• 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 69: Eggnog and Dreadlock Santa — Transcript

December 30, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/eggnog-and-dreadlock-santa).

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

**Craig Mazin:** And my name is A Very Christmas Craig Mazin.

**John:** This is our Christmas episode of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, Craig, we’re recording this a few days early so we’re not literally just sitting by the tree. There’s probably no eggnog in our hands. Maybe you have eggnog, I don’t know.

**Craig:** No. I think eggnog is gross.

**John:** I love eggnog…

**Craig:** Ew!

**John:** We might have to have a big fight about this. Eggnog is amazing. It’s essentially just melted ice cream that you get to drink out of a cup. And it’s just the best.

**Craig:** It’s melted ice cream with weird spice in it.

**John:** What is weird about nutmeg? Nutmeg is one of the most wonderful spices if used in moderation.

**Craig:** You know what it is? It’s the word “egg” and the word “nog” are so gross. Plus you have those two Gs, eggnog. It sounds like something that Orcs would say, and I don’t like it.

**John:** Yeah. It has a very Germanic quality to it, but I have always loved eggnog to the degree that I remember once I came back from, like, a summer scouts meeting and it was, like, a hot day in August —

**Craig:** Oh god!

**John:** — And I was like, “Mom, I really want some eggnog.” And my mother, who is so generous, was just like, “Okay, I’ll make you some eggnog.” So, she literally made — like the skim milk in the fridge, and some eggs, and some sugar, and some vanilla, and some nutmeg, and she made in a blender some eggnog. And that’s why I love my mom.

**Craig:** You know, my grandmother used to tell the story about how when she was a child on a really, really hot day back in Russia she would drink iced cold buttermilk. [laughs] And, you know, that sounds pretty good because it’s butter, and it’s milk, and everybody loves butter, and everybody loves milk. But buttermilk is just rotten milk.

**John:** I would disagree. I would say buttermilk is soured milk. And it has a certain quality to it that makes it fantastic for biscuits, or for ice cream. Buttermilk ice cream.

**Craig:** You mean rotten quality? [laughs]

**John:** I think it’s delicious. But everyone has their own tastes. For example, do you like crème fraîche? Is that a taste you like?

**Craig:** It’s funny that you mention that because I was explaining to our video playback guy last week that I actually have a weird thing about white food in general. And crème fraîche is a great example of white food I do not eat. There’s something about white sauce type food — mayonnaise, crème fraîche, tartar sauce, there’s more I’m sure. Tahini. Even that’s something — I just can’t do it. I can’t go near it.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a puss-like quality to it that might turn some people off. Cottage cheese, I’m sure, falls into that.

**Craig:** No. I can do cottage cheese if I mix it with fruit.

**John:** That makes no sense at all, Craig.

**Craig:** If I mix it with fruit. That one is an exception. And I can do like certain yogurts and stuff like that. But there’s a lot of white food that just horrifies me. Mayonnaise is my number one, but crème fraîche, sour cream, because that’s what crème fraîche is, right? Isn’t it sour cream? Which is a lie…

**John:** It’s a special kind of sour cream, yeah. You’re just a food racist and we should probably move onto another topic.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t like white food.

**John:** So, you’re making a list at Christmastime. There is a famous person who makes a list around Christmastime, well, Santa, but even more important than Santa, Franklin Leonard makes a list around Christmastime.

**Craig:** Yes. Dreadlock Santa makes a list.

**John:** And Dreadlock Santa this year made a list called the Black List, as he does every year, in which he surveys the development executives to ask them what their most liked scripts are. He always wants to make it clear that this isn’t the “best of” list; it’s like the most liked screenplays that people have read this year.

And so that came out this last week, or actually two weeks ago for people who are listening on Christmas day. And there were a lot of great titles there. Some people that we know, mutual friends. Eric Heisserer, Story of Your Life, was one of the highly liked scripts.

**Craig:** Great to see.

**John:** Jonathan Stokes, who is one of my WGA advisees, his script Border Country was listed there.

**Craig:** Oh! Awesome. Yeah, good for him.

**John:** And a person who wrote into our site for the Three Page Challenge, Austin Reynolds, his script, From New York to Florida, was also on the Black List.

**Craig:** What script did he send in for us?

**John:** So, the three pages I think we read was something that you liked much more than I liked in the first three pages, where there’s a kid in class who is scribbling…

**Craig:** Oh, I remember that guy, yeah.

**John:** So, you apparently have great taste.

**Craig:** Well, see that? God, I know what I’m doing.

**John:** Yeah. So, maybe we’ll go back through and re-edit that so we sound really knowledgeable and that we should single that out as being highly praise-worthy. But congratulations to Austin Reynolds; that’s fantastic. I’m happy that these people had good outcomes.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** As I was looking through the list, one of the things I was trying to look for — patterns — in addition to, like, names I recognize was: what are people writing about, and what are these spec scripts that people are working on? And one that really stuck out was by a writer named Young Il Kim called Rodham. And it’s the story of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s rise as a young lawyer, sort of rising in politics, and she falls in love with this guy Bill Clinton.

And I was like, that was a great idea for a spec. I have no idea — obviously the spec is pretty good because people like it, but people want to know like, “Oh, what kind of spec should I write?” That seems like a great idea for a spec. That’s public domain. It’s interesting. People are going to want to read that. Good choice. Good subject material.

**Craig:** Yeah. It is a good choice. And it’s accessible. And people can actually compare what you’ve written to their understanding of reality and see in evidence the drama that you have created. It’s a very smart way of approaching it.

**John:** So, today I thought we’d talk through some of our mail bag questions, but one of them was actually really relevant to what we’re doing right now which is an email we got from Brantley Aufill. And so it’s kind of long but I’ll read it because it’s nice. It’s happy. And so it’s a good thing for this time of year.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Brantley writes, “In September of 2011, I sent you an email about something you said on the podcast. Well, it’s like, ‘I mostly want to write period detective stories with monsters.'” I kind of remember saying that. So, talking about, like, what genre is your genre.

Brantley writes, “I remarked that I had just done exactly that having written a spec called The Hooverville Dead which found me my manager just a few months prior. Over the following months, I listen to Scriptnotes every week, and so many times it seems to be recorded just for me, as I was writing and rewriting, as the script started going out, as I began to get generals, as I began to do pitches, as I signed with my agents, as I tried to think over what to write next.

“The topics you and Craig were covering often coincided exactly with where I was navigating this crazy world as a new screenwriter. Flash forward to today. The Hooverville Dead has become my calling card and just made this year’s Black List.”

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** “I’m still doing generals. I have yet to make that first writer’s paycheck, but I have quite a few projects in ‘this might be the one’ column. I’m taking my next spec to a major studio with a producer already attached. I developed a TV show with a producer that we’re talking to networks about next month. I have different pitches at different studios, four of which I set up over a 26-hour period later this week.

“So, I’m reading book after book, writing up treatments, and pitching my take, and I’m on people’s minds as they think of a writer they want to work with. And I’ve been loving just about every minute of it. So, thanks to you and Craig for Scriptnotes; the last few months have been a bit of a whirlwind but I like to think the advice you two have been providing has helped me keep up just a little bit ahead of it. Thanks, Brantley Aufill.”

**Craig:** Wow. You know what? Thank you man. That’s really nice of you. I’m glad that you are obviously doing well, you know. I mean, the fact that you haven’t gotten that first writer’s paycheck is a quirk of the timeline. It sounds like you will be soon enough. And, you know, as we’ve been doing this and you and I interact more and more with people who are aspiring, and particularly people who are right on that bubble where it seems like all the pieces are in place, and people are noticing their writing and they actually have the facility to do this, they just haven’t quite gotten that first purchase yet.

What’s been salient to me more than anything is attitude. And it’s the people with the great attitude who strike me as the most likely to succeed. And that’s a terrific attitude to have. The attitude of the student, and it’s one that I think you and I both maintain to this very day.

So, good for you. I’m glad that we’ve been of help to you.

**John:** Yeah. I would also say in terms of attitude: acknowledging good fortune, and success, and people who have helped you along the way. Because so much of this business, and sort of getting started in any business, are going to be the frustrations and all the things that go wrong. But when things do go right, when someone helps you out with something, it’s great to acknowledge that. And the people who help you out along the way, just take a moment to thank them for that.

So, thank you for writing in.

**Craig:** It’s certainly no sign of weakness. We all need help desperately. I remember Scott Frank years ago saying to me, “I need more help than any writer I’ve ever met. When I’m figuring out who I should work with on something — producer, studio executive, agent, whomever — it’s entirely about who will satisfy my deep need for help.”

So, you’re dead on with that.

**John:** Cool. Let’s continue that thread with some other questions that people have written in with and maybe we can answer a few more things for other people and get them started on their way.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** So, this first one comes — a writer who had written into the site and it was in the backlog of questions, and then he reached out to you on Twitter. And so you flagged it and so now we’re following up.

It’s a guy named Christopher in London who writes, “Having written my first feature screenplay a year after moving to London I began to get as many people to read it as possible. By your normal chain of events — basically, through my girlfriend — the script found its way to a producer who had made one other feature, and a few shorts.

“He loved the script and wanted to make it, so we began a second draft with the promise that after typing the script he would send it to potential ‘financiers, directors, and cast.’ Fast forward two and a half years, after draft number 13 he still hasn’t shown the script to another soul. In the meantime, I’ve shopped the script out myself, and now that I’ve secured an actual production company interested in making the movie I want to move on from this producer.

“Now, after asking him to sign an agreement to state that the rights to this script reside with me, he has said he won’t sign it and is suggesting he has some claim to my script. What do I do?”

**Craig:** Okay. Well, he does not have a claim to your script. Legally speaking, in terms of copyright, you are the author of your script. You have written every word. He has not created any unique expression in fixed form. What he’s done is act as an editor, and just as editors in the book world don’t have copyright claims on Stephen King’s novels, nor does this person have a copyright claim on your screenplay.

What this person may have a claim for is the right to be associated as a producer with this film. That claim is not something that’s adjudicated against you. That is something that they would have to deal with with a new producer that comes onboard. And, frankly, it’s kind of not your problem to the extent that it’s not specifically your problem.

However, when you’re talking to these new people you have to say, “Look, here’s this person. I don’t want them to be involved. They didn’t write anything. They’ve been acting as a ‘producer.’ They’ve been nothing but a hindrance, frankly. You should be aware that they’re there and so that’s something you guys have to work out.” And most likely the actual producers, the new financing entity would reach out to this “producer” and say, “We want to settle you out.” Or, “We want to exchange this guarantee of an onscreen producing credit for your release of the material and disappearing.”

There are all sorts of ways to make people go away. But, the two prominent ways are money and credit.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That said, it’s hard for these people to actually claim anything, because when push comes to shove they don’t have a contract with you beyond a verbal and implied contract. And so it’s one of those deals where that would have to be hashed out if it actually got to a lawsuit. You want to avoid lawsuits.

So, my recommendation here is that you, in conjunction with your attorney and the new producer, go instruct them to handle this person and make them go away as need be.

**John:** I agree. I would also say just take a step back and imagine that the other person was writing this question. And he would probably phrase his question to us this way: “So, I’ve spent the last two and half years working with this writer, reading every draft, giving notes on every step. Today he shows up at my door saying that he wants me to sign this release that I have no involvement with the project whatsoever. What do I do? I feel like this kid is being incredibly ungracious for all the hours, and hours, and hours of work I’ve put in on this script. What do I do?”

And it’s easy to see his perspective on this, too. I would say he hasn’t done a terrific job of all the other things of producing. Maybe he actually gave you good notes? Maybe he really did help you get the script into good shape, but he hasn’t been able to sort of move the project forward. So, I don’t blame you for wanting to move forward on your own. But, you are going to need to figure out some way to have him taken care of in this process because it does sound like he was involved for quite a long time.

Where it gets really frustrating for me is when, like, literally something kind of passed over a person’s desk and they’re claiming producer credit on it.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that happens far too often and it’s really maddening. And especially newer writers can find themselves in frustrating situations with that. And I wish I had a magic wand to sort of make that all go away and be better, but it does happen.

And there’s people whose names are on lots of movies who are just really stubborn and they get their names on movies, even if they weren’t involved in the actual making of the film.

**Craig:** This is certainly not something that’s unique to our business, although you see it all the time. Very annoying people often are rewarded for being annoying. And this may be one of those cases. I would point out — he’s in London and I’m not quite sure what the differences are because, you know, here in the United States we have work for hire. Frequently what you’ll see is an option agreement between a producer and a writer which does contractually codify the relationship and grant the producer certain exclusive rights to represent the screenplay as the producer.

That may not be the case in England, but if it is the absence of that agreement speaks volumes.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, this is really where you would need to speak to a lawyer, or a barrister, as the case may be.

**John:** Find somebody with a nice white wig who seems to know something about the law.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes. Go speak to Rumpole of the Bailey.

But, I think the fact that you’re dealing already with the financing entity — they have their own attorneys. They should be able to handle this. This is one of those areas — I look for these all the time. This is something to always keep your eyes open for: Moments where your goals and your needs align with those of other people. And then use them, [laughs], so basically draft behind them. It is in their best interest to get rid of this guy, therefore you should line up with them and allow them to do it for you.

**John:** And it may only be a series of phone calls between these people that it just gets taken care of. And if this guy doesn’t have a lot of other credits then that may be the case.

Our next question comes from Will in Seattle who writes, “On your most recent podcast you and Craig were expressing disdain at the lack of description in some of the Three Page Challenge scripts, specifically the use of ‘INT. OFFICE — DAY.’

“Your criticism came from not knowing what kind of office we’re in. However, in some of the most professionals scripts I’ve read, like Sideways or Up in the Air, the respective writers had a very minimalist style and often do little to describe in more detail the settings. Is it simply your assumption that we’re not Alexander Payne or Jason Reitman? Does the fact that they’re already industry professionals give them license to leave out the little things?”

**Craig:** I think in those cases the fact that they’re directing the movie gives them the license to leave out those little things. And this is something that I brought up on the DoneDealPro board.

There’s a backwards thinking among a lot of new screenwriters that only if you are directing the movie are you allowed to be specific about camera motion, camera action, and be very specific about things that would theoretically fall under the purview of the director, like, you know, perfecting the location and so forth.

And in my mind it’s the opposite. When Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor write a movie together, they can write “INT. OFFICE” because they’ve already discussed what the office looks like. No one is coming in to rewrite them. And Alexander is going to go out and scout for the office he wants and he’s going to tell people the office he wants, so he can save some space and time on the page. He’s quite likely not writing the script to do anything other than service him as he makes the movie. Similarly for Jason Reitman.

But if you are a writing the screenplay to attract a director, and to attract financing, it is critical to me that you use your one and often only chance to express the entirety of your dramatic intention for what this film should be, look like, sound like, and ultimately how this film will impact the audience.

**John:** Yeah. I don’t want to tell Alexander Payne and Jason Reitman how to write, and they can use their minimalist INT. OFFICE — DAY; if that works for them, that’s awesome, great.

But I’ll say that even if you’re the director, throwing just the tiniest bit of description to that — sort of like, is it a strip mall office, is it a corporate glass monstrosity office — it does help. And it helps everybody else who needs to read the script to get a sense of what kind of world that you’re pitching this story for. So, everyone else who needs to read the script to sort of do their jobs would be a little bit serviced by having a little more description there.

Again, totally your choice and what you want to do.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s how — Todd and I, I mean, no one is coming in to rewrite us. We’re writing a screenplay for him to direct, we still do that stuff. I mean, for that very reason: we want the army of people that are going to be working on the movie to have that many fewer questions.

**John:** When you’re first sitting down with the location manager, he or she is pulling out a bunch of folders, and he’s showing you things that are probably closer to what your vision is of the thing so they don’t have to first ask you, “Describe this office to me; what should I be looking for?” I think in that first meeting they’ll have some sense of what you might be looking for and what might be appropriate. That’s why you give that kind of stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Chris from San Francisco Bay Area writes, “I’m trying to find a musical script writer. What is this person even called? A book writer? Scriptwriter? Probably not a screenwriter. Are there resources, networks, or hangouts where these people exist? I’m looking for both options of partnering or hiring somebody to write the book or reviewing books that people have already written.”

So, sort of in my wheel house here. “Book writer” is usually what you call the person who is writing all the stuff that happens in a musical, a stage musical, the stuff that isn’t sung. So, the book is all that stuff. So, for Big Fish I’m the book writer.

Stuff that happens for Broadway tends to be centered around New York. Dramatists Guild is the organization that sort of loosely represents the interests of people who write for the stage. It’s not a guild the way that the Writers Guild is a guild. It’s a looser sort of association. Doesn’t have like collective bargaining power.

The Dramatists Guild is where you probably first want to check out because their house magazine is actually really good and has good interviews with book writers, and musical writers, and playwrights who are working on all this stuff, and will get you started there.

In terms of reading books, you can find published versions of some of the musicals you would want to see. And that’s going to get you started. There’s not the same kind of script libraries that you’ll find for screenplays. But you’ll figure it out. And I figured it out. I didn’t have great firsthand examples to look at, but you sort of figure out like what gets said and sort of how it fits in with everything else.

**Craig:** Can you tell me what is the difference between a book writer and a dramaturge? Or is it dramaturgue?

**John:** I think you can probably say either one of those. And, again, I may be slightly wrong here, so if I speak incorrectly someone will write in and correct me. A dramaturge is a person who is responsible for working with the playwright, and eventually the director, on the dramatic engineering of a piece. And so if it’s an existing work it can be working with the director to figure out how to mine all of the goodness out of it. If it’s a new play, it’s someone who is working with the playwright to facilitate things.

So, it’s not a writer per se, but it’s in some ways like a creative producer I would say.

**Craig:** I see. Got it.

**John:** A person who’s helping out that way.

**Craig:** Got it. Okay, great.

**John:** Cool. Our next question comes from Hamish who writes, “In podcast 67 you and Craig talked about how hacky it is to establish a character’s backstory via magazine covers. The same day I read the shooting script of Frankenweenie and spotted the following…”

**Craig:** [laughs] I love it already.

**John:** “Burgemeister unfolds the newspaper to read the front page. INSERT NEWSPAPER: The headline reads MAYOR BURGERMEISTER TO KICK OFF DUTCH DAYS. A photo shows Mayor Burgemeister complete with sash and hat.”

**Craig:** That’s totally different.

**John:** “Burgemeister is pleased with the photo.”

**Craig:** That’s totally — how do you not see that that’s totally different?

**John:** I think it’s similar enough that it’s a valid criticism.

**Craig:** I don’t think so. Here’s the deal. The difference is expositing — am I allowed to say “expositing,” by the way?

**John:** Absolutely. Totally. It’s your podcast.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m going to invent it if it’s not actually a word.

It is creating the exposition for an event or fact as opposed to creating exposition for a character’s essence or quality. That’s the difference to me. I don’t want — and I would presume this isn’t the opening of the movie of Halloweenie. [laughs] I’m going to call it that forever.

You know, when you’re meeting a character in the beginning of a movie it is super hacky to give us key bits of information on a magazine cover about them. It is all too common to use every day news delivery sources in a film to deliver actual news. That’s fine.

**John:** Yeah. So, I think sliding back towards the hacky column, it is in his first reveal. So, you’ve revealed that you actually haven’t seen Frankenweenie, but I’ll tell you that the paper arrives, you see that he’s meticulous with his lawn, he picks up the newspaper and we see his face in the photo and it’s also revealed that that is his face as well. So, it’s meant to be the joke that it’s exactly the same shot as we’re seeing is the photo that’s on there. But, it is hacky backstory in the sense of, like, that’s how we are establishing that he is the mayor.

**Craig:** Well, you know what I like though is that you took something that has the potential for hackiness and you put some spin on it so that there was more than just the information. You made a joke out of it.

**John:** Yeah. So, there’s a little bit of a spin. But I don’t want to run away from the criticism that it is a little bit hacky to do it. And I feel that in Frankenweenie the nature of our world and sort of how it all works, it’s less awful than it could be in other situations.

The truth behind why I did it in Frankenweenie is that there’s so few frames and minutes and seconds in that movie to get crucial information out, it was the only time that we were going to be able to establish that he was the mayor of the town.

**Craig:** Well, I’m going to stand in stronger defense of your work than you have here.

**John:** Thank you very much.

**Craig:** You’re welcome.

**John:** Mike in Los Angeles writes, “Let’s say hypothetically I have 12 weeks to write a script from idea to finished first draft, like my thesis script for example. How do you or Craig break down your work into daily goals to make sure you hit that deadline? I understand once I get into the writing that I can divide it out in a daily page count, but I’m more interested in how you do it prior to the writing. How are you breaking story, working with characters? How do you do it?”

**Craig:** Well, for me I am, because I outline very thoroughly, I am less concerned about how much time I’m taking during that process. I sort of feel like if I get that right then I look at what I’ve got left. Presumably it will be at least half of the remaining time. And the process of then dividing pages by 5 days a week to give myself a couple days off isn’t going to leave me with some crushing burden.

Sometimes I will sort of work backwards. I’ll say, “Okay, I have 12 weeks. I know I don’t like writing more than four pages a day. I feel like that hurts. That’s 20 pages a week. Presume that the screenplay is 120 pages and then I’ll narrow it down a bit, so we’re talking about six weeks. So, I have six weeks to break this outline out.”

And then I take a nice breath and I feel like I have lots of time, but I don’t do that so I’ll waste it — don’t waste any time. I start right away. And I begin — we talked about this before — everybody has different ways in. I like to begin with some big basics, the premise of the movie, a protagonist who is appropriate for that premise, a theme that is appropriate for that character and that premise, and instigating a beginning that is appropriate for that person, that matches to the end that is appropriate for that person.

And then sort of laying out the second act as a proven ground for that individual to go from where they are in the beginning to that very different character place at the end. And then what happens in between is writing. Even if you’re not actually writing, if you’re just doing cards or scene ideas or thoughts, that is truly where half of — 70%, 80% of what matters goes.

So, that’s my method.

**John:** In the question he’s saying, “from idea to finished draft,” but I honestly feel like the ideas phase can be a very long, amorphous period. So like for the ABC thing I just wrote, the idea phase was, you know, there was the idea, and then it was talking to Josh about it, and going to pitch it. And so by the time I was actually writing an outline everything was really, really fleshed out. So, at a certain point we had it up on the board and I had act breakouts and then I had to write up this outline. So, it’s really hard to say sort of when the clock started ticking on it.

But that was a case where TV — a lovely thing about TV is because there are act breaks I can say, like, “I’m going to write an act today,” and then it’s just done. And that was really simple and it’s very quick to write a TV script for those reasons. And actually the last acts are really short, so it goes even faster than that.

For a feature project I try to give myself daily page counts. Once the clock is really ticking and there are 12 weeks to turn this thing in, I will give myself daily page counts. And if I do set myself to five pages a day you get done really early. And so some days you won’t actually hit that, but other days you will hit that and it will all get finished.

What I will tend to do is a little carrot and a stick. And so I’ll make some deal with myself at the start of the week saying that if I write five pages every day then I get to buy myself something that I really want. And if I don’t actually hit those five pages a day then I don’t get that thing.

Other times I’ve had to sort of punish myself where if I don’t hit — any day that I don’t hit my pages I will have to make an anonymous donation to an organization that I despise.

**Craig:** Ha!

**John:** So, I try to sort of get the work done and feeling good, and feeling great, but sometimes it is just a matter of like cranking through the pages so you can get something finished.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. So, our last question is from Adam Pineless. Pineless, like a treeless mountain. He writes, “I’ve heard some films have 10 to 15 other writers come in and punch up a script. What’s up with that? What actually happens?”

