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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: courier

Scriptnotes, Ep 96: Three Page Challenge, Live Edition — Transcript

July 6, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/three-page-challenge-live-edition).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes; it’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters, including the ones right here in this audience.

[Applause!]

**Craig:** Ah, god, they are both the greatest and worst audience ever.

**John:** They are a fantastic audience.

We’ve got a full house here at the Writers Guild Foundation Craft Day 2013. Thank you guys all so much for coming. We are in the Writers Guild Theater which is not at the Writers Guild, so about half the people here probably drove to the wrong place and then came to the right place. And that’s great; you’re in the right place because today we are going to be talking about…Craig, what are we going to talk about today?

**Craig:** Well, today we thought we would do one of our Three Page Challenge episodes, but we kind of have a nice thing today. This is a first for us, and it’s a little scary, as scary as it is for the people who send in these pages and have us analyze them and critique them. Today it’s a little scary for us because we have the screenwriters of those pages here today.

We have to look them in the eye, which is not going to temper what I say at all. But, still, it’s a great thing. And so that seems like a fun way to go through this. We have three different Three Page Challenges. And then I think, maybe, if we have some time…

**John:** We’ll have some questions at the end.

**Craig:** From you guys.

**John:** From you guys, here, live in the audience.

**Craig:** No, we have questions for you.

**John:** Yeah, we’re going to just pick random people and ask you questions. So, be thinking about questions you may want to ask me and Craig or the writers of the pages that are up here, or things that you see in the pages that you want to have more clarity on.

Just to give a little backstory here: We’ve been doing the Three Page Challenge since almost the beginning of the podcast. And this came from something you used to do on Done Deal Pro where you’d say like, okay, somebody can send in four pages and I’ll tell you whether your four pages are good. You can sort of tell within the first couple pages if a person knows what they’re doing on the page.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s levels that we can look for. The reason I started doing it on Done Deal Pro is because a lot of people were, frankly, I’m always motivated by a certain sense of evil, as you know, and a lot of people speak as if they know what they’re talking about.

And it makes me a little crazy. And so some people were being very harsh on other writers and I kind of was like — “You know what? You show me; show me in four pages. I think I can give you a sense in four pages.”

And some of these people wrote — most of them wrote fairly mediocre stuff to not-good. Some of them wrote four pages where I could literally say, “You should stop doing this.” You know, it’s like on those singing shows, sometimes people come in and they’re like [hums terribly] and they’re like, “Just everybody agrees — stop.”

But, you know, then there are some people that really did some great stuff. One guy in particular wrote four pages that I liked so much I asked to read the whole script. And I liked the script so much that I sent it to a manager. He has a manager now and he’s working.

**John:** Yeah. The instinct behind doing it on the podcast was we try to talk about screenwriting, and it’s very hard to talk about screenwriting without having something in front of you to talk about. So, you guys have been so generous to send in pages, so thank you to everyone who has sent in pages. If we’re not getting to your pages today, you can go to johnaugust.com/threepage — it’s all spelled out — and there are instructions for how you can send in your pages.

And Stuart, who is there in the corner. Stuart, raise your hand.

**Craig:** Stuart! Stand up, Stuart. Stand up!

**John:** People don’t believe Stuart is real.

**Craig:** That’s him! That’s what he looks like!

**John:** That’s Stuart.

**Craig:** That’s the guy we hired to play Stuart.

**John:** Exactly. The real Stuart looks nothing like that guy who just stood up.

**Craig:** Real-Stuart is an entity.

**John:** Yes. But Stuart reads through all of them and sort of — I will say, “Stuart, send us three samples of things we can read.” And so I don’t look at any of them until Stuart sends them. So, Stuart is the quality control on that. And Stuart picked some great ones for us today, so let’s get started on the ones that were sent in that we took a look at.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** So, Stuart picked these for us. So, don’t blame us if we didn’t pick your pages. Blame the guy who pretends to be Stuart.

**Craig:** There’s a lot of deflection on Stuart.

**John:** Our first three page sample is from, it’s called Enjoy the Show, and Allie and Liz Sayle wrote it.

**Craig:** Where are you Allie and Liz?

**John:** Where are you guys?

**Craig:** Hey!

**John:** Come on up.

**Craig:** Are you guys related? Good. Because the same last name — it just would have been weird.

**John:** Can we get microphones for these guys? All right, while we’re getting microphones we’re going to talk about what we saw on these pages and then we’ll ask you more about them.

So, Enjoy the Show. I will do the summary for people who are not — who don’t have the pages in front of them; like if you’re driving your car you wouldn’t know what we’re talking about, so I’m going to give you the quick summary. Our scene starts in a movie theater arcade. We meet a guy who is at a claw machine and his name is Andrew. And he’s trying to get a Fozzie Bear out of it. And we’re going to learn that he’s trying to get this Fozzie Bear because there’s this girl he kind of has a crush on that he wants to give this Fozzie Bear to.

He’s gone through all his quarters and he finally ends up succeeding and getting the Fozzie Bear. There’s also intercut a woman driving very fast on the freeway. Her name is Brody. When we come back to the arcade, to the movie theater arcade, we see Andrew who has the bear. We see Kellen, a friend of his, and it’s Kellen’s girlfriend that he’s trying to hand off the bear to. And that is what we’ve gotten to at the end of these three pages.

**Craig:** Right. You know, not bad. Not bad. I’m going to go through… — The stuff that I thought that came through that I liked the most was the — an interesting expression of a guy who is going through unrequited love. That’s a pretty familiar circumstance and I thought it was shown in a somewhat unfamiliar way. He singled in on Fozzie Bear like that’s what is going to do it is Fozzie Bear.

I like the idea that he has kind of fetishized this one thing. What was missing for me though was the notion of why Fozzie Bear, frankly. I mean, he’s discarded all these other things. If you look at the first bit here, what’s happening is he’s pounding through all of these quarters and he’s got all these animals on the ground and there’s one animal left, I think, correct? Fozzie Bear.

We don’t know if he’s trying to get — at this point I just assume he’s just, he’s autistic and needs to clean out the claw machine. You know what I mean? And you do have to always think about what the audience knows versus what you know. So, if you want us to know that it’s because he needs the Fozzie Bear, my suggestion is maybe that he starts by getting an animal, pulls it out, and then just hands it to a kid, or tosses it to a kid and is moving to that one. And we see he’s trying to get that one. Instead of getting Fozzie Bear he keeps getting the wrong one. You know what I mean?

So, some way that we can get that the Fozzie Bear is the one. When he’s talking to the Tween with Attitude, this was a nice way, I thought, of getting out the essential details. His best friend has a girl; he’s in love with that girl; he’s kind of hiding that he’s in love with that girl. I love this last line, “I’ll be your girlfriend. If you want to make her jealous.” That was really cute.

But in there I’d also love to know why Fozzie Bear. [laughs] Like, you know, just some indication of why this has become so important to him. Otherwise he’s just going to seem a bit bizarre.

The intercut to me does not work here.

**John:** The intercut to the freeway?

**Craig:** That’s right. The cutaway to the freeway. It didn’t work for me for two reasons. One, we just did an episode about transitions. There’s no transition to this. So, there’s no throw really from where we are to there.

**John:** Craig, you’re wrong. There is actually a throw. So, if you look at the bottom. Actually, I liked the…

**Craig:** “Grips the joystick?”

**John:** Joystick to gearshift.

**Craig:** That doesn’t work. It’s too matchy-matchy to me. It’s too much of a trick. I was looking for a little bit more of some reason to be on the road. And I guess since I never got a reason to be on the road, the transition didn’t work for me going in. I mean, I saw the joystick thing and on the way back coming out of it, again, there’s no transition really back.

The biggest issue with cutting away there is that nothing happens. We see a woman and she’s driving fast. And she drives fast for a while, by the way. It’s very well described, but maybe too much so. So, I guess my question is: Is that something we need or could you even start the movie with her? If she’s going to be showing up in a second, start with this crazy woman on a road, and then cut to the quarters and stuff so that it’s there.

Anyway, it was a strange interruption for me. And then lastly I want to talk about when the girl arrives. So, Zia is the girl. That’s the girl that he wants to give the bear to. And we have Kellen walk in, and that’s the first person you want us to see, which means it’s the first person the movie is concentrating on. And I wanted the movie to be concentrating on her. I mean, I’ve been hearing about her. He’s been doing all this for her. I want to see her walk in. And then I want to make a moment of it.

We talk a little bit about how to expand or contract moments so that they are of different value. And for this character I think her entrance should be of the greatest value, so that should expand a little bit. Let me see her. Show me him looking at her. Show me what that does. Show me a moment where it’s just the two of them. They don’t have to be talking; they could be across the room. But it’s just the two and then this guy comes in, you know. And that disrupts things. And the Fozzie Bear goes behind him. And then there’s chit chat. And then he tosses the bear.

Those were my general… — But, you know, you guys can write. I mean, that’s the good news. It was really well laid out. It was well written. It’s just finding those choices in there for me.

**John:** I want to know who is who and some backstory on this. So, which one of you is Liz and which is Ally.

**Liz Sayle:** I’m Liz.

**Allie Sayle:** I’m Allie.

**John:** And are you in fact sisters?

**Liz/Allie:** Yes.

**John:** Great. It was a simple guess, but you never know. Maybe you just ended up having the same last name and that was how it works.

**Craig:** Or, or…

**John:** Or they could be married.

**Craig:** DOMA.

**John:** DOMA.

**Craig:** DOMA.

**John:** My husband and I have the same last name, people think we’re brothers.

Now, tell us about this script. Is this the first script you guys wrote together?

**Liz/Allie:** No.

**John:** Okay. So, what’s the motivation behind writing this script.

**Liz:** Well, the script is actually about, so the woman in the car is coming to the theater and sort of takes the movie theater hostage. And so we were just in a movie theater and we were like this is a really good place to rob someone. [laughs]

**Craig:** A theater like this one?

**Liz:** Yeah, exactly. It’s like no one would ever catch you. Or, they’re not prepared for it. So, now every time we go to a movie theater — that was like a couple years ago — we’re like every time you’re there you’re like, “Oh, I need to do this, I need to do this.” And so we just sort of need to write this story so we can go to the movie theater without thinking about how to take it over.

**John:** By the way, movie theaters are a great place to — I don’t want to say you should go rob a movie theater — but they are like sort of great for heists because they have a lot of cash on the weekends. There is interesting stuff to do in a movie theater. So, I applaud your instinct behind committing violence in a movie theater on paper rather than in actual life.

Did Craig interpret things correctly in sort of what he was saying? Is Zia a more important character than Kellen? Tell us?

**Allie:** Yeah. I think so. I think what we were thinking is Zia is obviously the girl that he likes. And so by having Kellen come in and do the interaction, showing sort of what’s in between there, but I don’t think you get enough of her, like you were saying.

**Craig:** Yeah. I would keep that interaction. That interaction played very natural and very real. I don’t need to know what “One forty eighty-five” means. I like not knowing what people are talking about and it seems realistic to me. It was just about sort of showcasing her. Reward us for our interest in her is basically what it is.

**John:** Let’s get a little more specific on the page. A few things that stuck out for me that were things to look at. Your first sentence of real description, “Fade In on a metal claw…inside Plexiglas.” Got that. “It drops nothing down a metal chute.”

Now, “It drops nothing down a metal chute,” on the third time reading through it you get what it’s actually saying that there’s nothing in the claw to drop, but I had to read that twice or three times to really get what that is. And the first sentence shouldn’t be that. So, find another way just to convey that idea that it’s an empty claw dropping that has nothing in it to drop as it gets to the end.

The super says “Thousand Oaks, CA 2010.” Why 2010?

**Craig:** I picked up on that, too.

**John:** Is there a reason why it needs to be 2010?

**Allie:** I think we wanted to sort of do the action in it to sort of make you think that it was a real, like something that actually happened. And we just thought that setting it in a very specific time…

**Craig:** Oh, I see.

**Allie:** …that that might sort of make it seem more realistic.

**John:** So, maybe if you got even more specific then we would know that it was more like a real event. So, if you said like “April 22, 2010,” then we would know that there’s a specific reason why we’re there. Because right now I read it as 2010 and I’m thinking like was that a zip code that you didn’t like finish. I didn’t really read it as a year.

