• 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, Ep 264: The One With the Agent — Transcript

August 26, 2016 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2016/the-one-with-the-agent).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 264 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. So, way back in Episode 2 we discussed how to get an agent. And in the 262 episodes since then the subject of agents has come up quite often, largely from listener questions. Well, today we are going to speak with an actual agent about what he looks for in a writer client and how he sees the relationships between writers and agents and managers and executives. And so that’s our whole episode is just an agent today.

And that agent is sitting across from me. Peter Dodd is a Motion Picture Literary Agent at UTA where he represents a range of clients, including me. Peter, welcome to the show.

**Peter Dodd:** Hello guys. Happy to be here.

**Craig:** Hey, welcome Peter. Welcome. I’m very glad that you’re here, because as much as John and I ramble on and on for 263 episodes, I think honestly everyone out there has been waiting for us to just – can you please just tell me how to get the damn agent? So, we’re really glad you’re here.

**Peter:** Thank you. Well, I am happy to be here. I’m excited to try and answer some of these questions, so shoot.

**John:** Great. Well, let’s start with the basics. How long have you been an agent?

**Peter:** I’ve been an agent for about four years. I’ve been at the agency for around seven years.

**John:** So that’s a long time. So how do you get to be an agent? What was the process from starting there to becoming an agent?

**Peter:** The process is everyone starts in the mailroom, like historically is told, that exists. We start delivering the mail.

**John:** So, classically, when I started out in Hollywood, you were literally delivering mail from like office to office and doing runs. But there’s probably much more to that now in 2016. What does a mailroom person do?

**Peter:** Well, it’s interesting, I wonder if there’s more or less, because now that everything is digital, you send all of your scripts over email. So you’re not – so the function of a mailroom trainee initially was to pick up scripts and run them to actor’s houses, or drop them off in the mail to be sent to whoever for whatever purpose. Now, you spend your time in the mailroom, A, sort of collecting all the mail that comes in the day, dealing with all the stuff that agents are sending out, and delivering mail that comes in on a case-by-case basis. A lot of it happens to be Amazon packages.

**John:** So, you’re doing that at the very start, and then what is the process after you’ve been in the mailroom? Do you get assigned to a desk?

**Peter:** You start in the mailroom. After you spend a sufficient amount of time in the mailroom, you earn the right to interview for agents. And so that becomes the assistant pool that agents can choose from. So, if there are say 20 people in the mailroom delivering mail every day, I might interview five or six of them to be assistants on my desk. And then you select one of them to become your assistant.

So, then they spend the next year of their life basically answering the phone calls, setting meetings, sending scripts out. You know, arranging the life of the agent and manufacturing everything they need to do from the beginning of the day to the end of the day for the agent and for the clients they work with and represent.

**John:** Great. So on a desk means that you are an assistant to an agent. So, my first interaction with you is you were on David Kramer’s desk, who was my main agent, and so you were answering the phone. Is that when I first met you?

**Peter:** Yes.

**John:** So, what is the process from going being the guy who is answering the phones to the person who actually has clients that you’re representing?

**Peter:** It’s a tricky one. Basically, you have to stay at the agency for a while. No one gets promoted in their first year, although everyone is overqualified to do the job. That’s sort of not the point. It’s not about whether or not you can answer a phone or set or schedule a meeting. It’s about whether you’re doing the job of an agent. And so typically you’ll work for a junior agent for a year, and then you switch desks. You’ll work for a more senior agent for a year. And then you might switch desks again and work for an even more senior agent. And then at that point, when you’ve been there for anywhere from three to five years, there’s an inflection point whereby you either succeed and you make the jump to agent, or doesn’t feel like it’s going to work out and you leave and go work at another place.

**Craig:** But that sounds like the ultimate disaster. Right? I mean, I’m sure that it’s not for some people who decide, you know what, the agent’s life is not for me. I don’t actually want to be an agent. But, my god, to put in all those years in the mailroom, and then as an assistant, and then as an assistant, and then as an assistant, and then somebody one day goes, “Eh, meh.” That happens, right?

I mean, people do sort of get pushed off of the platform at some point. It has to, right? Because there’s so many agents an agency needs, right?

**Peter:** It happens all the time. It happens all the time. And, honestly, the job is a tricky one. It’s arduous. It’s not fun much of the time. And if you don’t love it, you’re going to self-select out anyway. And so it makes sense for people to guide you down a different path if that’s the right thing for you.

**John:** So, Peter, of the cohort of people in the mailroom with you, how many of those people are agents now?

**Peter:** Just me.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** And how many people were in that first group?

**Peter:** I started on the same day as six people. There were probably about I want to say 20 people in the mailroom overall. But on my day there were six of us. Five of them left. Of the five that left, one has left the industry completely. Works in real estate now. The other four are executives, producers, working in film and in TV. One guy is in reality TV. But anywhere from kids’ stuff to producing movies. So everyone has a career in entertainment, for the most part.

**John:** That’s great.

**Peter:** But not everyone stays at the actual agency.

**John:** And just to back up a little bit more, what was your background before going in there? You had an undergrad degree and then you applied to get into the mailroom? How does that work?

**Peter:** No, I graduated from Harvard with a degree in religion and political science. And after that, I got a job as a consultant. So I was a strategy consultant for big business for like three or four years. I left there and I worked at the Walt Disney Company in corporate strategy, so doing lots of acquisition work for the company. Always trying to get closer to storytelling and closer to movies. And they were actually quite getting there.

And then after I left Disney, instead of going to business school I decided, you know what, I’m going to try this agency thing for a year. If it works out for me, I’ll stay. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll go to grad school and I’ll have felt that I checked that box.

**Craig:** So you went from working on business transactions at the corporate level to standing in a mailroom with five other people, delivering Amazon packages?

**Peter:** Correct.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** I always want everyone to understand the glamour of the industry that you entered into.

**Peter:** By the way, it’s super sexy. But what’s also interesting is that in the mailroom you have people with law degrees, you have people with business degrees, you have people that went to some amazing schools. You have people from all walks of life. And it’s really, really interesting to see how everyone sort of settles in and how some people last and some people don’t. And the skills that you think it takes to be successful at this job are not necessarily the skills that everyone has. And so it’s an interesting sorting process.

**John:** What are the skills required for being successful as an agent?

**Peter:** To be successful as an agent you have to be dogged. You have to be tireless. You have to accept no as only an entry point to a conversation, and not necessarily as the be all and end all of a conversation. You have to love movies, or TV, or whatever it is that you choose to spend all your time in, because frankly you do spend all of your time in it. And in my case, you have to love reading. I love reading. I love good stories. I love writers. That’s why I’ve gravitated towards the literary side is I’m just much more interested in that side of the business. Working with humans, working with actors, working with that side isn’t necessarily for me just yet.

**Craig:** But you have to find that you also love the kinds of people that you have to represent. And we’re not always the most lovable types. It takes a certain kind of person to be married to a writer. John and I have talked about that. And I presume that you have somewhere in there one of those weird quirky personalities that actually likes talking to writers.

**Peter:** I guess so. Maybe I do. I don’t know. But for I think the thing that always interested me was, you know, when you work at an agency you’re at the center of all the information. And so you hear everything that’s happening all around town at all times. And I like being at the hub. And I like being able to help disseminate that information to people that I think it’s relevant for, and helping, you know, on the other side to introduce people – buyers, producers, etc. – to people that I think are really special.

So, from my perspective, I’m sort at this nexus point and from either end I can get people excited about new writers or new directors or get new writers and new directors excited about projects or talent that I think are really special. So you’re sort of like at a high level you’re a matchmaker.

**John:** So, when did you start making matches? When did you have your first clients that were your own? Or when did you start representing other people’s clients? When does that transition happen?

**Peter:** Well, I have found my way into a lot of client teams just by sheer force and energy. I think if you start doing the job of anyone above you, they will appreciate it, especially at an agency. You know, agents never have enough time to read everything, to know every project, to know exactly what’s going on about every facet of everything. And so what I found when I was an assistant still, even working for David, was if you just pick one or two clients and you say, “Look, I want to work for this person. I want to act as if I’m their agent,” it can become practice.

So I would read for specific directors and I would say, “Oh, these scripts are great. We should call these directors and send it to them.” Or I would say, “Oh, these scripts aren’t so great. We should pass for them, or send it to them with the caveat that we don’t necessarily love it, but they should read it anyway.”

**John:** You started doing this while you were an assistant for a bigger agent?

**Peter:** The way that you get promoted is that you demonstrate that you can do the job of an agent. And so while you’re an assistant, you have to do all of the assistant tasks. You have to manage their client lists. You have to deal with all of their submissions. You have to manage them and their phone calls, etc. Plus, on the weekends you are trying to figure out what’s right for their clients, your boss’s clients, and you’re trying to see everything, to read everything, to discover new voices that you can bring into the agency. So, in my – the year before I got promoted, I would just constantly try and bring a new director to agents at the agency that I thought was really special, that I thought they should watch. Or I would try and get a director that my boss represented to take a script seriously.

And it got to the point where I had a relationship with some of these clients where I would just call them myself. I would pitch them material. They got used to talking to me and to listening to me and reading what I sent them. And that worked out really well. So, ultimately, after my assistant time had ended, it’s a pretty natural fit to transition from being an assistant to a boss, to having your own desk, having your own phone, and building your own relationships.

**John:** So, I introduced you as a Motion Picture Literary Agent, but that may be confusing because people think literary and they just think books, they just think written words, but you represent writers and directors. Is that basically the umbrella of people who are doing that for movies is your specialty, correct?

**Peter:** Correct.

**John:** And so if somebody is interested in television, they would also have a television agent who would be representing them for TV at the agency?

**Peter:** Yes.

**John:** And you’d all be in conversation about sort of what that person is up to?

**Peter:** Conversation is one way of phrasing it. I like to think of it as competition for what that person is up to. Because often we have conflicting agendas. I mean, from a larger perspective, we all want the client to be successful, but from a parochial perspective we want the client to be successful in our medium. So I want you writing movies. Your TV agent wants you writing TV. And everyone is competing in a positive way to try and get you work. That’s how it should work.

**John:** Great. So, who were the first clients that you represented who are sort of your people? The people you brought in and became the people you were representing. You don’t have to say names, but like how did you find those people?

**Peter:** Pretty much all of the clients that I have, and all of the ones that I’ve signed, have come from recommendations. I am a recommendation based engine. There is so much volume of content and material just out there in the world that it’s very easy for people to get overwhelmed by the 30 or 50 unrepresented scripts they get submitted a week.

So, in the course of my assistant years I spent a lot of time networking, a lot of drinks, a lot of weekends, a lot of commiserating with other assistants who then went on to get promoted as young executives, and those people that survived I think all have amazing taste. And so I sort of cultivated a group of around 15 people whose recommendations I will read always, and quickly. And they are the ones that feed me probably 60% of my clients.

So, all of my early clients came from that group of people.

**Craig:** And this group of people, they are currently working as producers, studio executives, managers?

**Peter:** Exactly.

**Craig:** So they’re not your direct competition.

**Peter:** No. Because if they were my direct competition, they’re probably looking after the same–

**Craig:** They wouldn’t tell you.

**Peter:** Content as well. They’d have incentive to tell me. When you go through the difficulty and the challenges of being an assistant, you know, when you’re that guy trying to set a meeting at ten o’clock at night for 8am tomorrow morning in London with a director client, and you’re on the phone with the producer, or the producer’s assistant who is London and it’s three o’clock in the morning for them, you know, when that happens a few times you begin to develop this connection that exists beyond just email addresses. And so now those people who have been promoted at this point are all people that, you know, you went to battle with, and these people help you, and you help them. And that’s sort of the circle of life.

**John:** What does that conversation look like? Are they just emailing you out of the blue saying like, let’s invent a writer, let’s say Christina. There’s a writer out there Christina. And so the executives have read Christina’s script and said like, “She’s really good. Hey, you should read her.” Or, are you reaching out saying like, “Hey, tell me who is good?” How does that–?

**Peter:** No, no, no. It always comes from them. Almost always comes from them. I don’t really solicit.

**John:** OK. So they start, they say like, “Hey, I read something that’s really great. You’ll want to read her.” And what is the next step for you? So if they said you should read her, are you reaching out to Christina? Are they sending you the script? What’s happening?

**Peter:** 90% of the time they’ll include the material. They’ll say, “Hey, I just read a great sample for this project. You should check this out. I don’t think this writer is represented.” Or they’ll say, “Hey, I read a great sample. You should check this out. I think this person is unhappy with their agent, or unhappy with their manager. This could be an opportunity.”

**John:** Great. So, what’s an interesting is none of what you’re saying is about a query letter. Like a writer has not written to you saying like, “Hey, I’m looking for an agent.” Does that ever – are any of your clients based on a query letter, like they reached out to you?

**Peter:** No.

**John:** Not a one?

**Peter:** Never.

**John:** All right.

**Peter:** Never happens.

**John:** No one that you met at a conference who offered you a business card or pitched you a script?

**Peter:** No. People have tried, but no. None of the actual clients that I work with now have come in that way.

**Craig:** This is why John and I spend a lot of our time frustrated, because there is – I’m sure you know this – there is a large cottage industry designed to take money from people, and in exchange give them the secrets to getting an agent, and getting representation, all the rest of it. And there’s this obsession over query letters. It’s absurd. It is the most bizarre Fellini-esque circus of nonsense you’ve ever seen.

**Peter:** And it’s complete highway robbery, because that’s not the way that agents look at or think about material.

**John:** Do you care about a log line?

**Peter:** In a submission letter?

**John:** Yeah.

**Peter:** I’d actually rather not have a log line frankly.

**Craig:** I love this. This is so great.

**Peter:** I’d rather have someone say, “I read this and I love it. You read it and tell me what you think.” Because frankly people suck at writing log lines.

**Craig:** Well, everyone, because log lines stink anyway. I mean, what are you going to sum up a movie in two sentences? It doesn’t tell you a damn thing. Particularly, it doesn’t tell you if this writer has capabilities to do more than just this one idea, or if they’re the kind of writer that’s written an idea that you now have to go get John August to rewrite because they can’t actually write.

I mean, what’s coming through, which I find so fascinating, and I think it’s hard for a lot of people to get their minds around this who are trying to get into our business is that they think somehow they have to do something to get you. And really what it comes down to is on your side of things you’re looking for people to help you. In other words, you’re looking for writers and somebody says, “This person would be great for you. You should get them before someone else does.” It is an entirely different mindset, but I think on their side they think, oh, no, no, I have to show them how wonderful I am, or something like that.

It just doesn’t work.

**Peter:** Not at all. You know, I get many, many query letters a day from people that figure out our email addresses and send us these crazy subject lines that obvious click bait. I open them and I’m like what on earth is this, how can delete it faster?

**Craig:** Oh man.

**Peter:** I don’t even read them. And if it’s not from someone I know, or I can tell that it’s fake, automatic delete.

**John:** So, let’s go back to Christina, and so an executive at a production company that you trust, you think has good taste, has recommended you read her script. Has attached the script. When do you read that script?

**Peter:** That depends on the context with which they send it. So, for example, there was a Christina that was sent to me last year, probably around this time, end of summer last year. The executive that I like said to me, “Managers are chasing this person. He’s meeting with 15 different managers over the next two weeks. This is a hot script. You should read it right away.” I read it that night. I reached out to the writer. Contacted them. Etc.

So, in situations like that where you know there’s a lot of heat and where you feel like that’s true, it goes very quickly. If I don’t know, or if it feels like it might be able to wait, I’ll often just wait till the weekend. And then on the weekends, that’s when I do most of my reading.

**John:** Great. So, let’s talk about that weekend read that you’re doing. So, you’ve sat down with her script. How much of her script do you read before you decide whether to keep reading or set it aside?

**Peter:** Honestly, it all just depends on the context of who is sending it to me. Like, typically I will read, you know, the first 30 plus pages. I almost always feel that’s at least giving the person the benefit of the doubt. You know, when I was a young agent I did this exercise. Malcolm Gladwell talks about the thousand hours, or the amount of time it takes to become really good at something. So, when I was a young agent I was like, you know what, I’m going to read every script completely because if I read them all completely I’ll have a great sense of what good writers do.

But what I did was after 30 pages I would always take my notes, whether or not I liked it, who I liked it for, etc., and then I would finish. And then at the end I would look at my notes and say, “Did anything change in reading the subsequent 70 pages from reading the first 30 pages?” And it never changed. You are rarely moved to tears, you are rarely excited by something in the last five pages of a script that you can’t sense in the first 30.

**John:** Well, it’s also interesting because you’re not looking for is this the movie we want to go shoot. You’re looking at can this person write. Your standards for whether to sign Christina as a client or not are not sort of like is this going to be the best possible movie. It’s like can she write [repeatedly]?

**Peter:** For us, and for new clients, it’s all about voice. Do you have a voice? And it doesn’t matter if the voice is in the most uncommercial sounding script in the world. That could still be an amazing voice that we can take and use that unconventional/uncommercial script and launch them into the stratosphere as a cool writer.

**Craig:** I think everyone is listening to this and going, OK, so I’ve learned my lesson. I’m not going to sit here and freak out over log lines. I’m not going to sit here and write cutesy query letters to agents. I’m going to accept the fact that my work has to be of such a nature that now I’m helping them, as opposed to me trying to convince them to help me.

How do they go about getting – I mean, from your point of view, and I don’t know if you know the answer to this because you’re an agent, but how do they get to those people that are going to get to you? How do they start their little chain of recommendations?

**Peter:** You know what’s funny? I thought this was such a confounding question when I was just getting into the business, because they always say Hollywood is about who you know. And when I moved out here after being in business in New York and in Boston, I didn’t really know anyone that worked at an agency. And so what I did was I went through like my college alumni network. I found a guy who was an executive at a studio. I reached out to him cold. And I said, “Hey, I’d love to come and get coffee with you.” I sort of did the informational interview thing.

And then I asked him who else I should meet. He introduced me to another five people. And it sort of spread like a virus. And it actually wasn’t that hard for me. I sort of feel like everyone knows a person who knows a person in Hollywood. So, if you can get someone to read who is a step or a degree closer to where you want to be, like that’s the way to go. That’s sort of the way in.

So, it’s sort of a non-clear answer, but I think that that at least makes sense to me.

**Craig:** You don’t stress competitions, contests? Does that mean anything to you guys?

**Peter:** Yes. Competitions and contests do, if you win.

**Craig:** You have to win. Yeah, people say like everyone is a semi-finalist. Literally in the world, everyone is–

**Peter:** Literally everyone is a Nicholl semi-finalist. There are thousands and thousands of people.

**Craig:** [laughs] Everyone. Exactly. That doesn’t count.

**John:** So let’s start with the Nicholl finalists. So, would you read through each of those scripts, or would somebody – would your assistant read through all of those scripts? Somebody looked at all of those scripts to see if any of those people are–?

**Peter:** Yes.

**John:** So that is actually – they’re going to get read by every big agency in town because they saw you there?

**Peter:** Correct.

**John:** How about Austin? Would they read all of the Austin finalists?

**Peter:** I don’t know. No, not every agent. No. I mean, the ones that people go to are really the Nicholl and the Black List five years ago. To some extent now scripts that are on there and scripts that do really well have already been out in the world, so they’re not as undiscovered gems in terms of representation, even though the rest of the world might not know how great the script is, a lot of them do have agents.

You know, I find another way that we get scripts a lot that works well is by clients. You know, if you were to send me a script, Craig, or you were to send me a script, John, I would trust that a lot more than if my aunt sends me a script.

**Craig:** Isn’t that interesting?

**Peter:** Because you’re professionals in the business.

**Craig:** Yeah. No one ever talks about that. No one ever thinks, “Oh I know, I’ll show it to a writer.” Now, granted, my standard line when people ask me to read a script is, well, A, I can’t. And B, I can’t help you. [laughs] Do you know what I mean?

But, I guess secretly I could.

**Peter:** But you could, Craig.

**Craig:** It’s true.

**Peter:** If you gave your script to your agent, you know, even if your agent doesn’t read it immediately, your agent will have a younger agent read it. And have an opinion.

**Craig:** If I tell him to read it, he’s reading it. [laughs]

**Peter:** Right now. Drop everything.

**Craig:** I will. I’ll make him do it.

**John:** So, Peter, what would Christina’s script be? Would it be a spec feature? Would it be a TV episode? Like are you only reading features to sign feature client? Or what are you reading?

**Peter:** No, I’m reading everything. I will read anything and everything that tells a story. So, 90% of the time it is features, but I will read the hot pilot that’s going around. I’ve no qualms about signing a TV writer on the feature side. But the format that it takes is of much less interest to me than the skill that it demonstrates. I’ll read playwrights. I’ll read shorts. I’ll read whatever.

**John:** So, let’s say you’ve read Christina’s script over the weekend and you like it. What is your next step?

**Peter:** If I’ve read it and I love it and I have her contact information, I will contact her. I will call her first. I will email her. If I don’t have either of those things, I will Facebook stalk her. I will tweet at her. I will Google search her. I will find a way to get to her.

**John:** Now, she may not necessarily know that you’ve read her script. Is that correct?

**Peter:** Yeah. She might not at all. So, often it’s a cold call. But, first of all, every writer or director likes hearing that you like their work, so frankly it doesn’t matter whether they have an agent, or they don’t have an agent, whether they know you’re calling, or whether you’re calling cold. If you call someone and tell them that you love what they’ve done, everyone takes that positively.

**Craig:** Interestingly, you are going after them. A lot of times what we’ll hear from aspiring writers is, “Well, I know that my script got to an agent. And it’s been a month and I haven’t quite heard back. When can I send them another thing and a follow up and all the rest?” And we give them advice, but in my mind I’m thinking you won’t need to.

**Peter:** Exactly.

**Craig:** They’re going to come find you. Or, it’s no.

**John:** So, my very first script that I wrote, this is while I was in Stark, was this romantic tragedy set in Boulder. And it’s pretty well-written, but it’s not really a movie. And a producer took it over to CAA and she wasn’t really a producer. She was sort of a producer. She took it over to CAA and this agent there was reading it. And four weeks sort of went by. And I just remember looking at the answer machine like why is there no message about this? And then she was like calling to try to get an answer. And then we find out the answer and it’s a no. But it’s sort of course it was a no. it was four weeks and that was just too long. It wasn’t going to be a yes answer.

So, your goal is to read that script over the weekend and then call her on Monday if you like the thing that you’ve just read?

**Peter:** If I like it, Monday. If I love it, Sunday, Saturday afternoon. Whenever it is I finish it.

**John:** In that conversation, are you trying to look for other things of hers that you can read? What are you trying to get out of that conversation?

**Peter:** I love to read second pieces. I think that that’s really important. I think a lot of writers do get signed off of one script, and that’s fine, but I feel like a lot of people have one script in them. I feel like a real writer has two or more. And so it’s important to me to read a secondary piece, just to have that perspective that they’re not just a one-trick pony, or that one script hasn’t been worked on for ten years. Right?

But, no, I’ll call them. I’ll tell them what I thought of the script. You know, if it feels makeable, if it feels like a real play, it’s something we can go after, you know, I might talk to them about some directors or some actors that might make sense for it. And if it’s not makeable or if it’s something that’s super tricky or just less clear path, I’ll just talk to them about where they come from, and their background, and what their aspirations are.

You know, a lot of times you have to suss out whether they really want to be writers or not, or whether they wrote it for some other reason.

**John:** So, one of the things we stress on the podcast a lot is that agents, mostly they are there to get their clients work. I mean, they are there to be an advocate for their clients. They are there to help support their clients. But mostly they want clients who work. So, at one point do you meet with Christina to see whether she’s a person you think can actually be employable?

Is it all based on what she’s written? Or does that face-to-face meeting change your opinion of whether to sign her as a client?

**Peter:** The face-to-face meeting is definitely important. I would say it is – if you’re weighting them, I would say it’s probably 80% based on the work. But what you find is that the people that tend to work continuously often are they’re charismatic, they’re fun, they’re people that you want to be around and hang around with.

I mean, in the script process for features, which both of you guys know, it’s a long process. It’s a lot of meetings. It’s a lot of phone calls. It’s a lot of collaboration. And if you are a curmudgeon who can’t talk to people, or you’re someone who writes a script and then thinks that it’s carved in stone, and that it’s not going to have notes, or people aren’t going to have their opinions, then this isn’t the career for you. You should write novels. Or poetry, you know.

So, you have to understand that there is a business side to the art that you do. And that working with other people is a requirement in this business. It’s not just about your words, although it is mostly about your words.

**Craig:** But you can see how without even pointing it out, it’s second nature to you, but I think it’s surprising for a lot of people that when you read a script by Christina and it is something that isn’t particularly marketable. It’s not something that a big studio is going to make. It doesn’t fit whatever the market is insisting upon at the moment, that doesn’t stop you at all. The idea is, oh good, I found somebody with an original voice. Let me see if I can now get her to work on movies that studios are making. Is that fair to say?

**Peter:** Right. 100%. And that’s often a part of the matching process in the signing pursuit. When you sit down in that room, you are trying to figure out whether they actually want to make movies and whether they can work. Or whether they want to live in sort of this isolated sphere which is reflected by the sort of beautiful and charming idiosyncratic script that they wrote that got your attention.

**John:** Great. So, let’s talk about the other side of the equation. So, you have these clients, but you’re also dealing with a whole bunch of other people who are making movies. So, you’re dealing with producers, you’re dealing with executives. How much of your day is spent dealing with them versus dealing with your clients? How much of your life is spent figuring out what they want and how to match up your people to their needs?

**Peter:** I would say it’s probably 60% spent on my clients. And then 40% spent on what the other people want or need.

**John:** Do you have like one studio that you are responsible for covering? Or one place that is yours, like within the agency like, “Oh, that’s Peter’s place and he’s responsible for knowing everything that happens there?”

**Peter:** Yes.

**John:** OK. And so how do you get that information in general? Is it by talking to the executives? Do you have spies? How do you know what’s really going on?

**Craig:** Spies. Say spies.

**Peter:** Spies, yes. That’s exactly it. I spend a lot of time talking to the executives, talking to the producers, and trying to figure out what their real priorities are. You know, every time they make a deal on a project like say they’re going to do a Chutes & Ladders movie, you know, that will be set up at a studio and there will be a producer involved. And the producer’s job is to put that movie together. So the producer will call me and they’ll say, “Hey, we just set up Chutes & Ladders. We’re really excited about it. We’re going to make it like Guardians of the Galaxy. It’s going to be awesome.”

And they’ll be like, “What writers do you have that can write that kind of a movie?” And so I will say, look, these are the ten writers that I think make sense for it. Of the ten, these four are available. And we should send them the material right now. And they’ll be like, “Great. Got to talk to the studio. And then we’ll send you some ideas.”

**John:** OK. So, I need to come back to you with like, so you say ten and then four, but then those are essentially four of your clients that you’re sort of pitting against each other for this one job. I mean, to some degree you are setting your children against each other to try to get this one thing. Does that weigh on you at all? Is that a factor in sort of how you’re thinking about your job?

**Peter:** No.

**John:** No?

**Peter:** No. you’re not really setting your children against each other, because you also have to imagine that in the larger landscape of any given project. Of Chutes & Ladders, for example, they’re calling every agency. They’re asking every covering agent the exact same question. And if I put one person up, and they put one person up, and the other person puts one person, you know, that’s four or five writers competing. You have the best chance of filling the job as a covering agent by putting up the right people and by putting up a few of them.

**Craig:** The conflict of interest that fascinates me, and it’s inevitable as well, so I don’t think it’s an ethical thing. I’m just kind of curious how you navigate these waters. Is not between writer clients, but between writer and director clients. When you have a director on a project and you have a writer on the project, and the director is making way more money, and the director say, “I may want to get a different writer from some other place even.” Or, the director wants the writer to do something and the writer is not sure.” How do you navigate that?

**Peter:** I sort of think you have to keep a separation of church and state. I think you are the advocate for each of these clients individually, but as you address these problems you have to put on your writer hat, or your director hat. And oftentimes if there are real conflicts of interest, like you represent both the writer and the director, you’ll have someone else on the team sort of jump in and be the lead advocate for the writer in this case on a particular circumstance that might happen.