So, punching up is a thing that happens largely on comedy scripts, before they go into production. Craig and I have both been part of comedy punch-ups. Are they a good thing, Craig?

**Craig:** I do think they’re good things. But it depends on what kind of punch up session you’re describing or punch up employment you’re describing. Very often on true comedies that are very joke driven, there will be one day where eight or nine comedy guys will be invited to sit in a room with the screenwriter, and the director, and the producer, and typically a studio representative, and you’ll go through the script.

Sometimes you go through the script and just talk about the script itself and kind of get the collective wisdom of people who have written comedy scripts before who can give you advice on character, plot, theme, things that don’t work, things that do work. And sometimes it’s literally just a page-by-page, “Any ideas for some jokes here?”

And we do this for each other. Typically the pay is somewhere between — it used to be $5,000. It has dwindled as low as $1,000 at times. Sometimes it’s $2,500. And we tend to do this for each other. I go to a lot of these things. And I have a little roster of people that I rely on when I want to do one for something I’ve written.

So, that’s fine. And I should point out that those writers are never eligible for credit. It is accepted from the credit process as not considered writing; it’s just “stuff” really. It’s just thinking, group thinking.

**John:** Yeah, because none of the writers in the room are actually writing anything down on paper. There is no literary material being created. There is just a discussion happening.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. Sometimes I’m hired to punch up a script where I’m given a screenplay. It’s almost always very close to production. And I’m asked to go through and fix some dramatic things, fix some character things, and add some comedy here and there. And they usually give you a cheat sheet of where they believe the hot spots are and what they feel needs help. And this is typically done on a weekly basis, one week, or two weeks, sometimes three.

That is where movies can be greatly helped by the right person, but if the studio is chasing subsequent writers and there is a succession of people coming in and doing these things the script becomes a sort of flavorless mush. This is all separate and apart from a general parade of rewriting which can occur in development where people simply don’t know what the movie is supposed to be. It hasn’t been green lit yet and they just keep hiring writers to try different versions of the same idea.

And it’s quite rare that films like that work out well. There is one movie in particular I was asked to write, and I chose not to, and it had been around — this was a couple years ago — and it had been around and in development for so long that the friend of mine who had actually done work on it at one point, the draft that he did work on had the World Trade Center as a major plot point. [laughs]

So, it had been well over ten years in endless rewrite hell. And the movie that resulted was not a particularly good film. It’s just one of those things. At some point studios can’t stop chasing something and they should just stop. But, you know, these punch up groups, these occasional roundtables are actually quite useful, I think, and I always say if you get two really good jokes out of five hours of nine writers pitching jokes, it’s a victory. You got two great jokes.

**John:** I agree. So, the sessions that we’re describing, I hear them called “punch-ups,” I hear them called “roundtables.” Sometimes they’ll be preceded with a reading, so they’ll either bring in the real cast or just funny actors to read through things so everyone can hear it together and see sort of what’s working and also hear what’s not really working.

They mostly happen in comedy because that’s where a day’s work can actually achieve something. It’s finding some jokes. Because if you get two great jokes, and one of them makes it to the trailer, that was money really well spent and time really well spent.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, that can be really gratifying. And just sometimes it’s not even like a brand new joke, but just like a slightly better version of a joke can help. A character saying a funny thing can be really useful.

So, I think they’re useful for comedies. You don’t see them very much in dramas. Craig’s point about a long parade of writers over the course of time, I worked on Tarzan which is at Warner Bros. So, recently they announced a new version that they’re trying to do at Warner Bros. And god bless them, you know, maybe there are 15 writers who’ve tried to do Tarzan there.

So, if that movie were to get made at a certain point I’m probably still on the chain of title for that, that long history going back, but I don’t know if a single thing I’ve written resembles what’s in Tarzan right now. And that’s an example of like, well, of course you’re going to keep trying to make that because that’s a great property, that’s a great brand. It’s just a really hard movie to make.

**Craig:** Yeah. And, you know, studios experience internal turnover as well. People who control the development of properties are fired, they’re hired. Producers lose their deals. They come and go. Things go in and out of style. There are movies that are written of a certain kind that are seen as outdated or out of step with what people want, and then suddenly another movie comes along that makes it instep and in line with what people want.

And so these things happen in fits and starts. Personally, if I were running a studio, and I looked down at my development slate and saw a few of these things that had been kind of lumbering along, soaking up development dollars year, after year, after year, I’d kill them. Or, I would hire a writer-director, or a writer-director team to develop it because ultimately the conventional process is just simply not working for this project.

**John:** Yeah. One of the projects — we may have both worked on this. Did you ever work on Scared Guys over at Sony?

**Craig:** I remember reading it at one point. I don’t think I — no.

**John:** So, it’s a project that was at Sony for — it probably still is at Sony, probably someone is writing it right now. Probably it’s like literally on somebody’s screen right now.

It’s a pretty good premise, and when I was brought in to do a rewrite on it it was Kevin James and Ray Romano as two incredibly agoraphobic guys who have to go on this adventure. I don’t even really remember the premise that knocked them out of their agoraphobic little happy niche, but they had to go on a road trip. So, it was two agoraphobes on a road trip.

And it was fine and I enjoyed writing it. It was like a true comedy comedy, which I don’t do very often, but I was just writer 14 out of 29 on it at this point. And it will be fascinating to see if that movie ever gets made.

**Craig:** Did you ever work on Stretch Armstrong?

**John:** I did not. But that’s another legend, isn’t it?

**Craig:** I don’t know how you even have a WGA card if you haven’t worked on that movie. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** That movie has had… — I worked on that very early in my career. I think I was the four millionth writer. I believe they’ve hit a billion. I believe they are officially in the billions. And the movie moved from studio to studio to studio. I mean, at some point someone — either someone is going to blow everybody away by figuring it out, or everyone will suddenly realize you can’t make a movie out of Stretch Armstrong. It’s boring.

**John:** The thing is Stretch Armstrong is like two-thirds of a good idea, but it’s that missing third that’s going to be really hard to ever reach. Because it’s sort of a good trailer, but I don’t know that we’re going to want to see that as a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. The version that I wrote back with my partner, and this was sort of I would say 1997-ish, was a Tim Allen comedy, so there you go, it’s 1997. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** And it was Tim Allen in basically a family comedy where he’s a single dad raising a couple of kids and he gets stretchy powers. And it was very broad and goofy, but it was really about family and stuff like that, you know. And it wasn’t at all — it was so minimally about being a hero because, you know, at least then… I would say now I don’t acknowledge that stretching is a heroic property. [laughs] It’s simply odd.

**John:** There’s a reason Mr. Fantastic isn’t really that fantastic.

**Craig:** No. No. Not at all. It’s such an inappropriately named character. He’s Mr. Vaguely Interesting.

**John:** Ha! Yeah.

**Craig:** So that was that one. And that still hasn’t been made.

**John:** The other example you gave which is where during production there is a series of writers that come through is usually a giant disaster. And the exception would be the first Charlie’s Angels famously had, like a bunch of people came in during production. I was off shooting DC, my doomed television show, and they went into production. And all sort of the A-list kind of people came in and did a week. And they were like, “What is this movie? It’s going to be a disaster. This is going to be the worst thing ever.”

But, god bless them, everyone, like, did the best they could. So Zak Penn was on, and I don’t know if Simon was on the first movie, but everyone — people you couldn’t believe helped out for a week and god bless them.

And the movie was a wreck, but it all kind of pulled together in a way. And it was the weird kind of movie that can actually support the like 15 different tones all happening at once. And then I came back in and sat in the editing room for a long time and we reshot and it worked. So, sometimes it does work, but it’s a brutal way to make a movie.

That’s why you shouldn’t go into production without feeling pretty darn good about how your script is, unless you want to kill yourself.

**Craig:** Yeah, no question. Charlie’s Angels is one of those movies that almost its charm is almost in its strange, funky nature. You know? That because the title implied a very kind of drudging remake of what was basically a very bad TV show — I’m sorry, you know, just a goofy ’70s era procedural, very cheese ball show. To kind of come at it from such a wild angle really made it fresh and was cool, you know. Charlie’s Angels was a cool movie. McG did an awesome job on it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And you did, as well, of course. And I guess Zak. I’ve got to give Zak credit. You know I hate that.

**John:** Oh, god, the worst.

**Craig:** The worst! I love him.

**John:** Just the worst.

**Craig:** I mean, I love giving him crap. And I love him also.

**John:** Yeah. I think he listens to the show, so right now he’s…

**Craig:** Hey Zak!

**John:** …he’s enraged.

**Craig:** He’s enraged. How can you tell? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] How can you tell when Zak Penn is enraged?

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** That’s a good sort of a Zen question.

So, that’s the end of our questions from listeners this week. There’s actually a ton more but this is all we have time for today. But you and both had like cool new things come out this last week.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** I just saw your trailer for Identity Thief, like the longer trailer for Identity Thief, and I loved it.

**Craig:** Oh! Awesome! Great.

**John:** And so I love Melissa McCarthy. And I love Jason Bateman, so these are good things. And I can stand you. But I was just really, really happy with it. I’m so happy for Melissa and that you gave her good stuff to do. And a lot of physical violence takes place against Melissa McCarthy. She gets hit by cars, and things are thrown at her, and…

**Craig:** Yeah. We put her through the ringer. I mean, I didn’t love the first trailer that came out, only because as a teaser it really was just about, like, “Here’s a couple of kooky jokes and here’s a basic idea for a movie.” And this longer trailer gives you a better sense of the fact that there’s a cohesive story and that there’s something happening and a bit of a journey.

What the trailer — and I love it, actually, too. I mean, I’m really happy with the trailer. And I don’t mean that in a braggy way because I didn’t make the trailer. Trailers are different things; they live apart from movies. And so I think the marketing guys did a really great job with it. And they are — as they should — they are selling the comedy because it is a comedy and there’s a lot of really funny stuff.

What the trailer won’t impart at all, and I don’t think any TV commercials will, so I’ll just sort of impart it, is that the movie actually has a lot of really touching stuff in it. And Melissa McCarthy, she makes you cry. I mean, there’s a couple of spots where she gets you.

And so I like sort of selling big comedy, which we have, and then kind of surprising people with something that’s quite human. So, I’m looking forward to it, but I’m glad you liked it. I liked the trailer, too, and naturally you will include a link.

**John:** Oh my god, of course.

**Craig:** And the movie is coming out February 8. You’ll be hearing about it consistently until then.

**John:** I didn’t realize it was coming out that soon.

**Craig:** Uh-huh.

**John:** Wow, that is really quick. So, that’s why you’ve been so busy getting that picture all finished up.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, yeah, scrambling. Sitting with Seth Gordon, our terrific director today, and Scott Stuber, our awesome producer, and it’s been a real family on this movie. Everyone has gotten along and just… — It’s a funny thing, when people like a movie then your romantic notion of how everyone should work together is real. Everybody starts to feel like a family that’s raising a kid together, and everybody is looking out for the kid, and everybody is watching each other’s backs, and respecting each other and what they bring.

And, you know, when it’s not that way, that’s when things can sometimes go completely awry. But in this case everybody’s been just dedicated to it. Melissa and Jason have been just dedicated to it. And on the one hand I’m a little sad that I stole Melissa from you. On the other hand I’m full of glee.

**John:** Yeah. I can always get her back.

**Craig:** Try! You try. [laughs]

**John:** It’s not like she’s not busy at all. She doesn’t have a TV show…

**Craig:** I’m like — I’ve got a death grip on that lady.

**John:** Yeah. She’s just great.

So, people have to wait till February 8 to see the movie though, right?

**Craig:** They will have to wait until February 8 to see the movie.

**John:** Now, what they could do right now is my new thing, which by the time people are listening to this podcast is available on the App Store, which is — finally — Karateka, which I just sent you the download code so you can get an early sneak peek of Karateka.

**Craig:** Yes I did. And even though I know the name is Karateka I will always call it what I called it when I when I was a kid which is “Kerotica,” as in erotica.

**John:** That’s how I called it when I was a kid, too.

**Craig:** That’s what I used to say.

**John:** When Jordan Mechner and I first started talking about making it, one of the first questions I had for him was like, “So, how am I actually supposed to say it?” Because I just remember the box that I got when we bought it, you know, it was a summer gift for ourselves, and I said “Kerotica,” because I didn’t even know what erotica was, but that’s just how you would pronounce.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But Jordan says Karateka. His official word is that you can actually pronounce it however you’d like to pronounce it. He will gladly take any pronunciations.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** So, we’ve been out on Xbox, and Steam, and PS3, but now the iOS version is out and done and I’m so happy because this is the one I’ve spent the most time myself doing, because while I play Xbox and PS3 they’re not my sort of native things. And I’m very much iPad. And so this is the one I sort of got to sink my teeth into and figure out how we’re going to translate all of the stuff that would happen with controllers, how we could do it in a touch way, and sort of how we could figure out how to make this game feel right and playable when you’re just on an iPad.

So, if you have unwrapped your iPad that you got for Christmas, your iPad mini, and you’re sitting by your tree and you’re listening to this podcast, and you feel like downloading it, go to the App Store right now. Because it’s only $2.99, which is a bargain. And we don’t have sponsors on the show per se, but if you felt like, “Wow, I wish I could give John and Craig a little bit of money to help pay for the costs of the show,” that’s one way you could.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s a good game. The things I like about it: One, I mean, just the nostalgia factor; being able to say I’m playing Kerotica again is really cool. And I don’t play Karateka but I do play Kerotica.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The iOS games that are not puzzle-oriented sometimes suffer from clumsy controls. I don’t like playing shooters on iOS. I just find it really annoying. But the controls here are elegant, and simple, and transparent to you while you play, which is great.

**John:** Cool. One of the things we had to figure out is the interface for — it is sound-based, so as you’re playing the game you can sort of hear the rhythm of like sort of how they’re going to attack. You can figure out your blocks based on the music that’s playing. The problem with the iPhone, or the iPad, too, is like, what if you’re on the subway and you’re playing and you don’t have your headphones on? You don’t want to be annoying around other people.

So, we had to figure out an interface for how to show you, give you symbols that would show you what’s coming up, even if you have the sound turned off. And so that was the stuff that took like the extra months. People kept asking, “Hey, when is it coming out on iOS?” It was figuring out that stuff.

**Craig:** Well, time well spent. And the other thing I like is the — and you talked about this before — a rather unique approach to handling death in a video game, because usually you get unlimited lives and death comes with either no penalty or kind of a setback penalty where you have to go back to a checkpoint.

And here your lives change who you are and your character and the possibility of success. There are levels of success, and if you can manage to play through the whole game without dying you achieve the true success of the game. But if you don’t, your character actually becomes sort of different. And in that way you have also kind of created a very novel approach to difficulty management because the typical scheme is that you start a game with a setting — easy, medium, hard.

In this game there is a setting and as you fail the game gets easier, but in doing so rewards you less should you succeed in the end.

**John:** Exactly. The reward of the game is completing the story with your true love, and that’s the ultimate mission. So, you’re going to be able to keep fighting and keep going, but as a slightly more powerful but slightly less desirable guy. And it was Jordan’s idea, god bless him. And the next thing about a screenwriter, like Jordan, figuring out how to tell game stories is like he really thought about like, “Well, what is the story consequence of dying?” Well, the story consequence is that she doesn’t get to marry her true love. She gets to marry the next guy who comes along who’s not… — but it’s not love.

So, it’s been fun to see that play out and people really respond to that.

**Craig:** Very cool.

**John:** Cool. Craig, it’s time for One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** One Cool Thing!

**John:** Me first or you first?

**Craig:** I don’t know. I actually have one, so that’s already a shocking thing. But you decide who goes first.

**John:** Let me go first. So, my One Cool Thing is a book that everyone can buy. And so, again, if you have your iPad in your hand, the first thing you should do is download Karateka for $2.99 on the App Store. Second thing you might want to do is go over to Amazon, or your bookseller of choice, iBooks, whatever. Mr. Penumbra’s 24-Hour Bookstore. Mr. Penumbra’s 24-Hour Bookstore, by Robin Sloan, which is really great and fun and a great Christmas time read.

It’s sort of big nerd adventure story, so adventure story in the sense of like it’s Da Vinci Code or like a Raiders of the Lost Ark, but very, very nerdy in the best possible way. And it involves fonts, and fantasy novels, and Google Books scanners, and it’s just really terrifically well done. And so I think people who are interested in things that screenwriters are interested in, who are listening to this podcast, would probably dig it.

**Craig:** Very cool. I still, in the back of my mind, you’ve told me that I haven’t done this before, and in the back of my mind I feel like I have. But I’m sure one of our intrepid listeners will call me out if I’m duplicating.

But, you and I both attended a party thrown in John Gatins’ honor last night. John Gatins is the screenwriter of Flight, which is getting a lot of attention this awards season, as well it should. John is a terrific guy. And at that party I met a gentleman who used to sing on Broadway. In fact, he played Marius in Les Mis on Broadway.

And I’m a big musical fan. Obviously you are, you’re making a musical. And for awhile now I’ve been listening to SiriusXM on Broadway in my car with satellite radio. And SiriusXM on Broadway has this fantastic — it’s not fair to call him a DJ because he — I don’t know how you would describe him.

**John:** Host. He’s a host.

**Craig:** He’s kind of a host. I guess he’s sort of a host of huge, long, four-hour blocks of programming. And his name is Seth Rudetsky. And Seth is an accomplished musician and he works on Broadway, typically as an accompanist and a musical guy. And he’s been around for a really long time in the Broadway world and he’s amazing. He’s just a really smart, smart guy.

And what I love about Seth Rudetsky is that he combines these things that mean something to me only in combination. He has an excellent grasp of music theory, dramatic theory, and the theory of musicals if we can posit that such a thing exists, so a very good sort of intellectual theoretical understanding of that stuff. He also has amazing practical experience. He’s actually done it. He knows what it means to start a show from start to finish, succeed — he knows what it means to succeed, he knows what it means to fail. He knows how the sausage is made.

And lastly he is incredibly good at actually conveying those insights that he has to the average listener and the lay person. So, when you combine all three of those things you learn so much from him, sometimes in these little short bursts. And it got me thinking that that’s really, I think, what you and I aspire to when we talk about screenwriting are those three things in combination. And Seth Rudetsky is the Scriptnotes of Broadway.

And I am a big fan of his. I’ve never met him. You have met him?

**John:** I feel like I met him. In the travels I’ve encountered him in someplace, and so I think I shook his hand. But I listen to his show as well and I think he’s terrific. And, again, I would aspire that our show could do a little bit more of that. And as we start doing more interviews in 2013, I think that’s a good place for us to be in is to have people talking about the craft in an enjoyable way.

And we can interview people as they talk about their experiences the way he interviews them talking about how they made their shows.

**Craig:** Yeah. And you know what he does that I love? Sometimes before he plays a song he’ll talk about a tiny little moment in the song that you would never notice. But he’ll talk about why it’s good. And he has such a passion for it. And so he’ll say, “Just listen for that moment and here’s why it’s important because of this.”

And then you hear it and you go, “Oooh!” Like, for instance, there’s a song You Can’t Get a Man with a Gun. And it was written for a belter. And he was talking about how when you write songs for belters like Ethel Merman who originated the performance of that song, that you want to find those moments in a song that allow the belter to belt.

And he says, listen, you know, in the chorus, [sings] “You can’t get a man with a gun. With a g-uUN.” And that whole like “g-uUN.”

That whole thing is really designed to let Ethel Merman just be Ethel Merman.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I’d never really thought about that before. And then he plays the song and you’re like, “Whoa, he’s right.” [laughs] “There it is! Brilliant.”

**John:** I second your recommendation. He’s terrific. And that’s on XM. And XM is actually kind of wonderful.

I never had XM until we got this new car and it came with three free months of XM and you quickly become addicted. And so, of course, then you start paying the monthly subscription.

**Craig:** Well worth it, for Seth Rudetsky alone.

**John:** Great. So, those are our Christmas presents for you. We have Mr. Penumbra. We have Seth Rudetsky. We have Karateka. We have Identity Thief. Hopefully some answers to questions people had. If you want more information or links to any of these things you can look at johnaugust.com/podcast where we’ll have the show notes for each and every episode of the show.

And, Craig, Merry Christmas. Happy Early New Year.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I guess we’ll see everybody in 2013.

**John:** That’s awesome.

**Craig:** Unless those Mayans get us.

**John:** By the time this podcast airs won’t the Mayan Apocalypse have already happened?

**Craig:** So this podcast won’t air?

**John:** Yeah, oh my god. We just wasted a lot of time didn’t we?

**Craig:** A lot of our last remaining minutes. Brutal!

**John:** I should have spent it with my family but instead I spent it with you.

**Craig:** Yeah. I like that. Feels right.

**John:** Thanks Craig. Take care.

**Craig:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 65: The Next 117 Pages — Transcript

November 29, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 65 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. This is our post-Thanksgiving episode. Craig, how was your Thanksgiving?

Craig: You know, it was great. I had Thanksgiving with my family over at Derek Haas’s house.

John: You were right up the street.

Craig: Yeah. I was very close to you. Thought about walking over to your house and handing you some turkey, but then I thought, “You know what? No. No. Give the man his privacy.”

John: Just this one day you’re not going to come by and harass me.

Craig: Just this one time.

John: So you had a good group of writers there because you had you and Derek. Any other screenwriters?

Craig: Nope. No, it was just us and the kids going crazy. How about over by you?

John: We had the Creaseys come over, also screenwriters, and Amy Higgins and Matt Watts, also writers. So, it was a good group. We had a total of 14. I made a turkey and all the trimmings. It was fun.

Craig: Excellent!

John: It was a good, fun time.

So, Craig, today I thought we would talk about, we’ve done a lot of work the last year on the First Three Pages and talking about sort of what should be in those first three pages, and people have been sending in those things and that’s been terrific. But I kind of want to talk about the next 117 pages, if we can do that, sort of all the stuff we might talk about if we were reading people’s full scripts and sort of the things we would be looking for if we were looking at everything beyond those first three pages, if you’re game for doing that.

Craig: Always.

John: Always. But first we have a bunch of little questions that have stacked up, so I thought we might burn through those and just do a bit of a sprint. Okay?

Craig: Sounds good.

John: All right. First, Mike in New Jersey asks, “I was wondering what the protocol for spacing in between sentences is. I’ve been told to use two spaces after each period, but I’ve also been told this doesn’t matter. I was just wondering what you guys would suggest.”

This has come up on Twitter also. It’s a simple answer.

Craig: It’s a thing. Well, you know, the whole two space thing came from old typewriters because it looked weird if things weren’t double spaced after the period. It looked like the sentence never ended. But I think, you know, you’re a font nerd. This problem went away with computers, didn’t it?

John: This problem went away with proportional-spaced fonts. So, the problem is that mono-spaced fonts, because every character is exactly the same width, the two spaces were helpful in readability when you were typing on a typewriter, it had like every character the exact same width. So, double spacing after the period was a standard thing you would do.

My belief is that if you’re still typing in a mono-spaced font for a screenplay, like Courier, it’s nice to do the two spaces. But I don’t think it’s a must in the mono-spaced font anymore. So, if you choose to use two spaces in a mono-spaced font, great, like Courier. But if you’re using any other font, any other sort of normal font, stop doing the two spaces.