Andrew, who is our main character through this first section, he doesn’t get his own cool line of description. You say, “Safe. Doesn’t get a lot of sunlight,” but if this is our main character I think you can throw us an extra line of something more specific about him. Because “doesn’t get a lot of sunlight” could just be like Craig’s kid.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That doesn’t tell us a whole lot.

**Craig:** He’s really white. We were just talking about it. My wife is white and he’s white, white, white, white.

**John:** Andrew is listed as being 19 years old, but the action I see him doing makes him feel a little bit younger. I felt like I watching a high school kid and not a 19-year-old kid. And so just be mindful of that. And if it’s important that he be 19 years old, that’s awesome, but I felt like he could have been younger for the kind of stuff that we saw happen just in these first couple pages.

Near the bottom of your first page, we go to “INT. ARCADE — LATER.” You can do that. So, you changed time. Same place, changed your time. Another way you could do that is just to say “LATER” as a slug line. And that way we don’t have to think, “Am I in a new place?” No, you’re in the same place, you’ve just moved to a later time. Either way works.

I wonder if you could cut the first two lines of Andrew talking to himself. Right now it’s:

ANDREW

(to no one)

If you want it. Take it. I was just going to throw it away.

(then)

My class was cancelled. So, I came early-

(no)

I was just killing time in the arcade. Yeah, check it out. I won it. What? You like Fozzie Bear?

That could be the first line of his dialogue, because we get what he’s doing from just that line. So, if you want to cut those first two I think you would be in a good place.

**Craig:** You know, now that you mention that, I actually bracketed that. I’m not sure you need any of that. We’ve seen that before. And I feel like I would much rather have him explain this strange obsession with Fozzie Bear to those other kids, because it’s so specific. It’s not I want to give her a thing, because you could replace Fozzie Bear with, oh, you like Hello Kitty there, you know what I mean?

It’s why-that-one. I’d much rather him explain it to her and just cut these sort of play acting dialogue here which we have seen a lot.

**John:** Yeah. And honestly if you were to cut all that out, if you started with Tween with Attitude’s first line, “Does she have a boyfriend?” If we’ve seen the claw going for these toys and the first line of dialogue is, “Does she have a boyfriend,” that’s really clarified what it is he’s attempting to do.

I agree on sort of like the transition coming back from the car was troubling. And I wonder if ultimately you’re going to be happier keeping all of Andrew’s stuff together and not cutting away to that woman, because nothing actually happens with that woman. So, if we were to follow Andrew’s storyline through in terms of like everything with the bear and trying to get the bear and like his frustration there, that might be the best time and then get to this woman who’s going to be arriving at the theater.

I understand your instinct for trying to show that something is coming, but we’ve sort of barely got stuff started before we jumped away to something else.

And you said you were fine with “One forty eight-five. Beat that.” What does that mean? What is it supposed to me? A score?

**Allie:** We don’t know. [laughs]

**John:** You don’t know? Okay, that’s fine.

**Liz:** She doesn’t know. It’s like a high score in a video game, or something like that.

**Allie:** We just wanted something to quickly establish that these guys are close, they’re good friends, and they’re a little bit competitive.

**John:** Great. And even like something he can point to or gesture, just so it doesn’t… — Because, again, it’s one of those things where if I read it three times and try to make sense of it and I can’t make sense of it, I might stop reading. And anything you can do to keep me from stop reading is your friend in the first three pages.

So, tell us, is the script all the way written or is it still in progress?

**Allie:** The first draft is.

**John:** The first draft. And what ends up happening at the end. Tell us the journey of where these characters get to.

**Liz:** You’re looking at me like you want me to do that.

**Allie:** I mean…[laughs]

**Craig:** Have you read it?

**Allie:** I have. I have. At the end, I mean, we end up blowing up the theater.

**John:** Good. There’s like a teenage Die Hard in a movie theater.

**Allie:** Sort of, yeah.

**Liz:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah, awesome. Then done. Done and done.

**Craig:** Does he get the girl?

**Allie:** Yes.

**Craig:** All right, good.

**John:** Anymore questions for our sisters?

**Craig:** No, no, not at all. Keep at it. Keep at it, guys.

**John:** You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for sending your pages.

**Craig:** Thank you Allie and Liz.

**John:** Thank you guys.

**Craig:** Nice work. Thanks. Good job.

**John:** All right, our next pages come from Kate Gragg. Where’s Kate? Hi Kate. Come here and have a seat.

**Kate Gragg:** Thank you.

**John:** Cheers for Kate. A very brave Kate.

**Craig:** Hi Kate.

**John:** So, let’s talk to you before we start going into your pages. Tell us — do you want to describe what happens in these three pages?

**Kate:** It’s the opening to a TV pilot that I wrote. A woman, Hattie, she’s in a sort of tourist gift shop/car rental place. And she’s having trouble renting a car because all of her credit cards have been canceled because she’s been declared dead. And so she hitches a ride on a church tour bus that’s going to one of those mega churches. And then cowboys show up and it’s basically a stage coach robbery.

**John:** Thank you. We should always have the real people do it because you do so much better a job of summarizing things than Craig and I ever do.

**Craig:** Do you have like a job? Maybe we could just bring you in for Three Page Challenges and you could just…

**Kate:** I would love that.

**John:** That would be fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah. We don’t pay any money or anything.

**John:** So, Kate, is this whole script written, or is it just the first three pages?

**Kate:** It’s written. And I’m going to do the rewriting class at the LA Extension.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Great. Cool. So, I really enjoyed some elements in your pages here and let me talk about some stuff that worked really well for me.

I liked that it was sort of cross-genres. And so we see these cowboys who we assume are just people talking and stuff on the side of the road, and then it becomes this robbery. So, we’re excited that it’s a robbery and it’s going to a strange place. And so I would have kept reading after these three pages because it’s just so bizarre that this is happening; that this church bus is being robbed.

There are some stuff which got in the way, so let me talk you through some of those things. We first meet Hattie and she is in this car rental shop. She’s trying to rent a car. I didn’t get a good sense of who she was at this moment. And so let’s look at our first line of description:

“HATTIE CONWAY, 26” — I think you need a comma after the 26 — “fidgets with a bucking bronco figurine on a rack of Texas-themed souvenirs, keeping one eye on the CLERK behind the counter as he nods along to a phone call.”

The stuff with the clerk and the nodding along, I totally get that. Fidgets doesn’t feel like quite the right verb. Fidgets is something to me that you do to yourself and it’s not something you do to an object.

**Craig:** Fiddles.

**John:** Fiddles. I think fiddles is a Craig Mazin suggestion that we’ll take.

I didn’t buy the guy saying, “The estate is still in probate.” It felt like too much of a reach. It doesn’t feel like the kind of thing that would actually be said to somebody on the phone. So, I like the fact that, “They say you’re dead.” That’s a great idea.

I would also look at the end of this scene, this first little scene:

“Hattie turns towards the window, ignoring him, scanning for options.”

Now, that “scanning for options is meant to lead us outside so we can see like what she’s seeing from her point of view on the bus, but because you gave us another line afterwards, “I got probation too. Were you down at County?” I forgot that we were looking outside, and so that transition didn’t really work for me. So, if the last line of the first scene was “scanning for options,” and then we cut to the outside, then I’d like, okay, that’s her point of view and she’s seeing what’s out there.

I didn’t necessarily buy her grabbing the t-shirts and trying to get onto that bus. I like that idea that she’s going to try to get on that bus, but what you gave us were those little two half scenes and then suddenly she’s on the bus. And I would love to see more about Hattie and learn more about Hattie by seeing how she talks her way onto that bus, because that is a moment where a character can actually do something rather than just the movie jumping ahead.

And so then once we get to the conversation with the pirate and his buddy and all this action, I was with you, and I was curious about what was going to happen next. I wasn’t sure of quite what tone of movie we were in. It felt like one of those sort of exaggerated Coen Brothers early comedies, but I was curious what it was going to be. Craig?

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s the part that I really appreciate here is the tone. I think that there’s the promise of something good here. There really is.

First of all, the notion of a girl who is on the run because she’s dead and the backstory there, I’m sure, is interesting. Joining up with a bunch of cowboy-riding dudes, who I imagine are, well, skinny and fair-faced and chubby and baby-faced, all right, maybe not, but maybe there’s some romance in there somewhere. But, the notion of an outlaw that’s kind of a weird horseback outlaw on the blacktops of Texas — that’s fun. I like that. There’s an interesting vibe to that.

The heat of it, like my favorite line in here is the introduction of Pirate and Buddy, “Staring down a stretch of two-lane backtop, baking in the relentless Texas sun,” and I start to feel like I’m in Thelma & Louise. It’s visual and I really like that.

And because you are finding an interesting tone, you now have to be really careful about introducing anything in there that starts to deflate it. And the things that can deflate tone — and jokes are tough, because a good joke will make tone work, and a bad joke will just deflate it.

So, let’s talk about this very first scene. I agree, by the way, with everything John said. But in a bigger way, I think you have to rethink how you’re revealing this information. This is a big piece of information. “You’re dead,” right, and I think the way you’re doing it is the least interesting way. You know, there’s a guy nodding and then, “They say you’re dead.” Wah. There it is. Blah. You know what I mean?

This is off the top of my head but we’re just on a clerk and he’s got a credit card and he’s like, “Well, yeah, I mean, she owes me a certain amount of money here. I’m trying to settle a bill. Or she owed me money,” whatever the language is. We’re trying to basically create a distraction and misdirection. “And when did she die? About how long ago? Of what, now? I see. All right. Well thank you very much. I should cut this card up, right, because she’s dead. Okay. Miss, here’s your card.”

You know, like just to reveal — some more interesting way of revealing that there is a woman who’s supposed to be dead who is not dead. “Can’t arrest the dead!” isn’t a bad line, except we’ve said “dead” a lot. So, maybe in that area think of the rhythm and maybe, “Can’t arrest a corpse,” something else. Something to just change up that rhythm or that feeling.

The exchange between Pirate and Buddy is — unfortunately Tarantino has kind of ruined this for us all. We don’t get to do it anymore, really. If anything sounds like, “What do they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Holland?” then you come up with another way. And, frankly, I always feel like when we first meet two characters there is an opportunity to learn so much about the differences between the two of them. And maybe even if there is conflict, hopefully, that emerges between those two, plant the seeds of it now. It doesn’t have to be overly dramatic; it could be over a small thing.

It could be two guys arguing over who gets the last piece of gum. But in one way or another there is something — give us a little more meat than just jokes, because it got a little jokey. Similarly, “I got probation too. Were you down at Country?” Too jokey. Right?

“(reading off a notepad) ‘The estate is still in probate.'” That’s not this guy, right?

So, try and find that tone. Really liked her on the bus. Love the image of these people singing. It’s very visual. I like the way you write so visually. And the heist itself was done really well. I mean, for you guys looking on the page, lots of white space. We’re not being jammed with details that we don’t need. “BUS and TRUCK speeding down the road.” I love shit like that.

“Galloping HORSES. BUS and TRUCK speeding down the road.” So many scripts we read about, you know, the bus — you hear the gears winding and the tires and the sky and a bird goes, “Wah.” “Bus and truck speeding down the road.”

“You know what this is. Open up.” Maybe we could do a little bit better there without getting jokey or violating tone. And then, “Hattie has never been more awake in her life.” Eh, I don’t know that. [laughs] You know? My guess is she has probably had some interesting things happen to her, but I think this may be, “Hattie perks up.”

This is one of those moments where I like to sort of take a look at a character and say, “Everybody shrinks back in fear, except Hattie, who sits forward.” Do you know what I mean? To like say, “Oh, she’s different.”

But, there’s a lot of good promise here and I like the way you’re writing it. So, guard your tone. Defend your tone.

**John:** I would also keep Hattie front and center. Because what I notice through this first section is she is responding to other people but you don’t see her taking initiative. And that’s why seeing her take some initiative in the car rental place is important, but even more so how she gets herself on the bus and what she’s like on the bus — don’t let your hero be a passenger, literally, at the start of your story because then we’re not there with her.

And so then you can maybe earn a line like, “Hattie has never been more awake in her life.” Or at least we’ll know who she is when you give us that kind of line.

So, tell us what happens ultimately in your script.

