV shows, or as you’ve been involved in movies too, it always is striking to me that in order to get these people signed on they’re generally reading the script. And so they have known who else was involved, but they have to read the script and they have to really respond to the script. And they have to say, OK, this is a project I want to work on because I think the project will be good on the whole. I think it will turn out well. I think I will be proud of the work I can do here. And I think it will present interesting challenges to me. These people may not be taking the easiest jobs, or the jobs that they’re used to, but OK this offers some cool challenges for me. Because I know sometimes the projects I want to take as a writer are also the ones that are like, wow, I’ve never gotten a chance to do this before and this is exciting to me.

And so whether it’s a costume designer who has never gotten to do this period before, or a cinematographer who has never gotten to shoot in these environments, that’s really compelling. And the first experience about what that’s going to look like, feel like, be like is going to be in that script. And that’s why it’s all so important. It’s not just these are the scenes, these are the characters, this is what’s happening. It’s what the script feels like because that’s their first vision of what the final movie hopefully is going to be.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know one of the things they’ve been saying in terms of the IATSE action right now is that for those of us who are below the line we tend to think of production as something that comes along every now and again, for people who do these kinds of jobs they’re in production all the time. They’re either in prep or they’re in production. And so you’re absolutely right, the notion of being able to show off a different muscle, a different kind of vibe, that would be incredibly attractive to them. But that means they need to understand what makes it special. So, there are situations also where just the size may be attractive to them.

But size and novelty will wear off. And also size and novelty only maybe inspires you to say yes to the gig. It’s not going to help you design it.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Ultimately you do need to get inside the tone and that means you need to also have a relationship with the one or two people that holds that knowledge inside. And you need to get in their heads and you need to share it.

**John:** Realistically on most features the person who is going to be making a lot of those decisions is going to be the director. But on something like a television pilot that showrunner/creator and the pilot director will have a lot of very direct connection about this is what the vision for how we’re going to shoot this is going to look like. This is what we’re going for. This is tonally what we’re going for. And that will radiate from all the departments. And so ideally early on in the process you’ll hire on a production designer who is responsible for like, OK, here is the very big swatches of color kind of look for things. This is the time. This is the general look. And then those decisions will then radiate through to the other costume departments and art departments and props and everybody else.

But if that vision doesn’t actually match what’s on the page in the script it’s going to be a real challenge to sort of be going back and forth between like this is what we’re seeing on the art boards versus this is what’s on the page. How do we actually marry that? If there’s a grand vision for sort of these giant 1930s cityscapes but it’s all taking place on interior sound stages that’s not going to actually work.

**Craig:** Does sound like the person who wrote the script should be involved, doesn’t it?

**John:** Doesn’t it sound like it?

**Craig:** Yeah, which is why I do find working in television now so satisfying, because that’s what I do now. And it is nice to be able to say, ah, here’s what I think. And here’s why I think it. And wonderful early discussions that bore a lot of fruit while we were in prep on The Last of Us, we’re going through the choices we could make. I mean, there have been a lot of shows that occurred after the apocalypse. So, you know, in talking with our costume designer, Cynthia Summers, about how we wanted to do this. Neil and I, we obviously had things from the game that informed us, but we also had general philosophical notions and ideas that are a bit different. It’s a very similar thing that we did with [Unintelligible] and Johan Renck and I. And it’s a wonderful thing to talk about that stuff. I love talking about that. Entirely within the framework of tone.

Costumes will blow up or preserve or reinforce tone. So will hair. All of it. It’s all essential. And the more you dig into the details the more you appreciate the people who do read the script and care about the script. And it’s the ones who don’t who can be tricky sometimes. Sometimes they’re brilliant, too, but they need more attention.

**John:** Yeah. And we should say that there’s a certain point in sort of the hierarchy on the set where like maybe it’s not essential that this person knows the overall vision for the movie or for the series because they are there to sort of get this day’s work done. And literally moving the lights and getting this lit they may not need to know the grander scheme of things.

But I also had the experience of on movies, big movies, where I really kind of felt like, oh, they only looked at the scene in a vacuum and didn’t really notice what was happening before and after and so they lit it as sort of the wrong kind of dawn. And like, oh, that actually doesn’t track with the shot that’s going to come directly beforehand. And that’s something that an editor in reading through the script would have noticed like, oh, it’s going to be really important–

**Craig:** Sorry, I have to interrupt you. An editor read through the script? [laughs] Where is this magical editor? I would like to meet this person.

**John:** So I want to have a whole discussion on postproduction because editors are notorious for not reading through scripts. And just like, oh, I found the movie as it came in. It was like documentary footage that sort of came across the transom and I decided to cut something together.

**Craig:** They do exist. I’m joking. They exist. But a lot of them really are sort of infamous for not reading the script.

**John:** But I would say that editor would notice like, oh shit, this could have been an amazing transition if you’d actually lit it the way it was sort of written on the page and you didn’t notice that. And so that can be a problem because it can become very atomic when it gets down to production where they’re just looking this scene, this scene, this scene, this scene, and not seeing the overall flow. And one of the things I so appreciate this costume designer Dana talking about her plan for things is they really are looking – costume designers are really good at this – looking for like where was this person earlier in the day. How did they get to this place? Because they are always worried about continuity and making sure that they had a scarf there. They would still have that scarf.

**Craig:** Ah, yes.

**John:** That stuff is remarkable. And they are building out these boards and notebooks that actually detail all of this.

**Craig:** I’m just laughing because Cynthia Summers is our costume designer, but on the day-to-day work on the set we have two gentlemen, the two Steves, and the two Steves are in charge of both handling the application of wardrobe to our actors on the day, but also preserving and maintaining continuity. Considering continuity and the attention to detail there is startling. And they will occasionally walk up to me and say, “Quick question for you. Seven months from now we’re going to be somewhere,” and then I’m like oh my god, oh my god you guys. But it’s essential. And it doesn’t matter what you do. If somebody is wearing the wrong shirt from one cut to the next it’s over. It’s done.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s funny actually. I looked over the shoulder. They watch the video feed. And they don’t have contacts, our little portable, they don’t care what anyone is watching at all. They’re watching moving clothes. And I said to you this shows just clothing moving around and they’re like, “Yeah.” And it’s awesome. And they’re really great at it. It’s remarkable to watch.

**John:** Now back in the day they would all be taking Polaroids. Now I’m sure they’re using their iPhones or they’re screenshotting what they’re seeing there so they can have references for this. But another reason why this is so important, like you can have a plan going in, but then a pandemic can stop production for a year and then you have to pick up scenes that you started shooting before you shut down. And they can just do it because they can. Because they’re remarkably organized and talented. It’s that creative brain which you absolutely need to do these jobs, and also this meticulous detail brain which is so essential. And I think many screenwriters don’t appreciate the importance.

**Craig:** I mean, nothing gets shot in chronological order. Inside of an episode things are being shot out of order. And then even episodes themselves may not be shot in order. We had to shoot slightly out of order episodically because of weather. Just accounting for how the weather would impact the episodes we were shooting. So, sometimes you’re shooting things and then you realize, ah, stuff happened in between. What needs to happen to the clothing, the hair, the makeup?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** The scars? The bruises? Whatever it is. All of that math has to be done and it’s constantly being figured out and thank god these brilliant people that we have are so dedicated and committed to getting it right. And they really are. And we would be utterly lost without them.

But I will say this machine that processes details – that’s what it is, a detail machine, and it’s like details is its fuel and it’s just churning and churning. It needs detail fuel. If you don’t write the detail people are just going to fill it in for you. And this is my constant refrain. If I taught a class at the University of [Gibberish] it would just be called Details. That’s what it is. It’s how to write details. Because if you don’t then you’ve failed before you started.

**John:** Yeah. And again one of the biggest challenges of screenwriting is kind of knowing all these details and recognizing how many details you can put in before you sort of choke the life out of scenes. Where like those details get in the way and people stop reading. And that’s challenging. And that’s the craft.

**Craig:** It is. And there is a certain amount of detail that the viewer can’t take in. So there’s an amount and then there’s a kind of way to inform detail without spelling it all out. You know, if you say this room is full of blank-blank era stuff, most of which was heavily used but has been brought back to life, that guides everyone. Props. Art direction. All of it.

**John:** Just like a fight sequence does not label every punch. You’re not labeling everything on the shelf. You’re just making sure that you’re creating a space where there would be shelves full of things.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Now, before we get to editors, because we should talk a little bit about editors and scripts, the person who is staring at the script the entire time is the script supervisor who I know we’ve talked about scripties before on the show, but I do want to sort of call them out again because the same way that hair and makeup and wardrobe is keeping track of all these continuity things, the scripty is keeping track of every line that is said, every take, making sure that as you cut from angle to angle it’s actually making sense, that things aren’t drifting.

They can be an absolute godsend. So I just want to speak up for the script supervisors on set.

**Craig:** Have we talked about how crazy that job is, even that it exists. It should not be one job. I just want to run down the things the script supervisor has to do. First, they need to make sure that the actors are saying the lines as written, or that somebody signs off on a change. Second, they need to record what lines are being said on camera and what lines are being said off-camera while it’s happening. Third, they need to handle all continuity. That means what things have moved, drinks and glasses, did you pick it up with your right hand or your left hand. All of it. When did you turn? On what line did you open the door? All of it needs to be recorded. Every single take.

Then they also need to record what time the first shot of the day was. They need to record what the lens. They need to record what camera roll you’re on. They need to tell the camera assistants if we’re going up a letter in takes or if we’re staying on take six. They have to do all of that, plus they have to time the whole script out ahead of time to see what the timing would be. It’s crazy. And eye lines. And that’s the other thing. They need to know on a scene where you’re shooting 12 people sitting around a table, when you get to a particular line should they be looking to the left of the camera or the right of camera. This should be 12 different jobs and it’s a job for one person. They are essential.

**John:** And they’re heroic. And we should say when we say recording all this is happening they’re literally taking notes in pencil on a script page. And so there’s a whole coding system they use and squiggly lines for like this take, this take, this take. This is where we moved to 6A and this is 6B. They can do all this stuff. And so a script supervisor can look back at those notes and say like, OK, this is how we did this thing and the reason why you’re keeping track of lens sizes and such is so like OK we need to go back and reshoot something or fix something you know exactly how you did it.

**Craig:** Even later in the day when you’re like, OK, we’ve turned around. It was hours ago. What lens we’re we on because we have to match it on this side? It is I would say probably rare to find a script supervisor that is still doing it with pencil and paper. There are some excellent programs that people have been using for a long time. And now I think a lot of it is done on iPad. Our script supervisor works on an iPad and sometimes I just sort of peek over and watch what he’s doing and it’s crazy. I was talking to him, I’m like how does anybody survive doing this job for the first year as you’re learning? And you know he said, “You kind of just make it up.” He said early on there’s no way, there’s no way you can do it. So you’re sort of like, yeah, they were holding it in their left. And then you’re like, oh boy, I hope they were holding it in the left hand. Because it just takes time for your brain to expand, to firehose that much information constantly all the time.

But, yeah, I mean, look, there’s a reason why it’s practically in my contract that our script supervisor on Chernobyl is the same one on The Last of Us. And I intend to have him by my side always. Because he is too good. He’s just too good.

**John:** Absolutely. And of course in modern productions it is theoretically possible to sort of go back and say, OK, we can actually check the tape and see – when I say pencil notes, I’m thinking back to like Go and it’s literally shot on film. So there’s no record, there’s no way to actually look at sort of what hand someone was holding it in. So we would just have to look to our script supervisor and ask her what was it. And she knows. Because she’s always right by the camera lens, even if you’re on a dolly truck going down a street in Downtown LA. She’s there because she has to see everything with her own two eyes. So, it’s a remarkable job.

**Craig:** It’s pretty amazing.

**John:** Now in theory all of those notes go to the editors who obviously they have to take the footage and then break it into the proper bins and start assembling the movie. And in theory you’d think like, oh, they can just look at the script pages and see what the scene is supposed to be. In practice a lot of times they sort of look at all the footage and then start cutting scenes their own way.

**Craig:** Yeah. Which is understandable to an extent. You don’t necessarily want to deprive yourself of their instincts. And when they look at footage they may feel something and they may drift toward it and that makes total sense. However, I do always appreciate and ask of my editors that they do read the scene carefully before they start cutting it because there are as I like to call it clues buried all over this thing. It’s like a little clue book.

**John:** It’s almost like someone wanted you to find your way out of this [unintelligible] box.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Sometimes you’ll sit there and they’re like “I just didn’t quite know what to do in this moment.” And I’m like did you check the clue book? And then they look and they’re like, “Oh, that’s what that is.” Yes. It’s in the clue book.

The other big clue book is in fact the notes generated by the script supervisor. So a lot of times what will happen is I’ll be sitting there and I’ll go why don’t we have that shot where he turns and looks at her in the wide? And they’re like we didn’t do it. And I’m like we did. No, it’s not there. Yes it is, I know it. And then we look in the script – oh, there it is. We found it.

**John:** There it is. It’s right there. One of the things we also notice that the script supervisor is doing is marking which of the takes are, we used to say “print the takes,” because now everything is basically printed. But circling the takes is like these are the ones we think have the performance that we’re actually going after. So if you shot five takes, takes two and take five may be the ones that have the stuff that you want.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that was something we used to do when it actually cost money to print takes. So you would say, OK, well that obviously was a garbage take. But now what I’ve discovered along the way, and I’m thinking probably everybody sort of figured out early on, too, is even the takes, you sometimes have to go into that bin of the castoffs because what you needed was somebody just looking up and then looking to the left.

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** Yeah. One of the best bits of directorial advice I can give anybody is wait longer than you think you have to before you say cut. Because stuff happens back there that could just be gold.

**John:** All right. So some takeaways from thinking about how other people are using the script is just to remember that I think so often as writers like, OK, I’m going to write this script and then I’ll hand it into the studio and the producer will read it and we’ll get a director on board. And then I guess the actors will learn their lines. But that’s not even the beginning of the process really.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Everyone else has to take this thing and actually make it a thing. And blueprint may be the wrong term for it, but I guess you can have a blueprint for how you’re actually going to physically build the building, but that’s not furnishing the building. That’s not doing all the other stuff that sort of makes a place you can actually live inside. And that’s what all these other amazing artisans and craftspeople are doing is really making this thing be a place you can live inside.

**Craig:** Yeah. A long time ago when I used to have a blog, do you remember back then?

**John:** I do remember that.

**Craig:** I wrote a thing called You Can’t Just Walk Into a Building. Because if you say somebody walks into a building, which I think a lot of writers do, somebody has to figure out what building. Where? What does it look like? How does it function? And if you haven’t designed it, meaning you haven’t described what the function and nature and feeling of the building is then as I said other people are going to do it for you. And so the more you can participate in the direction, and when I say direction I don’t mean film direction. I mean creative direction.

**John:** The design.

**Craig:** The overall direction of the film or television show the better off that film and television show is going to be. They need the benefit of all the things you know and you will always know more than you can fit on the page.

**John:** Now Craig you are making my segue way too easily here. Because back in Episode 519 Craig said, “I am a huge believer in the visual imagination of the space. I need to know what it looks like, how close they are together, whether the lights are on or off, if there’s a fire in the fireplace, if it’s warm or hot.” And we got a couple of responses back on this and a whole new branch of things to talk through. Megana, could you read us what Dave wrote for us?

**Megana Rao:** So Dave wrote in, “A year or so ago at age 51 I discovered I have aphantasia. This means I’m unable to visualize, or put another way I have no mind’s eye. It was a surprise to me as I have a strong sense of imagination, work in creative fields, and write screenplays for pleasure. The latter being the reason I discovered Scriptnotes. For me imagination is narrative and conceptual, but not visual. When I read a book and the character description says she was tall and had blonde hair I know what this means but don’t form a picture in my head. It’s the same when my yoga instructor asks me to imagine a balloon inflating and deflating as I breathe.

“This revelation has led me to realize many things about my life. For example I now know it takes me longer to learn new things, especially physical ones because I’m reading through a set of instructions rather than playing back a video clip or looking at pictures of the activity. And when it comes to my writing I see now that I tend to over-describe because I want to make sure people see the character or place as I see, or in fact don’t see them. It’s suggested that perhaps 3 to 5% of people are aphantasiac. So perhaps as many as 2,000 listeners to Scriptnotes could be. I wonder how this affects their personal and professional lives. For me it’s not at all.

“There are some notable examples of aphantasiacs working in Hollywood, such as Ed Catmull, formerly at Pixar, which might suggest this to be true for others. Anyhow, keep up the good work. I’m always inspired by your weekly discussions, even if I can’t picture any of the things you touch upon, which in the case of Sexy Craig might not be a bad thing.”

**Craig:** Oh, you don’t have to see anything. You just have to listen. That’s all. Dave, you just got to listen.

**John:** Let Sexy Craig wash all over you. I really thank Dave for writing in with this because I’ve seen this term a little bit popping up on Twitter and I didn’t really know what it meant. And it’s not a disorder, it’s the range of how people imagine information and how the visual system works for people. But it is really interesting because I think I just have bias to assume well everyone’s brain works the way my brain works. And my brain, I can absolutely picture things in my head. I can imagine smells and textures, and tastes. I can sort of completely put myself in a place pretty easily and I set myself there and I write what I see. And that’s writing for me. And that’s not going to be the same experience Dave is having.

**Craig:** No. And I want to call out the most important word I suppose in the quote that Dave brings up here, and that’s the word “eye.” I believe in it. It certainly works for me. It’s important part of my process. But here’s another thing I know. Dave, I cannot draw at all. I can’t illustrate. I mean, my hands work. But a cube is barely within my reach. And only because I practiced it. So I can imagine things very vividly and very accurately, but I cannot reproduce them through drawing at all. And then there are people I think who may be able to produce things by drawing perfectly but perhaps don’t see them in the mind’s eye.

So, this is not a prison sentence by any stretch as you yourself have noted. However, I will say because it is a visual medium, and we know we’re telling a visual story, you need to have some method to create specificity and completion of visual work. Whether it is happening in your mind or whether you are sketching it out in a series of storyboards, your illustrations, or whether you have a really specific connection to words and the words connect to images as you write them. Whatever it is you need something because ultimately it’s film.

**John:** Yeah. I do wonder if someone who is writing strictly a stage play, with characters on a stage talking, it would impact their process less if they didn’t have to see the whole thing, but it was literally just about the words and the talking and sort of how this all goes. But there’s also, and we can look up what the actual term is, but the same way that some people don’t have a mind’s eye, there’s people who don’t have a mind’s voice, or they don’t have a voice in their head. They don’t have the ability to imagine conversations. And that would probably be a greater hindrance to doing the kinds of things that we’re doing because so much of what we do as screenwriters is think, OK, if they say this then that’s the answer – it’s putting yourself in the middle of imaginary conversations. And that’s a sort of crucial skill. And I think it’s also a source of anxiety and sort of negative repetition.

I do find that so often I will have arguments in my head with people and it’s like well that’s just really stupid because they’re actually not here to hear the other side of this argument.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s crazy. You should stop doing that.

**John:** Because Craig you never do that. You never actually–

**Craig:** I don’t really.

**John:** Have imaginary arguments?

**Craig:** I don’t. No. You’ve said this before. In fact I believe, because I remember it making quite an impression on me, it was one of your New Year’s resolutions to stop having arguments with people who weren’t there. I mean, I’ve definitely had the thing, there’s a German word for it, where you walk away from a conversation and then you think, oh, I should have said this or this.

**John:** The staircase thing, yeah.

**Craig:** The staircase logic. But it’s rare that I will sit and have a debate with somebody who is not there because they’re not there. It seems like a total waste of good fighting.

**John:** Yeah. But again it’s a range of experiences. And so I think, you know, there’s people who are going to be, I think there’s a term hyperphantasia, people who have extremely visual internal lives and that can be great, but it can also be challenging because apparently it ties into PTSD and other things. They kind of keep re-seeing these things. And it’s not just a reported phenomenon. Like one of the things I liked in this New York Times piece that we’ll link to, they actually can do scientific studies where they say, OK, we want you to visualize a bright white triangle and while they’re doing this they’re measuring your pupil dilation and people who have a situation where they don’t have a mind’s eye, their pupils will not contract where other people’s pupils will contract. And so it really is a thing – it’s a deeper brain thing and not just how people report the experience.

**Craig:** It’s a good reminder that what we do is brain work.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And everybody’s brain is different and I don’t necessarily think, unless we’re talking about specific injury, or clear malfunction, or dysfunction, some of these things are just a question of how the imperfect system is balanced.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, you can only say that you are hyperphantasic if we have a number that is a normal amount of phantasic.

**John:** And we don’t.

**Craig:** We don’t. It’s a spectrum, like you say. There’s a range of brain function and, you know.

**John:** Here’s I think what might be useful for listeners though is if you feel – if you listen to our conversation and say like, OK, they describe as seeing yourself in a place and imagining all these things around you and that doesn’t even make sense to me. I don’t even know how a person does that. That could be a sign like, oh, maybe you actually are on this edge of this experience. Maybe it’s good to know, because if it is your situation then look for ways to address that. You may not be doing something wrong. It may just be how your brain works.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like I don’t understand why anyone believes in god. My brain doesn’t work that way. And wouldn’t it be amazing if I got to judgment day and stood before god and went, oh, whoa.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You’re real. And he said, or she said, “Yes.” And I said but I just – even now I really don’t quite believe. And then he or she said, “Yeah, that’s because you had a brain problem.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then I would say, OK, so does that get me out of burning in a lake of fire for eternity? And I suspect that’s where they would say, “No.” [laughs]

**John:** But then again the question is well then who designed your bad, broken brain? It all sort of snaps back. As you were describing that were you visualizing?

**Craig:** Of course I was.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** Of course I was. I can see everything. I could see all of it. I think I might be hyperphantasic.

**John:** I think I might be as well. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a common trait among screenwriters and writers in general.

**Craig:** Makes sense.

**John:** When I was doing the Arlo Finch books because as a screenwriter we’re only looking at what we can see and what we can hear, like texture, and taste, and smell, like those are not things that we’re actively describing in our scene description, but suddenly in a book I was doing all of those things and I did feel like my world had gotten a little bit more full. It was nice to be able to look at those senses that I normally can’t describe on the page and everything did just feel a little bit brighter for it.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** Nice. Let’s get to some more listener questions. Megana, what have you got for us?

**Megana:** Great. So Stupid Luck asks, “I found myself in the most wonderful but terrifying situation. A pilot that I helped to develop and write was sold earlier this year and despite my having zero experience working on a TV show beyond assistant gigs nearly 20 years ago I have been given a higher title than I surely deserve, leapfrogging several low and midlevel positions. Am I doomed to fail? Will my complete and total ignorance of how this all works make me seem irrelevant? I’ve already been included on a ton of conference calls but besides weighing in on the development and my take on writer’s samples I pretty much stay silent. I’m trying to learn and absorb as much as I can, as quickly as I can, but the learning curve is steep. Any advice on how to approach this situation? How to balance my inexperience with the desire to contribute in a meaningful way? How to show appropriate deference to those who have been doing this a lot longer than I have while still taking my shot?”

**Craig:** Wow. Stupid Luck, you are kind of a dream. You seem to have missed the memo that in order to succeed in Hollywood you have to be a total psychopath with no shame and who has no problem talking when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You know, I think this is actually really good news, the fact that you’re even thinking this way is really good news. No, you’re not doomed to fail at all. Don’t be fooled by the militarization and rankifization of the television business. There are people whose value, experience level has nothing to do with their title, both for good and for bad. You are where you are, now forget about it. It doesn’t matter.

In any meeting the best idea is the best idea. And the person who is the most impressive is the person who impresses the most. So it makes total sense to listen and to learn, but you shouldn’t be afraid to weigh in. You should not worry that people are going to judge you. And if you make a mistake you make a mistake. You have a natural humility about you. As long as you don’t take things personally and you keep moving forward and you show other people respect and you don’t trample on them in an effort to get somewhere they will be OK with that. They will be perfectly fine. It’s the only way you can learn. So I think you’re doing great.

**John:** Well let’s imagine another scenario in which Stupid Luck developed and wrote this thing, it was sold, and then comes in as a staff writer on it. That also would not make sense because you are the person who co-created this project. You are naturally going to be up a few ranks there because you are going to have some decision-making capability. You helped create this world. You know things about this world that no one else does. So you’re not going to enter in at the bottom.

When I sold my first TV show I was brought in and my first title was Co-EP, but I was really the showrunner but I really didn’t know what I was doing. I had the disaster that I think you’re fearing that you may have. But it sounds like you have people around you who really do know what they’re doing and can actually support you and sort of make all the stuff happen. I wouldn’t worry so much about it.

Or my first movie, Craig you probably had a similar experience, the first time being on set for a movie, you kind of don’t know a lot.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And you’re scared like am I allowed to eat at crafts service. It’s all kind of new. But you do have a place there. You do belong there. It’s finding out how you can be useful and how to get out of the way when literally they just need to turn the set around.

**Craig:** And people actually want to help. They want to teach. Nobody walks onto a production and knows what’s going on just naturally. No one. It’s very weird. A lot of it is strange and there are things still to this day I get confused by. I’ve been doing this forever. I run my own show. And I repeatedly confuse who is in charge of beards.

**John:** Oh yes.

**Craig:** It’s hair or makeup depending whether it’s this kind of beard or that kind of beard. All the time these things happen and then you just go, OK, right, sorry, let me…

And it’s perfectly fine as long as you don’t bluster about and take it out on people when they gently correct you. And you’re going to be fine. And, by the way, don’t say Stupid Luck. I would say there is no such thing.

**John:** Good Fortune, sure. But you also worked hard to get there.

**Craig:** You worked hard. And you did something. And it is something that is now employing lots of people. So, I wouldn’t say Stupid Luck. I wouldn’t say it was inevitability either. I would say you achieved something. You should be proud of it, while staying humble, and move forward.

**John:** Agreed. Megana, can you give us another question here?

**Megana:** Casey writes in, “I’m a screenwriter based in LA who has yet to break in but I have had a pilot in development for the past couple of years. I wrote it on spec for producers and we have an older, more established writer attached to showrunner who has guided me through the development process. I wrote the pilot but we worked together to create the pitch. It’s been years now and I’m beginning to feel emotionally detached from and frustrated with the project. In working with the producers I have less and less confidence in their ability to get this thing across the finish line. And I have also come to discover that the showrunner and I have very different world views with regards to race, social justice, and gender.

“I also keep being asked to do free work on a project that hasn’t gone anywhere in two years. My question is am I shackled to this project until it’s officially dead or until it gets bought? How do I navigate this strange situation?”

**Craig:** Hmmm.

**John:** Casey, I wish I could tell you this was a strange situation. There are sort of like zombie projects that aren’t really alive and aren’t really dead that are just kind of always out there and you have to decide, you know what, I’m done. I don’t believe this thing is going to move forward. I don’t believe it’s going to move forward with these people on board.

You wrote this script, this other showrunner person helped you, or helped guide you through the pitch. Maybe contractually they’re involved. You can see. My hunch is that you have a good writing sample that you should be using to get you other jobs. But this project is dead is my guess.