Craig: Yeah, I grew up on two spaces because I learned to type on actual typewriters, which obviously don’t exist anymore. However, somewhere I would say about six years ago I made the jump to one space because I started reading a lot of scripts that were in one space, obviously still in Courier, and they just looked better to me. And I wasn’t having a problem following where the sentence breaks were.

It was a very difficult thing to break myself of because I had become so used to the double space after the period. But, I did it. And now I am a single space aficionado.

John: One thing which is interesting that’s happened with the advent of the web is HTML by default sort of sucks white space down to a single space, so if you double space on a web page it is going to break that down to a single space regardless. So, I think people are a little bit less mindful of it, because when you’re typing into some web forms and things like that it all just does kind of go away, and you don’t really notice the difference anymore.

If you are doing a script and like maybe you started writing with a period and two spaces, and like your writing partner does space/one period, it’s worth it to go through and fix all of those things because it’s going to be weird if you’re flipping back and forth. Your friend there is to do a find and replace. So, don’t just search for a space, search for a period-space and go through and swap all those out. Or search for a period-space-space, and substitute those in for a period-space. There are ways to do it so you can get back to sanity.

Craig: Yeah. I remember going though this. The issue with the period-space is that if you had something like Mr. Smith it would become Mr. space-space Smith.

John: Yeah. So what you can do in those situations, if you really want to geek out on it, is search for R-period-space, and change that to something different. Like change that to like four asterisks in a row or something. And then do all of your other things, and then remember at the end switch four asterisks back to R-period-space.

Craig: Oh, nice. Love it. You know, it seems like the sort of thing that you would write an app for. [laughs]

John: There is actually some talk of some script cleaning apps down in the future, because what we do in Fountain which is the plain text screenwriting language, it’s very easy to build those kind of utilities because you’re just dealing with plain text. And so it’s very simple for us to go through and clean up that kind of stuff.

Craig: I love it. Great.

John: Question number two. Joseph in LA asks, “With all the contests and sites that technology has made accessible, like the Black List, or tracking boards, do you see yourself shifting your views in whether living in LA and working in the industry is really that vital to an aspiring screenwriter’s career? There have been some tangible results with Kremer signing to CAA off the Black List, Ashleigh Powell who sold a script to Warner and recently gained reps off the TrackingB Contest,” a site I never heard of.

Joseph asks, “I live here in LA, I grew up here, went to college here, but I’m considering moving just to live somewhere else for awhile. But I’m fearful that doing so would mean giving up on Hollywood. What do you guys think?”

So, there’s some valid points to this in that there certainly are people who are getting attention from Hollywood not living here, so like through the Black List or through other places they’re getting noticed to some degree here and they’re getting stuff started.

I’d be curious if you followed up on these people and sort of how they’re going in their careers, are they ultimately moving here? I kind of think a lot of them probably are, for a couple reasons. You are going to be taking a zillion meetings starting off. And all those meetings with people are a lot easier to schedule and easier to manage if you’re living here in town.

I would also say you are looking at the results of these — the two people you’ve cited here — people who signed based on success on these boards or these sites, but most people who have success didn’t go through these sites. They went through sort of more conventional ways in which they were interning at places and they swapped scripts with other assistants and they did all the normal stuff.

You’re not hearing those things, you’re not noticing those breakout stories because they’re just so common. You’re hearing these stories because they’re so uncommon I would also say.

Craig: Yeah.

John: A third point that Joseph actually brings up in his question which I’m going to summarize out is: you don’t see this happening in TV. And I think the reason you don’t see it happening in TV is that TV is staffed by going into rooms, and meeting with people, and TV is written by people in rooms.

Many feature writers now have both TV lives as well. That’s very hard to start or run from any place other than Los Angeles. Rob Thomas, who is starting to do it now from Austin, which is great, but Rob Thomas has run a lot of TV shows. Starting out, you’re never going to be able to do that.

Craig: All good points, yes. Certainly if you do manage to succeed with one of these gateway services you’re going to end up here anyway no matter what.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So, the real question is: Do I have to move to LA if I haven’t yet made it? Because we, you and I, always say that part of making it, part of the process of making it, is being where it’s made. So, we’re suggesting to people, yeah, you should be in Los Angeles if you want to be a screenwriter, a professional screenwriter, but aren’t yet one.

And even in the case that he cited, I think the guy who got his script going off of the Black List I think was here anyway. He was working as an intern for the Black List at some point even. But, you know, these things have happened before without these services. Diablo Cody managed to get her start from afar and then came here. There have been people who have done it. Andrew Kevin Walker was in New York. But, yeah, I mean, they’re kind of few and far between. And, frankly, I don’t think the business is particularly interested in these kind of aggregators as their quality control.

I think they’re pretty happy with the quality control they have. Sometimes these things do pop through, but look at Amazon, frankly. If you want to talk about probability and odds and all the rest of it, god knows how many scripts have gone through Amazon. Well how many have come out? Any?

John: Zero.

Craig: One?

John: Not that we know of; not one has gotten made.

Craig: I think that what happens is people — people keep asking this question because they don’t like the answer we give. But that answer remains. We are humans. This is a human business like all businesses. If you want to work in technology you should be in Silicon Valley. It’s technology, the stuff that makes it possible to live anywhere and work from anywhere, and yet still they want you in Silicon Valley. What does that tell you?

Ultimately these things are managed face-to-face through human contact. Even having meetings on the telephone is deleterious to the quality of the meeting. So, yeah, sorry; move to LA.

John: Yeah. Sometimes, every once and awhile, like lightning will strike somebody sort of out of the clear blue sky, and that’s why it’s a phrase, “out of the clear blue sky.” Well, lightning struck that person and it’s just remarkable that lightning struck them because it wasn’t even like a big thunderstorm happening.

Craig: Right.

John: But most of the time people who are struck by lightning, it’s because they were out in a thunderstorm. And so if you want to get struck by lightning I would say go to where there are a lot of thunderstorms, and that tends to be Los Angeles. To a smaller degree, New York. And to a much smaller degree, Austin.

That’s just sort of how it’s working these days.

Craig: Yeah, if the phrase “the exception that proved the rule” meant what everybody thinks it meant, then this is where we would use it. [laughs] Because, you know, everyone thinks “the exception that proves the rule” means that…

John: No, the exception tests the rule.

Craig: Yes. Yes. You should put a link up to what “the exception that proves the rule” actually means.

John: Stuart, find a link.

All right, Mark Andre in Victoriaville, Canada writes, and he writes in sort of the kind of English that is clearly a person whose first language is not English, so I’m going to sort of translate it from English-to-English so it’s more clear. He writes, “You talk about writing out numbers on your website, but I didn’t find my answer. My question is, say there’s an address on a door. Can I just use the numerals, like 1, 2, 3, or do I need to write out One Hundred and Twenty Three?”

Craig: Oh, god, no. 123 is fine for addressees. Sure. Even if it’s 2 Elm Street I would put the number for an address.

John: Yeah. So, let’s talk about numbers in writing and the special case of numbers in dialogue. So, generally numbers in writing, most of the sort of journalistic guide for it and what you’ll often really find in books, too, is numbers less than ten you write out the word. Numbers greater than ten you’re more likely to use the numbers for it. And that also applies for scene description and action that you write in your screenplays.

I’ve often said though in dialogue in screenplays I strongly suggest you consider writing out the whole number, because you just don’t know how an actor is going to say some words. And sometimes you really want them to say something a certain way. You want them to say “one-twelve” rather than “one-hundred and twelve.” And there’s a real reason why you may want them to do that. So, write it all out if it’s in dialogue, most cases.

Craig: I totally agree. I remember — it’s a great rule of thumb — writing things out in dialogue the way you want them to be said. And I learned that lesson on my very first script. We did a table reading, and at table readings they will bring the actors they’ve cast, but usually they haven’t cast all the parts, typically the little ones. And so they just get actors to fill in that day.

John: The day players.

Craig: And there was a line in it and it was — the character I think was supposed to be the head of NASA. And he was saying something like, “You’re going to be through space at 900 miles per hour.” And what we had written in the script was “900 mph.” And the actor got to that line and said, “You’re going to be rocketing through space at 900 mmph.”

John: Ha ha.

Craig: And I sat back and I thought, “Oh god, he’s so stupid, and yet it’s kind of my fault.” [laughs] It’s kind of my fault. So, a good rule of thumb: When you are writing dialogue write out everything, unless it’s like some crazy long number. Write it out.

John: So, in your example, did you mean for him to say “M-P-H,” or did you mean for him to say “miles per hour?”

Craig: I meant for him to say “miles per hour.” Or, I mean, even if he had said, “MPH,” that would have been so weird because nobody ever says, like, “60 M-P-H.” So, I just assumed that it would say, when he would get to “60 mph” he would say, “60 miles per hour.” Totally wrong assumption, the kind of assumption that an idiot makes when he hasn’t written a screenplay before.

And it was a good — I never could have seen “mmph” coming. That’s just dumb. But then again, you know, it happens and the more specific you write things out the better. Because you’re right, “124,” “one hundred twenty four,” “one twenty four,” all different ways.

Plus, frankly, it’s cheating on length.

John: It’s going to take longer to say it.

Craig: You know, every extra word is length.

John: All right. Our next question comes from Adam who writes, “I’m an editor by day, cutting short interviews with stars, directors, and writers for new movies for a cable network. In the last two weeks I’ve done this for two very high profile studio movies which were based on novels. In both cases the author of the novel says in his interview that he was brought on to rewrite the screenplay before production, but was not given credit as a screenwriter because of the WGA.

“Also in both cases the author implied that he felt he deserved credit. This seems unfair for two reasons. One, the novelist did some amount of screenwriting and he’s not getting any credit for it. But more importantly, two, the credited screenwriter’s potential future employers are led to believe that he wrote this movie all by himself, which he did not.” Our thoughts?

This is one of those frustrating things where you don’t know what the specific circumstances were. You don’t know sort of how much this author really did. Whether this author had it in his contract that he or she got to go back and tweak things because of the nature of it. And I’m not trying to slam on Nicholas Sparks, but this feels sort of Nicholas Sparks-y.

You don’t know what the actual situation was. I can talk to you about, Craig can even talk more knowledgeably about it, is that the credits on a movie are determined by the WGA based on who really wrote the movie. And there’s a whole process for that. And so it’s not about excluding the author. It’s about who really wrote the movie and wrote the majority of the movie that we see up on screen.

Craig: Yeah. First thing to point out is authors always have their name on the movie. They get a “Based on the novel by.” So, that’s a source material credit and that’s something that the WGA has agreed to with the studios — that’s within the studio’s discretion. And I cannot think of any case where, I mean, even the worst deal that a novelist makes for the movie rights to his or her novel will include the right to be acknowledged for the source material.

So, their name is on the movie. Their book exists in the world. It’s no secret that the movie was based on a novel.

What is important to understand is that all “Screenplay by” or “Written by” in terms of the screenplay means is the screenplay was written by somebody. So, if I come along and I write a screenplay of say The Shining, “Written by Craig Mazin” just means the screenplay of The Shining was written by Craig Mazin. It’s not casting any aspersions on the author of The Shining who will, of course, get credit, “Based on the novel by Stephen King.”

If Stephen King should come on after me and rewrite me, the Guild asks the question, “Did the amount of work they did on the screenplay rise to the test of authorship?” We don’t always get it right. I have to tell you, I think that given the evolution of the rules that has occurred over the last few years we’re getting it right more often than we used to.

But, frankly, it is not at all unfair. Sometimes people come in and do some rewriting and frankly they simply don’t do the kind of substantial rewriting that would rise to the test of authorship. Our credits are unique; they are not employment credits.

Some people say, “Well every writer should have a credit on the movie because, you know, the craft service guy has his name on the movie.” Yes, that’s true, but the craft service guy’s credit just means that he was employed as a craft service guy. Our credits as “Written by,” it implies authorship and it’s different. It’s simply in a different category. That’s why our credit confers things like residuals and separated rights. And the credit for craft services does not.

So, that part, I think, I can see why maybe it would rub you wrong. I mean, the fact that the authors are complaining just means that they’re authors because everyone thinks that they deserve credit on everything, of course. That’s part of our birthright as writers.

Your second point is not valid…

John: No.

Craig: …and here’s why. You are concerned that the industry won’t know who did what. They always know. It’s the funniest thing. The studios and the agencies know who did work on the movie. They know who impacted the movie. And when the credits don’t reflect that, they don’t forget, in fact, they seem to know it even more in a weird way.

You will hear phrases like, “Well, they weren’t credited but they did a ton of work.” Nothing escapes anyone. I hear this all the time. I hear it from studio executives who will — sometimes studio executives will say the credits were just wrong. This person did it. And they all talk to each other. And every time a writer goes in for a job the studio will call other studios where they worked to hear how it went. There are lists of writers who have recently succeeded and writers who have recently failed. And success and failure in the studio context has nothing to do with who actually got credit.

It has everything to do with who made them happy.

John: Yup. Definitely. One last point about the original authors and determining credit is if these situations did go to an arbitration, those arbitrations are done anonymously. They’re anonymously in two different ways. That is, the people who are the arbiters who are figuring out who deserves credits, none of them know each other’s names. None of the people who are submitted material know who those arbiters are.

And, likewise, we don’t get the names of who the writers were on the project.

Craig: Well, that is true, however, the writer does submit a statement, and in that statement they can identify themselves as… — Well, I don’t know. It’s an interesting question. Can you identify yourself as the author of the source material? They’ll probably disallow that because it would make you not anonymous.

John: The only reason why I know why it can happen, the author can identify himself, is that I went through a really strange arbitration where I was an arbiter. And so I’m going to talk about this in such a general way that no one will ever know which one I’m talking about. This isn’t a movie I worked on; this was where I was just volunteering to serve as an arbiter. And the original person who wrote the book was Writer B and was able to explain that he was Writer B.

Craig: Mm, there you go.

John: And the only reason it came up was there were notes — in addition to the actual book that he or she had written, there were additional notes that became material; it became a whole issue about sort of when he was actually employed as a writer in the movie. It was a mess like these things often can be.

But, being the original novelist doesn’t give you extra bonus super powers in this thing. It’s about who wrote the screenplay and who wrote the bulk of the screenplay that we’re seeing. And Craig’s original point of like, you wrote the book, that book has your name on it. And because you wrote the book you have a credit saying, “Based on this book,” and that’s a large part of it.

So, those are some quick questions. I thought we would spend the rest of the time talking about sort of what we’ve learned from the Three Page Challenge up to this point. So, we’ve gotten more than 500 entries to the Three Page Challenge which is just crazy. And those are like actual real ones that people put in the right boilerplate and they submitted stuff properly. And Stuart has read all of those which is nuts.

Craig and I, we’ve done maybe 30 on the show, but Stuart has read about 500 of them. So, Stuart did a great post on the blog this week. I don’t know if you saw it, Craig, but where he sort of went though and talked about the things he’s learned from reading these 500 scripts.

Craig: I didn’t see that. I’m going to read it.

John: You can read it right now. I’m going to give a little summary here, but you can take a look at it if you want to.

Craig: Calling it up.

John: So, some common trends he noticed was floweriness, which is — what we often talk about when we read the samples — the sort of more novel writing than screenwriting, where people will use poetic language to describe things which makes you think — it’s ambiguous sometimes. And ambiguity is wonderful for poems; it’s not a good choice for screenplays.

He talked about clumping, and clumping is the word he was using to describe when you’re reading down the page and suddenly you can see like, “Oh my god, that’s a really big block of text there and I don’t know if I want to read it.” And so, you know, make the page feel like you want the movie to feel and don’t give us those giant chunks of text that we’re going to be scared to read, because you know what? We might skip them.

He found most of the formatting was actually pretty good, and actually I would agree; most of the ones we’ve read have been properly formatted in a general sense. One thing he notices that I hadn’t noticed is that a lot of people are uppercasing names every time that character appears rather than just the first time they appear in the script. So, that’s no good.

The reason why in feature screenplays you use uppercase on the first time you mention a character’s name is that it makes it really simple to flip through the script and figure out which scene a character first appears in. If you do it every time, or every scene the character appears it just becomes soup; we can’t tell when a character started appearing. So, that’s a useful thing. It lets us know that this is the moment where the character is first appearing in the script.

Craig: Right.

John: The other things which should get uppercased — sounds, like important sounds; really important elements that you really need to draw the reader’s attention to them. And, so, you use uppercase judiciously when you really need to attract the reader’s attention to something.

People have different personal styles. Some people use a lot more uppercase than I like to use. Some people will also use bold, and italics, and five asterisks, and a lot of explanation points. That’s not my style, but this doesn’t mean — there are some very successful writers who do that kind of thing. But uppercasing is pretty consistent, so do that.

One thing Stuart pointed out which I hadn’t noticed but I think is a good thing to notice, the first time you mention a character on the first character introduction, give us their age. Do those little parentheses and give us their age, because sometimes it can be ambiguous when you say someone has salt-and-pepper hair. It’s like, “Well, does that mean he’s like a prematurely gray twenty-something or is he a 60-year-old who is looking really good?”

An age is helpful. And you don’t have to give us an exact age. It’s fine to give us, like, “50s.” But it just gives us a sense of who this person is.

Vary your character names. And this I did notice in one of the scripts that we went through on the Three Page Challenge.

Craig: I remember that one, yeah.

John: And there were two characters with almost exactly the same name. So, every time you saw a dialogue header, a character dialogue header for them, like, “Which one is this? Which one is this?” Don’t do that to us.

You know, you have 26 letters in the alphabet. You’re not going to have 26 major characters in your script, so why don’t you just pick one letter for each character and try not to duplicate if you can possibly help it?

Use descriptive names for minor characters rather than Guard #1. Guard #1 doesn’t help you at all. It doesn’t help you as a reader. It doesn’t help you as a director who’s thinking about how to cast this role. So, if you say like, Lanky Guard or Chubby Guard or pretty much any adjective Guard is going to be more helpful than Guard #1. So, those were things Stuart pointed out.

Craig: Really good observations. Yeah.

John: The rest of the post we’ll put a link to it. He also, along with our friend Nima, did sort of a meta analysis of all the pages. So, they put it through a little processor and they’re going to have more results on some other stuff they discovered.

One of his first hypotheses was that people weren’t using enough white space on the page. That’s probably not actually true. His metric for it was he was comparing the first three pages of what got sent through to us versus the first three pages of the Black List winners of the last couple years. And the white space is actually more on our samples than it was on the Black List.

Craig: Interesting.

John: So, his hypothesis is flawed.

Craig: Yeah, I mean, you don’t want to hammer people with big chunks, but it’s funny — good writing solves almost everything.

John: It does, yeah.

Craig: Good writing will solve all of your formatting issues and mislabeled uppercase things. But, these were all really good tips. Really simple things. You know me, I’m not big on rules and things, but there are some simple rules that we all follow, like capitalizing a character the first time we see them and stuff like this. I think these are all very good simple, practical things to consider as we go through, makes it easier for you guys to get past Stuart.

Although, I have to say, he spelled “legalese” like “beagle.” It’s L-E-A…hmm.

John: Oh, did he do that? Oh, Stuart.

Craig: Yeah. It’s actually kind of adorable. [laughs]

John: Aw.

Craig: Well, because it does remind me of a beagle. I’m sorry, I’m so ADD.

John: You’re picturing a beagle with a law degree and briefcase, aren’t you?

Craig: I really liked it. This is a very well-written article that he did here. This is a very well-written sort of discussion. This should be sort of almost required reading.

God, it’s amazing. Honestly, John, I feel like… — I’m going to tell you something. I went and I lectured at UNLV when I was in Las Vegas shooting on The Hangover. And the professor asked me upfront, “Where did you go to film school?” And I said I didn’t. And he was like, “Oh.” [laughs]

And, you know, I just feel like if we do this right, and by “we” I mean just in general, people in the business who give back through these kinds of things — podcasts, and blogs, and essays. I just feel like eventually these film schools are going to be in real trouble.

Because I look at a thing like this and I think this is a free lecture that people currently pay a lot of money for except now they don’t have to because it’s right here. I mean, Stuart kind of just did a little master class on very simple presentational guidelines.

John: I think we could be a very good substitute for seminar, or for sort of one of those little three-week intensives. What we can’t do that a film school can do is give you a class full of other people aspiring to do exactly what you’re aspiring to do.

Craig: True. That we cannot.

John: And that’s what I got out of film school more than anything. Like, you know, I’ve talked about it before. The Stark Program that I went through, there’s only 25 people a year. And those people, like, I fought with them and saw movies with them and shot their movies. It was crazy, and horrible, and wonderful, but I owe them my career. And so that’s the thing you get out of a film program or being in NASA or wherever else, you’re surrounded by a bunch of people who are trying to do what you’re trying to do.

And that’s the best of film school.

Craig: Hmm. We’ve got to figure out how to do that.

John: Yeah. That’s tough though.

Moving on with sort of what we learned from the Three Page Challenge, we had a question from Matt Price who wrote, “I’ve noticed one more than one occasion you guys have said, in regards to Three Page Challenge script, ‘I know where this script is going,’ as if this was a compliment. Other times you’ve criticized a script with, ‘I don’t know what this script is about.’ But, three pages in, isn’t it a good thing that we don’t know where this script is going? Shouldn’t the story be surprising? I’m sure I’ve misunderstood what you guys mean when you say these things. Can you clarify that critique?”

Craig: Huh. Well, I’m trying to remember my frame of mind when I said it. I think there are times where you know where a story is going and it’s not a compliment at all because it just seems like a very predictable road story we’ve seen before, and that’s no good.

Sometimes I know where a story is going but I’m okay with it because I can tell that it’s the kind of story where the plot is less important than the characters and their journey, and the theme, and the details. Some wonderful movies are centered around incredibly cliché plots. But that’s okay because it’s not about the plot, you know?

I mean, look, let’s take As Good as It Gets. Guy meets girl; guy loses girl; guy gets girl. I mean, it ends with the two of them together and he is the most improbable character for that. It’s kind of a cliché romantic comedy in that regard plot-wise. They go on a road trip in the middle for god’s sakes.

But, it’s how they got there and the details along the way that were wonderful, so frankly the answer is sometimes it’s an insult, and sometimes it’s not a compliment, it’s just an okay thing.

John: I think when I say that phrase — and I’m sure I have said it on multiple occasions — I generally mean I don’t know what kind of movie this is. Like, I’m not clear quite what the genre of this movie is. I’m not clear of who the characters are or how I’m supposed to feel about this movie. I’m not clear if this is a comedy or a drama. I’m not sure what your world of this movie is.

Think back to my movies. Like Go is a movie that goes in a thousand different places. It should be very surprising sort of what happens, but I think in those first three pages you sort of know where the world of this movie is and that grocery store, which is not where we’re going to center most of the action, you realize like, “Okay, it’s about these kinds of characters, these young people who say these kinds of things, who are ambitious in this sort of narrow and weird kind of way.” So, it’s like you get what kind of movie this is and how it’s going to feel.

And when I’ve said that about three page scripts, that I don’t know where this movie is going, it’s because I’m not sure what to expect when I flip the page again. And that’s not the right kind of feeling.

Craig: I agree with you on that. And it’s funny — I was watching Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels last night. It was on and I really like that movie. And that movie is designed in such a way specifically to prevent you from seeing what comes next. It’s a puzzle box of a movie that plays tricks constantly because it’s part of its charm, it’s part of its intention is to continually confuse the plot and send it weird ways.