**Kate:** Hattie ends up going back to the very small southern Texas town where she’s from. And she hasn’t been back in a long time. And she, through the course of the story, discovers that her mother who vanished in mysterious circumstances when she was a kid actually ran this secret outlaw ghost town that those cowboys are from. And they want her to be their new leader.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** That sounds weird, and I’m into weird.

**John:** Yeah. It sounds really cool. And so does she know these guys at the start of the story?

**Kate:** No, but they recognize her because she looks a lot like her mom. She didn’t know any of this existed.

**John:** So, once they’re on the bus, they’re going to recognize her as being special and unique. That’s great, and that tells us that she’s a character worth watching.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just be careful about — coincidences can happen. I mean, Dickens built a wonderful career in coincidences. But, when two people are moving towards each other, and it’s coincidental, that can be a problem for the audience. When one person finds somebody who’s moving — you know, somebody is running away, she’s running away. When you tell me that, now I don’t want her to want to be interested in these guys. I want her to be, “Holy shit, I’ve got to get away from these guys.” And they find her and then they’re like, “Oh, look who that looks like.”

You know what I mean? In other words, you don’t want people moving towards each other and going, “Oh, and also we belong together.”

**John:** In a movie you get essentially one coincidence, and that coincidence should usually be the premise of your film. Like that is sort of the Passover Principle. This is why tonight is unlike all other nights, is that this is why we’re watching this movie here and now. And this could be exactly that premise coincidence where like they happen to rob the bus that she’s on and that brings her back into the fold.

But if you can find ways to have your hero create that circumstance, you’re almost always better off. So, if something she did ends up bringing her to that place, then it doesn’t count as a coincidence. It doesn’t count against you as a coincidence.

**Kate:** Great.

**John:** Thank you so much.

**Craig:** Great job, Louisa. I mean, not Louisa. Kate. I was jumping ahead. Kate, right?

**Kate:** Yes.

**Craig:** Sorry, I was jumping into the next person.

**Kate:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Good job, Kate. Good job.

**John:** All right. Our final batch of three pages comes from Louisa Makaron and you’re going to forgive me when I mispronounce your name.

**Louisa Makaron:** It’s Ma-karon.

**John:** Louise Makaron. That’s actually much simpler.

**Craig:** Uh, you spelled it wrong.

**Louisa:** I know. Someone spelled it wrong along the way.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s an airport that spells it right.

**Louisa:** Yeah. I’m from Vegas actually where that airport lives.

**Craig:** You should just change it.

**Louisa:** I think I will.

**Craig:** Just change it.

**Louisa:** People think I’m Irish. I don’t know. I’m not Irish.

**Craig:** What are you?

**Louisa:** I’m Italian. It’s not indicated there.

**Craig:** No, there’s no vowel at the end. You should change it.

**Louisa:** I’m gonna. It’s happening.

**Craig:** Yeah, it makes sense.

**John:** Louisa, what was your decision process for sending in these three pages? When did you decide, You know what? I’m going to bite the bullet and send it in.”

**Louisa:** Well, yeah, motivated by terror mostly. Just like, just do it. I sat there with my finger over the Send button for probably ten minutes.

**John:** And you did it.

**Louisa:** Just send it, you know. Well, just like, it’s good. It’s good.

**John:** And so when you arrived here at the theater you saw that your pages. How were you feeling?

**Louisa:** More terror.

**John:** More terror?

**Louisa:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Right now? Terror right now in this moment?

**Louisa:** A little bit, yeah.

**John:** After us watch us talk to the first two entries, how are you feeling now?

**Louisa:** The same terror, I guess. I feel okay.

**John:** Okay. You should feel okay. You should feel pretty good.

**Craig:** You don’t really have levels of terror. You just have one steady…

**John:** Steady state.

**Louisa:** It’s pretty much constant. Yeah.

**Craig:** Okay.

**Louisa:** It’s how I live.

**Craig:** She has a static terror.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like you’re living in a police state where there’s always sort of unrest inside your head.

Louisa, talk to us about the pages you sent through and give us the quick description of what happens in these first three pages.

**Louisa:** Okay. So, in these three pages we meet Daisy and she’s drawing in a notebook. We see that she’s drawing a how-to manual on how to dodge a bullet, basically. And there’s a knock at the door, or there’s not a knock at the door — there is a sound outside the door and it’s a delivery person, delivery man, and he’s trying to leave a package that’s sort of crudely wrapped and she’s very suspicious of it.

And he gets frustrated with her and he ends up leaving. And she calls the police because she’s very nervous about this package. And then at the end it’s clear that the police know her and she’s called them many times.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** So, the first page, it’s hard to tell where the first page ends on her. But you know, you wrote it.

**Louisa:** I think it ends, “I was looking for the doorbell.” I think that’s where it ends.

**Craig:** Right. So, I really loved this first page. I really did. I liked the way you introduced her. There were details, but not too many details, but the right details that I needed. A fun reveal of what she did, which was really interesting and obviously makes me curious about her and what her deal is. And then the fact that there’s this thud and she’s so weirdly peeking out at this guy and he’s saying, “Umm…I saw you.”

“I’ve got a package for Daisy Morton.” Now, this is where I started getting a bit confused.

**Louisa:** Okay.

**Craig:** This delivery man is like the friendliest delivery man ever, who likes chatting. He’s actually chit-chatty. I’m not a shut-in and delivery men don’t talk to me this much. So, we got into this conversation which I have to tell you was well written. It had a good rhythm and it was interesting. You’re a smart person. I can tell these are smart people talking to each other. The problem is I just don’t know why these two people are talking in this way about this thing.

**Louisa:** Okay.

**Craig:** To me, a delivery man, I get, “I saw you.”

“What were you doing? Leave the package.” Walks away. [laughs] Do you know what I mean? That’s how UPS guys work for me. If he needs a signature, he’s like, “I need a signature.”

“I’m not coming outside.”

“Okay, well, I gotta take the package with me.”

“Don’t take the package.”

Now I understand that there’s a standoff and there’s some reason for them to talk. Create some sort of dramatic compulsion for this conversation to take place.

He was reading a bit like, I was asking Chris O’Dowd from Bridesmaids, like I imagine this incredibly friendly Irish UPS guy who’s like, “Oh, it’s just that ringing the bell is one of the perks of this job, you know.”

**Louisa:** Right, right.

**Craig:** But I don’t think that’s right for this kind of, you know, for what the circumstances are. You haven’t compelled these two people to force to deal with each other, which I think you want to do because that’s what’s uncomfortable for her.

And then also take a look, Daisy, when you are frightened you tend to shorten your sentences. And she’s very short, short, short, short, all right. And then suddenly, “It’s not my birthday and the nearest holiday is National Fanny Pack Day. Not exactly a gift giving holiday. You’re not the usual guy.”

Suddenly, she’s very verbose, right, which doesn’t work because it feels like it’s kind of — again, like I was saying earlier to Kate — it’s like putting a joke in where we don’t need a joke-joke. And then the conversation keeps going. So, it’s almost like a romantic comedy at this point, but why are they still talking to each other?

I did like the ending where she calls about the package. I think the operator, “A very suspicious package was just left on my door and –”

“Daisy, please.” You know, like not, “Daisy? Is this Daisy Morton?”

**Louisa:** Right, right.

**Craig:** They know her. If they know her, they know her.

**John:** Yeah. They would know the number calling.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. I think it would be, “911. Please stop calling us Daisy. What is it Daisy?”

**John:** I’m going to disagree with Craig, which is always one of my favorite things to do on the podcast.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** So, the reason why UPS people don’t ever talk to Craig is because he doesn’t have doe eyes and a cardigan.

**Craig:** That’s not true. At my house…you don’t know how I walk around.

**Louisa:** Constantly in a cardigan.

**John:** I don’t know your life on the other end of Skype there. But I believe that there was — I read this as he’s either flirting or he’s genuinely a bad guy. And that kept me excited and compelled reading through these things.

**Louisa:** Right.

**John:** And so I want to talk about sort of what I was reading and what I felt I could have enjoyed even more. Do you perceive titles going over her opening drawing of this stuff? Or are we just watching her?

**Louisa:** I kind of did. But, you know, it’s not my job…

**John:** It was sort of halfway in between. And so there wasn’t quite enough there that I believe it would mean a title sequence, but there wasn’t enough actually happening that I believe that we’re actually just watching her do all this drawing, finally to be the reveal of she’s actually drawing how to dodge a bullet.

So, I think you need to either make your choice. Either it’s titles or it’s not titles. And if it’s not titles it needs to be a little bit quicker. If it’s not titles, then you can really kind of get much more quickly to she would be doing something in the house and then she sees the guy moving and that sort of starts the whole movie, the whole scene.

I want to talk about point of view and like literally point of view, because we start inside the house and we never really go outside the house. And so the minute she sees him we can sort of go, we can do that POV through the window of seeing that there’s a guy there. And then I would put us at a new place when we’re actually at that door, so we’re inside/outside that door, so we’re really clear of where we are that she hasn’t invited him into the house.

I liked a lot of the conversation between them and sort of who’s the regular guy, I don’t know, ringing the doorbell. That all felt good and I felt Chris O’Dowd, too. I mean, it felt like the right kind of vibe for it.

I agree on National Fanny Pack Day. When you feel it’s reaching for a joke then it’s not going to land quite right. But, it was really nicely done. And I can see this working as the start of this — Daisy’s journey. Is that what the movie is? Is this Daisy’s story from being terrified to stepping out beyond her comfort zone?

**Louisa:** Yeah. Pretty much. Yeah.

**John:** What happens? What happens in the first act that gets her going?

**Louisa:** In the first act, well I haven’t — this is not written, so I have basically like a log line. Through her own carefulness and paranoia she basically ends up getting herself caught up in like a CIA type mission kind of thing. And by the end of the first act we’re in there.

**John:** So just because she’s paranoid doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get her.

**Louisa:** Right. She sort of ends up being right about a few things.

**Craig:** Self-fulfilling prophecy. Was your intention that the delivery man is flirting with her?

**Louisa:** I mean, no. Not really. I guess not.

**Craig:** Because I didn’t get that.

**Louisa:** He could be.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, this isn’t a story where they fall in love or anything.

**Louisa:** No.

**Craig:** Yeah, so, um…hmm.

**Louisa:** He could be flirting with her.

**John:** He could. So, if you wanted the flirting, it essentially becomes an extra line of dialogue where he notices like her skirt or like her bare legs…

**Louisa:** And a wink.

**John:** The wink, yeah. The little something. He mistakes her fright for coyness. And that sort of gets that going.

**Craig:** Regardless of what you intend here, if they’re not — if this character is gone, never to show up again, this is too much. This is just simply too much. Because we’re involved in their relationship suddenly, you know. And in that sense, that’s okay, we do this all the time. We write too much and then we pare back.

You have to decide what your intention is for this encounter. And if the intention is to show that she is paranoid and frightened of the world outside and is constantly calling 911, make that your focus. Pull out the rest of the underbrush.

**John:** Cool.

**Louisa:** Cool.

**John:** Louisa, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, Louisa.

**John:** And you made it. It’s a pleasure to meet you.

**Louisa:** Thank you.

**Craig:** That wasn’t so bad, was it?

**Louisa:** No, it was all right.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Now, it’s come time in the podcast where we will actually have questions live from the audience. So, I think what’s going to happen is are there volunteers with microphones? This young woman is going to have a microphone. So, if you have a question you will raise your hand and we will send her to you and you will be able to ask your question. Any show of hands of someone who has a question? Gentleman with a black shirt?

**Dave Stone:** Hey guys. Thanks for doing what you do. I really love it. My name is Dave Stone . I’m with Intrigue Films. And I was listening to a podcast where you were playing devil’s advocate about not subscribing to a lot of the structure in screenwriting books and that kind of stuff.

So, I just kind of wanted to ask you, when you guys were kind of starting out and learning, what teachers did you learn from and were there any books that you’re like, hey, this is a good foundational book. Anyways, that’s my question.

**Craig:** Yeah, sure. I think we probably mentioned at one point or another, when I first started out I read two books. I didn’t go to film school like John. I just read two books. I read Syd Field’s Screenwriter’s Workbook, which is not even Syd Field’s Screenplay. It was a very nuts and bolts thing which was good for me just so I could say, “Okay, the first act is roughly this many pages. The second act is roughly this many pages.” But a lot of it just was worthless.