**Craig:** Dead or alive, it’s your decision. That’s the good news. You’re not shackled to it. It’s yours. You own the copyright. You haven’t sold it. You’ve written it on spec. No one has bought it. So, you could just do whatever you want with it. And, you know, as far as the showrunner, the showrunner is not the showrunner because there’s no show. That’s just a person. And if you don’t like the person and you don’t feel connected with them then you make a change. Because it’s your material. They can’t go on without you.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because they haven’t sold it yet. And when you say being asked to do free work, you’re not being asked to do free work. There is no work, meaning employment. You are choosing – this is what it comes down to, and this is a hard one to hear Casey, but you’re choosing to continue to work on something that you own. It is your property. The day you sell it is the day everything changes and the work is about employment and then it is a question of being taken advantage of by people who should be paying you because you’re not a copyright owner but you’re an employee. Until that day you have to act like the person you are in this situation, which is believe it or not, the boss.

**John:** Yeah. I will say that emotionally you may have moved on from this project as well. And so I want to give you permission to say like I learned some things from that and now I’m going to step aside and Craig and I both have things that we’ve wrote that’s just like I like this script, there’s things I like about this script, but it is not going to be worth my time to pay any more attention to it. It’s on the shelf now and I’m moving forward with new things. Just give yourself permission to say this is not what I’m interested in working on right now. And that’s great. Don’t feel like you have to finish everything.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just make sure that your lack of interest is not a lack of interest in people as opposed to material. If you’re still interested in the material but the people are wrong it’s time to find different people. And, of course, the other ones may say, well, if you sell it then we get a title and we get money. OK, well we’ll figure that out down the road. But in the meantime it sounds like this marriage has come to an end.

**John:** I think so. I have a thing that’s actually not a question, but I want to point to this Twitter thread by Ariel Rutherford about this white male writer with credits who puts out a call for a diverse female writer to help him on a project and then he tries to swing this kind of Svengali mentor situation where he’s like I’m creating a writer’s room and stuff. I’m not going to go in depth on the Twitter thread, but there’s a link in the show notes, so click through this link. Be warned that this kind of behavior exists out there. Especially because it turns out another writer @awkwardgirlla had the exact same situation with the exact same writer. So it’s a guy who is just doing this repeatedly.

This is just shitty behavior. And I don’t know who this writer is, but this writer should not be doing this. And it was just a new spin on sort of like a person with some credits taking advantage of writers with no credits. And so it drove me crazy. I just wanted to shine a little spotlight on it here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Anybody that suggests that you should join their mentor group you should view as a cult leader. There are no mentor groups. That’s not a thing. The mentor groups that exist are not generated by individuals like that. There may be something like the kind of thing that you and I have done where there have been organizations that have put together established writers with up and coming writers. And they have a discussion and it’s formalized and then they move on. There is not sort of you join my little mini church and then you also do all of my work for me and you clean my clothes and then eventually I have 12 babies with four of you. This is not good. You don’t want this. You don’t want to go down that road.

You don’t need it. That’s the other thing. Anybody that’s offering you that, it ain’t real. Real mentors are desperate to not mentor people. That’s the god’s honest truth. You or I, we’re not looking for extra people to do this stuff with. We have to be asked. We have to forced and shamed into it.

**John:** And so here I think is this guy’s clever trick, it’s almost like it’s a negging kind of thing he’s doing, those pickup artist books. Basically he’s saying like, “Hey, I need help. Would someone out there want to help me?” It’s almost like a white guy in a van saying hey would you help me find my lost dog. He’s asking for help and so then someone will say, “I can help you.” And he’s like, “Oh, you’re actually not good enough, but I think you could get better if you just come join my writers group.” That’s what drives me crazy. Because it’s not even the normal scam which is that like, oh, we’re going to help you polish up your script. It has that first level of I need help because I’m a white male writer who needs a diverse female voice on this thing.

**Craig:** Also, if you’re a white male writer and you’re on the Internet asking randos to help you be less white, fuck off. Go do your own work. Do your work. Research. Figure it out. Study. Interview people. Don’t make them do your work for you. Don’t ask that. What is that? That is something you pay people for. It’s called writing or producing or consulting. It’s a job. It’s not free.

Geez, fucking guy.

**John:** I should say also that he was offering pay at the start. So basically the hook was like oh I will pay you to be a consultant on this thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, but like what? When I say pay I mean like you work for Fox or Disney and you get paid, like a real salary. Not like some guy is like, “Here you go. I guarantee you $100.”

**John:** All right. Now it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a thing I did last year which I highly recommend for people in LA. It’s called the LA County Adopt a Family for the Holidays program. It’s done through the county and you go to a really boring website, a poorly designed form, but you put in your information and they match you up with a family in LA County who receives Medicaid or basically needs some help because they would not be otherwise able to buy Christmas presents for their kids. And so you get matched up with a family. You exchange text messages to find out who they are and what their kids are like and what their situation is. You buy some presents. You wrap presents. Everyone knows I love wrapping presents.

**Craig:** Oh my god. You’re so good at it.

**John:** I love wrapping presents. And then you drop off the presents and then you go and it’s lovely and it’s nice and it’s such a good thing. A friend tipped me off to it and I’m sending out the word to other friends. It’s just a really good, smart program. So if you are a person in Los Angeles who feels like you know what I’d love to buy some Christmas presents for people who could really stand have a better holiday, really recommend the LA County Adopt a Family for the Holidays program. And we’ll put a link in the show notes to it.

**Craig:** That does sound pretty good.

**John:** It’s pretty good.

**Craig:** I can probably steal that. You know, I don’t know how to wrap gifts. Did you know that?

**John:** Oh.

**Craig:** I don’t even know how to do it. Melissa does it.

**John:** I love, I genuinely love doing it. I didn’t realize people didn’t know how to do it until Rawson Thurber, who was my assistant at one point, just literally could not do it and so I would wrap all of his presents.

**Craig:** So basically I start to wrap something and then everything goes wrong. It’s sort of like me and drawing. I can wrap it in a square and then there’s the extra part sticking out and I know there’s some folding involved, but the folds don’t work right. And inevitably it ends up looking like a large Tootsie Roll inevitably. I just start twisting the ends. Megana, do you know how to wrap gifts.

**Megana:** I’m really bad at it. And it’s so embarrassing to bring something that I’ve tried to wrap in front of John because I can just feel his judgment so heavily.

**Craig:** He’s pretty judgy.

**John:** But Craig I don’t know if you know that Megana actually draws really well. She’s actually, give her a pen and some time and she can draw you up something lovely.

**Megana:** I do like to doodle.

**Craig:** I know that because Megana got me one of the nicest things ever. She made a painting of my dog.

**John:** She made a painting of my dog, too. That’s your thing.

**Megana:** It actually really wasn’t. You guys are the only two that – I’m like what do these guys care about? And the answer is consistently your dogs.

**Craig:** I have another dog now, Megana. I’m just saying.

My One Cool Thing is Megana’s ability to draw my dog.

**John:** That’s a very cool thing indeed. And that’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Layn Pieratt. Really good outro. Thank you, Layn.

If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is sometimes @clmazin. And I am always @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing. This last week’s was about naming characters and I just went through this big project where I had to name, I can’t even tell you how many characters, but so many characters and it was just fun to go back through this newsletter and look at how other people name their characters.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. And you can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on a Bad Art Friend, or maybe two bad art friends. We’ll discuss. But only for our premium members. Thank you Craig. Thank you Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Oh, Craig. Oh Craig. All right, so welcome all our premium members. You are true friends. You are true art friends. And we would never turn on you in our text channel, our text thread about you. Craig, can you give us the briefest recap of the situation between these two women and this writer community?

**Craig:** Yeah. So this has been zinging around and there’s a big article in the New York Times Magazine. Long and short of it is there was a woman who was more of an up and coming writer. And she decided to donate a kidney to a person that she didn’t know. A little bit like the way you just adopted a family. But this was a rather extreme thing. She was like I decided just to be a really good person. I’m going to offer my kidney to somebody in need of a kidney. And just somebody. And in fact there was somebody in need and she did in fact have the surgery. She donated her kidney. And she talked a lot about it. She talked a lot about it on a Facebook group. Facebook, of course, root of all evil.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And while she was talking about it she had an acquaintance, or she thought was a friend, was another writer who is a little bit more of an established writer who wrote a story that included something about a woman who donates a kidney to somebody. And the kidney donor was a bit irked because initially she just didn’t feel like this other woman was paying enough attention to her kidney donation.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Which is where I got stuck. Cause I think it’s sort of like that’s not why you donate a kidney. Anyway, and that writer, Sonya Larson, said, “Yeah, no, no, I saw that you donated a kidney. Good for you.” And then later she released this story and Dawn Dorland, the woman who donated a kidney, was aghast and believed and accused Sonya Larson of essentially lifting her story because she included this element of a person donating a kidney. But what was really weird and where this story actually got kind of confusing and muddled is indeed Sonya Larson did lift a sentence or two from an email that Dawn Dorland had written, or a Facebook post, one of those two. I can’t remember.

So actually there was sort of like a little bit of technical plagiarism there. But not much. And this story has lit up everyone. I guess you either are Team Dawn or you’re Team Sonya, or as somebody on Facebook [unintelligible] what this story really shows more than anything is that writers are annoying. [laughs] And that is absolutely true. So, OK, John, Megana, what do we make of this?

**John:** So I’ve only read the Robert Kolker New York Times story, so my only point into it. I know there’s a discourse that goes well beyond the edged the edges of this because it’s 2021 and the discourse has to spill everywhere. And like these people themselves are probably also involved in the conversation.

God, it made me – as you start to read the story and you start to see Dawn saying like why aren’t people commending me enough for donating a kidney. That is a great character. That is a great moment.

**Craig:** Nuts.

**John:** And at the same time I think oh my god you want to use that character in a story. And then it seems like Sonya Larson did that and then also – which was probably defensible as using that idea of that character. But then to actually use those words seems so dumb. And that’s a thing I couldn’t get past.

**Craig:** Yeah. So everybody fucked up to some extent. Although my sympathies will always be with the person who does the work. And in this case the person who did the work was Sonya Larson. The fact that she was inspired by someone’s story of donating a kidney is normal. People are inspired by real life stuff all the time. Nobody owns that. If you donate a kidney to somebody you don’t own everybody’s short story from now until the end of time about somebody donating a kidney.

Yes, she clearly screwed up by cribbing that line from an email and that was wrong. Also, it didn’t really cause any damage because as far as I could tell Sonya Larson’s short story has not led to any kind of real financial success. It was just out there, but it wasn’t some huge thing. Now it’s a huge thing.

And also Sonya Larson appears to be a legitimate writer who is doing work. And so I feel like if you do the work you do the work. So she made a mistake and she has owned that mistake. The other thing that was going on in a very kind of typical Internet way there are a bunch of people who are on this Facebook page–

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** –where they see Dawn Dorland going on about her kidney donation ad nauseam and wondering why people aren’t telling her more about how wonderful she is for her donation. And they start back-channeling and gossiping about how much they hate her. And I totally understand that because I think I probably would have done the same thing. Totally. I’m like Megana I have to at this point – you seem like the nicest person in the world. Every interaction I’ve ever had with you you seem quite pure. Like you were delivered on angel wings to the world to save us all.

But, have you never just sort of seen somebody acting like this super thirsty annoying person and then kind of back-channeled some catty commentary?

**Megana:** Yeah. I mean, I so sympathize for Dawn because I think we’ve all had that experience of thinking that people are our friends, or that people are saying – you know, just that infuriating feeling of not getting the joke or not being in on the thing is so devastating. Nobody is talking about the violation of privacy here and I would never want my personal private group chats with my girlfriends to be public.

**John:** That is absolutely crucial. So we should say those became public because of discovery. Because there were lawsuits going back and forth between the two of them. And so once it got to that point I’m just like oh my god everything has gone off the rails because there are so many conversations I’ve had with people that I would not want to show up on discovery. And I’ve been through discovery. Discovery sucks. So I don’t want that done. Yes.

**Megana:** But also the context, because sometimes my friends are like really in the wrong, but when you have your friend’s back and you know. I don’t need everyone reading the New York Times how I’m trying to support my friend in that way. I don’t know, it’s just so–

**Craig:** Totally.

**Megana:** Ugh.

**Craig:** It’s a real mess. I do love just how this all started. And the way it started was that she was posting on Facebook celebrating herself and what she did. And then what’s so great is she just looked to see that some of the people she invited into her self-congratulatory look-at-what-I-did group hadn’t reacted to any of her posts. Now, at that point it’s getting stalky. What does she do? She writes an email to Sonya Larson and the email basically is why haven’t you said anything? Mother-fucker, nobody owes you a comment. We’re reading it. And what was kind of shocking was the message to her was, “I think you’re aware I donated my kidney this summer, right?” [laughs] Like what the hell is that? What kind of crazy world is that?

**John:** I want that printed on a t-shirt, please.

**Craig:** I think you’re aware that I donated my kidney this summer. Yeah? Mm-hmm. Like I would have been like, “Mm-hmm.” But Sonya Larson said, “Ah, yes, I did see on Facebook that you donated your kidney. What a tremendous thing,” which is pretty much the polite thing to say to somebody when what you really want to say is, “Yeah, what do you want? What do you want? You want a cookie?”

And then in response to that Dawn Dorland wondered if Sonya really thought it was great why did she need reminding that it happened. Which reminded me of that thing in Airplane. Hmm, he never has more than one cup of coffee at home. So stupid. Like what narcissism. Anyway, it’s kind of like I guess the person who has her kidney is like I don’t care about any of that. I’m alive. So, good on you, Dawn Dorland. But this got crazy. And, look, underneath all of it the reason I suggested it, John, is because I think there is this – as we were talking about parasocial relationships last time, this thing happening with the Internet now where people overshare their lives and then are shocked to find that other humans who hoover up information about humans for their vocation and then recreate them into art are doing so. They can’t believe it. And they feel as though they’ve been violated. And to the extent that a story like this leads some people to think that writers shouldn’t be doing things like this, other than ripping that one line off from the email which shouldn’t have happened, writers should be doing things like this.

I’m very pro-writer in this regard.

**John:** One thing I did want to actually discuss is that idea of iteration. I thought it was interesting point of the Sonya Larson side of it all is that like they were going back to earlier versions of the story. Basically she kept working on the story and revising the story. And earlier versions of the stories might have been closer to this, but when is that story finished? Because it was going to be published this one time, and then she changed it more, and it got changed again. What is the draft that is actually the problem? And at what point in the process can you really say like that was infringement or she just hadn’t done the necessary editing to not make it infringe-y. And that’s an interesting ethical question as well.

**Craig:** What do you think, Megana?

**Megana:** The thing that I was going to say is that in our Cat Person discussion we talked about how easy it would have been for the person to change key details about where this worked, just completely lifting those directly. I think in the same way here, John I think said in Episode 500 like I like to use characters from real life because it proves that those people can exist in reality and that’s a believable thing. But I think you can take the spirit of that without taking the exact details. Like what I also find really troubling is that whether or not Sonya Larson liked Dawn Dorland, like they were a part of the same community. And Dawn was very vocal about this kidney donation. So presumably everyone in Dawn’s life who reads this short story is going to know that. And I just don’t understand why you couldn’t take the extra effort to obscure some of those details. I don’t think it would have changed the feeling of the story, but it would have protected this person whether or not you like them.

**Craig:** It sounds to me like that aspect of the story was fairly minor. That the story was not about kidney donation. It included somebody who had done so. But that the value of the story was in the writing and in the execution as is so often the case. That the concept – didn’t matter what the concept was. So, yes, she could have certainly done that, but I think it’s also reasonable to expect that if Sonya Larson doesn’t know Dawn Dorland and reads somebody’s repost of that and writes a story about it that she doesn’t owe Dawn anything. So what’s the difference?

I mean, basically it sounds like Dawn thought that they were a lot closer than they were and Sonya’s point of view was, yeah, I don’t know you. You know? I don’t know you like that as the memes say.

**John:** Now, Megana, you’re actually in writers groups and Craig and I are not. So has there been a discussion in your writers group about this situation and like what is your feeling about this kind of appropriation or even just we’re writing about the same area or space? Is that a thing that comes up in your group?

**Megana:** I don’t know that I have a great response. Because it is an icky situation and I think that sometimes you see people using similar plot devices or things creep up in multiple people’s works because they’re inspired or they’ve just been talking about it in the group. So, I don’t know. It’s really tricky and I wish that I had a better way of figuring that out. But so far we haven’t really had any conversations about that.

I think we’re also aware that in the process of iterating, yeah, maybe you are using something similar to someone else’s project to figure out a solution, but maybe in your next draft that’s going to be different, so it’s not worth litigating as a group.

**Craig:** Years and years ago I had a drum kit. It wasn’t a very good drum kit but I was learning on it. It didn’t sound great. And I knew a drummer, like a proper professional drummer who came by and I showed it to him and I was like it doesn’t sound that great, but it’s good enough to learn on. And he sat down and he played some and it sounded amazing. It was like the best drum kit ever because it’s not the drum kit. And it’s not the idea. It’s not the concept. It’s not the premise. None of that is what it’s about. That stuff is just the drum kit. It’s the drumming that matters. And in this case it’s the execution that matters. It’s the writing that matters. Anybody in any writing group, everybody could get the exact same prompt and 12 of those same details and you’ll get eight different stories, and you might even get eight stories that are really similar, but only one of them is good.

**John:** Yeah. Like the four gospels in the Bible. Only one of them is good?

**Craig:** Which one is that?

**John:** I’ll tell you off-mic.

**Craig:** Oh, is it John? Because your name is John? Is it John?

**John:** That’s what it is.

**Craig:** Oh, is John the crazy one that talked about the beast and the mark of the devil?

**John:** That’s Book of Revelation. Wow. No. That’s not a gospel.

**Craig:** OK, that’s a different god.

**Megana:** Can I say one other thing about the writing group though? I’m so shocked that no one in this group was like you should definitely change that text. You can’t just lift.

**John:** For all we know someone did. We’re not seeing the whole thread. Or maybe you have gone through all of the documents. Megana has been doing nothing else for the last three weeks. Just going through all this. She found the Zodiac Killer and now she’s figuring out who was the real bad friend in the bad friend group.

People throw this at us like How Would This Be a Movie. I’m going to say that I don’t think this is a movie because so much of what it really comes down to is appropriation of words on a page and plagiarism is not great movie material. If you look at the Melissa McCarthy movie, Can You Ever Forgive Me, was fantastic, but it’s not really plagiarism. It ends up being a very physical, visual thing she’s doing. She’s faking letters. Versus this I feel is just not going to work, to me.

**Craig:** John, question for you.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** You’re aware that I donated my kidney this summer, right?

**John:** You know, I think it’s such a remarkable, selfless act. I have not been talking to any of my other friends about how much you bring that up.

**Craig:** If you really thought it was that great of an act I’m wondering why you needed reminding that it happened. Curious.

**John:** All right, well thanks. It’s been fun.

**Craig:** See you guys.

**John:** You can log off the Zoom now. Bye.

**Craig:** See you next week.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [Netflix 2-minute Viewership](https://screenrant.com/netflix-2-minutes-veiwership-numbers-why/) on ScreenRant
* [Twitter Thread on Netflix Thumbnails](https://twitter.com/trungtphan/status/1445768087832182796?s=21)
* [Harvey Weinstein Orc in Lord of the Rings](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/05/elijah-wood-lord-of-the-rings-orc-modeled-harvey-weinstein)
* [Dana Covarrubias explains “What the Clothes in Only Murders in the Building Say About the Show’s Characters”](https://slate.com/podcasts/working/2021/10/only-murders-building-costume-designer-dana-covarrubias-creative-process) in Slate Working Podcast
* [Aphantasia](https://aphantasia.com/what-is-aphantasia/)
* [Many People Have a Vivid Mind’s Eye While Others Have None at All](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/science/minds-eye-mental-pictures-psychology.html?smid=url-share) on the NYT
* [LA County Adopt A Family](https://dpss.lacounty.gov/en/community/volunteer.html)
* [Bad Art Friend](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/magazine/dorland-v-larson.html) by Robert Kolker
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Layn Pieratt ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

Scriptnotes, Episode 515: Ashley is Back, Transcript

September 22, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/ashley-is-back).

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

**Ashley Nicole Black:** I’m Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 515 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig often does silly voices, but he could not do a voice that unique and brilliant. That is Ashley.

**Ashley:** I want someone to pause right there and be like wow Craig really perfected his woman voice.

**John:** We are listening to Ashley Nicole Black. We’re welcoming her back. She has two Emmy nominations in the same category for her work on the Black Lady Sketch Show and the Amber Ruffin Show. You might also recognize her name on a little program called Ted Lasso. Ashley Nicole Black, welcome back.

**Ashley:** Thanks for having me. A friend of mine was like congrats on the Emmy nominations or whatever, but I get really excited when you’re on Scriptnotes.

**John:** Well because you get to carry around Ashley Nicole Black in your ears, as you’re walking your dog, or as you’re washing your dishes.

**Ashley:** In the shower. Yeah.

**John:** But we can also of course see you on the Black Lady Sketch Show because you are one of the featured performers on that show. So I want to talk to you today about writing on that show knowing that you’re going to be performing on that show and what that’s like. I want to talk to you about the experience of joining Ted Lasso in the second season and figuring out how you find your place within a writer’s room that already exists. We have a lot of listener questions you can help us answer.

But mostly I want to respond or celebrate this best headline, we’ll put a link in the show notes, “Ashley Nicole Black, the double-nominated Emmy contender taking over TV comedy.”

**Ashley:** [laughs]

**John:** You are taking over TV comedy, which I think is just remarkable. Because you look at the people who have done that before, but Larry David step aside. Ashley Nicole Black.

**Ashley:** It’s so funny because all of this work was done during COVID over Zoom in my apartment. And I just can’t imagine taking over anything from that West Hollywood apartment.

**John:** You’re busy managing your very cute dog and making it work. But what’s it been like doing press and also doing publicity for award stuff? It would be great if you got awards, if you didn’t get awards it’s absolutely fine, too, but it’s also kind of work, right? Just doing all of this press?

**Ashley:** It’s so much work. It’s like exhausting. It just adds so much time to the schedule. And a thing that happens, and I hope this happens to everybody listening, when something like this happens there’s a lot of press and then also at the same time everybody wants to meet you. So you’re trying to juggle your schedule of putting all these press things on the schedule, putting all these meetings on the schedule, and trying to do good enough work to live up to how people are talking about you, which is quite hyperbolic. Look, I can’t be late on this outline. There’s so many articles about how good I am. [laughs]

**John:** And then you have John emailing you at the last minute saying, hey, could you feel in for Craig this week on Scriptnotes. And so thank you so much for squeezing us in here. The last time we spoke with you I think you came on for the YouTube thing we did where we were talking through the ballot initiatives and trying to fill out our California ballots. So thank you for that. But we’re in an election season again, because there’s a whole bunch of WGA stuff happening. So let’s quickly move through this.

You saw that Fran Drescher was elected as president of SAG-AFTRA.

**Ashley:** Yes, I voted for Fran.

**John:** Yeah. Exciting for that. What I love about SAG is you always recognize the people who are in these offices. It’s like, oh, it’s the Nanny. And she’s now running this organization.

**Ashley:** Yes. I have to really discipline myself to look up their platforms and not just vote for the actors whose work I like.

**John:** It was kind of a contentious election where people were threatening to sue each other for libel and stuff. And, no, we don’t need that. But congratulations to Fran Drescher. As we talked about on the show all the guilds and unions seem to have some common issues that we’re all going to be focused on in these next round of negotiations. So, it’s great to have somebody in there who is at least talking about those issues. It’s exciting.

**Ashley:** Yeah. Very much so.

**John:** We have the WGA West elections are under way. So probably next week we’ll talk through some of the candidates for that. But we have follow up on the WGA East. So last week on the episode we talked about the WGA East election and the issues involved. And several folks reached out on Twitter and they did what folks on Twitter do which is have opinions based on things they saw on Twitter, which is just great. It’s a perfect system and nothing should ever change.

But two clarifications. They’re not really corrections but clarifications based on things we said on last week’s episode. Important to understand that digital writers, like the ones who are working for some of the shops the East is now representing, they’re doing work that it is not covered by the AMPTP contract. So when we talk about working for the studios and the big negotiations that we do with the studios these digital writers are not working under that contract. And because they’re not under that contract they’re also not part of the WGA health plan. So they will have health insurance through their employers which is different and negotiated separately. So I want to make sure everyone understands that they’re doing their own contracts with their own individual employers. It’s different than the big contract that gets negotiated every three years.

And then there’s this other question which I didn’t really want to weigh in on but people kept asking about which is could digital writers outnumber the traditional writers in the East based on how quickly they’re signing up new shops? Would writers working under individual contracts rather than the big contract outnumber the traditional writers? And it comes down to this question of how soon is soon. Eventually if you move forward in time it looks like the trends would go that way, but soon is a hard thing to define.

So, I think that’s really what this election is about. How quickly do you want that change to happen and do you think you need to restructure the organization? And that seems to be what the two sides who are running the two different slates are really discussing. So I want to make that clear that I’m not saying that it’s going to happen next year, or five years from now, but overall it seems like this election is about what shape we want the union to be in five years, ten years down the road. So I want to clarify those two things.

**Ashley:** Yeah. I think also it’s about do we vote for these things or does staff them unilaterally? And I think that that’s something that applies to more than just this situation. But I know that union members, we’re all writers. We’re busy writing. We don’t necessarily know everything the union is doing. And it’s like what things are worth us voting on as a union and choosing to do and what things are things that like the union can just do and we’re not involved in choosing it.

**John:** Such a great point. Because so much of what unions do is sort of day to day organizing and keeping stuff going. And it’s not things you’d be voting on regularly. And so be it individual members voting in these big elections or boards meeting, there’s a lot of just daily work that unions and guilds are doing and really picking a direction for where you want them to go. And so the choices that members make now in this election will impact what you’re setting as the agenda for these organizations.

**Ashley:** Yeah. I also want to point out, and sorry I didn’t listen to your episode last week, so maybe this is redundant, but when this election started I was really excited about some of the candidates that were running, like Lauren Ashley Smith, Greg Iwinski, who are both comedy variety writers, because comedy variety is really more heavily represented in the East than in the West. Comedy variety writers make way less money and now are also seeing their residuals disappear, and I’m not even being hyperbolic. It’s nuts how quickly. I mean, a $20K check has turned into a $20 check and that’s not even an exaggeration. And also of course we know there are so many gains that need to be made for writers of color, for screenwriters, all of those writers who are just not the typical television writer.

And we sort of started the election talking about those things, like how do we make gains for comedy variety writers, how do we make sure they’re making enough for health insurance, how do we get rid of some of this free writing that screenwriters are doing. And now the discourse has completely moved away from that. And I do feel like that’s a pattern in our guild that like there are certain types of writers, and screenwriters have been saying this for years and years, I’m not saying anything new, that their issue always gets pushed to the side when it’s time to have the conversation. So I do hope that we get back to sort of talking about our writers who need help making health insurance during a pandemic and how we’re going to make that happen.

**John:** Yeah. You’re really emphasizing the importance of kitchen table issues. The things that are really making a difference in the paychecks coming home. And your ability to sustain a career in this business versus the structural housekeeping concerns which, yes, they’re important, they’re 20 years down the road problems. But they’re not helping a member right now. So it’s great that you’re really emphasizing that we have to focus on what members need right at this moment.