But there’s no question about what kind of movie it is. And if you were to read the first three pages you would get it. It’s a stylized kind of criminal/heisty movie in the general Tarantino vein. And you’d say, “Okay, I’d like to see where this is going. It seems like it’s going to turn into kind of a criminal farce,” which is what it is.

Sometimes we read pages and we think not so much “we don’t know where this is going” but rather “it can’t go anywhere that’s interesting.” Because we’re looking at the seed and we’re saying, “Based on this seed the plant is going to be a weird looking plant that isn’t a plant.”

John: Yeah. If we read those first three pages and they’re just really flat, and it’s generic, and there’s nothing that sparks us about those first three pages, when we say, like, “I don’t know where this is going,” it’s like it’s really a nice shorthand for like “I don’t really kind of care where this goes next because I’m not interested in it, or I’m not intrigued by anything I’ve seen so far.”

Craig: Right.

John: So, let’s talk about the “what happens next” and let’s talk about the next 117 pages frankly of these scripts. I think we picked the Three Page Challenges because you had actually done something like that on Done Deal Pro before, hadn’t you?

Craig: Yeah. I started doing, I think I called them Four Pages or Five Pages. I can’t remember how many. But I just had people start to post these things. And they didn’t have to be the first. They could be anywhere; I was allowing them to even take them from the middle of the movie if they felt like it. And then I would just sort of go through.

And I did it in part because I wanted people to believe that much could be gleaned from that. I think that there is a natural writerly narcissism that says, “Well you can’t know if I can write or not based on two or three pages.” Yeah I can. For sure I can. I think anyone can, frankly; any reader really can.

And I wanted to be able to encourage people that deserved encouragement. And also sort of just reality-check people that deserve reality checking. And, in fact, there was one guy — only one — who put up three pages that I thought were so good that I wanted to read the rest of the script. And I read it and it was really good and I got him a manager. And I think he’s actually working now.

John: That’s really nice.

Craig: Look what I did! His name is Adam Barker. Really, really good…

John: His name is David Benioff.

Craig: …it was a really interesting few pages and it was just evident from those pages that he knew how to write. And when I read the script I talked with him at length about it because the script wasn’t — it needed work, it needed help, it needed love, but it was also — it needed the kind of work, help, and love that I see from anybody. When Scott Frank gives me a script and says, “What’s wrong with this scene?” It’s the same thing.

The difference between a writer giving you something and saying, “Why isn’t this working?” and a not writer giving you something and saying, “Why isn’t this working?” Well, one of these is a cake that you baked a little bit too long and one of these is just a bowl full of ingredients that are poorly mixed together.

John: I want to talk about why we do the Three Page Challenge rather than reading like 120 pages. There’s a couple reasons. First off, you and I just theoretically wouldn’t have the time to read 120 pages. And it’s just a giant commitment. And it really is a commitment in the way that like dating someone is a commitment versus having a little, you know, kiss in the hallway. And these three pages are just like that kiss in the hallway. And so it’s like, “Ah, yeah, there’s something promising there,” but you’re not sort of going out and doing the full romance.

If we were to somehow do those full things I want to talk about sort of the kinds of things we would be looking for and some of the things we would notice, sort of the way that Stuart noticed in his post about all the 500 pages. What are some common themes we probably would be talking about if this podcast were to be about reading the whole script for these things?

And so I’ll start with just some things I thought of, but you chime in with things you often say when you read scripts.

Craig: Go for it.

John: First, it always comes to: Are the right characters in charge of the plot? And this is something I see time and time again when reading newer writer’s screenplays is that they have this hero who is perfectly nice and likable, but the rest of the characters completely run away with the script. And so everything that is important that needs to be done gets done by one of the other characters. Anything really funny that needs to be said gets said by one of the other characters.

And the other characters tend to become much more interesting and much more important than your actual hero because they can be. So often the hero just becomes this little pawn that sort of gets pushed or pulled through the screenplay, and sort of this hapless victim of the screenplay rather than a person being in charge of the screenplay.

And so I feel like if I was reading a whole 120-page script in one of these cases I would be finding those problems again and again where your hero is just the guy who happens to be in this story rather than the person who is in charge of this story.

Craig: That’s a good one. One of the first things I will look for and notice missing is philosophical meat. What is this movie about beyond the motions of the characters and the circumstances? Let’s say you’re writing a movie about two cops — is it just about that? Is it just about them solving the case? Who cares? That’s an episode of a TV show. Who cares? What is this movie really about?

And it’s amazing how many scripts I read where it’s frankly about nothing at all, and that’s always a bummer.

The other thing I look for is layered writing. I find that sometimes I read scripts where the scenes are just about action. Then there’s a scene that’s just about character. Then there’s a scene that’s just about relationship. Then there’s a scene just about theme. Well, really, the plot should serve the character which should serve the theme, which should serve the plot, which should serve the relationship.

It should all be layered and harmonic.

John: Another question I would probably ask with these scripts is: Why is this story happening now? Why are we choosing to make a movie about this character and this situation right here and right now versus six months earlier or six months later? What is unique about this situation?

And I think it’s one of the things that distinguishes a movie idea from a TV show idea is that is this a story that wants to be told in two hours? And this is this character’s main story in their life. Like this is a great use of this person and our time to focus on this story, versus a TV series which is like, “Well, here’s a whole bunch of promising things, and here’s a good universe and a good world, and we can spin a thousand stories out of it.”

This should be like, “Well this unique set of circumstances created this one story that we’re going to follow.” And so often I’ll read scripts where it’s like, “This is all lovely, and I believe these characters basically,” but when I say this doesn’t feel like a movie I’m saying it doesn’t feel like it has to be a movie. It feels like it can be almost anything else and therefore it really isn’t a movie.

Craig: Right. That’s a good one, for sure.

The other thing I notice probably more in comedy scripts is an unsupported premise. And if you can’t get the audience completely onboard with the premise tightly and logically then the whole thing just feels like an exercise in wankery.

I was working on something a couple months ago where just the premise wasn’t there. The whole movie was sitting on nothing. It was just a short little two week thing. And, by the way, everybody acknowledged it. The other writers, they were like, “Yeah, we tried to do that but there was an issue.” And the studio — everybody sort of said, “Yeah, this thing is kind of leaning on air.”

Well, you can’t build a house on air. And it was a nice house. [laughs] But there was no foundation. And I’m pretty adamant about these things. I get very serious about it and I just say, “Look, you’re going to spend all of this money to make a movie and the problem is you will lose them on minute ten. And never get them back. They will never stop thinking about it.”

John: Yeah. What you’re describing is really the logic that you approach the movie with. It’s like, “Wait, does this even make sense for why this is a movie?” And a related concern that I always comes up with is the internal logic. Is there consistent internal logic in your story? Are the characters behaving in a way that’s both emotionally believable, like the characters are acting consistently? The way they would behave on page 20, that same kind of character would act the same kind of way on page 80? Do I believe that the same characters are still in the same story? Or are they just saying that thing, or doing that thing because you need them to move the plot along?

They’re not acting in a way that’s consistent. Have you established rules in your story and then are you following those rules? Or you’re just breaking those rules whenever you feel like breaking those rules because it’s more expeditious?

Craig: And usually when you see characters behaving inconsistently, violating rules, violating the basic tenets of their character, it’s because the characters are not distinct enough. And the characters aren’t real. And so that’s the other thing you see a lot are characters that all sound a lot like each other, or characters that feel pre-fab, borrowed from other movies, retooled and dropped in. And that’s a sign that you’re in for a bad ride.

Really in the end people go to movies for characters more than anything else.

John: Another question I would tend to ask about the full script is: Have you actually served me a meal? And by a meal I’m saying did you start at a certain place? Did you start at appetizers, move to the salad course, move through the entrée, and then gotten us to cheese plate and dessert? Have you gotten through the whole thing?

Or, did you just serve me a bunch of appetizers? Because some of these scripts, they just sort of like throw things at you, like, “Oh here, you can try this, you can try this, you can try this.” And it’s a whole bunch of different appetizers served back, to back, to back, but it never actually gets into the meat of what it’s trying to be. What we describe as second act problems are really kind of entrée problems. It’s like there’s just not enough there as your main — there’s not meat there. And you’ve never really gotten into it. You just kept throwing appetizers at us.

And that’s especially noticeable in action movies where it’s just like there are a bunch of action sequences that happen, and it’s like, “Well, a bunch of stuff happened but I’m not sure we really got any place.” The most recent Bourne movie to me felt like tapas, where it was just like a bunch of really good small plates, but they didn’t actually relate to each other in any useful way.

Craig: Yeah. You do see a lot of endings that seem far away from the beginnings in terms of space and stuff, but not far away from them enough in terms of character and emotion. I want the character to be almost the opposite of who they were in the beginning, in a big way, in some real way. I want something big to have happened so that they would be disgusted or not recognize who they were in the start.

And a lot of times these movies make these — scripts rather that I read — make banal movements. You know, “I will start dating again.” Well who cares? You know? [laughs]

John: Yeah.

Craig: The tricky thing about these scripts is that you want to find ways to pull audiences into universal truths set in very not universal situations, because I don’t want to see somebody go through my day. It’s boring. I want to see them jump off a building, and go through explosions, and deal with whatever they’re going to deal with, but ultimately I want them to be doing it because of something that I do recognize as important in me, and we all recognize is important in us.

And I feel like sometimes people forget that part. The motivations become rather specific to that character, not universal, and therefore sort of tawdry.

John: Yeah. What you’re talking about, like, “I will start dating again,” like if that’s the realization at the end of this two-hour movie, “I guess I’ll start dating again.” What?! That’s a realization for like the end of a half-hour sitcom. That’s not a movie. That’s not a movie journey.

And I think what you’re talking about is really: Was the character tested hard enough so they can actually prove and get to someplace in the end? And so often I read these scripts, and I understand the sympathies — you love your main character, so you don’t want to hurt your main character, but you need to hurt your main character. You need to make things as difficult as possible for your main character.

Too often I’ll see these situations where, “Wow, that seems impossible — you have to break into that building, and do this, and that,” and like, “Oh, and now these people come and help me do that.” It’s like, why are you adding these people in to helping you do that? The character should have to do it themselves. And they should get caught. And it should get like much, much worse for the character. And you don’t ever make things bad for the character.

I mean, I think you should, you know, I’ve never read a script where I said like, “Oh, I thought they were too hard on their hero.” I want characters to lose their hands. You want bad things to happen to them. And if it’s not that kind of movie then in a comedy you want them to be as humiliated as possible. If it’s a love story you want them to be ripped apart from the person they love for as long as possible to make their reunion meaningful.

And too often I read scripts that aren’t anywhere in the ballpark of how difficult they should make things for the characters.

Craig: I feel like comedies should be the most tortuous for the main characters because that’s where so much of the comedy comes from anyway. But, yeah, I mean, that’s the point. You’re God and the character is Job. Trial by fire. This is the worst thing that could happen to them but it’s the thing that must happen to them. And it must happen today. It can’t happen yesterday, it won’t happen tomorrow. It has to happen right now.

And if they fail, we hear this from executives plenty, “Make sure the stakes are high.” It doesn’t have to be the world exploding, but I have to care if they fail.

John: Yeah. And here is the danger: So when we say like we have to make it as difficult as possible for them, that sounds like an externality applied to them. It’s true, like something else is probably making things difficult for them, but they also have to choose to run into that burning building. You have to make sure that your character is still in charge of making the choices that are making things more difficult for themselves.

And so sometimes they’ll make a bad choice and they’ll suffer the consequences from it. Sometimes they’ll make the right heroic bold choice, but that is going to make things more difficult for them. And so it’s not just about planes falling from the sky or some sort of external calamity. It has to be something that they’re doing that’s making the situation more difficult for themselves.

Craig: Yeah. And sometimes it’s the smallest thing. But whether you’re writing a drama or a comedy you must be writing drama. Always. You have to find drama and you have to understand what drama is. Sophie’s Choice is the smallest thing. It will not change the world.

John: No.

Craig: She has to pick one kid or another in a moment and then live with that decision her whole life. And the world didn’t change. Nothing changed. But it was dramatic. It was so dramatic because as humans — and this is why it’s a great story — we connect with it immediately and emotionally and we’re there. And we’re in it and we can feel it inside of us. It feels awful. And if you can’t find drama, whether it’s big or small, in a goofy comedy or in a weepy movie, you’re dead.

John: And because Sophie’s Choice has become sort of a cliché of a Sophie’s Choice, but it’s an irrevocable choice. And that’s the other thing that you see so often in scripts that aren’t working is that characters make a choice but they can easily just undo that choice and there’s no consequence for them to sort of go back to their previous behavior, their previous lives.

That’s why I always like “burn down the house.” Make sure they can’t go back to that safe place they were at in the start of the movie. They have to keep pushing forward and they have to keep pushing on. And every time they make a choice, never let them unmake that choice.

Craig: Right.

John: That’s sometimes, yes, that is you as the writer creating a situation and building a choice that is irrevocable — that’s good. That’s your job as the writer.

Craig: It’s dramatic. All of this is drama. All of it.

John: Yeah. So, these are some of the things I would have said of this hypothetical script if we had read it. Anything more you want to add?

Craig: Oh, just that the writer of this hypothetical script is the worst.

John: Just the worst. Brave, first off, so brave for sending in his script and letting us read the script.

Craig: [laughs] So brave and so delusional.

John: [laughs] And thank you, Stuart, for reading 500 screenplays so we could pick this one to talk to.

Craig: Seriously. I owe this guy a beer.

John: Yeah. But, that was fun.

Now, Craig, this week I did actually email you to say, like, hey don’t forget your One Cool Thing. “Did you remember your One Cool Thing?”

Craig: I did. I totally did.

John: Hooray.

Craig: Should I go first?

John: You can go first or I can go first. Your choice? Mine is a little Christmassy.

Craig: Oh, so is mine.

John: Great. You go first.

Craig: Okay, well mine is sort of inspired by Thanksgiving but then I realized it applies for Christmas as well. And my Cool Thing is brining. Now, did you make your turkey?

John: I did make my turkey.

Craig: Did you brine your turkey?

John: I did not brine my turkey. But I’m fascinated to hear this discussion because I want to know.

Craig: Brining is the key to turkey. So, here’s the issue with turkey: There are multiple problems cooking a turkey and you can see that when you eat it and it’s dry and gross.

So, one problem with turkey is that it’s huge, so it takes a long time to cook. The longer you cook meat, the drier it gets. The second problem is that the breast meat cooks much faster than the dark meat, so in order to get the dark meat at a temperature that won’t kill you, you end up desecrating the breast meat, and so you end up with the syndrome of like, “Oh, this is pretty good dark meat, although I’m not really a big fan of dark meat. I really like white meat and this white meat is just saw dust. What happened?”

Enter brining. Brining is brilliant. So, here’s what you do: You take a turkey — and you can do this with chicken, or pretty much anything — take a turkey and you put it in a solution that is roughly 5% salt water. And you can use Kosher salt — most people use Kosher salt because it doesn’t have a lot of the anti-caking agents and things that they put in regular table salt. And it comes in big boxes and it’s easy to dump in water.

And you can put some other things in there. You can put some sugar or spices in if you want. And you take your turkey and you put it in this solution. And imagine you’ve got one of those five gallon coolers. So, you put enough water in to submerge the turkey completely. You put in enough salt to hit about 5%. And there are guides online to show you how many cups of salt per how many liters of water. And then you put in a bunch of ice to keep the whole thing refrigerated.

You seal it up and you leave it in there for anywhere from they say 12 to 24 hours. Here’s the magic of science. What happens? The salt water penetrates into the muscle tissue and saline does two things. The first thing, the most important thing, is that it begins to slowly denature the proteins. Proteins are complicated molecules. Have you ever seen pictures of proteins, like the molecule structures online?

John: I have.

Craig: Yeah. So they’re like really big and they’re like all clumpy and turned around and that’s why protein is really good at making muscles and hair that’s curly and stuff like that. So, the saline gets inside and starts to slowly unravel them and loosen them up. And by loosening them up, and even partially dissolving them, they begin to create more space between the proteins. They essentially — it’s like taking a tightly knotted rope and slowly working it so it gets nice and loose.

So, now, what do loose fibers taste like as opposed to dense fibers? They taste tender. We translate that in our mouths as tender. So, that’s the first thing it’s doing: it’s tenderizing the meat. The second thing it does is by creating all this space, and because the turkey is at a lower saline level than the salt water, it allows all this moisture to go into the turkey, so the turkey starts to act like a sponge and increase in moisture.

Now you think, “Oh, I don’t want to eat a sponge.” You won’t. Because what happens is the turkey will gain maybe 20% water volume through the brining process. But the cooking process, which is so drying, will cause it to lose about that much. So, what you end up getting is the moisture that you should have had from the turkey in the first place, plus this nice, tender meat that has a little bit of saltiness to it, just a little bit, which you like — people like a little bit of saltiness to their food anyway.

Brining is the key. I’m telling you, it’s the most amazing thing. So, you leave it in there for 24 hours, take it out, rinse it off, get all that salt off the outside, pat it dry. Good to go.

John: So, I do not brine my turkeys, but I’m familiar with some of your techniques and I think they’re fascinating. A few footnotes and observations. What kind of turkey were you using? Were you using a normal store-bought turkey? Were you using an organic turkey? Which turkey were you using for this?

Craig: I didn’t make the turkey for this Thanksgiving because I was over at Derek’s, but in the past I have used — I try and use a Kosher turkey because they tend to not have a bunch of — you know, sometimes when you get the store-bought turkeys they’ve already kind of put weird stuff in there.

John: Because what I was going to say is some of the store-bought turkeys, I don’t want to say Butterball is a bad brand, but part of the reason — they kind of already do the brining for it because they can sell it as a more expensive turkey because they’ve increased the water weight of it.

Craig: They’ve kind of done it, but they haven’t done it well.

John: They haven’t done it well, which is true. But I think if you were to try to brine again a Butterball, a kind of crappy Butterball turkey, you might have mixed results. The second point is that you bring up like all that time in the oven is what dries out the breast meat, and that brings me to sort of how I have cooked turkey these past few years and it worked well last night, was you don’t do it low and slow in an oven. You do it in an incredibly hot oven.

And we cooked a 21-pound bird in about two hours and fifteen minutes. So, it’s a 500-degree oven, which sounds ridiculously hot, and it is really, really hot; you have to be careful you don’t burn yourself. But you put the bird in, incredibly hot. The bird is at room temperature, you put it in, incredibly hot, keep the oven door sealed so no heat gets out. 45 minutes, you need to tent it over or else it’s going to get too dark. It’s a really nice pretty golden color.

And then it’s out of the oven so soon, the breast meat doesn’t have a chance to dry out the way it otherwise would. And it worked and it got nice and hot. You need to let it rest so that all the juices can sort of get back to where they need to be anyway.

That’s one of the classic problems of turkey anyway is people are waiting so long for the bird that the minute they pull it out of the oven they try to carve it and all the juices have been sort of circulating, they just fall out on the board. And that’s why it dries out, too.

Craig: That is absolutely true. And I’ve read about the high heat cooking method, and that is a good method. And a lot of people will sort of interrupt that sort of three-quarters of the way through and tent the breast with foil so that the legs and the thighs can cook while the breast sort of doesn’t get pelted as much.

The other thing I’ve done is the whole deep friend turkey thing, which is dangerous, and crazy, and awesome. [laughs] But, because you’re a man of science, and because I know how left brain you are, I strongly recommend to you and to all of our listeners, Cook’s Illustrated…

John: Fantastic.

Craig: …and their associated cookbook, The Best Recipe, in which they approach everything from a scientific way and sort of say, “We have decided after cooking 4,000 turkeys this is the best way.”

John: So, what’s great about Cook’s Illustrated is every article about, like, how to cook everything is all about the technique. It’s like, “So, I went through this thing, I had these frustrations.” I went back though these recipe books and I kind of think it’s all made up. I think that they sort of create a narrative after the fact for like, “Here’s a really good recipe, let’s make up a story about how we got to this recipe.” But it is fun. And like, you know, “Confused, I went to our science editor who talked me through sort of how this protein reaction was working, or why adding sugar at this stage did stuff.”

Still, it’s great fun. It’s really well-illustrated. It’s called Cook’s Illustrated. There are no pictures; it’s all drawings. You should check it out if you get a chance.

Craig: Yeah. It’s awesome.

John: So, my thing is also a cool illustrated thing. It’s called Ticket to Ride. Craig, have you played Ticket to Ride?

Craig: I have not, but it sounds like another game that I should try.

John: You will love…

Craig: I’ve had mixed results. I did great on Ski Safari. You repeatedly kicked my ass in Letterpress, so I guess maybe this one. Maybe this will be the trick.

John: Ticket to Ride began its life as a board game. It came out in 2004. And it’s a German-style game, which doesn’t mean it’s in German. It means that it’s one of those games where it’s more about strategy than open conflict. So, it’s not like Risk where it’s a zero sum game, or Monopoly. It’s sometimes you’re actually kind of cooperating with the other players in order to get what you want out of it. And there’s some resource management involved.

It’s not as difficult or sort of strategically challenging as Settlers of Catan, but it’s sort of in that universe. If you like Settlers of Catan you’ll love this game.

Craig: Yeah, that one frustrated me a little bit.

John: So, the idea behind this is, in the basic game you have a map of America and it’s like 1910 or so. And you have all the cities. And there are these rail lines connecting these. And basically you’re trying to build rail lines between the different cities. And so these cards show which two cities you’re trying to connect, and then you have to — you’re drawing these other cards in order to build the trains from place to place.

And so you’re trying to get these routes before other people get these routes. But you don’t know what they’re actually trying to connect and you get different points for different things you do. It’s really ingeniously set up and incredibly well-designed.

And so I’d seen it in a bunch of game blogs and everybody would talk about how amazing it was. And so I bought it on Amazon just on a whim and I stuck it on a high shelf figuring whenever my daughter was old enough we could play as a family.

And she’s seven and she’s really good at games so we broke it out last month. And we’ve been playing it a lot. It’s really, really well done. And so if you have a kid who’s seven and into games they can play it.

It takes about 45 minutes. It’s not too involved. And, there is an iPad version which is not surprisingly addictive in that you can play by yourself, against computer opponents, or you can play it one on one against people on the internet or in the same room. You can just play it off of Bluetooth or WiFi. And so, you know, at bed time Mike and I will be each on our iPad playing a game of this. And it goes super fast because all the physical stuff gets taken out of it and you can just go — pure strategy.

So, I highly recommend it. The reason why I say Christmas, it’s a really good gift for Christmas, like if you know somebody who likes board games who hasn’t played this yet, they will probably love it. And so I feel like it would be a really good thing to get for Christmas with your family if they like board games and haven’t played this — they’d probably dig it a lot and it’s a good fun time.

It’s for two to five players for the physical game, and the iPad version is either solo or you can pass and play and do other stuff, too.

Craig: So, because Settlers of Catan, I wouldn’t play with say my seven-year-old, or almost eight-year-old daughter, or my 11-year-old son. It seems a little…

John: I wouldn’t be surprised. I think your 11-year-old might be able to handle it at this point. Like Settlers of Catan is overwhelming when you first try to do it, but then you actually realize, “Okay, it’s strategy.” So, the rules are really simple; figuring out how to actually get through it, how to optimize can be tough.

Craig: And is that the case with this as well?

John: It is. Similar kind of game. And what I like about the German-style board games is that if you’re really good at it you’re more likely to win. But if you’re not actually all that good at it you’re not likely to get squashed. They’re sort of set up in a way that being ahead actually has a bit of a penalty to it. When everyone can see that you’re ahead they’re going to try to block you or stop you from doing things.