It is, I mean, you know. And then I read Chris Vogler’s book, The Writer’s Journey, which is based on the Campbell stuff. And that’s, you know, also frankly, it’s kind of fortune cookie descriptions of how to do this stuff. The problem with all the books is that they’re post-facto. So, the people that write the books don’t write screenplays. They analyze screenplays.

So, they watch movies and they find commonalities between lots of movies and then they sort of create a paradigm for what’s common about them. And they provide that to you, as if that would help you actually construct it. It doesn’t.

What they are, they’re demolition experts telling you how to build a building. It does not work. The only way that I’ve found to figure out how to build a building as opposed to tear it down is to just build a whole lot of bad buildings. And then when people finally stop suing you, and the roof stops collapsing, then you’re there.

I mean, ultimately I find there is no other way around it. So, go ahead, take a look at the demolition experts. Take a look at what they have to say. Please do not pay anyone to give you advice on your script. I’ve said it a billion times — don’t do it.

But, in the end just know it’s okay after reading those books to not be any further along than you were before you started.

**John:** Yeah, I read Syd Field before I came to film school. Then in film school I was in a class with Laura Ziskin when she taught her first semester film development class. And we just read a bunch of scripts. And you would sort of talk through them.

And I think more than reading any book you should just read a ton of scripts. And really good scripts of the movies you love, or movies that haven’t been shot yet that are really good, and then just like a bunch of really bad scripts which you’ll find all over everywhere.

And you start to recognize patterns. Like these are things that work well in movies. And these are things that work badly in movies. But what Craig says is absolutely true. Being able analyze a script is not the same as being able to write a script. And you actually have to fundamentally do the work and figure out how it is you actually achieve on the page those things you see in the good movies. And how you keep this experience of scene-by-scene and line-by-line, keep the reader engaged.

And that’s a thing that’s very difficult to teach and you just have to sort of see it. So, the way we do these Three Page Challenges, it’s sort about keeping that excitement from scene-to-scene, from page-to-page, and understanding how you get a reader to experience the movie that you see in your head just through the 12-point Courier on the page.

Another question?

**Male Audience Member:** Hi. You reference a lot about how you prefer not have the longer paragraphs where there’s lots to read, you like the white space. How does that work for you if you’re setting up visual gags or something like that in comedies?

It seems to me that I tend to have longer paragraphs than the three lines or five lines or whatever than what I should have based on what I’ve been hearing.

**John:** Yeah, I would say my preference for shorter paragraphs isn’t just me as a writer, but it’s me as a reader. And it’s recognizing that I just tend to skip over longer things. It’s like, oh, my eyes don’t want to look through all those words.

And it’s laziness, but I don’t think I’m uncommon in that situation. And I will skip over stuff if it feels like it’s going to be too hard for me to read, or too much for me to read. And so that’s why I go for those short things.

For comedy I think short is also your friends.

**Craig:** For sure. Yeah, I mean, for setting up visual gags — if you’re setting up visual gags, the idea is that certain things must be there for the audience to see in a non-comic context and then something funny happens and you go, “Oh look, I didn’t realize that that was going to,” you know, you put a banana peel on the floor, and the guys walks around and walks into a pole.

And there are all sorts of ways that you can do that. And it’s sleight of hand with words. But, even more important then to not belabor stuff. Just, first of all, return. Okay? And I like capitalizing things that I want people’s eye to be drawn to.

Sometimes I’m capitalizing the wrong thing, because I want them to be looking here and then I hit them with this one. You know, he walks right around it and, whomp, a bus. You know? I mean, there’s a lot of ways you can do this. But very sparse. I really think in comedy in particular it’s important to be very sparse about that stuff.

It’s like watching a comedy. Keep it light.

**John:** Cool. Another question.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** How you doing guys?

**Craig:** Yeah! How you doin’?

**John:** That’s a great voice, by the way. We have to comment on that right from the start.

**Craig:** Everybody get out. It’s me and him. Brooklyn. How you doin’? How you doin’? Where you from?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Here’s five bucks. Don’t tell your mother.

**Craig:** Where you from?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Brooklyn.

**Craig:** Brooklyn! All right.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Bensonhurst.

**Craig:** What part?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Bensonhurst.

**Craig:** Bensonhurst is where my first apartment was, in Bensonhurst, right there. My mother was in Bensonhurst.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** 71st and Fourth.

**Craig:** Oh!

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** Hey!

**Craig:** Hey! How you doin’?

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** So, I love what you guys are doing. I think it’s fantastic. Now, speaking of New York, I read a couple of Goldman’s scripts and Woody Allen, and Goldman is specifically different because you can get quite annoyed reading his script. It’s cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.

**Craig:** He’s very unique.

**Brooklyn Accent Audience Member:** And Woody Allen leaves you absolutely dry. I mean, when he describes a room he says, “1920s Jean Harlow Room.” Have a nice day. That’s it.

So, then how do you — And he’s contextual funny. How do you navigate those extremes?

**Craig:** Choose between one or the other?

**John:** Yeah. I mean, so Woody Allen scripts are incredibly spare and it’s basically — you think about a Woody Allen movie, they are dialogue-driven. And so therefore he wants you to focus on what the characters are saying and that’s what the movie is largely going to be about.

William Goldman tends, there’s obviously good dialogue as well, but they tend to be sort of more, “I’m going to paint the whole world for you,” and that’s just the style. And it’s understanding what’s your natural writing style, what does your voice sound like, but what kind of movie are you writing.

And when I’m writing things that are dialogue-driven, there’s not going to be a lot of scene description in there.

**Craig:** Yeah. Also remember Woody Allen directs his own scripts. So, he doesn’t need to write a whole bunch of stuff in there, because he doesn’t need to sell it to anybody. He just has this kind of rotating deal. “I make a movie a year,” for better or worse at this point, you know. “But I make a movie a year. And people are going to give me money to make it. And, frankly, I’m more interested in getting actors. Usually I can get actors by saying, ‘I’m Woody Allen. Would you like to be in my movie?’ ‘Yeah.'”

At that point the script really becomes almost like notes. And from what I understand about his process, he’ll shoot and then he’ll reshoot a whole bunch, too, anyway. I mean, it seems like he kind of writes it as he shoots it. So, I wouldn’t draw too many lessons from that specific example.

Nor would I draw too many lessons from Goldman either because it’s just a very idiosyncratic way of writing. And here’s the truth: when you are established you can indulge yourself in whatever style of writing gets you to the movie, gets you to a good movie. And when you’re not, you have to kind of temper it a bit, because other people are reading it and making a choice about it.

With that in mind, you have to feel your own way. I think John’s right; if it’s a very heavy dialogue scene and nothing else is going on, you don’t need to go over the top. If you’re writing a scene where two people enter a ballroom, and it’s amazing, and there’s a dance, and there’s a gun fight — fill that space.

But, you’re going to have to find your own way. Obviously William Goldman didn’t care how Woody Allen wrote and vice versa. So, you shouldn’t probably care either.

**John:** Another question from out there. I see a gentleman right there.

**Gentleman Right There:** Hi, thank you guys for being here. The question that I have is you guys have both worked in franchises with Charlie’s Angels and The Hangover. How do you guys go about serving a franchise while still having your own unique stamp on it?

**John:** So, Charlie’s Angels, I loved the original series so, so much. And so when I went in to meet with Drew Barrymore and Amy Pascal about the movie, I told them — I expressed my love for it. And I felt like the movie could be a giant hug around the original series. We weren’t going to try to push back away from it. We were going to sort of embrace everything that was wonderful and sort of weird about the series and make the feature version of it.

The challenge for me was honestly the second movie. And when it came time to make the second movie, I met with each person involved with it individually and said like, “Let’s talk about what we’re going to do on the second movie and what kind of process we’re going to go through.” And I made everyone sign this little contract saying like, “These are the things we won’t do in the sequel. We won’t do all the stupid things that people do in the sequel that ruin sequels.”

And that checklist became the checklist of the things we did in the sequel that ruined it. It was just a bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy. I really wanted the second movie to be like the second episode of a great TV series that takes three years to shoot and costs $80 million. And I really wanted it to feel like a series, like the next episode. And I couldn’t do it. And it was outside of my power to make that thing happen.

Now, Craig, with The Hangover you came onboard with the second movie and you had a responsibility to sort of people’s expectations and the same filmmaker.

**Craig:** Yeah. For me it was — in a weird way the more relevant example for me for your question is the Scary Movie movies that I did. Because for Hangover it’s very much Todd Phillips’ movie and Todd called me — and when he called me on the second one he said, “Look, I want to make another episode,” actually. “It’s like Law & Order. I want it to happen again.” There’s another murder — or like Angela Lansbury — another murder, again, in my little town.

So, and that’s what we did and I liked it a lot. And the third movie he was like, “Here’s what I want to do. I want to go dark and I want to resolve this and I want to ask a question nobody every asks about characters like Alan. What’s wrong with this guy?”

So, that was following his lead very much, although obviously we worked very closely together to write the scripts. When I came on Scary Movie 3, the first two Scary Movies had been done by the Wayans brothers and they were both Rated R and they were of a certain kind — they were of a certain style. And I came onto Scary Movie 3 with David Zucker who had done Airplane, and Jim Abrahams, and Pat Proft, like all these old guys who had done Airplane, and Naked Gun, the movies that I kind of loved.

And we really said, “Let’s just do it a different way. Let’s make Scary Movie 3 like that. Let’s go old school with it.” And that was more of a big change and that was more of a decision. And I feel closer to those movies, frankly.

And unfortunately the studio, as you see, they let it get away from them all the time with sequels. They do seem to concentrate on the worst lessons. Writing sequels is very hard. It’s very, very hard. It is essentially thankless. And, yet, it’s probably half the jobs that are available. [laughs] So, you have to make your peace with it at some point.

**John:** Craig, did you see the list of the 2015 movies? So, like the summer 2015 movies that are already sort of scheduled out…

**Craig:** Number, number, number, number…

**John:** Number, number, number. It’s like the nadir of numbers.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, look, we’ve had already this year…

**John:** This year was big.

**Craig:** …so many. And they have some that are sequels but they’re not like — Superman is a reboot of a movie that came out three years ago. It’s, eh, a sequel, sequel-ish.

**John:** Yeah, it’s kind of sequel, kind of original.

Let’s do one last question and then we’re going to do wrap up. So, I see one more question.

**Initially Loud Audience Member:** Hey. Wow, that was loud. Would you guys talk about the difference — John, have you ever worked with a writing partner? And I guess that’s part of the question. And then talk about the difference between working with a writing partner and working on your own stuff and how the process differs and how you approach it in each circumstance.

**John:** I have written with a writing partner. So, I wrote a pilot for Fox with Jordan Mechner who is a really terrific writer. And Big Fish: The Musical I’m writing with Andrew Lippa who is the lyricist/composer.

And the challenge for me is that I’m not a very good roommate. I don’t share things well. And it’s like having a creative roommate. And you’re supposed to take this thing that fits in your brain and make it fit in both of your brains and share the same vision of stuff.

Writing partners can be really good for many writers because you have different skill sets. One of you may be good in the room. One of you may be good at sort of buckling down. You can hold each other accountable for actually getting the work done. There’s a lot of good reasons for why people should write with writing partners. I’m just not a person who is naturally especially good at that.

One of the challenges I had with Jordan, who is fantastic and who I adore, was because I was so much more experienced of a writer, that whenever we would come to a disagreement I would just like sort of throw the trump card. I would say, “Big Fish.” And so I would win too many of those arguments and it just wasn’t a fair balanced thing.

And so that’s why if you’re both at a sort of newer level it can be a really great situation. And with Big Fish, we are just completely different skill sets. And so I knew nothing about how to do a big stage musical and he didn’t know how to do this kind of story. And it was a good marriage.

**Craig:** I never realized it must have been very hard for you to invite me into your life as a creative partner of sorts.

**John:** There’s a reason we’re on Skype. Yeah. There’s a reason why I control the edit.

**Craig:** I actually think that one of the reasons our partnership on this podcast goes so well is because from the start, it wasn’t even a decision, I was like I’m not going to make any decisions. It’s actually very… — These things are, because if you want to make decisions and the other person also wants to make decisions, this is a problem. It can be a real, real problem. And I’m super laid back about the podcast to the point of almost being not there. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** He’s laughing like, [faint, sarcastic laugh].