**Ashley:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. Now Ashley I have a question for you, because I see you on Twitter, and your Twitter is fantastic and you’re funny and you make smart points. And I feel like your Twitter is better than my Twitter, but I don’t know that to be true, and maybe it’s that silent evidence. I’m not seeing all the really annoying people who are coming into your feed. But I want to talk to you about this practice that happened to me this past week which is someone replies to something and says like “care to comment @johnaugust?” Or they tag you into a conversation that you don’t feel like you want to be a part of, and yet you feel like ignoring that conversation is perilous, too, or that by not engaging you’re expressing apathy or that you don’t care.

I struggle with this. Do you have any guidance for me?

**Ashley:** Oh man. I think that’s so rude and I hate it. I think people should not do it. I think on Twitter if you’re talking about someone’s work or whatever I actually think that’s fine. Don’t at them. There’s no need for them to see that. If you want to tell your friends I didn’t like this movie, or whatever it is, you can do that without adding that person and making sure you hurt their feelings. And the thing that I think is even worse than that is when someone has done that, politely said I don’t like this movie, I don’t like this song, whatever it is, and then someone comes along and is like let me start a fight between the two of you by tagging someone. I don’t understand what your goal is. Presumably you’re following one of those people. You want to make them have a bad day. It’s just bad practice. Don’t do it.

The version of that that I get a lot is I’ll tweet my political opinions quite often and people will take my tweet and quote tweet it into the thread of a republican politician or like some white supremacist radio host or whatever. And I’m like first of all you would have to be delusional to think that someone who has lived their entire life as a conservative, has gotten elected to office as one, is going to read my tweet and be like “I rethink it all.” In what world? So all you’re doing is bringing me to the attention of the people who love to swarm and send mean tweets to people.

So what I have done is multiple times I have tweeted don’t do this, please don’t do it, I don’t like it, and explain why. And now having done that I feel really confident just blocking people because I put work into curating a really positive feed and I have really positive interactions with my followers. I mean, part of that is because most people come to me because of the shows I’ve been on, and all of those shows are really positive and fun and loving, so it’s like cool, chill people. And if you bring negativity into that space I don’t feel bad blocking people for that.

**John:** So help me out here, because I go through periods where I will mute people who are just so annoying to me, but I don’t know if muting is the right approach or blocking, because I feel blocking is a more assertive action that they know that you have actually blocked them. Talk me through some philosophies on muting and blocking. Because it seems like blocking makes so much sense when you’re being quoted into somebody else, because that’s a way to stop them from doing that. But give me some guidance here. I’d love it.

**Ashley:** I tend to mute people who are just annoying but they’re not hurting anybody. They’re not necessarily doing anything wrong, it’s just I feel annoyance from looking at your tweets and I can stop myself from having that feeling by muting you. But there’s nothing wrong with you. You aren’t doing anything wrong. And blocking is like you’re actively doing something that is going to bring negativity my way or even sometimes when I see people being negative to other people. There are certain accounts that just spend all day being mean to fat people on Twitter. And you don’t even have to do it to me. If I saw that you did it to someone else, blocked. Because it’s just like why? Why is this how you’re spending your time? Please go outside and take a walk and enjoy your life.

**John:** That seems like good advice. So what I’m taking from this is mute the people who are just annoying to you. Block the people who are actively doing bad in the world.

**Ashley:** Yeah.

**John:** Great. I will take your advice and I’m going to move forward on that front. So thank you very much for that.

Next bit of follow up. So last week we had a guy named Ghosted who was really screwed over by these two WGA writers and Lance wrote in to say, “I’m a WGA member and in my experience the producers who have asked for the most free work have been WGA writers turned producers. On one particular project I did eight unpaid rewrites for an Oscar-nominated former WGA board member. The WGA talks a lot about producers who take advantage of writers, but I’ve never heard a conversation about WGA members taking advantage of other WGA writers. The WGA needs to have this conversation. There needs to be more internal accountability to have any credibility with non-writing producers.”

Oof. Yeah. And as I read this I can think of some writers turned producers who might have expectations that are not good or realistic, or might sort of have unhealthy numbers of rewrites and things that they’re asking for. Have you had this experience where you feel like sometimes WGA writers can be kind of crappy to other writers?

**Ashley:** Not in this context. This actually really shocks me that any writer would ask someone for unpaid rewrites because we all – well, I guess we didn’t all – I struggled on the way up. Some people maybe didn’t. But we all know what it means to need to pay the bills. But definitely I know a lot of writers have experienced, you know, bad experiences with showrunners, abusive behavior, stuff like that. And those people are our fellow writers. And it does make it hard to get redress sometimes because we’re in the same union, so it’s like who do you go to?

If you have a problem with a studio, if you’re not getting paid by a studio or a network you can go to the union and say they didn’t pay me, but when it’s another writer who is also in that union it is a problem that there’s kind of nowhere to go.

**John:** Yeah. On features there’s been one experience where I was a producer who was not writing on a project and the reason why there’s only been one of those experiences is because I didn’t love it. And I definitely knew how to talk to the writer and what I was looking for, but it was like being a pilot and not being allowed to touch the controls. I was trying to describe where I thought we needed to go, and if I could have just rewritten it myself I would have rewritten it myself. And to some degree I wonder if these WGA writers who are being dicks about other people’s writing is that they kind – they want to have the total control. They want to actually just be able to rewrite it, but they don’t actually want to do the work to rewrite it. So instead they’re just noting a person to death, or trying to get this other writer to write the way that they would write it. And that’s not healthy or good. That’s not how it needs to work. So that’s why you need to have contracts that you can actually enforce and you need to have – everyone needs to actually understand and remember that this writer who is doing this work for you is truly a writer and is truly trying to deliver their best work and you have to respect them for that and not ask for unrealistic free work out of them.

**Ashley:** Yeah. You’ve done this way more than me, so I wonder – ideally you would have a contract before you started writing, but between two writers I could see where you end up in a situation where you didn’t, be it felt rude to ask or whatever. But you should ask, right?

**John:** Yeah. In the Ghosted example there was a contract, but they were just ignoring the contract and asking for crazy, crazy stuff. But that sort of pre-contract stuff can be a problem where it’s like, oh, this is the WGA, the experienced writer is going to be overseeing this project, and here’s the newer writer who is going to be actually doing it. And in getting ready for the pitch the experienced writer might be asking for endless changes and dragging on, and on, and on before there’s actually a project being set up. That’s where I see some of the worst of this behavior because it’s not even really – it’s done sometimes with good intentions, like I really want this thing to get set up and so therefore I’m going to keep asking and keep asking and keep asking to refine this thing. But you always have to remember that you were once that writer who was doing the 19th version of this pitch document and that’s work that you’re not being able to do that’s actually paid.

So it’s remembering that. And I don’t know how the WGA enforces this any better other than just really establishing best practices for this is what free work is and this is why it’s a problem and how we stop it.

**Ashley:** Yeah.

**John:** So let’s move to happier topics which is you got started, I know you did late night and comedy variety writing, but I really want to talk about sketches and sketches you’re doing for Black Lady Sketch Show because you are a writer on the show but you’re also a performer on the show. You are so funny on the show. And I imagine that some of the stuff that you’ve been funniest in have been sketches that you yourself created. And in writing in it you’re just sort of writing for yourself, but you also know who the other cast members are. So, at what point in coming up with each sketch do you have a sense of like OK I’m this character and everybody else is this character? How is the pitching process working for the sketches?

Can you talk me through a given sketch on your show how it comes to be and how you come to write it?

**Ashley:** Sure. Actually on this show which I think is unique in this way 90, 95% of sketches we don’t know who the cast is and we’re literally just pitching. I mean, obviously we know who our cast is, but it’s not cast. And we don’t write for, like the celebrities that come on, we don’t write specifically for them. So you’re really just pitching what you think would be the funniest idea or most relevant to what’s going on in society, whatever your sketch idea is. And it gets cast way down the line long after the writers are done with the process.

Very occasionally I will pitch sketches that are specifically for myself. And most of those are things that truly only I could play. Like the Invisible Spy is so much about what my body looks like that nobody else could play that part, except for Nicole Byer who plays my doppelgänger in the sketch.

**John:** Nemesis and sort of compatriot there. So for people who don’t know the conceit of this character is essentially you are a secret agent who is so good because everyone just ignores you. People don’t even notice that you’re there and so therefore you can do these secret things.

**Ashley:** Yeah. And that was really based on my real life experience. I’m the person who – it was so funny, I had forgotten this and just remembered recently, Gabrielle who is on the show and I were on a plane together. And the flight attendant reaches over me to hand Gabrielle a drink and forgets to ask me. It’s just like, oh my god, it just happened. It happens all the time. I am just invisible. And so you can take that negatively, but I just decided this is my super power. I could get away with anything. If I wanted to shoplift no one would ever stop me. And so, yeah, that was one that I wrote for myself because it is me.

But most of them it’s just like what is a funny thing and it’ll get cast later.

**John:** Focusing on Invisible Spy. So you have this conceit. What is the pitching process for this? For the first season you were probably in a real room, but do you come in with the whole concept, or here’s the one line and you’re working on as a room? What was that like?

**Ashley:** Ideally you come in with a whole concept. A beginning, middle, and an end. And sometimes I do. Sometimes sketches come to me in that way and I know what the whole sketch is going to be. But we have to pitch – basically on that show you come in in the morning and you pitch until you get a yes. So you could end up racing through ten ideas in one day if your first nine are nos. So by the time you get to that fifth or sixth idea that you maybe weren’t planning on pitching yet sometimes you do just have a beginning. And that room is so good at jumping in and helping you flesh out your idea. What if this happens? And what if that happens? And some of the things that people love the most in sketches I’ve written were additions from other people, because their brain just works differently from mine. But then you also have to kind of be solid and know that just because that suggestion is funny does it actually fit in this sketch? And so for me I try not to pitch anything until I know what I’m trying to say.

Because if you pitch an idea that’s just funny it’s very easy for it to get off track and kind of be unset Jell-O. But if you have a funny idea and you know what you’re trying to say about the world, or what you’re referencing, then when people are throwing in other ideas it’s easier to say yes to that one, no to that one, because I have a thesis in mind.

**John:** So something like this sketch you’ve pitched it, the room has responded positively, what are you first handing in? And at what point do you know which episode that will go into? Because right now it’s just existing as a free-floating sketch. It’s not tethered into anything else in an episode. So when do you know that it’s like, OK, this is a thing we’re shooting. I’ll be playing the central character. When does it get crystalized as that form?

**Ashley:** So we write a first draft of the sketch to like a whole sketch, and then usually you get notes, you may write it again, the whole room contributes to it. But then because this is an HBO show, it’s not like SNL, the writers are gone. So if I was just a writer I would never know what episode it was in until I watched it on television.

**John:** Oh wow.

**Ashley:** But as an actor we get a huge packet of all the sketches and we kind of audition for all the sketches and sometimes you hear someone else read and you’re like I’m not reading this. That’s her part. Let’s move on. And then we just shoot them all. So we don’t know how they’re going to put the episodes together. The only time we would see a sneak peek is if we did ADR and they try to avoid even doing ADR. So we truly don’t know what it is until we watch it on TV.

**John:** So talk about alts. Because clearly in some of these situations you might think of other stuff along the way. Are alts part of the initial sketch packet? Like here’s alternate lines for alternate jokes, or alternate ways out of this sketch. Is that already part of it, or is that work that’s done on the set while you’re shooting?

**Ashley:** Mostly on set. And then we always try to leave room to do an improv run. And a lot of times that’s where the best stuff comes from.

**John:** Now, contrast that to the work you’re doing on the Amber Ruffin Show, things like her great monologues on how did we get here. That’s incredibly tightly written. I mean, it clearly is an essay before it goes into it. But is there a room working on that? Or is it really one person, one pitch, one idea? How does something like that come together?

**Ashley:** So, this is a little strange because I only worked on that show during Covid. And I was in LA and that show is produced in New York. So there was a room, but I wasn’t in it. So the room would meet on Zoom. I get to do that. I was writing all alone in my apartment. So I would basically take a piece from beginning to end because I was writing them alone and just sending them in. And then same thing. See it on TV. You see what jokes they replaced and it’s a lovely surprise.

**John:** OK, so that was really just you were a freelance writer slipping something under the door and you sort of see what happens.

**Ashley:** Yeah.

**John:** Wow. So it’s such a different experience. But talk to me about the experience of writing one of those pieces because it has to have a central thesis, a central theme, and it still has to be joke dense the whole time through. And are you thinking about what visuals go with it? If I were to read one of the things you submitted what would it look like? Is it just a column of text for Amber to be speaking or is it intercut with these are the visuals, this is the change, this is tone? What does that look like for a monologue like that?

**Ashley:** So, I still kind of work in the Full Frontal style, because that’s how I learned how to do it?

**John:** Full Frontal is the Samantha Bee Show you worked on, right?

**Ashley:** Yeah. You should clarify with that title. I still write without pants on.

So I usually start with a thesis statement or a hypothesis, something I think to be true, and then do a ton of research and make sure that it is true. And it is basically like writing an essay. Making an argument. Amber is very much an advocate for the way things should be more so than a complainer about the way things are. So it’s sort of like my thesis statement of like this is what’s happening and then me sort of projecting myself as Amber what should happen. Supporting that with research. And writing basically an essay, writing my way through it.

And we do pitch the graphics. I am not the best graphics pitcher. So I do put them in my script, but I know most of those are going to get replaced I am actually not the best visual thinker. But you do break up your text with where the graphics would be and what the jokes are. And the benefit to that is when you look at the full page you can really see how much room is between jokes because the graphics stand out so much. And you really try to do at least three, three to five jokes per page, and it’s very visually apparent where there’s a joke missing.

And if that’s the case I will put a joke there. I will shoehorn a joke because those pieces are so dense and sometimes they’re about such tough topics. You just have to have jokes to get through it. And so sometimes you’re like joking off of one word that was in the sentence before just because it’s time for a joke, no matter how hard it is to squeeze one in.

**John:** And to clarify when you’re say you’re breaking up the page to show the graphics, you’re just putting a description of the graphics? You’re not actually responsible for the Photoshopping of this is what the graphics would look like?

**Ashley:** Oh no, no.

**John:** So a whole other team does that. But I do find it interesting, if you even look at the progression of monologue desk bits from early on to where we are right now, and probably SNL was important to this, but you look at John Oliver, you look at Samantha Bee, and The Daily Show, the idea of we’re going to get a laugh right when that next graphic comes up, and it’s so prevalent now and you’re expecting that next graphic to always provide a punchline, to throw out a joke, or to set up that next thing.

And understanding the tension between OK these are the words but this is the graphic and the next pop has to be so different and it’s challenging to write because you don’t quite know what that next graphic is going to look like.

**Ashley:** Well you’re telling them what you want it to look like. And also the Full Frontal team, the graphics team, are also comedians, so they make the graphics really funny. And you also have the opportunity to go back and say, no, not that, do this.

But a lot of times it’s also clips, like news clips, and you’re writing the joke off the clip, so at Full Frontal they have a huge research team and they’ll send you a document of like 50 clips and you can pick one that has something you can make fun of, even if it’s like I’m going to make fun of the newscaster’s pony tail or whatever, just to get a joke off of something in this clip.

**John:** Great. So it’s almost like [unintelligible] you need something to plant your foot against so you can push up and get over that next little wall, that next point you’re actually trying to make. How challenging is it sometimes to remember that you’re trying to sell an argument and not just have it be joke-joke-joke? Because that would also be one of the problems I could imagine is that something could be so funny that you’re actually losing the thread. Does that happen?

**Ashley:** This is not a problem that I have because I started out as an academic and became a comedian. But I think it can be a problem that staffs have as a whole. And there usually is one person, either the head writer, or the writing supervisor who gets all of these jokes and then unfortunately sometimes has to reject some of them to make a point.

**John:** Great. Now so that’s writing for one performer, but you also got a chance this last season, since we last spoke with you I don’t think we even knew you were working on the second season of Ted Lasso. So can you talk to us about coming into a show in its second season? I think you were probably only in a virtual room? You never saw any of these people until the season had shot if I’m recalling correctly. So talk to us about the transition to coming into a real scripted normal show in its second season that was so successful and yet so delicate. What was that like? And what was the call for you to get in and work on the show?

**Ashley:** This is actually the second show – I also joined Bless This Mess in the second season. So I’m like a second season expert now.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ashley:** And it was actually pretty easy both times. I mean, with Ted Lasso there was that extra hiccup of it being Zoom. But the staff was just so cool and so friendly and inviting that whatever social nerves I had were released immediately. And the cool thing about being the only writer who joins, which I had that experience both times, is you’re the only person who only knows what the audience knows.

So in that beginning awkward period where you’re trying to figure out, OK, they added me to this room so they felt that they needed something. What is that thing? What’s the thing that I can provide? It takes maybe a couple weeks to figure that out. But in the interim the thing that you can provide is they have all of these memories of all these things they talked about or thought about doing or shot that didn’t make it in the show, and you only know what made it in the show. And it can actually be really helpful to be like, oh no, he said this. And I would find that I sometimes have a better memory for those things than them because I don’t remember all the things behind it.

**John:** Yeah. I can imagine if you were to enter The Good Place in the second season or middle of the first season and you didn’t sort of know the central conceit or where stuff was going it would be helpful in some ways because you just have that audience’s perspective and you’re just looking at it as a fan. And you’re going into it and sort of seeing like oh this is what I believe the thing is. And I don’t want to get into any spoilers of Ted Lasso, but we’re recording this as we’re midway through the second season. And it’s very clear that stuff is being set up for the second half of the season that probably was already a plan from the first season. But the rest of the people in that room knew that and you didn’t know that and that’s probably good for you and for them.

**Ashley:** Yeah. And the ability to be like as someone who didn’t know the plan this is what I thought when I watched that episode. This is where I thought this character was headed or what they were saying. And it’s not always exactly the same as what the writers were intending. So, it is helpful to have that kind of outside perspective.

**John:** What are hours like in a Zoom room for something like Ted Lasso? Traditionally a writer’s room could be eight hours a day. Were the Zoom rooms that kind of long schedule?

**Ashley:** Not quite. This was also at the beginning of the pandemic when everyone was getting used to Zoom and it was like Zoom is exhausting. I think we’ve gotten more used to it now. But we did work shorter hours definitely in the beginning. But also you don’t have any getting up and going to the kitchen and less small talk and stuff. So we actually got a lot done. But they weren’t very long.

**John:** And classically a room that’s getting together first you’re starting off talking about some blue sky, some goals for the second season of what you’re trying to do. And then start to break in generally looking at characters, figuring out what could fall in what episodes. How quickly did it come to a point where it’s like, OK, Ashley, you go off and write this episode. What was the process of getting you to OK now you go off and do this draft?

**Ashley:** Bill and Jason are really generous and some showrunners are not this way, but they will allow you to sort of be like I like this one, you know, if it’s possible. And one of the characters in my episode, which was Episode 3, is based on someone that Jason and I know both know. And so I asked for that episode so that I could write that character. But typically as joining in a second season I would never be so presumptuous as to ask for the third episode. But that one was like a particular case.

**John:** Because you brought it up, writing based on somebody that you both know a lot of people are listening and are like oh I didn’t know I could do that, or is it dangerous to write based on somebody you know. So what was it about that person who you knew that lent themselves to a character? What was it about them that you say like, oh, that’s the kind of character we should have in this episode?

**Ashley:** In season one they just talk about Nora but we never meet her. So in season two we knew Nora was going to come for a visit. And I wanted to write that character because Nora was like this really just like super smart, sassy, politically connected teenage girl. And I wanted to make sure to create a teenage girl who wasn’t the typical. Sometimes I think adult writers can be a little bit dismissive in how they write teenagers. I wanted to write a character who was like such a cool chick. And so I really wanted that episode so I could establish her way of speaking and how smart and cool she was.

**John:** Well that sounds amazing. And as luck would have it we have listener questions and the first one feels very much up your alley for the experience that only you would have. So Megana if you could help us out with Ben’s question.

**Megana Rao:** Ben from New York wrote in and said, “I’m currently working on a pilot that heavily involves basketball. And I’m having trouble making the gameplay comprehensible in the action lines. Most of my peers who have given me feedback don’t follow the sport that much, but they all say it’s hard to understand. I’m trying to find the right balance between making the action lines succinct and not alienating potential readers. A couple of terms that were pointed to were devastating dunk, which I assumed most people knew, and top of the key which is a spot on the court with no general term. I read some scripts of sports movies and shows and they all have terms you would only know if you’re at least somewhat familiar with the sport. Should I simply disregard whether or not the reader understands the game and just make story beats clear?”

**John:** Ashley, let’s help Ben out here. Because obviously you came into this and you were already an expert on soccer/football?

**Ashley:** That’s why I’m laughing. The idea that now I’m like a good sports person is hilarious. I did play soccer as an eight-year-old as is required by law in the suburbs of Southern California. The funny thing is both of those terms that he said I know and I am not a sport person at all, so I don’t think they’re that confusing.

**John:** I didn’t know top of the key at all. Devastating dunk I can just figure out what that is. I know what a dunk is. A devastating dunk, sure. Top of the key? I wouldn’t know what that is.

**Ashley:** That’s a place that you shoot from. But I think in Ted Lasso every time we’re showing sports it is to move story forward. I think of it the same way I think about writing action and stunts. Which is if you know a lot about the sport or if you happen to be a great jujitsu person or whatever you could describe every beat of the fight, like she punches him, he punches back, she jumps on top of him. But you could also say they fight, it looks like she has the upper hand, but then he turns it on her. And allow the stunt coordinator to figure out what that physically looks like.

I think it’s the same thing with sports. If it’s about, you know, in my episode a lot of the times that we showed sports it was about Sam and Jamie, where Sam and Jamie were in their relationship. And so I think I spent more time describing that than who kicks the ball or where it goes or whatever. It’s like Sam is playing aggressively. Sam gets the upper hand. And there’s someone on set in London who I have never met who will turn that into soccer.

**John:** Yeah. I think the analogy to action sequences is exactly right. Because we don’t count every bullet being shot. You don’t ever turn of the wheel in a car chase. You’re really describing what it feels like. And I’ve read sports movies that really go way overboard in terms of like every swing of the bat. And that’s just not interesting or good.

Really what we’re going to be tracking is characters’ reactions to what’s happening. And so it’s what the folks on the sidelines are doing. It’s what the players are doing. It’s how they’re reacting and it’s really what’s changed is the thing that’s probably most important to note. And, yes, we keep talking about how detail is important and specificity is important, but it’s really specificity of characters and intentions and motivations and why they’re doing what they’re doing is much more important than literally the choreography on the day.

Think about it like writing a dance sequence or writing a fight sequence. You need that level of clarity in terms of what we’re seeing what we’re seeing, but not exactly what those beats are.

**Ashley:** Exactly.

**John:** Megana, what else you got for us?

**Megana:** Objectified wrote in and she says, “I work as a writer’s PA at a wonderful, supportive writer’s room. As part of my job I’ve been able to proofread a lot of scripts. While doing this I’ve noticed a trend among the scripts written by older male writers. When they introduced female characters they always describe them by their level of attractiveness. Example: Susan, 30, sexy. Molly, 20s, pretty. Et cetera. Male characters are hardly ever described by their appearances unless they pertain to the story. I was struck by how reading these scripts have made me feel anxious about these writer’s perspectives of me. I’m a woman in my 20s and I can’t help but wonder am I instinctively rated by my level of attractiveness to them? Am I seen as three-dimensional as the male assistants I work with?”

**John:** Oy, OK. Ashley, let’s talk about this, because it’s really a two-step problem. One it’s sexist, misogynist writing on the page. But also the question of like, wait, are they actually seeing me this way. So I’m not sure where to start there.

**Ashley:** I do love that she framed it as like it’s not just about on the page but how it is in the room. I think especially for an assistant, but I’ll say also a writer there’s been times in the room where people have talked about – they’re like, oh, and then this guy comes in and he’s like a fat slob and he says this line. And I’m like why does he have to be a fat slob? But then also as a fat person I don’t want to be the one who says maybe we shouldn’t talk about people’s bodies that way. And it is a level of discomfort brought into the room for no reason. Because you didn’t need to say that character was fat to tell the funny line they’re going to say.

So I do think it’s something for people to think about. The people who are in the room with you are people. [laughs] If they share characteristics with the people you’re talking about that may have an effect on them. But I think in the script I will say as a writer-performer this is one of my biggest pet peeves. It’s like enraging and I’ve chosen not to audition for things because of things like this. As an actor – and I studied to be an actor. I didn’t really study to be a writer, so I’m curious how people who did are taught this. But as an actor we’re taught that those action lines are things for you to play. So if I’m reading a script to audition or to perform and it says “Ashley, 30s, really smart, really witty, loves to do karate,” then that tells me as an actor OK these lines are probably I should be saying them in a joking manner. Maybe I should move differently because this character does karate and her body is trained. You know, whatever, it’s something for me to do.

If I read a script and it says “Ashley, 30s, super-hot” there’s no way for me to do that. I’m going to have whatever body I have when I show up. It’s either hot or it’s not. There’s nothing I can do to play hot. If what you mean is that the other characters are attracted to her that’s useful information for them and you could say “Ashley enters the room. Kevin immediately thinks she’s hot.” That’s something for him to play. But it does nothing – you give an actor nothing when all you tell them is what they look like.

Like I’m imagining, let’s say the character is a waiter. And it’s like, “Kelly, super-hot,” and the first line is, “What can I get you today?” I as an actor just have to figure out how to say that. Whereas if you had described Kelly, “she is exhausted, he hates working here,” and the first line is, “What can I get you today,” I now know how to say that line. And it’s so frustrating when you’re auditioning when the script is giving you no clues about who the person is other than what they look like. And then you have to do an audition and it’s like well how could I possibly get the part because I don’t know what you want from you.

**John:** Yes. So I think Kelly our waitress, maybe she could be like – I’d like to see an audition where she’s just performatively hot. Like basically is she just trying to act hot? So she’s sweating, or she is fanning herself a lot, like she’s going through a hot flash. Or she’s taking hot as being one of those like she’s vain and she’s always pursing her lips or trying to do hot things while trying to take the order. That’s at least funny. It’s actually trying to play the line there.

So, yeah, let’s get rid of – again, specificity is great. So if you could talk to us about hair, makeup, clothing, the things that we actually can see that could impact character but could also change our read on who that character is, that’s awesome. But just what their body looks like is not going to be one of those things. That’s not going to give the actor anything to do. It’s not going to give any other department anything to do other than the casting department says I have to make some objective choice about is this person conventionally attractive enough or heavy enough or whatever the criteria that was listed in that script.

**Ashley:** And PS you can email the casting department. Like you don’t have to put that in the script. If you want a fat slob to play this part, email the casting director privately and say, hey, you know, Roy who I said is a funny guy in a wife-beater t-shirt, he should be an overweight guy. And they’ll call those guys in. There’s no need to insult that actor by putting it in the script.

**John:** You can sort of say this is the thing we’re looking for in this character, but it doesn’t have to be on the page there because it’s not helping the performer. It’s not helping the cast. And it’s not good.

So we’ve addressed some of the script concerns. Let’s talk to what Objectified might do in this situation they find themselves where they see this happening in the room and they wonder like, oh crap, is that how they actually see me in this space. What advice can we give her? I think we’re saying Objectified is a woman. What might be a best practice? My instinct would be it’s not her responsibility to stand up in the room and say this is gross and sexist, you need to stop doing that. But it may be a good choice to pull aside some senior person in that room at some moment and say like, hey, just so you know this is a thing that can make me and other people uncomfortable. And if you or somebody else could acknowledge that and sort of address it I think the room would be a better place.