**Craig:** Because, I mean, ultimately you’re walking this interesting line between keeping something going, but also not ending up favoring one over the over to the extent that one of them leaves, because behind you all the time is this issue of competition. That artists have choices. And they don’t have to stay.

So the tricky job, I mean, that’s the part – you know, when I project myself into somebody else’s job, I always find something that makes me feel very anxious. And I think that’s the thing that would make me feel the most anxious if I were doing the job.

**Peter:** I feel like the conflicts of interest that you’re talking about though happen very rarely. This is not something that we spend all day/every day agonizing about.

**Craig:** That’s good.

**Peter:** These situations do happen, but that is not the day-to-day job.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** So let’s go back to the common scenario, though, so let’s say the Chutes & Ladders movie, and maybe Christina is one of the four writers you want to put up for that, because her spec would be a great sample for that. So, what is the phone call or the email to her to explain what it is? Are you responsible for pitching their take? Talk to us about sort of what that–

**Peter:** So, the interesting part, you know, you guys bring up conflict of interest and pitting your children against each other as it relates to the selling process. We haven’t even spoken to Christina about Chutes & Ladders. Christina might be like, “I would never write a board game. Why would you even talk about me in this context?”

So, of the four people that I’ve talked about and got the studio approval, and their excitement about, she might self-select out just because she doesn’t even want to participate.

But let’s assume that she does want to participate. So then I’ll call Christina and I’ll say, hey, such and such studio has just set up this project and they’d like you to look at their materials for Chutes & Ladders. In some circumstances, the studio and the producers will have very clear outlines for what they want the movie to be. They might have a treatment or a document or some piece of material they’re going to share with the writer. In other cases, they don’t. They have a title. They have Chutes & Ladders. Come up with a movie.

**John:** So, classically, the challenge I always face with these is like they were fishing expeditions. You were never quite clear whether there was a movie to be made there, or if they’re just meeting with every writer in town. And so you could be the tenth meeting of the day to go in on Chutes & Ladders. And I felt like I was burning a lot of time doing those.

Like I was lucky to get one of those jobs pretty early on. I got How to Eat Fried Worms, but it was me versus a bunch of very funny Simpsons writers all trying to get this one gig. And I was lucky to get it, but there were a lot of those gigs I didn’t get.

Now a thing I see a lot with these sort of IP titles is these rooms that they’re putting together where they’re basically bringing a bunch of writers on to crack Chutes & Ladders or to figure out how to do all these different board games. What are those calls like for you? And are those good ways of employing your clients? How do you feel about those personally and as an agency?

**Peter:** Well, I can’t speak entirely for the agency. I don’t think that’s politically correct. But, personally, I don’t like the idea because when you assemble rooms of writers, basically what they’re doing is they’re saying, “I want to pay as little as I possibly can to these people that you believe in as artists and steal their ideas. And then I may or may not hire them to be the writer on the movie.” So, from my perspective, if it’s something that is that ill-formed or that poorly thought out I would rather you write a script that’s original and let me try and sell it. Then have you give your good original idea and let them brand it with a piece of IP or a title.

So, I mean, that’s philosophically how I feel about it. In reality, though, for a lot of younger writers, for newer writers you’re trying to break, it is a good opportunity. Because for a lot of them, A, they get to work with some other writers they wouldn’t know. B, they get to work with someone senior who is running the writer’s room who gets to see how they perform, how they interact, how they collaborate, etc. You know, they get to work with the producer and the studio executive who might not know them. So, in terms of introducing them to the world of features, it’s not that bad.

But, if you’re talking about a writer who has written a lot of movies, or someone who is going to run the room, etc., it’s not really the best use of their time.

**Craig:** That’s something that I worry about all the time because while there are some new things like these writer rooms, the idea of the fishing expedition and everybody going in to pitch some well thought out ten or 15-minute version of a movie, that’s been around since John and I have been around. But, what’s changed dramatically is the amount of movies that are made and the ratio of developed to made movies, which used to be much, much higher.

So, we have about two-thirds of the amount of movies that we used to get made, and probably a third of the amount that are in development, or fewer. And so I’m kind of curious from your perspective as an agent, are you concerned that the farm system of the newer writers, their only way in are kind of through these arduous things that burn up a lot of time and energy and have a very high noise-to-signal ratio. And that somewhere down the line eventually all of the big money keeps going to the same pool of people. Is it harder to transition writers from baby writer to steadily-working writer to A-list writer?

**Peter:** 100% yes. Because the only way you move up that chain is by getting your movies made. And so if you spend a lot of time writing and the movies never get made, then you don’t increase your own quote, etc., in the system.

**John:** All three of us can think of writers who work all the time, but they don’t really have produced credits. So there’s no movies you can point to saying like, oh, that’s that guy’s movie. And they really aren’t moving up the chain. I’m sure they’re making money, which is great, and they’re continuously working, but there’s no way for them to progress because there just aren’t movies with their names on. There aren’t movies that they can really take credit for as being their movies.

**Peter:** Right. Which is why I think original material is so important. And which is why getting caught in the system and doing just the rewrites and just the roundtables and just the studio types of projects can be a never-ending cycle. You’re just sort of spinning your wheels in a lot of cases.

**John:** But the spec market is not at all what the spec market was when Craig and I were first starting out. There used to be this truly vibrant spec market where people would sell million dollar scripts it seemed like every week. It was a very frequent occurrence. And that’s not so common now. So, if a Christina says, “OK, I’m going to go off and write a spec script,” do you want her to pitch you what she’s going to write ahead of time, so you know what it is, so you can tell her whether that’s the proper thing? Are you going to try to get her partnered up with a director from the start?

What is your approach to Christina going off and writing her own original thing?

**Peter:** Well, you’re right, the spec market has totally changed. It’s completely different. You can’t just sell a – I mean, it very rarely happens that a writer goes off and sells a script for seven figures. So, now when we talk about writers writing new material, if they are interested I would love for them to talk to me about it beforehand. I’d love to hear two or three ideas, and then we decide, oh, this one feels like the right one for you.

Often it’s going to be whichever one you’re most passionate about, because ultimately you want a writer to write something they care about. That just gets you the best material for the end of the day. But, if they are interested in input, I would love to participate before they spend two months writing a new piece of material. And then once we get the piece of material, what we try and do is package it with producers, or with talent, or with a director that make the sale more of a fit. That make it going out into the marketplace noisier.

And so you’ll give it to a piece of talent. You’ll give it to an actor or an actress. You’ll give it to a filmmaker because, again, that increases the auspices around that particular piece.

**John:** Talk to us about managers. So, how many of your clients also have managers?

**Peter:** Most of them, probably 80%.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** What is your relationship to the managers?

**Peter:** My relationship to the managers varies in many situations. In some situations, the managers are nonexistent. In other situations, the managers–

**John:** When you say nonexistent, like they’re ineffectual? They do nothing?

**Peter:** Right. In some situations, the managers are on my phone sheet every day and are very omnipresent. And it cuts both ways. You know, oftentimes I work well with managers who are good developers of material. I really like managers who dive into the story and will help a writer sort of crack their story or will read and give feedback and notes and things like that on a script. You know, they can be very detailed and sort of help a writer break a storyline that maybe doesn’t make sense. I like very literary-driven managers. I think they add a lot of value.

I think there are some managers who basically do the same job I do, and they’re calling studio executives, and they’re selling clients, and they’re pitching clients, and they’re sending submissions. And that feels a little bit redundant to me. But my relationship – it’s like any relationship with any person. It just depends on how well you connect with them, what your vibe is together, and what kind of clients, and sort of how you work with these clients.

**John:** Are there any writer clients who you have declined to represent because they came with a manager you didn’t want to deal with?

**Peter:** Yes. There are managers I won’t work with.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** Interestingly, you’ve never had to decline a client because they didn’t have a manager. [laughs] That doesn’t come up.

**Peter:** Correct. Correct. That’s never been an issue.

**John:** So obviously you’re not going to name names, but how would a writer find out that their manager is a toxic manager, or is a manager who is not well-liked? Any clues that a person could glean, a writer could glean that their manager may not be a good manager?

**Peter:** I honestly don’t know. Yeah, it’s tricky. I mean, I guess, if the piece of talent were that amazing and the manager was really challenging, I might try and make it work for a period of time and just see if you can tough it out. Because oftentimes you just gravitate towards the material and you work with everything else that comes with it. You know, things that come unencumbered are so rare these days. But, god, you know, you try and protect them if you can.

**Craig:** I mean, I’m very manager skeptic. I’ve said as much on the show many, many times. I do recognize that there are some managers out there who do work as producers for their clients and in the way that you’re describing, they help them write a screenplay. And I find it a curious position to be in, because sooner or later there’s going to be a different producer on there who will also be producing the screenplay. But, I understand. At least to get it to a place. Very good.

But, it seems to me that a lot of what the management business has become is just a way for people to double up on agents. You can’t have two agents at once. I mean, you can share two agents at an agency, obviously, but that’s the same 10%. You can’t hire CAA and UTA, but you can hire UTA and a manager. And so I agree with you. I think a lot of these people are kind of just extra agents.

**John:** So, I will speak up for Malcolm Spellman and for Justin Marks who believe that managers are – good managers are fundamentally a blessing. And that they truly help them out a lot.

And I will say that I know some mutual friends of ours who are represented by one agency, yet also have a really cozy relationship with another agency at the same time. It sort of feels like they’re kind of split between two worlds. I see you nodding, so that’s a thing that happens. Is it frustrating when you see that?

**Peter:** It’s very frustrating. Yes. But I also understand that at a certain level everyone knows each other. You’ve been in this business for long enough, you know, you have relationships that transcend agencies.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, that’s actually really interesting, because I don’t know how that would work. I mean, I’m friends with David Kramer, but I don’t feel like that relationship does anything strange. It’s not like we’re hanging out together at dinner.

What do you mean by the kind of dual agency? I feel like I’m missing out and I should be doing something.

**John:** Off-air I’ll tell you the name of the person, but a mutual friend of ours, he’s both at UTA and he’s also sort of at CAA at the same time. And it’s always struck me as so strange. But I’ll have conversations with him and like, “Oh yeah, well, my agent at CAA says this, and my agent at UTA says this.” And I think he’s technically only with one of the agencies. Basically he’s managed to not choose between them. And he’s chosen not to choose.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**Peter:** I’ve never heard of anybody being that explicit about it, but I do know of people who just have relationships with agents who are at different places, who might run a business question by an agent that doesn’t necessarily represent them that they’re close with. And I’ve heard that and I’ve had that happen before.

By the way, my best friend is a client who is not at my agency. And who I don’t represent. And who asks me questions about his agent all the time. And I’m like, you need to chill out, your agent is doing a great job.

**Craig:** Good for you.

**Peter:** I don’t even work with you, but it’s interesting. When you’re friends with a writer, you can really talk to them about what their issues are, and also I think I’ve become a better agent because I get to learn what his particular neuroses are.

**Craig:** Well, and god help you if he turns to you and says, “You know what? You have to be my agent.” And then you’re like, oh no.

**Peter:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I know how crazy you are, bro.

**Peter:** It’s super tricky. But I found myself defending agents who don’t even work at my agency, just because the demands or the expectations of my friend can sometimes be a bit ridiculous.

**John:** So let’s wrap this up with Christina. So you’ve managed to land her her first job. It’s an adaptation. So she’s going to be doing it for Sony. What kind of deal are you able to make for her on her very first Hollywood writing job? Is she getting scale? Is she getting scale plus ten? What does that look like for Christina?

**Peter:** Typically, writers who are making their first adaptation will get scale plus ten. I mean, that’s sort of the starting offer.

**John:** And we’ll explain scale plus ten. So scale is the minimum that they are allowed to pay you based on the WGA rates. Plus ten means plus ten percent, which basically they have to pay you.

**Peter:** Right. And then any sort of beyond that is what you get in negotiation based on the heat of the writer, the heat of the project, the talent that’s attached, the importance of the project relative to other projects within the studio. And so oftentimes you can convince them to go beyond that, but that’s sort of the starting point.

**John:** I bring this up just because listeners may not realize that – we talk about WGA negotiations and everything happens, and WGA only sort of sets the floor. And everything that’s above the floor is the agent’s job, and the lawyer’s job, and manager’s job, I guess, to some degree to raise that floor up higher and higher.

I haven’t talked about lawyers. So, when it comes time to make Christina’s deal, you’re dealing with her lawyer also who is helping you make the deal. Is that correct?

**Peter:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** And so what is the discussion between the two of you about what you’re asking for?

**Peter:** Most of the time, the discussion between the two of us is about what are the justifications for getting them more money than they’ve been offered. It’s not just about – you can’t just say, “I want more.” That’s never an acceptable line of argument. It’s, you know, based on the reviews of their previous movie, it’s based on the box office performance of a previous movie. It’s based on the elements that are attached. It’s based on the need and the demand for the writer. It’s based on their specific abilities within this world that other people don’t have.

So, you have to justify and you and the lawyer work together to figure out what those justifications are as you’re making the calls.

**Craig:** And you’re not dealing – people may not understand this – you’re not dealing with the people that have hired the writer in the first place, because those people are on the creative side of the studio, the studio executives along with the producer. These are business affairs people who are walled off, church and state style.

**Peter:** Which is the craziest part of it. The fact that I’m arguing about content, I’m arguing about artists and their skills with people who might not haven’t even seen the movie of the writer we’re talking about.

**Craig:** Almost certainly haven’t. Yeah, and don’t care. Because they literally have a computer model for what that person should be paid. They talk to each other, so now you have the business affairs lawyer at one studio talking to another one, because they hate setting precedent. If they give you a raise, then they get yelled at by other studios, because the other studio has to pay that higher rate now for your client.

And it’s a very – the only time I ever feel bad on my side as a client is when they’re like, “Well, business affairs says they should only pay you this.” And I’m like, well then no, screw them. And then someone calls them and says, “Stop being a jerk.”

But it’s got to be difficult when you keep coming back to these same people after you just had a fight with them an hour ago, to have a new fight with them about a new client, right?

**Peter:** It’s wild and crazy. Yes. It’s bizarre. You know, I would say to any writer who is able to do it, the best thing that you can give your agent, the greatest gift, is the power to walk away. If you are willing to say, “No, I just won’t do it for this price,” then your agent can go crazy on the lawyer and know that you’re not going to fire them if they aren’t able to make that deal. That is when it becomes very fun.

**Craig:** You know, my agent knows – he knows I want to walk away from everything. I don’t want to do anything. So, he has the best gift in the world. You know, any time I say, OK, let’s go make a deal. And he’s like, “All right, but this is what I’m going to ask for.” I’m like, no, no, no. Just understand, I don’t want to do it. I don’t want to do anything. I want to retire. So, go, armed with that.

And, you know, the truth is that attitude, you technically could have that attitude at any point in your career. It just occurred to me later that I should have it. But what’s to stop you, right?

**Peter:** You could, but for some younger writers, they need rent money. So, for them making a deal is important.

**Craig:** They’re going to get it anyway. I mean, you guys know. I mean, my point is you’re not going to let – if you know it’s right for your client, you’re not going to let them walk away. If you know you have a really good deal for the right project for them, then you’ll sit them down and say, “Hey, dumb-dumb, do this.” I presume.

**Peter:** 100%. I mean, I’m in the business of representing the best voices, the greatest artists, people that should be creating movies and television. And if the person that I’m negotiating with doesn’t recognize or respect that, then I have no interest in doing business with them, or putting my client in business with them. That’s not what’s good for my client. And if that becomes a deal breaker for me and Christina, then so bet it. They’re undervaluing themselves in the marketplace, and that’s not acceptable.

**John:** Last two questions, both come from trends in television, and I’m curious whether they exist in features and whether you’ve seen them in features. So first off, over the last few years staffing of junior levels in TV, diversity has become much more important. You see a lot more efforts to hire diverse writers at the starting level. Do you see efforts to hire diverse writers for features at those starting levels?

**Peter:** You do, but nearly as clearly defined as they are in television. I mean, in television they will specifically call covering agents for diverse writers. And diversity means a number of different things, but they are very explicit about it. In features, they will say, “We’d love it if a woman wrote this movie.” Or, “We’d love to have a writer or director of this particular background.” But, no, there’s nothing as clearly defined as it is in television at all.

**John:** Peter, you’re African American. Do people come to you looking for African American writers or minority writers? Does that happen at all?

**Peter:** All the time. Yes. Yes.

**Craig:** Because you guys all know each other? [laughs]

**Peter:** I’m the resident expert on African American writers at UTA, and WME, at CAA, everywhere.

**Craig:** Everywhere. It’s amazing.

**Peter:** Literally everywhere. We all know each other. We all represent – yeah, I know everyone.

**John:** Good stuff. My other question about TV practices that are hope are not going to ever come over to features, in TV a lot of times they’ll say like, “Oh, you’re a great young writer. Unfortunately we only have one spot and there’s two writers, so we’re going to partner you up and paper team you, pretend you’re a team.” Is there paper-teaming happening in features? Have you ever seen that happen?

**Peter:** I have seen it happen. It happens pretty rarely, though. That sort of forced marriage is strange and unnatural and doesn’t tend to happen.

The craziest thing is I once saw it happen across agencies.

**Craig:** Whoa.

**Peter:** So imagine trying to make a deal with a lit agent from another agency, you’re both advocating for your client. You don’t necessarily know that they’re worth the same. It would be like if I paired you, Craig, with a baby writer, and said, “OK, we want to ask for this much together as a team.” Well, then how do you split it?

**Craig:** I take everything.

**Peter:** It becomes very, very tricky.

**Craig:** I get all of it. That’s not tricky. That person should be thrilled. Thrilled.

**Peter:** It’s a gift.

**Craig:** I’m literally giving them the gift of my knowledge.

**Peter:** That’s the key to Hollywood, really. That’s what you should tell everyone that’s listening. They should just pair with one of the two of you.

**Craig:** [laughs] Exactly.

**John:** We have one listener question that I thought was actually much more appropriate for you. So, this is actually an audio question, so we’ll listen to the audio.

Question: Hey John and Craig. What’s the viability of making short films in the current climate as a means to break in to the industry?

**Peter:** I honestly think short films are pretty outdated in terms of a way to break into the film industry. They work if you want to be a director. In terms of being a writer, no one signs people off of getting their short film made. It’s just not a thing. It works for directors or writer-directors who are transitioning to bigger movies, and only to the extent that your short serves as a proof of concept of a larger movie.

So, if your short is the first chapter of a movie, that’s fantastic. That’s something that people can see, they get a sense of what you want to do with it. And there’s sort of an obvious next step to where the project goes.

If your short sort of lives in a bubble and doesn’t serve as part of a larger hole, doesn’t really help.

**John:** Gotcha. Cool. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a new podcast, it’s actually the second season of an old podcast, but it was in Australia, now it’s in the US. It’s called Science Vs. It is hosted by Wendy Zuckerman. And what she does is she takes a look at issues in the news, or just general topics, and really looks at them scientifically, sort of to really break down like what’s actually going on behind the scenes and what’s actually true and what’s not actually true.

So, the three episodes I listened to so far, one was on attachment parenting, one was on fracking. She did a two-part episode on guns. And they’re all just terrific. They’re really well-produced. So, if you’re looking for another podcast, I would recommend Science Vs. by Wendy Zuckerman.

**Craig:** Hmm, that sounds like I might actually like that. The only issue is, of course, it’s a podcast.

**John:** Craig doesn’t listen to podcasts.

**Craig:** Why would I? Why does anyone? I don’t understand it.

**Peter:** People with long commutes.

**Craig:** I guess, though, it’s the thing. I don’t have a long commute. [laughs] So, my One Cool Thing is maybe the dumbest of all of them, but so I already did one beard related One Cool Thing, because Peter, you don’t know this, but I’m a possessor of a one-year-old beard now. And I’m bald. I mean, I’m not fully full bad, but I’m fairly bald. So I don’t have to worry about like hair stuff. But now I kind of do, which is weird.

Anyway, found this awesome stuff, also Australian, by the way, called Uppercut. And it’s like a beard good that keeps your beard kind of tight, so it’s not flying off your face. And it smells like coconut. Yeah!

**Peter:** I didn’t even know that was an issue for people with beards, but I guess. I mean, you have hair like everyone else.

**Craig:** Well yeah, like if it gets frizzy, then you look like a bedraggled sea captain. You know? So you want to keep it natty and everything. And also beards are super dry and this stuff kind of makes it not so crispy.

**Peter:** Well, that’s interesting because, as John pointed out, I am an African American male, and so my hair is very short. So I almost never think about my hair. I don’t invest in hair products. I don’t really gels or anything. It’s never something that I’m really conscious of. And I also don’t have a beard.

**Craig:** Well, look, by the way, keep it that way. But I got to tell you, the joy of not having to give a damn about hair stuff is one of the – now that I have to give a slight, slight damn, it’s one of the great joys of life.

**Peter:** Consider me blessed.

**John:** Peter, do you have One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Peter:** Yeah. So my One Cool Thing is a book that I read over my vacation which is called Dynasty: The Rise and the Fall of the House of Caesar, by Tom Holland. The book came out last fall and I read an amazing review of it, which is sort of how I got into it. You know, as agents, while we read scripts all the time, I do try and read for pleasure, because I do want to have informed conversation and I’m just curious about a lot of things. This book is – it’s sort of the latest history on the House of Caesar from Julius Caesar through Caligula. And as you look at the first five Caesars, what you realize is that the Roman Republic wasn’t as republican as it seems, or as it claims to be.

The characters are larger than life. I mean, it reads like a Game of Thrones episode, except minus the dragons, and with more prostitution. So, the book is fantastic.

**Craig:** Even more prostitution than the actual Game of Thrones, which is prostitution-heavy?

**Peter:** Oh, very much so. I mean, there was an emperor who used to take all of the young senators’ children basically to an island and make them prostitute to each other for his pleasure.

**Craig:** Well, we’ve had Denny Hastert. We’ve had a few. We’ve had a few of those guys.

**Peter:** So, yes, that’s my One Cool Thing.

**John:** Very, very cool. All right, that was show for this week. As always, we are produced by Godwin Jabangwe, and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Roman Mittermayr. If you have an outro for us, you can send it to us at ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also where you send questions like the one we answered before.

You can find show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. Godwin gets them up about four days after the episode reads, so you’ll be able to read all about what Peter said.

You can find all of the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net and on the Scriptnotes USB drive which you can get at the store, the johnaugust.com store.

For short questions, I’m on Twitter, @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. Peter Dodd, do you use Twitter? You don’t want people reaching out on Twitter.

**Peter:** No, no, no. Not Twitter.

**John:** Not Twitter.

**Peter:** I don’t know anyone who uses Twitter anymore. I feel like it’s dead, by the way.

**John:** Oh my god, we’re on Twitter all the time.

**Craig:** That’s the most agent thing of all time.

**Peter:** Maybe it’s just me.

**Craig:** I don’t use it, so now it’s dead. Classic.

**Peter:** It doesn’t exist.

**John:** Peter Dodd, you were a fantastic guest. Thank you very much for being on the show with us this week.

**Peter:** Thanks guys. Happy to be here.

**John:** All right. Thanks.

**Craig:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Science Vs.](https://gimletmedia.com/show/science-vs/episodes/)
* [Uppercut Deluxe Beard Balm](http://www.uppercutdeluxe.com/)
* [Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25731154-dynasty)
* [Get your 250 episode USB](http://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/250-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Roman Mittermayr ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/Episode_264.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 256: Aaron Sorkin vs. Aristotle — Transcript

July 1, 2016 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2016/aaron-sorkin-vs-aristotle).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 256 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast, Aaron Sorkin wants your money, Aristotle has a few thoughts about character development, and we’ll talk about what makes a movie original.

But most importantly, Craig is back. Welcome back, Craig.

**Craig:** I’m back. I’m back. You thought that you could Craig-xit from me.

**John:** We could never Craig-xit you.

**Craig:** You can’t Craig-xit.

**John:** So, last week you had an ear infection. Is that correct?

**Craig:** Yeah. So I was intending to show up at your place and interview Billy Ray with you, who is a buddy, and my ear was hurting for a day, and then you know when it suddenly crosses the line — it crossed the line from annoying to ow, ow, my ear.

**John:** To like Chekhov in Wrath of Khan?

**Craig:** Yeah. Like the bug coming out of the ear thing. I didn’t have a bug in my ear, but I did have an infection. And for those people at home who are wondering what my relationship with you is really like, I sent you a picture of the diagnosis like a doctor’s note so that you would believe me.

**John:** [laughs] I did get that while we were recording, and I noted it that, okay, it’s for real. I’m not sure Billy Ray believes that you had it, but it’s fine. We had a fun time talking with Billy Ray, who is very smart, who talks even more quickly than I did. It was the first time in my history of listening to this podcast where I actually had to bump the speed down to like a normal person speed, just so I could understand what he was saying.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s a very fast talker. Fast thinker. Fast talker. I’m sorry that I wasn’t there for it, mostly because I would have given him a lot of crap. Because that’s what I do.

**John:** I especially love when guests come on the show and clearly have never listened to the show once in their life. I find that extra charming. I was trying to do my best Craig for when he got — he sort of like laid into us about the WGA stuff and about our basically convincing people not to vote for one of the proposals.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I was trying to stick up for your point of view there, which is largely my point of view, but you just felt it more strongly. So, I tried to feel it strongly for you.

**Craig:** You know what? That’s the saddest thing of all. Because I don’t like missing time with friends. I don’t like missing interviews. I get a little FOMO from that. But I really don’t like missing a good fight. That bothers me. And you know I would have taken it right to — because you know, when I argue with Billy, it’s fantastic. It’s so much fun.

**John:** One of the things Billy Ray would never had heard before on the podcast is the How Would This be a Movie. And one of our favorite episodes of How Would This be a Movie we talked about the Hatton Garden job, which is basically the robbery, all the old British people robbing this vault, and it was terrific.

And we predicted that there would be several movies going into development and they are going into development. In fact, one has started shooting.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** So, director Ronnie Thompson, who co-wrote the script with Dean Lines and Ray Bogdanovich, it’s already in production. Matthew Goode is starring. Julie Richardson is in it. I presume those are not playing the actual robbers, because those are older people. Unless it’s Matthew Goode with a lot of prosthetics makeup, which sounds terrible.

But there are two other versions in development. One of them is based on a Vanity Fair article. One is based on a New York Times article.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**John:** So, we’re going to have a bunch of old people robbing banks.

**Craig:** No we’re not. We’re going to have one. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah, we’ll probably have one.

**Craig:** We’re going to have one. It’s funny how sometimes you read these things and you’re like — it’s not rocket science to see which ones… — The only thing that surprises me I guess a little bit is that enough people were not only able to see that it was deserving of being a movie, but also felt that they could make money with a movie like this. Because increasingly, you know, getting those kinds of movies made is a tricky proposition. It’s essentially a small movie about a small thing. It’s going to ultimately be a character piece.

It’s not like these guys were involved in a hostage crisis or anything like that. They were robbing a bank. So it’s like a very small Ocean’s 11.

**John:** What’s also interesting is we talk about the situations where there are two movies in parallel development and they both happened and it was a nightmare because they were sort of butting heads against each other. But more often what happens is one of them gets out of the gate first and that becomes the movie. And the other movie just doesn’t exist. And so it’s interesting that we even know that these other two things are in development and it’s entirely possible that down the road those other things will get made.

It’s entirely possible this first one could be great, but it could be terrible. It could be one of those things like you’ve never even heard of, where it gets sold off at AFM and never really got released. So, we’ll see.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s normal, I think, for large competing movies to coexist, because there’s just so much momentum behind them and people think, well, you have your movie about a meteor with your movie star, and I have my movie about a meteor with my movie star. So, let’s go ahead. Let’s slug it out. Same thing with our volcano movies. Same thing with our animated ants movies.

But for a little thing like this, I think getting to the marketplace first is crucial, which by the way I think you’re seeing — think about this, right — we did our episode on that, what, a few months ago?