**John:** There is one podcast that Craig was actually not there. We just cut him in and he just says, “Uh-huh, yeah,” a lot.

**Craig:** Good point. Good point.

I did have a writing partner. I started with a writing partner for the first five years of my career. And he’s a great guy. He’s still working today. He has a new writing partner. We stopped writing together I think around 2000. And the fact is that, so I write alone, typically. Sometimes I collaborate with the director. And he has a writing partner because he’s supposed to have a writing partner. He’s the kind of writer that needs a writing partner and wants a writing partner. And I’m the kind that doesn’t.

And neither one is better or worse. I mean, there are some amazing teams who are prodigious and talented on a level I can’t be. Looked at what Ganz and Mandel have done over the years. And Alexander and Karaszewski.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, there’s just a ton of great, great teams across all genres that are really impressive. And you have to ask yourself what kind of guy am I? What kind of person am I?

There are huge benefits to having the partner. The partner is somebody that can tell you, yes, those people were crazy. No, this isn’t bad.

Of course, a partner is also somebody who can tell you, “I just didn’t like what you wrote today,” even though you think it’s awesome. And then there’s just stuff, business stuff. If you become successful as a partnership, it’s difficult to un-partnership. You know, so there’s… — And we’re going to actually talk about this at length in a following episode, unless it’s a prior episode depending on how time works out, with Dennis Palumbo who is a psychotherapist who deals with screenwriters. And has apparently done quite a bit of couple’s therapy with partners.

**John:** Yes. So, a few little wrap up things here today. Did anybody here buy a t-shirt? A show of hands? Oh, yeah, a lot of t-shirts. T-shirts are going to start shipping on Monday and they look really cool. You’re going to see this little card if you bought a t-shirt. You’ll flip this card over and there may be something handwritten on the back from me and Craig. If so, that’s your Golden Ticket and you’ll get a special awesome little thing that we’ll announce later on.

**Craig:** There’s one.

**John:** There’s only one ticket.

**Craig:** Who will get it?

**John:** Guys, thank you so very much. This was really fun.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

****************

**Craig:** No, locked in!

**John:** All right, so people are gathering their things. People are taking a seat. And we can probably start. So, how many of you guys have actually heard this show that we usually do called Scriptnotes? Show of hands? Oh, hey, a lot of people. That’s fantastic.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** So, if you are familiar with the show you know that it starts exactly the same way ever time. So, what might be cool is if we’re like kind of quiet and then at a certain point when it becomes really obvious you can all like cheer, or applaud, or make some sort of noise to indicate that there are live people here in the audience. Does that sound cool? All right.

**Craig:** Do you want to point at them when they’re supposed to do that?

**John:** Now, that’s good.

**Craig:** I have no confidence that they will know what the appropriate time is.

**John:** All right, I have a lot more faith in our audience.

**Craig:** Well, you know me.

**John:** All right, so let’s do this. Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

[Applause!]

**Craig:** No, no. Yes! I was right! That was the wrong time! That wasn’t even close to the right time. I feel so good about what just happened.

**John:** Yeah, you probably should.

**Craig:** You know that there’s this ongoing war between us about people are good, people are bad.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** I win again.

**John:** Craig and I are never in the same room when we do this, so it’s really rare that we actually can see each other. So, let’s try this again and let’s try to be quiet until I point to you, all right?

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

[Applause!]

Oh my god, still! All right. Total silence. All right.

**Craig:** You’re going to be quiet until he points to you. This is pointing.

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

[Applause!]

LINKS:

* [Writers Guild Foundation](https://www.wgfoundation.org)
* [Three Page Challenge packet](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/live_threepagers_final.pdf)

Scriptnotes, Ep 93: Let’s talk about Nikki Finke — Transcript

June 14, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/lets-talk-about-nikki-finke).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 93 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

How are you Craig?

**Craig:** I’m good. I like it when you say 93. You can feel the pressure of the countdown.

**John:** It’s very exciting. We’re approaching our 100th episode. And we will have news later on in this very episode of the podcast about where and when and how the 100th episode is going to happen, but another live episode that we’re going to be doing later this very month.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But first there was actually some news this week, so I thought we would talk about the actual news that happened this week, because people kept tweeting me things about like, “Hey, are you going to talk about this?” And I said yes.

**Craig:** It’s funny. We get tweets now anytime anything happens vaguely related to screenwriting. I get 14 million tweets.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** “You should talk about this.”

**John:** “What is your opinion?”

**Craig:** And every tweet always begins, “You’re probably getting a lot of tweets about this, but…” Yes. Yes I am.

**John:** You know, you can actually check a person’s timeline and then you would see that. But, eh, it’s fine. I don’t mind. It’s fine.

**Craig:** Eh.

**John:** To completely sidetrack at the very start of our conversation, really the wonderful thing about Twitter which someone pointed out to me is that you never have to open a message on Twitter. The message that you see is just the message. So, you can scroll through and see the whole thing. It’s not like an email that you have to open and it’s like, oh, I don’t want to open an email.

It’s just the whole thing. That’s the genius of Twitter.

**Craig:** Yes. It’s true. We’re basically short-handing our experience of life down to “I’m awake. I just experienced something with no effort. Now I’m asleep.” [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. I find that if there’s any sort of real event happening in the world, my instinct is not to turn on the TV but to go to Twitter and just do a search for what that is.

**Craig:** It’s so true, granted that is a huge sidetrack, but isn’t that the fun of it all?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, I’m watching baseball the other day, as I’m wont to do. And as Asdrúbal Cabrera — by the way, sidetrack to the sidetrack: baseball names have become awesome.

**John:** That’s a good name.

**Craig:** In large part because of all the players coming from the Dominican Republic and from Cuba. For whatever reason folks in the Dominican Republic and in Cuba use these really — I mean, a lot of them just have crazy, kooky, funny names that aren’t even like traditional. They’ve just been inventing names. And Asdrúbal, I can’t imagine that that’s popular, but Asdrúbal Cabrera was running a ground ball out or a single out to first and just suddenly stopped and collapsed over. And something terrible had happened to his leg.

And I’m sitting there trying to figure out what happened. Was it his knee? Was it his hamstring? Was it his quad? How bad is it? You know what? I think I’ll just jump on Twitter. Ten seconds after it happens there’s like a thousand tweets. And the first wave of tweets are, “Oh, no, a thing happened.” The second wave of tweets about a minute later are, “Oh, no, a thing happened. This is what I think happened.”

And then a third wave, maybe a minute later, the criticisms: “Doesn’t Asdrúbal Cabrera stretch?” It’s like, god, God! [laughs] The guy is still writhing in pain and they’ve already managed to do an entire week of news cycle in a minute.

**John:** Yeah. The media cycle has shrunk down to about 140 characters.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And once it cycles through once, because once someone has actually put out a tweet about something, well they can’t put out the same tweet. They have to have a new opinion. So, therefore, they cycle out a new opinion and therefore it goes through really quickly.

I do find that something will happen in the news that I’ll want to comment on, but I’ll have to sort of go though my timeline first just to make sure that not everyone has already said that thing. Because I don’t want to be the “me too” guy on that.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right.

**John:** Sometimes you’ll think of like the absolute best possible joke for something, and then you realize that someone said that about three minutes ago. And even if they hadn’t said it, you get the sense that, “Yeah, someone’s going to have already said that. You’re three minutes too late for that.”

**Craig:** Oddly, this sidetrack is a pretty decent segue into the news that we’re going to discuss.

**John:** Which is absolutely true, because other than Twitter who else reflects our modern fixation on the present tense and on personality than Nikki Finke.

And so this week Nikki Finke is apparently — I’m overstating this week — this week Sharon Waxman, who is the editor of this publication called The Wrap, which is another online publication, on June 2 put out the headline, “Shocker: Jay Penske Fires Nikki Finke from Deadline Hollywood, Sources Say.” That was the headline.

And at this point we should probably sidebar and talk about who these people are because it’s very possible that if you’re listening to this podcast in Australia or someplace you’ll have no idea who we’re talking about. So, should I give the backstory? Do you want to give the backstory of who these people are and why it matters at all?

**Craig:** Well, I mean, there’s not that much backstory except that Sharon Waxman used to be a reporter, I think, for the New York Times and other things. And then she started The Wrap which is an online — basically an online publication reporting on the entertainment industry the way that Variety and Hollywood Reporter used to do solely, that is to say an industry publication, a trade publication.

But it was a Johnny-come-lately because Deadline was there first. That was and continues — at least theoretically — to be run by Nikki Finke, a longtime entertainment journalist who used to write something called Deadline Hollywood for LA Weekly, which was an old school print publication. She then started Deadline. Jay Penske is a rich dude who bought Deadline and then also bought Variety.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And that’s where the fun part begins because Nikki Finke loathes Variety, she loathes the Hollywood Reporter, she loathes Sharon Waxman, she loathes The Wrap. She loathes everybody that’s in the business she’s in that’s not her. And this immediately put her into a weird position with Jay Penske in part because, some surmised, she wanted to run Variety because of course sometimes we secretly love and lust after the things we profess to loathe.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So, how is that for backstory?

**John:** That’s a fantastic backstory. Thank you for filling us in.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** So, there are many fascinating elements to this story. First off is Nikki Finke herself, or at least our perception of who Nikki Finke is, because while she has a tremendous presence online through her blog and tweets and things, she is reclusive and no one actually sees her. And she’s famously protective of her privacy.

And so there’s this sort of cult of personality that is somewhat built by her and somewhat projected upon her by everybody else, which is fascinating. So, I think that’s a thing worth discussing because she as a character independently is really interesting. And there’s a reason why there was an attempt to make an HBO series that was not based on her but sort of inspired by that kind of figure because she’s actually genuinely fascinating.

**Craig:** In part what fascinates me about that aspect of it is that it takes our goofy stereotype of an online blogging type of person to its extreme. Normally our fictionalizations are more extreme than reality. So, you could see creating a fictional blogger who in fact is a recluse who never leaves their house and just sits in a kind of a Cheetos-stained chair, angrily banging away at a keyboard, affecting the world around them in a very serious way without engaging in it.

And yet it turns out that usually that’s not the case. Except this time it is the case. [laughs] She literally — from what I understand — she is literally a shut-in. She does not leave the house. She has things delivered to her. There are no photographs of her except one that is endlessly reprinted when people do articles about her. And it’s very kind of odd.

**John:** It’s sort of like glamour movie lighting. It’s a black and white photo with sort of glam movie lighting that seems to be airbrushed in sort of the way that things used to be airbrushed, not like sort of Photoshop, but like sort of airbrushed in a way.

**Craig:** Right! Or like the way that Bob Guccione used to put nylon stockings over the lens when he shot the nudie models. You know, it’s like the weird soft lighty boudoir headshot. [laughs]. I don’t know what else to call it; it’s very odd. It’s a very odd headshot.

**John:** Yeah. And so in discussing her personality I don’t want to sort of reduce her down to just one thing, but I think it’s fascinating that because she’s this semi-public/incredibly private figure who only presents what she sort of want to present, and then everything else is projected upon her, so the only things we know about her are she frequently writes about herself in the sense of like, “I was out sick for a week,” or “this happened.”

You get these little glimpses into her private life, but it’s only about sort of an illness or something else that happened that affected why she was late reporting these numbers, or how much somebody pissed her off.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And in a weird way, what’s I think fascinating about her as a figure — and I think there are other media figures we can talk about who embody this to — is that the news is actually about her. It’s not actually about sort of what is happening out there in Hollywood. It’s about her reaction to the news and that you’re supposed to read her site because of her reaction to something rather than strictly the facts of what it is.

**Craig:** It’s fascinating, isn’t it? And she’s very litigious by all accounts to the point where, for instance, you and I will probably be sued by her because we dare to offer certain opinions here, so I should say these are all opinions and conjecture. We don’t know actually know that she’s legitimately a shut-in. I don’t know that. I know what I read, you know?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But you’re absolutely right. You are forced to piece together this strange narrative following this breadcrumb trail that she leaves behind through her reportage, which is kind of a furious reportage. It is highly personal. It violates every standard I would think of normal journalism.

I mean, she’s a huge part of articles that she’s writing about other things. She berates the topics of her reportage. Everything is kind of just a crazy editorialization. Her catchphrase is “TOLDJA!” as if that matters. So, she’ll say, “I hear that blah, blah, blah,” and then a week later that happens or is confirmed. “TOLDJA!” Okay. [laughs]

Now, I should say before we go any further in the spirit of full disclosure I happen to know for a fact that Nikki Finke hates me. She hates me.