Do you think that would help or work, or is that a bad idea?

**Ashley:** I think if she is to do anything that’s probably the best idea is to pull aside a senior person who you’ve already determined may be amenable to this based on other conversations. Choose the right person. And if that person doesn’t exist it may actually be safer to keep your mouth shut. Like in the position of being an assistant, this is why I think writers it’s so incumbent on us to behave as well as we know to behave because it’s so hard and so dangerous for assistants to speak up that I don’t want to even advise someone to speak up not knowing the situation they’re in, because it could go badly. But if you’re in a situation where you know one of the EPs is a feminist and has already talked about certain things in the room and you know that they’re going to be on your side, then yes, pulling that one person aside is a good idea. And letting them be the one to feel out the room and decide if this is something that they could address publically or talk privately to the writers that need to hear it.

**John:** Cool. Megana, what else have you got for us?

**Megana:** Sammy asks, “Hi, I know nothing about unions or strikes, but this idea makes sense to me and I need to get the idea out of my head so I’m sending it over. Have the writers working for the top streamers strike while allowing everyone else to continue working. Leverage the competitive power of the companies still producing content and gaining ground in the streaming war as the top companies’ subscriber base atrophies, while limiting the strike’s impact on guild members. Then you work your way down the ladder till everyone agrees to terms. If this is legal shouldn’t it be more effective than a full on guild strike?”

**John:** All right. So, again, here’s where I stress that I am not a union legal expert, so I cannot be offering advice on sort of like–

**Ashley:** You are my union expert, John!

**John:** But I can’t offer federal guidance on how union labor law works. But in some ways what Sammy is suggesting is kind of what happens with the companies and the guilds right now. Because the companies, the AMPTP decides we’re going to make a deal first with SAG, and then we’re going to make a deal with WGA, and then we’re going to make a deal with DGA. They’re going to find ways to tackle this one by one. And Sammy is asking couldn’t you just do the same thing with the companies. It’s also analogous to ultimately the agency conflict was resolved one agency at a time rather than dealing with the ATA, that whole big agency representing body as one thing.

The challenge is that there’s not a lot of incentive for those companies to split off and sort of do things separately because they recognize the guilds would love that but doesn’t behoove them to do that, unless it really were to behoove them to do that, in which case if you had one company that was especially worried about this you could make a deal with one separately.

What I’m pretty sure you can’t do under federal law is to say like, OK, we’re going to make deals with everybody except for this one company just to spit them. Because what would actually happen is I think the other companies would circle their wagons and say no you cannot do that and then they’d just lock us out. So basically you’d get to a situation where you’re in a strike because the companies have locked the writers out.

All this being said, there are new players that sort of come into the production universe. And so if Nabisco suddenly decided we’re going to start our own streaming network and they were not already a party to the AMPTP we could make a deal with Nabisco separately and we could all work for the Nabisco streamer while the other companies were stewing. But I think it’s more likely that we would make a deal with one company than keep a deal going with everybody else and shut out one company, because I just don’t think that’s actually possible right now with how things are structured. That’s my guess.

**Ashley:** The only one I think it might be, and correct me if I’m wrong, Netflix has a different contract, right?

**John:** Netflix has had a different contract, I’m not honestly sure where they are at right now. So, and Netflix is a great giant company. So something like a Netflix or someone else coming online later on, yes, that would be something that would make sense. But to make a deal with them separately rather than trying to shut out one place, because that’s not going to happen. We couldn’t say like we’ll work for everybody but Disney is unlikely I think to succeed. But then again I’m not a legal expert.

I get why Sammy is suggesting it though because it would make so much more sense to be able to set one aside and work for the other ones.

**Ashley:** Especially if one is exceptionally egregious. My read though as a lay person is that they’re all pretty much the same. But if one suddenly became the worst place to work I could see that happening.

**John:** And here’s the other exception. There are times where companies will receive a do not work order, where they’re actually doing bad stuff to our members, where we can be prohibited from working for a certain company. But that’s a different thing than what Sammy is really describing here.

But I think Sammy is anticipating what we are all anticipating is that this next round of negotiations is going to be important because we are going to be talking about the future of residuals and payment for these streamers which affects every single writer working. Because whether you’re a comedy variety writer, a screenwriter, a television writer, we’re all dealing with the same struggle which is what does our payment and residual structure look like in a world where there are not conventional networks anymore, where there’s not conventional theatrical releases, where there are comedy variety shows that are being made for these streamer outlets. What does that mean if we can’t even know what the residual value is of these programs?

So that’s going to be a thing that every writer and every other union member is going to be looking at in this next period of time.

**Ashley:** Yeah. And I think we’re already all feeling it in our bottom lines, so it’s going to be at a fever pitch by the time we get to the negotiation.

**John:** I think so too. These were great questions. Megana thank you for being our mailbox as all these questions come in over the transom.

**Megana:** Of course, thank you both.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a new book by Simon Rich. Have you read any Simon Rich books?

**Ashley:** No, I’m a philistine.

**John:** Oh my god, I’m so excited for you because you have so much funny reading ahead of you. The new book is called New Teeth. Simon Rich is a short story writer, but he’s also a screenwriter. The new book is really good. The first story in it is a detective story but the central character is a toddler, like a pre-toddler, who is trying to solve this mystery.

**Ashley:** I’m in.

**John:** What Simon Rich does so brilliantly is take this absurd premise and really run with it within this carefully contained bubble. Something you may have seen, did you see American Pickle, the Seth Rogan movie where he falls in a pickle vat and he meets his grandfather who fell in a pickle vat. And that was based on a Simon Rich story. He takes these really absurd premises and just really runs with them. So, I recommend New Teeth, but if you haven’t read anything, Ashley, the thing I’m going to – there’s a link here in the show notes, I’m going to send it to you – is a short story called Gifted which is the first Simon Rich story I ever read which I still think is the funniest. I reread it this past week. The premise is this Upper West Side couple have a baby who is clearly a monster, like the antichrist, and they’re so excited and they really want to get him into Dalton. And it’s from the perspective of these parents who are – this mom who is so excited for her child and how much she will overlook everything.

I will send you Gifted. It will delight you. It’ll be fun for you this afternoon.

**Ashley:** That sounds awesome.

**John:** Ashley, what do you have for us for One Cool Things?

**Ashley:** So I have one serious one and then one [unintelligible]. A is For is an organization that I’m on the board for and we fight abortion stigma and raise money for abortion providers. And what’s call about it is A is For has done all the research for you. So if you go to their website and find a provider to donate to directly, maybe in Texas if that’s on your mind, that is a provider who you know has been doing the work for the while and knows what they’re doing. They’re not a popup, fly by night. So that’s a very cool organization to follow on social and they’ll always be keeping you up with what’s going on in the reproductive justice arena.

And then just something fun is there is this company called Estelle Colored Glass and it’s a Black woman who makes this gorgeous wine glasses and decanters and cake plates, just beautiful colored glass that will remind you of what was in your grandmother’s curio cabinet. And it’s just so pretty and if you just need a little treat you could buy yourself a pink wine glass.

**John:** So I’m looking at this website and they are absolutely gorgeous. And I have my eye on this purple glass cake stand. And how amazing would that be to have it in your house. I feel like I would want to make a white cake to stick on it at all times, because otherwise it’s just sitting empty. But these are truly gorgeous so I’m loving that.

But going back to A is For, for folks who are not looking through the show notes links, it’s AisFor.org. And what I love about this recommendation is I’ve seen all of these donate here to help support abortion rights in Texas especially, and I don’t know which of those organizations are real and which ones have just cropped up this last week. And so you guys have done the work to actually see which of these places are doing the work on the ground.

**Ashley:** Yeah. To the point where when we did a fundraiser the providers are there at the fundraiser, like I shook the man’s hand. Like I know that he’s real.

**John:** That’s great. This past week I also shared a blog post I’d done a few years back about my family’s abortion story. And I think one of the things that this horrible Texas law has reminded us is that abortion rights really do affect everybody. And obviously a woman facing the decision about her own body is paramount, but the ability to have safe and legal abortions is something that really does tough everybody.

And so I shared the story of how that impacted my family a few years back. So I really hope that whatever happens in this near time in Texas, remember how important it is for everybody to have this right.

**Ashley:** Everyone deserves the right to determine what their life is going to look like. And it’s the only way women can fully participate in society is if we get to decide what we’re doing with our healthcare and our reproductive care.

**John:** Excellent. That is our show for this week. So in our bonus segment we’re going to be talking about the crisis facing white male characters, so stick around for that. We really appreciate our premium members because they help keep the lights on and keep everybody paid.

Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Zach Lo and it is a bop. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust. Ashley you are?

**Ashley:** @ashleyn1cole. Very late adopter.

**John:** Oh, but it’s great. And be cool or else we will mute or block you, because I have learned how to do this thanks to Ashley’s guidance here.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find the links to things we talked about on the show. We’ll have transcripts up about a week after the show airs. We have a weekly newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. And you can also sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record about white male characters and whatever will happen to them in the future of television.

Ashley, thank you so much for coming back. It is so great to talk with you and catch up and hear more about all the amazing stuff you’ve done this past year.

**Ashley:** Thanks so much for having me.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** So our jumping off place for this bonus segment is an article called TV’s White Guys are in Crisis. It’s in Vulture. Written by Kathryn Vanarendonk. And it’s looking at sort of the latest slate of premium shows and shows that people are talking about which have white male characters, but those white male characters are not the centerpieces, or they are being pushed to the sides, or they are frustrated by being pushed to the sides. And Ted Lasso is brought up in this so I thought Ashley would be a perfect person to talk about this with. Ashley, what are we going to do? How are we going to save these white men?

**Ashley:** [laughs] First of all, I think they’re doing fine. It’s really interesting because I feel like for such a long time of television history shows sort of revolved around one type of character. And it’s been like two years of a slight shift in that and people are like oh my god.

**John:** Oh my gosh. Everything has changed.

**Ashley:** You owe me a hundred years of weird black girls leading shows before we’re approaching a problem.

**John:** So, one thing, I liked this article and I think there’s interesting things to pushback against in this article. But one of the things at least noticed or addressed is that we’ve had white men in the center of our storytelling for forever, and then we hit a period in the last decade or so where we had these anti-heroes. So you had the Breaking Bad, you had the Mad Men, where we were starting to question whether this white man at the center was really a good person or a bad person. But they were still at the center of the story. They were still the main person you were following. And what’s maybe a little different in this last year or two is sometimes that man is being pushed off to the edge and is frustrated at being pushed off to the edge. So some of the shows that she mentions are Rutherford Falls, White Lotus, The Chair, Kevin Can F Himself as examples of this man who feels himself in a bit of a crisis. What are you seeing there?

**Ashley:** It’s interesting because I think now is a good time for this because a lot of people have – and actually I don’t know if a lot of people in real life have this. But a lot of people on Twitter have what Twitter has deemed main character syndrome, where people kind of assume themselves to be the center of life or of the story. And I do think that it can help to watch TV shows where there are characters like this who have realized they’re not at the center of the story. And even if they’re frustrated and trying to get back at the center it still is interesting, almost in an educational way, to be able to point to examples of like, yes, it can be frustrating to suddenly realize you’re not the main character. But also you never were, so let’s just process those feelings by watching television rather than by yelling at me on Twitter. I think that’s actually very healthy and good. [laughs]

**John:** And this phenomena is really new, because you look at a Parks and Rec, Leslie Knope is not a white man and she’s at the center of it. And she’s struggling against the system, but she’s not marginalized. And you have her boss character is sort of frustrated in his notion of masculinity, but he doesn’t actually really want to be in charge either. So we’ve been wrestling with this for a bit. But then it brings us back to Ted Lasso because in many ways Ted Lasso feels like the old kind of Ward Cleaver, he’s the good white guy at the center of everything, and yet it’s like he’s evolved to a state that the rest of men just aren’t quite there yet. Especially in the first season it feels like he’s just some sort of superhero who suddenly has all these abilities and powers and is already sort of beyond everybody else there and can actually speak a lingo that we’re still trying to catch up with.

**Ashley:** Yeah. I think it’s interesting because with Ted Lasso it’s almost structural, because Jason being the creator and star of the show also resists being centered, like as a person, and is really generous with us as writers, and I believe also with the cast, in hearing other ideas and wanting to incorporate other stories and other ideas. And we really started season two with being like what stories can we tell about all of these other characters who were also here. So I think you can only do that with the buy-in of that person, right? Like if Jason wasn’t that person we wouldn’t be able to write a show where we spend a whole episode talking about a side character’s deal, you know. So I do think that that’s part of it. It has to be a structural part of it.

But I also think people are coming to find that you enjoy those shows more because I think a lot of times we all find that little side character that we identify with maybe more so than the main person, and then when that character finally gets an episode it’s so exciting. It’s going to be your favorite episode of that show. And I think there is this feeling maybe among execs or higher ups that this guy is the star, he’s the celebrity, everybody only wants to see him, and I feel like the audience is really telling us, no, we want to hear from all these other characters, too. And you’re not going to lose your audience if you spend an episode on another character.

**John:** Well it’s a thing we’ve often talked about on the show, and a thing you notice especially in animated movies, wait why are the sidekicks stealing the movie?

**Ashley:** Always.

**John:** It’s because the sidekicks are not bound by the responsibility of what the classic protagonist is supposed to be doing. And they don’t always have to be moral and right and they can sort of express the real frustrations of not being in power more honestly. And I think that’s a thing we’re noticing more maybe in our conventional TV shows at this point, too, is that we relate more to the person who is not in charge and in power because that’s the real experience most of us have.

**Ashley:** Yeah. Because that’s who we are.

**John:** In Ted Lasso as you were coming in on that second season and you’re talking about this, do the things that are being brought up in this article are those part of the conversation in the room? Are you thinking about the role of a white man in society as you’re talking through story ideas and just talking through the arc of a season?

**Ashley:** I think not any more than any other show. I think whenever you’re writing a show with people of a bunch of different backgrounds you have to take into account how those different backgrounds would make them behave or rub up against each other. Like in my episode of Ted Lasso which aired weeks ago, so I am spoiling it, turn off your podcast if you somehow haven’t seen it, but Sam who is Nigerian is standing up and saying the company that sponsors the team has created some environmental and human rights abuses in Nigeria. And whenever there’s a press conference after the game in real life, but also traditionally on this show, they interview the coach, because he is the boss. So Ted sits down for a press conference and says when things like this happen to people like me you guys tend to write about it automatically, but someone like Sam had to get your attention, and so now I’m going to step away from the mic and you guys talk to Sam.

And it was important that we understand how these things typically go, didn’t have Ted speak for Sam, or instead of Sam, or sort of pat himself on the back for supporting Sam. So in that way we thought about their different backgrounds and thought about how, yes, they would want to hear from Ted because that’s what we’re used to. But Ted being a good man understands that it’s his privilege that makes him the person they want to speak to and instructs them to talk to Sam instead.

**John:** It’s about understanding privilege and also knowing when to use that privilege to yield space for other folks.

**Ashley:** Yeah. In that moment, yes. So that’s an example of like acknowledging that we know that Ted has this privilege and working from there, as opposed to being ignorant to it and creating a situation where Ted speaks for Sam or something like that.

**John:** Now, as we’re recording this we’re only halfway through the second season, but it feels like based on therapist interactions and things like that one of the important storylines for this back half of the season is going to be not even necessarily the origin story of how Ted becomes this way, but also the challenge of trying to be this paragon of good white guy moment at all times. Because he can seem so perfect that there’s inner conflict. And so I’m sensing that one of the things you’re talking about in that room is figuring out well what is actually underneath the surface of this seemingly perfect guy that’s driving him to do these things. And what are the interesting story challenges that we can face with him?

Because we can de-center him, which is great, but also the name of the show is Ted Lasso and so you’re figuring out what is making Ted tick inside.

**Ashley:** Mm-hmm. Keep watching. [laughs]

**John:** And that’s a good teaser for the second half of the season. Ashley, such a delight to chat with you about all sorts of things and congratulations on everything that’s happened this last year.

**Ashley:** Thank you so much. This was so fun.

**John:** Yay.

Links:

* [The Double-Nominated Emmy Contender Taking Over TV Comedy](https://www.insider.com/ashley-nicole-black-emmy-nominations-ted-lasso-comedy-writing-interview-2021-8)
* Industry News: [Fran Drescher, Leads SAG-AFTRA](https://www.avclub.com/fran-drescher-triumphs-in-bitter-contentious-sag-aftra-1847616962), [IATSE Contract Negotiation](https://variety.com/2021/film/news/iatse-contract-negotiation-update-1235052874/), [WGA East Elections](https://www.wgaeast.org/council-elections/2021-election/candidates/)
* [New Teeth](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/04/books/review-new-teeth-simon-rich.html) by Simon Rich [on Amazon](https://amzn.to/3yIvZsM) or [Bookshop](https://bookshop.org/books/new-teeth-stories/9780316536684)
* [Gifted](https://bookanista.com/gifted/) short story by Simon Rich
* [Highland 2 Student License](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/highland-2/students.php)
* [A is For](https://www.aisfor.org/)
* [Estelle Colored Glass](https://www.estellecoloredglass.com/collections/all)
* [TV’s White Guys are in Crisis](https://www.vulture.com/2021/08/tv-white-men-the-white-lotus-ted-lasso.html) by Kathryn Vanarendonk
* [My Abortion Story](https://johnaugust.com/2018/my-abortion-story) on John’s blog
* [Ashley Nicole Black](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2730724/?ref_=ttfc_fc_wr24) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ashleyn1cole)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Zach Lo ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/515standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 512: There Is No Conspiracy, Transcript

August 27, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/there-is-no-conspiracy).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 512 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show it’s a new round of the Three Page Challenge where we take a look at the first three pages of scripts submitted by you, our listeners, and give our honest feedback. We’ll also be looking at lecture scenes, mega deals for creators, and the ethics of writing conspiracy thrillers. And in our bonus segment for premium members I’ll be taking with comedian Sara Schaefer about her three simple steps for getting your TV show on the air.

**Craig:** Oh man.

**John:** Craig, you’ll want to listen to this.

**Craig:** Yeah. There are only three? I’ve been doing like six steps.

**John:** Yeah. Spoiler, there are many more than three. It’s sort of part of the joke is that it’s incredibly hard and frustrating at every step.

**Craig:** Yup. Yup. It is.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** So that’s an extra from the Schaefer Shakedown podcast which you should also listen to, but really it’s a great little bonus segment if you are a premium member. Stick around and listen to that after the credits.

But first Craig it’s great to have you back. We’ve been sort of hit or miss the last couple of weeks because you’ve been working, I’ve been traveling. But now we are back recording the show.

**Craig:** Yup. So it’s going to be a little bit like this while we’re making The Last of Us just because it’s hard to produce a television show. It’s a fulltime job, and then some. So every now and then I will be amiss. But hopefully I can get into a good rhythm and stick with you guys regularly.

**John:** Very cool. Now over the past couple of weeks it’s been a very good time to be a creator of television shows, or at least a very successful creator of television shows. Because you are that kind of person you are going to be able to make a mega deal with one of the streamers. There were three of them just in the last two weeks which were pretty exciting.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Courtney Kemp, creator of Power over at Starz, made a new deal at Netflix listed as high eight figures, possibly rising to nine figures. I had to actually do the math to figure out like oh that’s a lot of zeroes.

**Craig:** It sure is.

**John:** That’s a lot of money.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that’s amazing news for Courtney who is a fantastic person. I got to know her a little bit a year or so ago. And this is – I guess we can call it the Netflix Effect. I mean, Netflix has definitely driven the price of the reliable showrunner up quite a bit. When we get these reports of high figures, possible rising to nine figures, it’s a little bit like dealing with these big sports contracts. You do have to look at how many years it covers. Typically it is about exclusivity. Sometimes inside of those deals there are incentives. They rely on the continuation of a show being produced, or such and such.

But generally speaking I think we can say that Courtney Kemp just made a massive mega truckload full of money and I am thrilled for her. I think it’s fantastic. As long as this lasts let’s just keep doing it.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** It’s a good time to be a showrunner in television.

**John:** Indeed. People who have been doing this for quite a long time, Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame, reached a $935 million deal that will keep them at – what’s crazy it’s not actually for South Park. It’s for like things related to South Park. So they’ll be making 13 or 14 South Park movies for Paramount+ which is good.

Here’s the point where I think I’ve said this before on the podcast but back when I first starting out in Hollywood, so I was still in the Stark program. I was at a bar called Three of Clubs which still exists and a friend introduced me to this other guy who was also from Boulder, Colorado. I was talking to him. He seemed kind of down on his luck. I said what are you working on. He’s like oh I’m doing this Christmas card for this guy who works at MTV. I felt kind of bad for him because he seemed to really be sort of struggling. But that Christmas card was of course South Park and that was Trey Parker.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I said, “Troy, it was nice to meet you,” at the end of our conversation. That’s the last time I talked to Trey Parker. But you know what? Things are going great for those duos.

**Craig:** He’s doing OK. Yeah, so Trey and Matt have created an empire and what’s fascinating about what’s happened over the last few years is that something like South Park is – it’s the perfect storm for deal-making in the modern era. Friends we all know was this enormous drive for Netflix. And it was probably one of the reasons that HBO/Warner Bros suddenly said what are we doing. Why are we giving all of our stuff to Netflix? Let’s just make our own thing.

South Park, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, the things that they make, the world they’ve created has a library that’s enormous already and it will continue to grow. That is a perfect situation for a new streamer like HBO Max because it just creates tremendous value for everybody who is showing up and promises tremendous value to come.

We are starting to see what our work is worth. And that is exciting. Part of the deal that they made has to do with revenue sharing and ad sharing. It’s very complicated. Every time one of these things happens everybody else stops, looks at it, and goes well why don’t I have that. It will also continue to drive things up. It’s exciting.

I’m excited. I’m looking ahead to things. I am not worth a billion dollars. I can assure you of that. But those guys are.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So congratulations to Trey and Matt. It’s exciting. And they are brilliant. And the work they do is brilliant. And I have to believe – I’ve just heard that they’re good guys. I’ve never met them personally but I’ve heard they’re really solid guys. I have to hope and believe that the people that are important to the creation of their stuff are also being taken care of well.

**John:** Well I’ll tell you when I met Trey 25 years ago he seemed perfectly nice in the five minutes I had.

**Craig:** Oh, well, nothing changes, right? Yeah, hundreds of millions of dollars and success doesn’t change anyone.

**John:** Has never changed anybody.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** Nah.

**John:** All the people we knew back when are exactly the same people they are now.

**Craig:** I have to say if there were a person to bet on not changing I feel like it’s those guys. Because you know so much of what they do is about taking the piss out of people and not being too serious and not being too self-important. So I hope.

**John:** So, you mentioned the Friends at Warners kind of situation, and the South Park situation is kind of weird and interesting because HBO and HBO Max/Warners had bought the library of rights to South Park and so they have it on HBO Max. But, this deal is with Paramount+. And so it’s a weird thing where they’re not getting the library back yet. So they can get all of the future sort of South Parky things.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So it’s honestly sort of more like when the cast of Friends renegotiated their deals for a million dollars apiece, to keep them there in the family.

**Craig:** That makes total sense. They seem incredibly reliable. I mean, year after year after year they just keep putting content out. And people like it. So, it’s a good blue chip story even as you say if the entirety of the library isn’t there, what’s coming is going to be there.

**John:** And plus they’re buying Casa Bonita in Denver which is very exciting for me as a Coloradoan.

**Craig:** That is so awesome. Awesome. Oh my god. Casa Bonita.

**John:** Finally we should talk about the $900 billion sale of Hello Sunshine which is the Reese Witherspoon production entity which has made a ton of really well regarded shows, some of which star Reese Witherspoon but some of which don’t. We have other friends who work for that company. Good on them.

**Craig:** Yeah, totally good on them. This one is a little confusing because they have made a lot of good shows but they don’t own those shows. So, this was an outside investment. This is private equity coming in and purchasing the company. And there must be a plan beyond just the show Hello Sunshine and I guess they also have a little bit of ownership in Little Fires Everywhere. But I have to believe that this is really about Reese Witherspoon expanding her brand the way that for instance Jessica Alba became a billionaire by expanding her brand. That has to be what’s going on here. That this is not just about television shows but about more.

**John:** Yeah. Because Reese Witherspoon is an influencer in the literary space as well, so her book club is successful. In many ways she’s kind of an Oprah for a new generation and that could be really sort of what this investment is for to enable more stuff along those lines to happen. So, this is a situation where it’s not about a writer-creator-showrunner but really a place that could make stuff for your entity.

**Craig:** In retrospect all will be kind of judged and evaluated when there are big gold rushes in Hollywood, and this is not the first time there’s been a big gold rush, there are winners and there are losers. There are good bets, there are bad bets. Sometimes the good ones turn out bad. Sometimes the ones that seem bad will turn out great. I don’t envy anybody that’s making billion dollar bets on things. I’m glad I don’t have to do that sort of thing. I just have to sit here and right.

**John:** Yeah. Back in our day when we were first starting out to make an overall deal at a place was kind of a big deal. We were very excited to do it. Actually I first got to know you because you and I made a deal for a bunch of writers over at Fox. We sort of pitched around town about doing this writers deal at various places and Fox was the one that took us up. And that was really exciting and important.

I think what’s changed so much is that with the rise of these streamers and they need so much content that outside of the feature space it does really make sense to lock down some creators to make sure they’re making stuff for you.

**Craig:** Yeah. And to take care of the ones you have. I hope HBO is listening. No, they’ve been very nice to me. When you and I were starting in the feature business I think you probably had at least a few moments like I did where you look over at the people in the television business and went, “What? You’re making how much?” It just seemed like these insane numbers. And oftentimes they wouldn’t have to do anything for those insane numbers. They were just like sitting in an office and, I don’t know, getting high and earning crazy amounts of money.

Well, it’s still that way except more. More money. The deals that were always good for television writers have become vastly better. The numbers are eye-popping. And this is going to continue while Hollywood is building a new kind of business. And that is excellent for creators. It’s important for us all as we go through this, and as I just mentioned with Matt and Trey, to continue to think about the people who are not creators, that are not showrunners, but who are doing creative labor in our business because it is fairly typical of Hollywood to start handing out crazy amounts of money to individuals and then sort of recoup some of that on the margin by cheaping out on everyone else.

So, hopefully that’s not what happens here and it’s important for showrunners to make sure that people are being compensated fairly.

**John:** What was different as we started is that a lot of producers would have deals at studios. And so you’d say like, oh, Mace Neufeld would have a deal over at Paramount and so you’d go there to make your movie there. There’s much less of that now. And so this is really taking the place of producers doing those things. The challenge is a lot of these writer-creator-showrunners they have limited capacity.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** If they’re actually creating shows they can’t sort of also do a bunch of other stuff. And so as a person right now who is taking out a project or looking at places to go with this project I’m really mindful of like, oh, I really like that person as a writer but I don’t think they actually have the capacity to produce this thing. And that’s going to be – I think we’re going to see more challenges around that area coming up in the next couple of years where people have these great deals and they’re so talented but they cannot actually make stuff with other people.

**Craig:** I suspect that for most of these deals these companies are actually paying for shows. They are not paying for empires. There are a few people that can empire run. So our friend Greg Berlanti is just the king of empire running. I think there’s no amount of shows that he’s not capable of producing. Courtney is the power behind Power.