**John:** It was back in Episode 234 we talked about that, The Script Graveyard.

**Craig:** Okay, so, we talked about this back in Episode 234.

**John:** So January 26.

**Craig:** Right. That’s essentially a half a year ago. Six months ago we talk about this. That’s when everybody else is reading it at the same time. They go and they buy the rights to this thing. That takes a few weeks. And then they say, okay, we have to be first to the market. For them to be shooting six months from that day — I’m saying they went and got the rights that day. Prep takes, you know, two months minimum. Three would be good, right?

**John:** You also have to write a script —

**Craig:** Ah-ha. So this is what concerns me sometimes when people are racing to market. And I’ve been involved in these situations. The screenplay process becomes terribly compressed, very, very stressed. So the normal things that happen to screenplays that are stressful, like the creation of it, the revision of it, and then the collision that occurs when a director and a cast collides with the screenplay and there needs to be some kind of reconciliation between all these new elements, those things now get compressed really tightly and it’s very difficult to do well, nearly impossible.

So, I always get nervous when I see this race to the market. I root for all movies, so hopefully it works out with this one.

**John:** I root for them as well. I would say that the logistics of this movie are probably not especially difficult. We sort of like know what the basic sets are we’re going to need, so it doesn’t require that much sort of prep work in that sense. You feel like if this were a pilot you could just go off and prep it and shoot it.

There’s a bonus episode in the premium feed where I talk to Simon Kinberg about the most recent X-Men movie. And he talks about how they had the four writers who were working on story that came up with a treatment. And they actually had to prep off of that treatment. It was before Simon had written the script. Because they knew they were going to be such giant set pieces that they had to start the pre-vis and everything else on those basically just off of the treatment.

And that’s the way it works on some of these big movies. And in some cases it’s working on these tiny movies I bet, too. I bet they had some document that said this is what we’re going to try to do, but then they had to start getting cast and everything else probably before they had a finished script.

**Craig:** Well, right. And on a big movie, the nice thing is you know you have a little bit of a cushion because while you have the long tail of post-production because of all the visual effects, you will theoretically have the ability to go and pick up a scene where if you need a few people talking in a room, or maybe even something slightly larger. There may be a week or two to do. The money will be there because there’s an enormous investment worth protecting.

On a little movie, sometimes you don’t have any of those things at all. And especially if the whole point is to race to the marketplace, everything — even post-production — gets compressed down. So, tricky, tricky, tricky business to be in.

Let’s see how it goes with them.

**John:** Let’s see how it goes. Your last bit there reminded me of we never talked about reshoots and sort of the Star Wars — we were never sort of on the air when all that news came up that they were doing some reshoots for the Star Wars movie. I find it so maddening when the film press starts talking about reshoots as if it’s a sign of trouble. Reshoots are incredibly natural in the film industry. They are usually a sign that you have something that you are very excited about, but you see opportunities and you want to improve those opportunities. It just makes me crazy when reshoots are perceived as being a sign that everything has gone wrong.

**Craig:** I couldn’t agree more. Generally speaking, whenever I see the film press writing anything, I get frustrated because their ignorance is vast and seemingly without a bottom.

**John:** And you’re also Craig Mazin. You were born to be angry at the film press.

**Craig:** Correct. I was born to be angry anyway, and particularly them anyway. I’m their natural enemy. I am their — what’s the — Honey Badger? I’m their Honey Badger.

But it’s a bit like saying, “I saw somebody walk into CVS. Clearly they’re fatally ill.”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** What? Maybe they just had a little bit of a scratch that they needed a Band-Aid for and they’re going to be so much better now.

**John:** Maybe they wanted a Vitamin Water.

**Craig:** Maybe they wanted a Vitamin Water. A useless, overpriced Vitamin Water. It’s just stupid. Reshoots happen for any number of reasons. By the way, to be fair, sometimes it’s because the movie is a mess, right??

**John:** Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Here’s the incredible thing: so what? So the movie is a mess, and then they did reshoots, which many times fix the mess. You and I both know of movies, which we’re not going to say —

**John:** You and I both know of a certain TV series, the biggest TV series in the world —

**Craig:** Okay, there’s one.

**John:** Which was a mess.

**Craig:** A total mess, right? And those guys, Dan and Dave, have been really forthcoming about it. Their pilot for Game of Thrones was a disaster. And then they reshot not some, but almost all of it. The point of it is reshoots don’t mean that something is all wrong.

The problem is they’re always looking for this — they’re looking for gossip. And really what’s underneath all of the “ooh, reshoots” is a general sense of Schadenfreude. Oh good, people are failing. He-he-he.

Ugh. Gross. Gross.

**John:** Well, you can hear more about our discussion on reshoots and Game of Thrones and everything else on the brand new black USB drives we have now. So, we have the 250-episode Scriptnotes USB drives. They are in stock. I mentioned it last week, but they are now actually up in the store, so you can get them. And Craig and I recorded a special little introduction that’s only on the USB drives. And so if you are a person who is a completist, then this is a completist thing you could get.

**Craig:** And do the USB drives cost $90 each?

**John:** They cost $25 each.

**Craig:** Huh? That’s interesting, because I thought $90 was — all right. $25 seems incredibly reasonable.

**John:** I think it’s incredibly reasonable. So it’s $0.10 an episode. Not even $0.10 when you think about it because of all those bonus episodes on there, plus all the transcripts.

**Craig:** I mean, good lord.

**John:** Good lord. So they’re there. So, you could find them in the links to the show notes to the podcast you’re listening to, or just go to johnaugust.com, or store.johnaugust.com. There’s places to find them.

All right, let’s get to today’s business, and it is business because just like I was trying to sell you on a USB drive, Aaron Sorkin is trying to sell you on a series of screenwriting lectures. It’s a masterclass. Actually the site is called Masterclass. And this service, which I’d never heard about before, they have sort of like the biggest names in different fields teaching these classes. So, Christina Aguilera will teach you singing. Kevin Spacey will teach you acting. Usher will teach you the art of performance.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Annie Leibovitz will teach you photography. So, they are —

**Craig:** You’re missing one here. Serena Williams teaches you how to play tennis. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. She’s probably really good at it.

**Craig:** Well, I’ve noticed that she’s very good at playing tennis.

**John:** I’ve watched her play, and I’ve got to admit it, she’s pretty good. Aaron Sorkin will teach you screenwriting. And so everyone on Twitter sent me the link to this and said, “What do you think?”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I’ll ask you, Craig, what you think.

**Craig:** Well, first of all, I think it’s nice that he’s only charging $25 like the price of our USB drives.

**John:** No, no, no, it’s $90, Craig.

**Craig:** Oh what? Oh my goodness.

**John:** So let me tell you exactly what you’re getting. Over the course of 25 video lessons, spanning five hours, Sorkin shares his rules of storytelling, dialogue, and character development. He critiques student submissions. He works with real world examples from the decades he spent writing movies and TV, and TV shows, and plays. So, that was from the press release.

**Craig:** Well, I happen to be a big fan of Aaron Sorkin’s. I think that he is a terrific screenwriter. And I suspect that if you are somebody who is talented and on your way to becoming a screenwriter, and you’re serious about your craft, that this $90 may actually be money well worth spent.

Of course, on the other side you do have to be aware that one of the things that makes Aaron Sorkin a terrific screenwriter is how specific he is. He is one of the few screenwriters I know whose style is self-defined.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** You know, Tarantino and Sorkin are very, you know, oh, that’s Sorkin dialogue. We know it when we hear it.

**John:** Absolutely. So, it makes it very strange when anyone else tries to do it. It feels like you’re ripping him off.

I sort of come out where you come out, too, where it’s just like I got little heebie-jeebies at the start, and then I watched it and it’s like, oh, they look really well-produced. I mean, I’ve hosted panels with him. He’s very, very smart. And generous. And odd. So, if you’re looking to spend $90 on learning more about screenwriting, it seems like kind of a reasonable way to go.

I’ll really be curious, because I bet a bunch of our listeners will end up signing up for it and will sit through it. And they can tell us whether they thought it was worth it or not.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, of all the things that we talk about all the time, you know my whole thing — don’t pay for screenwriting. And this is actually I think worth a shot because, first of all, it’s capped at $90. There’s no come on to keep spending. And I also think there’s a nice side effect. And that is that all of these jackanapes and charlatans who are peddling their so-called guru genius for $500 or $1,000, or $100 an hour are all now going to have to face this question: why should I pay you that when Aaron Sorkin charged $90 for 25 lessons spanning — how many hours?

**John:** Five hours.

**Craig:** Five hours. $18 an hour for Aaron Sorkin. Why am I paying you a $100 an hour, because you wrote an episode of Cagney & Lacey once? Yeah. So I like that part of it.

I’m puzzled by this whole thing.

**John:** I’m puzzled by it, too. So, clearly they think that there’s a good business model here, because they have giant names doing it. So, I don’t know what his cut is. I kind of don’t know why he said yes, but I’m not telling people to say no, because I think it’s actually — I’m kind of curious.

**Craig:** Well, it’s one of the things where of all the things they’ve listed where I think, oh, people actually might get something out of this. He’s going to have some, I think, I’m just predicting, he’s going to have some really useful universal insights.

You know, you and I are trying to do that all the time on this show. I would imagine that he’ll have some of those for sure. It’s not simply going to be five hours of him describing how he wrote A Few Good Men.

Now, some of these other people — Christina Aguilera can’t teach you how to sing. That’s ridiculous. [laughs] And neither can Serena Williams teach you how to play tennis well.

They can teach you how somebody at their incredibly high level does things, but I actually think screenwriting is a little more teachable than some of those other things.

**John:** Well, let’s see how he does it. So, let’s listen to a clip. Here’s a little short clip from the promo video for it.

**Aaron Sorkin:** Dialogue is pretty much where the art comes in. Taking some words that someone has just said, holding them in your hand, and then punching them in the face with it. I left The West Wing after season four. I have not seen an episode from seasons five, six, and seven. Together we are going to break the teaser and first act of Episode 501 of The West Wing.

You don’t have an idea until you can use the words “but, except, and then.” I just want to hear your bad ideas. Very bad. Love it. Very bad. By the way, it wasn’t that bad.

**Female Voice:** It’s a White House conspiracy.

**John:** So, you see at the end there he’s sitting around a table with these students who are all made up and everyone looks just as good and glamorous in it. So, it’s not quite reality. They’re going to break a new season of The West Wing, so some fan service there.

I guess.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, I guess is right. And so, look, the thing is you and I — we have an interesting perspective on this, because we do this every week for an hour. We’ve done now 256 hours, plus some, and we’ve charged — well, technically we do charge $2 a month, right?

**John:** Yeah, for the premium feed.

**Craig:** For the premium feed, which isn’t — and so, you know, it’s not quite as expensive. But, you know, of course, he’s Aaron Sorkin. And so that’s really impressive and great. I hope that he gives money to the — if he’s getting money from this personally, I hope he donates it to the Writers Guild Foundation. Wouldn’t that be nice?

**John:** That would be nice if he did that.

**Craig:** We do that.

**John:** We do that.

**Craig:** Aaron Sorkin, I call upon you to donate your proceeds to the Writers Guild Foundation.

**John:** But I think it’s also fine if you don’t. So, Aaron Sorkin has been generous and he does participate in WGF events. He was there at the last giant panel I did with all of the nominees. So, I like him for that. I don’t begrudge him any money he’s making off of this.

I just kind of wonder whether there could be enough money to be made off of this to make it worth his while. If it’s worth Serena Williams’ while, then I’m guessing there must be money there.

**Craig:** I feel like — this is a big Silicon Valley thing, right? Like maybe these are people’s friends. Like highfalutin Silicon Valley people who are like, hey come on, you know. I’m a billionaire. You’re cool. Let’s do something together.

**John:** Or maybe their seed money, so part of the VC money was to pay these people a lot of money up front with a percentage. Maybe that’s what it is?

**Craig:** Oh, interesting. Okay. Well, listen, I don’t begrudge anyone making a buck. Well, I do, obviously, all the time. I don’t begrudge Aaron Sorkin making a dollar. And I do think you could do way worse. $90 seems very reasonable. I hope that people do find value from it. If I were to bet on anybody, I’d bet on him.

**John:** Yeah. I’d bet on him, too. You know who else was a very smart thinker about drama was this guy Aristotle. So he’s super old. I mean, kind of old school, but actually very clever. And one of the funny things is you can kind of rediscover these clever people in random places. And so this last week I was reading this blog post about coyotes and cliffs, and this word was used, and I didn’t really know the word. So, I had to look up how to even say it, and then you actually looked up the YouTube video on how to pronounce it so we wouldn’t be like idiots as we try to pronounce it.

So, it’s this Aristotelian term called Anagnorisis. It comes from Aristotle’s Poetics. And it’s that moment when a hero realizes the true nature of things. It’s that moment where like the blinders come off and the hero sees that the world that he or see perceived is not actually the world as it truly is.

And, we think about — he was describing it mostly in terms of tragedies, but I think in movie usage it’s more often used in thrillers. So you think about The Sixth Sense, the twist in The Sixth Sense. Or Gone Girl, which has the mid-act, sort of midway reversal. But it’s also a thing that becomes incredibly useful in comedies. So, I said the coyote going over the cliff, it’s that moment where the coyote has run off the cliff, and he’s floating in mid-air, and he turns to the camera and realizes, “Oh, I’m going to fall.”

It’s that moment. And it’s such a weirdly wonderful moment. So I thought we’d spend a few minutes talking about how that exists both internally, but how it exists in fiction, and sort of how we can use it.

**Craig:** Well, you’re right, that it comes in big moments, and it comes in little moments. The obvious ones are the ones where there’s an on-rush of information about the world, specific facts about the world around them.

So every whodunit has a moment of Anagnorisis where the detective hero has all of these facts, none of them seem to add up, and then somebody does some little dinkety thing and they go, “Ah…,” the big gasp, “Oh my god, I know who did it now.” And we all have to wait, right? We’ve watched them.

So, that’s a clear example. But then there are these little moments like at the end of The Graduate, when you have these two people sitting on this bus and they believe they have culminated this wonderful romance. And then you can see, suddenly they realize, ooh, wait. That’s a very small kind, but it is crucial for the audience to see in characters.

It’s crucial that we see them suddenly realizing these big truths that they did not have before. In reality, where a narrative does not rule, here’s how a typical — for instance, let’s go back to the whodunit. Here’s how a typical whodunit goes: a detective arrives at a scene, here are some facts, here are some suspects. They start to put together a reasonable presumption about who did it, but there are a couple of other possibilities. And then they begin to slowly grind their way towards what is growing increasingly obvious to be the right answer. They just have to support it. And so they do, like a mathematical proof, and then that’s that.

That cannot be how it goes in drama.

**John:** No, it can’t. So, what you’re describing is a lot of times TV procedurals will essentially do that, where like they’re stacking the blocks together. There’s some revelation or something, but it’s not a character revelation. It’s nothing that’s personal to the character. And I think that’s what we’re trying to go for here, is a fundamental sort of gasp in the character. Oh no, the thing I presumed.

So, this thing I just turned into the studio this afternoon has Anagnorisis in it, where the hero at about the second act break has trusted this one other character throughout, and then realizes, oh crap, you’re the villain. And what the villain does in sort of like the moment of the villain unveiling himself for who he truly is has to really land. It has to land not just on a plot level, like oh, all these make so much more sense now. But you have to see the betrayal. You have to see what it feels like to be in the shoes of the hero as this revelation is coming to pass.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So often when I hear pitches form new screenwriters, they’ll go, “Blah, blah, blah,” they pitch the first act, second act, and then they’re like, “And then the hero comes to realize that something, something, something.” And whenever I hear “come to realize” I’m like, oh no, no, no, that’s not good.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** It’s amazing and wonderful if a character has a realization, but that realization can’t just be like I’ve been living my life for the wrong things. Realizations have to be like this is a thing that fundamentally changes how I’m going to relate to this world that I’m in. Fundamentally changes how I relate to the other characters that have been set up in this story.

It can’t just be like, “I need to be a better dad.” No, that’s not real.

**Craig:** I completely agree. And this is one of the keys to writing layered work, right, work that doesn’t feel like it’s all operating on one level. So, Anagnorisis occurs after a character does something. It shouldn’t really occur before they do something, because if they’re just sitting alone in their room and they go, “Ooh,” and then they do something it’s like, “I’m doing it because of that thing I figured out.” This all now feels like it’s inevitable. Like I’m just following along. And what anybody would do having realized what I realized.

But there’s something wonderful about a character doing something. Very typically, for instance, we’ll see a character finally achieving this goal. Vengeance is a classic one, right? I have finally achieved my revenge. And then Anagnorisis. Oh no. Right?

Or perhaps I did not understand what I was doing or this other person was doing until now when it is too late.

**John:** Yep. You see that — classically the tragedy aspect of like I spent my entire life seeking revenge on this person, and it turns out this person was my only true friend. Or it turns out the person I’ve been seeking for revenge is myself. There’s that sense of like I have wasted all this time, or I’ve killed the only one true thing that I love. Or that in my pursuit of vengeance, I have destroyed my life around me.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’ll also see this when characters are witnessing other characters performing an act of sacrifice. So much more, well, let’s talk about the bad version. Here is the version that is ana- Anagnorisis. Or Norisis. I don’t know what would work right. But not Anagnorisis.

Someone says, “You’re never going to make it unless I stand here and sacrifice my life so you can escape.”

“What? I don’t want you to do that?”

“Well, I’m going to.”

“All right. Well, thank you.”

Ugh. Right? But when someone says, “Okay, yes, I’m going to go with you. It’s going to be okay.”

“You sure?”

“Yes.”

And you run and you jump and then you realize the other person hasn’t jumped, they’re staying back to fight for you and die for you. And then you have Anagnorisis not only about what that person is doing for you, but in a deeper way, how they feel about you, how you feel about them, the depth of their connection, why they’re doing this. All that stuff comes wooshing over this character. And that’s when we have these human connections.

Ultimately, these are the things that make us want to keep watching anything, or keep reading a book for that matter. It’s not the details of the richly textured world. It’s, in fact, these universal things that we experience all the time in our own lives.

**John:** Yeah, it’s not the plot. It’s the reaction to the plot. It’s what we see in the characters. Let’s talk about the audience’s relationship to that moment of realization of the character’s relationship to it. Because one of the things you find is that sometimes you want the audience to be a little bit ahead of your character so that they can anticipate it. It’s sort of the classically when you show the audience there’s a bomb under the table and the two characters are sitting at the table that it’s incredibly suspenseful, because you know there’s a bomb and the character’s don’t know there’s a bomb. So, sometimes you want to let the audience be just a little bit ahead of your characters.

But if the audience is too far ahead of your characters, if the audience has already like made this journey, they start to kind of hate your heroes. They kind of start to think your heroes are idiots because like how can you not see that that’s the bad guy? How can you not see what’s going on here?

So, as a writer, your challenge is to hopefully land both the audience and your hero at this moment of realization at the right time, which is often simultaneously, or at least closely coupled.

**Craig:** It’s about putting in and taking out bits of information, like a little test. Because you’re right, there’s this balance. The audience needs to have enough clues so that after the fact, like any good detective, they could say, “I could have figured that out.” Or, maybe sometimes it’s not so much of a strain. It’s simply there are enough clues where clearly I knew what was going to happen, but it wasn’t rubbed in my face, and it certainly wasn’t rubbed in the character’s face who is about to experience that Anagnorisis. So, that’s okay.

For instance, we all know, here is a Game of Thrones example.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** We all know that Tyrion is going to be using wildfire to destroy this fleet of ships coming in from Stannis Baratheon. And then Stannis Baratheon’s fleet shows up and Sir Davos is there on board the ship and he’s coming around. And they realize that there’s only ship waiting for them. Well, that’s strange. And we’re all thinking — yeah, it’s got to be full of wildfire. And it is.

We don’t know quite how. That’s the interesting part. We’re like, well, they’ve got all this wildfire. I don’t see any wildfire on the top of the ship, so where is it? And then as he comes around they reveal that the stuff is pouring out of holes in the bottom of the ship and actually spreading out on the water, floating on the water. And then Sir Davos has that moment that we live for when we’re watching these things, which is Anagnorisis, the oh my god, get back! And then, boom.

Right? So, it’s about taking pieces in and out. And if you put one extra piece in, it’s suddenly boring. And if you take too many out, it’s suddenly confusing. And you don’t have the richness of that moment of “oh no.”

**John:** Yeah. I find the moments where this lands most is there’s kind of a melting dread that happens where like you can sort of see like it’s as if you’re kind of poisoned and you realize, like oh god, how I’m going to — and you can see the wheels turning in the characters’ heads like, “How do we even react to this?” They’re trying to basically recognize the situation that they’re in and plan accordingly.

It’s very fun to sort of put characters back on their heels and not be able to take the natural actions that they should be taking.

**Craig:** Correct. And this is something where I think sometimes some directors underestimate the value of this. Because it is often — not always — but often concentrated on a face. There is not much of a spectacle to Anagnorisis. It’s very small. And usually it doesn’t have much in the way of speech-making. It’s someone’s face. And it’s pure acting. And it’s pure reaction. And it requires a little bit of time. Some directors I think really appreciate it and understand what it means to sit and dwell with it. And too also when directing scene, direct toward it.

But some do not. And when your movie short changes those moments of Anagnorisis, the strange thing is even if the circumstances are the same, just as shocking, just as surprising, just as twisty, we won’t feel it. Because we only experience it through the eyes of the hero on screen. We wouldn’t care so much that Bruce Willis’s character has been dead the whole time in The Sixth Sense if you didn’t have that long drawn out moment of Anagnorisis.

Same thing with watching Chazz Palminteri realize, oh my god, that Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze. Long, drawn-out face. Eyes. Gasping. Over and over. We need it.

**John:** Yeah. You absolutely need it. And it’s so easy to lose it. But I would also say, even before you have a director on board, one of the things I’ve noticed over a bunch of different scripts is when you’re in a protected development on something, people are reading that same draft again, and again, and again. And they sort of forget, the same way they forget like why jokes are funny. They forget like what those moments feel like when they land.

And so I find they keep asking you add back information earlier on to like set that thing up.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** And so you have to just be so hard about like parceling that information carefully so that some things can actually be a surprise, just so, you know, there’s this desire to have everything make so much sense the minute it hits. And like, no, I need the character to be doing the work to be putting it together at that time. And the audience should be doing that work, too. So like if I set that up so clearly, then it wouldn’t be a surprise whatsoever.

**Craig:** Yeah. I find, for whatever reason, that a lot of studio executives prize clarity over drama and revelation. And they have no problem actually un-dramatizing something. Sucking the drama out of it so that ten people at a screening won’t go, “I was confused.” That seems to petrify them more than anything else. Maybe because people can articulate, “I was confused.” But it’s very hard to articulate, “I identify with somebody as they experience Anagnorisis.” Right?

So, it is an ongoing battle. And it is one of those things at times that makes screenwriters feel very lonely. It is a lonely feeling when you know something because it is part and parcel of who you are and what you do, and everybody around you is saying, “Well who cares about that?” Everybody in the theater. Don’t you know why we’re there?

But it’s a struggle. By the way, I wanted to mention there’s this other kind of Anagnorisis that’s fairly rare. But when it happens I love it. And it’s the Anagnorisis of the audience. So this is where the characters in the movie know everything. We don’t. They’re not surprised by information. We are.

**John:** Absolutely. No Way Out.

**Craig:** Yeah. No Way Out. Exactly. No Way Out, we’re shocked because — but they’re not shocked. They know. They know who is Yuri is, right? And I always remember this moment in The Ring where we realize — we in the audience realize — wait, that’s that kid’s dad. The kid knew that that was his dad. The dad knew that was his kid. The mom knows that that was her ex. Everybody knows everything. We just didn’t know. And I love that.

**John:** Good stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Before we get off this completely, I’m going to try to find a link to Mike Pesca talks about sort of magical dad transformation comedies. And it’s such a weirdly specific sub-genre that I’d never considered.

**Craig:** The Santa Claus.

**John:** The Santa Claus. Liar Liar. A Thousand Words. Like a bunch of Eddie Murphy movies. Which is basically like I’m a terrible father who works too much, but because of a magical thing that happens, now I’m going to learn the true value of family. I’m going to try to find — if I can’t find another link to it, I’ll link to the actual podcast. But he talks about how it’s such a weirdly specific genre of movies that is designed probably so that dads can take their kids to go see that movie and then feel better about themselves. It’s a bizarre thing that we’ve made. And I don’t know we keep making them. I guess they make money.

**Craig:** Well, it’s a way to feature — let’s say you have funny men, who are in their 30s or 40s. It’s a way for them to be funny, but then maybe also appeal to like a kid audience. And then the question is, well, what do we do with that character? And as poorly as we treat female characters, we treat dads, I think, perhaps the worst of all because they’re so stupid. They’re the dumbest people in the world.

This is the dad character. This is it. I work too hard. I’m ignoring my wife and my family. Period. The end. And actually, no, there’s one other thing about this dad. I just needed somebody to point it out to me. And now I’m going to change my life forever. Oh, please. I always like to say all those movies about overworked, working too hard dads are made by dads that are working too hard, not seeing their children. It’s such a — god, I hate those. I hate them. Hate ’em.

**John:** And so the other thing I’ll bring up, and I’m sure our listeners can find a counter example. So, write in with a counter example of the female equivalent of that. Because I can’t think of one where the woman works too hard and through magical means she gets to learn the value of family. It’s just presumed that of course a woman knows the value of family.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. That’s a thing. Nobody — you just couldn’t get away with it, like putting a woman on screen being that profoundly stupid and emotionally stunted. Nobody would believe it. For good reason by the way. [laughs] Because I get it. Men are dumber and more emotionally stunted than women. We know this. But, god, to be that profoundly dopey.

And, of course, this is why — so then the question is how do you — you can see how these things happen, right? All right, so hey, screenwriter, here’s a problem for you: we need to illustrate in a simple way that this father is neglectful of his kid. How would you do that? I just need one scene that proves that he’s putting work ahead of family. What should we do?

**John:** So maybe he could like not show up at his son’s violin rehearsal?

**Craig:** Sold! Sold! So it’s a school play, it’s a rehearsal. It’s a this, it’s a that. And here’s the thing — this is why I was — argh, umbrage now. Here’s why it’s so lame: because it would be cool — I would actually like a movie where a dad is like, “Oh, I got to get home to see my kid’s play.” And then someone is like, “Okay. But if you want to stay and keep working on this, you might get a raise.”

“Huh, all right. I’m going to stay.”

That’s never how it is. Because I’d be like that guy is awesome. What a bastard. No, it’s always like this: “I have to get to my — I love my kid so much. I have to get there. Oh no, there’s a crisis. I’m stuck. I can’t do anything about it. I forgot.”

Ugh, god. Blech.

**John:** Blech. Here’s the thing is like they have to be terrible by their own choices for them to be able to learn something at the end. Because otherwise, if it’s just like their mean boss is making them work, then it’s just Scrooge, and it’s not his story at all.

**Craig:** Well, that’s what it is. They’re basically cowards who can’t stand up to a mean boss. And inevitably they finally do.

By the way, let’s also be realistic. If you don’t show up to your kid’s play in fourth grade, that’s not what’s going to end up putting them in therapy. You know, it’s recoverable. Don’t beat them. How about that?

**John:** Yeah. And so then we set these incredibly unrealistic expectations about what fathers are supposed to be able to do and the kids talk smack about their parents. Oh, it just drives me crazy. Maybe it’s because I have a tween now who has started talking like the characters on Disney Channel shows. And so she talks this way that she kind of thinks that kids are supposed to talk, but she’s really talking the way a 45-year-old man wrote for these tweens to talk on a Disney Channel show. And it’s just so maddening. And so, ah.

**Craig:** Well, you know, it’s going to get worse and worse.

**John:** Oh, of course.

**Craig:** I don’t know what to tell you about that.

**John:** Yeah. It’s going to be good. Let’s go on to our final topic which is originality and the sense of why some movies feel original and some movies don’t. Craig, take us there.