And so no one sort of clears the board. No one takes over everything. And it doesn’t have that punishing aspect of Risk or Monopoly where one person is completely dominant and the other person is worse. Here, the person who wins might get 120 points and the second place person might get like 105. It doesn’t feel like you got killed.

Craig: I like that. Risk or Monopoly are sort of drain-circling games where once you start losing it’s just a slow spiral to death.

You know, my kids play Mario Party on the Nintendo and it’s kind of brilliant how you truly cannot predict who is going to win that game until maybe the last two minutes of it. Because they’ll give you points for being in last place. [laughs] They’re so good about it. They’re so smart. So, I like that idea of sort of not knowing… — Sorry, by the way, which I play with my kids, you know, a classic board game. Sorry is so good at that.

You think you’re winning and then you’re not.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s cool.

John: Sorry though is ultimately up to chance. Like, did you get a bunch of good rolls?

Craig: Yeah, there’s no strategy whatsoever.

John: There’s no strategy.

Craig: Frankly, it sounds like this game would be a good use of the Simplex Algorithm.

John: I’m sure the Simplex Algorithm could be used to maximum effect.

Craig: Yes.

John: Yeah. So, Craig, thank you so much.

Craig: Thank you.

John: A fun podcast and we’ll be back at this next week.

Craig: Woo! And remember, folks, brine those turkeys.

John: Brine those turkeys. Take care.

Craig: Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 62: We’re all Disney princesses now — Transcript

November 9, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/were-all-disney-princesses-now).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Oh yeah? Well, I’m Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, Episode 62. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. And, Craig, one thing that is interesting to a lot of screenwriters is the fact that this past week Disney bought this company called Lucasfilm, which apparently have some project that people like a lot. It’s called The Star Wars. And apparently it was worth $4.05 billion.

**Craig:** Is that the one with Captain Kirk?

**John:** That’s what it is! I couldn’t think of which property. It must be Captain Kirk. The one with that and there’s like Cylons in it, I think?

**Craig:** And when the things burst out of your chest?

**John:** That’s the one.

**Craig:** The aliens.

**John:** Right now there are so many people who are smashing their listening devices as we say this.

**Craig:** “Worst. Podcast. Ever.”

**John:** So, that’s something we’ll want to talk about. Also, I made my first ever video game called Karateka that comes out tomorrow which is exciting —

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** — And finally we’re going to answer some listener questions. So, let’s get to it.

A lot of people have been talking about the fact that Disney buying Lucasfilm means that Lucasfilm obviously controls Star Wars and that Disney controls the Star Wars franchise, the existing movies which Lucas owns — he owns the new three, and there’s some other thing about how he owns the earlier stuff.

But, those characters are worth a tremendous amount. Also, Indiana Jones, not the right to make new Indiana Jones movies, but that character they can do stuff with in other media, which is very useful. Of course, the reboot of Radioland Murders.

**Craig:** And Howard the Duck. [laughs]

**John:** And Willow. Willow you could actually maybe do something with, but…

**Craig:** I don’t think so. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] But what’s also fascinating is, like, my daughter dressed up as a Jedi for Halloween and her little friend dressed up as Mickey Mouse. I’m like, “Wow, you’re both little Disney characters now,” which is so strange.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Leia is a Disney princess right now.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** So, most of the talk I’ve seen has been about the fandom or about the business of it all, but I want to talk sort of what it means for screenwriters. Because I think while I’m sort of excited by what could happen, and also a little nervous about what could happen in terms of these franchises, I’m not sure having one more giant tent pole is going to be a great thing for many screenwriters who are listening to this podcast.

**Craig:** I think this is going to be a big boom for screenwriters actually.

**John:** Well fantastic. I would love to talk about that. Tell me why you think it might be a big boom?

**Craig:** A boom and a boon. I think both.

Look, let me start by saying that this is maybe the single best acquisition any entertainment company has ever pulled off in the history of Hollywood. I think every other studio’s jaw must have dropped when they saw this.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because if any of them knew that Lucasfilm were even up for sale, I can’t imagine how you pass on it. The Star Wars universe, frankly, is the closest thing humanity has come to creating a new religion since the great world religions. It is beyond an obsession for a lot of people. And it continues to be an obsession for every generation.

I can’t think of any other movie from 1977 that my kids like as much as Star Wars. I think that the universe is so broad and the applications for the characters in the universe is so broad, are so broad, that we are going to — yes, we are going to certainly see tent pole movies. But I think we’re going to see shows. I think we’re going to see videogames. I think we’re going to see animated movies. I think we’re going to see… — Basically content is going to be written inside of this universe in every possible way. Disney will leave no stone unturned.

All those television shows are going to need to be written. All the movies. All of the videos. The stuff that they’re going to put online. There’s just going to be a ton of content that needs to be written for this. And Lucasfilm has been an incredible bottleneck. I mean, there was a big deal that Clone Wars, you know, that was a big deal that it even was allowed to happen. Well, you know, all bets are off. I think there’s going to be an enormous amount of material that needs to be written, hopefully as much of it as possible at a high level. But I do think a lot of people are going to be employed.

**John:** My devil’s advocate take on this is that I feel that the concentration of the corporation’s assets into just these couple of marquee properties means they’re going to take fewer risks on other new voices and new… — They’re not going to try to make other new IP. They’re not going to try to make the next Star Wars because they’re going to make Star Wars. And so I think it can limit the chance to reach out to new writers, to new directors, to new voices to try to do new things.

Disney is the company that actually made The Sixth Sense. And I don’t see Disney making The Sixth Sense now because they’re spending all of their resources making the Marvel movies, making the Muppets, making Star Wars, making these big franchises they have to support, between making the Pixar movies.

So, I feel like it’s going to stifle — it’s taking one more actual real buyer out of there for a writer who is working on his or her own material.

**Craig:** Well, that’s true, but I think we do have to acknowledge that they had already made that decision. Prior to purchasing Lucasfilm, Disney was essentially removing itself from that business that they used to be in of making The Sixth Sense, or non-branded live action movies. They just don’t seem to be interested in it. And when they dipped their toe into that pond with John Carter, it got bit off. So I think that they’re even less interested in doing that now. It’s a different… —

Disney is simply a different studio than the other studios. They operate in a completely different way. So, I don’t know if this is necessarily going to take away business that wasn’t there. I think it’s going to add business — it’s going to add employment; I don’t think their appetite has increased or decreased from its zero state for new IP.

**John:** I do concede that, that Disney wasn’t exactly lighting up the spec market as it was. They bought some spec this last week, but it felt like that was sort of a fluke situation. They’re not in the business of sort of acquiring new stuff.

And if you look systemically across all the film industry that is a bigger issue that goes beyond sort of one merger or one acquisition is everyone is trying to make these giant tent pole project movies, which creates both a bottleneck of all of our resources being devoted to these things. Those giant marquee properties tend to be the ones that have the worst cases of sort of writer abuse. And they’re buying fewer original things because they’re trying to make Spiderman 17.

**Craig:** Well, hopefully this doesn’t turn into a bad situation for writers. I tend to try and look at things in the aggregate. Will people be employed? We talk a lot about how it’s harder and harder to be a screenwriter these days, fewer and fewer job opportunities. And while I make my living working in non-branded stuff, you know, I’ve never — I don’t think I’ve ever worked on something that was “branded,” like a Marvel movie or anything like that.

**John:** The Hangover is almost its own brand now, but it didn’t start that way and doesn’t have brand extensions beyond just being movies.

**Craig:** Exactly. Hangover started as a $35 million guess that was original IP. So, I don’t make my living in that area, but there are a lot of people who love the Star Wars universe and who actually do aggressively want to write in the Star Wars universe. And it would be nice to see them put to work. And I can’t imagine there won’t be some kind of Tiffany Network primetime series.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** Or perhaps a cable series? I don’t know. But if I were Disney right now I would sort of be thinking, “Let’s explore the edges of this thing.” There is no reason to just concentrate on making three more movies about Darth Vader as an old guy, or whatever. I mean, he’s dead now, but, [laughs], sorry, spoiler alert.

You know, old Luke. You could do that, but you could also do an entire series that’s just about Boba Fett. I mean, who knows what they’re going to do.

**John:** Yeah. I think you reboot Pinocchio with Darth Vader as Geppetto and R2-D2 as Pinocchio. Done.

**Craig:** Lock it. Done.

**John:** Lock it. Done. Sold.

The only reason I keep wanting to play the devil’s advocate here is that this kind of deal is one of the reasons why it’s very hard to make Star Wars now, is that this “let’s take a big, bold chance on making a whole new thing” is even more difficult now than it was when Lucas went out to make Star Wars. And if we’re concentrating all of our resources on rebooting these franchises and sort of squeezing all the dollars out of these franchises, we may not swing for the fences on these things again.

I would have loved John Carter to be a big hit and that could be the next Star Wars. It didn’t happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. We no longer live in a time where things like that can sneak up on us. The only exception really is James Cameron, who does not make movies that often but when he does, regardless of what you might have thought of his last movie, it was enormous.

Now, did it create the kind of perpetuating phenomenon that Star Wars did? I don’t think so.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** But it’s hard to sneak up on these things. Now it seems that fiction books kind of lead into that. So, the Harry Potter thing is an enormous — that is a Star Wars-esque phenomenon.

**John:** Absolutely. Harry Potter is the biggest of those. But Twilight to a lesser degree, Hunger Games to a lesser degree. Those build into that kind of level.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The Girl who Played with Fire series, yes, but because it was a one quadrant kind of movie they couldn’t generate the huge numbers that you could with a Star Wars.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I also want to point out before Star Wars there also wasn’t a Star Wars. Star Wars may be one of those 100 year flood kind of deals.

**John:** Black Swan. Yeah.

**Craig:** And at some point something is going to happen again, and it’s going to blow people’s minds, I think. But, there was never anything like it before. And we really haven’t seen anything like it since. Harry Potter is the closest you get.

**John:** I would agree. So, let’s get working on those things now. And so let’s create those things. But I feel like if your goal is to create that thing, you’re going to have to create that as a book series first, because I think it’s very hard to create that in a movie context with this environment. Unless you are one of those filmmakers who is just like, “Sure, let’s go for it; let’s roll the dice and give you all the money you want to do whatever you want to do.” And there are few filmmakers who still are those people.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think if Nolan had some amazing idea like that they would just let him do it.

**John:** Yeah. Peter Jackson to some degree. Tim Burton to some degree. They would say, “Yeah, sure, let’s try that.” But Lucas wasn’t any of those people when he got to do Star Wars. He was a risk and I don’t know that we’re taking quite those risks these days.

**Craig:** Well, you only look back to the arrangement he had with Fox to realize how much the business has changed.

**John:** Oh my.

**Craig:** Where he ponied up some cash and in exchange got the merchandising rights, which obviously changed everything, for him and for the business in general. That doesn’t happen anymore. It’s one of those kinds of observer principles where because Star Wars exists there cannot be another Star Wars. But there could be another whatever the next thing is, you know. And that, too, will change the fabric of everything.

Who knows when it will happen? I tend to believe that existence inevitably leads to surprise. So, sooner or later something interesting will happen. I will make a prediction.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** I predict that California Adventure at Disneyland will eventually become Movie Land. And it will be a park dedicated to Marvel and Star Wars and Pixar.

**John:** That’s a very good prediction I have not heard before, but I believe it. If you even look at sort of the construction they’ve done on it in this last go around, they’ve made it much more Los Angeles centric. Yeah. I think that’s a smart choice.

So, topic two. On the topic of IP and original properties, I’m now involved with something that is someone’s original property, from an original creator. I would maybe even say kind of a little bit of a George Lucas of the videogame industry, Jordan Mechner, who I’ve worked with on Prince of Persia. Prince of Persia was a fantastic videogame that Jordan and I worked really hard and it became a kind of okay movie. Not maybe the movie we hoped it would be, but it became a movie.

And we have just spent the last two years working on a new property that’s not a movie. It’s a videogame. So, I sent you a video showing you some stuff about it. And I kept this secret from you, too, Craig. Right?

**Craig:** You did. You totally did. I had no idea this was happening. And it was a great thing to see because I, like you, played Karateka when I was — I played it on the Apple IIe.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** I think we had the Atari 400, with the membrane keyboard.

**John:** Oh, I loved the membrane keyboard.

**Craig:** But, yeah, I played it on the Apple IIe and it was really fun. That was the early — it was sort of really one of the first videogames that I played on a computer. And it may be the first videogame I played on a computer as opposed to the Atari game system.

**John:** Yeah. And I remember just loving that game. And so when Jordan said he wanted to sort of reboot Karateka, the first decision was: Do you try to go to one of the big publishers and do it through a big publisher, like what he did with Prince of Persia, or is there a way we can just do it ourselves? Can we do it as an indie game?

And what Jordan is so smart about is figuring out new ways to handle death in a videogame, because videogames are always about sort of dying and then sort of starting and going over again. What we did for Karateka, which I think is really fun, is you start as the True Love who goes to rescue the princess. And if you don’t make it all the way there, you get thrown off a cliff. If you die you get thrown off a cliff and another guy climbs up and takes over from where you got killed. You start as a True Love, you get thrown off as a True Love, and the Monk comes up. And the Monk is a better fighter. And if the Monk gets killed you go with the Brute. And the Brute is basically impossible to kill, so the Brute can probably finish the game.

But, the princess is not going to be delighted to be saved by the Brute. So, death has a cost, but you can pick up the game and not feel like you’ve spent 30 minutes playing through the game and now you have to start over at the beginning again.

**Craig:** I like that. That’s smart.

**John:** It’s worked out well. Then the challenge became: how do you actually make this game? And so we ended up partnering with this company called Liquid up in Pasadena. And it’s been so much fun to be — technically I’m executive producer on this. So, I get the fun of checking in with them every couple weeks and seeing what’s going on and saying, “Yes, this feels like the game,” or, “That doesn’t feel like the game for some reason, so let’s figure out why that doesn’t feel like the game.”

And the process of making a videogame is very much like making a movie. You have these different people who have different specialties who are really good at their thing, and Jordan’s job as game creator and director of this game and my job as producer is to get them to do their very best work in the spirit of what the whole project is trying to be.

So, Jeff Matsuda who came through to do all the character design for us created this amazingly sort of cell-shaded world. So, then it’s a matter of finding the animators who can make that actually move and work in a game environment.

We have Christopher Tin who did the music, who did a fantastic job. So, we had the music done before we had much of anything else done, and we could sort of build the game to sort of fit what the music wanted to be. It has been a remarkable process.

**Craig:** Well, hopefully the game is good. Is it good?

**John:** I think it’s really good. The other process has been sort of getting it out into the world, so you take it on your little demo units and you show it to the people who are sort of opinion leaders. And I think our reviews are going to be really good. By the time this podcast airs we will have announced, and the first review should be coming out. And tomorrow it’s going to be available on Xbox, and shortly after on PlayStation, and then Steam, and then eventually on iOS for iPad and iPhone.

So, it’s been remarkable to figure that all out.

**Craig:** Well, good for you man. That sounds great. And hopefully it catches on. And it sounds like something I would play, because I did love punching that hawk.

**John:** Yeah. The punch the hawk is really the crucial aspect of it.

**Craig:** I’m going to play this.

**John:** You’re going to play it. I think you should.

**Craig:** You know what? I’m going to play it and I’m going to beat it.

**John:** You’re going to beat it. You’re going to beat it as a True Love and you’re going to stay up all night doing it. And I’m going to send you a promo code and a t-shirt.

**Craig:** Yeah. I want a t-shirt. Is the t-shirt the dude punching the hawk? Because it better be.

**John:** Yeah, it is. It’s the dude punching the hawk.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** You’re going to love it.

**Craig:** Perfect. Done. Sold.

**John:** Done. So, that’s Karateka. That’s available now, or tomorrow for people listening to this now. But we have six questions from listeners and I think we want to get to those.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, I should mention before we get to the questions that I’m also working with Jordan Mechner. The two of us are trying to do a reboot of Leisure Suit Larry. So, that will be probably next month.

**John:** I like it.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. Leisure Suit Larry.

**John:** The sleaziest…was it funny or sleazy? Or both?

**Craig:** It was both. Leisure Suit Larry was one of the worst videogames ever made. And, well no, it wasn’t really that bad. It was just so stupid because it was kind of porny. And it was porny at a time when porn was actually hard to get, you know, the way that cigarettes are hard to get now, but were easy to get then. Well, porn was hard to get then easy to get now.

And so when you were a kid you heard about this Leisure Suit Larry, everybody wanted to get it because apparently the game mechanics were that you would hit on women and if you did the right things and said the right things and took them out to dinner or whatever then eventually they would take their digital top off and you would see boobs.

And, man, I wanted that game. I couldn’t even get the game, so I couldn’t even get to the boobs because I couldn’t get the game.

**John:** Oh my.

**Craig:** Yeah. It was tragic. I think I was 12 and I was upset.

**John:** This is well before the publicized way of like landing the woman, The Game, where there’s like “negging” and there are whole systems for doing that, but it had its own mechanic for sort of how you pick up women?

**Craig:** Yeah. And obviously it was ridiculous guess work. And I just love the thought — it really does kind of cut to the heart of male sexuality that men sat and worked though a game that was fairly arbitrary in order to see badly pixilated images of boobs. [laughs] That sort of sums it up, doesn’t it?

**John:** That’s pretty fantastic. I don’t think I ever told you this, but one of my very first — it wasn’t a paid job because I didn’t actually do the job — but my first agent had sent me out on a bunch of meetings and one of the meetings actually came through, like, “Oh, they really want you to do this,” was this company that had made its money making these porn/porny sort of CD-ROMs. Remember CD-ROMs?

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** It was like a game that would come on CD-ROM. And so the ones they sent home as demos were like, you know, you played through this sort of virtual thing and then you could find these porn scenes. And it was like, uh, ah, okay. But they wanted to do a funny pool game kind of thing for CD-ROMs. They wanted me to write witty dialogue for that. And so that was one of the first things as a young screenwriter I got set up for a job. And I think they went bankrupt, or got raided by the FBI.

**Craig:** Well, there you go. [laughs] Generally if you do any kind of porn-related activity at some point you’re raided by someone.

**John:** Yeah. That’s kind of part of the thrill, isn’t it?

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, that’s why you get into porn, for the raids. [Sirens in background] Oh! We got a siren. We got a siren. Here comes a raid.

**John:** It’s probably Chicago Fire. It’s probably just filming scenes for Chicago Fire, because Derek Haas who is our friend insists on authenticity. So, they won’t do that thing where the truck is moving, the lights are flashing, but there’s no real siren. He insists on real sirens at all times, even if it means they have to loop the dialogue. He doesn’t care.

**Craig:** Oh, they also set fires.

**John:** They do. I think the authenticity where they’ll just go out to some neighborhood and Derek will just with his can of gasoline will set a fire, and then the actors will have to show up and fight the fire. I think it adds a verisimilitude that you can’t find in other shows.

**Craig:** You know what it adds? A je ne sais quoi.

**John:** I think if Derek were to do a medical drama he would randomly just, you know, start hurting people. And then the actor doctors would have to come through and figure out what was wrong. Or he would take real patients and bring them into his hospital.

**Craig:** And just make them worse.

**John:** He’s kind of a sadist.

**Craig:** Yeah, kind of. [laughs]

**John:** But, a person who is really a nice person, likely, is Steve from Oldham, England who writes in with a question.

**Craig:** He sounds like a right bastard! [laughs]

**John:** Right bastard. He gave me a pronunciation guide for Oldham, England, and I was like, I would have gotten that right. I was not going to say, “Old Ham.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah, we’re not that dumb.

**John:** Yeah. Mm. Steve asks, “Is it okay to love your own writing?”

**Craig:** That’s a great question!

**John:** Smiley face. “My reason for asking — on the one hand it seems fashionable for writers to say how much they dislike their work by the time they finished it, but why? I just unearthed a script I hadn’t looked at for nearly a year. It needs a damn good rewrite, but a lot of the dialogue is sparky and funny. I laughed out loud as I read it. Then I felt embarrassed. Am I allowed to really like my own work?”

**Craig:** Of course. Of course.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** It’s nice at least that you let some time go by, so there’s a little bit of distance between you and the writing, because if you write something and then sit back and go, “Good lord, I’m wonderful,” then you’re perhaps a douche bag. But, yeah, if you put something away and then you come back to it a year later, we’ve all had that experience of reading something that we had written many years ago that was new to us as if someone else had written it. And that’s fun.

And it gives you a new sense of appreciation for yourself, because you do spend a lot of our time running ourselves down, wallowing in doubt and misery. So, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. I mean, I wouldn’t talk about it. Sometimes I see writers, both amateur and frankly professionals, engaging in this embarrassing behavior on Twitter, or Facebook, or some social media where they kind of get into this weird self praise. And I find that really off-putting.

But, privately, please.

**John:** Privately, absolutely. Or writers who retweet their positive reviews too often — no, that’s not good.

**Craig:** No. Yeah, that’s — I’m not into that. I think — I always feel like the audience kind of speaks and they tend to, they vote with their feet. And everybody knows what they’ve done and I kind of settle it for that.

You know, one really great review might be a nice thing to put up. But, yeah, you know, easy on the public self praise; it’s a bit grotesque.

**John:** Yeah. So, the converse I’ll say for Steve, if you read something and you hate something that you’ve written, that’s okay, too, to some degree. If you hate everything you’ve written, that’s probably a problem. That’s probably either you’re not writing that well or you’re so hard on yourself that you’re not going to — I feel like you’re not going to survive that long doing it if you despise everything you’ve written.

Or maybe you’re a really good judge of writing and you’re a really terrible writer. That’s possible, too.

**Craig:** Yeah, if you hate everything you write, what’s the point?

**John:** What’s the point. You’re not going to keep doing it…

**Craig:** Life is too short.

**John:** But, I would say in general, yeah, you probably should like what you’re writing, because as I often say, like, you should write the movie that you would pay $15 to see opening weekend. You should write the sentences that you actually want to read. And if you don’t like the sentences that you read, there could be a problem.

And the only times I’ve gone back through scripts and sort of despised them is generally when I’ve had to do so much work on it to please people who I didn’t agree with that it no longer feels like mine, and I can only sort of see the bad memories of having written that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But even when I look back at, you know, a couple weeks ago we looked at our first original scripts, and I’m embarrassed by some of it, but I don’t hate it. I recognize that that’s who I was back then, and I’m a better writer than I was then.

**Craig:** I hated what I wrote, but…

**John:** Yeah. But you wrote it with a partner and it was all his fault.

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah. He’s a jerk.

**John:** Someone else who is not a jerk is María Estandía from Mexico. ” Hi! I am 14 years old and since I discovered your show I have been wanting to write a script. I have written and directed some of my own short films and this summer I did a course on filmmaking. I always wonder if I should keep focusing on short movies or if I am capable of writing a movie script. Should I wait until I am older? Can you ever be too young to write a script?”

Absolutely not, María Estandía.

**Craig:** Yes, you could be too young to write a script, but the question is — that would be different for everyone. Look, no 14 year old has ever written a good feature length screenplay, as far as I know.

**John:** But maybe she could write her bad feature length screenplay at 14 and write a good one when she’s 16.

**Craig:** I don’t know of any good 16 year old written screenplays either. It’s actually a good question. What is the best screenplay by the youngest person?