**John:** And all the spinoffs of Power.

**Craig:** Correct. That franchise is kind of I think really what they’re paying for there. Although of course they would be thrilled to get even more from her and I have no doubt that she has more coming. And we know kind of what they’re looking for from Trey and Matt. They’re looking for the sort of things that Trey and Matt do, whatever is that next show. This is kind of a good thing I think. There was a time when the best paid people in the business were people that were not writing or acting or directing, which is crazy.

I think when we all look back on it we’ll go, “What? Why? Why those people?” It’s good that the money is now flowing into the pockets of the people who are creating the shows, who are key elements of those shows, like Mike Schur for instance. He has his show, and then he has another show. And that’s how it’s going to function. That’s what they’re paying for.

**John:** But he can also help out on other people’s – he seems to have the capability to help out on other people’s stuff as well. And Mindy Kaling has other shows as well. There are some of those people who are talented creators themselves who can also help out, but it’s different than sort of the old days where you had just a producer who was sort of running a fiefdom.

**Craig:** Yeah. And one thing that I think is really positive about writers and writer-producers being the people that get paid the most is that writer-producers really do care mostly – I would say most of them really do care about the show they’re making, or the two shows they’re making. They care less about amassing insane amounts. Nobody gets into the writing business to become a billionaire. If you want to be a billionaire go into the hedge fund business. We care about things.

So, that’s positive. Whereas I think the non-writing, non-directing, non-acting producers, a few of them truly did care, truly do care. Lindsay Doran is my favorite example. A whole bunch of them just wanted more. They were just amassing money and clout. And I will not miss those. There are people that I think became very powerful and also really were – like Jerry Bruckheimer is in many ways a creator. He’s like a showrunner of the movies. I mean, that’s why there’s this continuity among Jerry Bruckheimer films. But you and I know a lot of producers where it’s like, “What? Really? You?”

**John:** They’re really good scrappy – they’re good at attaching themselves to things. They don’t actually add a lot of value.

**Craig:** No. Their genius is in convincing people that they’re necessary and worth a lot of money when they’re not. So, bye.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

**John:** All right. Let’s take a little bit of follow up here. This is a listener question, a listener suggestion. So let’s take a listen to what Greg Beam wrote in.

**Greg Beam:** Hey John and Craig. This is Greg from El Paso. I thoroughly enjoyed the rebroadcast of The Worst of the Worst. As a relatively new listener I didn’t catch it the first time around and I was glad to hear your thoughts on why protagonists need to suffer so much. But I did want to suggest that – I think you could have taken your analysis one step further and to demonstrate how I’m afraid I’ll have to invoke the hero’s journey.

According to Joseph Campbell the outward transformation and corresponding triumph that heroes of myth experience is the external representation of a deeper inner transformation. The hero not only overcomes their personal shortcomings or the evils of their society but transcends all limitations of the human condition.

Doing so requires a stripping away, not just of all they have, but of all they are. The death of their individual identity. Their sense of self. Their ego. And only once the hero’s whole self has been hallowed out can they become a vessel to be filled with the light of god to recognize the oneness of all things. It’s a radical conversion of root and branch break with their previous mode of being and one that is only possible following a total loss of self.

Now this isn’t meant to critique or diminish narratives that don’t have overt spiritual content. They’re perfectly valid and valuable as they are. But being aware of the transcendental sources from which their patterns spring can in my mind and Campbell’s add some depth to our understanding of what these stories represent and how they work in our minds and hearts.

Anyway, no question here. Just a thought. Thanks guys.

**Craig:** Well, thank you Greg.

**John:** Yeah. So we were talking I think two episodes ago about you mentioned Song of Roland as that sort of first mythic quest in sort of a modern context idea. How do you respond – how do you feel about Greg’s suggestion that really the worst we should be thinking back to the archetypal, the demigod level of everything being not just destroyed externally but destroyed internally for that journey to begin?

**Craig:** Well interesting. The Chanson de Roland I don’t think he has any change whatsoever. He’s awesome. He continues to be awesome. And then he finishes awesome. There were some very simple things like that. But Greg is right. I mean, the old, very traditional, very basic narratives were far more broad in the character swings that occurred. You had to die to live. It’s kind of how it works. Jesus had to die to live. He didn’t have to get super sick. Whereas in Unforgiven William Money gets a fever. And he has fever dreams. And then he wakes up and he’s sort of a different guy.

The important thing is that the concept of being reborn – I think everybody is fairly familiar with the notion that that is a flexible and extendable concept. You can mush it around and drag it around and metaphorize it however you want. But killing something within you and having something being reborn in you, yeah, that’s basically underneath it.

I think the modern narrative tends to avoid full hallowing outs. But if Greg’s point is that you kind of need to know where it all comes from I don’t disagree. Look back at the old stories. You know, you don’t send a flood to kill a third of the people. You send a flood to kill everyone. And that’s how it used to be.

**John:** Yeah. It’s not hard for me to think of examples of non – well, they’re mythic movies but they’re contemporary movies, or contemporary-ish movies that do sort of destroy everything about the characters and rebuild them. So you look at Terminator and sort of what happens to Linda Hamilton’s character. She’s living a normal life and everything about her normal life has to be stripped away and destroyed and she has to become a completely new person because of what’s happened.

You look at The Matrix and Neo and everything he believed about his life can no longer exist. He cannot be the same person he was at the start of the movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So that transformation is complete. I agree that it’s good to understand that in the archetypal, epic versions of these characters it’s going to happen. I think we cannot have that be the litmus test for most heroes in most movies. Because I think the audience just won’t accept that in a rom-com or some other sort of contemporary movie that a character would really go through such a huge transformation where everything actually has to be destroyed in their lives, or they have to be completely divorced from where they are because in many ways in our modern films we do want the characters to change and to grow, but we want them to be able to go back to the place where they began, you know, as a person who has learned something but not necessarily with everything they knew before destroyed.

**Craig:** I think that’s perfectly said.

**John:** Cool. All right. Let’s go to a question from Sarah Folks. Megana, could you read this for us?

**Megana Rao:** Sarah writes in, “I have a question about writing the ‘professor gives a lecture’ scene in movies. I’ve seen a number of films in which a high school or college student sits in a classroom and listens to a lecture, participates in a class discussion. Sometimes it’s math and the student looks bored. Sometimes the professor is reading poetry and the student looks enraptured. I’ve also watched scenes in which the professor is giving a lecture on the subtext of the film. For example this is a film about colonialism so the professor is giving a lecture on colonialism.

“Sometimes this works as in I would argue Kenneth Lonergan’s fantastic scenes in Margaret and sometimes it really doesn’t. But what is it that doesn’t work and what is it that does? How can a seminar/classroom scene build character and mood even if the student is just listening and when is it just lazy writing?”

**John:** That’s actually a really great question. And I think it’s actually a specific case or the general case of whenever you have your hero listening rather than talking, so there could be situations where there’s a coach talking, a pastor, a commanding officer. And those are scenes that are common and I don’t think we’ve really spoken about them very much on the show. They can be good. They can be bad, as Sarah points out. But maybe Craig and I we can figure out what are the characteristics of that kind of scene that work well and what are the kinds of characteristics or like oh you need to really rewrite that or rethink why you’re doing this scene.

**Craig:** Well, it’s easy to write the scene where the student is bored. You just write the professor being boring. And that’s the point. And you also know just by definition that that scene is not going to go on that long. Otherwise the audience will be bored. You just need enough to know that our character, our hero, is bored.

When you’re writing the version where they are enraptured/inspired/moved it requires you to write well. You need to write something that actually inspires and moves the people in the audience. So if you want to put Robin Williams in front of a classroom and have him talk about poetry it’s got to be awesome. And Tom Schulman made it awesome.

And that’s how you get them. Isn’t that awful? You need to write well. It’s such a pain in the ass.

**John:** Well here’s I think what you’re describing though is that the hero, the established hero of the film who is sitting in that audience is a proxy for us as the audience. So we have to be with our hero in experiencing this. And so if it’s boring then we’re bored with him. But more likely we’re enraptured or compelled or feeling confrontational to the speaker. We’re there with him. We’re responding the same way that he’s responding to what is being said. And that’s just going to be writing.

In many cases it’s like responding to a monologue. So, it’s a situation where whoever is talking is going to be largely uninterrupted and is going to be presenting this information. Now if that information feels like an info dump, that it’s exposition, there’s a ticking clock for how much exposition we’re willing to take. But if it’s something that is actually meant to engage and transform our listener, great, we just have to be able to see it. And so I think you should always be thinking about those scenes, not just focused on the person who’s talking but how and when is the camera going to be aimed at our hero taking in this information and processing this information. What is the reaction that we are seeing on the hero’s face as this is happening?

**Craig:** Yeah. And that means that that person who is hearing this needed to hear it. There was something in them that was missing and this lecture is filling it. Or there was something in them that they were wobbling on and this lecture is challenging it. But there has to be context. It can’t just be well this is a great freaking speech. It has to turn on whatever the character needed so that we understand this is the moment that matters. Now the character is changing.

**John:** Another thing that distinguishes some of these scenes from other scenes is like is that person who is speaking, the lecturer, is that a recurring character? Is that a character who is going to show up later on in the story or is this the one shot they have? If it’s the one shot they have then who that person is is not so important down the road. But in many cases that teacher character will recur and so be thinking about what are the beats and how are we going to see them in this way in this context in this classroom scene versus later on in the film. And what is the relationship really between your hero and this lecturer? That matters a lot.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Let me play a clip from Frankenweenie because Frankenweenie has a teacher character I created called Mr. Rzykruski who challenges the classroom and I think it’s an example of the kinds of things we’re talking about. So this is early on Frankenweenie, the character will appear twice more, but this is his first scene.

[Clip plays]

**Mr. Rzykruski:** Lightening is simply electricity. The cloud is angry. Yes, we make it storm. All the electrons are saying I am leaving you. I go to the land of opportunity. The ground says yes we need the electrons trained in science just like you. Come! Come! Welcome! So both sides start to build a ladder. This man, he comes out to look at the storm. He does not see the invisible ladders. When the two ladders meet, BOOM! The circuit is complete and all of the electrons rush to the land of opportunity. This man is in the way. Yiii!

[Clip ends]

**John:** So in this scene what was important is that we’re introducing this scary new substitute science teacher and he’s going to be doing an info dump about what electricity is because electricity has been powering these monster creations. But it’s really about the kids’ reaction to him. And they are so excited to have this scary man as their science teacher and how inspiring it is to Victor who is going to be the kid character that we’re following. So it’s setting up that there’s a new character here, but also that they’re responding to him sort of the way that we would respond to him. The kids in the classroom are the same place that we are in terms of like oh my gosh this guy is crazy.

**Craig:** And you needed those kids to be scared. It was important.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So that kind of guides the way that person is going to do what they do. So, I suppose if we had some kind of sum up advice for Sarah it would be boring is boring, that’s easy. And inspiring means there must be a space in the character that needs inspiration, that needs to have some kind of impact. Fear. Excitement. Enrapture. Shame. Whatever it is. They needed to hear this and then you have to write it well on the other side.

**John:** Yeah. So with Frankenweenie that scene had to exist in the movie or else a lot of the other dominoes wouldn’t have fallen correctly. But it needed to be a good scene that actually would last in the movie. So that’s the crucial thing.

All right, speaking of crucial scenes that need to stay in their movies. Let’s take a look at the first three pages–

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** Of some of our different scripts here. We have three entries here. So for people who are new to the Three Page Challenge if you go to johnaugust.com/threepage you can submit the first three pages of a script. It could be a TV script or a feature script. It goes into a big bucket and every once and a while Megana goes through all those scripts in that big bucket and picks several of them for us to discuss on the show. This is not a competition. This is just an exhibition. We are looking at pages that people submitted.

Sometimes they’re great. Sometimes they have real challenges. We tend to focus on the ones that have things that we can talk about, so either things that they’re doing really, really well on the page, or things that could be done better. So we have three of them to talk through. If you want to read along with us you can follow the link in the show notes to the PDFs you can download and go with us. But Megana if you could start us out with a summary of this first one. Trickster: Night of Kitsune by Hiroshi Mori.

**Megana Rao:** In 1920s Japan Tsuneko, a woman in her 20s, hides with her daughter, Etsuko, 13, in the backroom of a house as a mob of angry villagers accuse Tsuneko of being a fox devil. Her husband, Mongaku, relents to the crowd’s demands and the villagers drag her away. The villagers bury up to her neck in the middle of the town square. She’s then ripped apart by dogs. They tell Mongaku to behead her with a blessed spear, but when he approaches the body has already disappeared. We then cut to a Manga comic page.

**John:** Craig, what’s your response to Trickster: Night of the Kitsune?

**Craig:** I am a big fan of Japanese historical fiction. I just love the Samurai Era. I love the Meiji Restoration. I love all of it. So I was excited. I had many, many, many, many problems and all of them I think ultimately turned on Hiroshi Mori’s issue with action. And I don’t mean action as in the stuff that’s happening. I mean the things that aren’t dialogue. I had some dialogue issues, too. But this is a good example of a script that needs to be re-approached from the point of view of description and visuals. And it begins with the very first line, “SUPER: OVER IMAGES OF A RURAL JAPANESE VILLAGE. JAPAN, TAISHO ERA, 1920’S.”

First of all, if you’re going to put a super and there’s a date it must be a year at the minimum. It can’t be a decade. 1920s makes no sense. It’s 1921, it’s 1923. But be specific so that we understand that you cared enough to place it in a year. But most importantly “over images of a rural Japanese village.” That’s useless.

**John:** Yeah. I don’t know what that is.

**Craig:** It’s useless. You’ve got to paint the picture. You must fill my mind. And I know what – I happen to know what those villages look like, and they’re gorgeous, and they’re fascinating. And Japanese landscape is often beautiful because it’s an earthquake and volcano prone Pacific Rim nation. So is it kind of terraced? Is it on the shore? Is it among the mountains? Tell me. I need to know.

The house, “In the storage area of a wood farm house,” wood farm houses in 1920s Japan do not look like wood farm houses in 1970 the US. We need to know what. “TSUNEKO, late 20’s, with haunting, piercing eyes,” we don’t know if she’s male or female unless you are Japanese.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Right?

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** We don’t know if Tsuneko is a female or male name, so give us a sense of gender.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about how you would do this, because I was looking for how is the easy way to do this, because you’re not going to say female. That feels clunky. So I think as quickly as you can in that next sentence find a way to flip stuff around so you can get a she or a her in there so we know a gender on this character who is so important.

**Craig:** Absolutely. So Tsuneko, late 20s, with haunting, piercing eyes. She crouches down next to…right.

**John:** That would do it.

**Craig:** That would do it. Tsuneko throughout is going to confuse me, emotionally. I don’t know why she isn’t more scared. She seems super calm. Then she’s screaming. Then she’s grumpy. And we go outside to a mob of ten villagers. Just so you know ten villagers isn’t a lot. Ten people on screen looks like three people. It’s kind of weird how that works.

And I want to know more about the mob. Because if you don’t tell me more about the mob then I’m just going to assume it’s like cliché mob.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about villagers and mobs, because there’s happy villagers and there’s angry mob, but they’re so cliché. You do need to just be specific. So one guy is identified as being a shopkeeper or something. Great. But I just need a better sense of what this is because I don’t really quite have a sense of the period either. Because you can say 1920s but I’m not quite sure what that looks like in Japan. How rural is this? Are these farmers? Is this a city? I don’t really know where I am.

**Craig:** Correct. The villagers are going to sort of tell you too much now. Villager 1, and Villager 1 and Villager 2, we talked about before not our favorite thing to see in a script. Villager 1 delivers one of the more expository speeches a villager can deliver. He says, “She is a fox-devil. She is a shape shifter. You had no money until you found her in the forest. You brought her here, made her your wife, and used her fox-devil tricks to make you rich.” Unless this villagers job is literally the village summarizer this is not how people talk, particularly in a high pressure violent riotous scene.

**John:** And Craig I kept wanting this to be night and it’s day throughout.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It feels strange to me that it’s daytime. It’s OK that it’s day. It can totally work in daytime. But it feels like a night scene to me and I feel like maybe I just have the expectations of torches or something. It feels strange. What was the inciting incident that got us to this moment right where we are? And I think all these problems sort of come back to a point of view problem. It’s the point of view, who are we supposed to follow? The husband who is the one who is ultimately going to go out there with the spear to decapitate his wife? Is it the little daughter? Is it–?

**Craig:** Tsuneko?

**John:** Who are we actually supposed to be following here? Because if we knew that then this whole thing could probably be shorter, tighter, and better.

**Craig:** I agree. And one reason to set it in the day counter to the typical mob at the front door of a home, and it’s very hard to do that scene in a way that hasn’t been done four billion times before, is perhaps to have Tsuneko look through a slat of wood or something and see them outside. Right now everyone is so disconnected. And Mongaku – what Mongaku says here, it’s really important to think always, just a simple question, what would someone say?

So villager one outlines in quite startling detail why the mob is here. And villager two confirms that. Adds on she made us poor. She tricked us out of our money. Get her. And Mongaku says, “Please. This is a misunderstanding.” Does that seem like something that would work?

**John:** No. Not in this moment. Not when there’s actually a mob there. You know, early on as things just begin to escalate a little bit, sure, but not when the actual mob shows up there to take your wife and kill her.

**Craig:** Yes. You would beg. You would tell them you’re sorry. You would tell them it wasn’t her. You would accuse somebody else. What you wouldn’t do is talk to them like they were grouching at you because they think you took their latte order at Starbucks when it was really theirs. “Move or we’ll burn your house down.” Um, they want to kill his wife. And what they’re saying is don’t make us burn your house. But it’s like well the house is not the big issue right now. I could build another one of those. I think it’s move or we’ll kill you. Right? Or we’ll burn you and your daughter alive, right? Or we’ll kill your daughter. It can’t just be the house.

So what’s happening, Hiroshi, is there’s just a lot of lapses in what I would call logical human psychology. You have to just really ask yourself every step of the way what would work. What would make sense? What would actually be said here?

**John:** Yeah. I want to pitch, going through this sequence and taking out all the dialogue until we get to, “This forest demon isn’t human. She can’t replace your mom. Forget you ever saw her.” If we took out all the actual real dialogue there other than maybe some pleading just to get to that point. Because it looks like they’re just trying to capture this woman and then you find out they actually think she’s a demon. That’s really exciting.

And so if we saw this action and the first time we get that they don’t think she’s even human is there that’s kind of interesting to me.

**Craig:** I agree. In fact here’s my – I like this, here’s our pitch. Here’s my pitch. My pitch is this thing opens with a woman buried up to her neck and she is swollen and she is dying and she’s looking at this little girl. And this guy sits down next to her and he says, “I know this is upsetting but I want to explain why we did this. She’s a forest demon. She’s not human. You need to forget you ever saw her. This is all good for the village. Here’s what she did.” He just calmly explains the whole thing and then says, “And above all she definitely was not your mother.” And you go, oh, that was her mom.

There’s got to be something about relationship that matters to the girl. It all has to be contextualized in terms of relationship or else it’s just stuff happening and it’s not particularly surprising or interesting.

**John:** Yeah. And that same dialogue delivered by a woman could be more compelling than by a man.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** There’s choices that could sort of make this feel more specific. And it all depends on sort of like what is it really tying into because at the bottom of page three we’re jumping forward and seeing there’s a Manga connection. So this may be a story within a story. Even so it needs to be–

**Craig:** It’s got to be a good story.

**John:** It needs to be super compelling. It’s got to be a good story because this is how you’re starting your movie.

**Craig:** 100%. It has to be awesome. Especially if the idea is that this is a story that somebody is actually drawing in a manga. Or it just happens that we jump ahead in time and that girl has been reincarnated as a young woman who draws manga. It doesn’t matter. Either way the opening here has to be incredibly compelling. That’s just how it goes.

**John:** Two little craft notes here. On page 2, “EXT. Village, Tsuneko’s dragged into a large two-story building.” So it’s apostrophe-S Tsuneko’s. I would say it’s a bad choice to do the apostrophe-S on things that aren’t a possession, especially in this case. Because you’re not saving anything and it’s just confusing. I can’t tell is it a thing that’s being dragged. It’s just confusing. Tsuneko is dragged. Or better yet, someone drags Tsuneko. Just show the active thing.

The next paragraph, “Tsuneko’s head bloodied and bruised sticks out of the ground.” Tsuneko’s bloodied and bruised head sticks out of the ground. Moving the head after the adjectives just makes the whole thing clearer.

**Craig:** Or making it a positive phrase and putting commas around bloodied and bruised.

**John:** Bloodied and bruised, yes.

**Craig:** But Tsuneko’s head, bloodied and bruised, shouldn’t run together. Also she opens her eyes and then she opens them again. There’s a continuity error even within the writing which is something you really want to avoid.

**John:** Yeah. And when you hear like “Tsuneko opens her swollen red eyes. Makes eye contact with Etsuko.” But what is the purpose? What is she trying to communicate?

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** This is a case where tell us why she’s doing it. Tell us what we’re supposed to feel because right now I don’t know. And that’s not helpful.

**Craig:** It’s not. And it also veers us away from this next bit which is pretty disgusting but I suppose where dogs eat her face. But if we understood that Etsuko was watching this happen then I would understand why I’m watching it. But if you take away the point of view of her daughter and just show her getting her face eaten which is a weird transition by the way from I’m looking at you to now my face is being eaten, then it just seems like you just want to show me her face being eaten.

Also, if someone’s face gets eaten by dogs they die.

**John:** Yeah. I don’t understand how she’s alive after that. Maybe because she’s a fox-demon.

**Craig:** But then if she’s a fox-demon then everybody should freaking the F out. Like apparently the fox-demon you can eat her face and she still lives. So, it just – yeah, there were multiple issues here and I think the most important thing to take away from this, Hiroshi, is fill the visual picture in. Ground all of the moments in relationships. Think about perspective always. And make sure that everyone says and does things that comport logically with normal human psychology in extraordinary, abnormal moments.

**John:** Yup. Agreed.

**Craig:** All right. What’s next?

**John:** All right. Let’s move on to Martha. If you could give us a summary, Miss Megana.

**Megana:** Great. So we meet plump 45-year-old Martha alone on Ladies’ Night at a Midtown Manhattan strip club. Martha is an enthusiastic and generous regular. She slips $100 bills into G-strings and everyone seems to know her by name. Martha asks Bobby who is “working tonight” and Bobby points him in the direction of the new go-go dancer, Derek. Derek’s friend tells him that Martha is a good time but she’s strong, so he should definitely have a safe word. Martha leads Derek out to her driver and car making several off-color jokes about how this might be the last time Derek sees his friends. In the back of the car Martha pours Derek scotch and condoms fall from the ceiling.

**John:** Great. So this is Martha by Caroline O’Riordan.

**Craig:** John, what did you think?

**John:** I liked that this was a big character. A big introduction on a big character. Martha is sort of brash and brassy and unapologetic and sort of seems very comfortable in her skin in a way that was interesting and compelling. I felt like the men in this story were not nearly as compelling and they didn’t need to be such bright spotlights. But I didn’t know really who Bobby was at all and this last stripper who got in the car. I wanted to have a sense of who he was just so I could sense what is the drama/comedy that’s going to be possible to happen next.

**Craig:** Yeah. I wonder just from the name Martha, I wonder if this is Caroline’s tricky way of saying Arthur. Because it reminds me so much of Arthur. A boozy bachelor who has a butler. And who goes around and lives the life of an utter reprobate. And then is going to meet somebody that kind of sets them straight. And so here we’re doing the distaff version of that. And I thought honestly what was working really well was I understood where I was. I could see the room. Geography made sense. Caroline was making sure that when somebody talked to somebody that they go there first.

The only thing I really would suggest she kind of look at is there’s a broadness in the rest of the world. I like how broad Martha is, but the rest of the world feels broad. So the guys, the issue with the male strippers is that they kind of feel like the waiters in Hello Dolly. Do you know what I mean?

**John:** I do. Yeah.

**Craig:** They’re like, ah, Martha. They don’t seem–

**John:** They’re not in reality. And they’re in sort of her heightened reality and they’re not real to us.

**Craig:** Particularly because they all behave equally the same. Like they all do the same thing in unison. I also think that her largesse should be larger. A wad of $100 – you know, when she got $100 bills from her bra. Generally it’s hard to see, you’ve got to really hit that number. When she throws money you’ve got to realize those are hundreds. That’s a big deal. She’s also been there for a while so it seems like she suddenly pulled that out and started throwing them around.

**John:** A line like, “Don’t worry, I’ve got a second one.” Basically she’s into her second bra roll.

**Craig:** Right. She finishes this wad of $20s and she’s like, “Sorry guys, that’s it. No more $20s.” And they’re like, “Aw,” and she goes, “And so I guess I’ll use these hundreds.”

**John:** Hundreds. Yeah.

**Craig:** Something to just really sell that this is like kind of a life-changing lady to be around when you’re a stripper because there’s a lot of money coming around. But keeping the rest of the world, like Bobby I think needs to be more grounded. The strippers need to be more grounded. Condoms should not fall from the ceiling.

**John:** I don’t understand where they came from the ceiling. I don’t get that.

**Craig:** Also how many condoms do you need?

**John:** You don’t need a lot.

**Craig:** Maybe like maximum three? You know, three seems a lot. Just, whoosh, condoms drop from the ceiling just seems a little broad. So, keep her broad, and keep the rest of the world super unbroad. Because what made Arthur wonderful, and I’m just again assuming that Caroline is kind of going in that direction, I could be totally wrong, is that he was pathetic. That ultimately he was sad. And you knew that because we were putting this life of the party guy in the middle of very regular New York. And that’s why it worked.

**John:** So a couple little small things on the page, just pickups, because I really didn’t mark this up very much because I thought it largely worked. First line, “It’s Sunday night at the “ultimate ladies night” in Midtown Manhattan. It’s not Friday, and this isn’t Vegas.”

**Craig:** I circled that myself.

**John:** I just thought I don’t know what that means. It’s not Friday, it’s not Vegas.

**Craig:** Also, you just told us it was Sunday in Manhattan. So why do we need the rest of this?

**John:** And the next line is great without it. So just drop that out. Third line, “Perched on a stool and cheering on the DANCERS like a blackout proud parent is MARTHA (45, white, big-eyed, plump).” I don’t get the blackout proud parent.

**Craig:** I don’t either.

**John:** So take out blackout. Proud parent, great. Because I get what you’re going for here is that she’s just really into it. She’s like a super fan here. 45, white, big-eyed, plump. Great. I got a visual for that. I would love to know a little bit more, I’m going to talk like Craig here, hair, makeup, and wardrobe. We can get a little bit more specific here. What is her purse?

**Craig:** Definitely.

**John:** How is she styled? If you want to go back and listen to my conversation with Lorene and Mitch about Hustlers, really sort of what these characters are wearing in these clubs is so important to tell us about who they are and why they’re there. I feel like you have the space here on page one to give us more about Martha because this is her movie.

**Craig:** That’s great advice. I also think Martha doesn’t really get a reveal. And with somebody like her you want one. She deserves one. To go back to Hello, Dolly, one of the great reveals in Broadway history when Dolly, even though we’ve seen her before, we haven’t seen her in her full glory. When she comes down the staircase at the restaurant. You want Martha’s reveal to be wow. To really be something. So I completely agree with those bumps there.

Here’s a moment where I think the first red flag on the kind of too broad rest of the world was when she tosses crumpled bills over her shoulder and stumbles away. “The boys lunge like bridesmaids vying for the bouquet.” Nah.