**Craig:** Well, this is something that I was talking about with Lindsay Doran and we were talking about a moment in the script that we’re working on together. And she was very happy with it. And she said, “You know what I like about this? Only our movie could do this.” And I thought what a great test. Because we talk about being original all of the time, but what does that really mean exactly? Because while we talk about being original, we also say things like, “Well, there’s only seven stories. And every story has been told. And it’s just versions.” And that’s all kind of true.

And everyone who is learning how to be a screenwriter, what do they learn? There are certain archetypes. There are this many kinds of heroes. And the heroes journey. And it’s all based on mythology. All kind of true.

So then the question is what do we mean when we say something is original. And in a strange way I think she’s kind of hit on it. It’s not that it has to be original compared to everything else around there. It’s that it has to original within itself. That the movie is providing a combination of character and circumstance that allows that movie to do something no other movie could do. Not for lack of trying, but because it wouldn’t make sense in that movie. It only makes sense in this one. I thought that was a good idea.

**John:** I think it’s a very good idea. And it’s going to invoke one of our other favorite words which is specificity. It’s like it’s ideas that are so specific to this movie that they could not be plugged into any other movie. And so it’s the joke that only could exist with these characters in this situation and couldn’t be dialed into another movie.

It’s the characters and situations that can only happen here. One of these we have marked here is people being unplugged in The Matrix and then falling down dead. Exactly. That’s a very specifically kind of Matrix-y idea. And while other science fiction films could do things that are kind of like it, the specific way that feels is only The Matrix. And that’s great.

**Craig:** Yeah. Precisely. And sometimes it’s as simple as a line that only your characters can do. You know, so the movie that I’m working on with her is about sheep. And these sheep are detectives trying to solve a crime. And they repeatedly do things that only our movie could do, because we’re the only movie that has sheep detectives.

It’s not like we’ve — detective stories are not original. Talking animal movies aren’t original. There have been movies with sheep. But this combination is original. And therefore you have to ask yourself, “What can only we do?” If we can only do that, we should do that. That’s a good light guiding us to where we’re going to go.

You and I see when we get Three Page Challenges, sometimes we’ll say things like, “I’ve seen this a million times before.” And I think underneath that really is — any movie could do this. So, why do I need this one, right? I’ve seen many movies where people are caught on vaguely haunted spaceships. But what can only your movie do?

And it’s a good way to think about your work. For those of you playing the home game, as you go through and ask yourself, there must be a combination of things that is unique to your screenplay. I believe that, otherwise why would you have bothered to write it. If that combination is not unique, you’re already in a lot of trouble. But if it is unique, ask yourself have I exploited that which is unique to this? Because if I have not, I should.

**John:** Yep. And when we’re saying like you have to find this moment that is unique and original, it should ideally be the kind of moment that you would actually hopefully would put in the trailer. It doesn’t have to go in the trailer, but it has to be the kind of moment that so shows the DNA of your movie and why this movie, which will obviously fall into some genre, can both reflect the genre but also stand apart from the genre. That it’s doing its own thing.

And, you know, you say like no other movie could do it. Well, no other movie would even sort of try to do this specific weird thing that you are trying to do. And when you see bad trailers, it’s often because you can feel like well that’s just another retread of the same idea again and again.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, we know that we’ve seen pirate movies. And we’ve seen zombie movies. And we’ve seen movies with ghosts, right? And I remember when I saw the trailer for the first Pirates of the Caribbean, how impressed I was when these pirates moved into moonlight and suddenly were revealed to be skeletons. And that’s something only that movie could do, because that was their interesting rule which they made sense of, and then exploited the hell out of.

And talk about Anagnorisis, when Barbossa says, “You don’t believe in ghost stories, you better start. You’re in one,” and he steps into the moonlight, into a beam of moonlight and his face is revealed. And her shock at seeing what the world is. That’s — see only that movie could do that.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Wonderful, right? And they’re sometimes the littlest things. The strangest. Look, one of our little lambs in our movie is just obsessed with tomatoes. It’s a sheep. This lamb loves tomatoes. And she’s been sent to kind of listen in to a conversation between two people. And first of all, here’s something only our movie could do. Only our movie can have somebody sneakily eavesdropping on a conversation, except the other two people couldn’t care less that they were there because they’re a lamb, right?

So the people don’t understand that lambs are eavesdropping. So that’s pointless eavesdropping, but they’re eavesdropping anyway. And she’s watching them and they’re eating lunch. And one of them is eating tomato salad. And our lamb just focuses in on the tomatoes, and everything else is gone. And it’s just tomatoes. Only our movie could do that. What other movie could do that? None.

And that’s why we’re here is to do stuff — and then people go, “Well how did you think of that?” Because that’s why we’re doing the story is to do things that only this intersection of elements could create.

**John:** Yep. The success of Zootopia is largely based on those kind of moments where it’s just like, oh, it’s because you have these specific characters in this situation and these crazy rules for your world that these kinds of situations can happen. And that’s delightful.

**Craig:** Yeah. Animated movies in particular, this is their stock and trade. They are obsessed with the idea of what can only our movie do. What can you do if everybody in the movie is a talking car? What can you do if everybody in the movie is a fish? What can you do if everybody in the movie is a video game character? And then they ask themselves — you can see them saying, “Well…”

**John:** Starting with this premise, what are the best outcomes from it? And if the outcomes aren’t great outcomes, then maybe ditch that idea and start a different idea.

**Craig:** Because it can be applied to any other movie. So, how is it great that we’re applying it to ours? The Lego Movie, so first of all, what’s the worst thing that can happen to Lego people? Being stuck in place and not being able to be interchangeable because that’s the nature of Legos. Okay, great. So then what should the ultimate nuclear bomb in the Lego world be? Crazy Glue.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Great. Right? Only the Lego Movie could have Crazy Glue as the ultimate weapon of doom. Ergo, it’s a good idea.

**John:** It’s a very good idea. God, I love the Lego Movie. I need to see it again. I haven’t seen it since it came out.

**Craig:** Well, it’s just chock full of things that only that movie could do.

**John:** Cool. Let’s answer one question. Stuart from York, England writes — oh Stuart, I’m so sorry for you.

**Craig:** Yeah. Let’s just take a moment here.

**John:** We’re recording this on Friday. So it’s just all come down. And I’ve been kind of really depressed all day.

**Craig:** Well, for good reason. Will everyone survive? Yes. Will the world be okay? Yes. However, what’s disturbing about Brexit is that it is irrational. It’s profoundly irrational. And by the way, I think it’s not like the EU doesn’t deserve a ton of criticism. They do. It’s not a great organization actually. In fact, one could argue that it’s terribly flawed from its inception.

But, the problem is the alternative is worse. Sometimes you have to make the best of a bad situation, which is I think what the EU was. But leaving it is profoundly irrational and it was kind of surprising to see that much irrationality. And in a weird way, John, in November, the United States will suddenly have to be the grown-ups and like the good ones. What a weird role reversal, right?

**John:** It is a very strange role reversal. You know, this morning I retweeted a couple of I thought smart observations about it. And then I got some weird Twitter blowback about. You’re no stranger to weird Twitter blowback, Craig Mazin.

**Craig:** It’s all I get.

**John:** It’s all you get. And so I’ve been judiciously using my mute function. So, I have a perception of who really wanted Brexit to happen. And there’s the extreme types, but I think there’s also the people who genuinely perceive that England was better off when it was a separate country, or Great Britain was better off as a separate country. And that they were longing for a golden time. They were longing for a time where things were better.

And when I see movements like this happen, there always tends to be sort of this myth of like a golden age when everything was better, and if we could just get back to that place. The realization that — the Anagnorisis that you have — is that you never get to that better place. You can never get back to that old better place. You can only try to get to a new better place. And every attempt to go backwards is fraught with peril.

And so as I retweeted a few of these things, including this one young woman interviewing saying like, “Yeah, I voted to leave, but now that I wake up this morning, I really regret that.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. I saw her.

**John:** I’m like, oh, that’s Anagnorisis there.

**Craig:** By the way, that’s so British, because an American would never say that. Ever.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Americans will never, ever admit — not only did she admit that regretted it, but she admitted it so freely. Like, “Oh, you know, if I could do it again, I think I would vote to remain.” Just so casual. So like, la-da-da, oh well.

**John:** La-di-da. You know, people also describe it as being like I wish I could revert to a save. It’s like go back to that last draft. That made a lot more sense.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** Or like save progress in a game. Like, I’m going to try to something really foolish, so I’m going to save first and then see — go back to a state there.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. Oh my god, that’s so the video game analogy of like, “Oh, I’ll just do a save point here. It’s my fallback. Yeah, because I’m about to go Russian somewhere that I probably shouldn’t. But maybe it’ll work.”

You know, you’re right. This dream of what once was, part of the problem also is it wasn’t that. You know, in the United States people sometimes — a lot of people — fetishize the 1950s.

**John:** Yeah. Exactly. Oh, let’s go back to that. Because they were awesome, Craig. Everything was perfect in the ’50s. If you were a white person, who was straight, and a male, it was fantastic.

**Craig:** Well, here’s the crazy part. Even if you were a white, straight male, it still wasn’t that great, because there’s like — here’s a list of things that kind of sucked about being anyone in the 1950s.

**John:** Polio.

**Craig:** Yeah, thank you. Much less being black, or gay, or a woman, or any of the things. We just imagine these times because we look at Norman Rockwell paintings and it’s just easy to imagine that that was the way it was. It was not at all that way. And, of course, there were a lot of men who were dying in Korea in the 1950s and early ’60s, I believe.

A lot of things going wrong. But John Oliver, I think, had the best — he had the best and most well-rounded and understandable view on it as a British man.

**John:** Yeah. And of course it didn’t air in the UK because Sky pulled it for political content.

**Craig:** Amazing. So, it basically came down to him saying we have to stay. I hate the EU. All British people hate the EU. We hate all the other countries in the EU. We should hate them. They’re ridiculous. We have to stay. And that is a very difficult selling point.

**John:** It is. I think the lesson I’m trying to take with me going forward, just because obviously we’re going to hit our own situation in the very near future, is to always be mindful that there is going to be a sizable portion of any society that wants to return, that wants to get back to a place. And you have to be able to tell them the story that makes them feel good about the place we’re headed to, and not just tells them that they’re stupid for wanting to get back to that place.

**Craig:** Yeah. And again, you know, we have — our situation is a little better. We have the Electoral College.

**John:** Thank god.

**Craig:** Which definitely is a buffer against large waves of people located in one area. And also, of course, our situation is not permanent. Theirs unfortunately is irreversible.

**John:** We’re recording this on Friday. What is interesting is the damage that’s been done can’t be undone. There’s no reverting to a previous state. But, how they actually implement it and sort of what happens next is still very fluid.

And so I would hope that in its fluidity it gets to a place that is less terrible for everyone.

**Craig:** Well, on the darker side of things, I suspect it’s going to be a brutal, vicious slog over the next two years. Political careers are going to be dashed to pieces. And Scotland will probably vote to leave the United Kingdom.

**John:** I also hope that more politicians aren’t going down in the streets.

**Craig:** And my god, I mean, good lord, right? So, a real mess over there, but Stuart — Stuart is from York, and he deserves an answer, whether he voted to leave or remain. Shall I read his question?

**John:** Read his question.

**Craig:** Stuart asks, “Would putting the main character’s names in bold be something that would help the reader focus on the central characters or the characters that the writers deem important enough to bold, or is it something that could risk marginalizing the other characters?” Interesting.

**John:** I have a simple answer to this which is don’t boldface your character’s names. So, I would say there’s nothing horribly wrong with boldfacing your character’s names, except that part of the reason why we uppercase character’s names is so that people can find them, and so that people sort of know the first time they appear. I just don’t think you’re going to find a lot of utility in boldfacing those names.

**Craig:** I agree, particularly considering that their names are going to be repeated constantly, every time they say a word their name will be there in the middle of the page. This is not a problem worth solving.

**John:** I agree. What I will say is at the point you go to table reads and stuff like that, people will highlight their dialogue. That’s awesome, but that’s really a very different thing. So for that first read, it’s going to be too much. Imagine if you were reading through a book and Harry Potter’s name was boldfaced every time it showed up. That would get old really fast. And that’s kind of what you’re doing in a screenplay.

**Craig:** Yeah. Particularly because we’re trained, or at least, Stuart, the people that are reading your scripts are trained one way or another to view bold as emphasis, not a general textual emphasis, but dramatic emphasis.

**John:** What I would also say about character names is you are right to be focusing on like who are the most important characters in your story. And what you’ll find is as you’re writing sentences, you will craft sentences so that they are highlighted in the sentence. And so if multiple characters need to be in that sentence, you will put your hero first in that sentence. You will find ways to make sure that we are keeping it very clear who they need to follow, who they don’t need to follow. You are probably refraining from giving character names to unimportant people so that they are not elevated importance beyond their natural stature.

So, don’t say that the security guard’s name is Anderson if he’s really just a security guard.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** All right, it’s time for One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a post by Steve Yedlin that Rian Johnson had put a link to this last week. It is on color science for filmmakers. And so what Yedlin does, he is a cinematographer. And he is talking about sort of a lot of our assumptions on image capture formats on film versus video, on Arri versus other ways of ingesting light and forming an image.

And the whole thing is worth reading. It gets really into the weeds on some stuff, but through that you can find his sort of key points which is that so much of our assumptions about like what’s the best thing for shooting movies on, what’s the best camera to use for shooting movies on, is so often based on what the default settings of things are versus what is this thing capable of doing.

And the choices about what formats you’re going to use, what cameras, what equipment, what looks you’re going for, those things should be figured out before you start shooting your first frame. You need to do your work to figure out what you want your film to look like, and then pick the appropriate technology. And also pick the appropriate colorist. And actually set some of those looks ahead of time so you know what you’re aiming for.

It’s the movies that are trying to do it all on the set, or do everything in post, that are less ideal than they should be.

**Craig:** It must be very, very frustrating, I think, just as we were talking about how it’s frustrating for writers to be the only person in the room who is defending Anagnorisis. It must be very frustrating to be somebody like Steve Yedlin, who is an incredibly talented cinematographer, and also just a clearly well-educated person, to have discussions with people saying things that are just flat out stupid and wrong.

**John:** Yeah. Camera X is too something, or like this thing, the blues are too bright in this. It’s like that’s probably not true and you’re really ignoring the purpose of what a colorist does.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sometimes when musicians get into these little twerpy fights over, “Well, you know, if your drums are made of maple, they’re going to sound warmer than birch. Birch is too…” And somebody inevitably will come in and just destroy the whole argument by saying, “I’m pretty sure that if you put a great drummer down, if you put John Bonham on that kit it would be just fine.”

You know, he would know what to do. It’s like people get so twerpy about stuff, and I like that underneath all of Steve’s facts and science is this general argument understand your tools and then use the tool for your purpose. You’ll be fine.

**John:** Exactly. He’s really arguing do the work. Like do the work of actually figuring out what it is you want rather than just like looking at a bunch of checklists, or reading a bunch of articles about things and saying, “Oh, well this is going to be the ideal camera for us.” Do the work.

**Craig:** Precisely. And you mentioned that he’s shooting Rian’s Star Wars movie, right?

**John:** So I think he has some good credits to his name.

**Craig:** Yeah. So my One Cool Thing is a game that I played the other night with a group that Megan Amram has now coined the term Illuminerdy, or we are the Illuminerdy, among others, myself and Megan, and David Kwong the magician, and Chris Miller of aforementioned Lego Movie, and Aline Brosh McKenna, and Shannon Woodward, and blah, blah, blah. Doesn’t matter who is in the Illuminerdy. In fact, I shouldn’t tell you all the people in the Illuminerdy, because we got to keep some secrets here.

**John:** Yeah, but if we see throwing little signals and signs in your Instagram photos, that’s how we can tell.

**Craig:** Then you’ll know, and we are controlling the world. So, anyway, David Kwong brings a card game, sort of a logic word card game. Similar to the kinds that you’ve been kind of fiddling with over there at Quote-Unquote. And it’s called Codenames. And we’ll throw a link up in the show notes to a description of it. Wonderful little game. Incredibly simple. So simple I could describe it to you right now.

There is a bunch of words that are laid out in a five by five grid. So, five words by five words, all spread out. And there are two people giving clues to their teams. And the two people that are giving clues are looking at a little tiny map on their side that shows that some of those words are the words I want my team to guess. They’re the red words. Or the person to the right of me who is giving the clues to their team, they’re trying to do the blue words.

There is one word that is an instant loser word. And your job is to get your team to guess the words on the grid before the other team guesses those words. And the way you do it is you give them a word that’s a prompt and you tell them how many words you think that word should lead to. So, for instance, in this game that I played on my grid I saw that I had the word bank and I saw I had the word dwarf.

And so I said Gringotts.

**John:** Perfect.

**Craig:** Two words. Now, granted, they’re goblins, not dwarves. But, still, that’s the idea. Now, the trick of it is whatever word you come up with, it can’t lead them to one of the other team’s words, because if it does then obviously that helps them. So, the idea is to try and come up with these linking words, a single linking word that might hit even three things at once.

Very fun. Very easy to play. It takes four seconds to learn. Good for families, too, I would imagine. Good game.

**John:** Good game. So I nearly played that game about two weeks ago. I was over at Elan Lee’s house. Elan Lee created Exploding Kittens, along with The Oatmeal. And so he occasionally gets people together to play games. We nearly played that, but instead we played a Fake Artist Goes to New York, which Will Smith had brought. And not that Will Smith, the other Will Smith. And it was also terrific. So, I’m going to link to A Fake Artist Goes to New York as well which is a great, fun party game that we should play next time.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** You will find links in the show notes to these things, and a lot of the other articles we talked about today at johnaugust.com. Just search for this episode of the podcast. Our premium feed is at Scriptnotes.net. You can also get the Scriptnotes app which is on iTunes or the Android store. You can find it at multiple places.

If you are on iTunes for any reason, please leave us a review. That helps other people find Scriptnotes, which is great.

As always, we are produced by Stuart Friedel. We are edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** And our outro this week comes from Rajesh Naroth. If you have an outro for us you can write into ask@johnaugust.com and send us a link. If you have questions, that’s also the address to use.

On Twitter, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. And we will see you next week.

**Craig:** See ya.

Links:

* Scriptnotes, 255: [New and Old Hollywood](http://johnaugust.com/2016/new-and-old-hollywood), with guest Billy Ray
* [‘Hatton Garden Job’ Beats Other Pics About Famed UK Heist To Production](http://deadline.com/2016/06/hatton-garden-job-matthew-goode-ronnie-thompson-voltage-pictures-1201777392/) on Deadline, and our discussion in [episode 234](http://johnaugust.com/2016/the-script-graveyard)
* [Our bonus episode with Simon Kinberg](http://scriptnotes.net/writers-on-writing-simon-kinberg)
* Scriptnotes, 235: [The one with Jason Bateman and the Game of Thrones guys](http://johnaugust.com/2016/the-one-with-jason-bateman-and-the-game-of-thrones-guys)
* 250-episode Scriptnotes USB drives are [now available for purchase from the John August Store](http://store.johnaugust.com/)
* The Verge on [Aaron Sorkin’s screenwriting MasterClass](http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12007748/aaron-sorkin-screenwriting-masterclass-online-course)
* [Our bonus episode featuring Aaron Sorkin](http://scriptnotes.net/bonus-beyond-words-2016)
* [Anagnorisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagnorisis), and [how to pronounce it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFRnB-rVhUY)
* [John Oliver on Brexit, before the vote](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8)
* Steve Yedlin [On Color Science](http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/)
* [Codenames](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/178900/codenames) on Board Game Geek, and [A Fake Artist Goes to New York](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/135779/fake-artist-goes-new-york)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Scriptnotes, Ep 255: New and Old Hollywood — Transcript

June 25, 2016 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2016/new-and-old-hollywood).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August. And this is Episode 255 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is out sick today. But lucky for us we already had a guest lined up. This is a screenwriter who knows much more about the industry than me or than Craig. His name is Billy Ray. He is the screenwriter of movies ranging from Hunger Games to Flightplan to Captain Philips and the writer-director of Shattered Glass, Breach, and last year’s Secret in Their Eyes. He was the head of the most recent WGA negotiating committee. And while I was in the room with him for that he was writing the pilot for The Last Tycoon, a new Amazon series you can watch right now.

**Billy Ray:** That’s right.

**John:** Billy Ray, welcome to the show.

**Billy:** I’m really happy to be here. I think it is important that you guys are doing this.

**John:** Well, thank you.

**Billy:** Sure.

**John:** So talk to me first about why you would do this show? Let’s just start with this because I read a very limited list of your credits. You have a zillion credits. [laughs] They go all way back to like Color of Night was your first credit.

**Billy:** I can’t talk about Color of Night.

**John:** Oh, you’re not allowed to? Actually. Well, like, well —

**Billy:** [laughs] Well, let’s start with Color of Night. Okay.

**John:** That was 1994. I was still in film school back then.

**Billy:** Color of Night was a great devirginizing experience for me. And when I say great I do not mean happy. [laughs] I mean, profound.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** It was a spec that I sold that was then sort of taken out from under me and rewritten so that by the time that it got made there was not a line of mine in it. And I went to my agent and I said, “I got to take my name off this. This is not my script anymore.” And he said, “You’d never had a produced credit. So, you know, leave your name on and you’re going to be on the side of every bus that drives passed you when this movie comes out,” which was true. As that movie was coming out, it was heavily promoted. And then the movie came out. And I was crushed in those reviews like first page above the fold, the calendar section, I was called out and it was not my script. When that happens you can’t understand the feeling of that until it’s happened to you. But you kind of want to move to Finland, you know, for about two weeks. It’s just crippling. I’ve still never seen the movie and will never see the movie.

**John:** I have one of those movies. Yeah.

**Billy:** What I can tell you is there must be a Color of Night channel out there somewhere because the green envelopes do show up now and then. And on that level I’m grateful that it happened but on every other level it was a complete disaster.

**John:** So Color of Night comes out, that’s 1994. And credits thereafter —

**Billy:** So the interview is now going to be about Color of Night.

**John:** No, no, no. So you have a zillion credits and mostly as a screenwriter and then more recently as a bunch of features. And every time I would see you I said — you should direct more things and I was really trying to remind you that you are really are a good director.

**Billy:** Thank you.

**John:** The first thing I saw was Shattered Glass which was I was trying to do a rival version of that movie at the same time you —

**Billy:** Is that right?

**John:** Yeah. So I loved that story. And so I was trying to get The Fabulist which is his account of that whole situation.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** But I loved that. I loved Breach.

**Billy:** Do you want to hear something amazing?

**John:** Tell me.

**Billy:** I got an email, I do not know, six or seven months ago from a judge, retired judge who lives in Pasadena and once a month he does these screenings in a library somewhere out in Pasadena. And he invites people and he has Q&A’s afterwards. And turns out he was a big Shattered Glass fan and he asked me if I would do a Q&A with Shattered Glass and I said, “Look, I’m in the middle of shooting this pilot, The Last Tycoon. Can we do it after?” So he said, “Fine.” So we scheduled it for some moment in July. So last week he wrote to me saying, “Are we are still on for July 6th for the screening of Shattered Glasses?” I said yes. He said, “Happily, I have reached out to Stephen Glass to see if he wants to do the Q&A with you and he said yes.”

**John:** Oh my lord.

**Billy:** Yes. So on July 6th I’ll be doing a Q&A with Stephen Glass about the movie Shattered Glass.

**John:** Fantastic. For people who do not know what this actually is. My quick summary of it is Stephen Glass is a journalist who was basically faking a lot of his sources and got caught for it and your movie very brilliant just follows it all unraveling and just sort of the melting dread that sort of happens upon him.

**Billy:** Well, brilliant is a very big word for that movie, but it was a really good story and we definitely got out of its way.

**John:** All right. So you have done that movie and you are basically a person who can write almost any feature that sort of comes up around.

**Billy:** I’m sure that is not true.

**John:** Well, you are a very busy feature screenwriter so why would you do this TV show? And I was correct, right, that I was in the room with you for the negotiating committee —

**Billy:** Yes.

**John:** Like we are in there for all these hours, I would see you type-type-typing away and that was on this pilot.

**Billy:** That’s right.

**John:** So how did this come to be?

**Billy:** Well, actually it happened all because of my wife. There were these two women who knew each other, one was my mother-in-law and the other was her dear friend Lynn. And Lynn had a friend named Josh Maurer who is a producer who said I have the rights to The Last Tycoon by Fitzgerald. And my wife heard about this through her mother and put me together with Josh. At that point I really had no interest in doing TV. It was Fitzgerald. And embarrassingly enough, I had never read the book.

**John:** I never read the book. So I saw your pilot last night and I had a framework for sort of where it fit, but I didn’t really know. So for people who don’t know, it is a Fitzgerald — is it a completed novel or was it — ?

**Billy:** Fitzgerald died while he was writing the book.

**John:** So the story takes place in Hollywood.

**Billy:** Hollywood in 1936 and it’s the story of Monroe Stahr who was Fitzgerald’s take on Irving Thalberg, who was an employer of Fitzgerald when Fitzgerald was at MGM. Stahr is the boy wonder who runs the studio that is owned by a man named Pat Brady who is played by Kelsey Grammer. And Pat Brady, for me, although I think he was based loosely on Mayer when Fitzgerald was writing, I based him more on Harry Cohn who is more a little bit of a gruff vulgarian kind of guy.

But Brady has this daughter named Cecilia who is 19, who is in love with Monroe Stahr. That power triangle is sort of the dynamic that Fitzgerald was writing about. I fell in love with it. I just thought it was the greatest thing ever. Although it feels presumptuous to say you’re going to finish something that F. Scott Fitzgerald started, I didn’t really ever feel that way about it. I thought we were going to be telling pieces of the Hollywood 1936 story that Fitzgerald actually could not have told. For example the influence of Nazi Germany on what movies were made in Hollywood 1936. And we were going to talk about what it was like to have all of this happening in the middle of the Depression which Fitzgerald really didn’t want to touch on.

So, the juxtaposition of the glamour of Hollywood, the fantasy of Hollywood versus the reality of the influence of Hitler creeping across the Atlantic Ocean and the Depression. That was just irresistible to me. So I went in to meet on it. The rights were owned by Sony TV and I thought I’m very much an unknown commodity in television. So if we’re going to pitch this, I should really know what the hell I’m talking about. So I went on spec and wrote the bible for the show, which laid out five seasons of the show. And I was just doing it so that I’d be prepared when we went in to that first pitch, you know, there’s a line in the pilot where Monroe Stahr says, “I’m not talented enough to be unprepared.” You know, Monroe got that line from me. That’s how I feel.

But what I noticed was when I went into my office to work on the bible, I’d go in there at 8:00 in the morning and I would look up, it would be 6:00 in the afternoon, I wouldn’t know where the day had done. I mean, it was just bliss. Because I love screenwriting and screenwriting has been very, very good to me, but there is something about the forced economy of a hundred and ten pages versus “oh, I have five years” to arc this character. Let’s see where this guy can go. Let see what would happen with this relationship. It was just so much fun to be in there throwing all that around. By the time I was done, the bible was, I don’t know, 120 pages.

**John:** Lord.

**Billy:** And when it came time to go pitch, I was ready. And we pitched it at six places. And although I would not —

**John:** So let me talk through, so this is a Sony property, so Sony TV would be the studio behind it.

**Billy:** They are the studio.

**John:** So we’ve had previous guests who sort of described how things fit together. Jonathan Groff was talking about how Sony TV is in a sort of unique place because they sell to everybody else but they don’t have their own network, so you need to find some place to be the network to air this.

**Billy:** That’s right, which gets tricky when it comes time for the studio and the network to make a deal if they don’t have a template deal in place which I found out to my chagrin. But anyway we pitched it at six places and although I would not recommend this, the pitch was an hour. It was literally me talking for an hour. That was after I was set up by my partner who’s going to run the show, Chris Keyser, who did a brilliant job in those rooms.

**John:** Chris Keyser, former President of WGA.

**Billy:** Former President of the Guild and very dear friend and brilliant writer and probably the best note-giver in the history of writing. He sort of set the table for me in all those meetings and interjected in exactly the right kind of way, but it was basically me talking. And we actually got yesses in five out of those six rooms, which was pretty thrilling. And we started to develop it with HBO but then we found out that HBO and Sony had a very hard time making a deal which took, I don’t know, four or five months to resolve.