**John:** Oh…I don’t think she has any opinion about me whatsoever. That’ll change after this.

**Craig:** Well, she does now buddy.

Here’s why she hates me. Back when I was actively blogging — hmm, I guess I should say here’s why she says she hates me. Back when I was actively blogging she basically told a friend of mine or a mutual acquaintance that I had written terrible things about her on my blog. And that’s just not true. That I can actually say is simply not true.

I went back and I looked at my blog. I did say I wasn’t a big fan of her breathless style of reporting. I don’t think that that’s that terrible of a thing to say. I will point out I said it within the context of an article that was basically praising her for being right about something and kind of going after Sharon Waxman for being wrong. Didn’t matter.

She then, I reached out to her. I said, “Look, I’m very sorry if I said something that offended you. I certainly didn’t mean it. I don’t believe I’ve said anything terrible.” She dismissed that apology completely. I then offered to get on the… — Oh, I made a huge mistake by offering to sit down and meet her for coffee or something. I didn’t realize I was stepping in it there. [laughs] That didn’t go well.

**John:** Yeah, that doesn’t happen.

**Craig:** You don’t say that to shut-ins. And then she basically, I said, “Well I’ll get on the phone with you.” And she essentially said in an email, “No, I don’t trust you.”

Really paranoid. I found it to be very paranoid and very weird. She’s gone after me a few times. she also, I’ve noted, a couple times I’ve tried to comment on things neutrally, you know, like for instance there was an article early on about Identity Thief and they left out the original writer’s name, so I commented and said actually the original script is by so-and-so. That comment was never published.

I have, however, had comments published not under my name. [laughs] It’s pretty fun. But anyway, that’s my… — Now, I suspect, I should say, that the real reason that she hated me so much was because frankly my blog got a huge bunch of attention at the time during the strike. And that’s not attention that meant anything to me. I wasn’t doing it for attention. But shortly after I got all that attention I noticed that she really steered her blog towards strike coverage and to great effect for herself and to profit I presume.

**John:** Yeah. She wants to be the voice talking about things. And I think you were probably a rival voice talking about things and you were taking eyeballs from her and you were taking attention from her.

Now, a little bit more about sort of who she is as a figure before we sort of get into the nature of the site and sort of the ecosystem of entertainment journalism right now as it is in Hollywood.

What I find fascinating about Nikki Finke, and I have to say there’s other figures kind of like her that I would describe similar, sort of like weirdly disproportional importance — Matt Drudge. If you look at Matt Drudge’s site, it’s just like a bunch of links and it sort of shouldn’t matter at all. And yet it’s hugely influential and he’s sort of built this cult of personality around him and sort of who he is. It’s this guy who wears this fedora and whatever that is.

You look at Nate Silver and sort of the journalism he was doing and the statistics work he was doing with all the election stuff. He became like sort of a figure who was independent of just what he was reporting; he was a figure in and of himself. That he was considered an expert on these things. Now, he ended up becoming more of a physical public figure unlike Matt Drudge who is also sort of reclusive. Nate Silver was going on The Daily Show, but he became really part of the story to the degree where during the election coverage people were sort of focusing on him as much as they were focusing on the numbers.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, I think it’s a strange time because in a weird way — and this could be fact of Twitter as well — we don’t just want the story; we want someone’s take on the story. We want to hear the news from somebody that we want to hear the news from.

And I think for the last couple of years that’s largely been Deadline Hollywood. And it’s largely been Nikki Finke. And whether we sort of want to or not, we sort of feel compelled to at least check that because everyone else sort of — all the eyes went to there and the rest of the ecosystem just sort of dried up.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, as much as Nikki — there’s much about Nikki that I find detestable, quite frankly. But, you have to acknowledge, anyone must acknowledge, that Nikki Finke saw a gaping hole in the way that entertainment industry was being covered and just drove a truck through it. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter for years had been the only game in town. And, frankly, Variety was really the only game in town, so they were sort of, you know, kind of the A-list normal standard of daily reporting. And then The Hollywood Reporter was the other one.

And everybody got the trades in the morning. And everybody read the trades in the morning. And that’s the way things happened. And when the internet came along, Variety and Hollywood Reporter…

Now, let me take a step back. When I started working in Hollywood, do you remember the day, John, early in the nineties when you started when you found out what a subscription to Variety cost? [laughs]

**John:** It was tremendously expensive. Now, I was lucky because in the Stark Program — Variety, for whatever reason, took pity on us and gave everybody in the Stark Program their own free copy of Variety so we would be hooked. But $200, $300 a year?

**Craig:** I think it was more. I think that there were prices they would give you for a professional price, if you could show that you were a professional. But if you were just a guy that wanted to get Variety every morning and not pay the insane cover price for it, it was like almost $400. And this was in the ’90s. $400 a year.

**John:** Yeah. And I should say that the trades at that point were delivered to your office or to your home. And so I would get my LA Times and I would get my Variety every morning delivered to my house. And that was a crucial thing, or at least I thought it was a crucial thing at the time.

**Craig:** And unlike a daily newspaper, which is substantial, daily Variety was usually 10 or 12 glossy pages, a bunch of which was ads. A bunch of which was crap. It was basically three or four articles and photos. And it was yesterday’s news.

**John:** Yeah. So, here’s where I think you’re leading here is that she saw that, and I think Nate Silver did, too, that the blog was really the best way to get these things out. Because rather than sort of having all the news to be delivered at once, it’s as stories came in they would be the top story and it push the rest of the stories down.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And she saw that before other people saw that. And that was a disruptive…

**Craig:** It was hugely disruptive.

**John:** …business model.

**Craig:** She also saw that Variety and Hollywood Reporter were addicted to the absurd free ride they had been getting essentially, that because of the nature of our business, they had managed to extort an unfair price for the actual value of their information. She comes along and says, “Here are these guys that by dint of their monopoly have been charging you hundreds of dollars a year for this stuff. I’m going to charge you nothing for it. And you’re going to get it faster.”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And, oh my god, overnight. And listen, you want to ask how could Nikki Finke have been stopped? Easy, all Variety and Hollywood Reporter had to do would be to dump their old model, which they can barely still manage to do today, and just go to that model. But they couldn’t do it because they were addicted to the money.

**John:** Yeah. There’s many books written about that, but it’s — I guess — the innovator’s dilemma. It’s like, you know, once you’re the established business it’s actually very hard to be nimble and sort of say, “Okay, well we have to junk this business model and try a brand new thing.”

And they couldn’t do it quickly enough. And so there’s an alt-universe where Variety recognized like, okay, the blog is the way to go and they would have started that in parallel and eventually shifted everything over. They would have had to lay off most of their staff, though. There’s no way, you know…

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** There’s no way a blog can support sort of all the staff that they have. That business model kind of had to go away.

**Craig:** Everything had to go away. And they couldn’t adjust quick enough. So, along comes this incredibly aggressive person. And in journalism aggression is rewarded and as well it should be. Nikki is truly a double-edged sword. The plus side is that she simply had no concern for the kind of gentlemanly rules of the past. So, if you’re interested in proper journalism you don’t want an overly cozy relationship between the journalists and the people they’re reporting on. You want somebody who doesn’t care, who doesn’t care about what parties they’re invited to because they don’t leave their apartment.

What she wants is the dirt and the truth. And she reported it.

**John:** I feel in some of the popular coverage of what’s been happening this last time with Nikki Finke, too quickly do they draw comparisons to like gossip people. And that’s not accurate or fair to sort of what she does.

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** Because she’s not reporting gossip about sort of like, you know, Brangelina stuff. She’s reporting stuff that is, I would say, most of the times generally and specifically entertainment news, but she’s very, very aggressive in getting it and sort of getting people to tell her rather than tell anybody else for fear of god, because if anyone else gets the story before she does, she will go after you guns blazing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that’s one of the things that was actually pointed out in… — So, on June 3, Nikki Finke replied to Sharon Waxman saying, “Cut it out, Sharon Waxman. Your story is full of lies and fabrications,” yet there was also a non-denial denial in there saying that it’s pretty clear that something is going to happen about her employment situation at deadline.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, here’s what she wrote. “The fact is I’m out of town and about to begin my long-planned summer vacation. And the last thing I want is to be bothered now by a bunch of media and/or moguls asking for comment.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Which is truly rich. I mean, the last thing I want is for somebody to do to me what I do to everybody else every single second of every single day.

**John:** “As it happens, I was napping in a different time zone when The Wrap crapped on me yet again Sunday night. Nothing new: the desperate Sharon Waxman and her revolving door staff have been writing inaccurately about me for years, and doing it to drive traffic to her failing website, and refusing to correct even the most blatant errors.”

**Craig:** And so, you know, this is an endless song of, “I’m the victim; everybody else is failing and desperate. I’m great; everyone else stinks.”

**John:** So, within this same article she goes through — Sharon Waxman had specifically said that a point of contention between Nikki Finke and Jay Penske was this situation with the UTA and some sort of finance arrangement, which I don’t honestly quite understand what it is. But so Nikki printed a bunch of the emails that were involved in this chain.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I tweeted that that doesn’t kind of seem like journalism just to print a bunch of emails. But, she printed them. So, one of them, which was I think the sort of most revealing about sort of my concern of what it is that she does, it’s actually an email that Mike Fleming sent out to Chris Day who is the Head of Publicity for UTA. And in this email he talks about this deal, the people talked with at UTA, and he says, “You denied it all. Now I see in The Hollywood Reporter that you have engaged the guy who is going to make that deal. False denials come with consequences at Deadline Hollywood. I’m sure you understand.”

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** “Because they piss us off and most people know better than to do that.” What the hell is going on here with this?

**Craig:** It’s just a threat.

**John:** Yeah. It’s not even an especially veiled threat.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. What consequences? We’re not going to report on you? We’re going to be mean to you? We’re going to make fun of you? We’re going to slant our coverage?

It’s disgusting. But everybody knows — here’s the thing — this is definitely an, “I’m shocked. Shocked that gambling is going on here!” Everybody knows that’s how it works over there. That’s Nikki’s thing. It’s entirely about vindictiveness. And she carries through on it. I mean, she does.

You know, I read comments about me on her site that are completely out of line. And, but you know, it says, “Keep it civil,” or whatever. Yeah, uh-huh. I mean, look, [laughs], I get it over there. She went after me.

I mean, forget me. Let’s put me aside. That’s the deal over there. In fact, what happens sometimes when I look at people like this and I think, “You are exceptional.” I mean, this is an exceptional woman in a lot of regards. And you have accomplished an enormous amount. But unfortunately the fuel that you’re using to burn this new path is also going to kind of consume you as well, because in the end it cannot maintain. It can’t hold. You are just going to go too far.

And when you have no friends left there will be that critical mass moment where everybody just says, “Apparently we’re all in the doghouse. So, now who needs you?”

**John:** Yeah. It’s been interesting to sort of watch the ascendency and sort of, you know, her place there in the industry. Because I think everyone sort of in the back of their minds thought, like, well this is going to end at some point; and it’s not going to end pretty, because you could sort of see what this is because we’ve seen this show before. We sort of know what happens to these characters is that the thing that makes them rise and succeed so much will generally be their undoing.

It’s a very classic sort of almost Shakespearean plot. Once you get to a certain ascendency, it’s not just that everyone else is going to drag you down. You are going to drag yourself down by going too far.

And one of the things which I… — So, you talked about sort of comments that would show up or not show up based on sort of the whims of whoever is approving comments, which may be Nikki Finke herself often. I also noticed that stories, which is also sort of the new journalism here, stories were often posted and then reedited to make them factual when they weren’t factual before.

**Craig:** Without notice of correction.

**John:** No notice of correction. So, even that thing I just read to you, which is “False Denials Come With Consequences, Deadline Hollywood,” that got taken out of the email.

**Craig:** Isn’t that amazing.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a Gawker article I put in the links to the show notes called “Why Nikki Finke Never Makes a Mistake.” It sort of goes through and takes the screenshots of like this is the original story and this is how she corrected the story.