**John:** They can still have some pride, yeah.

**Craig:** And also because what you want is to see that behind her there is no party. The party is around her and what she sees through her eyes. And behind her is actually – they made an agreement to just divide it up. It’s cleaning for them. It’s sad.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve seen both Magic Mike movies and, yes, those guys are working hard for the money. But they’re not–

**Craig:** It’s work.

**John:** But it’s work. And they’re not just going to scrape or pounce on things.

**Craig:** Correct. Exactly. Bobby – I’d love to get a little bit more of a sense of his feeling about Martha. I don’t know what he thinks of her. “Martha,” she goes, “Bobby, great show. Your boys got me dripping as always,” which is pretty funny. “Martha, the reason I’m open on Sundays.” Well that just feels like a couplet designed to tell me that her name is Martha and his name is Bobby. You know? And Bobby has got to have – there’s no reason he should be matching his tone. He’s got to be like, “Mm, Martha.” You know, wow, I can’t throw you out. I wish I could, but I can’t.” It’s like you’re a huge pain in the ass and you’re just extra.

So we just need to see how the rest of the world is reacting to her. Even if he matches her energy, and then when she looks away he and the bartender look at each other like “oh my god, Martha.”

**John:** Yeah. The other woman in his club, like how are they responding to this high roller who is throwing all this stuff? And what is it like to be in her little bottle service area? There’s all sorts of fascinating things you could do here and you don’t have to do all of them, but I feel like it comes back to just making sure that the rest of the world feels realistic so that her bigness can really stand out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Last little thing I wanted to point out to you Caroline is that there’s no reason for Derek, the selected dancer, to not already know about Martha. Even if he’s new, he’s been watching her all night. So at some point earlier one of the guys would have said something. So, what could work is when they get into the car she’s like, “What did your friends tell you? What did the other guys tell you?” And he could be like, “Um, they said that you were a good time but that you’re stronger than you look and I should get a safe word.” Do you know what I mean? And then she sort of laughs and she’s like it’s so true. So that you don’t have to have this kind of feeling that Derek was just apparently checked out all night while this was going on.

**John:** Yeah. On page three he’s described as “half-naked, Derek shivering from the November air.” Be more specific about half-naked. Because is he still just in his G-string? Does he have his phone with him? Some of that information is kind of great because how vulnerable is he is a great thing to see.

**Craig:** Yeah, and again when Derek drinks the scotch, and you should point out by the way that he drinks, you don’t actually say that, he says, “Whoa, this stuff is intense.” That also feels like he’s from Iowa in 1920. He’s a male stripper. He’s drank before. Even if he doesn’t drink much or whatever, it just seems like he’s, again, he’s a waiter from Hello, Dolly. And you want him to be a guy who strips for a living in Manhattan. You know?

**John:** This is not Schmigadoon.

**Craig:** Correct. It’s not Schmigadoon. Bingo.

**John:** All right. Our final entry. The Many Lives of Newton Thomas by Sean Frost. Megana, can you give us the summary?

**Megana:** A mother and father carry a baby boy in a wicker basket out of a station wagon. They leave him in the basket at the entrance of a children’s home at night. They share a tearful goodbye with the father leaving several small trinkets for the boy before the parents drive away in the car. A voice over tells us that he’s imagined this night hundreds of different ways with the parents crying, held at gunpoint, or stopped before they can leave the baby.

We see the different iterations of the scene until the voice over tells us that he suspects that he’s afraid the truth is that his parents were sad but not distraught and decided to leave the baby of their own volition.

**John:** All right. Craig, what was your take on The Many Lives of Newton Thomas?

**Craig:** I really enjoyed this. I liked this, Sean. I thought that there was a really interesting concept here. There were a couple of little bumps in the road that I want to talk about that are somewhat technical. And I think the idea gets across faster and more effective than you might realize, because I think it was probably a bit too much of it.

I’ll start with the real simple things. “A tired looking MUTLI-STOREY BUILDING.” So we’ve got a type on the fourth word which makes us crazy. You also spell story “storey” which is in the British way.

**John:** So maybe he’s British.

**Craig:** Except that he says a parking lot and the British say a car park. So, you either have to be British or you have to be American. You can’t be both. What was interesting was I was confused at first and then when I got to Newton’s line, “I’ve imagined this night a hundred different ways,” I went ah-ha. And that’s fine, except for one bit of confusion and that is she’s holding a baby, wrapped in blankets, and she’s going to put that baby in a basket.

We understand that that baby is an infant. That’s what that is. But the baby says, “Vroom, vroom.” Babies don’t do that. They don’t talk and when they do talk it’s a lot of mama, baba, bebe, but it’s not vroom, vroom about a car. That’s more like a 1.5 or two-year-old, which is definitely not the sort of like I’m going to put you in a little blanket and put you in a little basket. You say baby boy. So I would change that bit.

But I thought it was interesting that the first part seemed kind of off and unrealistic. And then you found out why.

**John:** I took the vroom, vroom as being magical realism. It was impossible for the baby to say that, but it was sort of an imagined.

**Craig:** I would acknowledge that. That’s perfectly fine. But then I would acknowledge that somewhat improbably the baby says. But I thought there was a really interesting kind of iteration of things that happened. The one I would strongly suggest to get rid of is you say sometimes they cry, and so they’re sobbing as they put the baby down. Sometimes they don’t. And there’s a kind of the dad is stone faced and the mom is sad, but noticeably not crying. But the version that you propose is the one that’s probably real is the version where you say, “I do this cause I’m afraid what really happened was more like this.” And then you see that they are not crying and they are just sort of neutral.

And so I wouldn’t step on that. I would keep them happy or sad or scared or Iron Man comes in. And I would strongly recommend that in the bit where at the end, the reveal, Newton says – here’s what Newton says in voice over, “I do this cause I’m afraid what really happened was more like this. No tears. No guy running down the street – and definitely no Iron Man trying to stop a guy from shooting my Dad. Which is why I like to imagine it differently.” And I think maybe all you need is “I do this because I’m afraid what really happened was more like this.”

And then you just see them put the baby down, they don’t really care, and they drive away. And then you go back to the little baby. So the rest of it we’re seeing it. We get it.

**John:** Yeah. So as I was reading it the parents are so vaguely described, and it sort of makes sense that they be vaguely described, sort of generic versions, because he doesn’t necessarily know who they are.

**Craig:** He doesn’t know them.

**John:** But I went back and forth in terms of like should we see their faces or not see their faces. There’s a version of this where we don’t actually ever fully see their faces. But then we can’t really tell if they’re crying or not. So I guess you do have to cast people that you are seeing this. But maybe you just call out early in the scene description a somewhat generic like white man, white woman just so we get a sense of like they’re deliberately not specific. That he’s just sort of remembering them or imagining them as these people.

A bigger issue is I had is Craig how old is Newton our narrator?

**Craig:** Well, that’s a great question. I have no clue.

**John:** I have no clue. And it really does matter because if it’s being told by a ten-year-old versus a 30-year-old it’s a very different feel. And so I think we need to find a place on page one, either after Newton’s first line, or after his second line just to give us a sense of the age of the narrator because it really does change the read, sort of how we’re reading this. If it’s a kid narrating versus an adult narrating it.

**Craig:** That’s a fantastic point. I think in my mind I must have defaulted to young adult. But you’re absolutely right. We do need to know what we’re hearing there. And I don’t know if this is a movie or meant to be a show. It feels like a movie. And The Many Lives of Newton Thomas perhaps implies that here’s somebody who is imagining Walter Mitty style the different paths his life might have taken had it gone different ways. But it’s a really nice start.

**John:** Agreed. It’s a nice start.

**Craig:** It’s a nice start. Oh, one last thing, Sean. New Beginnings Children’s Home. Mm, we can see what you’re doing there. It’s too much. You don’t need that. You can back off the gas pedal on that one I think.

**John:** Yeah. Here’s the other thing. Beyond the name of it, every time we see a slug line with that, because it’s a really slug line and we’re going to be coming back to this a lot, even though we’re not going to really read it every time a shorter slug line I think will just get us through the page a little bit faster.

I would also cut on page two the masked figure says, “Do it or I’ll shoot.” The Mom reluctantly lays the Baby in the basket. The Masked Figure lowers their gun. The Dad sighs in relief. What? Just “do it or I’ll shoot.” Just get out of there on that line. You don’t need the rest of it.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** So both this script and our first script had draft dates on those. Don’t do those. Not necessary.

**Craig:** Don’t need them.

**John:** Have one date on your script. That’s great. But don’t tell us this is the second draft. We don’t care. It should be your best draft. This is the draft we’re reading. That’s all that matters is the draft we’re reading. So on the title page you don’t need to put what draft this is. Just put a date.

**Craig:** I agree. We don’t need to see your paperwork.

**John:** Nope. Not required.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** So I want to thank our three entrants this week. Thank you for sending this out. And everybody else who sent in all of these Three Page Challenges, Megana went through a zillion of them. So thank you Megana for reading through all of these.

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana.

**John:** And if you have your own three pages you want to submit go to johnaugust.com/threepage. And we might talk about your pages on a future episode.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Craig, we’re running long but I want to get to one question. A question from Chris. If Megana you could ask that.

**Megana:** Chris asks, “In light of so many Americans believing that the COVID-19 vaccine injects sinister tracking technologies into the body or that the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victims are all paid crisis actors I find myself wondering is it morally wrong to be writing conspiracy theory stories in this day and age? Have writers been inadvertently conditioning the public to think that massively coordinated government misdeeds are commonplace and that it’s good to always mistrust the government and the media because they’re all in on it? Could QAnon have happened without 11 seasons of the X-Files conditioning its viewers to be paranoid? And are we as writers making things worse every time we work a dark conspiracy into one of our stories?”

**John:** Oh, Chris asking a big question.

**Craig:** That’s an amazing question.

**John:** I think it’s a great question. I think we have some complicity in sort of narrativizing conspiracies and building a universe in which there’s always a twist and there’s always a secret bad guy organization behind stuff. So, yes, and here’s I guess the degree to which there’s any evidence to back this up is when you talk to prosecutors or defense attorneys for that matter when juries are in the courtroom and they’re seeing evidence they believe that CSI is real. They believe that all the stuff that they can do on CSI is the standards of how stuff should be working. And so they’re expecting evidence that is actually just impossible. And I think conspiracies are sort of a related thing to that in that people see things on TV and they start to believe oh maybe that’s how the world really works.

So I think I would be nervous writing a conspiracy thriller right now. But Craig I’m curious what you think.

**Craig:** Yeah. So I think we had talked in an earlier episode about the phenomenon of copaganda.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And presenting cops as kind of, I don’t know, just wildly differently than many of them are in the street and not paying any attention to the phenomenon of police brutality and cops as flawed or sometimes completely embedded with ultra-right wing philosophies.

The reason I love this question so much Chris is because I think it is at this point something that is – I’m not going to go all the way and say morally wrong. I’m going to say it ought to give strong, clear pause if you are thinking about writing a conspiracy theory story. Because we have absolutely fed into this. The insistence that the government is portrayed with The Shop. That’s my favorite phrase. The Shop. It’s even behind the CIA. It’s some secret thing behind the CIA and the NSA that basically can do whatever they want. They hear everything. They see everything. They’re completely all-knowing, all-seeing. They can do all this stuff.

Look at The Bourne Identity. The entire concept of The Bourne Identity is insane. It’s insane. And unaccomplishable. And we take that as commonplace. And the insistence that everything that happens in the world has occurred because humans wanted it to happen and that anybody that thinks otherwise is naïve and foolish that’s a problem. It has absolutely fed into this stuff.

I would at this point be so wary of writing a narrative that attempted to undermine what I think is the typical explanation and reason for things going wrong and that is stuff happening, stupidity as opposed to maliciousness. Confusion. Cowardice. Clumsiness. I mean, that’s why Chernobyl fascinated me. It was so human. There was no conspiracy. It was just human.

**John:** And to the degree that there was a conspiracy it was to try to cover up human mistakes.

**Craig:** It was just this mundane don’t blame me. You know? Which seems so true to all of this stuff. You know, I used to laugh at these people who insisted that George Bush did 9/11. And I’m like the same George Bush that couldn’t figure out how to plant one nuclear missile in the desert in Iraq? That guy? Really? No.

And the more we learn about government functions the more we realize that, you know, it’s not always well run. Sometimes it’s no better run than a bad job you had when you were 28. I’m really glad Chris asked this question. If people in Hollywood are writing these kinds of things right now I think they need to stop. And they need to really look at themselves and what they are encouraging.

There are conspiracies. We do know that Russia sends god knows how many bots to try to influence people. That’s a real story. Then investigate it like a real story. Do that. But don’t do the hyper-fictionalized government that knows all, sees all, and controls all.

**John:** Related I think we tend to create stories that are sort of one person against the system. And so the system is corrupt and only one person can bring it down.

**Craig:** Only I can fix this.

**John:** Yes. And I think that only I can fix this problem spills into real life because they start to believe like, oh, they don’t want you to believe this thing, they don’t want you to see this thing. You have to do your own research and really learn for yourself and basically don’t trust anybody. And I think what we’ve learned in this pandemic is that you do need to actually cooperate and work together to get stuff to happen and to get stuff resolved. And so beyond just the out-and-out conspiracy thriller thinking I think we need to just be aware of the degree to which we are feeding into this myth of one person alone makes a difference and that you cannot trust anybody else because the human condition is about trusting other people. That’s what makes us human.

**Craig:** And also just from a creative point of view robs you of relationships, partnerships, people coming together. We love that sort of thing for good reason. Because it mirrors our lives. Problems are not solved by one person. They are solved by people working together.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So I’d love to see this change. And I’ve got to believe it is. Like I can’t imagine somebody sitting in a studio right now going, “Ooh, you know what we should do is a conspiracy theory. What really happened to those two planes that crashed, the Boeings?” No, no, it was because Boeing screwed up and they put the thing on the thing.

Yeah, you know, so hopefully.

**John:** I agree with you. I do think there is an awareness of this and I think we should just be vigilant about it and maybe just ask ourselves and ask the folks who are making our entertainment to really think twice before going full conspiracy.

**Craig:** Please think twice.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing comes from listener Tara and she sent through a link to a great collection of TV scripts and not just pilots. And so I will put a link in the show notes to this site. But basically it’s gathering up all of the TV scripts that this person could find online. And it’s really easy to find movie scripts because they’re out for award season. TV scripts, can be pretty easy to find pilots but not easy to find like here’s a random episode from the third season.

So, so helpful if you want to be writing television to just read the scripts and really understand how these scripts work on the page, how shows are formatted. You’ll find that showrunners tend to have a very similar format from year to year, season to season. If you want to copy a style copy the style of the shows that are actually produced. And I think you could spend many hours of your life reading these scripts and be a better education than probably any screenwriting book you could possibly pick up.

**Craig:** That’s a terrific resource. Thank you, Tara. My One Cool Thing is another game. I’ve just been hunting around. Sometimes I go through these dry spells where there’s just nothing good on the app store and then I picked up a couple. You know, the algorithm occasionally coughs up something at me and I go, ooh that.

This game has been around for a little bit. It’s called Circulous. It’s by Chain Reaction Games. It’s for iOS. It might be for Android. I don’t know. I don’t care about Android. And it’s sort of a puzzle game. You play a woman who has just been hired by a company called Circulous. It’s kind of like a Google/Apple corporation. And there is some sort of hacker enemy that’s trying to do stuff and you have to solve a whole bunch of problems.

So it’s kind of escape roomy in that regard. The puzzles are quite fair. They’re difficult but fair. What I love about it is the interface. It does this thing that a lot of games have tried to do and failed. You have your own laptop in the game. And you can tap on a thing that gets you to your laptop and you get notifications and you get emails and there’s like a little mini-browser inside to look up websites. And normally those are just awful in games, it’s almost like they had never seen. And in Circulous they’re quite good. They’ve actually done a really good job of creating that space that we’re really familiar with and making it feel quite functional and good.

So, I’m almost through with it. I think I’m creeping up towards the end but it’s really well done. I play a little bit each night before I pass out. So I highly recommend Circulous. Circulous from Chain Reaction Games.

**John:** Very nice. I will step in. It’s available at least on the Mac and iOS. So it may be available on other platforms as well.

And that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Andrew Hart and it is the first appearance by Megana in an outro.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** Yeah, it’s a good one. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust. Craig also sometimes answers questions, but he’s not officially on Twitter anymore.

**Craig:** True.

**John:** We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the Three Page Challenges we talked through so you can download PDFs and read along with us. You’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter also at johnaugust.com. Inneresting has bunch of links to things about writing. So that comes out every Friday.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one you’re about to hear with me and Sara Schaefer talking about three tips to getting your TV show on the air and the heartbreak that will follow thereafter.

Craig, it is a pleasure chatting with you.

**Craig:** Thanks. Good to be back, John.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Sara Schaeffer is a writer-producer-comedian and standup comic who has worked on a gazillion comedy variety shows, a lot of them on Comedy Central. Nikki and Sara Live. I’m literally going through your IMDb and you have so many credits Sara.

**Sara Schaefer:** It’s actually ridiculous.

**John:** So you know we’ve had people on the show before who have worked on a late night show, on a late night show for years and years and years, but you’ve popped around so many different things and sort of special events where it sounds like you’re getting together to put on one special event. Do you enjoy that?

**Sara:** Yes and no. So, I’ve hopped around so much in part because I’ve always been trying to get my own projects going, which is the big prize. I’ve done it once with Nikki and Sara Live on MTV. And that was an incredible experience and I’m always trying to sell another project that’s my own idea all the way to fruition. And so in order to do that because it is such a long haul to do that I’ve always taken jobs that are a little more short term. Well, I mean, a lot of times it’s not my choice. I will get hired on a show and it just doesn’t get renewed. Like talk shows. New talk shows are really hard to get going now if you’re not one of the institutional shows, or if you didn’t come from an institution. So I’ll just point to John Oliver and Sam Bee. They have been probably one of the only couple long-running shows. Even Amber Ruffin were talent that were incubated on another institution, like The Daily Show, or Seth Meyers. So that’s part of it.

But also I will hop around because I’m also a touring standup comedian. I’ve just always got my hand in so many different things. And so I like can’t be tied down, man.

**John:** No. We had Jen Statsky on the show recently and she was talking about her time.

**Sara:** Oh yeah.

**John:** I think she was on Fallon as well.

**Sara:** Yeah. She started right before I left the show. And I had a little goodbye drinks after my last day and she was there. And she was like, “I feel like we were going to become friends.” And I was like I know. I mean, and we’re still friendly with each other but like we didn’t have that long term working together friendship thing take place. But yeah.

**John:** One new show that you’re working on right now that will not get canceled because it’s entirely your show is the Schaefer Shakedown, the podcast.

**Sara:** That’s right. Nobody can cancel it. Because I’m the only person that works on it. There’s no money on the line. And there’s literally nothing involved other than my own desire to do it, so that’s good.

**John:** So Episode 7 of your show you shared your secrets for getting a TV series to air in three easy steps. And I thought we might listen to a little clip.

**Sara:** Sure.

[Clip plays]

**Sara:** Hi everyone. For today’s tutorial I’ll be showing you how to sell a TV show in just three simple steps. Step one, come up with an original idea or recycle an old idea that’s been done one million times, whatever your personal preference. Step 1A, tell your agent about the idea. Now if you’re curious how to get an agent I recommend checking out my other YouTube video entitled How To Get A Hollywood Agent in 600 Easy Steps.

So now that you’ve got your agent it’s time to tell them about your idea. Step 1B. Get feedback from your agent who will change the idea until it is good enough to pitch. To a network? No, not yet. You must first complete Step 1C. Finding a production. Now you will pitch your idea to various production companies. If one of them likes your idea you will work with them. Step 1D. Prepare the pitch with the production company. They will help you change the idea until it’s good enough for pitching. This can take several months to several years because they’ll also be insistent on finding a big name director or celebrity to attach. Sometimes big name directors and actors go on long vacations or are shooting a movie in New Zealand, so this can take time. While you’re waiting, I recommend taking up a hobby, like drinking.

[Clip ends]

**Sara:** That’s only the beginning.

**John:** Yes. So, I guess I’ll start with a question. Sara, how dare you? Because Craig and I have been doing this for 506 episodes and you just came out and just said it. You just laid the whole thing out. And what’s weird is that there are jokes in there. There’s funny writing within it but it’s also actually just honest about what the whole process is. And it’s just, ugh, I felt sick but seen as I listened to it.

**Sara:** You know, I always write, I fully write my podcast out. And then will riff as I go with it. But I was writing this episode and at first, I mean, I didn’t have this idea in my head. I always usually do on each episode I’ll do at least one little audio sketch like that one. And a lot of times I have the idea and then I’ll build the episode around it. But this time I was just writing my feelings about just being so frustrated with my career at this point. And so I decided to explain like you got to do this and this, because I was talking about how it’s hard for everyone in this business to make it, but if you have like just a little leg in, like if you’ve got fame, power, if you know somebody, if your dad is somebody important that it just greases the wheels a little bit.

**John:** Yeah.

**Sara:** And I was like if I could just get past the first step. And so I started to write that out. And then I was like oh this could be a funny YouTube tutorial. And I had to stop and rewrite that whole part and really think it through. So it really came from me just wanting to explain to people what you go through and it just worked very well in that format with the sort of monotone cheerfulness.

**John:** Step 1H part of it all. What I think is helpful is it’s a useful thing for young writers or people who are trying to make it in this business to send back to their parents to explain this is what I’m going through. Because there are so many steps where it’s like, yay, and I had a really good meeting, and they’re going to make an offer. Or you got a yes but there’s not an official offer. And you’re like what does that actually mean. And you explain it’s like, no, you’re waiting for the official offer even though you have the yes. It could be months and months and months before there’s anything like a deal. And that’s just to go to the next place which is to pitch to the next people.

**Sara:** Yeah. I think that is also why sometimes I feel defensive about that I’ve quit on my ideas sometimes. I go I didn’t quit. I got to a major obstacle that was so heartbreaking that I couldn’t move forward with it on my own anymore. It was too sad. Or I don’t even go out the gate with some ideas I have because I don’t have the energy to go through all those steps again and it’s so frustrating. And I think that I’ve had a lot of people, I had no idea that this video was going to go as far as it did. And I was like, oh, I really hit a nerve with people.

And I got a lot of people saying all those things you said like this is painful, I hate you, why are you trying to murder me. And then I got a lot of like I sent this to my family so they can understand. And everyone is talking about how far in the steps they’ve gone. I’m like I’ve gone all the way to the end once. And I’ve done every step between. And it’s just I think it’s the length of time it takes and how – and I say this at the end, at any moment it can just go away with no explanation. [laughs]

**John:** So in this pandemic, in this age of Zoom, I had a project which we were about to take out and then the pandemic hit, so it became all Zoom pitches. And there were so many times where we’d go out and we’d be pitching to a production entity or to a network or streamer and it would go through and it was like, yay, that was fantastic. And like, oh, they’re going to make a deal. And then, oh no, they changed the entire regime. It’s like twice we went to the same place and it’s like, oh no, the entire management structure has changed, which you referenced in this video. You could actually shoot your entire show and just like it never airs because the new people don’t want it on the air.

**Sara:** Yeah. That’s happened to multiple people I know where they went all the way, and it doesn’t make sense to me still, but even especially to someone who is not in this business. Why would a company spend so much money on something, it’s made, it’s in the can, and then to not put it on TV? It just is wild to me.

And I think you and I know reasons why. There is more money that has to be spent to take it all the way to that final step. And they maybe just want to cut their losses at that point. But it’s so demoralizing and just absurd.

**John:** Yeah. So in some ways it makes me nostalgic for Quibi and just the fact that anybody could get a show on Quibi. It was literally like “Are you alive? Here’s your show on Quibi.” But you actually talk to people who tried to do the Quibi shows and it was incredibly heartbreaking. And then to make one of those shows and like, oh, your network doesn’t exist anymore. Who knows when someone will ever see this thing again?

**Sara:** The tales of heartbreak that I’ve heard from putting this video out, and just from people – it was also, like you said, you feel seen and not alone. I felt seen back because so many people – major stars that I like love and I’m like what problem do you have in your life, Seth Rogan, like why – he retweeted it. And I’m like, oh, this spoke to him. And that just really made me go you know what it’s hard for everybody and it is easier for some people to get the wheels turning, but it’s crazy for everyone. And dreams die all the time. It is just a testament to how – you know, so many people were like oh I’m not even at Step 1C. And I’m like do you understand how hard it is to even get to Step 1A?

You have an agent. That’s why I said at the beginning I was like oh I know if I put this out people are going to go how do I get an agent. And I’m like that’s a whole other thing.

**John:** It is a very, very different thing. A thing I think I would add to a future incarnation, or if you ever make the book version of this is that same giant celebrity who you want to get on your project will make it so much easier to sell. That giant celebrity is a giant celebrity because he’s attached to every other project as well. And so trying to get that person’s sole attention, that’s a thing, too.

And so it’s not just the movie they’re shooting in New Zealand. It’s just will you be his or her first priority ever? And that’s really tough. And so, yeah, even this afternoon I was on a pitch to a production company. And I’m trying to get this production company onboard. And it’s just – you know, at every level you’re still just kind of hustling and you’re looking for that extra element that sort of makes it like, oh, it’s sort of impossible to say no to. And there never is an impossible to say no to.

**Sara:** Yeah. Got to be undeniable! There’s always a way to deny somebody the goods. I’ve learned to take every victory and every yes – to take every yes in this process as a huge victory, knowing that even if it doesn’t go all the way and no one ever sees it, you know, you did something. And it’s hard to do when you’re not getting – in those very first steps you’re not getting paid for a long time, so that’s tough.

And so it’s always a balance between finding a way to make – I always say this to people. You’ve got to have your money maker lane and your dream lane. Sometimes those lanes converge and sometimes they don’t. And, you know, that’s always been my way. It’s tough though because sometimes I have said no to jobs, money on the table, because it was just money and I had a dream that I wanted to work on. And sometimes that doesn’t pay off.

But, you know, I wrote a book. It came out a year ago. And a lot of people were like, oh, this sucks, I’m just going to just stick to books instead. And I’m like what?

**John:** Oh god. No.

**Sara:** It’s just as hard, if not harder.

**John:** Sara, I wrote a trilogy and just the pushing the boulder up the hill for a trilogy is like, oh, you think you’re done. It’s like, no, no, you’ve got two more of those to do. And support. And put it out there in the world. So, it’s tough.

**Sara:** When I went into writing a book I had no idea. And then I was like I wrote eight books in the course of this process. And when the book was done and it came out people were like are you going to make this into a TV show or movie? And I’m like, sure, I’d love to. But do you understand – and that has stalled that process.

But I had one really amazing actress who I loved who I had no idea that it had gotten into her hands. And she read it, loved it, and was like I want to star, produce, direct, I want it all. And I’m like, oh my god, here we go, but knowing this is probably never going to happen. But just the fact that she read it and liked it and I didn’t force it in her hands. Like somebody just gave it to her I think. I don’t know how it happened but I was just like this would be so amazing.

And I had a little celebration just for that moment knowing that it wasn’t probably going to go anywhere. And it hasn’t. [laughs] You know?

**John:** At least this went someplace. So, thank you again for this explanation of the steps of this which I think will live on for many, many years. It will keep getting passed around. So that is a thing we know will exist out there in the world. You’ve explained it once. It never needs to be explained again.