And while that was happening, I just wrote the pilot because I just didn’t have time to wait. The development at HBO was really tricky because they were always intending to make Vinyl and I don’t think they were ever serious about making another show set in a period that was about show business. So we were always kind of fighting an uphill fight and the people we were fighting against Martin Scorsese and Mick Jagger, so we were going to lose that one. By the time the script was done, it was very clear HBO wasn’t going to make it and we got very lucky Amazon wanted to.

It was the favorite book of Roy Price when he was in college. He was very hands-on in the development, pushed the script in I think a very, very smart direction because he kept wanting the romance of the novel, which I think I had resisted when I was writing at HBO, I was trying to write darker version of the story. So I don’t know how many drafts I’ve done but it’s upwards of 40 by the time we actually went to go shoot.

**John:** So you went off and directed the pilot. Was that shot here in town?

**Billy:** All LA.

**John:** All LA.

**Billy:** At Paramount.

**John:** That’s great. I felt like I recognized some familiar backlot which is actually completely appropriate in this case because it’s a backlot sort of drama.

**Billy:** It’s our set.

**John:** It’s our set. It is strange to be making a show about Hollywood for Amazon which is sort of the new force in Hollywood. There’s a delicious sort of irony in the fact that you’re trying to talk about this old studio system and meanwhile you’re at this sort of tipping point where it’s not really quite clear what’s going to happen next with both features and with television as these new models come in.

**Billy:** Well, it’s getting clearer.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** And not in a good way.

**John:** Right, yeah. [Laughs]

**Billy:** At least to me.

**John:** We’ve talked about this on the show before, like the good things about it is there are more buyers and when there are more buyers —

**Billy:** Yes.

**John:** There’s more stuff getting made. And that’s fantastic —

**Billy:** That’s fantastic.

**John:** For everyone.

**Billy:** That’s fantastic.

**John:** It’s really challenging to get certain kinds of features made, the kinds of features that your characters are trying to make in your show —

**Billy:** That’s right.

**John:** Would never get made.

**Billy:** No way.

**John:** No way.

**Billy:** You know, go try to sell Kramer vs. Kramer today, which was a big hit.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** You just can’t do it. I think that television has provided such incredible opportunities, particularly for writers, because the storytelling there is so interesting. For me, as I was writing this pilot, I had a very clear target in my head. I revere Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Mad Men, and as a matter of fact as I was writing the pilot I had a rule for myself which was if I had written a line that I didn’t think was good enough to be in a Mad Men episode I had to come up with another line.

And I was trying to apply that kind of rigor to every single choice we were making in the script. Trying to tell the story as visually as possible, trying to do all those things that Mad Men and those other shows do just so automatically. That’s the great news is that television now has those kinds of “tent poles” out there, I use that word semi-ironically. The bad news is that partially because of that features have completely surrendered that ground to television, and I think that’s really a dangerous thing.

I don’t know if there are executives that listen to this, but I believe that 15 years from now, 20 years from now I think there’s going to be some sort of semi-Nuremberg kind of trial where all the executives of today are going to be standing on a docket and someone like you is going to be saying, “Where were you when the art of movies just went down the sewer? When this uniquely American art form was completely sacrificed? What were you doing about that?” And I don’t think any of them will have an answer. And that’s a sad thing.

**John:** Well, they were trying to make the movie that needed to fit into that slot at this time. Like, it’s very easy to see sort of like a bunch of very rational decisions made step by step by step by step can take you to a place where you’re not making the kinds of movies you should have been making this whole time through. And so, most of these executives who I think are listening, they do have a sense of like once per year we get to make something that is the Oscary kind of movie and you had an opportunity to make that kind of movie.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** Captain Phillips is exactly the kind of movie that each studio makes one of those per year.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** And hopes it is good enough and gets the Oscars and gets the acclaim it needs to get. But not more than one. I mean —

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** I know, except here is the problem. You’ve got a generation of film watchers out there who still think Hollywood can come up with that kind of stuff. They’re eventually going to stop going to the movies and they’re going to be replaced by new generation of filmgoers who have no expectations of that kind for Hollywood. They’re just there to see superhero movies. They’re just there to see IP turned into movies.

And that generation has now seen the planet threatened in every movie they go to and they’ve seen every CGI image that could possibly be generated. And the problem with movies that are generated inside a computer is that when any image is possible, no image is that impressive anymore. And I think we are raising the bar for what it’s going to take to dazzle people to such a degree that eventually you’re just going to have a movie that’s just an hour and 20 minutes of explosions, because I don’t know what else you can do if it’s not going to be about character, story, and theme.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Which as I said, I think we’re surrendering to television.

**John:** So this last fall I went and saw an early cut of your movie Secret in Their Eyes, which you made for STX. And I remember seeing the initial credit as it showed up like what the hell is STX? I was like, oh, it’s a new studio, it’s like a new place that’s doing a movie. And I loved seeing your cut and I was so happy that your movie got made and it got out there in the world and it didn’t sort of set the world on fire.

**Billy:** Nope.

**John:** So what was it like sort of going, I mean, it’s so much time and so much energy to get a movie made and to get a movie cut. You put everything you have into it and what did it feel like for it not to land?

**Billy:** I’m glad we’re talking about this, because I know that there are a lot of writers listening and I wanted to make sure that when we sat down today that we spent at least a little bit of time talking about failure, because you have to learn from it and you have to survive it. You have to grow from it.

That experience for me was a total humiliation. I remember about three or four days before that movie came out when I started to see what those reviews were going to be and the tracking, what that was looking like.

**John:** So the tracking being, it’s the advance look at sort of where they think your movie is going to open in terms of Box Office.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** They basically do surveys to figure out within a range what they think you’re going to open at.

**Billy:** And our tracking numbers had always been okay. Then if you remember Paris happened a week before we opened and all of a sudden our tracking numbers just went off the cliff.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Which has nothing to do with the reviews by the way but it didn’t help. I sat my kids down and I said, “Okay, your dad is about to get punched in the face in public and I’m not happy about it. But if I am going to enjoy the ride that is Captain Phillips or The Hunger Games, I have to expose myself to this. You cannot have one without the risk of the other. So we’re going to survive it and we’re going to learn from it and we’re going to move on.”

I stopped reading reviews. I stopped reading the Calendar and have not read the Calendar since because I just didn’t want to see some mention in there that was kind of snarky or mean. I didn’t watch any screeners for the entire Christmas season. I just couldn’t watch anyone else’s movie because I thought I want everything else to suck right now.

**John:** Yeah. I know what that feels like.

**Billy:** I’m in such a bad place. I’m rooting for everything else to be terrible and that’s not a fun way to watch a movie.

**John:** No.

**Billy:** And nobody wants to be around a person who’s watching a movie that way. It changed me in a lot of, I think, profound ways which is not to say that I’m profound, but I’m saying the experience was. I used to really enjoy the bad reviews that other people got. Secret in Their Eyes knocked the fun out of that experience out of me forever.

I now know what that feels like. It was hubris on my part. I thought coming off of Shattered Glass and Breach and Captain Phillips, I was sort of the critics’ boy and I just didn’t think they would do that to me and that’s ridiculous, that’s hubris, which I then became aware of really quickly and paid a penance for. It’s not an experience that I would wish on anybody. I was enormously lucky. That movie came out on November 20th. I was already in prep on Tycoon. So, I had a bad weekend. But that Monday, November 23rd, I was back at work. I was prepping Tycoon which was this incredibly joyous piece of material, I mean, it was Hollywood 1936 and it was F. Scott Fitzgerald and everybody was so happy to be there.

Everyone on the crew who loves movies and loves what movie can be, they were so excited by every single prop, every single costume, every single hairstyle. And I just went back to work. There’s nothing else you can do.

**John:** It is a different thing with my movie The Nines, you know, it came and it went but it came and it went in very much a Sundance kind of way. Like most of those movies, there’s not an expectation it’s going to set the world on fire, so like I had all the buildup and then it’s like — and then it’s done. And it’s like, you know, it never expands. It never goes beyond the place. It’s like, all right, that happens. That’s the kind of way it is.

And then I’ve had movies that I was the writer that tanked. In some cases like I knew a long time ago that it was going to tank and it wasn’t sort of — they weren’t my babies. But it is very different when it’s all of your energy is on that thing. It’s like being a TV showrunner and having your show get yanked off the air, you know, in its first week.

**Billy:** Yeah. Part of it is when you’re a director, you’re a leader and you are there to inspire people and get them to follow you over that hill and if you do it well everybody buys in and they follow you over the hill. And on Secret, it’s very tough for me to assess it creatively. When I say it was a humiliation, I don’t mean that I’m embarrassed by the movie. I mean, I’m embarrassed by the reviews. And I’m embarrassed by the box office, and right now I’m sorry I made it, right now I certainly wish I had not made it. But, making a movie is a little bit like raising a kid, you know, it takes you 20 years to find out if you did a good job or not.

I can look back on Shattered Glass which was a movie that got released in 2003 and I’ve had enough time away from that movie now. I can assess it. I know how I feel about that movie. I know how I feel about Breach. I won’t know how I really feel about Secret in Their Eyes until 2036. So we’ll have to redo this then and it’s possible that in 2036 I’ll say, “Critics were right. I shouldn’t have made that movie. It was dumb to remake such a beloved Argentine movie or the choices that I made in remaking it were stupid.” But it’s very possible that I’ll say, “I think they were wrong. I think they were unfair.” Again, I just won’t know until enough time has passed.

**John:** So what is the lesson you can take from this? Does it make it harder for you to get another movie to direct done? Or did it change the kind of movie that you would try to do next to direct? Has it impacted your screenwriting life at all? My hunch is that people will perceive that as this movie directed by Billy Ray didn’t work but we know Billy Ray can write all these other movies because he’s always written all these other movies. So I wonder if it impacts both sides of your career.

**Billy:** I don’t think it had any impact at all on my screenwriting career, none. And I didn’t test whether not it had an impact on my directing career because I didn’t try to direct another feature right after that. Again, I fell right into Tycoon. I can’t tell you how lucky I was to have that to dive into. I just didn’t have time to sit around and think about it, you know. The thing about athletes is if they fail, they have another game the next day.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Billy:** And they get a chance to sort of rewrite themselves and there are stories about, you know, relief pitchers who were supposed to be closers who give up a gigantic homerun that ends a season in the playoffs or the World Series and they don’t have a game to play the next day and sometimes they wind up shooting themselves because it’s just too long to think about the period of failure. It happened very famously to a guy named Donnie Moore who pitched for the California Angels in ’86. But anyway, I had Last Tycoon to dive into which was a chance to direct again and it was a chance to do something very, very different. So, we’ll see.

**John:** We’ll see. And so with Last Tycoon as an Amazon pilot, it is now up there for people to look at, so there will be a link in the show notes so people can click through and watch it?

**Billy:** Yes.

**John:** And after watching it they can tell Amazon how great it was and that they should order it series. That’s essentially the stage you’re at right now, right?

**Billy:** Let’s hope they feel that way. The other thing about Secret is I do not look at reviews anymore.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** So, I’m told we’re doing great.

**John:** [laughs]

**Billy:** We launched this morning at 6:00. I’m told everything is going great and lots of five-star reviews are happening but I will not look.

John august: Yeah, don’t look.

**Billy:** I will not look, because I’m the wrong personality type for this. I’ve learned that about myself. Chris Keyser who is going to run the show with me happens to be in Europe right now and he called me this morning to say that we had just launched. And he called me to say that on Amazon UK, we’ve gotten 17 customer reviews and sixteen of them are five stars.

**John:** Well, that’s great.

**Billy:** And I said, “Who was that seventeenth review?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** That is where my head goes.

**John:** Yeah, of course.

**Billy:** So, I’m the wrong guy to be looking at reviews.

**John:** Cool. Let’s go back to feature land —

**Billy:** Yeah.

**John:** And I want to look at a video that Vanity Fair put out that says, “How much does everyone working on a $200 million movie earn?” So we’ll have a link in the show notes to it, it is about a four-minute video, but really we’re only curious about above the line basically.

**Billy:** [laughs]

**John:** Because we’re writers [laughs]

**Billy:** It does not mean bellow the line is not important, it just means it’s not what we’re talking about today.

**John:** Indeed. And we don’t necessarily know — have a great insight into like sort of how much those below the line people make, but we do know how much the above the line people make. So —

**Billy:** Yeah.

**John:** The video which you’ll see a link to in the show notes, it takes a theoretical $200 million movie and the guy that put it together basically went through a bunch of different budgets and sort of averaged out what he saw between these budgets. What did you think?

**Billy:** See, it looks about right.

**John:** Great. So, this is what they are listing for these different amounts. So, the director of this $200 million movie, $4 million paid. That seem right?

**Billy:** Yeah, that seems right, but obviously plus some back-end participation.

**John:** And so if it was a newer director it might not be that high —

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** And a super-experienced director might be higher than that.

**Billy:** Absolutely.

**John:** But $4million felt right. The thing that gave me a little bit of pause is that this video listed executive producers before producers which to me suggested that this person wasn’t as familiar with the order of credits. Executive producers would have been listed after producer.

**Billy:** Okay.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Fair enough.

**John:** These executive producers, a million basically each. Feel about right?

**Billy:** Yeah, sounds right on a $200 million movie.

**John:** So, let’s think about who those people would be on $200 million dollar movie. So they are — they could be someone at the director’s company, the person who runs the company with the director.

**Billy:** Yeah. Although I would bet that person is probably a producer, not an executive producer.

**John:** Yeah, that’s probably true. Could be the author of the book?

**Billy:** Could be the author of the book, could be someone who controlled the rights to the book.

**John:** For sure. Then there were three producers listed, each at a million dollars. So, producers’ slot, that could have been the director’s producing partner —

**Billy:** Easily.

**John:** It could have been the former studio executive who —

**Billy:** [Laughs]

**John:** Who got booted out of the studio.

**Billy:** Absolutely.

**John:** And then the writers. Let us talk about the writers.

**Billy:** By the way, one of those producers could actually be the person who really produced the movie. In other words, like a line producer —

**Billy:** Absolutely.

**Billy:** Who was of such value, that they actually got a producer credit.

**John:** Yeah, and that’s a wonderful thing.

**Billy:** Although sometimes line producers wind up getting executive producer credit.

**John:** Yeah, while we’re at the producer level, we would see, after some of them, a PGA which means Producers Guild of America.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** And so, it’s not the guild in the same way that the Writers Guild is a guild —

**Billy:** No.

**John:** But it is a group of producers who look at each movie and say, like, “Who really did the job of producing?”

**Billy:** That is right.

**John:** And they determine who gets that actual thing.

**Billy:** That’s right.

**John:** Writers, so there are three writers listed in this $200 million movie. The first one at $3.2 million, the second at $900,000. The third one at $250,000.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** So this one doesn’t list those writers with any ands or ampersands. We don’t know if there’s any teams.

**Billy:** Okay.

**John:** If there were three writers listed, there would have likely have been a team. They could have all been ands I guess together.

**Billy:** Okay, I could give you a scenario for that one.

**John:** All right.

**Billy:** The scenario for that one is that the second writer, the one who is making $900,000.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Okay. The second writer, let’s just say that that second writer was the first writer aboard and did a ton of work on it and got paid well. And then they decided that writer just had no more in the tank.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Then the third writer, the one who made $250,000, was some hot shot like straight out of Sundance or NYU and everyone said, “Oh my god, this guy has got the greatest take. Or this girl has got the greatest take on how to fix this particular script.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** So they came in, one draft, and then everyone said, “Okay, this is a total disaster.” So, 250, but some of it stayed in.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Then they brought in —

**John:** The closer.

**Billy:** A big hit —

**John:** They brought in Billy Ray.

**Billy:** Let’s not say anyone in particular, but they brought in somebody because there are a number of people out there who could do this kind of work and that person and the director completely fell in love.

And so it started off as a weekly, which is how the number got high fast, and then it became an all services contract because the director said, “I am not going off and making this movie without this person next to me.” And so all of a sudden it became that gigantic number.

**John:** The other scenario, I mean, 3.2 felt really high but the other scenario I was thinking of, if this was a big-name sort of first writer who got like a million — a million against a million and then there was also some backend stuff that it would be very hard for those other two writers to exist in that situation.

**Billy:** That is why I think it goes the other way.

**John:** I think you are probably right. So, coming in as a weekly is one of those situations where the movie had a whole bunch of troubles. It just kept going on forever and they just basically kept paying that writer’s weekly.

**Billy:** Here is a thing about that. It has happened to me a couple of times. There is one moment in the history of any movie where the writer has any juice, I mean any, and it’s that moment. They’ve done ten drafts with three or four writers. They are millions into the development of the script. They know they want to make the movie and they don’t have a daft they can shoot.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** And they are all panicking. Everyone is afraid they’re going to get fired. Everyone is kind of losing their marbles for a second there and for one moment the writer walks in and is the grown up in the room and very calmly says, “Okay, I’ve looked at the material. Here is what’s not working. Here is what I think we need to fix. Here is how I plan to address it.” And in that moment you have the power.

**John:** Yeah, totally.

**Billy:** Everyone is saying, “Oh my god, somebody is going to save us.” Now, by the way, the next day you’re still just the writer, but at least in that meeting you have some juice and it’s a great feeling.

**John:** It is a great feeling. A couple of a times in my career I have been that person who came in and have done that. John Lee Hancock famously does that. And it is a great moment when you sort of can see like, “I know how to do this, I know how to keep everybody calm.”

Billy Rey: Right

**John:** And honestly if the director believes in you but also like one of the actors believes in you, if like Will Smith believes in you —

**Billy:** You’re gold.

**John:** And does not want you to leave, you’re there.

Billy Rey: You are gold. Now, the thing about doing a weekly and I haven’t done that many of them, by the end of a weekly, and I do not mean to compare writing to digging coal, it’s not. It’s not as hard as working in a coal mine, but in relative terms, you are so fried by the end of that process you begin to feel like a really well-paid typist.

**John:** Completely.

**Billy:** Because at the very end you’re sitting in a room with eight people, they all have 12 drafts in front of them, and I go back to the days when these were on paper, right, not just on computers. And by the end they know they have you for one more day and they’re saying, “Can you give us this scene from this draft and this scene from that draft and this scene from this draft.” And you are sort of taking dictation.

And you come away from, at least I do, you come away from a weekly convinced you have no talent. And I never need a rest. I never ever, ever need to stop working. After a weekly I need about two days where I am just kind of a zombie. I don’t think it is a bad fit for what it is I’m capable of doing. I just do not like doing it.

**John:** Yeah, especially because sometimes you’re a weekly, but you go to wherever the production is, and so therefore you are like trying to do this in a hotel room while all of this other stuff is crazy and you’re on strange hours and —

**Billy:** That I would not do because I don’t like to be away from my family. There are certain people who are great away from their family. I’m not one of them. There is no weekly that could pull me away from Los Angeles. I just wouldn’t do it.

**John:** The other thing I want to talk about with this list of credits is the writers, like, they’re listing these three writers here but maybe not necessary those were the people who got credited. So, if this person is looking at the budget, there’s honestly a lot of writing that may not be reflected on the credits. And so like —

**Billy:** Absolutely.

**John:** A bunch of money is spent in development.

**Billy:** Of course.

**John:** So, it is kind of impossible that, like, this total aggregate number might be accurate but, like, the actual writers who were credited didn’t get paid as much as that.

**Billy:** Oh, no question.

**John:** Lead actor $12 million, second actor 4.5, third actor 1.5.

**Billy:** There aren’t that many lead actors who can get that number.

**John:** Twelve million went away, sort of, it’s —

**Billy:** What that number was, it’s something that Peter Chernin once said to me, when I was about to — the first time that I was co-chairing the negotiating committee for the Writers Guild. To get ready to go into those negotiations, I felt like I didn’t know enough and so I wanted to go do the work that a journalist would do to sort of learn how these negotiations work.

So, aside from talking to everyone at the Writers Guild to prepare myself, I started talking to people who were in the AMPTP and one of them was Chernin who, you know, was a very major force in the strike in 2007 to 2008 but now it was 2011.

**John:** Yeah. And now he’s a producer.

**Billy:** He’s a producer. He’s no longer in a studio head, so I wrote to him and I said, “Can I come interview you?”

So we sat down and I wanted to hear what that negotiation was like, with that strike was like from the other side of the table. I thought that would be valuable information for me. And he was forthcoming and great. But one of the things that he said to me was what a seismic change the business had undergone since the DVD market have flat-lined. He said the margins for the movie business were so good when DVDs were selling like they were selling before that market matured and he said, “However, we didn’t handle that profit well. What we did with that profit was we gave it in $20 million chunks to actors.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** And once that market dried up, those $20-million paydays just went away.

**John:** Yeah. All right. The last credit here that seemed high for me that maybe you would know this better. Second unit director is listed at $1 million. That felt high, but maybe I guess some of these movies that a second unit director really is making that much money.

**Billy:** I’ve never seen it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** What I can tell you is if you have a director who insists on a specific second unit director, it’s possible.

**John:** Okay. That’s fair. So a $200 million movie that came out this last week is Warcraft which was an incredibly expensive adaptation of the very successful video game. It did not perform well in the US whatsoever but it performed incredibly well in China. So a bunch of stories this last week about how this movie wasn’t even sort of made for America in a certain sense. It didn’t need to do well in America because it was going to do so well in China. We sort of weren’t even paying attention to like how much it was essentially a Chinese movie with American actors in it.

**Billy:** This is kind of a stunning statistic.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** So I may have to say it twice. Every single day 15 new movie screens go up in China.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Every day. Think about that.

**John:** Yeah, so, I mean —

**Billy:** That is what you call an exploding marketplace. Capitalism is a voracious animal and it doesn’t stop and reflect. It just keeps moving forward and devouring things and it goes where the profit is. And the profit right now is in China.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** So, of course, a capitalist animal is going to start moving in that direction and all the studios have. You know, there’s a storyline in Last Tycoon and I don’t mean to bring this back in a promotional way. But in The Last Tycoon there is a storyline about how Monroe Stahr and Pat Brady run the studio and they can’t make a movie that might offend Germany.

**John:** Yes.

**Billy:** Because Germany is such an important —

**John:** It was the number two market in the world.

**Billy:** Number two foreign market in the world. And that happens to be true by the way. Hitler had passed this thing called the Article 15 which forbade the exhibition of any American by a studio that had offended Germany with some other movie.

Anyway, if you take out the word Germany and put in the word China, it’s the exact same conversation that’s happening today. And I know a number of writers who have written movies that may have a line or two that seemed like a poke at China. And those lines come out of the movies.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** I was for just a brief period of time working on something on Warner Brothers where they said to me, “Your bad guy is Chinese. You just got to make them Russian.” I said, “Why?” They said, “We don’t want to offend China?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** And I guess they do not care about offending Russia. That’s not good for storytelling, but it is where storytelling is going right now. And what you’ll see as a result of that is more action, right, because action doesn’t really need to be translated. And I think with a lot less nuance. And it will become tougher. It will require much more courage to make movies that are something other than that.

**John:** Absolutely. People often say like, “Oh, well, it’s common for movies to make more overseas than they do in the US.”

**Billy:** It didn’t used to be.

**John:** Yeah. But, I mean, over the last ten years that needle has crossed over and so like Star Wars: Force Awakens, huge in the US, but it made 54% of its money overseas. What is unique is this is the first time where 90% of this, of Warcraft’s money, is coming from overseas and so much of it is coming from China. It is also a case where Legendary, the studio behind it, is now owned by a Chinese company. It is owned by the Chinese company that owns the movie theaters.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** And so, uniquely you have a closed market. There are only certain movies that can get released in China theatrically. But if you own the movie theaters, there is a very good chance you are going to be able to release that movie theatrically. So, in some ways, it goes back to the really old sort of studio system —

**Billy:** That’s right.

**John:** Where they used to own their own theaters and where a Paramount Theater that was owned by Paramount. And they could make the money the whole way through. They were vertically integrated in ways that are not allowed to be integrated theatrically anymore.

**Billy:** That is right. And they all did it except Colombia. Harry Cohn decided he didn’t want to own theaters.

**John:** Again Sony, they never own both parts.

**Billy:** [laughs] It’s in their DNA.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** But there was a reason that the United States government stepped in and said, “No. You can’t own the theaters and own the product,” just like it used to be in television that you couldn’t own the network and produce for the network if you were the same entity. It is not good for the product. It’s not good for competition. I have surprisingly little say over what people do in China.

**John:** [laughs]

**Billy:** They just never call and ask if I think it’s a good idea for the same company that owns the theaters to be the company that’s producing the movies. So I imagine that’ll keep going.

**John:** So let’s talk about TV again because this sense that you cannot be the studio and be the network has basically all gone away.

**Billy:** Gone away. That was Fin-syn.

**John:** Yeah, it’s Fin-syn. It’s done. So your show is made for Sony but it’s being distributed through Amazon. Classically, the story they always told us about TV is that you have to make a hundred episodes of TV a shows or else it’s lost.

**Billy:** That’s over.

**John:** Yeah, yeah. It was deficit financing up until you made a hundred. So that was the magic number at which syndication kicked in and then shows became profitable.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** So you just be very thankful that we’re putting your show on the air at all because we’re losing money until we get to that magic hundred number.

**Billy:** That is right. Now because all of these AMPTP companies, remember we’re talking about six companies that essentially control 95% of the media that’s produced and distributed in the United States, or the world. Because those are all publicly-held companies, the people who run those companies have to stand in front of stockholders. And they have to explain how much money they’re making. It’s a matter of law. So when the owner of a network stands up and says that a show like Under the Dome was in profit before it shot a frame a film, that’s on the record.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** That’s not something that people can walk away from. The model has changed now based on foreign sales, based on all sorts of revenue streams that exist that need to bundle a hundred episodes and then go into distribution heaven. There’s just no such thing anymore, it’s not required. There are so many more ways to squeeze money out of a show now. That’s another reason why TV is a great business.

You know, you look at the impact of DVRs and you think, “Okay. I don’t know anyone who watches commercials anymore unless it’s a football game. How are networks still making money? How are they still in business? Why are they still at the upfronts dropping billions of dollars?” And yet they do. It works great. And the reason is because, again, capitalism being this constantly moving animal, the networks and the studios have found a way to exploit foreign markets and exploit by the way all the different platforms on which things can be screened. And so it’s just a great business, a greater business than ever. I mean, those six companies are going to generate $49 billion in profit this year.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Which is extraordinary and which we will be reminding them off when we sit down to negotiate with them very shortly.

**John:** Yeah. It does strike me as strange that whenever we sort of go into a negotiation stance with the studios, it’s always like, “Oh, there’s so much turmoil, it’s like it’s so difficult for us to make money.”

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** And then, you know, years where we’re not doing that, they’re happy to report all their profits to —

**Billy:** Right. No, it’s the same story, look.

**John:** But what has changed is that it has become much more clear. We had Aline on recently and I was trying to tell her that like she gets all nervous about Crazy Ex-girlfriend which is a fantastic show and one some level like feeling bad that it’s not a bigger hit. And I keep trying to remind her like they’re still making money. Like don’t —

**Billy:** Oh, they’re doing great.

**John:** Yeah, they’re absolutely fine.

**Billy:** Look it is such a shell game. It’s extraordinary. When people are running a show, they have so much pressure put on them because a studio will say, “Okay, you have X amount to make this show,” and of that X amount here is your portion that goes to the writer’s room. And so the showrunner looks at that number and says, “Oh, my God, like this is just not enough to put enough people around this table.” So, I have to do something really stupid like paper teaming. I have to take these two people and tell them, “I know you’ve never met but you’re now going to be a team and you’re going to get paid as one person.” There’s a lot of that going on.

**John:** Yeah, it forces writers into this situation of making like questionable choices that hurt other writers.

**Billy:** That’s right. And within the context of that given show, that showrunner is actually doing the best job they can with the resources that have provided to them. However, what they’re not getting, the shell game part they’re not getting is that the studio for which they’re doing this is making billions of dollars and it’s a portfolio business. You have to sort of step back and look at the whole canvass. And if it’s Fox or if it’s any of those other studios, they have plenty of money and, of course, they could put more money into the writer’s budget of that given show and still be doing great.