**Craig:** And she does it all the time.

**John:** Yeah. And so that’s the frustration is that she’s often sort of badgering people about journalism, and sort of like, you know, this is what being a journalist is. Yet, journalism is also acknowledging, it’s about being correct, and it’s about sort of acknowledging when you’re not correct. And, you know, pointing that out. And I don’t think I’ve ever really seen a correction.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that there is a fine line between sort of a taboo-smashing iconoclast and a bully. And Nikki, in my opinion, danced far over the line towards bully years ago. And I hope that somehow out of all of this mess comes a new kind of reporting that doesn’t feel incestuous with the people you’re reporting on, but by the same token follows some basic journalistic standards, doesn’t make the story about the reporter, isn’t vindictive.

I mean, like Nate Silver, yeah, the story became about him. Nate Silver you could just tell is a good guy who just writes what he believes and isn’t in it for himself. I don’t actually believe he is, you know?

**John:** Yeah. Also, Nate Silver, I think, first and foremost, would always say, “This is how I could be wrong. And this is why I’m saying these things. This is why I believe that the data suggests this. But these are the reasons why I could be wrong and here’s the chance of that.” And there’s never a shred of that in the Nikki Finke of it all.

Let’s talk about what the ecosystem might be. So, I would assume, and these are just assumptions — I have no inside information about this — but based on the articles that we’ve seen, sort of the non-denial denials, and to me the really telling thing that there’s some anti-Nikki Finke comments that are showing up on Deadline Hollywood Daily, which means that she’s not editing out those anti-Nikki Finke comments. I would suspect that one way or another she will part company. That doesn’t necessarily mean she’s fired. It doesn’t mean she quit. But she may not be running that publication the way she was before.

And if there’s any sort of clause where she can’t compete against it for awhile, she couldn’t compete against it for awhile. Regardless, something will change. And let’s talk about what the ideal circumstances would be/situation would be in the next generation of entertainment coverage. What do we want to see, Craig?

**Craig:** Well, the best of Deadline is the immediacy of it and the thoroughness of it. So, even though people think of Deadline as a place where juicy stories were reported about people losing their jobs or being hired, a ton of it is really about the minutia that frankly wouldn’t even make it into the pages of Variety, but which I often find interesting. You know, somebody is now a showrunner on a show.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, there’s a thoroughness to it and an immediacy to it that works. And I think also there is — there are — quite a few reporters there at Deadline who frankly are just imports from Variety, like Mike Fleming.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, Mike Fleming reported normally for years. Mike Fleming is capable of being a normal journalist with a normal demeanor who doesn’t threaten people, because he did it for years writing for Variety in a very respectful way. Certainly he can get back to that. And then honestly I think that this comment thing has to get under control because it’s just gross. I mean, it’s a joke, just so people at home don’t think it’s me personally, because I don’t care, but Deadline commenters as a group are just a punch line when you talk to people who are in the business. It’s a joke.

**John:** Yeah. There’s sort of two, I think kinds, of Deadline commenters. There are the ones who actually have no relationship to the business at all, and just pile on about whatever, and then they’re actually assistants at some production company who see a negative story or see some of story about one of their clients or someone involved in their movie and sort of throw in the other way, they try to tip the perception one way or the other. And it becomes just very silly to read.

And, granted, you should never read below the fold in general. You should never read comments.

**Craig:** Ever.

**John:** The times I have dipped below the fold, it just reminds me of why you should never dip below the fold.

**Craig:** Take a Silkwood shower afterwards. I mean, it’s particularly sad to me when there are these innocuous articles about somebody getting promoted. Somebody has been named vice president of development at Comedy Central, who knows, something. And then there are four comments like, “Great person. Great. Congratulations for them.” And then there’s four comments of, “Disgusting individual. Mistreats people. I hope they die.”

I mean, nobody can — you can’t have a birthday over there without somebody basically saying, “I know this person and they kicked me and they’re evil.” There’s a strain of bitterness throughout it. So, typically there will be just a very neutral report on a writer being hired to write something. And then 12 comments about how the writer is great, 14 comments about how the writer is awful, 16 comments about how the writer can’t write at all and is stupid and this is why Hollywood is a disaster. Another four comments about how that person is really a writer who never writes anything and the commenter is a jerk.

**John:** But then it will actually be about sort of how the actor on that TV show got really, really fat and someone needs to…

**Craig:** [laughs] It just devolves and… — It is truly a playground for the stupid and venal.

**John:** To be fair, that’s honestly most comment threads.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** It’s just that that’s the place we’re actually seeing comments these days.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Now, I also want to bring up why it matters at all, because I think people who aren’t sort of living in this little ecosystem think, “Well, it’s silly that you guys are talking about this for 20 minutes; just don’t read the stories. Why does it matter?”

Here’s where it does matter and I especially found this to be true during TV season is that perception is very much reality in terms of TV season. Like movies take so long, and they’re so long to put together that it’s not such a big deal, but when you’re trying to cast a show and everyone is fighting over the same actors, the one Deadline article or any sort of meaningful publication article that says, “This actor is leaning towards this,” can completely tip the balance of something.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And suddenly you don’t have that actor. Or, that director you think you’re going to have is not there. Or, you get this perception that your show is falling apart and so therefore everyone jumps onto the next show. It does matter. That’s why accuracy matters. And it’s why people sort of keep clicking over to those sites to see what that is.

What I hope to see in the ecosystem that develops down the road from here is whatever Deadline becomes, Deadline becomes. Whatever Nikki Finke does, she can do and god bless her. But I would like to see Variety, Hollywood Reporter, The LA Times, and maybe some other, The Wrap, or whoever else pick up the pieces so that you have a reason to click through to multiple places. Because right now I’ve found that unless something gets reported in Deadline, sort of nobody notices.

That’s sort of the only place where something actually lands. And so if Variety writes about something I did, no one sends the email. But if it shows up in Deadline, I get like four emails about it. It’s a strange thing. And I think any sort of monoculture is ultimately harmful for an industry.

**Craig:** I totally agree. And it makes sense that just as Nikki very wisely and cannily saw this opening, somebody is looking at this situation right now and they see an opening. The truth is the town is sick to death of her. That’s the god’s honest truth.

I think all the people that used her to their advantage are growing weary and sick of her. And there is an opening. And somebody is going to start something new. And this is, after all, the internet where MySpace just roamed the earth like the dinosaur. And then, oh my god, meteor, meteor, Facebook! This is the way it goes.

**John:** At this point the last question there will be is will we be willing to accept something that doesn’t have a face associated with it, or at least a personality associated with it? Because I think that’s one of the things that made it unique. And I’ll be curious whether we’re willing to go to an anon, like sort of a quasi-anonymous news source after having a personality associated with our news. We’ll see.

**Craig:** I hope so, because, frankly, I’m not a big fan of that.

**John:** What I am a big fan of is our two live shows this summer. So, I want to talk to you about that.

So, we are going to be having people come see us as we record our shows, and we will be interacting with those people who come to see us record our shows. And I’m very, very excited about both of these opportunities. And they’re really different and they’ve become very different events which I think is an exciting thing to happen, too.

The first of our live shows is Saturday June 29, and it’s part of a much bigger event. It’s Craft Day for the Writers Guild Foundation. So, it’s an all-day event with four different panels and writers, and agents, and industry folk. And so it’s all about screenwriting and probably TV writing as well. And because it’s Craft Day, Craig and I are going to be doing a Three Page Challenge live, somehow. I think we’re going to have like projections so we can actually look at the pages that we’re talking about.

We may actually have the people who wrote those three pages in the audience.

**Craig:** Oh…

**John:** There might be a situation where if you know you’re coming and you would like us to look at your three pages, send it Stuart and sort of say in the subject line like, “I will be there,” and that way we could pick those things and know that you are there in the audience and can respond and be up on stage with us maybe.

**Craig:** That would be great.

**John:** It would be fun. And it’s a chance to really — I enjoy doing the Three Page Challenges but we are sort of talking to a third party who’s not there. And so being able to see people face to face could be fantastic.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I’m also thinking we might share some three pages of, I might be willing to, and I haven’t confirmed whether you’d be willing to, some three pages of stuff that hasn’t shot, so stuff that hasn’t actually been made of my own, or if you are willing to do that, of your stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think I probably have a script or two that it’s safe to do that with at this point.

**John:** Yeah, because sometimes that’s exciting to see, too, and it might be something that would be exclusively there for the people who are in the audience with us, something that we wouldn’t put up as PDFs because it really shouldn’t go out wide, but it could go out to 200 people.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Sure. So, tickets are on sale right now for this June 29th event. It’s through the Writers Guild Foundation. If you go to the show notes, there’s a link to get there. You can also Google “Writers Guild Foundation” and that’s up there.

So, because it’s a full day event the ticket price right now is $85 for the whole day. So, it’s a big deal; it’s also a fundraiser for the Writers Guild Foundation which does great work with writers, and veterans, and the library, and kids.

**Craig:** Kids.

**John:** It’s a good group.

**Craig:** It’s a great group.

**John:** Our second even is the party.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah!

**John:** So, the second even — oh yeah — so this is… — Craig and I actually saw each face-to-face this week because we needed to go visit the space where we’re going to have this 100th anniversary — 100th Episode Extravaganza thing. That’s Thursday July 25 in Hollywood. We’re going to be at the Academy’s Lab, which is this space that’s right next, just south of the Arclight Theaters on Vine.

And it’s kind of great. And so just a huge thank you to the Academy for letting us put this together because it’s going to be really, really cool. There will be food and beverages, and alcoholic beverages, and special guests, and stuff that you could only kind of do as a 100th episode.

So, tickets for that will probably be on sale July 1st. Space is limited, so I think it will probably sell out. So, you may want to mark your calendar for — God, are there 31 days in June? 30 days in June?

**Craig:** 31. No, June 30. “30 days has September, April, June, and November, except for February which has 28, oh my god, unless it’s 29.” I think that’s how the rhyme goes.

**John:** Okay. I don’t remember the “oh my god” part of it. I don’t remember any of the rhyme. [laughs]

**Craig:** I think I definitely made up the last part.

**John:** I never learned any of those little mnemonics for…

**Craig:** You never learned, “30 days has September; April, June, and November?”

**John:** No. I don’t know I missed that. I had a bad second grade teacher.

**Craig:** Terrible.

**John:** Terrible.

Anyway, you should probably mark your calendar for June 30th if you really want to come, because I think it’s going to be one those situations where tickets are on sale and then they’re not on sale anymore because we have limited space.

**Craig:** And the tickets are cheap, right?

**John:** Tickets for that are $5.

**Craig:** Five bucks. And that’s not for us. Do we get to keep that $5?

**John:** No, no. It’s $5. It benefits the Educational Foundation of the Academy, the people who do the Nicholl Fellowships.

**Craig:** There you go. So, once again, the most important thing is we get nothing.

**John:** Yes. We get nothing from that.

**Craig:** Nothing!

**John:** If you have two beers then you have gotten your $5 worth, because the alcohol is free for whatever reason.

…I shouldn’t have said that on the podcast.

**Craig:** Nah, you know what? Now we’re just going to have alcoholics showing up. Rummies. Rummies not interested in screenwriting. But the good news is that there’s a little bit of a mix and mingle thing before. Then we’re going to do the podcast. It will be our normal hour-long podcast. And then we’ll have a nice little mix and mingle after, so you get to experience the glory of us in person, which is not particularly glorious, but it is in person.

**John:** I can be fairly radiant at times.

**Craig:** You can.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Not me.

**John:** But I’m excited about our special guests, which we have not announced yet, but they’re going to be great and special.

**Craig:** Very special.

**John:** So, that is reason enough alone to come.

**Craig:** Very special.

**John:** So, next point of news that happened this week was this morning I got 15 tweets about this thing called Amazon Storyteller.

**Craig:** [laughs] Me too!

**John:** Did you check it out?

**Craig:** I got 15 million tweets. Well, I mean, I see what it is. The thing is, is there a demo online? Because I haven’t seen the demo.

**John:** Yeah, it was actually really hard to find a demo, but I clicked through and started the demo. And so what Amazon Storyteller is, it’s part of Amazon Studios which is the branch of Amazon we’ve talked about on the podcast several times. Amazon Studios is attempting to make feature films with a model that is sort of, you know, you submit to them and they have an option on things, and they can work up these sample projects. It’s problematic in a lot of ways. And it’s improved in some ways. But the feature side of it, I think, is still a real open question about whether anyone should approach that with a ten-foot pole.