**Sara:** Yeah.

**John:** Sara Schaefer. Thank you so much. I would love to have you back on the show for a full episode.

**Sara:** Anytime.

**John:** Fantastic. Thanks Sara.

**Sara:** All right, thanks John.

**John:** Bye.

**Sara:** Bye.

Links:

* [Courtney Kemp’s Deal at Netflix](https://deadline.com/2021/08/power-creator-courtney-kemp-signs-netflix-deal-lionsgate-1234813246/)
* [Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park Deal](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/south-park-deals-trey-parker-matt-stone-1234995748/)
* [Hello Sunshine Sale](https://deadline.com/2021/08/reese-witherspoon-hello-sunshine-acquired-blackstone-venture-r-kevin-mayer-tom-staggs-1234807439/?fbclid=IwAR2BTj1Qpmgxv7-1rQIDJFObtsTE7noAIKfXqTX3FVaZ1p-s5qUN79BODGQ)
* [Frankenweenie](https://www.disneyplus.com/movies/frankenweenie/msxVowQvL18k)
* [Trickster: Night of the Kitsune by Hiroshi Mori](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F05%2FTrickster-Night-Of-The-Kitsune_3Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=1a05c101fbb1b815b66977e9a5a07369a818c6fa2e8e28426a6d08949f1fd148)
* [Martha by Caroline O’Riordan](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F06%2FMartha_Caroline-ORiordan3.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=b0776dca79a91180707f676b8f2900eaa4f962fedaedefde4cf9d6d4aee9578d)
* [The Many Lives of Newton Thomas by Sean Frost](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F05%2FTMLONT-Three-Pages.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=1e7a0d0abf0e46eb4b9f25ccead6588a5a7850829a1f50e6aa1bf69c717ad53d)
* [Collection of TV Scripts](https://sites.google.com/site/tvwriting/)
* [Circulous Game](https://www.chainreactiongames.org/circulous/)
* [Sara Schaefer’s Twitter Clip](https://twitter.com/saraschaefer1/status/1421622886574395393)
* [Schaefer Shakedown](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-schaefer-shakedown/id1565766154)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Andrew Hart ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/512standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 511: Framing the Story, Transcript

August 13, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/framing-the-story).

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

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

**John:** And this Episode 511 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’re looking not just at the story but the story around the story, how framing effects the perception of a movie, and the choices writers have to make. We’ll also look at vaccine mandates for production and answer listener questions about cheesy writing, zombies, and diversity fellowships. And in our bonus segment for premium members we’ll discuss the Black Widow lawsuit and what it means for backend bonuses.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Mm-hmm. Craig, it’s August. It’s finally my month. I’ve been waiting all year for this month and it’s my month. A month named after me.

**Craig:** A month named after you. A month that I think everybody generally agrees is sweltering and miserable.

**John:** It can be sweltering and miserable. It could also be delightful. It is a month full of stone fruit. And this trip on the east coast has made me remember how much I really do appreciate stone fruit, especially nectarines, which I think are overlooked because they’re just ready to eat. You don’t have to peel them. You don’t have to do anything. You just bit into them and then you throw away the pit. They are delicious.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, a peach is the ultimate. You don’t like peaches?

**John:** Peaches are great for – I like peaches, too. But peaches, like you can not peel them, but I just don’t like the fuzzy texture if you are eating a peach peel. Do you like the fuzziness?

**Craig:** Who peels peaches?

**John:** I know a lot of people who peel peaches.

**Craig:** Really? Megana?

**Megana Rao:** I’ve never heard of that. And I feel strange about it.

**Craig:** I think he made it up. John just made it up. Maybe people shave their peaches. I mean, I like the fuzzy part. I think it’s nice. It’s sort of a nice warm reminder.

**John:** It’s extra fiber.

**Craig:** It’s extra fiber. Do you know, John, there’s a wonderful puzzle word. Puzzle words are words that most people don’t know but they happen to be useful for crosswords and things like that. A puzzle word, it’s the botany word for stone fruit.

**John:** Oh what is that?

**Craig:** A drupe.

**John:** Droop?

**Craig:** Drupe. Drupe.

**John:** Ah. Drupe.

**Craig:** A drupe.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** So cherries, nectarines, peaches, etc. Drupes.

**John:** Oh, yeah, I don’t think of cherries as being stone fruits, but of course they are stone fruit.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** All this season. So this is basically the summer of stone fruit. It’s a Hot Vax Summer and it’s stone fruit season.

**Craig:** The two of us talking about this, it’s a bit like the ladies on NPR, the Saturday Night Live sketch.

**John:** [laughs] Absolutely. Schweddy Balls.

**Craig:** Shweddy Balls. Mm, good things. Mm, love stone fruit. Mm.

**John:** Craig, we have some follow up. I’m wondering if you could David from Iceland.

**Craig:** Sure. He writes, “The Icelandic sagas, which are often considered some of the earliest novels, are usually full of explicit foreshadowing in the form of dreams, dreams that women usually interpret correctly as terrible events that the men who are fated to live those events dismiss either blithely or in desperate denial of destiny. This literary device hangs a sense of dread over the proceedings from the outset while also giving these stories of damp farmers murdering each other a mythic, heightened quality. That is one sense in which ‘spoiling’ the broad strokes of a narrative at the beginning can enhance the story. It frames it, letting the story comment on itself as a story turning happenstance into destiny.”

**John:** I’m really glad that David wrote in with this reminder, because I really do like that kind of foreshadowing – that foretelling and sort of the sage foretelling of like doom is about to happen. And we see that in a lot of movies. We see that in any story that begins with like “let me tell you how I died.” It’s told by a narrator who is no longer living. Sunset Boulevard. American Beauty. Casino to some degree. I love that as a quality, basically when you know that the narration is not happening in the same time period as the movie itself. Therefore there’s an aspect of foreshadowing just by the fact that this narrator is talking to you.

**Craig:** Absolutely Correct. And I should add that somewhat happily we’ve got our second puzzle word here coming up, the Icelandic saga. The term for Icelandic saga, the Norse term is Edda, which we love to see in puzzles.

There’s another kind of foreshadowing of this sort that I really enjoy which is the I guess we call it ironic foreshadow, where somebody says this is how it’s going to end, and you think, OK. And it does end that way but in a way you didn’t expect. One of my favorite examples is an episode called X-Files called Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose. And the story involves – Peter Boyle plays a psychic of a sort. He only has one psychic ability and that is that when he meets somebody he sees how they are going to die. And leading aside all the other bits and parts of the story, and spoiler alert – it’s what, 20 years old now – Scully says, “Well have you seen your own death?” And he says, “Yes.”

And he’s lying in a bed and she’s sitting sort of on a chair near the bed. And he says, “Actually when I die we are going to be together in bed.” And she’s like, “Hmm, really? Really Peter Boyle?” And he’s like, “Yeah, I don’t mean any offense, but we’ll be in bed and you’re going to be holding my hand and you’re looking at my face and there are tears streaming down my face.” And she’s a bit skeptical because she’s a skeptic.

And later in the episode, or at the end of the episode, it is revealed that he has committed suicide. And he is in a bed and he’s got that plastic bag over his head, that method of going, with pills and such. And she sits down next to him and she holds his hand and they close in on the bag over his face and the moisture from his breath has turned to little rivulets of water that are kind of rolling down the inside of the plastic as if tears were streaming down his face.

So they told you how it would end, but you really did not know how it would end. And I thought it’s just one of those moments in television storytelling where I just thought that was just so smart.

**John:** Yeah. It’s really smart. And it’s a very classic technique. It’s a new show, but it’s a classic technique, that inescapable fate.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** No matter what you try to do you are cursed to live in this. And useful for storytelling because by setting out that sort of expectation or the characters pushing against those expectations you’re really establishing a through line for the audience. The audience is looking for ways it’s going to cue back to what that original statement was.

**Craig:** Yes. You know, there’s a whole other podcast that we could do just about these old stories. You know, like every culture has this epic tale that they go through. All of them. The Edda and Mahabharata and Gilgamesh and there’s so many and I don’t enough, but I think there’s a podcast where you just do the stories. You just read the stories and you kind of – Song of Roland is considered the first – Chanson de Roland – is the first “novel” in western literature. And it’s like Rocky. It’s like reading Rocky basically.

**John:** You know, Craig, I honestly think like maybe we could come up with a way in which all stories are essentially the same story and that really create a theory for like how all movie stories should work the same way. It could be stages of like heroes get a call to adventure. I know we could do this.

**Craig:** Can we make designs?

**John:** Designs or pivot off like Joseph Campbell. I really think we could sell books on it. I think we could do a lot here.

**Craig:** It doesn’t work if we don’t have a design. It needs to be not a triangle, they’ve already stolen the snail shape.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve got to have a shape.

**Craig:** 20-sided die. Of course.

**John:** Oh my gosh. Do like a [Hedron] theory of storytelling. It would have to have like 20 plot points and each plot point has to connect, but it has to be at opposite faces that add up to 21, right? Is that how 20-sided dies work?

**Craig:** It’s an Icosagon, by the way. Dodecahedron is a 12-sided die.

**John:** Oh, you’re absolutely right.

**Craig:** The barbarians’ best friend is the dodecahedron.

**John:** It is. I know. I’m so embarrassed.

**Craig:** You know, I think the icosagon, I think probably it is that they – well, except, yeah, they would have to add up to 21, right? So nine would be across from 12. 11 is across from 10. Yeah, that makes sense.

**John:** Yeah. We solved storytelling and math in just one podcast.

**Craig:** Yeah. Wow.

**John:** So good. So good.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Let’s get to our first topic today and this is coming off of two things that people have written in about. We’ll start with [Olafemme] who wrote in to say, “With Simone Biles’ withdrawal from her Olympic events the Twitterverse has been revisiting a moment from the 1996 Olympics which was Kerry Strug’s historic vault on an injured ankle. It earned the US the gold in the event. I’m old enough to remember the imagery of Strug successfully completing the vault, saluting the judges, then instantly collapsing to her knees in pain, having to be carried off the mat by her team. It was an unforgettable moment of Olympic history and an inspirational story of triumph in the face of adversity.”

Craig, you remember this moment?

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** This was a big photographic moment.

**Craig:** It was almost like it was scripted.

**John:** Yes. It was a very narrative moment. It felt like, oh, this is the end of the story. Well, it’s not quite the very end, because there would also be then a celebration after. But this was the final sort of moment of victory here.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And then we’re going to get to see her hugging her coach and he’s proud of her. But Olafemme reminds us that “in recent years numerous pieces of information have come to light that have completely changed the context of this story. In particular the facts that her trainer had miscalculated and the US would have won the gold even without Strug performing the vault. And that the very people helping her off the mat, Bela Karolyi and Larry Nassar, were abusive psychologically, physically, and in the last case sexually.

“What seemed like a story about victory has been revealed in truth to be one about the toxic pursuit of victory. How it can be so toxic that we overlook and justify traumatic abuses. I don’t mean to make light of real world tragedy, but I’m fascinated by how a powerful story can be turned on its head this way.”

I like what Olafemme is reminding us that we could tell the story of Kerri Strug and it would be a certain story if we leave out certain facts. But now with the new framing it’s a very different moment.

**Craig:** Yeah. Our narrative maturity has accelerated, just as a culture. We used to have very, very simple narratives. Morality plays, Aesop’s fables, and the aforementioned Edda, and Mahabharata, and all of that other stuff. And what’s happened over time is – especially the last 30 years, there’s so much culture. So many stories are being told that we’ve gotten wise to all the tricks. Everyone has pretty good story horse sense.

My daughter, your daughter, have watched enough television at this point to probably be able to predict halfway through a typical average episode of ‘90s TV how it’s going to turn out.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So over the last 30 years there’s been an acceleration of the subversion of narrative, or an interest in exploring hyper-reality. To insist that our narratives cover a lot of uncomfortable things. What we want, of course, is a very simple story on some level. We need Kerri Strug to make that vault in order to win the gold. She is deeply hurt but she makes one last vault, sacrificing herself, her body. And performs it brilliantly. And we win and she’s carried off by the men who inspired her to do so. And then now all these years later we’re a bit more grown up and what we want is the truth. And the truth does not diminish what Kerri Strug did. Nor by the way does the truth of what Kerri Strug did have anything to do with what Simone Biles did.

So, what I like about the way things are going now is that we are apparently grown up enough to face facts and in doing so we don’t lose heroes. Simone Biles remains a hero as does Kerri Strug. We just see the picture fully for what it is and we don’t sacrifice facts at the altar of simple narrative.

**John:** Now way back in the Austin Film Festival a couple of years ago we talked about the Zola Twitter thread. I’ve seen the movie. I don’t think you’ve seen the movie yet, Craig.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** But one of the interesting choices that the filmmakers make is it’s largely framed around Zola’s tweets to the degree that which when a line of dialogue is actually from a tweet there’s a little Twitter sound to show that it’s from that tweet. But there’s a moment in the movie, and this is not a spoiler, where it reframes everything from the other girl’s point of view and you see like, oh, there’s a completely different context behind what could actually be happening in these moments which I think is interesting.

Now those are choices that the filmmakers are making. And so the same way we could have made a certain Kerri Strug movie in 1996 and a different Kerri Strug movie in 2021, I’m really more curious about how the outside events really change the perception of a given piece of art. And so let’s not talk about changing the story, but the world around the story changes it, even if it’s the same piece of art.

So not the piece of art, but the frame around it. So with visual arts it’s literally the gilded frame you’re putting around it changes how we see the work itself. Because that’s the thing we sort of have less control over as artists, and we as writers, but we have to sort of be aware of it. Because if we are making a Naked Gun movie that has OJ Simpson in it we have no control over the fact that OJ Simpson was going to be the person he became.

**Craig:** Right. We just have to keep up. I feel like that’s the important thing. We have to keep up. We can’t go back in time and change the things we’ve done, or made. We have to keep up with culture. We certainly can go back and reevaluate. Here’s a moment where I didn’t even realize that Larry Nassar was one of the people helping Kerri Strug off the mat. That’s just so upsetting. It’s important to go back and look at those things and acknowledge them.

However I think our primary task as artists is to keep up with culture as best we can while we are creating it. And learn. And adapt. It’s crucial.

**John:** Yeah. And I think part of that awareness is recognizing that generally we’re looking at things from a North American cultural point of view. And that framing might be vastly different in other parts of the world. We’ve talked about how some of our movies see big changes overseas, especially in China. Some of it is political pressure, but some of it is also just cultural understanding. Things that would work a certain way here just don’t come across the same way overseas.

**Craig:** Yeah. Every culture is at a different place in their narrative growing process, and I don’t even mean to imply that more complicated narrative is inherently better. The French, I think, have always felt that their narrative sense was better than ours, because it was more complicated, more subtle, more French cinema. I don’t that’s true. I don’t think it means it’s better. But if you like that sort of thing then it’s wonderful. The important thing is that the French were making films for the French for their taste. French comedies, on the other hand, are so – generally speaking – I’m going to generalize here are really broad.

So, famously the French loved Jerry Lewis. So even within narratives there’s certain kinds where there’s what we’ll call a grown up, or very mature, complicated point of view on narrative. And then in other genres there’s a bit of a younger point of view. In other parts of the world there’s an appreciation for some of our simpler movies that we make because people are still kind of catching up to all the movies that there are. Not everybody has access to all of the stuff that we’ve had access to. So it is different all across the world and it is different because people are seeing things through their own filters.

One thing though that I try and keep in mind as an active participant in Hollywood is that despite all of the differences that exist across the globe in terms of culture and the way people create and process narrative Hollywood still does kind of change things. People literally learn to speak English from the things we make and do. They are watching very, very carefully. So, it is important for us, particularly for us, to keep up.

**John:** I think I’ve mentioned on the podcast before one of my favorite movies of all time is the Talented Mr. Ripley. I think it is just phenomenal.

**Craig:** Amazing. Love it.

**John:** But on this trip it was the first time I saw Purple Noon, which is the French adaptation, the much earlier French adaptation of the same source material.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Vastly different. And absolutely worth watching for just all the places where one movie goes right and one movie goes left. But one of the things that you can make this movie, when Minghella is making Talented Mr. Ripley in – I’m looking up the year – in 1999 versus the original film is that the subtext of sort of why Ripley is doing the things he’s doing and his attraction to Dickie Greenleaf can be more overt. So it’s not just he wants Dickie Greenleaf’s life, but he wants Dickie Greenleaf. And the sexuality is possible just because of the years that had passed between it. And it’s interesting how filmmakers have to be aware of the context in which they make their pieces. Minghella could just make a different movie than he could have made 30 years earlier in France.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I love those strange evolutions. I think it’s great. There’s a movie out right now, The Green Knight, which is – I haven’t seen it, I’ve just been reading discussion of it so far, but I’d like to catch it in a theater here in Canada. And it is a retelling of an incredibly old and super simple story of Gawain and the Green Knight and, you know, he comes – it’s like Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable with a bit of magic in it. It’s a fable.

And by all accounts the story that is being told in this new version is quite mature. And somewhat profound. So I love that sort of thing. I think it’s great.

**John:** Now the other prompt for this framing discussion was Stillwater. So Tom McCarthy’s new movie, Stillwater, it tells the story of Bill Baker who is an Oklahoma oil rigger played by Matt Damon, also from Talented Mr. Ripley, and this character travels to Marseilles to visit his daughter Allison. She is a one-time exchange student who is now serving a nine-year prison sentence for killing her lover. If that last part sounds familiar that’s because it’s reminiscent of the situation of Amanda Knox who found herself arrested and later acquitted of a murder in Italy in 2007.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So the challenge here is in interviews McCarthy says the story is completely fictionalized because “there’s no similarity in our stories beyond an American student in jail.” And on Twitter and on Medium Amanda Knox herself, who is now a journalist, says kind of, well, “Bullshit.” And it raises the issue that we’ve been discussing a lot on the show recently is sort of who owns a story. And to what degree do we take things from real life in sort of How Would This Be a Movie segments and fictionalize them. And there’s legal implications. There’s moral and ethical implications. And real narrative implications.

And so even if McCarthy and team feel that they are fictionalizing the story every article written about it says Amanda Knox “is perceived as being the Amanda Knox story.”

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** How are you feeling about this situation?

**Craig:** Let’s talk about just the easy part first, which is the legal part. The deal here is it doesn’t sound like anything illegal is occurring. Even if you were to tell the Amanda Knox story specifically in your own way, if you were basing it on existing news articles and reporting and interviews, public interviews that Amanda Knox herself did, you can do that. And you can even cast an actor and make her look like Amanda Knox. You can put a bunch of makeup on and such. That’s entirely legal.

What you can’t do is defame people, at least in the US you can’t defame living people. So, what you can’t do is imply, for instance, that Amanda Knox is in fact a murderer. Because by all accounts and from everything I’ve read it seems quite clear she was not. And certainly at the very least she was acquitted. That is different than the moral standing question.

So, I think this kind of working out the way it should. I believe that if you’re going to make a movie that is inspired by someone’s life, and in particular inspired by a very traumatic thing they went through, then it’s sensible to talk to them. And it is sensible to listen and to communicate in some way. It doesn’t always work out. Sometimes you talk to people, you communicate with them, and then they stop. Sometimes they stop communicating back. Sometimes they claim you never communicated with them at all. It’s an interesting that can occur. But you do your best to try.

You have to know that the balance is that that person has the exact same pulpit you do. And they can go and say I don’t like this and here’s why. And in this case that’s what Amanda Knox has done. And it sort of works out the way it does and some people get upset, some people don’t, but everybody gets their day in public court, especially now because everybody has a pulpit.

I do think it’s important for us to at least try if we’re really going to be kind of expanding and going in a different direction in particular than what somebody actually lived, in this case sounds like they did, it just seems like maybe you should talk to that person or make enough changes that there isn’t really a concern about it.

**John:** Yeah. The issue of like they have access to the same pulpit, yes I think Twitter makes some of these things more possible, but the power differential between a giant movie starring Matt Damon and Amanda Knox is significant. In her own essay she cites for so long we were calling it the Monica Lewinsky affair when we really we should call it the Clinton affair. Basically the power differential between who Monica Lewinsky was and the forces against her was so vast that we needed to really think about how we were framing that.

Also Amanda Knox, she is a journalist who can speak up and defend herself, not everyone could do that. And so I’m trying to think of some guidelines we could offer filmmakers to think about when you’re using a person who exists in real life, someone who is going to be perceived as being the character in your story, how do we treat that person the respect? It’s also – you missed out on this conversation, but when we were talking about Cat Person a few weeks back, which was that short story that was–

**Craig:** Yes, I remember.

**John:** And then there was a discourse because it really came out that like, OK, it wasn’t about the own writer’s life, but it’s about this other woman’s life and she could speak up and say like, “Hey, this was actually my life, and it feels really strange.” Ownership of that becomes complicated.

**Craig:** Well, I am going to stick up for the writers of the world here in the sense that we do need to be free to create art. Sometimes art is inspired by life. There are hard rules in place to protect people from being damaged legally. When we say damaged legally it’s not like there’s some number that you hit on a meter and suddenly the legal thing goes up. Those laws are there to reflect our moral stances and our moral points of view. We can always, of course, adjust those laws through legislature and so forth. But I do think that artists need to be free to work.

If we are going to say that people who might be unintended victims or collateral damage of artworks, if that is the rule that we use to not write the work of art we have just eliminated most great works of art, at least when it comes to novels in particular. It’s a really sticky area.

**John:** It is. But Craig I think you laid out some of the remedies earlier which is that you might look for like what are the things that are absolutely to identify those people and what are the things you could change so that it’s not so clearly one person. So that was the issue with Cat Person is that the original writer could have changed some small details that would have made it more clear, it would have helped distinguish this fictionalized relationship from the real relationship that happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. But maybe it wouldn’t have been as good.

**John:** Maybe? Maybe.

**Craig:** You know, the thing is I was not aware that that story was based on a real person. If the real person hadn’t said this was based on a real person then would I have even known that it was based on a real person? I don’t know.

You know, I’m a little bit more – certainly you’re intention is never to hurt anybody. But if a woman is in an abusive relationship with a man, he abuses her, and he torments her, and then she writes a roman a clef, right, she writes a novel that’s basically inspired by the things that she experienced with that person, she’s supposed to respect him too? Does she have to change things so that we don’t know it’s him? I think there’s the legal line and that’s the line. And the rest you have to kind of just feel. I understand why Amanda Knox is upset. The people I think she should be most upset with are all of the lazy journalists who just keep going, “Look, it’s Amanda Knox,” because that is kind of easy.

But I’m not sure there’s a remedy here beyond just saying hey everybody just to be clear if you think that that movie that is sort of like my life is actually like my life it is not at all like my life, at all. But I don’t think there’s any stricter kind of remedy than that.

**John:** So we talk a lot about our How Would This Be a Movie and to what degree we would need to get life rights from a person or just use publically available facts to do something. Obviously one of the reasons why you sometimes want life rights is because it’s going to be very difficult to do this work without access to information they have. Or to protect yourself from defamation lawsuits, libel lawsuits that could come up.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And there’s reasons why you may want to protect yourself. Even if you think you are in the clear you may still want those life rights because it’s better not to have that lawsuit and have something hanging over you. And to have that person be publically on the side of the film rather than against the film. Those can be very useful things independent of kind of the moral and ethical issues.

**Craig:** Almost no one is going to go get life rights for a fictionalized version of something. They will get life rights if they are telling the so-and-so story. They’re using your actual name. But if we’re into the roman a clef world where we are drawing from reality but changing some names and doing a parallel fictionalized version of it it would probably not be advisable to go get the life rights. You are essentially opening yourself up to even more trouble I think. Because at that point you’re saying, “Oh yeah, this is definitely you.”

Whereas right now Tom McCarthy and the studio can say, “No, I mean, it’s not her. We’re not telling the Amanda Knox story.”

**John:** Yeah. So Craig on Saturday I got to go see Mike Birbiglia’s new comedy show.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** It was delightful. So Mike Birbiglia, a frequent guest on the show, friend of the podcast. And it was my first time having to show proof of vaccination to get into a venue to see his show.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I was just absolutely delighted to show my vaccination card and to be in a space full of vaccinated people. I still wore my mask and I was one of the few people wearing my mask. I kind of felt like more people should have been wearing their masks. Still, I was delighted to be using my vaccination card and be in a space to see Mike do his new show, which is going to be obviously a stage adaptation and is going to be just terrific.

But I wanted to talk about required vaccinations because it’s not just comedy venues like this. It’s actually a big thing in the industry as of the last two weeks. More and more places are requiring crews to be vaccinated. So Netflix led the way. They were the first major Hollywood studio to do it. It’s basically everyone in Zone A has to have proof of vaccination for their productions. Craig, can you talk to me about what Zone A means?

**Craig:** Zone A, which is my zone on my show, is the zone where you are working with actors. You were working in general proximity to actors. And the reason that is its own zone is because the actors are required at various points throughout the day to have their masks off. They have to act without masks. So all of the people around them need to be masked and tested and evaluated regularly. I myself am tested three times a week. And so far I’ve aced every test.

**John:** Yes. So you are vaccinated but you are also tested.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Because even though the vaccination will protect you from serious disease you could theoretically get a breakthrough infection and I know folks who have gotten breakthrough infections.

**Craig:** Yes, absolutely. Happily what we’re seeing with breakthrough infections is for the most part it is a mild illness, almost no hospitalizations, and almost no death, thank god. There’s a little bit concern about some of the long haul Covid symptoms showing up in some of those folks, so vaccinations are not a magic shield against being ill. But we’ve always been ill. I mean, we’ve been sick our whole lives with flus and colds. I mean, every year we would get a cold until the last two years, rather nice.

So we’re used to being sick. We’re just not used to having to go into the hospital, get intubated, and die.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So that’s what the vaccines have accomplished. I’m thrilled that they are starting to require these vaccinations for people working in Zone A. Along with those new rules, the unions also agreed to loosen some things up. For union productions if you are fully vaccinated you don’t necessarily have to wear the mask all the time, I think, or when you’re outside I believe you don’t have to wear the mask.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So they’re starting to loosen things up. Unfortunately up here in Canada we don’t get the full benefit of those easing of restrictions because quite a few people here in Canada are vaccinated with Astra-Zeneca which the US has not approved. So it’s sort of like it doesn’t count for those rules which is annoying. Because I just read, by the way, I mean the whole thing about Astra-Zeneca was the danger of blood clots, and they’ve just come out with a study no more danger of blood clots with Astra-Zeneca than with nothing.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So we’ll see what happens next.

**John:** So as we’re recording this Disney was requiring all salaried and non-union hourly employees in the US to be vaccinated, which is great. And so you have to do it within 60 days. And all new folks have to be vaccinated it looks like before they even start.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** I’m sure other studios will have the same thing. Google and other places are laying that in. As you said the unions are saying yes it’s OK to mandate vaccines. They have stipulations about who can have access to the vaccine information, but great, that’s good.