But what they have decided is that the reason that they’re making $49 billion is because they have found all these revenue streams but they have kept constant downward pressure on cost. And for them, why would they change that formula if they don’t have to change that formula. It’s part of our job as a negotiating committee to acquaint them with the facts of what that actually means and to make them re-examine and then change that formula because it’s just fair that they do and I think necessary.

**John:** You raised that idea earlier about putting up a big sign on the WGA that’s like a big moving billboard.

**Billy:** Oh, the scrolling thing. Where did you hear that idea?

**John:** I think you told me at some dinner we had.

**Billy:** This is my fantasy.

**John:** All right, so tell me about the fantasy.

**Billy:** Okay, what the American Cancer Society did on this one building in West LA, they just have this rolling tote board that tells you the number of smoking deaths as it grows over the course of the year. I’d like to that with AMPTP profits. I think outside of the Writers Guild there should be an electronic rolling tote board that’s just keeps churning millions into billions of dollars so that is —

**John:** Not just revenues but actual profits. That’s the thing.

**Billy:** Yeah, profits, as the year progresses we’d be getting closer to that $49 billion number. And then no one would have to ask why it is we have to renegotiate our deal. We never talked about the Writers Guild vote.

**John:** Well, let’s talk about the Writers Guild vote.

**Billy:** Oh, my god. Okay. All right. So, this vote that came up and I know that you and Craig and Michael Oates Palmer were allied on this one.

**John:** So, this is the decision about the amendments to —

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** Whether the term should go up to, was it four years or three years?

**Billy:** Three.

**John:** So, from two years to three years. The WGA board had all agreed to do that but it went to a vote of the —

**Billy:** Right. What was critical was not that we were extending it or attempting to extend it from two years to three years. What was critical is that we were trying to tie it to negotiations so that there would never be a year where the board was coming up for elections and we were negotiating a contract at the same time. That was the idea.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** And as someone who has now co-chaired that committee twice, I can tell you, it’s not a good thing that we’re in the middle of negotiations and trying to put together a negotiating committee and people are busy grandstanding which is what you have to do when you run for office. That’s why the board voted 15 to 1 to support this.

And I went out of my way not to do a lot of campaigning about it. I just thought I’ll let the chips fall where they may. And I kept hearing about the rabble rousing going on between you and Mazin and Michael Oates Palmer, who was the one on the board who voted against it. And I decided, no, I’m just going to keep my powder dry and not fire on this one. And as it turns out, I think 64% of the guild voted yes, we needed two-thirds. I forget the exact number but I think we were eight votes shy. I have a very hard time forgiving myself because I know I could have convinced eight people. I know it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** Or I could have come on this show and we could have a very healthy back and forth about it and I should have. I should have. That was laziness on my part and I think as a guild, I think we’ll pay a price for it. I don’t think it’ll be horrible. There’s not going to be blood.

**John:** Billy, I mean, Craig could do a better job defending this than me, but I do agree with him. We’ve never had, it’s always been two years and it hasn’t killed us to this point.

**Billy:** Right.

**John:** And I think the danger, and the danger which we have raised on the podcast, was extending to three years, it feels really great when you have really wonderful people like you and we kept singling you out as like the person we want.

**Billy:** Oh, thank you.

**John:** And so, I mean, you should listen to the episode. We single you out as the person we want to have to make sure is always there and is there for three years. There are certain people who get on that board —

**Billy:** Did you name them?

**John:** Craig named a few.

**Billy:** Did he really? Oh my god. [laughs]

**John:** I’m not sure if it made it to the edit, but he really did name a few.

**Billy:** Oh, my god, I got to talk to him off-camera.

**John:** So, there are people who you don’t want to be there for three years and you want to make sure you can, when you see things going wrong, you can get those idiots off the board. And so the only reason, I will tell you, that I understand that trying to not link stuff up, but the only reason we did that was because of the stupid people on the board for three years versus two years and we’ve all been through situations where people have taken control of the board and it’s not been a good happy outcome, so those were our reasons.

**Billy:** Well, I hear you. Here is how I would challenge that.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** I’ve now served on the Writers Guild board for, I guess I’m in my 7th year. I’ll be termed out a year and a half from now.

**John:** Yeah.

**Billy:** I also serve on the Board of Governors of the Academy. And I just want to paint a picture for you about how different those two experiences are, okay? Everybody who’s on the Writers Guild board is there because they care about writers, they care about writing, and they know how hard it is to make living as a writer. In no way are they there for self-aggrandizement. It really is altruism. They really do want to dig in and do a great job for writers. And I’ve never met anyone on the board who had any agenda other than that.

It’s very different on the Academy Board of Governors where there are a number of people on that board who don’t feel relevant but they’re relevance is completely tied to their being a governor. And they maybe haven’t worked in 20 years but they’re still a governor. That’s a very different board. It functions in a very different way and not as well. So, a long winded way of saying, there is no one on that board that you really need to get rid of inside of three years. And even if there were, nobody outside that board would know because I can tell you having served with a bunch of different people on that board, the handful of people on that board that might annoy me personally, I would never say so publicly. There would never be any indication publicly that anyone out in the membership would know about and therefore have to or want to act upon and no one on that board has ever done any damage, ever. It’s just not the kind of board that would allow for that, it’s too democratic in nature.

**John:** No, no, no, there have been situations where slates of people have come on board and those slates can be incredibly dangerous and having those —

**Billy:** Totally agree.

**John:** And having those dangerous slates on there for three years versus two years is a real concern of mine. And my concern isn’t about the actual people who are there right now, it is envisioning scenarios in which a bunch of idiots do get on there and it becomes very hard to get them off. And that’s really the scenario that I’m envisioning for this.

I would say I don’t think the Academy being quite as applicable because the worst that happens when you have a bunch bad people on the Academy board is that like they make some stupid choices about sort of like hosting the Oscars or sort of the new museum, but they’re not like shutting down the film industry for an ill-conceived labor action. And it’s peoples’ livelihood and so I think peoples’ livelihood is a very different situation than the important but not as, you know, day-to-day crucial like what is films’ legacy in America.

**Billy:** I hear you. I would say that what you guys were worried about was a bit of a nuclear scenario; having a bad slate that is entrenched in power for three years that you can’t get rid of. And I can understand why that would sound pretty daunting. I’d say the likelihood of that is very, very low when compared with the 100% likelihood that you’re going to have elections that happen during a negotiation period which hurts our negotiations.

**John:** Yeah, but I honestly, I understand your perspective on that but I will say, as the person watching you lead the negotiating committee, I feel like the job of the negotiating committee and the reason why you have all these other big-main people who are on the negotiating committee who are not part of the board is that it insulates the change of the leadership within the board. Because the negotiating committee is the people who are actually sitting across the table from the AMPTP and those are the big-name writers who they want to make sure are actually delivering their TV episodes next week. So, I think the negotiating committee is what insulates the difference between, you know, this board versus the next board that gets elected.

**Billy:** Somewhere out there are eight writers who agree with you.

**John:** All right. Apparently so. So, we use this platform for this.

It has come time for us to do what we do every week which is a One Cool Thing in which we recommend something. My One Cool Thing is actually something Aline Brosh McKenna brought up on an earlier episode, she described the character being too much of a Mary Sue and I didn’t know what a Mary Sue was. So what do you think a Mary Sue is? Do you have a prototype in your head of what that is?

**Billy:** I do.

**John:** Okay. Tell me what you think is a Mary Sue?

**Billy:** But it’s a very ’50s prototype.

**John:** Okay. Tell me what you think it is.

**Billy:** I would think that if it’s a pejorative, if a character is too much of a Mary Sue then they’re not adventurous, they’re probably very predictable in their behavior and they think small.

**John:** That’s not what she was meaning. It’s not sort of the trope, and so, on TV tropes I fell down a deep hole in TV tropes and I read up about Mary Sue, and so Mary Sue actually comes from Star Trek fan-fiction and so the prototype is the character who, I’ll read one of the definitions, she’s amazingly intelligent, outrageously beautiful, adored by all around her, and absolutely detested by most reading her adventures. She’s Mary Sue, the most reviled character type in media fan-fiction. And what’s fascinating is like so it’s the kind of character who seems to represent the author’s intent, basically like the author injecting him or herself into the narrative and is a character who should sort of be secondary but is sort of taking over all of the focus. It is a pejorative but it’s also sort of sexist and it’s a weirdly —

**Billy:** It checks a lot of boxes.

**John:** It checks a lot of wonderful boxes but it’s a trope in the same way that Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a trope like you have to watch for like are you doing, you know Manic Pixie Dream Girl, right? Oh, wow, and so Manic Pixie Dream Girl is Zooey Deschanel in 500 Days of Summer. She’s like quirky and fantastic but like just impossible to exist in real life.

**Billy:** Yes, I have a problem with that.

**John:** Yes, and so the Mary Sue is an equivalent kind of case of like the unknowingly two perfect character that could not exist in natural real life.

**Billy:** Yeah. In the ’80s, the equivalent of that would be the Sylvester Stallone character in Cliffhanger.

**John:** Absolutely, one hundred percent.

**Billy:** Okay. Who wants to feel guilty about something that he did so that he can brood during the movie but the movie doesn’t really have the balls to have him do anything wrong. So even though someone dies in that opening sequence in such a way that Sylvester Stallone could kind of say I feel bad about it, the movie actually made it very clear it wasn’t his fault at all.

**John:** One hundred percent.

**Billy:** That’s an ’80s trope. That’s the equivalent of that.

**John:** That sounds really good.

**Billy:** Yes.

**John:** What’s your One Cool Thing?

**Billy:** Oh, my god. Well, this week, I would have to say my One Cool Thing is the fantasy that I might be able to spend the next five years of my life telling the story of The Last Tycoon.

**John:** Ah-ha!

**Billy:** I know that sounds like a shameless plug. I don’t mean it that way, I really do feel that way. You know, it’s a story that means something to me, it’s not just about the contrast between the fantasy of Hollywood and the reality of Hollywood. It’s about why we need that fantasy. Why does it have that hold on us that it does? You know, every character in that show, they are chasing a dream of one kind or another and it has an absolute vice-like hold on them. What is that thing and why is it so powerful? And why is it by the way powerful out there in the public as well. That’s a story I feel I’ve had a career that has prepared me to tell.

**John:** That’s fantastic.

**Billy:** And the idea of getting the privilege of doing that, that would be something very special.

**John:** That would be very cool. You must listen to You Must Remember This, the Karina Longworth podcast.

**Billy:** Everyone tells me I have to listen to it.

**John:** So, you would love this podcast because it is exactly in your alley. In some ways, you know, it is so much your thing that it might become like weirdly overwhelmingly sort of too much. It’s like, you know, I’m sure like professional football players like don’t like want to go, you know, play football on Xbox but it is remarkably sort of what your show is and Craig Mazin actually plays Louis B. Mayer in the podcast.

**Billy:** You’re kidding me.

**John:** Karina has him do the voice of Louis B. Mayer.

**Billy:** Oh, my god.

**John:** Yeah. I have two tiny bits of follow up before we wrap up.

**Billy:** Yeah.

**John:** First off, the Scriptnotes 250-episode USB drives which is all 250 first episodes of the show plus all the bonus episodes, those are finally now available, so you can find those at johnaugust.com.

**Billy:** Oh great.

**John:** We’ll give you one of those.

**Billy:** Thank you.

**John:** Yeah, you can catch up all the back episodes you missed.

**Billy:** Thank you.

**John:** And also last week Craig’s One Cool Thing was about Sunspring which was this short film written by a computer. Basically it was this computing-learning program that like took a bunch sci-films and boiled them down and sort of like generated original plot and dialogue based on that. It was very cool, you should check it out, but I’d also say that —

**Billy:** It’s the scariest thing I’ve ever heard in my life, but okay.

**John:** Yeah, we’ll send you a link to that so you can see what that turned out to be. I will say that, if you are a person who’s researching sort of language processing or sort computer learning and you would like a big codex of people talking, we actually have all the transcripts for Scriptnotes very conveniently, we’ve had to sort of put them all together in one archive. So you have me and Craig talking and it’s all in text. So, if you are a researcher, a legit researcher who actually does this not just like, “I’d like all the text,” email us and we can send you a link to that because it could be very interesting that you can build a Craig-bot and John-bot and they can have a conversation.

**Billy:** But I would say in particular to miss the actual inflection of Mazin’s voice, I think you’d be losing half of the richness.

**John:** Oh, I agree.

**Billy:** Of his words.

**John:** Absolutely, like you don’t even listen to the show so you don’t know his sexy Craig character which is so horrifying. No computer will ever duplicate that.

**Billy:** [laughs] One thing about Craig Mazin that I want to share with you. When I really got to know him, it was because I went on the WGA screen credits committee which he was co-chairing with Robert King.

**John:** Yes, those are two strong personalities.

**Billy:** Okay, so I go into my first meeting of this committee and, you know, I don’t know how many committees I’m on in the Guild, it’s too many. But this is one. And it had to be something I cared a lot about because we’ve all been through arbitrations and I thought we could help make the process better. And in fact, we did. But in that first meeting, Robert King resigned from the committee, which it turns out he does every meeting. I didn’t know that. But there was so much fighting and screaming and craziness going back and forth and some of it was happening via Skype because there were people on the committee who were in New York at that time.

So the meeting ended and I went up to Mazin and I said, “How the hell do I get off this committee?” And he said in a pine box.

**John:** [laughs]

**Billy:** [laughs] That’s Craig.

**John:** Very good. As always, our show is produced Stuart Friedel. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. This is where Craig would usually do his “hey, eh” about these things two guys.

**Billy:** [laughs]

**John:** If you have a question for me or for Craig, I am on Twitter @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. Billy Ray, are you on Twitter?

**Billy:** I am now.

**John:** What’s your Twitter handle?

**Billy:** Sony made me get a Twitter handle.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Billy:** So I have to tweet.

**John:** Right.

**Billy:** It’s @wmr_ray.

**John:** All right. There’ll be a link to all of these Twitter handles including Billy’s, but you should tweet him after you watch his show on Amazon and tell him how much you enjoyed it.

**Billy:** Please do.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Fantastic Negrito. It’s from his new album Last Days of Oakland. It’s a song called The Worst, because it’s about money and power which is fantastic. Malcolm Spellman, a frequent guest on our show, is one of the people who is helping to push Fantastic Negrito out into the world. He is doing a heroes’ job. It is our job to help you know about the music of Fantastic Negrito. And we’ll be back next week and Craig will be healthy and here. Billy Ray, thank you so much for being on the show.

**Billy:** Oh, my god, this was really a pleasure. Can I do it again?

**John:** Sure.

**Billy:** Great.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Billy Ray on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Ray_(screenwriter)), [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0712753/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/wmr_ray)
* [The Last Tycoon](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01G98ZPQU/) pilot is available now on Amazon Prime Video
* F Scott Fitzgerald’s [The Last Tycoon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0141194081/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* [Shattered Glass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Glass_(film)) on Wikipedia
* [Secret in Their Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_in_Their_Eyes) and [STX Entertainment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STX_Entertainment) on Wikipedia
* The [Producers Guild of America](http://www.producersguild.org/)
* [How Much Everyone Working On a $200 Million Movie Earns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnTF3guz7EQ) from Vanity Fair
* Wired on [how World of Warcraft changed blockbusters forever](http://www.wired.com/2016/06/warcraft-and-the-future-of-blockbusters/)
* [Fin-syn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Interest_and_Syndication_Rules) on Wikipedia
* [Under the Dome and TV’s New Ad-less Ways to Make Cash](http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/under-the-dome-tv-revenue-when-ads-fail.html) from Vulture
* [Scriptnotes, 246](http://johnaugust.com/2016/the-one-with-the-idiot-teamster), in which John and Craig discuss WGA Amendment 1
* TV Tropes on [Mary Sues](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue), and [“Too Good To Be True”: 150 Years Of Mary Sue](http://www.merrycoz.org/papers/MARYSUE.xhtml) by Pat Pflieger
* [You Must Remember This](http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/) podcast
* 250-episode Scriptnotes USB drives are [now available for purchase from the John August Store](http://store.johnaugust.com/)
* [Email us](http://johnaugust.com/ask-a-question) if you want to build John and Craig bots
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by [Fantastic Negrito](http://www.fantasticnegrito.com/) ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Scriptnotes, Ep 253: Television Economics for Dummies — Transcript

June 10, 2016 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2016/television-economics-for-dummies).

**John August:** Hey, this John. So today’s episode has a little bit of swearing. Not a lot, but if you’re driving in the car with your kids, this is your warning. Thanks.

[Episode begins]

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** And this is Episode 253 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast, we’ll be doing another round of How Would This Be a Movie, where we take stories in the news and discuss how and if and whether they should become movies. But first, we’ve just come through upfronts where the networks announced their new TV shows. And as I read the coverage, I was perplexed and did not know what they were talking about, so we invited someone on to explain what’s actually happening.

**Craig:** Thank God.

**John:** Yes. Jonathan Groff is our guest, and he is a writer and producer whose credits include Late Night with Conan O’Brien, Andy Barker, P.I., How I Met Your Mother and the late great, Happy Endings. He’s currently one of the executive producers of Black-ish.

Welcome, Jonathan Groff.

**Jonathan Groff:** Thank you so much, John. Thank you, Craig. It’s nice to be here.

**Craig:** And taking time off from Hamilton?

**Jonathan:** That’s what I was just going to say. I’m so glad you went to it.

**Craig:** Yes. Yeah.

**Jonathan:** The disambiguation that is necessary now with my name.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You are in fact both the television writer/producer and portrayer of King George.

**Jonathan:** Thank you for the disambiguation, Craig. Exactly.

**Craig:** I do something called re-ambiguation.

**Jonathan:** You re-ambiguated, that’s fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Well, the best thing was — do we keep this clean on this podcast?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** We don’t have to.

**Jonathan:** Okay, good. The first —

**Craig:** Fuck it.

**Jonathan:** There you go. The first time I heard of him, my manager had my name on a Google alert which is, I think, how he knows how to manage me. [laughs] He finds out what I’m doing and that’s — I’m kidding. Tim Sarquis, lovely guy.

**Craig:** He’s been arrested.

**Jonathan:** Again. Better make a call.

**Craig:** Oh, boy.

**Jonathan:** So he had my name on a Google alert and also this name popped up and he was like, “Are you doing Gypsy at the South Shore Music Circus in Hyannis or in Cohasset, Massachusetts or whatever?”

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s so great.

**Jonathan:** And I was like, “No.” This guy was just out of like drama school. Really young.

**John:** Yeah, he started young. He’s still young.

**Jonathan:** He’s still young. He’s still really young. So I had no — so that was the first time I noticed him. Then he — you know, every once in a while, I’d hear something, and then he blows up in a show called Spring Awakening.

**Craig:** Oh, Spring Awakening prior to him being on Glee.

**Jonathan:** Prior to Glee, yeah, exactly.

**Craig:** Right, Spring Awakening.

**Jonathan:** And he really blows up on Broadway and he’s a big deal. And, you know, I would have incidents where I would be — like I was casting a pilot and I’d been on the Sony lot every day for three weeks going to a certain casting office and all of a sudden, they’re like, “Oh,” — one day like, “You’re not supposed to be here until 4 o’clock and you’re not supposed to be even coming into this gate.” [laughs] And I was like, “Ohhhhh.”

And then he had the same problem. He — I got an inkling that he was a good dude because he left his email address and said, “This is funny. We should connect.” I don’t think — I think I misplaced it. Or I was like this isn’t — the time isn’t right yet.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, you didn’t feel like it was — you weren’t ready.

**Jonathan:** I didn’t feel like the time was right. I want to chase this a little bit further —

**John:** Right.

**Jonathan:** And see where this went. And then Glee happened and he really blew up on people and he’s, you know. And so that’s sort of the high, whatever.

Finally, a couple of months ago I went to see Hamilton and he was King George III in it, and he — I got backstage because somebody from Black-ish knew Leslie Odom who plays Aaron Burr and he’s fantastic. And I just said, “You know what, this is going to happen.”

**Craig:** It’s time.

**Jonathan:** So we met, and he’s fantastic. He was wearing a bike helmet.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Because he’s a big biker.

**Jonathan:** A big biker. Gave me a huge hug. We had a great conversation. And we actually have emailed back and forth now. So it’s a nice story.

**Craig:** Ah, that is a nice story.

**Jonathan:** He said that he would occasionally get stuff that was meant for me like — not, you know, lots of them. But I think it was more —

**John:** He rewrites a few scripts just on the side.

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Or he’s just like, “Yeah, I would occasionally get calls but nothing exciting like you would get that was meant for me.”

**Jonathan:** Exactly. [laughs]

**John:** He put out an inflammatory quote about Black-ish, about sort of like an upcoming plotline of Black-ish. That’s always a good thing.

**Jonathan:** Exactly. That’s the best you get.

So on the other night, I was in New York and I did a panel with some other comedy writers and there was a woman, an alum of my college who had seen the bio listed on the flier to come. And she was very sweet. And she like sheepishly —

**Craig:** Oh, God.

**Jonathan:** When she was introduced to me, like, put her Hamilton playbill that had been signed by every other cast member, tucked it into her purse like, “I’m sorry. I just maybe thought it was the same guy.” [laughs] Yeah, it’s still happening.

**Craig:** Oh no, I have no interest in hearing anything you have to say at all. Well, anyway.

**John:** You’re both very nice guys. And so Jonathan Groff was the — played Will in one of the readings of Big Fish along the way, with the Big Fish Musical.

**Jonathan:** Oh, wow.

**John:** So O known him from that. And so I know that he’s a bicyclist from that.

**Jonathan:** Absolutely.

**John:** So it was him and Michael C. Hall where we asked — that’s sort of how all the iterations you go through when you are trying to put a show together.

**Jonathan:** You know what’s frustrating is I’ve always been like the nice Jonathan Groff and now there’s a guy who’s nicer than me.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** And he’s younger, he’s better looking, and he’s nicer.

**Craig:** Better looking, nicer —

**Jonathan:** More successful.

**Craig:** More successful.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**John:** I will say you know more about TV, and so therefore —

**Jonathan:** Okay. There you go. Good segue.

**John:** You are more useful for —

**Craig:** We actually don’t know that.

**Jonathan:** I’m not sure that’s true.

**Craig:** Yeah, but we will —

**John:** He has been a star of a TV show.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Two TV shows.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yeah, so —

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** Well, we’re going to find out. He’s going to educate us.

**John:** So this is the education I need. So the point of entry for me was this Deadline article about network ownership. It’s all about upfronts and so they’re talking through all the new shows. And Les Moonves talking about sort of this new season and how ownership is important. And like there were all these terms I just didn’t fundamentally understand.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**John:** So I hope you can explain some of this. And just — can you talk us through what the deal is with ownership because unlike features where it’s all sort of one company, there’s a studio producing a TV show, there’s a network airing a TV show.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**John:** And those used to be different things and they don’t seem to be different things. What’s going on with ownership?

**Jonathan:** They still can be different things. It’s really complicated. I mean, basically, the very basic — and I’ll do my best, and I’m sure there’s some things I’m going to get wrong and you probably — you guys are both so smart —

**John:** No, explain like we’re five.

**Jonathan:** Okay.

**John:** Because we really don’t know.

**Craig:** Well, explain like he’s five. I’m an adult.

**Jonathan:** Craig, no. Exactly. Craig’s been in the business.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know what’s going on.

**Jonathan:** So basically, the studios are the entities that make the television shows. And they are the ones who take on the cost of producing them, the deficit. And most television shows, they get — and then they get paid a license fee by the networks which is a lot less than the deficit. So, you know, roughly, maybe for a single camera television comedy, it might cost $2.1 million to make an episode and they probably get a $1.1 million license fee from the network. So the studios are eating that million dollar deficit for shows until they can eventually sell those shows into syndication.

**John:** So —

**Jonathan:** In which case they then get all of that money back and a lot more.

**John:** So let’s say the 2.1 number that you are getting for that half-hour show —

**Jonathan:** Should we say $2 million? Let’s say $2 million. It’s going to be a lot easier.

**John:** $2 million and $1 million, yeah.

**Craig:** Thank God. The show just got shorter.

**John:** Explain it like I’m five. Indeed. We lost a commercial break.

All right. So let’s say it’s a $2 million show. For the $2 million show, that’s all in, like all the expenses/costs to make that show and an amortization of sort of the overall costs of the sets and things like that, because it’s a weird thing to make a TV show because sometimes, you know, you have things you write a check for once and those —

**Jonathan:** Right.

**John:** Could be things that are going to be used for the rest of the series.

**Jonathan:** Right. Amortization is a big part of it which is why, you know, they like to make as many episodes. And one of the big things that they’ll — the networks really want these six episode orders now and eight episode orders of things to fill in because they want to be doing more and more original programing, and they want to be in fewer reruns which is something I think you want to ask me about as well, probably, because that’s another part of what’s going on in the business. But today like a lot of times, these short orders and the studios don’t like them because it’s much harder to amortize the shows. Because, yeah, especially, you know — and by the way, the $2 million figure does not count the cost of a pilot, like even a half-hour comedy pilot, probably a single camera which is mostly what I’ve done are — maybe I did one that was over $5 million, I think. That got really expensive, but they’re often three, four, four or five, something like that. So you’re figuring that factor in.

And yeah, the cost of building a standing set, you know, the cost of your actor contracts, your buyouts. You’re hiring a staff and writing staff, guaranteeing them a certain number of episodes. You know, that is all of kind of built in. So the more episodes you can do, the faster you get to that magical — used to be a hundred, now they talk about 88 or — when I did Happy Endings, we almost got another 20. We had done 57 and we almost got another 20 episodes when we were going to be able to sell it to USA. And that supposedly would have been enough to maybe —

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** Make a real syndication sale.

**John:** So $2 million is what it costs to shoot that half-hour.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**John:** The network is paying you $1 million. So let’s say — that $1 million is the right to air it on US broadcast television?

**Jonathan:** Yeah, and a limited number of reruns, I think —

**John:** Okay.

**Jonathan:** They get like three or four or something like that.

**John:** So for the studio to make its money back, it has to be able to sell that show either in reruns, syndication, or overseas.

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**John:** And so a lot of the money is coming from overseas now —

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**John:** Because that first run could be worthwhile overseas. So they could be airing that in China or Australia or someplace else right now.

**Jonathan:** Well, apparently. And I’m told that that is a bigger and bigger part of the equation for the studios and that they are making their money back in foreign sales a lot sooner than they used to.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** Because the market has expanded and there is such a demand for product. As many platforms as there are here, there’re platforms internationally and they want product. So the whole idea of what used to constitute, you know, the back end and what really you would, you know, recoup or when the thing was out of deficit and now in profit, supposedly it happens sooner than it used to.

The Writers Guild feels this way strongly that these studios sometimes are making that money back sooner with foreign sales than they used to.

**Craig:** That’s really interesting because, you know, the independent feature film model is essentially based entirely on foreign pre-sales so we have a budget, the budget is $10 million, we’re going to go sell the rights in various countries until we have at least $10 million.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**Craig:** Then we’ll make the movie.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**Craig:** So we actually have no risk when we make the independent movie like that. You know, the interesting case with television is the idea that they could also create a situation of foreign pre-sale where before they’re even getting to the fifth episode, they’re essentially saying if we have — now, there’s a danger involved, obviously, where foreign pre-sales is the infection that incurs is an infection of talent. They all say, well, certain actors —

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Sell shows overseas and certain do not. And now that starts to infect the kinds of shows that we get here because the studios need to sell them overseas. I can see trouble on the horizon.

**Jonathan:** Well, there was — speaking of that and related, there was a really kind of a rough article in Hollywood Reporter about, you know, Empire, not selling as well overseas. And that plays into like race and all that kind of stuff. Black-ish supposedly has done very well. I think maybe a family comedy aspect of it helps it. But Empire, you would think — you know, since so much of like black culture and hip hop and so on is one of our national — international exports.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** You would think it would sell but apparently it has been somewhat challenged so that gets into like —

**Craig:** I wonder if primetime —

**Jonathan:** The backlash against — is there’s going to be some kind of backlash against all the fantastic diversity, which is helping, I think, the networks get a little bit of a second wind. Especially ABC has done really well with it. FOX as well, obviously. And all of them realizing like, “Oh my God, the country is changing. This is who is watching television. We’re not reflecting America. Let’s be more diverse.” But that could factor in if it isn’t helping us.