**John:** As I was reading her question I was thinking back, do you remember Riley Weston?

**Craig:** The supposed 15 or 16 year old who was really 80?

**John:** Yeah. [laughs] So, Riley Weston, for our younger listeners, was a young woman who got a lot of praise because she got hired on as a staff writer on Felicity. She had a brilliant young voice and she was truly a teenager and everyone was singing her praises. And then it turned out she was like in her 30s and she just looked really, really young.

But I take María Estandía at her word that she’s actually 14, and I would say she should, you know, write, yes. I mean, first off, general rule: Never wait for permission to write something. Write whatever you want to write. If that’s a full length screenplay, write the full length screenplay. Will it be as good as it will be when you’re 18? Probably not. But you’ll have learned a lot.

**Craig:** Yeah. The only thing I would suggest perhaps is to maybe wait a little bit and keep working on you short films because I don’t want you to be discouraged. Writing a feature length film is a very difficult thing. And adults who have written many, many, many feature length screenplays continue to make terrible mistakes as they go. It’s a very hard thing to do.

And I just don’t want you to try it think, “Oh god, I’m terrible at this. I hate it. It’s too hard. I’m bored.” Or, “People don’t like it, so I should stop.” So, maybe think about holding out for just a little bit, keep working on your short films. Learn the language of cinema. Learn how you translate words into images and sound. And with a little bit more experience under your belt, perhaps when you are maybe approaching 17, that age, and you have a little more life experience as well, maybe then take a shot at it.

I just don’t want you to feel bad when it doesn’t go well, because it is quite a bit to bite off.

**John:** Craig, you’re too sensitive. You care too much. I think that’s the… — I’ve diagnosed the problem.

**Craig:** That’s why I appear to care not at all. [laughs]

**John:** I just go back to, you know, there are the occasional Mozarts who are just really, really gifted quite early on. And the fact that you are 14 and you wrote a beautifully phrased question to us, but you’re from Mexico, leads me to believe that you are more advanced than your peers and possibly you will do a great job. And so I share Craig’s concern that you could burn out on things by getting involved too early, but I just look at Lena Dunham, who created Girls, and she was writing stuff when she was your age, and she was making films. And who knows if you’re that girl of Mexico, but maybe you are.

**Craig:** It’s true. I mean, here’s the good news: If you are, in fact, awesome, and really, really good, nothing we say here is going to change your path to success, which is assured.

**John:** Yes.

JJ writes, “I recently completed my first script and I’m facing the rewrite. I wrote it by hand and later typed it out. It’s 212 pages.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Oh, yeah. “And I had no idea it was so long. I’ve taken screenwriting classes, and it isn’t in improper formatting either. I would like to know how you and Craig go about rewriting things — things to look for in making a script better. Which scenes to cut? Which characters to combine? Other questions most writers face in their rewriting.”

So, first off, my sympathies on the 212 pages. I write by hand, but it’s being typed up while I’m doing it so I do have a pretty good sense of, like, where I’m at. So, I’ve never come in crazy long. But, I know people who do write crazy long.

**Craig:** I don’t know — the writer that I know who tends to write long and then reduce down is Scott Frank, but I don’t think he’s ever kissed 200 pages, much less beyond that. That is a larger problem. I think we need to talk about your process, in part because whether the writing in long hand has kind of allowed you to put your head in the sand, or you simply weren’t — you did not plan well enough ahead, you are not in control of your story if you’re writing a 212 page screenplay.

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** You are not writing a screenplay. You’re writing something else. So, you need to reevaluate how you’re going about doing this. And also, frankly, that’s not really something you can “rewrite,” or, “Oh, I’ll just take out this scene and this scene.”

**John:** No.

**Craig:** There are huge issues there, I mean, huge issues. You have two movies. You’ve written two movies as one movie. Split them in half, maybe? [laughs] I’m not quite sure how to approach that problem.

**John:** Whenever I face a giant rewrite, or someone asks me this question about, “I need to do a big rewrite,” my suggestion is always — in his case he needs to go back to note cards and figure out what his movie is. I mean, he needs to sort of do fundamental like “What is that story I’m trying to tell in the course of this movie?” because he’s written too much movie.

But whenever I face a big rewrite, I open a brand new file in Final Draft or whatever, the editor of your choice, and type a little outline, a little thing like “these are the things that are going to happen,” and copy and paste in only those scenes that you absolutely feel like are going to completely be in your movie. And don’t try to sort of go through this giant document and cut it down. You’re making a new script with some stuff brought in from the other thing.

And if there is stuff that you know is going to change, just do little bullet points for like, “these are the new things that happen,” but don’t try to take this massive file and shrink it down. Take a new blank file and build it out. I think you’ll have a better outcome partly because you’re just not going to have the pain of selecting a bunch of stuff and hitting delete. And that’s very hard for a person to do. Whereas, page — it’s like you’re making something new; it’s great and there’s possibility and potential if you’re making a new script that is adapted from this monstrosity you wrote.

**Craig:** That’s great advice. And what I like about that advice is that it leads you to write towards something as opposed to away from something. And I see this all the time. People are writing away from things. “Well, the move is too dark, so I’m going to do a rewrite where it’s less dark.” That’s not — you’ll never succeed.

You have to write towards something. Always. And if you have a 215 page, or whatever you said, screenplay and your object is to write away from that down to a number, it’s just not going to be very good.

What I like about what John just advised you to do is that you start fresh and you write up, and you write toward, so it’s a positive thing. It’s the best way.

**John:** Cool.

Kyle in Los Angeles writes, “Hey, Craig, have you ever considered changing your middle name to something starting with A, or just A itself, in order to become Craig A. Mazin?”

**Craig:** I have not. [laughs] This has come up a number of times. It’s funny. I was actually talking with the Hangover boys the other day about what they were called as kids, you know, because everybody gets teased with their name. And Bradley was saying he was Bradley Pooper. And Ed, I think, I can’t remember what he got. And I guess Zach just had to deal with the fact that his name was impossible to pronounce and spell. But I’ve never have this problem, because when I was kid it was always Amazing Mazin. It was so easy.

I feel so blessed by that. I mean, my last name — the only annoying thing about my last name is that it’s ambiguously pronounceable, so a lot of times I’ll get “Mah-zin.” And I don’t even correct people anymore if they say “Mah-zin,” I just go along with it because I don’t really care.

But then it’s sort of fun to know that they will continue to call me that. But then perhaps one day we’ll find out they’ve been doing it wrong and I didn’t correct them, which I think is interesting. So, I like the fact that there is the Amazing Mazin thing. It’s fun.

No, although we did when my wife was pregnant with our daughter, our second child, and a lot of girl’s names end in A, she was like, “I don’t know; do we want to do something that ends in A because then you have the whole A-Mazin thing?”

And I’m like, “Yeah, and the problem is exactly?” So, my daughter’s name is Jessica and so she is Jessic-A-Mazin. But we call her Jessie, so it sort of goes away anyway.

**John:** I like it.

**Craig:** Do people know about your whole name thing? Have you talked about it?

**John:** Yeah. Have we talked about it on the podcast? So, my last name that I grew up with unpronounceable. It was a German last name. And it is one of those words, it’s M-E-I-S-E, which in German you would pronounce “Myza,” but everyone always pronounced “Meese.” And we actually pronounced it “Myzie,” which makes no sense at all, but everyone has always pronounced in “Myzie.”

And so my whole childhood was, the first 18 years of my life was listening to people mispronounce my name and having to correct how to pronounce my name. So, it was always the first six seconds of any conversation with any new person was, “That’s actually not how you say my name. My name is said like this.”

And when I decided I was going to move to Los Angeles for grad school, I’m like I had this one summer I was like, “You know what? I think I’m just going to rip off the Band-Aid and just change that name so I don’t have to deal with that for the rest of my life.” So I went and legally changed my name to August, which was my father’s middle name. And so I basically flopped, and I took — my middle name is now my previous last name.

So, changing your name legally is a giant hassle, but it was a giant hassle that was worth it in my case, because John August is simple and straightforward and it’s been unambiguous. The only times it runs into problems is Spanish speakers, I will say, “John August, like the month,” and they we will get to “Agosto,” and they’ll leave out the U. And that becomes a problem sometimes. But, it’s been — it’s one of the better things I’ve done in my life is change my name to something that was easier to say.

Now, it doesn’t mean that everyone needs to change their name if you have a strange last name. You know, Schwarzenegger did great. Galifianakis did great. And I could have just used a pen name, but for my situation it just felt easier to switch it.

**Craig:** Well, also it makes this podcast, I just think our teaming sounds better, because “Meise and Mazin” sounds like a joke.

**John:** It does.

**Craig:** It’s ridiculous.

**John:** There’s the M&M problem.

**Craig:** Like there are only 12 letters in the alphabet when podcast day came around.

**John:** Yeah. And we got what we could get.

**Craig:** Exactly. We were stuck with each other.

**John:** Ugh.

Dean in Sydney writes, “When a writer’s agent talks about taking a spec script wide, what does that mean? And how are producers involved? I only ask because I always assumed the agent would be approaching the studio directly without producers, or that producers might vie for the script with one being taken to show it to the studio. How does that all work?”

That’s a good question. We never talked about spec scripts like that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, taking it wide means that they go to pretty much every serious buyer out there, so all the major studios, plus the mini majors like Summit and Lionsgate, which is now the same thing, sorry, and the Weinstein Company, and I guess a few others. So, they’re going to go out. They’re not going to sort of slip it to one or two places where they think it would be a great fit. They’re giving everybody a crack at it, all over the same weekend, so it’s a big, wide bidding war, hopefully. Or, you’re just casting a wide net and hoping one of those fish bites.

And generally speaking studios want — studios know that a producer has to be on the movie. Somebody has to produce the movie. And so if you’re not producing your own movie, which is often the case with screenplays, with spec screenplays, because you’re not a producer, you’re a writer, then what you do is you go to producers that have deals at the buyer. And they take it in.

So, part of the choice is, “Okay, we’re going to go out wide. We’re going to send you spec script to Disney, and Sony, and Warner Bros, and Universal, and Paramount. Let’s go down the list of the producers that have deals at each one of those places and pick who the right producer is. See if they want to take it in.” And those things are now territories. So, “Okay, Rudin has it at Paramount. And Gil Netter has it at Fox,” and so on and so forth.

**John:** Yes. So, it’s the agent’s responsibility to figure out, “Okay, if we’re going to go out to the whole town,” the whole town being Hollywood, “and the buyers at once, we need to match up who is going to take it into each studio, which basically says, we’re going to send it first to this producer and say to this producer, ‘We will give you the exclusive right to take this into this one studio,'” or sometimes the producer can take it to more than one place at once.

The producer will read the script and say, “Okay, I get this. This is a movie I really want to make, and therefore I will take it into the studio and say, ‘I want to make this movie. Please buy this script from me.'” And then the studio decides if they want to buy this script or not.

That timeframe is often incredible compressed, so if a lot of people are excited about a certain script, that producer will have like 20 minutes to kind of read the script and say, “Yeah, I get what this is. Great. Send it into the executive at the studio and have them read it. And let’s try to get this thing.” And sometimes that gets fast and frenetic. And some things sell for a lot of money because of that.

The danger of going wide, and you used the term when you were giving your first answer, is the difference between “wide” and “slip.” And so slip means that you’re going to give it to one or two producers who you think might be the right producers for it. And you’ll give them a few days to look at it ahead of everybody else and say, “You know, we think you’re the right person for it. We think this is a good fit for you to take this to Warner Bros,” and give them a shot at doing that first before you go out in a wider way.

And it depends on the nature of the project or the nature of the climate, the mood of the town, what situation makes the most sense.

The two spec scripts I’ve taken out, my first script Go, and another script which we never sold, they were wide situations, and with Go it was one producer who had it for this little tiny distributor who actually got it set up, and so that worked out. But it wasn’t that classic sort of bidding war situation.

**Craig:** Yeah. There are interesting games that go on when you’re an agent with this screenplay stuff. If you have spec that you think could be, is something that everybody would want, you’re incentivized to take it wide. If you have a script that you think two or three people might love, but it’s a little more specific, you might want to slip it to someone ahead of time and say, “Look, take this off the table.” That’s their phrase.

Now, if you want to take it off the table, meaning no one else gets to look at this thing, you’re going to pay a premium for it, because now as the buyer you have to play the game theory of, “Well, there’s an intrinsic value to this script, but also there’s a value to no one else having the script and getting a chance to bid against me. So, I have an exclusive bidding window here. I want to bid enough to actually get it, but if I bid too little they’re going to think, ‘Well, I think if we test the waters with everybody else we could do better than that.'”

So, it’s all about game theory and how desirable the screenplay is. And there are a lot of options. This is what very good agents are very good at. When people say, “Well, you know, my agent read my screenplay and they didn’t love it…” Who cares? This is what agents are good at, not necessarily reading scripts and liking them but knowing who would like it, or something like it, and what studios are looking for. And then managing the sale process.

**John:** Let’s say you had a biopic that required — it was fantastic — but required very special handling. That’s a situation where you would probably go out and target a director who would be perfect for it. Or you might target an actor who would be perfect for it. So, you would go to Leonardo DiCaprio’s company and say, “We’ll slip this to you because we think it’s a big sale. We think it could be DiCaprio for Warner Bros, and maybe with these kind of directors.”

There are situations where it makes much more sense to try to, even if you are not really officially attaching that talent, to make sure that that’s the talent who’s bringing it into the studio, so they can see, like, “Okay, I see how to make this movie,” versus, “This is a difficult biopic about a blind violinist in the Ukraine.”

**Craig:** Yeah. And similarly if you have some talent attached that is particularly meaningful to a certain place, that’s a great example of a slip. So, you might think, “Well look, I have a screenplay that I’ve developed with Gore Verbinski. It’s a big action movie. I should go wide with that.”

Maybe. Or, maybe you slip it to Bruckheimer, because they have a relationship and Bruckheimer has the ability to take off the table for the right price.

**John:** And in that situation where the previous relationships would also come into play where it’s going to be weird to sort of take that movie wide without giving Bruckheimer the first shot, because he has the relationship and history with that guy and could have a lot of hurt feelings.

**Craig:** Exactly. So, then you have to calculate that whole thing. And if you are a screenwriter that has certain strong relationships, particularly in a certain kind of genre… For instance, if I write a spec screenplay that’s a comedy and I don’t bring it to Greenhut Films at Warner Bros, you know, I’m behaving boorishly. [laughs] You know?

If I brought it to a different producer at Warner Bros that would just be insane. You know, it just doesn’t work that way. I have a movie, Identity Thief is with Scott Stuber at Universal. If I write a comedy and I don’t bring it to Scott Stuber at Universal I’m behaving boorishly. You do have to sort of reward the relationships that have rewarded you.

**John:** Agreed.

Our last question today comes from Simon in Norway. He says, “I’m a young director from the cold north of Europe and would love to find someone who likes to write good scripts but don’t expect me to pay them large amounts of money. This would help me so that I can focus on what I do best, which is directing and filming, and could maybe help some script writers get feedback, someone who has to transform their text to a movie. Do you guys know a place where I can find young aspiring writers who I could work with to write a script that I could direct?”

So, I picked this question because he’s from Norway, which is sort of exotic, and it was both naïve but also relevant to I think a lot of our listeners, because I don’t think a lot of our listeners are probably the people who’ve written that script that they wanted to get made into a movie. And whether Simon from Norway is the right guy — a lot of getting your first movie made is pairing up this thing you’ve written with this guy who wants to make a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is the grand irony of our business is that it’s full of people who are desperate for someone to read their material, and full of people who are desperate to read material, and yet they don’t seem to be able to find each other.

That said, you know, leading with, “But I don’t want to pay you a lot of money,” okay, well, good luck. You tend to get what you pay for. But, that aside, what I didn’t like about this question was that there was no indication whatsoever about what kind of movie he wants to do. And I think if he knows what kind of movie he wants to do then he should start in Norway with sort of movies that are made there that he likes, and perhaps then seek out the people who wrote those movies.

Also, the question implied, “Look at what wonderful things I could do for this writer; I could show them what it’s like to have their…” Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what? You need a script, buddy. You don’t know how to write yourself and you need a script. So, perhaps coming at it with a little bit more humility might not be such a bad idea.

But where to find writers? I don’t know. If you’re in the film community, you’re in the film community. You should know some people that know writers.

**John:** I would also point to: look who has won all of the recent awards in screenwriting. And so look at the people who won the Austin Film Festival. Look at people who won the Nicholl Fellowships. Look at those writers who are acknowledged and saying, “These are better than the other scripts who are in this pool.” Those should be some of the first people you’re looking at, because most of those scripts never sell, most of the scripts never get made.

And if you are a person who genuinely can make a movie, you should at least be reading those scripts, because if it’s not being that script, maybe you’re the person who can hire that writer to write something for you, because those people often aren’t really starting lucrative careers yet. And maybe you can be the person who gets one of their movies made.

So, that’s one of the places I would start. I would also go to film festivals. And if you’re a filmmaker in Norway, you’re going to be making a movie in Norway, you need to go to whatever Scandinavian or European film festivals are available and look for like, “What are the interesting movies that got made there or the interesting scripts that made it through screenwriting competitions there?” And see if there is anyone there you can match up with who might be the right fit for you.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Particularly, if you’re not going to be able to pay a lot of money you are going to need to be able to — you have to be able to promise them that this is going to be a good experience, where you are going to make them a good movie out of the script they wrote. That they are going to not hate you. That this is going to be beneficial for everyone.

And maybe you actually have those abilities that didn’t sort of fully translate into this question, but I’d work on your presentation to make sure that they understand that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Remember, you’re not just looking for a screenplay; you’re looking for a creative partner. When the director and the writer respect each other and work together, great things can happen. When directors look for screenplays that they can then bestow their magical gift upon to bring to life, less so.

I think you have to really think about who the person is, too. And think about finding a real partner. At best the director and the writer are the nucleus of the film and trust each other more than anyone else. And rely upon each other more than anyone else, in my opinion. That is the best situation.

**John:** I would agree.

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

**Craig:** I kind of do. I mean, it’s not cool, it’s sort of tragic, but you know, Hurricane Sandy just torched the East Coast and in particular my hometown of Staten Island got hammered. So, it’s a terrible thing. And because — I haven’t lived in Staten Island since I was 13 years old, but that’s where I grew up, from 2 to 13, my formative years. And so in my heart I will always be a Staten Islander. And so, you know, it seems like because it’s an election year everything must be politicized, including donations of food and money to the Red Cross, which I just don’t understand.

But that aside, a donation to the Red Cross at this time would be a lovely thing.

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes for that. And I do share your frustration that it’s impossible for anything to be looked at outside of a political window in this time, except that this podcast is airing on Election Day, so it’s almost done.

**Craig:** Oh! Congratulations, winner.

**John:** Congratulations, America. You’re almost done.

**Craig:** [laughs] By the way, thank god. Thank god.

**John:** There are very few people who want it to go on any longer than it has.

**Craig:** I am almost… — If somebody came to me and said, “Look, we’re considering a constitutional amendment to increase the presidential term to eight years,” I would consider it strongly, even if I thought that half the time or more I’d be stuck with a president I didn’t like, just to avoid this insanity.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s out of control.

**John:** Wednesday morning they’re going to start talking about, like, “Who are the top contenders for…” Oh, no!

**Craig:** They will. It’s the way that Christmas keeps getting earlier [laughs]; it’s the same thing. It’s like the presidential election keeps getting earlier. And, plus, we have the post-mortems. Oh god, we’re going to have a month of post-mortems, and complaining, and accusations, and conspiracy theories.

I mean, you and I could write the script for the next 80 days almost to the word, I bet.

**John:** Yeah, it’s one of those, you know, “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.” It’s just eternal.

**Craig:** It never ends.

**John:** Never ends. But one thing that does end is that my One Cool Thing which is a game that Craig and I have playing far too much of, called Letterpress. It’s a game for the iPhone. It’s by Loren Brichter, who created the actual original Twitter client, or Tweetie, which became the Twitter client, which was a genius client until he sort of took away some of its magic.

But he is back with a new game for iOS that is brilliant. It’s free. It’s $0.99 if you want to unlock so you can play multiple players at once. I would describe it as sort of a cross between Scrabble and chess in a way, where you’re trying to build these words but you’re trying to take over the board by the words you build.

So, in Scrabble you’re trying to make the words with the Qs and the Zs because those are worth more points, here you’re trying to make words with Qs and Zs only if its advantageous to sort of take over more of the board. And Craig and I have had some good games in this. We’ve had some close matches.

**Craig:** I’m trying to make a move right now. This is a game — this current game is one — I like this game because it could go on for a really long time, and you and I are super stubborn, which I love.

**John:** We also have a lot of Ds on the board left.

**Craig:** But this game I know I’m going to lose, [laughs], so I’m just, like, it’s a war of attrition now where I simply won’t go quietly. I’m going to drag this one out as long as I can.

**John:** So, how about this: In addition to all of the other stuff we talked about on the podcast today being in the show notes, I will put a screen capture of our final game in Letterpress so you can see how I defeated Craig in our last match.

**Craig:** Oh, I don’t know if you’re going to get a screen capture, because I may drag it out. [laughs]

**John:** It may play on forever. So, the letters that are unplayed as of this moment are X, V, and H, which…

**Craig:** Tough ones.

**John:** Which are challenging giving the other vowels we have on the board, but could possibly be taken care of. But, it’s a really terrific game, so smartly done, so well designed. And when it launched it had a lot of problems with Game Center, which got overwhelmed, Apple’s Game Center. And things wouldn’t get posted right. But it seems to be much more stable now, so I would highly recommend it if you’re not already addicted to it. It’s like Words with Friends but faster, and easier, and quite enjoyable.

**Craig:** Yeah. I love it actually. It’s fun.

**John:** Cool. So, you can buy that, but you can also download Karateka for your Xbox, starting tomorrow, Wednesday.

**Craig:** Oh, I just did my move, John. It wasn’t a bad one.

**John:** Oh, yeah, he just played Brawled. Brawled is a good word.

**Craig:** By the way, do you see the balance? I mean, it’s not quite good for me yet, but it’s slowly changing, I think.

**John:** As of this recording Craig is up 13 to 9, so.

**Craig:** Yeah, but it’s deceptive.

**John:** It’s deceptive because, yeah, I’ll be able to make that swing there. It’s very much like politics in a way. If one state goes from blue to red it’s really a two point shift because that was in your column and now it’s in my column.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** In addition to this screen cap being in the show notes, we will have links to everything else we’ve talked about. If you feel like giving us a rating on iTunes, that would be fantastic, because it helps more people recognize us. If you’re looking for us in iTunes, just do a search for Scriptnotes, and we’re that podcast called Scriptnotes.

If you want to talk to Craig or I about something we said on the show, Twitter is the best bet. Craig is @clmazin on Twitter. I am @johnaugust on Twitter. And if you have a question for us you can write into ask@johnaugust.com, and I get all the questions, and that’s what I read on the air.

Craig, thank you so much for another fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you for a spectacular podcast. And good luck with Karateka!

**John:** Thank you very much. I’ll talk to you next week.

**Craig:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 56: Gorilla City and the Kingdom of Toads — Transcript

September 28, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/gorilla-city-and-the-kingdom-of-toads).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** I’m not too bad. Hanging in there. How about yourself, sir?