For writers we’re in sort of a unique place because you as a writer, and many showrunners, need to be in Zone A because they have to be on set around the actors, but if you’re a writer in a writer’s room, eh, do we need writer’s rooms to be in person right now? WGA came out and said if you are going to have an in-person writing room basically your employer is responsible for protecting your safety. They strongly recommend everyone be vaccinated and that you still need to give the option/accommodation for writers who don’t want to be in-person for services in a writer’s room. And that just makes sense because we are lucky that we don’t have to be in-person to do a lot of our jobs unless it’s something involving the set.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t use a writer’s room, but if I did I would imagine I would love to have it back in person just because there is a certain interpersonal magic that occurs and the ease and speed of communication that Zoom can disrupt. But if it were my room I would say you’re not getting in this room if you’re not fully vaccinated and also you have to wear a mask.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If everybody is fully vaccinated and wearing a mask then I’m more than happy to sit in a room with all those folks. That would be no problem for me.

**John:** So for personally and for sort of my own small business we are back in person sometimes. We’re outside as much as we can be. We’re all vaccinated. We’re trying to be safe and smart. On this trip Mike and I have been the two guys with masks in places where a lot of other people weren’t wearing masks, but it just felt like I don’t want to be indoors places without a mask if I don’t need to be indoors without a mask, especially because we’ve had other friends on this trip who have gotten breakthrough Covid-19 infections. That’s just the reality that we’re living in.

Coming back to the city after being on Fire Island we went and got PCR tests, which you can get at any Walgreens. So the drive-through PCR test. But we also got the cheap do-it-yourself kits, the BinaxNOW kits, which are actually surprisingly easy to use and are useful in the sense of something that was promised kind of very early in the pandemic, the test that is not perfectly accurate but shows are you infectious right now, and they’re really good for that, so I would recommend those for folks. And they’re behind the counter at the pharmacy. And they’re cheap.

**Craig:** Yeah. So just a couple years after anyone who wants a test can get them and they’re beautiful tests.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So one of the things I’ve read about the Delta variant, which makes it interesting, and I think is part of what’s happening here is that the Delta variant seems to work primarily through the nose as opposed to the lungs. It really wants to get inside your nose. That’s where it does its business. And the nose is in a fully vaccinated person the least vaccinated part of you. There’s just not a lot of blood flow in there, which is weird for anyone who has ever gotten a nosebleed, but it just doesn’t have the same kind of constant flow around.

So when you do get fully vaccinated all those wonderful immune cells are living in the rest of your body, but not so much in the nose, and that’s where Delta is going in and doing a number. Now, eventually what happens is it crawls down your throat and into your lungs at which point the vaccine says, ah-ha, I’ve got this, and then it wins. Which is why you can get sick with Delta but not fatally so, which is good news. But that’s what’s going on.

**John:** I’ve just decided I’m treating myself as my own Zone A. I’m going to be careful about myself and I’m going to protect myself, because I am my own actor. I’ve got to protect the production and the production is me.

**Craig:** Yeah. I worry about this all the time. You know, we have hundreds of people working on this show, maybe a thousand, more.

**John:** And you and I both know so many shows that have had to start up and shut down and start up and shut down. And you don’t want that.

**Craig:** No. Yeah, we have not had to shut down, which is wonderful, and I’m hoping we don’t. We have a lot of people. So, of course, I think about it all the time. I worry about it all the time. But what I am pretty happy about is that we’re vaccinated. I think basically everybody – I believe everybody in Zone A is vaccinated. And so if something should happen, shutting down is never the thing that should freak you out the most. What should freak you out the most is people getting really sick.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And to that extent I’m way less nervous about life than I was a year ago, that’s for sure. So thank you science.

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** I will say that before we started our trip was the first time I got a Covid exposure notification and it’s basically we went to go see a movie in a theater in Koreatown and the next day got a notification that someone had tested positive for Covid-19. It’s like, OK, well we’re all vaccinated. 100% of the people in the theater were wearing masks. And we were spaced out widely. I’m not worried and nobody got sick.

But the advice for what you’re supposed to do next reminded me of the signs you see in restaurants about Covid safety but they’re like six months out of date. I hate the ones that are all about it’s really important to wash your hands and that stuff. I’m like, yeah, washing your hands is important, but by far the most important thing is to be vaccinated and to wear a mask. And the instructions I got from this exposure notification were sort of the same. They were kind of vague about isolation, but didn’t sort of say the actual things we know you really should do. So, frustrating. Like getting tested.

**Craig:** Yeah. Yeah. Well, our government is struggling.

**John:** It does struggle at times. But we never struggle with listener questions because we get the best ones.

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** And so Megana Rao, if you could come on and share some questions from our listeners with us.

**Megana Rao:** All right. Dan from Baltimore asks, “I found myself watching a clip from a movie about a particular turtleneck-wearing technology figure and someone in the comments said, ‘This part is so cheesy.’ While I agreed with them it was hard for me to put my finger on exactly what made it cheesy. Was it the acting? The writing? Or was it that the moment itself was unearned? I’ve searched the podcast and maybe I’m using the wrong term, but have you guys ever talked about cheese and how to avoid it?”

**John:** You know, I don’t know if we’ve really used the word cheese much on this podcast.

**Craig:** I don’t think we have.

**John:** But I mean I get it. I know what Dan is describing. And those moments that set up this wincing feeling like, oh, that is so cheesy. And it sort of feels like fake earnest. It feels forced. And so let’s talk about some of the reasons why those things feel forced. And sometimes it is the writing. But sometimes I think it really is the acting and the staging that is what’s making a moment that doesn’t have to feel cheesy feel cheesy. So Craig what’s your instinct on where cheese comes from?

**Craig:** I think cheesiness happens when the people who are performing or the scene, whatever, any of the things that you’re witnessing feel unaware of the complexities of life. So, you see this a lot on sitcoms for children, although you used to see it a lot on sitcoms for adults, where you’re like, OK, well in real life nothing like that happens like that. That’s insane. It’s like somebody walks into a wall and goes, “D’oh, my head,” and someone else is like, “Oh man, you’re so clumsy.” And they’re like, “I know.” That’s so divorced from the reality of what’s true.

It’s a little bit like what we were talking about earlier, the complexity of narrative, and the maturity of narrative. Cheesiness is the least mature narrative. It’s narrative that is just unaware. A little bit like a hyper formalized and hyper imagined human behavior.

**John:** Yeah. You’re describing something that feels unnatural. And so it can feel unnatural because it’s just written unnatural, like characters are doing things that they just wouldn’t do, but sometimes the [unnaturality] feels like the motion-smoothing that’s being left on a hotel room TV, which I encountered way too much on this trip. It just feels weird and gross and sometimes it’s because of the staging, because it’s just forced camera movements that don’t make sense, or eye lines that don’t match. It just feels like, oh, this is just not good. We’re staying way too wide for no good reason.

We have a sense of what it is and I think there’s a vicious circle where the kinds of camera work and staging that we see in children’s sitcoms, which is cheesy material, whenever we see that kind of staging in things that aren’t written cheesy it feel cheesy because we’re associated the cheese with it. So you sort of have that sprinkling of parmesan over anything if it’s used in that same kind of blocking and staging and shot selection. It’s strange.

Also, the difference between camp and cheesy.

**Craig:** Oh sure.

**John:** Because camp kind of knows that it’s cheesy and it’s leaning into the cheese and sort of celebrating the cheesiness of it, which can be great and delightful.

**Craig:** Something about cheesiness is connected to indicating. The cheesy material is always over-explaining what it’s about and how somebody feels. Somebody puts their hand out and gestures to a thing and says, “What is this?” It’s so weird.

My sister and I loved Brady Bunch but we knew how cheesy it was. So part of our enjoyment of The Brady Bunch was giggling about how those parents just seemed like they were on drugs because if we had done any of the things those kids did, you know, we would have been screamed at. Any of that stuff.

**John:** I guess you really are describing the awareness or unawareness of cheesiness is camp versus cheese. And that’s why The Brady Bunch movies are terrific because they are fully aware. They’re doing the same tropes but they’re fully aware that they’re doing the tropes and that’s what makes them work.

**Craig:** Yes, the movie is aware. And the characters who are the Bradys are not, which is wonderful. I love those movies. The second one is really good. Both of those movies are great. I love them.

**John:** Love them to death. Megana, what else you got for us?

**Megana:** OK, Lydia asks, “I’m writing a script right now that has an extensive discussion about zombies and the plan for surviving the apocalypse when it comes, because, well, it is. My characters are discussing the different types of zombies in the existing film universe and how each are better or worse in relation to their ability to survive. I want to call them out specifically. I was going to say Cillian Murphy/Brad Pitt zombies or Romero Slow Pokes. That’s OK right? How far can I go in referencing or quoting without infringement?”

**John:** My instinct is that I’m nervous for your scene. I’m nervous for your scene because I feel like characters discussing things in other movies is not generally going to work out great, but there’s exceptions. I think Kevin Smith’s Clerks does a really good job of that. But, Craig, I have no issues with referencing Romero zombies versus 28 Days Later zombies. I think that’s all fine. You’re not infringing on somebody to say – you can talk about those things without using those things in a copyright sense.

**Craig:** You can talk about anything you want. People in movies are allowed to have seen movies. Somebody can sit down in a movie and explain the entire plot of Ghostbusters 2 if they want. That’s perfectly fine. So, there’s no problem here with that. If that’s what you want to do you can do it.

**John:** Craig, I want to see the movie where someone just explains the plot of Ghostbusters, because that could be phenomenal.

**Craig:** It would be really funny.

**John:** I can imagine a version of that that’s absolutely great. And at some point you would cross some line where it’s like, wait, are you actually just – is there enough of a narrative adaptation to it? But it’s still great.

**Craig:** Are you just reading the script for Ghostbusters?

**John:** The same way that that Gone with the Wind parody was considered not to be enough of a parody to be its own, to not be copyright infringement.

**Craig:** Ah, yes.

**John:** There’s some line you’re going to cross, but if it’s characters in a scene doing it you’re not going to cross that line.

**Craig:** You can reference every zombie that’s ever been made. You can reference the people who were in it. You can reference the people who created it. No problem.

**John:** Craig, I think we’re at a fascinating moment right now with also the superhero genre and basically we have the DC Universe, we have the Marvel Universe, but then we have both Amazon’s The Boys and Invincible which are really closely quoting sort of those characters. There’s sort of one-for-one parity between the characters in the DC universe and the characters in these other universes. And it’s just gotten to be sort of weird.

I mean, I don’t think there’s going to be any lawsuits, but it’s strange that we have these ideas of like well what if Superman was evil in both of these shows.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s too much. I feel like this is – we’ve gone through these. We’ve talked about this before. There was a time when everything that was on a screen was a western. And there was a time when everything that was on a screen was a car chase movie, or an action movie. And let’s see where this all goes. But Marvel in particular is experiencing so much success that everybody else now – I think people tried to chase them and then most people said, “Well, this is all based on characters, other than Warner Bros. and DC none of us have characters that people know, so yeah, let’s just start inventing characters and commenting.”

And to that extent if they’re good shows, great, fantastic. All for it. But, yeah, we’re getting into levels now.

**John:** Levels over levels.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Megana, let’s try one last question.

**Megana:** Great. Kevin asks, “My partner applied for a diversity fellowship and admitted to me that he submitted a script we co-wrote together as one of his two samples, but with just his name on it since I don’t meet the qualifications for diversity that the fellowship asks for. That’s wrong, right? I’m not sure what my next step should be or if I should just let it go.”

**John:** Oh Kevin. Kevin.

**Craig:** Now, wait, is Kevin’s partner a life partner or writing partner? Probably writing partner is what we’re thinking here.

**John:** I’m assuming just writing partner.

**Craig:** OK, it’s just writing partner.

**Megana:** It’s writing partner.

**Craig:** Man, if it had been actual cohabitation romance partner.

**John:** My wife. Yeah.

**Craig:** Ooh, damn. That would have been rough. But it’s still rough.

**John:** To stipulate it’s wrong to change the title page to take your cowriter off. That’s just wrong. That’s absolutely wrong. That’s actually–

**Craig:** It’s wrong and–

**John:** Legally…yeah. There’s liability. I don’t want to say – it’s not like criminal, but…

**Craig:** No. But you have considered – what you have done is committed a tort as the law [unintelligible]. That is a civil wrong. You have violated another person’s right in their own shared copyright of that material. You cannot do that. It is wrong. And, yeah, you’re absolutely legally liable. And even worse if Kevin wants to he can just drop the dime on you to the diversity program and they’re going to be like, “Oh yeah, no, you’re out,” because it’s dishonest. And it’s also not fair to everybody else applying for that diversity fellowship.

Everyone is supposed to be applying representing their own work. So, Kevin, your partner has done a very wrong thing and they should undo it.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s imagine that the question came not from Kevin but from Kevin’s writing partner saying like I did this thing, what should I do. I think the choice is to own up to it, to say, “Hey, I sent this in, my name on it, but it’s actually me and my partner. I need to resubmit the script.” You need to apologize the hell out to Kevin.

There are going to be situations where you’ve co-written a script and one of you is eligible for a thing and the other one isn’t. Ask. There’s going to be some frequently asked questions about like how you submit this, because there’s going to be a way to do this. Most likely the best choice for this, and this happens also with representation, is you need to have something that you wrote by yourself and something you wrote with a partner. That’s representative of your work. But just taking the other person’s name off of it is not cool or kosher. And that just cannot be done.

**Craig:** Yeah. Generally when you use the phrase “he admitted to me” then you know that he did something wrong. Like John says if he had asked that’s entirely different. You’re allowed to ask permission. And if you grant that permission, fine, that’s up to you. And it’s entirely your prerogative. But, no, what he did was wrong. And as far as what your next step should be, I’d get a different writing partner. I mean, I don’t trust this dude at all.

**John:** Uh-uh.

**Craig:** And I’ve got to be honest with you. Kevin, there’s so many untrustworthy people in this business. So many liars that the thought of self-inflicting one of them upon your person and your soul is no good.

**John:** You need to trust your writing partner. You just do.

**Craig:** You have to.

**John:** Not only are you sharing a mind space with them, but you are making business decisions together.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** Your lives are going to be entangled. Don’t do this.

**Craig:** What does Oprah say? When somebody shows you who they are believe them. Is that Oprah?

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** I choose to believe it’s Oprah.

**John:** I’m sure she said it, even if she didn’t say it originally.

**Craig:** In Oprah we trust.

**Megana:** Can I ask you a question? Because Craig said something like if you ask their permission and they give it to you. Can you give your permission to have your credit revoked?

**Craig:** Absolutely. So this is not a Writers Guild awarded credited. This is your work. And you have control over how your work is reproduced, assigned. And so, yes, they would have to ask permission. There would have to be something written. You would have to sign it. And it basically says in this limited circumstance you are allowed to present this work without my name. But you’d have to really limit that and make sure it’s defined carefully. But that’s one of the rights of copyright is that you can waive it or reassign it, which is what happens when you sell a script to a studio. You reassign it.

**John:** That’s true. I think there could still be a moral/ethical issue between you and the contest, or the fellowship you’re trying to enter into.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** I think there’s an issue there for misrepresenting that this is your own work.

**Craig:** I think that in the case of Kevin and his untrustworthy writing partner if the writing partner had said, “Can I do this,” and Kevin said, “Mm, OK, fine, let’s have a lawyer draw up a little thing, we sign it.” And then the partner does it. The partner is still committing the crime. The partner is misrepresenting something to this program. Kevin has merely created a condition that allows the partner to do the wrong thing.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** This is Judge Mazin. Slam.

**John:** Chun-chun.

**Craig:** Tunk-tunk.

**John:** All right. It is time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a place I’ve visited today which is Little Island in NYC. It is a new floating park. I guess it’s not actually floating. It is built on piers. It is on the west side. I just thought it was delightful.

**Craig:** Oh, look at this thing.

**John:** I’d read stories about it and it was sort of controversial as it was being planned and people were opposed to it. And Barry Diller provided a lot of money for it, which I don’t really love billionaires, but if you’re going to be a billionaire and you want to build something build a public park that people can go and enjoy and is free for the world. And I really dug it. It’s super pretty and it’s just like this little space you could wander around. They have an amphitheater for concerts and outdoor shows. And I just like when there’s – it reminds me of the High Line.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s just an outdoor place of joy. And so I would recommend anybody who is visiting NYC or living here to check it out when you get a chance. It’s limited entry, or it’s like timed entry during the weeks. It’s going to keep changing. But if you get there early you can just wander in and it’s just really nicely done.

**Craig:** It looks beautiful and I’m all in favor of this. We stopped building stuff at some point. All we decided we were going to ever build again were shopping malls and square office park buildings. So New York, all these wonderful buildings there, the whole skyline with the exception – one notable exception as the result of terrorism – it’s essentially kind of unchanged. Like all the great buildings are still there. But where’s the new Chrysler Building? Where’s the new World Trade Center? Where are all these wonderful things?

And so the High Line was an example of something new in New York that felt wonderful and so is this. If they’re going to build things then build these. This is cool. Yeah, I mean, look, Barry Diller is probably not a great guy. [laughs] I mean, based on what I’ve read. But that Little Island looks beautiful.

**John:** It does. And the photos that you’ll see in the New York Times piece that we’ll link to is with it empty. But it’s actually when it’s full of people, and it’s not crowded, but when it’s full of people, people just love it. And it feels imagineered in the sense that like all the slopes are designed so that an older person could get up them. You can sort of explore. There’s little bell things that kids can play with. So everyone who was there was just really digging it. And so just well done everybody for building this thing.

**Craig:** I’m sure folks from the wide open spaces in the US like Wyoming are looking at this going, “What?” [laughs] “You spent a quarter of a billion dollars for what? 2.4 acres?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s New York for you. I love it. Love it.

**John:** What have you got?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing, you know I love an escape room, John.

**John:** Oh you do.

**Craig:** The escape rooms are open here in Calgary. And I had the pleasure of visiting twice doing two rooms at Escape Ops here in Calgary. And what I love about Escape Ops, they have four rooms. I’ve done two of them so far. There are two remaining. It is run by Dan and Emily who I don’t know if they’re husband and wife but they’re partners. And they’re also partners. And they love what they do. And they make some terrific escape rooms there. And it just occurred to me that in so many circumstances you need passion and skill. If you find people with passion and skill it is the greatest thing.

If you’ve got passion without skill it’s just sort of noise. And if you have skill without passion it’s boring. But when you have passion and skill like they do you come up with really great things because you care. Because you want them to be wonderful.

So, if you do like escape rooms and you live in here in the Greater Calgary Area go visit Escape Ops and tell them Craig sent you.

**John:** I love that we’re providing highly localized opportunities of places to visit only if you are in the places that you are.

**Craig:** Correct. Well, I mean, about the same amount of people live in New York City and Calgary I think. It’s roughly the same. [laughs]

**John:** They really are. They’re really two capitols of the world.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Caden Brown. If you have 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. For short questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. Go to Cotton Bureau. You’ll find them, including the new 10th Anniversary t-shirt.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on Black Widow. Craig, it’s nice to have you back.

**Craig:** Great to be back, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** And we’re back. So, Craig, this past week Scarlett Johansson or I don’t think she actually sued them this week but basically news broke that Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney over Black Widow saying that the decision to release it through streaming and theatrically cost her millions of dollars that she would have been paid in box office bonuses. This is the first of these lawsuits that I’ve seen publically, but a lot of actors and directors were complaining when Warners was doing similar things. How are you feeling about this and the situation we find ourselves in?

**Craig:** Well, we can talk about the prospects of this case and we can also just talk about the politics of it which may be more interesting. Legally the prospects seem super questionable to me. As always, I am not a lawyer. What do I know? Except that they did release it theatrically. Unless there was something in the contract that said we have to release it theatrically on this many screens and we cannot release it day-and-date in any other way, I’m not sure what she can do other than say this sucks and you guys are jerks for doing it to me.

Or, you guys suck because you haven’t compensated me the way that for instance Warner Bros. eventually compensated their major talent when they decided to put everything out on HBO Max.

So, is she going to win? At this point, like if Disney showed up and murdered your family I’m not sure you’d win either. I would not want to go up against that crew of lawyers. But this is possibly the beginning of the end of something and the first shot of a war that is about to start.

**John:** Yeah. I think that’s what makes it most interesting to me. It doesn’t honestly matter that much to me whether she wins or loses. I mean, I don’t think this lawsuit will be especially important, but I think it does signal a split between these two things. Because we have this time before which was like, oh crap, there’s a pandemic, we have to release stuff on streaming. OK, we’re going to compensate these big movie stars to do this.

In this case they didn’t compensate her for doing this, which was a choice. They could have just chosen to give her some extra money or sort of make good on that. It seems like they didn’t do that. I sort of wonder why they didn’t do that.

**Craig:** Well, they might have.

**John:** They might have.

**Craig:** They might have. It may have just not been what she wanted. Right? So then it becomes a negotiation. We don’t know. I don’t know the details behind the scenes here.

**John:** But so we should back up and say it’s not just big actors and big directors, you and I have box office bonuses built into our contracts. And so for movies that are in production right now, but also moves we’ve had before. If Aladdin had gone to streaming rather than gone to theatrical I would have lost, you know–

**Craig:** A lot.

**John:** A lot of money. Major, major money. And I would have been pissed, understandably. And I think in some ways even a little bit more pissed in – if it was just the pandemic and there really wasn’t a choice and they had to release it on streaming I sort of get it. But here they had a choice that they could have just gone full theatrical and there might have been more money to have made. We won’t know.

**Craig:** That’s the part I disagree with. I don’t think Disney is ever going to do anything that they know is going to cost them money. I think they–

**John:** But their calculation is different. Because they make money if people see it in the theater, but they also make money if people sign up for Disney+ and keep their Disney+ subscription.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And they’re trying to serve two masters there. And we as folks who get box office bonuses are only getting money if it’s successful at the box office.

**Craig:** 100%. I just think that if Disney thought that they would make more money ultimately for themselves, regardless of what they were going to dole out, by a longer and exclusive theatrical window they would have done it. It is possible that they are also pricing in the long term plan to put everything on Disney+ and just stop putting movies in theaters. I don’t know.

What I do know is that we are living in the echo time. And when Covid happened it impacted a whole ton of contracts that had no concept of what Covid was and didn’t care. So, now we all know. And contracts will look different. That’s for sure.

**John:** Oh, for sure. I mean, I guess we’re probably living in a force majeure world for a bit, where they can sort of say this is an act of god, we can’t do normal things. And now that this is more normal, we’re not as pandemic, but it’s also not – nothing is unprecedented at this point. We sort of know how to do stuff and we have a sense of what the shape of the universe is like. Yes, our contracts will be different. And I think they will be different in ways that will tend to favor the studios.

**Craig:** Yeah. Of course. [laughs]

**John:** Let me make a more obvious point. [laughs] I’m not nervous for Disney succeeding here.

**Craig:** No. They’re going to be just fine. This is really fascinating because I’m still confused. So much of this subscription based stuff is really hard to tie the income to individual works. They have their baloney theories of how they can figure that out. But Netflix won’t even tell us how many people really watch something. And when they do tell us how they define who watched something, you know, you want to shoot milk out of your nose. It’s the biggest joke in the world.

So if somebody watches something for 20 seconds they watched it? That’s crazy. So, everything is wonky. Nothing is connected to anything real. I have no – it’s just a black box. Nobody knows what’s happening inside of there. And if there were ever a time when the three guilds needed to come together and figure something out here and unify on an issue it was this. That said, they won’t. 100% they will not.

**John:** [laughs] Oh my gosh. I love how definitive you are on that.

**Craig:** 100%.

**John:** I will, god, I don’t know. Are we betting on this? I think – so here’s where I think we agree. I think you and I both agree that if the guilds don’t figure this out it is an existential threat to the nature of residuals and sort of meaningful backend compensation. And not only do the guilds understand this, but I also think the agencies understand this as well. So I think there are a lot of people who have clear vision of how important this is. And what we’re really debating is whether that clear vision will get them to actually take an action that will benefit all of them.

**Craig:** I wouldn’t count on the agencies. The agencies make all their money from probably 10% of their clients.

**John:** Like a Scarlett Johansson.

**Craig:** Correct. But in the case of Scarlett Johansson my guess is that if they were negotiating a new deal for Scarlett Johansson they would know to not build it around box office bonuses. Meaning that there’s a lot of ways to skin the cat when it’s an individual negotiation with a studio. The issue for guilds is they’re there to protect everybody, so there’s this baseline thing.

And in a way the studios love that because they don’t want individuals negotiating too much of this backend stuff. They want to be able to say, well, when it comes to residuals that’s what it is for everybody. What I think will happen is probably there will be some labor action and then the DGA will make a deal. [laughs] That’s just sort of how it goes around here.

**John:** Well so here’s the point of commonality between all these different parties is the desire to break that black box and actually have some insight into what’s actually happening there. And some of that insight is already happening because Nielsen actually kind of does know who is watching what. So I think the desire to keep all that data secret, it’s just not going to be secret for forever.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that’s what we really need is some sort of robust third party verification of who is watching what and how long they’re watching it for. And it’s tricky because they’ve got to figure out what watching something means. It used to be very simple. The TV was on for that thing and you watched it. And then it was gone.

**John:** Or you sold that DVD and that DVD was sold and that became residuals. And it is tougher in this age, I get it, with streaming. But we can figure this out because we figured stuff out before.

**Craig:** I mean, there’ve been things where I’ve started it watching it and stopped and then like seven months later I’m like, oh, look at that, and I finished it.

**John:** Does that count as one view or not?

**Craig:** I don’t know. I don’t know.

**John:** But we have computers who can count that stuff. And they’re really good at counting stuff.

**Craig:** The computers will save us, said the computer.

**John:** Ha-ha. So I think our summary of Scarlett Johansson lawsuit is I don’t think it will probably amount to anything, but I think it is an important step along the way of this discussion about how we move from how we were counting things to how we will count things in the future.

**Craig:** I agree. I think it will be settled, as these things almost always are, and that settlement will be yet another black box by design. But we are going to have to figure this out and one thing I think we have to be really careful about at this point is no longer fighting blood wars over dying models. We have to figure out – knowing what to fight for is just as important as a willingness to fight. And right now that’s the trick of it. I don’t envy anybody planning strategy for these next negotiations.

**John:** Agreed. Thank you, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

Links:

* [Kerri Strug Shouldn’t Have Been Forced to Do That Vault](https://slate.com/culture/2021/07/kerri-strug-simone-biles-vault-atlanta-legacy-injuries.html)
* Amanda Knox’s [twitter thread](https://twitter.com/amandaknox/status/1420871392266911746?s=21) and [Medium article](https://amandamarieknox.medium.com/who-owns-my-name-93561f83e502)
* [Mandatory Vaccinations On Productions An Option Under Return-To-Work Protocols](https://deadline.com/2021/07/mandatory-covid-19-vaccinations-now-an-option-on-film-tv-productions-1234796313/)
* [Disney to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations for All U.S. Staffers](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-requiring-all-employees-be-vaccinated-1234990995/)
* [Netflix To Require Covid Vaccinations For Actors & Other “Zone A” Personnel On Its U.S. Productions](https://deadline.com/2021/07/netflix-to-require-covid-vaccinations-for-all-actors-on-us-productions-1234801577/)
* [Little Island](https://littleisland.org/visit-us/) by [Barry Diller](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/arts/little-island-barry-diller.html)
* [Scarlett Johansson’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit Is Game-Changing, But May Be Legally Weak](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johanssons-black-widow-lawsuit-1234990644/) by Eriq Gardner
* [Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over ‘Black Widow’ Streaming Release](https://www.wsj.com/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-disney-over-black-widow-streaming-release-11627579278?mod=e2tw) on WSJ
* [Escape Ops on Calgary](https://escapeops.ca/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Caden Brown ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/511standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.