**Craig:** It could be a problem. I mean — and the Hollywood Reporter is fairly reliable in getting things wrong. I do —

**Jonathan:** That’s true.

**Craig:** At least they are consistent. I mean, I remember reading that article and just thinking, there’s a thousand other possible explanations.

**Jonathan:** True.

**Craig:** For instance, I don’t know how primetime soap operas do overseas.

**Jonathan:** Yep, that’s a good point.

**Craig:** I don’t know if that’s something that people like.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**Craig:** And the fact that a show Black-ish is doing well is sort of — I refute thus.

**Jonathan:** Yeah, right.

**Craig:** I mean, kind of argument over.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**John:** I think it’s basically Malcolm Spellman’s fault. As a previous guest on the show.

**Craig:** Everything is —

**John:** He’s one of the Empire producers. It’s probably on his shoulders.

**Jonathan:** It should be.

**Craig:** He screwed it up. He really screwed it up.

**John:** So here is a question. This is again back to that same article.

**Jonathan:** Okay.

**John:** They’re talking about — Les Moonves talking about like, “Oh, in the shows we are picking up, we own a stake in all of them.”

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**John:** And so I’m taking this to mean that even if it is a Sony show or a Warner Bros show or some other studio is behind it, a network gets to say, “Okay, we are an investor in this show up to a certain percentage.” Is that — am I reading that right? Is that what they’re — ?

**Jonathan:** That’s exactly what they’re saying. And it happens all the time. I mean, it feels rare unless — it feels like the exception now is for — it’s the exception for an outside studio that’s not owned by the network that they’re selling to, to be able to maintain a 100% ownership of it. I think some of the studios are a little bit stronger than others and hold the line better, but a lot of times it comes out of deal-making.

In that same article that we both read, it said that, you know, NBC was less aggressively pursuing ownership of a couple of single camera comedies that were coming on because they felt that the backend wasn’t as significant so they didn’t want to assume the cost. Because when you co-produce, co-own, you’re also putting up the money to buy in essentially.

But, you know, they all talk about like, you know, they’re all I think so nervous. And again, I’m a writer, so I don’t understand all this stuff, but I think they all are worried about the business of being in the distributors. They all want to be in the content business.

**John:** Yeah, they want to be the hype. They want to be the, yeah.

**Jonathan:** Exactly. And that’s where the future is. There’s always going to be room for content even if the pipe changes and the distribution platform has changed that content is king. You see Netflix go from obviously migrate from pipe, a brilliant pipe, to how many boxes of screeners did you get —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** From Netflix this year.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** They’re making so much stuff.

**Craig:** Well, you know, you’ve been around for awhile, so you remember the days where it was actually illegal —

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** For a network to own any part of a show that aired.

**Jonathan:** I wasn’t in the business then but —

**Craig:** Okay.

**Jonathan:** I remember that was the facts back in the day.

**John:** Was that called fin-syn?

**Craig:** The financial syndication laws abbreviated as fin-syn. And the purpose of those laws was essentially to prevent monopoly.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And they did make sense when they were three networks and, you know, and so there was essentially a forced kind of competition where, essentially, the networks would pay a license fee and then make their money through the sale of ads. But they could not own. Similarly theaters, studios couldn’t own theaters.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**Craig:** And I don’t know if it’s changed or not. I think that’s still maybe a thing. But it’s not a thing anymore for television.

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**John:** Well, they certainly don’t have monopoly power but it does feel like a network has a tremendous amount of leverage over the studio where it says like, “That’s a really lovely show. It could be a challenge if you couldn’t put that on the air.” Or they say like, “You have to let us buy in.”

**Jonathan:** It’s absolutely what’s happening.

The only thing that’s hilarious is that all these networks pretty much own studios that want to sell outside. Every studio is able to attract better talent, writers and actors, producers, you know, a producer on overall deals, pods, people, if they can say we can sell everywhere. Like I will sign up with Twentieth in a deal or with ABC Studios — I like ABC Network, I like Fox Network, but, oh boy, I would like to be able to take my project to the right place.

And so, they’re all doing it to each other a little bit. Like Sony is really fascinating to me because they don’t have that partnership and they’ve actually — in some ways, I like that studio a lot because they’ve really kept their independence. But they were the ones also more forced I think a lot of times to always co-produce.

**Craig:** Right. So —

**Jonathan:** Happy Endings was a Sony and that was partly because I was in an ABC Studios deal and I got involved in that show. They needed a showrunner. Happy Endings —

**Craig:** But they’ll find some way in or another.

**Jonathan:** I think they would have.

**John:** But it is interesting. When we think about the old Hollywood system where you had writers’ rooms and you had like, you know, MGM writers’ room and like you were bound to MGM and that all went away. But to some degree, that still happens in television where you make a deal with a studio. And so you are writing shows for that studio and you are prohibited from working for anybody else unless certain conditions come up. In order for them to get you on Happy Endings, didn’t they have to do something with the studio who you originally had your deal with? There was a negotiation involved.

**Jonathan:** Yes. Sony, to bring me in, had to —

**John:** Buy you out of —

**Jonathan:** Had to basically, yeah. I think that became a co-production partly because I became involved. But then again, Craig is probably right. Certainly now it feels like it would just become a co-production, whether they were —

**Craig:** Right, right.

**Jonathan:** Needing a piece of talent or a writer to make the show made.

**Craig:** Well, getting rid of that law essentially cleared the way for the most obvious request of all. We are interested in airing this. The fact that we’re interested in airing it means we think it’s good. The fact that we think it’s good means we would like to own some of it. Now, it may be a case where multiple networks want to air something, which probably doesn’t happen that frequently.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So there’s a lot of leverage there on their part.

**John:** But some of these negotiations though would happen at the point where you’re selling the pitch. But some of these negotiations I’ve heard from other showrunners, they’re happening like at the last minute. Like you’re into upfronts and they’re still trying to hammer out this deal.

**Jonathan:** Absolutely. It happens really late and it’s the last piece of leverage that the networks have in negotiating with the studios. And the studios then have to decide whether they want to do it or not and whether it’s worth it to them to take on a co-producer. But, you know, all the studios are interacting with each other so well.

I’ve been in two Sony/ABC Studios co-productions, one on Happy Endings and one on a pilot I produced. And, you know, they’re smart people at both studios. Sony was kind of the lead studio on both of those, ABC Studios. I mean that’s why Black-ish is such a — you know, if you can get the owned show that works for you, that is the homerun. Like —

**John:** Right.

**Jonathan:** Like ABC loves Modern Family but Twentieth —

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Twentieth owns all of that. They’ve never gotten into that one and that would be, you know, great.

I will give you a little bit of interesting context though, that there has always been a tendency, and I think it’s partly about executive dynamics and like how to reward them, to migrate the purview, the sort of responsibility from network president and give him or her also the title of studio president. And every time they do that, it doesn’t work for you if you work at the studio.

**Craig:** You mean when they leave the network presidency or you’re saying —

**John:** No, no, they basically —

**Jonathan:** Perfect example is like Paul Lee was the president of both — under his, whatever, job description was the head of the studio at ABC Studios and also the —

**Craig:** The network president.

**Jonathan:** President of ABC.

**Craig:** That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

**Jonathan:** I hated it. I always hated it. And it happened at NBC when I was there. Yeah, I think it’s the way it is at Twentieth Century Fox right now with Dana and Gary are also the head. They came from the studio and the studio was such a profit center and they did such a, you know, huge job in keeping that, I think, probably the strongest of the independent studios for a long time, that they wanted to keep that job. And it was part of the —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** But the problem is that what I found happening is, and I remember talking to my agent about this, it never really worked for me as a producer because I would be like, “Well, why can’t so and so put on his studio head hat right now and keep my show on the network?” Happy Endings is a perfect example. Like, let’s keep that show on the network. Paul Lee could have kept that show on the network and probably gotten all of ABC Studios’ money out of it if he had programmed it better.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** But, you know, at the end of the day it’s like the big job still at that point, and this may be changing, was the network president. And they’re always going to choose the network president, “What’s better for me as the network president? Better for me to cancel Happy Endings. It’s not doing that great.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** You know what I mean? And I want to try something else. And so, it’s gone. So which is why I like the configuration they have now at ABC Studios. It kind of vacillates back and forth. It swings back and forth. And now, it seems like Patrick Moran is really growing ABC Studios and has a lot of independence, and makes deals with other places, and doesn’t just do it with ABC. But it’s so tricky when the networks own studios because they have that leverage and it’s an internal kind of thing, so.

**John:** Great. The next term I don’t understand, stacking.

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**John:** What is stacking?

**Jonathan:** I had never heard of that before a month ago.

**John:** Okay, all right.

**Jonathan:** But I get it.

**John:** Then tell me.

**Jonathan:** What it is, is the networks and the studios really realize that they are getting a lot of views of their shows, and the way people are watching television now is to binge watch. So, there’s obviously the DVR usage and that’s now counted for advertisers and it’s counted live plus three and live plus seven and live plus something else. And same-day viewing and it’s all, you know, added up and then sold to the advertisers. The other way that they can kind of binge, “Oh, I didn’t see The Last Man on Earth yet this season.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** “And hopefully it’s up on Fox.com,” or whatever their thing is. And the networks want to have those stay on longer and go past what they call I think the rolling five, which is usually what it has been. So even though they have to pay a little bit more to the writers for a residual, and I actually investigated this because I was curious about it and I talked to somebody at the Writers Guild today, they’re willing to pay that little bit of extra residual to maybe directors and certainly to the writers to have the shows hang around longer on the .com websites, the ad-supported video-on-demand segment.

**John:** So the theory being that it’s good for discovery, it’s good for helping people catch up on a show.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**John:** And so especially a show in its first season, you want to make sure people who’ve missed it the first round can actually —

**Jonathan:** Yes. And it’s something the networks I think want more than the studios because I think the networks keep the lion’s share of that .com advertising. And it’s a way of building audience. The studios are nervous about it because it affects, potentially, their back end.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So the stacking rights are a negotiation between the network and the studio.

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**John:** Which in many cases are the same company. But aren’t always the same company.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, and then, you know, you’re dealing with one pocket versus the other pocket. But it’s true. I mean the studio, theoretically, their interest is in making you pay to see this even if it’s a week after it was on air, right?

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**Craig:** And the network, their interest is in, no, see it forever.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** See it a billion times. They want to expand the breadth of the license, right?

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That they’re paying for. And it’s interesting because we tend to look at it as writers as how are we going to get screwed on the residuals, because — and this will get us into our rerun thing. There was a time in the world when it was really simple and network paid a license fee, they were allowed to air a show once or twice. That was primary exhibition. But then there was something called the network rerun where they would rerun it again on the network, during primetime. And the writers would get paid a lot of money.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And they don’t really do that anymore.

**John:** Very rare shows do. And a friend just got staffed on a show that actually does that. And so he’s like, “Score. I get a second run.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But let’s talk about how writers get paid.

**Jonathan:** Well, the networks will do it on certain shows and like it’s another way of building audience. Essentially, it’s part of the license or the agreement that they have, so it’s not a great additional cost to them and the studios pay out the residual. And it’s fine. But yeah, like the comedies tend to do it more. I think ABC runs — we’re getting rerun a lot this summer on Black-ish. They’ll rerun their Wednesday night comedy block.

What I’m told is that the procedural dramas will do it. The place where it really is hurting is any kind of hour-long that is serialized —

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** They don’t tend to rerun as much. And that’s where you’re seeing, you know, short order things to fill in. You’re seeing reality shows, game shows, all the stuff that NBC does every summer. And they seem to be the most kind of throwing anything out there.

**John:** It’s a whole different network in the summer.

**Jonathan:** Kind of.

**John:** So let’s say I’m a brand new staff writer on Black-ish. How would I get paid? So what would my deal be like for working there and would I be paid a certain amount per week? If I got an episode to write, would that count against what I had already been paid? How would it work from there?

**Jonathan:** My understanding of it is I have weirdly never been a staff writer on TV show. I had this weird way in because I was a Conan writer and then I started creating shows and so I always had this kind of creator-producer role kind of early on. But the way I think it is, the staff writers do get paid weekly. Their scripts actually they don’t get paid for, which is why the residual is very important if a staff writer writes a script and the episodes gets rerun. They do get a residual.

**Craig:** They have to be paid for it in terms of Guild minimum. But my guess is that it comes out of their — in other words, their salary is this much plus this much for the script and we’re going to pay you that on a weekly basis.

**Jonathan:** I think the deal is that maybe that money gets thrown back into their weekly pay or something —

**Craig:** It has to be. Yeah.

**Jonathan:** But they’re really not getting additional — like if you assign a staff writer a script, it’s not a big like —

**Craig:** It’s baked into their salary. But —

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**Craig:** But that baked in price still has to cover pension and health and stuff, yeah.

**Jonathan:** Sure, absolutely, yeah. And so they’re on a weekly thing. And I think they’re only ones who are, maybe story editors are, too, I don’t really know exactly. But then after a certain point and, you know, a number of episodes, you bump up in the job description and, well, the job title really, and you then get an episodic fee. Which is paid out weekly, I think. But it’s an episodic fee.

**John:** But that episodic fee is not as a writer. That episodic fee is as a producer, correct?

**Jonathan:** Technically. But everybody’s a writer-producer, essentially.

**John:** Yeah. The frustration, the challenge that always happens in Writers Guild is that like a lot of the money that TV writers get is actually producer money and therefore it’s not Guild money. And so that becomes a strange —

**Craig:** And like we get so screwed because we pay 1.5% guild dues on every dollar we make.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**Craig:** You guys do not at all.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**Craig:** Not even close.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**John:** But this is not an East Side/West Side —

**Craig:** No, but in return —

**John:** We recognize.

**Craig:** In return for the larger share of money we kick in, can we get much less attention? [laughs]. So it’s a great system.

**John:** It’s really an awesome system.

**Jonathan:** Your name is much bigger though in screens and stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. When a movie gets made —

**Craig:** Really cool.

**John:** It’s really nice.

**Craig:** That’s right. It’s awesome.

**John:** But it is fascinating how, like, the writers who didn’t actually write that episode, their names do show up on the show as like those other credits.

**Jonathan:** Producer, yeah.

**John:** That’s nice, too. I think it’s a good thing.

**Jonathan:** Yeah, we don’t mind that.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**Jonathan:** Well, television, I don’t know about hour-longs. The only hour-long show I ever did was Ed. I was on that for a season. But I do know that every half-hour is super collaborative and super room-written to some degree, like you’re breaking the story as a group and then one writer goes off and does an outline and then gets feedback from the showrunners. Maybe another writer or two could get involved in looking at the outline and then the script comes in and the room works on it. So there’s a lot of people kind of throwing and it’s different.

**John:** So I’d forgotten to rave about your show but Black-ish is one of the few shows that we watch every night sort of when it airs. It doesn’t sit on the DVR long.

**Jonathan:** Fantastic.

**John:** And one of the episodes that you are credited with this last season is the flu episode where the whole Johnson family gets sick. So in an episode like that, how much more is that your episode than other episodes that ran in the season? Like percentage-wise, how much more invested are you in that episode than other episodes?

**Jonathan:** Well, I went off and wrote the draft by myself but I had a lot of help on that story. The story came together in the room and there might have been hours even when I wasn’t in the room when they were working on the story. And I came back in and people were like, “We think this is the direction for this.” There was lots of like group effort on the story. And then I went off and wrote the draft and lots of language and jokes are mine and sort of the structure of the scenes sort of. But then you come back in and it goes through another rewrite and you get jokes beaten and all scenes rewritten and you do a table read and it gets rewritten again.

So, you know, I would say the person with the highest percentage of stuff that he wrote in a draft being shot is Kenya Barris who created the show. It’s his show, it’s his voice. He’s a hilarious writer and he also takes on the toughest episodes that we do where we’re really talking about something. I had the advantage of — it was kind of a light episode. There was a sweetness to it, in which Dre was learning to take care of his sort of — like realizing he had missed out by avoiding taking care of his kids and had some regret. And then we learn at the end that Bow is pregnant. So he will have opportunities in the future to step up and be more involved in that way.

So it had an emotional wallop, I think. But it was in general not —

**John:** But it wasn’t the —

**Craig:** Police brutality episode.

**John:** Police brutality episode, yes.

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Oh, why didn’t they give you that one? [laughs] That’s weird.

**Jonathan:** It’s so funny though. But even now, and like Kenya, we really broke that story as a group. I mean Kenya had so much of the way in because it was really his story of how do you tell your kids about something really hard, like he’d been watching the Ferguson riots with his little boys and they were like, “Why is everybody so mad?” Well, how do you explain this?

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** So the way in was totally his. But then a lot of the structure of that and a lot of the comedy stuff or ideas for that were, you know, kicked around in the room. But then he went off and wrote a script over Christmas and kind of came back and it just had that feel to it of like this, we don’t need to — we cut a couple of things and changed a couple of folks —

**Craig:** Shoot it.

**Jonathan:** And then it was pretty much shoot it, yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just shoot it, yeah. Yeah.

**John:** It was a one set sort of, you know, a little play.

**Jonathan:** Yeah, that was his vision. And that’s in a lot of ways his vision for that show is he likes the sort of, like, let scenes play out. Let it be almost a multi-cam in some ways, believe in the characters and their abilities to be interesting. You know, I tend to be a little bit more single camera and it’s probably a good blend because I’m a little bit like, “Just keep it moving in the scene because the scene is three pages. It could be two — ”

**John:** That living room is almost proscenium. It’s almost —

**Jonathan:** It is.

**John:** You know, a three-camera setup and you’re in that space probably more than any other space.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**John:** So the discussion of the police brutality episode, this is actually a pretty good segue into our other thing we want to do this time which is to talk about these ideas, these stories that are in the news and how they could be movies, which in the case of you, I’d also like to know like how could this be either a series or an episode, because some of these ideas feel like, okay, I can see a series about this but some of them feel like, okay, well that is the premise for an episode.

**Jonathan:** Right.

**John:** So we’ll dig into these and see what we have. So first one up on the boards, this is Peter Thiel v. Gawker. So I’ll link to it —

**Craig:** Who do you root for here?

**John:** Yes.

**Jonathan:** That’s a tough one, right?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I’ll link to an article from —

**Jonathan:** This one kept me up a little bit, thinking about it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. [laughs]

**John:** I’ll link to an article from Nicholas Lemann for The New Yorker sort of going into the back story behind it. But the short version for people who are like following this years after the fact, Peter Thiel is a billionaire. He’s made his money off of PayPal and other places. He’s a big investor in Facebook. He has a vendetta against Gawker. There was a lawsuit that Hulk Hogan filed against Gawker for discussing or releasing images from a sex tape and Hulk Hogan actually won this huge lawsuit against Gawker. But it turned out that Peter Thiel was actually funding the lawsuit against Gawker. And the whole notion of this billionaire versus this company, here’s a man who can spend his entire fortune to bring down a company if he chose to.

**Craig:** There are some free speech issues. The one fact you didn’t mention is the source of his vendetta.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Which is I think relevant. Gawker outed him.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So —

**John:** As gay. You can be outed as anything now, so.

**Craig:** Yeah. They even outed him as Jewish.

**John:** Yes. [laughs]

**Craig:** That never happens. So I honestly don’t know who to root for here. I understand all the problems, you know, inherent to a very wealthy person possibly stifling a media outlet. On the other hand, ugh, Gawker.

**John:** Let’s talk about this as a movie because like the most simple, obvious thing is basically what if Bruce Wayne sued The Daily Planet out of existence. I mean —

**Craig:** Worst movie ever.

**John:** Yes. [laughs] But I mean there’s that quality of like, you know, what are the limits that you can put on an incredibly wealthy person who can just use the system to their advantage.

**Craig:** It feels like an episode of a TV show, doesn’t it? Like just an episode?

**Jonathan:** Well, first of all, it will be. Somebody will do that.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** They’ll find a way to sort of boil that down for Law & Order or something.

**Craig:** Yeah, so like torn from the headlines kind of thing.

**Jonathan:** Yeah. If Good Wife was still on or somebody would find a way to tear that from the headlines, I think. But it also does feel like it could be a really great movie because it could leave you with like just as kind of conflicted coming out as you are going in because it’s easy to see both sides of it in a way. Like Gawker is disgusting.

I had lunch with my friend Todd Barry who’s a very funny comedian and we were talking about like some of the stuff they’ve just done and some of the shots they take of people in New York, friends of his. And he’s like, it’s gross. And I’m like, “Yeah. Screw them. They’re the worst.” And then like it’s chilling because what we’re not talking about yet is the context a little bit of Thiel’s thing is what Donald Trump is talking about.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** You know, and the way he went on the attack and played, I think, to a lot of receptive ears when he went on attack the other day against the press and what they were trying to do in just asking basic questions about where that money went through, his veterans things, where there were people going like, “The press is dishonest. The press is disgusting. The press needs to be shut down. There have to be better laws.” And that’s the legitimate press they’re talking about. So that’s the context of like it’s very much of a slippery slope kind of a thing.

**John:** In my head, I hear a lot of the Aaron Sorkin kind of dialogue about the arguments. And sort of like the way that both sides can make really impassioned cases for what they believe and sort of why what they’re doing is the noble thing. So the journalistic quality of like, you know, you may hate Gawker for what they do but recognize that any media publication could just as easily be in Gawker’s position where someone could go after them for anything they’ve ever written. And in this case, like the lawsuit for Hulk Hogan has nothing to do with Thiel other than the fact that he hates Gawker —

**Jonathan:** Exactly. The way to take them out. I would say this. I think that you’ve got to come down on the side of Gawker, ultimately, as much as I hate to say it because I — and I’ll say why.

**John:** For the movie version. Let’s just say like what it is the best movie.

**Jonathan:** But I think the aspirational thing that I would build into the movie, the ending, I don’t know how you get to this, is I thought about this as I watched the sketch that somebody posted today of Amy Schumer doing AMZ, a takedown of TMZ.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** And it was devastatingly great, on point. And it’s like the aspirational, maybe Sorkinesque, maybe somebody else would write it better. But like the idea that like — do you remember QB VII, the ending of QB VII where the libel case where the author of the book about Adam Kelso who was the doctor who was accused of Nazi crimes that Anthony Hopkins played. It was a TV movie, Leon Uris novel. That he wins this libel suit but he wins a British ha’penny, the lowest coin in the English crown.

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** The ending would be that Gawker wins but that they close for other reasons. So the market, the people would go, they’re discussing, we’re no longer going to read them, we’re no longer the market. It’s almost like a weird belief in the power of the common sense of people in the market to go like, you know, TMZ is disgusting and corrodes your soul so don’t watch it anymore.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t know if I would believe that ending.

**Jonathan:** Of course not!

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah.

**Jonathan:** But that’s the ending I would want to write, you know.

**Craig:** There is possibly another angle where you are on the side of this guy and he is taking on a group that, look, the one thing that gets left out of the discussion is you can’t successfully financially back someone’s winning lawsuit if they can’t win the lawsuit, right? That he did win the lawsuit —

**John:** Oh, no, no, no. But here’s the thing. It’s like he —

**Jonathan:** He drained them.

**John:** He drives them down. So basically like he can bankrupt them just through legal fees, essentially because he’s filing like —

**Craig:** But they got a judgment. I mean the point is they did —

**John:** Yeah, I think they got a judgment but here’s the thing. It’s like he could file 150 judgments and he doesn’t care if he ever makes any money back.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Right. But in this case, what muddies the water is — see, because Peter Thiel is not actually acting like a super villain. He’s acting like a guy that specifically hates one group of people and he has reason to hate them. And a lot of people hate them. And so he’s going after them. And they did do something wrong. They’ve done a lot of wrong things. But there is an interesting ending where in the movie version he wins, gets rid of Gawker, feels good, and then turns on the TV the next day and somebody that is bad is doing it to somebody that doesn’t deserve it and he’s essentially released a virus, you know, of behavior.

**Jonathan:** How about this?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Another version, probably not as interesting as your version but I’ll pitch it anyway, is that I do think like he takes down Gawker, he wins, Gawker goes out of business, but when he tries to take down something has journalistic standards, people say no. And that’s the rally. Maybe that’s the sort of like, so all of a sudden let’s just say he tries to take down the New York Times. We could debate whether the New York Times —

**Craig:** Right. He goes too far.

**Jonathan:** Is of quality or not, I’m not going to get into that argument. But like he goes too far —

**Craig:** They’re not Gawker.

**Jonathan:** They’re not Gawker. And people go, no, and they go we still want a free press.

**John:** Yeah. So essentially like he’s taking down Spotlight essentially. Like, you know, he’s taking down the noble journalistic crusaders.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And like that’s the thing. What I do kind of find fascinating are the characters involved. And so I think Thiel is a great character because whether you portray him as a villain or a hero, he definitely perceives himself as a hero. He sees himself as that person like all great villains should. Nick Denton is a fascinating character who’s like — I think he is actually clearly very smart but also to some degree self-delusional about sort of what his function is. And he’s willing to sort of say like, “Well, to make an omelet, we’re going to break, you know, people’s lives.”

**Jonathan:** Nick Denton is the head of Gawker.

**John:** Yeah, the head of Gawker, yeah. You have the Hulk Hogan or whoever the plaintiff is you sort of put in that place is really fascinating because that person kind of knows they’re being used as a tool and it’s not really about them. Like Thiel doesn’t honestly care about Hulk Hogan whatsoever.

**Jonathan:** That’s so great.

**Jonathan:** He’s just only a vessel.

**Craig:** We don’t know that. [laughs] He might love Hulk Hogan.

**John:** Oh, he might love —

**Craig:** He might have Hulkamania.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Probably not.

**John:** Probably not. I mean, to me the fascinating —

**Jonathan:** The realization by that guy that he’s been used —

**John:** Oh, yeah —

**Jonathan:** The conversations between him and the Thiel character where he’s —

**Craig:** Because I can see he’s like, “This is amazing. Somebody…”

**Jonathan:** Believes in me.

**Craig:** “…that cares that much about me, I still got it.”

**Jonathan:** That’s a heartbreaking scene.

**Craig:** That is a heartbreaking —

**John:** And so there’s a possibility for like, you know, you think that character thinks that they’re an Erin Brockovich, that they’re like little town Erin Brockovich. And like no, no, no, you were just a pawn being used by these plutocrats moving stuff around a board. That I think is a fascinating —

**Craig:** I still feel like to me, everything we discussed would be a great hour of television. I don’t know —

**John:** I think it’s a great HBO movie maybe.

**Jonathan:** I think it’s an HBO movie. I think two hours —

**Craig:** That counts as television.

**Jonathan:** Two hours of it. Yeah, television. It’s not going to put butts in the seats in —

**Craig:** No, because these kinds of movies ultimately, the issue involved needs to be like — The Insider was a wonderful movie and that’s about tobacco companies killing people and lying. This is in the end, I get that it is relevant to our lives but doesn’t quite feel like it deserves to be that — I always ask myself, “Am I going to drive somewhere and park to see this?” Probably not.

**John:** That was Amy Pascal’s thing which always, like, you know, if she’s going to green light a movie is, like, would I actually get a babysitter and go to the theater on a Friday night —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** When I’m already tired and had a long day’s work? And like, that’s a high bar to put for yourself.

**Craig:** It actually is a very high bar.

**John:** All right, let’s go to a much simpler —

**Jonathan:** HBO movie — it’s an HBO movie.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s go to a much simpler one here. This is about stoned sheep. So this is a Daily Mail article by Keiligh Baker for MailOnline. So essentially what happened is a bunch of cannabis was dumped at the side of the road. A bunch of sheep ate the cannabis. They went crazy and ballistic and destructive.