**John:** I’m doing really well. It’s a beautiful afternoon.

**Craig:** Yeah, we’re finally — it looks like we’re starting to peak out of the 100 degree misery.

**John:** This weekend — this last weekend was super hot. I guess by the time you’re hearing this podcast it was two weekends ago, but it was super, super hot. We were down at the San Diego Zoo, and the San Diego Zoo is amazing, but when it’s 102 degrees no zoo is amazing enough to make you really want to stay there.

**Craig:** One day, and maybe it’s today, I’ll talk about how I hate zoos. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Hate. Hate zoos. I’ve hated them since I was a child. We would go to the Bronx Zoo, which is one of the world’s great zoos. Hated it.

**John:** It’s a great zoo. I’ve been there.

**Craig:** Hated it. Hate the LA zoo. Hated the San Diego Zoo. Hate zoos. Don’t get ’em. Mystery to me.

**John:** I like zoos for kids. And, you know, we go to the LA Zoo fairly frequently. And the LA Zoo gets a lot of flack because it’s the hilliest place on earth. Like somehow topographically they managed to put extra hills in places where you wouldn’t think they could actually put a hill.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But once you learn how to manage the LA Zoo and you sort of go deep and then work your way back, it can be a very good zoo. I mean, it gets very hot.

**Craig:** Except for the part where it’s a zoo.

**John:** It is a zoo.

**Craig:** You’re just staring at animals that are staring at you.

**John:** It’s true. You are.

**Craig:** It’s just a zoo.

**John:** The second day in our San Diego trip we got to go to SeaWorld, which was much less educational than I would have gathered — like, it’s not really about the oceans or anything like that. There was no educational outcome. But you get to ride some rides, and my daughter got to feed some dolphins. So, it was a good time.

**Craig:** See, SeaWorld entertains you. They’ve taught dolphins to do things, not just look at you. [laughs] That’s why I don’t like zoos; they’re just looking at you.

**John:** I understand your frustration.

**Craig:** You get it?

**John:** I get it. I totally get it.

Craig, I have actual news. I sold a TV show.

**Craig:** I saw that. Congratulations.

**John:** Thank you. So, after talking about television and the wonderland that is television on this podcast endlessly it’s like, you know what, I’ll just do it.

And so I wasn’t going to do it at all this season, but then I had lunch with Josh Friedman, who is a friend and a neighbor, and he said, “You know, if you ever want to do a show that you would write the show and I could take over the show, that could be great.” And I was like, “Well, you know what? That actually could be great.”

And so by the end of the lunch I sort of knew what that show was, and we went and pitched it. And so I thought I would take just a little second to describe what television is like for that process, because it’s a lot different than what happens in features.

So, for a TV show, Josh and I talked and figured out what the show would be. Josh already had an overall deal with 20th Century Fox Television. And that is considered the studio for a show. And so his deal was there, so if I wanted Josh to be able to take over the show I obviously had to do it with Fox, which was fine because I’d already done a show with Fox once before. They’re good people. They’re smart.

**Craig:** Oh, sorry, I sneezed. I’m not…

**John:** You just totally sneezed in my story.

**Craig:** Well, because I’m allergic to it. [laughs] Something about it. I think because you said Fox and suddenly I went into anaphylactic shock.

**John:** Oh, yeah, I get it. That’s a common reaction among a lot of writers. Although I would say 20th Television, that part of Fox, is kind of generally well liked.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** It’s the movie-studio-Fox people have big aversions to. And that’s changing, too — who knows.

**Craig:** And perhaps fewer issues with ongoing. There was a little news there. But I don’t mean to hijack your story.

**John:** That’s fine. So, we had to go in to talk to Fox. The only place I could do the show with Josh was at Fox. And Fox was the right choice for it anyway. So, we went in, you describe it to one of the executives, who likes it a lot. The other executive was out of town, so we had to go back in two weeks later and describe it to her.

And that pitch is very much like the movie pitch, except that where in a movie pitch you’re just describing, “Well, this is what happens during the course of this arc of this movie,” that starts the conversation. And then there’s like, “That sounds great.” And there’s a little pause. And then you have to describe where the show goes from there.

And that’s the huge difference between TV and movies is that you’re looking at sort of, what is the ongoing week-to-week? What is the engine of the show going to be? Where is it taking us over the course of a season, or five seasons? And that was fantastic and fun. I actually really enjoyed it.

So, once you have a good meeting at a studio, the studio makes a deal and they say, “We would love for you to write this show. And if we can get a network to sign onto the show, hooray, great, and we’ll make the show.” And so they then set up meetings with the networks that they feel are appropriate. So, I went out and we pitched it to Fox, the television network, ABC, and NBC. And so you go in, you sit in those rooms, and you’re going into those rooms not just as you — me and Josh — but also with somebody from 20th, or several people from 20th there to describe their interest in the show and what they see. And so the rooms are just a lot bigger than they usually tend to be in features, because it’s not just you-the-writer talking to the studio executive, or you talking to a director. There are a lot of people involved.

And what’s weird is, everyone — there’s a season for it. And so this is the time of year where you pitch one-hour dramas. And so every place we went for a meeting there were other writers there waiting to have their meetings. And so you’re all sort of — it’s like you’re going in to audition. I mean, you’re very much, like you are lining up. They’re waiting. “Okay, you’ve got the 2:20. Someone else has the 2:40.”

And so you see the same people again and again. So, I saw Liz Brixius at NBC right before she sold her show. There was this group of 10 writers who were doing this — they weren’t all writers — but there was this big giant posse of 10 people who were going in for a meeting for this Bruckheimer military comedy that they ended up selling, so good for them. But it was just so weird to see how much bigger the rooms are when you’re pitching a TV show.

**Craig:** It’s also interesting, I think people don’t get this, and I almost don’t get it in a weird way. So, there’s a big company, a big Fox company that Rupert Murdoch owns. And there’s a part of it that produces television shows. And then there’s a part of it that airs television shows. And you’d think, well, if the 20th Century Fox Television wants to spend the money to produce the television, wouldn’t they just then have Fox Broadcasting air the show?

And the answer is, no. [laughs] They actually sort of look at all the networks equally because they want the network that’s going to give them the best time slot and theoretically pay the highest licensing fee per episode so that they recoup their money faster and then go into profit faster.

**John:** Yeah. I think in the best of all possible worlds, if you had a show that you felt was the right show for you to make and the right show for that network to air, that’s lovely and great and everyone can be sort of in synch on things. But oftentimes that’s not the case. And so a really great new show this next season is The Mindy Project, which is Mindy Kaling from The Office. And so that was an NBC/Universal show, but NBC decided it wasn’t the right kind of show for them, so they took it to Fox. So, it’s NBC making a show for Fox. Fox is making a show for ABC. That’s okay and it’s good.

And I think there have been times where it has contracted a little bit and where studios would only develop for themselves, for like their sister network. But also all those executives end up moving around from network to network and place to place. And so the people that you’re pitching to at one of these networks may have already worked for one of these studios. So, everyone has these relationships anyway. So, it’s less — it’s not that it’s not competitive, but it’s less insular than you think.

**Craig:** Yeah. It used to be we had these rules called the Fin-Syn Rules, or Financial Syndication Rules. And they basically said that if you produced television shows you couldn’t be part of the same company that aired them over the public airways. And they got rid of those rules; people were concerned that they were going to essentially be anti-competitive so that suddenly if you were developing something for Fox Television, that Fox Television really wouldn’t make much of an effort to sell it anywhere else. They would just make a sweetheart deal with the Fox Network.

It turns out that’s not really the case. However, where writers have run into trouble with this arrangement is in syndication, where the company — if the show is a hit — the producing company, there have been a number of cases where it appears that they have made sweetheart deals with their own networks, or their own outlets to put the shows out there. So, a show on 20th Century Fox suddenly sells itself the syndication rights to run on FX.

**John:** The case you’re citing is really X-Files, which was Fox sold the rights to reruns of The X-Files to FX. And there was a question of whether they were selling it for the right price.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. And I remember that I think Bochco sort of engaged in the first major lawsuit. I’m not sure which of his series he was litigating on, but basically he was arguing, “Look, you didn’t really take this out and find the proper market price for it. You made a sweetheart deal with another division of this large company. And since my profits are tied directly to what you guys make in syndication, you’ve reduced the amount of money I will be getting off the show.”

And all those things always get settled, but that has been where the elimination of Fin-Syn seems to have hurt the most.

**John:** Now, these are all luxury problems, because this isn’t going to happen unless you have 80 or 100 episodes of your show that you get to sell into syndication. So, where I’m at in the process right now is there is a deal for a pilot script. And if they like the pilot script they will shoot a pilot. And if they like the pilot they can shoot a series. But the number of projects that are at my stage versus the number of projects that become actually series, well, there is a tremendous drop off.

So, I approach this with full optimism, but I’m not counting on my syndication deal kicking in quite yet.

**Craig:** Not yet.

**John:** Not yet.

**Craig:** But you’re partnered with a good guy. Josh definitely knows television, no question. So, I’m looking forward to it.

**John:** Josh did The Sarah Connor Chronicles, which I loved. So, he’s been great. Cool.

Craig, I don’t know if you’ve been checking on iTunes, but people keep leaving nice reviews for us on iTunes.

**Craig:** Oh, good. I don’t check it. But are there any bad ones? [laughs]

**John:** Honestly they’ve all been really good. And so one of them I wanted to flag because it was more detailed than some of the reviews.

I should say: Please do leave reviews on iTunes, because it actually does help a lot, because we’d love to move a little bit higher in the iTunes ranking. We’re in the 50s right now, and we could go higher than that.

But here’s one that someone wrote recently — it says: “At first, I found the podcast to be a little annoying. While John tried to make the podcast informative, Craig seemed to be using it as pulpit to express his personal pet peeves.”

**Craig:** True.

**John:** “I’ve since grown to like Craig. And while sometimes his judgment is too quick, he is mostly good-hearted and has a lot to offer. Even his opinions I disagree with I still find educational. So, my suggestion is if you feel put off at first, stick with it, Craig will grow on you. He’s a good-hearted guy, even though he may not seem it at first.”

**Craig:** That’s absolutely right. My wife can confirm that. Everybody in my life can confirm that. So, I know I’m an acquired taste. And I know that sometimes I come off abrasive, grumpy, cranky pants, because I am. I am actually an abrasive, grump, cranky pants guy. That’s who I am. Can’t help it. But it is really from a good, decent place. I do very much want to help.

More than anything I get frustrated watching people make mistakes I’ve made when, you know, it’s like you walk into a restaurant and you slip on a wet, soapy floor and you land on your ass. And you sit down at your table in pain and you see somebody else walking in and you just want to say, “Oh, watch out for the wet, soapy floor there, buddy.” And Hollywood is a big, wet, soapy floor.

**John:** You’re basically that plastic triangle sign that they stick down there when they mop the floors.

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s right. I am Cuidado Piso Mojado.

**John:** What I love most about those triangle signs is the way they use them to fan the floor afterwards. Have you ever seen that where they mop it up and they use that as a fan to air dry it faster.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Probably actually works. God bless it.

This segues really nicely into our first question today which comes from Dan in Calgary. He writes: “I’ve been a regular listener and fan of your podcast since its inception and am curious about how you and Craig met and how you came to agreement on the podcast. To the best of my knowledge the two of you haven’t collaborated on any projects prior to the podcast. But, really, what do I know?”

So, going back to our history, I think I first met you in reference to really the website, clearly. You were going to launch your website. But we didn’t really work together on anything until the Fox writers deal. Is that correct?

**Craig:** Yeah. We had the same agent at the time. And I called you up just for website advice. That was 11 years ago, roughly. And, oh no, 7 years ago, sorry; because it was my daughter was about to be born, that’s what it was. It was about 7 years ago.

And we just sort of — we’re screenwriters. We run vaguely in the same circles. And then when John Wells did his Warner Bros. deal I got the idea that maybe we could do the same thing and you were my first call.

**John:** Yeah. So, Craig and I partnered together. We Shanghaied a bunch of other screenwriters into this little pack and we went around and pitched this concept of this batch of 10 screenwriters writing spec scripts for a studio, and Fox was the one who bit. And after much, much detailed hand-wringing and negotiation we made that Fox deal happen.

And maybe one of those movies will get made some day.

**Craig:** Maybe one of them will get made someday. I have no problem looking at it as a marathon. Hopefully they don’t have a problem looking at it as a marathon. But that’s how we got to know each other. And then I kind of let my blog drift off because I had essentially run out of things to type. And you just called me up one day and said, “Hey, do you want to do a podcast?” [laughs] That was pretty much it. And I said, “Sure.”

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** And that was a year ago.

**John:** A year ago.

**Craig:** A year of podcasting.

**John:** Good stuff. Our second question of the day, before we get to the meat of our show, is from Kevin in New York City. He writes: “You mentioned a lot last podcast a ‘weekly rate’ for writing work. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about what a writer is expected to do or not do if coming in only for a week or two.”

**Craig:** Good question.

**John:** So, this is a definition of “what is a weekly.” And a weekly is when you are brought into a screenwriting job, it’s a thing that I think only really happens in feature screenwriting, to do a specific bit of work, usually for a movie that’s going to go into production really soon or is already in production.

Weeklies only really happen for screenwriters who, I think, are produced, who a studio or producers and directors have some faith in that they can do the work that needs to be done and won’t break anything. And will make things better and make life happier and smoother for everyone else involved.

So, my first weekly was — God, I don’t know. It was many, many years ago, and I’m trying to think what it even was on. When did you start doing weeklies, or start doing that kind of work?

**Craig:** I can’t remember. I can’t remember the first one. All I know is they pop up occasionally, you know, a couple times a year, maybe three times a year. And typically — I mean, when we talk about weeklies, typically what we are talking about are production weeklies. Usually the movie has been green lit and so there’s quite a bit of pressure to suddenly fix some things.

And the studio will call you and say, “Listen, we need some work. We need some character help here. We need the first act to make a little bit more sense. Or we need to fix this ending. Take a look. Would you be willing to come on for a week or two and handle this?”

And generally you are paid quite well for those one or two weeks because it is high pressure writing. The movie is getting made. There is a lot of money that’s on the line. And you are asked to write very efficiently, very quickly, and very surgically. Again, these are, sort of the typical weeklies I think of, you’re talking not just to the studio or to an executive, you’re talking with the producer of the movie and you’re talking to the director.

And you are not only kind of cutting in between the things that are good to just get the stuff out that’s bad and put new things in that are good, but you’re also serving as a clearinghouse, frankly, half the time for disputes between the various parties, and sort of saying as a neutral third party observer, “Here, I think this is the way to go,” or “That’s the way to go.”

And you don’t have a tremendous amount of emotion invested. It actually can be a very good thing for a movie to have somebody come in and do a couple of weeks like that. They used to be far more common because they used to make far more movies.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But they still happen. I do them every now and again.

**John:** Yeah. I always say the job of a screenwriter in a weekly is you’re carrying the football for awhile and you are making sure that everything is sort of safely moving on to where it needs to go to next. And so an example is I worked on the movie Hancock, back when it was called Tonight, He Comes. And at that point you had Will Smith attached. You had Sony eager to make the movie. You had Pete Berg attached to direct it. You had Michael Mann producing it. Akiva Goldsman. You had — there were tremendous number of smart and powerful people involved in the movie.

And so I was going to come in to do just a very surgical bit of work on the third act. And one of the first things I had to go in and tell them is, like, “I think the script is fantastic. I think it’s great. I think there’s this little tiny thing that’s not working right, but please don’t think that the rest of the movie isn’t working because you’ve read it 1,000 times. But I’ve just read it once and I love it. And I really want you to make this movie. And this is how I think you can make this one section that I know is bumbling for you make sense in the way the rest of the movie works.”

Part of the reason they would give me that job versus another writer who might be able to write as well as me but didn’t have the experience is I had to go in and meet at Will Smith’s house with Michael Mann, and Pete Berg, and Akiva Goldsman. And usually there is one 800-pound gorilla, but this was just Gorilla City. And so they needed somebody who could sort of survive Gorilla City. And that’s a large part of your job in weekly is doing that. So that was a job where…

**Craig:** Well, you see, again, I hate zoos.

**John:** Oh, so that’s why you…

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, this is part — like I said — part of it is you have to figure out how to navigate between very important people, each of whom seems to have a vote or a veto. And it can be difficult at times. And sometimes they send you to the movie. And you know also in the back of your head that you are not to be seen afterwards, that this is very much hit man work. There’s no credit involved. It’s extremely rare that you would get credit for the work you do on a weekly.

You don’t go into it thinking about credit. You just go into it thinking, “I go in, I take care what I need to take care of, and I’m out.”

**John:** And I take these jobs — when I take them — because it’s great to get paid, but it’s also great to be able to work with filmmakers you want to work with, even if just for a short time, and also that sense of, like, make things a little bit better. Like, you recognize that this is a problem, I know how to solve this problem. I can solve this problem for you. And that movie, I think, will be a little bit better for my having been involved with it.

So, I just want nice things in the world. And so if I can help this movie get over its hurdle, that’s great.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s funny. Weekly work is often where you get the most gratitude back. And it shouldn’t be that way, but I understand why it’s that way. To me gratitude should be basically commensurate with effort and quality. And the hardest thing to do is to write a screenplay from scratch. A page one rewrite is also very, very hard. And sometimes you come in on a weekly and it is pretty clear to you what to do. And it is not writing an entire script. It’s fixing this, this, this, and this. And you can do it rather quickly.

And it’s like a magic trick. [laughs] Everybody gives you a lot of love over it. I like that part.

**John:** I do too. And rarely, but sometimes, you’ll break down a weekly down to just a daily, where like I did three days of work on The Rundown. And it was just to take care of some very specific little beats. But I took that job because it was a chance to write dialogue for Christopher Walken. And, like, who does not secretly fanaticize about writing dialogue for Christopher Walken in his sort of strange inflection patterns. And it was great, and it was fun.

And because that was for Pete Berg, and Pete Berg liked what I did, I was on his short list for coming in to do this work on Hancock.

**Craig:** That’s actually a good question. When I do weeklies — I’m just kind of curious what your business practice is. The fee you get for weeklies is quite high. If you were to take eight weeks — like say you typically write a script in eight weeks — you get a fee for that script. If you were to write on a weekly rate for eight weeks, it would be much, much more than that.

**John:** Much, much more than that.

**Craig:** So, you’re getting paid a lot per week. My business practice is to write for seven days per week. I give them seven days per week. And if I don’t use all the week, I prorate it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Is that what you do?

**John:** Usually it’s more that at the start of each week I’ll tell them, like, “This is what I can do in these days. And these are the days I can hand you these things.” And so I just sort of promise them delivery of this material in this amount of time. So, I’m not sort of not billing them for the days I didn’t work. I’m just saying this is what I can do in this week.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And if that’s enough work for you for this week, let’s go ahead and do that. So, you bring up a really good point is that sometimes you are delivering stuff much more quickly than you would in a normal situation. So, like on Iron Man, I was helping out on that. And I was delivering pages every day, because everything was very much in flux and they needed to know that stuff was going to be able to add back up. So, I would happily turn in pages every day in a way that I wouldn’t have been delighted to be doing that if I’d been the principal writer on the movie from the start.

**Craig:** Yeah. I just feel like if you’re on a weekly and you are an A-list writer getting paid an A-list weekly quote, I just feel like you should be respectful. Because I do hear stories sometimes. I always get uncomfortable when I hear a story about a screenwriter that misbehaved because, you know, naturally I just think you’re making us look bad.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** 99% of the time the studio is misbehaving. I don’t want to engage in moral equivalence, but there are screenwriters that blow it. I mean, they miss their deadlines. They take a weekly rate and they turn in what would probably be two days of work.

**John:** Like they only touch the first ten pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I get so uncomfortable when I hear that stuff.

**John:** That’s not good at all. It doesn’t help anybody. This last year was the first year I ever did, like, it broke down to essentially an hourly, because it was just rewriting the introductory voice over for this one movie. And I knew, like, this is not going to — this is going to take me two hours to do. And so I was like, “Oh, let’s figure that out.”

And, again, at that point it’s essentially just a favor, because I want the movie to be better. I want the movie to have a little bit better shot. And so I did it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ve never done that. I guess a day is my minimum, but I guess if it picked up. I mean, well, you know, we do things like roundtables.

**John:** Totally.

**Craig:** I mean, frankly, like you and I did a roundtable together. And you spend what amounts to a day of work on something like that. But you get paid, whatever, $2,500 or something. And that’s really just a friend-of-the-court kind of gesture.

**John:** Totally.

**Craig:** Gesture. Not a “friend of the court jester.”

**John:** Craig, let’s move into our main topic this time, which is Three Page Challenges. So, last week we announced that officially we are going to open it up to people writing in with new entries. And so far 70 new people wrote in with Three Page Challenge entries.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So, you’re welcome to, if you feel like sending in your three pages for us to look at on the air, you can go to the show notes for this episode at johnaugust.com/podcast. And so we’re going to be going back to this, not every episode, but a couple times a month we’ll be looking at some of these new entries. And, let’s get right to it. So, we have four that we’re going to take a look at today.

**Craig:** Four!

**John:** Four! And I thought we would start with the Untitled Art Heist Movie by Henry Fosdike & Lloyd Morgan.

**Craig:** Yes, got it.

**John:** All right. So, here’s the synopsis on this movie. We start on black with a voice over by a character named Montana who says, “People still ask how I never get caught. The answer’s simple. Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.”

Then were in the Met, the museum. A ceiling panel falls, glow sticks drop. A lissome woman named Gem drops in. She’s our thief. In a control van nearby we meet a nerd named Fuse. Then a man named Santos parachutes onto the roof of the Met. Gem uses an aerosol can to reveal infrared beams. Santos cuts the alarm. Gem sprints to make it across the room. And that’s the end of our page three.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Right.

**Craig:** Shall I start?

**John:** You shall start.

**Craig:** Okay. Well, I got excited when I read the first line because I thought it was very good. There is this interesting voice over that you just cited there. But then I started to get unexcited.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The first problem I had was that the voice over continued. And I’m not a voice over Nazi. I’m okay with voice over — I have no problem with it. However, the voice over is disconnected. The first thing she says is sort of a thesis statement. “Art is not what you see but what you make others see.” That’s very interesting. The next line is, “There have always been rules. We live by rules. We play by rules.” Well that would be a different essay. And I feel like if you’re going to start off with sort of a declarative theme, stick with it, explain it, transition from it, do something. But there is a real grinding of the gears there.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We have an art heist of the kind we have seen many, many, many times before. There is almost nothing unique to this one. You have — first of all, you have a nerd named Fuse. I really have a problem with this. I just don’t understand. I was watching The Italian Job, the remake the other night, and when you meet the mechanic his name is Wrench.

**John:** Ooh.

**Craig:** And I just feel like, why do that? Why? What’s the point? Give them names that aren’t what their job is, like an index card thing. So, I’m not a big fan of things like Fuse as the guy that deals with wires and such. I like that Santos is parachuting down to land on a rooftop, except of course it doesn’t make any sense. If you’re trying to steal from the Met, and you’re parachuting down over Manhattan, I think someone might notice. [laughs] Just guessing.

So, there’s a huge logic problem there. then we go inside where Gem is dealing with the standard trope of the invisible laser beams, although they’re not laser beams. They’re actually infrared beams, which will not illuminate from aerosol cans. They are invisible to the human eye. So, it’s a little bit of a technological glitch there. But, regardless, we get the point. But the real point is we’ve seen that.

We have dialogue like, “I’m in. Backup generator is live in 30 seconds. Move your ass, girl.” Uh…that’s sort of clammy.

**John:** Yeah. Clammy. We also have a countdown…10, 9, 8…5, 4….

**Craig:** Yeah, we’ve got a countdown, and guess what? She’s running towards the thing and sliding under the laser beams. So, you know, it’s not that it’s poorly written. Everything moved. There was good pace to it. It’s just that it was cliché.

**John:** Yeah. This is — actually, I need to preface this by saying I’m not a heist person. I will never write a heist movie. I don’t seek them out. So, it’s not my genre by nature. And part of the reason why I think it’s not my genre is that I always see this scene. I always see some variation of this scene.

To me, my test for like why these were maybe not the first three pages to start your movie is: if we started at the bottom of page 3, I would have filled in everything that happened beforehand. Just, we know what a heist movie is. And so we could start with her cutting the painting out, or whatever she’s going to do next, because I would fill all that stuff in.

You could have showed me the discarded aerosol can and I know everything that happened up to that moment. You could have shown me him cutting his parachute and I would have known that he parachuted onto the roof. Like all that stuff I felt like we were starting too early. And if we started in the middle of the action I might have been more with you.

The other problem I have is the voice over is from the point of view of a character named Montana. But we don’t meet Montana in the course of these pages. And so we don’t know if Montana is a man or a woman. We know nothing about her. I’m guessing it’s a woman, but I don’t know.

So, it felt really weird to have this disembodied, disconnected voice over that wasn’t helpful to me. And also this voice over is happening over black. And that’s one of — it feels kind of fine in a screenplay, but if you actually see that in a movie, that’s really not all that good or interesting just to have a black screen and have a person talking.

I would much rather see something interesting, even in a close up, and here that voice over than just a black screen.

**Craig:** I agree with all of that. I agree with all of that. I actually love heist movies. I think that the fun of heist movies, and this is why I like that first line so much, really is about the beautiful con artistry of it. Heist movies have a way of subverting our expectations. We are watching magicians do a trick. And it’s fun when I don’t know how they did the trick. Ocean’s 11, which is a fantastic screenplay by the great Ted Griffin, has a ton of surprises in it. I had no idea that the video those guys were watching was not the guys actually in the vault. I did not understand until he wanted me to understand that the video that the guards were watching was actually the thieves stealing from a fake vault that they had built on a stage and filmed hours and hours earlier. So smart.

And this has nothing like that. This is really just parachuting and, frankly, I feel like anybody with an aerosol can and a pretty good sprint time could have done what this person did.

**John:** Yeah. So not a huge success for us. I would also challenge, like, Untitled Art Heist Movie. Nothing makes me want to read a script less than something that’s called Untitled Art Heist Movie. Because you’re already setting it up for like, “Well, this is going to be a generic art heist movie,” and the first three pages feel like a generic art heist movie. So, giving us a title might have set our expectations a little bit differently.

**Craig:** I agree with that.

**John:** Because we’re talking about expectations let’s skip to the script by Jeffrey Stoltzfus, the one with Dennis Rudibaker in it.

**Craig:** I’m sorry. What was that name again?

**John:** Stoltzfus.

**Craig:** Stoltzfus.

**John:** I think?

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** I’m just pronouncing it the way I see it. I’m like the Siri that way. I’ll just plow ahead and say it the way I see it.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Here’s a summary of the script. So we open on Denis Rudibaker; he’s brushing his teeth. He’s described as having Ken doll looks. He lives in a nice house. He drives a BMW. Wears a Canali suit. He’s really polite at the bakery. He goes to work at an ad agency called Ad Think where he hands out coffee to his co-workers who love him.

In his office he pulls out a 357 magnum from his desk drawer and jams it in his mouth. That starts a series of flashbacks to a therapist asking him questions about his parents who abandoned him as a child. As a boy he is sent to live with his uncle, a science teacher who didn’t even pull down 30 grand a year. And that’s the bottom of page three.

**Craig:** What did you think?

**John:** Here’s why I wanted to talk about this second is: where our first movie was “this is the standard cliché of what a heist movie is,” this one starts as the standard clichés of like what a Jim Carrey big concept comedy is going to be. It felt like a high concept Jim Carrey comedy. Like, “Well he he’s a really nice guy, but then something crazy happens.” And so I liked subverting all of that happy bounciness but suddenly he jams a gun in his mouth and is going to kill himself.

That I really dug. And it felt — there was a feeling of confidence to it. And there was also smart, I don’t know, there were smart choices about what the writer is revealing about who this guy is. The Ken doll looks. Specifics on the car. His house. His suit. I would love more specifics, but I felt like this guy knew what the world was he was describing and what he wanted to sort of show us.

Then when he gets into the flashbacks, they were pretty well-handled. And our Dennis guy has voice over power, but the writer held off on giving us voice over power until the gun is revealed. So, I kind of dug it.

**Craig:** Yeah, I did like the — obviously there’s a big buy in here when this guy shows up and puts the gun in his mouth, and then we sort of freeze on this moment of potential suicide. And I did like the juxtaposition of it. I have a couple of issues though that I want to point out. And they are these:

Once you put that gun in your mouth, you are asking the audience to recontextualize what came before that, and that’s the point. It’s hard, frankly, to understand what is going on with this guy before that point. So, you’re right, it is a subversion of a kind of thing, of an expectation we have. But in retrospect, once we get the new information, we have to also be able to make sense of what we just saw, and that’s tough.

I’m not quite sure why he’s so cheerfully holding open a door for an old lady other than that the writer is misdirecting us. Similarly, he brings all this coffee to everybody, which I kind of though, okay, yes, in retrospect bringing people gifts is the last thing he does before he kills himself. Sure. His cheery, “Love that tie. Looking good. Have you lost weight?” is the kind of smarmy insincere talk that frankly is incompatible with what he’s about to do.

So, I would just say take a look and make sure that everything plays backwards as well as it does forward.

**John:** I would agree. I do feel like pages 4, 5, 6 would likely help us here and that we might get more clues about sort of what that — the recontextualization of those first three pages might be coming pretty quickly thereafter, but I do share your concern. Because some of the stuff feels so deliberately generic that it may not really make sense with more information that we’re going to get.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the only other issue on the flashbacks is that there’s a glib tone to them that is clashing, frankly, with the fact that he has a gun in his mouth. Either I’m meant to take that seriously or not. So, I like the content of what he’s saying which is, “I was the children of inattentive salespeople who abandoned me.” That is interesting content — “and who I ended up with” is interesting content. The glib tone is confusing me. I don’t know if this guy is really killing himself now. Am I supposed to care that he’s killing himself? Because he seems to be making time to be clever.

So, I wasn’t quite sure about that. And, lastly, he writes when his parents abandoned him, “One day they never came home. Didn’t even leave the door unlocked. I spent two days on that porch before somebody noticed.” I don’t believe that.

**John:** Yeah. It feels very, very arch. But I think this may be the kind of movie where that actually does happen. Where it is that sort of, you know, Coen brothers comedy of a possibility.

**Craig:** It’s possible. And if that’s the case then this tone bears out and is rewarding. So, I’m only flagging these things if it doesn’t quite feel right, because those were the things that hiccupped for me as I read this. But I did want to call out something I really did like, which was the way the writer was defining Dennis as, well, he wasn’t really defining Dennis this way, but the writer himself was saying, “Here is what his house is worth. Here is what his car is worth. Here is what his suit is worth.” So the writer is doing that.

And then at the end Dennis remarks of his Uncle Bert, who he’s sent to live with. “He didn’t even pull down thirty grand a year,” implying that Dennis has been infected with this kind of world view even if he doesn’t realize it.

**John:** Agreed. A few small things to point out, or just one small thing here. Bottom of page 2 is when Dennis starts, so he put the gun in his mouth, cocks the hammer, closes his eyes. Dennis, voice over, “Monday started like any other day. The gun garbles Dennis’s screaming.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** and then it starts going. Like, that — “The gun garbles Dennis’s screaming” I had to reread a couple times. Is he screaming this aloud? Basically like, “Closes his eyes. He makes a primal scream of pain,” or whatever. That description of the screaming didn’t work the way it was placed there.

**Craig:** I agree. It stopped me in the exact same way. And then once I figured out what was going on, I didn’t want it to be happening anyway. I wanted him to put that gun in his mouth and then freeze frame and start hearing voice over. Because the longer he has the gun in his mouth in live action and isn’t pulling the trigger, the less I believe that this is a real suicide. I want the tension of thinking, “Is he going to pull this trigger or not?”

**John:** I would also say, we don’t need the line, “Monday started like any other day.” I’d love to lose it because that feels clammy.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a tip. You don’t need it. I totally agree.

**John:** So, if the first line of voice over is, “I know what you’re thinking, but I’ve already tried the best shrinks and the best pharmaceuticals money can buy,” then we cut to the shrink, then I think we’re in a better place.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree.

**John:** Cool.

From here let’s move onto The Toad Princess by Virginia Lee.

**Craig:** I’m glad you picked that one next.

**John:** Aw. Yeah. So let me give you a quick description of the Toad Princess. So, we open in the courtyard of the Toad Kingdom which is paved with butterscotch discs and peppermint candies; lollipop trees and candy-bar benches line the path to the Queen’s candy-covered throne. It’s a kingdom full of anthropomorphic toads.

We meet a plump wingless fairy named Memory Lane. On her shoulder is the Toad Prince Mortimer. The Queen arrives, announces it is a special night for the presenting The Chosen One. By the light of a magical snow globe they await the arrival of Princess Makenzie, but she never comes. And that’s the bottom of page 3.

**Craig:** So, this was — I presume this is meant to be animated. I think?

**John:** It might be? I don’t know. I could see a couple things — it could be like Alice in Wonderland where it’s sort of half and half.

**Craig:** Sort of a hybrid. It was written by Virginia Lee, who I presume is a woman. I will now just go ahead and stomp on third rail. [laughs] This was adorable. It was cute and adorable. And it’s not because Virginia is a woman. It’s because it’s cute and adorable. It’s full of candies, and peppermints, and talking toads, and little 8-year old fairies. Although I didn’t quite understand — she’s 8-years old but she sounds like an adult?

**John:** Yeah. I had issues with the fairy.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not quite sure what that’s about. You know, it was — I love the world that was setup. I was really intrigued by the world. A little bit overwritten in the description. You know, “Servant Toads stand at attention, golden eyes twitching with nervous anticipation.” I think you could get away with “golden eyes twitching.” There’s a lot of stuff like that where “her honey colored skin shimmers in the moonlight.” A lot of moonlight and a lot of shimmering.

**John:** Yeah, a little too much poetry.

**Craig:** But you could tell that there’s an interesting and somewhat economical setup here, that we’re dealing with some version of the princess/frog and the princess story. And they need a princess to come and kiss the frog for something important to happen. So, I was interested in that. And I liked the idea that the fairy that they all rely on as their guardian is of questionable ability.

So, you know, and there were good visual things. She holds up a globe to the moonlight and let the kissing begin. It was all nice. I didn’t have any major issues here.

**John:** Yeah. I thought the visual ideas were really nice.

**Craig:** I just want to point out that this actually is cute. And I don’t want to get blamed for it.

**John:** Yeah. Quentin Tarantino could have written these pages and we would still have said they were cute.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** So to the degree I understand the concept, I’m intrigued, I like it. It feels like, okay, it’s a retelling of the Princess and the Frog from a new perspective and that feels interesting.

I got really confused with the fairy. Is she a human-looking fairy and not a toad? If she’s the one thing who’s not a toad, then you really need to single that out. You have her listed as being 8-years-old, which is fine if she’s actually 8-years-old, but she’s not acting like she’s 8-years-old, so there’s a mismatch there. It’s just not as clear as it could be.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Where I had some issues is how we first get into it. And let me read you the first paragraph and I’ll explain sort of what I’m facing. So:

“EXT. TOAD KINGDOM – COURTYARD – NIGHT
The desert moon shimmers across a beautiful courtyard paved with butterscotch discs and peppermint candies. Lollipop trees and candy-bar benches line the path to The Queen’s candy-covered throne. The courtyard is abuzz with activity. As we swoop down, we notice that we are in a kingdom of TOADS. A grand feast is in the works, and there is not an idle flipper in the place.”

I felt like we were having some camera problems in that — are we going really wide? Where is the helicopter shot here? Is the helicopter shot really wide and then we’re pushing in and getting into the details? It just felt like we were wide, we were close, we were wide, we were close. Give us the bigger picture first and then maybe setup the world a little bit. Are we at a castle? Because right now it’s just “EXT. TOAD KINGDOM – COURTYARD .” It’s like, what is that? Are we at a — there’s a throne, so it’s probably some sort of castle. I want a little bit more world, and then I want those details, and then I want to meet our Memory Lane, our fairy.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I thought just a little bit more finesse could have sort of landed me as the viewer a little more securely in our world.

**Craig:** That’s a good point. And also I was a little confused by “desert moon,” because it doesn’t seem like it’s a desert. It seems like you don’t build castles in the middle of the desert. It seems actually quite lush. So, I was confused by that. And also I was confused by the fact that there is not an “idle flipper” in the place, since toads don’t have flippers; they have legs.

**John:** Yeah. So, I think it’s worth being specific enough, like how anthropomorphic are these frogs? And do they stand on their back legs? Do they hop around? He’s evidently small enough that he can sit on the fairy’s shoulder. So, I just had some scale and size problems.

You can’t answer all these questions, but I just need to have a sense that there’s a consistent visual idea for how this stuff is going to fit together.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m with you on that one.

**John:** Cool. Great job, Virginia. I was excited to see that. I would want to see that movie.

Last one is a script by Sandy McDougall. And here is our description:

So, we open in a dressing room where Jimmy Alexander, a man in his mid 50s is trying to take a dump into a woman’s purse.

**Craig:** [laughs] God!

**John:** This is Burbank, California, 1983. This is all part of a television studio where we meet Diane Dorronin, in her 20s, who is presumably his assistant. We also meet Brant Collier, 58, who is some sort of executive.

We then move to the soundstage, which is actually for a game show, and Jimmy is the host. Sunset Sutherland is the special celebrity guest. She is a cerebral palsy comedian. Jimmy makes lecherous remarks as the curtain opens, and that’s the bottom of page 3.

**Craig:** Okay. [laughs] Uh…

**John:** I dug it. Obviously my first thought very quickly went to Anchorman in that it felt like we had that sort of ’80s setting. It was heightened. People were behaving really terribly towards each other. I kind of dug a lot of it.

I had issues on some stuff on the page, but I was intrigued and I would definitely be reading the next ten pages.

**Craig:** I unfortunately am on the other side of this one.

**John:** That’s great. I love debate.

**Craig:** I just didn’t think it was funny.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** I thought it was in the shape of a funny thing, but the things inside of the shape of the funny thing just actually weren’t funny. Pooping in a handbag could be funny, I suppose, but to be the first thing I see from somebody, I’m so disoriented, so deeply disoriented. I feel like in broad comedy when people do insane things it has to be in juxtaposition to our expectation, you know. And this was not. So, I don’t understand — I’m lost in the tone from the very start.

I get further confused when it appears that, based on the discussion between Diane and Brant, this has happened before and they actually know what’s going on. So, now the world around the crazy guy is crazy, because that is insane.

Jimmy’s line when he finally poops in the bag and walks out is, “The missile codes were good, Mr. President. Target destroyed.” So, now he’s making sort of a clunky poop joke about the poop, which I guess is supposed to be a bad joke, but now it’s just a bad — I just didn’t get it.

And then they’re all waiting for him, but for some reason they haven’t done anything until he shows up on stage. So, when he shows up that’s when they start moving props into place, which was weird to me. And now as if this guy weren’t weird enough, his special guest start is kind of a movie version of Geri Jewell. I don’t know if you guys remember her, who was a standup comedian who had cerebral palsy.

And he’s into her. And I feel like, again, that’s a little bit of a tonal problem. If he’s the wacky one, I kind of want to see him juxtaposed against a normal person who would be on the show. And then you could bring in, once you’ve established his juxtaposition to the world, then go ahead and go for the Geri Jewell bit later or in a different context. Maybe Geri Jewell is hot for him.

But right now I just had nothing, there was no ground beneath my feet. And when they say “try and ground comedy,” in a weird way it’s the most important thing to ground comedy when the comedy is super broad like this is. And I like super broad comedy. But then I really need to know where the ground is beneath my feet or else I just can’t go on the ride.

So, that’s kind of where I was.

**John:** All right. I totally understand your concerns. I just disagree. I felt like I understood where the ground was on this and I was sort of with him, even though we don’t know a lot of information about him, I was with him. And I liked that as an opening first beat.

And I took the conversation in the hallway where they’re hearing him do this as like him trying to take a dump in general, not that he’s trying to take a dump into a woman’s purse. So, they were assuming that he was making bathroom noises because he was using the toilet. But I understand your confusion there.

And I like the Sunset Sutherland stuff. Where I did have some concerns about setup and sort of first page stuff, the title for “Burbank, California, 1983.” Let’s put that bold; let’s put that middle of the page. Let’s center that a little bit. It’s so easy to skip past that, and it so helps to sort of set the heightened nature of the story.

And the first time I read it I skipped over that. And I’m like, “Wait, where are we, when are we?” And then, “Oh, I saw it there.” So make that a little more clear and obvious. Also, right from the second paragraph here — “The walls hold decades worth of memories. Photos, posters, blown up covers of TV Guide.” Of whom? Of what? Like, whose dressing room is this?

And so if you’re going to tell us that these props exist, tell us what these props actually are, because otherwise, why are we staring at them? So, they need to be the posters and the photos of our hero, of Jimmy Alexander, if we’re in his dressing room. It might be more interesting that we’re not in his dressing room, that we’re in someone else’s dressing room. I needed specifics there.

**Craig:** When you read these, did you laugh?

**John:** I didn’t laugh but I smiled.

**Craig:** Well, that’s a problem. And I’m not trying to invalidate your opinion. I’m just saying that for broad comedy like this that goes for big, big swings, I think getting some kind of laugh is huge, when you’re making big swings like this. If you’re going to do poop, I feel like you got to do it. You’ve got to get a big laugh from it. Smiles aren’t going to be enough to carry you through, I think.

I actually don’t think that — I mean, this is not a writer where I would say, “Oh, you’re not funny; don’t write comedy.” I just think that there’s some comedy science that just needs to be addressed. But I think a lot of the pieces were there. I think it’s very inventive. Like the Geri Jewell thing is really smart, I just think it’s in the wrong place. You know, stuff like that.

**John:** Cool. Craig, that was four of these. That was fun.

**Craig:** Yeah. I feel like we whipped through them. I love it.

**John:** We did. I think we’ve being much more efficient and speedy in our experience.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, I should have asked you before we started the podcast. Do you have a One Cool Thing this week? Because sometimes you do and sometimes you don’t.

**Craig:** This week I actually do.

**John:** Oh great. Why don’t you do yours first.

**Craig:** Well, this week I did my first of what will be four sessions mentoring a new screenwriter. And the program, it’s a mentoring program that’s run by the Writers Guild of America East. And I was asked to participate in this by Richie LaGravenese, who is a spectacular screenwriter, those of you who’ve seen Fisher King or The Ref, one of my favorite movies, among others.

And it’s really great because they take students whose professors have sort of singled them out and said, “Okay, I have a class of a lot of kids. This one, I think, actually has a shot.” So, you read their script and then you do four 90-minute sessions via Skype, and you just get into it. And you just start to do the work of talking about the screenplay, and their intentions, and what they want to do.

And my, what’s the word? Mentee? Mentoree?

**John:** Yeah, mentee.

**Craig:** Mentee. My Mentee is really great. I think she’s got a spectacular attitude and she’s got a terrifically sharp and unique voice. And so I’m really — it was very good. It was a good thing. I felt good about it in a way I sometimes don’t feel when I’m talking to people, because I feel like I’m wasting my time sometimes with people.

But, she — I think she’s going places. So, it was a really good thing. And I have in the past given the Writers Guild of America East a lot of crap because as a union they’re a bit of a squib. But this program is a very smart thing that they’re doing and, frankly, I wish the Writers Guild of America West would do something similar.

**John:** And these are writers who are not necessarily members of the Writers Guild East, but they are good up-and-coming screenwriters who have been singled out by professors?

**Craig:** Yeah. They’re students. They’re all students. They’re in school. I think she’s probably — I’m just going to guess she’s 20. She seems young. So, they’re not yet professional. They’re not close to professional. That’s not where their mindset is. They’re just trying to learn the craft. And I also like the fact that the screenwriting professors are open to this sort of thing, because it’s an important partnership, I think, between the people who instruct and the people who do.

**John:** Definitely. That sounds great. And so if someone is interested in being part of this program, they would essentially — it’s not like you can apply to it, it’s just that you get nominated for it by East Coast writing professors?

**Craig:** It seems like that, yes. To be fair I don’t exactly know the details, but since this was — I mean, for instance, I had to talk to her professor before I spoke to her. So, yes, it would seem like that’s the way it goes.

**John:** Cool.

My One Cool Thing all relates to I finally installed Mountain Lion on my main machine. Because people who have been following me on the blog know that I had issues with I couldn’t install Mountain Lion on my big Mac Tower because it was seven years old. And even though I really like the computer, it wasn’t able to be upgraded, so a lot of drama.

And so I ended up taking Ryan’s MacBook, and he got the Retina MacBook. And everything was working fine. I just wanted to make sure everything was working fine before I upgraded to Mountain Lion. But in the process of doing that I had to do another backup of my hard drive.

And I may have talked about this before on the podcast, but I just want to sing an extra bit of praise for sort of the bare hard drives you can buy now. Because people think of hard drives and they tend to think of, “Oh, you buy that hard drive that you plug into the back of your machine and then you have a stacked thing, and you use one and then you get rid of it.”

The best and most efficient way to use hard drives these days is just to buy the bare hard drive. And so this is the kind of hard drive that you would actually plug into a machine and never really see. They are just these metal boxes — metal and plastic boxes. What makes them so useful is that they’re super cheap and you can buy these external docks for them that you just pop the drive in. So, it sort of looks like a toaster.

So, I’m using one by NewerTech, which is like $79. But essentially you can just jam a hard drive in there, use it as a hard drive for backing up, for whatever else you need to do, and then you’ve not wasted money on all the other stuff that you would usually buy when you buy a hard drive, like the power supply, and the cables, and everything else. It’s just there and it’s handy.

So, with this backup, I can keep one backup here at the house. We have another backup that we store offsite. It makes it just super simple to create a backup and keep it there for when you need it. So, this is not my time machine backup, which is sort of the constantly churning thing which is always doing stuff. This is sort of all my files. This is an exact snapshot of my hard drive at a certain time and place.

And because I have been doing this for two years now, I can go back and I can reboot my machine in Snow Leopard or older operating systems, because I have a bootable backup on one of these drives.

So, my one cool thing is bare hard drives, which are incredibly cheap these days.

**Craig:** And welcome to Mountain Lion, sir.

**John:** Yeah. It’s pretty good. I had no huge issues. So, I wanted to wait a little bit to make sure that no one was going to have fundamental problems with apps I needed and, nope, everything has upgraded really nicely.

**Craig:** Whereas I upgraded my iPhone to iOS 6 yesterday because I could.

**John:** Yeah. And I upgraded my iPhone as well. And I mostly enjoy it. Maps is kind of a mess, but it will get better. It’s kind of a mess right now.

**Craig:** Yeah, it will be fine.

**John:** It will be fine. But yeah, I was happy and good.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you so much, John. We’ve done it again.

**John:** All right. Talk to you next week.

« 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.