**Craig:** Well, okay, but they didn’t so first of all —

**John:** Yeah, it’s a sort of false headline and I —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Of course.

**Craig:** It’s a classic Daily Mail.

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The Daily Mail headline is a Sheep Go on Psychotic Pot Rampage and then you read the article and what happened was they were wandering. They seemed confused. One of them got into a house and pooped. [laughs]

**Jonathan:** And one got hit by a car.

**Craig:** And one got hit by a car which is the most sheep thing of all time.

**Jonathan:** Yeah, exactly. With all the — pot is only going to have them act more sheep.

**Craig:** More sheep.

**John:** Yeah, like —

**Craig:** Like enhance their natural —

**Jonathan:** Like we used to say when we were getting high.

**Craig:** — harmlessness.

**Jonathan:** Like let’s get sheep.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Like sheep are —

**Jonathan:** Sheep-faced.

**John:** Let’s use this is a springboard.

**Craig:** Sheep-faced. [laughs]

**John:** What is this? If someone came into the writer’s room with this idea, what might that spin into? Like what does that sort of get to?

**Jonathan:** You know, we would have to put it in a context of, you know, like a personal family story.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** I mean, a Black-ish, it’s much more of a — it’s not a Black-ish story maybe, you would try to — we have, you know, a —

**Craig:** Not really access to sheep.

**Jonathan:** No real access to sheep. Tracee Ellis Ross’s character, Bow, is a doctor so maybe there’s some way in which we could find an analog where a bunch of her patients got high or something off of an anesthesia — she’s an anesthesiologist or maybe something like —

**John:** You have grandparents — I also feel like they’re always potentially —

**Jonathan:** True.

**John:** You know, getting into things that they shouldn’t get into.

**Jonathan:** I can think it could be an interesting comedy movie, again, maybe, I don’t know.

**John:** Craig, can kids get high on pop syrup?

**Craig:** No, I mean, as somebody that has written a sheep movie —

**John:** Yeah, he has a sheep movie in development.

**Craig:** It’s a sheep movie about sheep that solve — they’re detective sheep, and they solve the murder of their own shepherd. This is not how we want to see sheep. [laughs]

**Jonathan:** Can I throw this in? What about — and I say this because I actually — every once in a while, I would perform on Late Night with Conan O’Brien and one of the things I did was we used to do the Clutch Cargo, which is the moving lips thing, where Conan would interview Bill Clinton or Bob Dole whatever.

**Craig:** Yes, yes, of course.

**Jonathan:** And I was Dolly the cloned sheep.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah.

**Jonathan:** So what if there’s like a — because this happened over in Britain, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Swansea or something?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Jonathan:** That was in Scotland. She was a Scotland sheep.

**John:** Yeah, yeah.

**Jonathan:** And I remember trying to do a Scottish accent. “Baa, I don’t know. I recognize myself.” I was trying to like — she was basically freaking out because there were two of her.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** So maybe there’s a cloning — maybe there’s some kind of high concept? I don’t know.

**Craig:** No. No.

**Jonathan:** Animated?

**Craig:** No. It’s just — here’s the problem.

**Jonathan:** Animated for adults?

**Craig:** Here’s the problem, sheep getting high is as funny as people getting high. People getting high is occasionally funny like back — but it used to be way funnier. Like Cheech and Chong were hysterical because getting high was transgressive.

**John:** I think sheep getting high is funny for a scene in another movie so like —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So like, oh, the sheep got high and then they like they ruin the house. That’s a moment, but it’s not a —

**Craig:** It’s a moment, yeah.

**Jonathan:** High sheep in like a DreamWorks movie, they would be like the penguins of Madagascar.

**Craig:** Right. But then you can’t put drugs in kid’s movies so you can’t do that, so.

**John:** Yeah, but they could eat like spoiled something or they eat the grass, yeah.

**Craig:** Or do like the fake high stuff? Like —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, my God. He ate those weird flowers.

**Jonathan:** We did a show called Father of the Pride for DreamWorks.

**Craig:** I remember that one, yeah.

**Jonathan:** That made it for NBC. Was kind of a debacle. Like it the show about Siegfried and Roy and the white lions that worked for them.

**Craig:** And the Union debacle.

**Jonathan:** Oh, Union debacle, exactly. That was crazy and then it was physical debacle because Roy got eaten by a tiger which was terrible.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Jonathan:** It was a huge amount of money that was wasted all round. But there were some funny things and one of the things, it’s sort of a thing you would do but is that the daughter who’s a white lion — teenage daughter gets caught with catnip. So you can do catnip as a —

**Craig:** The fake drug, yeah.

**Jonathan:** The fake drug, yeah.

**John:** Cats on catnip. All right. Our next story is The Great Swiss Bank Heist. This is a New Yorker article by Patrick Radden Keefe. It tracks Hervé Falciani who is a worker for the Swiss Bank HSBC. He stole a bunch of data from HSBC and in the revelation of what was in the data revealed that there is a tremendous number of people hiding a tremendous amount of money. And it becomes much more complicated from that. Craig, you were the one who loved this more than anything.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah. So, first of all, this will absolutely be optioned by somebody if it hasn’t been optioned already.

**John:** Yeah. So usually whenever we do this section, one of these things absolutely becomes a movie. This is Craig’s prediction.

**Craig:** Somebody will — I don’t know if it will eventually become a movie. Somebody is going to buy the rights to this and here’s why. Here’s what’s boring. A guy steals a bunch of data and it’s got a bunch of information about tax dodging, whoop-dee-doo, right? They couldn’t make an interesting movie out of Julian Assange, so how are they going to make an interesting movie of this guy?

Here’s why it’s interesting. This guy is nuts, okay? This guy is amazing. He is a total psychopath, you can tell, right? Even from him talking. He invents these crazy scenarios and nobody knows if it’s true or not. So he invents a scenario where he was kidnapped by the Mossad. He invents a scenario where he wanted to get arrested because people were trying to kill him. He tells the French that he is bringing them this information out of a sense of some kind of patriotism to let them know that French people are hiding their money.

But he may only have gone to them because he couldn’t find anybody to sell this to, right? Because he was trying to sell through a woman he seduced, right? Even though he was married. This guy is a nightmare. And the character that’s unmentioned in this but the one that I would love to write because this is one of my favorite kinds of characters is — like we’ll call it the Diogenes character. Somebody who sees everything for exactly what it is and no one else does.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** How frustrating that there’s this one guy who’s like, “No, this is not a hero. This is bad man who’s doing bad things.” And, you know, in a weird way, the one person that comes through like that in this article is the former mistress who’s — she’s the one saying, “Why are you all being suckered by the guy the suckered me?” [laughs]

“I’m telling you, you’re crazy.” Anyway, I love that character. I think there’s a really interesting story to tell here. It’s like I could see the trailer starting like, okay, we’re doing, it’s like we’re doing a movie about finances. It’s like we’re doing a Wall Street movie. But then, WAA-BAA. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Crazy guy.

**John:** So it’s that sense of like, is he a hero? Is he a villain? It’s one charismatic guy you’re sticking at the very center of this thing and from the audience’s perspective, are we supposed to be deciding ourselves or do you think the movie has a clear take from the beginning of good guy/bad guy?

**Craig:** I think, ideally, we are left to decide.

**John:** So, it reminds me a bit of — I can’t remember the name of the movie but it’s Matt Damon and Steven Soderbergh directed it where he claimed to be like this much more important CIA figure than he actually really was and he —

**Craig:** Is it the Good Shepherd?

**Jonathan:** The Good Shepherd?

**John:** No, not the black and white one. This was —

**Jonathan:** That wasn’t black and white.

**Craig:** It wasn’t black and white.

**John:** Oh.

**Craig:** The Good Shepherd was about the founding of the CIA so that can’t be it.

**Jonathan:** Yeah, those Yale guys in the —

**Craig:** Oh, The Informant?

**John:** The Informant.

**Jonathan:** Oh, yeah.

**John:** So The Informant had like a really interesting tone where, you know, you thought Matt Damon was the character he initially portrays himself to be and then you realize like, “No, no, no. You are actually a self-deluding fraud at the heart of this.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that makes it really fascinating when you get into it. What I do like about what you’re describing, though, is it’s a way — sort of like The Big Short where you can tackle some real issues about sort of the way the wealthy hide money and sort of like how that cripples countries but actually have a story to it.

**Craig:** Right, exactly. Yeah.

**John:** A thread to follow on.

**Craig:** Yeah, because taxes are boring and Swiss bank accounts vaguely are boring. I mean, they’re — I mean, we’re all familiar with the phrase because of spy movies and so forth. But you’re right. I mean, this man’s insanity and his crimes, they’re not globally important. It turns out actually the boring stuff is globally important. This is a way to tell that story but at the same time show a scene where he is pulled off the street and a pillowcase put over his head, and he’s thrown into a room, and there’s two guys from the Mossad and they’re telling him that he needs to pretend to be arrested, and he needs to pretend this and triple lies and — oh, and he claims that there is a — what does he call it? The organization or the —

**John:** The Network.

**Craig:** The Network. He claims that his act of data theft was aided by a shadowy —

**John:** Yeah, a loose confederation of anti-tax evasion crusaders, consisting of law enforcement officers, lawyers, and spies.

**Craig:** Oh, bullshit, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, such bullshit and of course his former mistress says, “Yeah, that’s total bullshit. You knew the network was me and him. That was it. And, you know, why he’s doing it? Money, no big shock there.” But you see the things as like I would love to see the story that he’s telling be real and then from another perspective think, “Wait, did that happen or not?” That’s just you telling it. “Are you Keyser Soze or are you Verbal Kint? Which one are you? I can’t tell.” So I love this and somebody should be making this.

**John:** So Jonathan, is there any — if this comes into the room —

**Jonathan:** Yeah.

**John:** Is there any pieces of this that you say, like, “Okay, well, that’s an interesting thing we can use for our show.” Like the idea of hiding money or where people hide money or the idea of what information you reveal like, you know, Dre finds stuff out at work and has to decide — has to make a moral choice as sort of whether to reveal it, like, there’s little bits and pieces you can you use in this probably.

**Jonathan:** Absolutely. I mean, I think that in general, I mean, these things are — I wouldn’t call it high concept but they’re the kind of idea that can support the weight of a two-hour movie where I think the thing about a half-hour television show is it’s smaller stories that you spend a little bit more time. And, you know, characters don’t really change that much so you can’t —

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** You don’t quite have the giant crusade, like, the thing I always say about a half-hour show in a pilot, you do take your characters maybe from A to C or D in terms —

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Of a growth but then you spend the rest of the series shuttling back and forth between A or B.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly.

**Jonathan:** You know, and maybe at a special episode at the end of the season two, they get to C again and then they return —

**Craig:** But right back again.

**Jonathan:** Back a little bit. That’s kind of what people like in a way. So I think that it’s hard to find exactly what the father — but I will tell you a story like this will get us into — here’s what I think could absolutely happen with that story. If Kenya happened to read that and I happened to read that and a couple of other writers happened to read that. Or I said, “I want you all to read this.” It would get us into an interesting discussion that would potentially be — that I think we could do on our show which is the tendency to believe something like the Network exists or the conspiracy. Like, I was in San Diego last weekend and walked past the 9/11 truth squad —

**Craig:** Oh, yeah.

**Jonathan:** Display on Embarcadero. I walked past a Trump merchandise table which was very happily unpopulated by customers. Flags make America great again. Right near it, though, was a pretty well-attended, lots of curiosity seekers — including I saw this young black family that was listening to this guy give this crazy conspiracy that ultimately was kind of anti-Semitic about, like, Larry Silverstein, the [crosstalk] of 9/11.

**Craig:** And there’s a shock. And there’s the shock.

**Jonathan:** Yeah, exactly. And this family kind of listening and going —

**Craig:** Was it a black guy giving the speech?

**Jonathan:** No.

**Craig:** Because I learned this term called hotep. Have you ever heard of hotep?

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**John:** What is hotep?

**Craig:** Hotep is — I’m sidetracking here. Hotep is —

**Jonathan:** I just learned this this year.

**Craig:** Yeah, I literally just learned — yeah, exactly. Hotep is basically like the subculture of black men who over — they basically lecture all black people on black superiority and they’re kind of —

**Jonathan:** We did a hotep pop in an episode earlier this year when it was in, I forget. But it was a pop to Dre in college and he was a — he had a hotep face.

**John:** I didn’t know that you call those pop, so the quick cutaways where you’re in a different time period and it’s just for that one joke that’s a pop —

**Craig:** Hotep face.

**Jonathan:** Where he was talking about the, you know, the — the yeah. All this stuff.

**Craig:** Anyway, I learned and loved it but these people are spewing paranoid conspiracy cloning.

**Jonathan:** Yes, that gets me back to like where I would think we could do an episode where why a black family — a super educated black family could buy into some conspiracy stuff and I think a lot of the reason is because there has been a conspiracy against them a little bit.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** You know, in some ways and even if it isn’t necessarily as organized a conspiracy as what these 9/11 truthers would say happened on 9/11, you know, the belief in the black community maybe that there was — that AIDS was started as, you know, that there was —

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** Cooked up in a lab and, like, why would they think that? Because the Tuskegee experiments happened, you know what I mean? There have been conspiracies and so like — and we did sort of tap this when Dre had his fear of going to the doctor and then that was amplified and completely multiplied by Dre’s dad, Laurence Fishburne’s character, absolutely wouldn’t go to a doctor. Well, we talked a little bit about why there is a little bit of sometimes mistrust of doctors in the black community or certain members of the black community. And I hesitate always to say the black community because it’s not monolithic, another thing that I’ve kind of really learned a lot by being on the show. So I think that that kind of what would make people draw to something. So I don’t know whether that’s really what that — to be honest I did not do my homework.

**Craig:** No.

Jonathon: I did not read the long the New Yorker piece about the Swiss Bank Heist.

**Craig:** Clearly. But you see how important it is —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** For those of you listening at home —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** To be able to think and talk on your feet when you’re completely unprepared.

**Jonathan:** Exactly. [laughs] That’s what I do.

**Craig:** That’s how you get a career in this business.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** No, but —

**Jonathan:** You have to love to hear yourself talk about nothing.

**Craig:** About nothing.

**Jonathan:** Yes.

**Craig:** But you are — you are demonstrating something else other than the fact that you’re not prepared, which is that for television, for episodic, I think a lot of times the real value is some kind of underlying psychological issue that you can carry through to any character, right? So how would we deal with this interesting thing?

Whereas in film, a lot of times what you’re looking for are characters like that man to me is a movie character. And you want to try and take it — it’s like the way I would pitch that movie to studios. I want to do The Insider, but what if you cannot trust? Like what if instead or Russell Crowe’s character, it was the Joker because basically that’s what’s going on. Like who do — how do you feel about this? How do you feel — and in a weird way, it is kind of similar to the Peter Thiel thing. It’s just that it’s a much cooler story.

Because it’s not about Gawker or whatever. It’s about the Swiss Banks and billions and trillions of dollars and countries fighting. It’s like in there — if you had read the article, you would’ve seen that they sent Greece a list of — so Greece, you know, few financial problems over there. Meanwhile, they get the data and they send Greece a list of all the very, very wealthy Greek people that have hidden their money in Swiss Banks and are not paying taxes on it. And the amount of taxes that these people were not paying was the equivalent of like 10% of all the taxes that should’ve been collected there. And you know what the Greece did about it? Nothing.

They couldn’t even — then like the new guy came in and found it in a drawer and the old guy had tampered with it to remove three family member’s names from it. It was a disaster — I mean that stuff you can’t make up.

**John:** Good stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right, a final story. I think it’s going to fit more into the world of an episodic show. This is about the wrong grandson. So this is a story that comes from South Carolina. There will be a link in the show notes. It’s basically a 65-year-old Orangeburg County grandfather picked up the wrong son — the wrong kid at daycare. Actually the elementary school. And so, essentially, it wasn’t until he got the kid home and that someone looked at him and said like, “Wait you’re not our kid.”

And so basically the school released the wrong kid.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** The granddad —

**Jonathan:** Absolutely an episode of television.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Absolutely an episode I’m doing this fall.

**Craig:** And a broad comedy movie.

**Jonathan:** Absolutely.

**John:** I don’t think it’s enough of a movie premise. Unless the —

**Craig:** I know how to do it.

**John:** Unless it’s Home Alone — okay, tell me.

**Craig:** I know how to do it. You’ve got a kid. It has to be like, you know, think of like a Dennis the Menace age kid.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And his family sucks. And they don’t understand him or at least he thinks they don’t understand him and he doesn’t like them. And his grandfather, in particular, is the worst. [laughs]

And he wants to run away. So he’s made a plan — in fact, he doesn’t even have a grandfather, right? Just his parents. They’re the worst. So he’s made a plan, “After school today, I’m running away.” And he’s about to do it when this car pulls up and this guy goes, “Get in!” [laughs]

But it’s a nice car and he’s got like McDonald’s with him. And the kid’s like, “Oh my god, that’s Stewart’s grandfather but he thinks I’m Stewart. I’m getting in. And he goes and basically lives the high life for a weekend with this guy making this guy feel like he’s the grandfather except that he isn’t. And then, you could see all sorts of interesting —

**Jonathan:** I could see that.

**Craig:** Yeah. And then, like, you know, family blah-blah-blah.

**John:** It writes itself. That was such a development executive pitch. Basically it’s like, yeah, do this thing and you can figure out the rest.

**Craig:** Family blah-blah-blah.

**Jonathan:** Have you seen the Mitchell and Webb thing about not that but that?

**Craig:** Yeah. A pebble, a penguin, a policeman —

**Jonathan:** No. It’s not that. It’s a guy talking about his novel.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s what he’s saying. But he says, “It could be a pebble, a penguin, a policeman. All of the above, none of the above, and they are in love or they’re not in love.” That, write that. Or, don’t.

**Jonathan:** Or don’t. It’s hilarious. But, yes, so that could totally be a development executive’s thing — something like that. You’ll figure it out.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** But I do think that could be an episode of television. I think you could have — I love the story. I do this story over and over, I think most shows with a strong lead are this most episodes where you have a problem, you try to solve the problem, make the problem worse. And then you solve the problem but in the way you thought you were going to solve it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** And it ends up kind of being a little bit of a moment of growth. So that would be the grandpa, we would have Dre or Laurence Fishburne, Anthony Anderson or Laurence Fishburne pick up the wrong kid. Try to fix it, make it worse, and then actually solve something else. Maybe not solve the real problem but solve something else getting not what he thought he wanted but what he actually needed.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** And you can do that in a half-hour television show.

**John:** For sure.

**Jonathan:** A lot, all the time.

**John:** And I bet what some of the challenges as you’re breaking the story in the room is figuring out like what it’s actually really about.

**Jonathan:** Absolutely.

**John:** The premise of it is like he does this thing. But like what is that actually really about? Is it about the fear of kidnapping? Is it about the —

**Jonathan:** I think it could be the fear of not having enough of a connection with your grandson that you notice the difference. You notice the difference until too late.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** So then Pops would try to fix that.

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Or Dre would try to fix that. I was so in my own head and distracted by work that I let this kid get in my car and drove him. And all of a sudden, the police think — people are thinking I’m kidnapping the kid. And I’m not and I try to fix that. And then you overcompensate and spend too much time with your kids. And realize that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

**Craig:** This guy — look at this guy. [laughs]

**John:** This guy looks great.

**Craig:** He looks so confused.

**Jonathan:** It’s such a bummer.

**John:** Yeah. So what Bart Simpson would always say is like, “The only thing worse than your crappy under-parenting is your scary over-parenting.”

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**John:** And that would be sort of the thing —

**Jonathan:** That would be a story I could see us doing. And that might not exactly be it but that would be what caused this problem in the first place. And you go back at the end of the third act to kind of actually address the problem in a rational way as opposed to the irrational way that you —

**Craig:** Right.

**Jonathan:** Addressed it for all of act two.

**John:** Cool. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is this graphic novel series, a series of comic books from Image Comics but they’re gathered up together in nice little books you can go buy, called Sex Criminals. I’m the last person who’s read these things. Everyone has read them. But they’re really good.

**Craig:** You’re not the last person.

**John:** So in case you have not heard about it, it’s a series by Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky from 2013. They are terrific. So the basic premise to this series is that you have this young woman who when she achieves orgasm, time stops. And so she can live in this sort of glowing moment for a period of time. A sort of refractory period in which she can wander around and everything else is frozen except for her. She meets a guy who has the same ability and together they rob banks. And it is brilliantly done. It is about sort of taking control of your sexuality. They’re funny, they’re weird, they’re naughty, so you shouldn’t live them sitting out on —

**Craig:** I have that thing by the way.

**John:** Yeah. It’s amazing.

**Craig:** I have that.

**John:** [laughs] That’s why everything seems a little bit misplaced every once in a while.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. You snuck in and done things.

**Craig:** I have two weird things.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I have the ability to stop time when I have an orgasm and I have the ability to just spontaneously have orgasms. So, yeah, my days are strange.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But that’s how, you know, sometimes people remark on the podcast, “Oh, Craig tends to speak in complete sentences.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I just simply go back and stop time. I think, I write it out, I memorize it, I put it in my pocket. But, first, I have to jizz my pants. Yeah. So if it smells bleachy in here.

**John:** That’s what it’s for.

**Jonathan:** Oh.

**Craig:** What?

**Jonathan:** Oh.

**Craig:** It’s just — it’s biology.

**John:** It’s biology.

**Craig:** Yeah. We have dirty shows so we can do whatever we want.

**John:** Yeah. We can do whatever we want.

**Jonathan:** I took it to that. I got into it earlier on with the cream my jeans in the third row of the theater.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** Boom. I was also made —

**John:** Craig Mazin, do have a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** That’s not your orgasm?

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know how to get cooler than that but I’ll try. Fallout 4, I believe, was one of my Cool Things when it came out. It’s very fun game. I don’t know if you’re a video game guy.

**Jonathan:** Not at all.

**Craig:** So big video game guy. Fallout 4 is a wonderful, huge, sandbox, open world exploration, quest-based game. And they have a new DLC for it, downloadable content, called Far Harbor. And so in Far Harbor, instead of wandering around Boston, irradiated post-apocalyptic Boston, you get to take a boat up to their version of Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park and go kill different stuff up there but always, of course, with these interesting moral dilemma storylines. They’re very good at that. Excellent. And I think it’s like 15 bucks or something and it’s another, god knows, 20-hours of game play or something, so Far Harbor —

**John:** Cool. What’s your One Cool Thing for us, Jonathan?

**Jonathan:** My One Cool Thing, this is going to sound lame, but is foreign travel now. You have to do it. We were just in Mexico. My wife and I had our 20th wedding anniversary and we took a fantastic trip to the Yucatan where I’d never been. We stayed at a great resort and it was really fun. And we took this day trip and in talking to our guides — our driver and our guide — the sort of tentativeness with which they asked about how we felt about Donald Trump made me say it’s really important right now to go and let them know that we’re not all crazy. Especially in Mexico, but I think anywhere and honestly the sort of overjoyedness with which when we said, “Oh, god, no please understand that that is something that is — not everybody is that way,” was actually kind of heartbreaking and heartwarming. So I’d say like it’s an old standby, but if you have a chance to reassure anybody —

**John:** Before November?

**Jonathan:** Before November and even after November that even if something — if he wins that he’s going to have a rough road because that’s not who we are.

**Craig:** I don’t think he’s going to win. I think we — I don’t think so.

**Jonathan:** I know, but he’s the nominee of a major party —

John. Yeah.

**Craig:** Kind of.

**Jonathan:** That has seemed to have left its senses.

**Craig:** Kind of. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah.

**Jonathan:** Well, I lost $500 on that with Kenya Barris, who’s a very good —

**Craig:** That’s the biggest problem with what happened. [laughs]

**Jonathan:** I lost the money.

**Craig:** You lost 500 bucks.

**Jonathan:** He took out in a thousand dollars from two writers who were both — Courtney Lily, who’s another writer on the show. We were both like, “Come on! He represents 30% of the Republican Party. Well —

**Craig:** Yeah, you failed to account for whom he was running against.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I could’ve been of assistance to you.

**Jonathan:** Yeah. I know. You should have stopped me.

**Craig:** I should’ve stopped —

**Jonathan:** Is that an okay One Cool Thing?

**John:** It’s a wonderful One Cool Thing.

**Jonathan:** It’s not a thing but it’s a thing that I think people — I’ve had a little hiatus and I’ve been — I took the opportunity to travel a little bit and it reminds me of a — it’s incumbent upon us now.

**John:** I’ve had the library as a One Cool Thing. So we go general sometimes.

**Jonathan:** Okay good.

**John:** Yeah, totally. That’s lovely.

**Craig:** Totally.

**John:** And that’s our show. Jonathan Groff, thank you so much for being on our show.

**Craig:** Thanks, Jonathan.

**Jonathan:** It was fantastic. Craig, John, thank you.

**Craig:** Our pleasure.

**John:** As always our show is produced by Stuart Friedel and is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is from Adam Lastname, who does such great outros for us. We don’t know what your last name is but it’s Adam Lastname.

**Craig:** I’m so curious.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Doesn’t he —

**John:** Weirdly, that’s a thing in podcast music where people use other bizarre names. You wouldn’t think there would be a podcast music thing but there is —

**Craig:** There is a thing for everything.

**John:** There’s a hotmoms.gov is another sort of podcast band.

**Craig:** Hotmoms.gov?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Is the greatest title ever. That’s amazing. [laughs]

**John:** If you have questions for me or for Craig on Twitter, I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. Jonathan Groff, are you on Twitter?

**Jonathan:** I’m @notthatgroff.

**John:** What a great handle for you.

**Jonathan:** Notthatgroff.

**Craig:** I’m going to consistent every day. I’m going to be like, “By the way, love you in Hamilton.”

**Jonathan:** Thank you. [laughs]

**Craig:** Love you so much.

**John:** Yeah. We haven’t even gotten into all the stuff you do on your gay HBO show, Looking. So that was really brave.

**Craig:** Very brave.

**Jonathan:** You know, it just, to me it was just a job.

**John:** Very good. It’s just a body. It’s the instrument that you’re given.

**Craig:** It’s just bodies.

**Jonathan:** Exactly.

**John:** If you have a longer question, you can write in to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcript for this show in a couple of days. The 250 episode USB drives just arrived as we were recording this episode. So they should be in the store if not this week, but the next week. And if you’re on iTunes for whatever reason, please leave us a review because it helps people find our show. Thank you all much.

Thank you, Jonathan.

**Jonathan:** Thanks.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Jonathan Groff on [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0342917/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/NotThatGroff)
* [Network Ownership & In-Season Stacking Rights Rule 2016 Upfronts: In-Depth Look](http://deadline.com/2016/05/network-ownership-in-season-stacking-rights-series-pickups-2016-upfronts-1201752808/) on Deadline
* [America’s TV Exports Too Diverse for Overseas?](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/americas-tv-exports-diverse-overseas-879109) from THR
* [Financial Interest and Syndication Rules (aka fin-syn)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Interest_and_Syndication_Rules) on Wikipedia
* Black-ish, season 2 episode 16, [“Hope”](http://www.hulu.com/watch/909068) on Hulu
* The New Yorker on [Peter Thiel vs Gawker](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-peter-thiels-gawker-battle-could-open-a-war-against-the-press)
* Daily Mail’s [Stoned Sheep](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3609322/Stoned-sheep-went-psychotic-rampage-eating-cannabis.html) coverage
* The New Yorker on [The Great Swiss Bank Heist](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/herve-falcianis-great-swiss-bank-heist)
* [The Informant!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Informant!) on Wikipedia
* [Hotep, Explained](http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/03/hotep_explained/) from The Root
* [Grandfather “very sorry” after accidentally picking up wrong grandchild at school](http://www.kplctv.com/story/32102101/report-grandfather-accidentally-picks-up-wrong-grandchild-at-school?clienttype=generic&sf27594567=1)
* [Ok… Not this…](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LC0JjvAJt8) sketch from That Mitchell and Webb Look
* [Sex Criminals](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1632152436/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky, on Amazon
* [Fallout 4’s Far Harbor DLC](http://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/435881/) on Steam
* [Travel abroad!](http://www.state.gov/travel/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Adam Lastname ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.