But, what was interesting this morning is they announced this new sort of software that they have as part of Amazon Studios where the scripts that are in Amazon Studios, you can load them up and they show up on the left hand side of your screen. And on the right hand side of the screen you have this toolbox for making storyboards. And they look like drawn storyboards for the scenes.

And I have to say it was actually, like it’s pretty well done. And so it’s not FrameForge. Like FrameForge is like the really high quality 3D software that you use for pre-visualizations or for setting up shots or figuring out angles and things. This is much more and looks like just a drawn storyboard. And yet for being done in the browser it’s really well done.

And so I could see it being a useful tool for someone who wanted to mock something up. Now, the limitations of it, at least in its current form is, it could only work on the things that are in Amazon Studios. And so in order to do something for your own script you have to load your script in there. Or, I guess you could just like make up some shots and screen capture them out and do something else.

The software though is smart in that it has these sort of city kind of backgrounds so that you’re not going to be able to do like a medieval epic with this. And there’s people you can put in, but like you’re ability to stack people in the frame and move them around and turn them is surprisingly good. I was impressed by what that is.

Ultimately it feels like really good Clip Art for making storyboards. And that’s a plus and a minus. I think there’s a lot to be said for keeping storyboards simple so you can see like this is what the intention is, and it’s not meant to look like the final frame. So, useful to some people.

**Craig:** Yeah. I can’t help but feel like this is just one more entry in the big toolbox of procrastination crap and also a little bit of the kind of, look, you’re making something real. You know, kind of the industry of “you’re doing it — now you have a storyboard — yay!”

No, you’re not doing it, because no one is making that script, you know, unless they are. And if they are, here’s the best news. If you work with actual storyboard artists, who are people with a specific skill that is not replicable by a software package, then you get the benefit of their talent, which is quite significant. You know, you talk with them and you describe what it’s supposed to be like and they start to do it. And it really does help tremendously. It helps you organize. The whole point of a storyboard is to organize your shooting day. That’s what it’s for.

It’s not to go, “Look at me! I’m a screenwriter.”

**John:** So, let’s talk about storyboarding…

**Craig:** That’s my new voice by the way.

**John:** That’s a good voice. Please use that on every podcast.

**Craig:** “Yay! I’m for real.”

**John:** You’re like Pinocchio. You’re a real boy.

**Craig:** “I’m a real screenwriter!”

**John:** I think the Craig Mazin version of Pinocchio would be fascinating.

**Craig:** I’ll wear my little pants, my suspenders, and I’m like, “I’m not, my script isn’t crap! It’s good.”

**John:** Ooh, “It’s good!”

**Craig:** “I’m going to storyboard.” He’s such a…he’s so great. You know what he is? He’s optimistic. He doesn’t listen to grouchy podcasters. He believes!

**John:** He believes. Except that instead of his nose growing when he tells a lie, his nose grows with umbrage. So, every time he gets angry he doesn’t Hulk out; his nose just grows a little bit.

**Craig:** “Ah-ah-ah-ah.”

**John:** Let’s talk about storyboarding in general, what it really is. Because I could see if I were a storyboard artist and I saw this stuff I’d be incensed, for a couple reasons. First off, it’s trying to automate something that actually takes real talent to do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s not going to be as good and everyone is going to be like, “Oh, it’s just like having a storyboard artist.” No, it’s not like having a storyboard artist. Those are actually professional people who can be incredibly useful in the process of making a movie. The storyboard artist for the two Charlie’s Angels movies was incredibly involved in figuring out how stuff could actually be and fit together.

And for a director, like the first pass at shooting something is the director talking to a storyboard artist often. So, it’s incredibly useful for those reasons.

Storyboarding is really useful when you’re actually the director who actually needs to make the movie. I think for most screenwriters it is a mistake to get involved in storyboarding because you are going to lock yourself down to the visuals of how stuff is supposed to fit together at two early of a process.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So, that’s my criticism of that. It makes it seem like, “Oh, well storyboarding is this vital part of screenwriting,” and it’s not at all. Storyboarding is part of the process of taking something that is just 12 point Courier and getting it towards the screen.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** And it’s not always the final process. It’s an important thing to do when there’s real questions about how you’re going to do something. It could save you time. It could help you create better shots. But many movies that you’ve loved had no storyboarding in them at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a little bit of a diminishing that goes on with storyboarding. When you’re writing a screenplay I always advise people to be very visual and to really see the space in your head and understand the geography of the space as best you can. And to get that intention across for the reader so that they’re watching a movie as they read. That’s very, very important.

Storyboarding actually tends to minimize all that down. That’s why it’s not story-painting but storyboarding, you see, and that’s why it’s stick figures because really what storyboarding is where are they going to stand vis-à-vis my camera? How many of them will be in the frame vis-‡-vis my camera. And how close will my camera be? Am I waist high? Am I thigh high? Am I head and shoulders?

And in terms of the action, is the car going from left to right depending on where the street is and all the rest of it? It’s such a nuts and bolts thing. And I guess the reason I’m doing my Pinocchio voice is not because I want people out there thinking, “Oh, look at you, you’re putting your script on Amazon; you’re not a real screenwriter.”

I bet a ton of you are, and I bet a bunch of you are way, way better than I am. What I’m saying is don’t get caught up in stuff that makes you feel like you’re accomplishing things when it’s really not. You could write a screenplay and if it’s a great screenplay — that’s the accomplishment. The storyboarding stuff, it’s a little bit like Final Draft has this function where it gives you story statistics and you can sit there after you finish your screenplay and go, “Oh, look at this. This character talks 25% of the time. And this one mostly has conversations with this one.”

Well, that’s just wankery. Who cares?

**John:** Yeah. No actual screenwriter does that.

**Craig:** Ever.

**John:** No one ever generates that report.

**Craig:** Ever. But I’ve actually talked to new screenwriters who are like really into those reports because it’s like something happened. It’s the simulation of achievement. And I think that storyboard is providing you a simulation of achievement that is irrelevant to your purpose at this stage.

**John:** Where I think this kind of software would be tremendously useful is people who are trying to learn about directing shots.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, people who are in a class, or even in an online class, where you talk about like this is what camera movement is. This is how you arrange the frame. This is how you maintain eye lines. Things that are sort of difficult to see if — difficult to describe just with words. You see this, “Oh, I get what this is.” So, you’re assignment could be storyboard out this sequence and show me how you’re going to do it. That’s incredibly useful and I could see that being a great thing for any budding film student.

I found as I’ve needed to figure out projects and figure out like how I was going to do stuff, even when I was dealing with my storyboard artist for The Nines, he and I would honestly just go around with a camera and sort of get the shots that I wanted. And then he would take those shots and journalize them back down to sort of illustrate and storyboard so I could remember like what it was I was going for.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, you have an incredibly good storyboarding tool in your pocket right now. It’s called your iPhone. And so you just go around and you take the pictures with that. And there’s even software that will give you the simulation of different lenses, so if you really have a question about like would I be able to get like a dirty over the shoulder literally in this location, you could pull out your iPhone and put on that lens and see what it would actually turn out to look like.

So, again, I’m impressed that — it’s actually sort of better software but it’s not necessarily a great benefit to most people who are going to be probably using it.

**Craig:** It’s true. There is, however, something that we can use, note my segue, that is very simple and it’s five letters. And yet for whatever reason there are all of these people out there who are teaching each other and their students that they out not use it.

Do you know to what I refer?

**John:** I do because we talked about it ahead of time. So, this is a rule that I’ve seen cited so many times about, you know, you should never use these two words in a screenplay. And the rule is wrong. And so tell us what the wrong rule is.

**Craig:** Never use “we see” in a screenplay.

**John:** So, let’s talk about how do you think that rule came about? How do you think people — was it just some arbitrary person who didn’t like the words “we see?”

**Craig:** No. I think this is what’s going on. Somewhere down the line in film departments the auteurist theory kind of blend in. And what happened was people who are more aligned with directors than screenwriters started coming up with rules for screenwriters that are nonsensical. And they’re academic rules. They’re dogmatic. They have no relation to the way we who do this job actually do our job.

So, the generally philosophy was, “Hey screenwriter, don’t tell me the director how to direct my movie. I don’t want you saying close up and I don’t want you saying ‘we see this’ and ‘the camera goes here.’ Because I’m the director and I decide all that.” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Which is not how directors actually talk.

The truth is that here in the business of making movies, everybody — the screenwriters, the producers, the executive, and yes, the directors — are interested in reading a script that reads like a movie. I have never once in whatever it’s been now, 17 years, had a director say to me, “Don’t tell me to close up or don’t tell me ‘we see from behind or we see.’ Don’t do any of that.”

Not once. Ever. Have you?

**John:** No. Never.

**Craig:** No! So, what is — but then here’s the part that makes me the most nuts. Okay, so first of all, let’s talk about the value of the words. The reason that we “we see” has value in description is because the audience is a participant in the movie. There are times when we — the audience — see something that the characters do not.

When we’re describing scenes in action paragraphs, the default understanding of the reader is that we’re talking about the characters. So, “Jim enters the room. There is a snake on the chair.” We, in our minds, we understand Jim sees the snake on the chair.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** “Jim enters the room. Crosses to grab himself a drink. We see behind him in the chair a snake. It rises.” We now understand we see that, and Jim doesn’t. That’s just one minor use of it, but frankly it’s very conversational. You may use it when you feel. It doesn’t matter. But what I hear these people on Twitter — and they’re teachers, for the love of god. “Well, it’s not good writing. It’s clumsy, it’s lazy, it’s a crutch.” What is it — a crutch for what? What is it taking the place of?

You have no answer because there is no answer.

**John:** There is no answer. “We see” actually can take the place of a lot of those terrible camera words that pull you out of the story and make you remember, like, oh that’s right, we’re watching a movie.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** So, “we see,” I always feel like that “we” is the audience. You’re literally — you’re job as a screenwriter is to put the reader in the chair of the theater and everything we see, and also we hear, I use “we hear” a lot…

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** Those are the — you only have sight and sound, so these are these are the things we are going to be able to share with the audience, that we are experiencing these things. And that is great and fine.

Now, could you overuse “we see” or “we hear?” Yes, absolutely. And in most times you won’t need it because if you have a scene, like if you’re an establishing shot where no one is in that shot, you can probably just describe what’s happening there without the we see or the we hear. But there might be times where you want to, like, “We track along the path leading up to the door.” There might be times where that’s actually really important.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** And so the “we” is great.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. You are absolutely right. Joseph Conrad popularized a certain kind of writing going back to Heart of Darkness. And it paralleled a little bit of what was going on in the world of visual art, of painting, and that was an impressionistic way of writing. There’s this wonderful moment in Heart of Darkness where they’re on a boat and Marlow watches as a man suddenly reacts in pain and falls to the ground with a cane in his hand.

And then in the ensuing melee Marlow realizes that’s not a cane at all. It’s a spear. And the spear has been thrown at him and they’re under attack. But in the moment it seemed just like a man fell with a cane in his hand. It’s wonderful. It’s experiential. It’s impressionistic.

When you’re writing for movies, that — to me — is a great way of getting across for the person reading the experience or the impression of being in the movie theater. “We see” allows you to say what you think you see in the moment. “We see a flash of light. No, it’s a gunshot.” You know, “We see lightning. Not lightning, but this.”

Whatever it is that you want to do, it’s actually an important tool. What I find these people are misunderstanding is the purpose of the screenplay itself. We hear what we hear. We see what we see. Dialogue is spoken. When we write action paragraphs the purpose of the action paragraph is not to be read by a consumer. It is to create the illusion of a movie in the mind of the reader and the reader is a professional.

So, I say to all of you out there who are repeating this nonsense: (A) “We see” is a valuable tool for screenwriters. (B) If you want to use it, us it; and if you don’t, don’t. (C) I don’t know a single professional screenwriter who doesn’t use it and I could definitely point you to some amazing screenwriters who do. What letter am I up to? D?

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** (D) There isn’t one person in the movie business who has ever complained to me once about it. So, with the preponderance of that evidence, sirs and madams, would you please stop telling people not to do it? It’s absurd.

**John:** Done.

**Craig:** Done. Ka-boom.

**John:** Done. “We see” and “we hear” will go on forever.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Craig, to wrap us up today we have another very exciting announcement. We finally — finally after 93 episodes — we have t-shirts.

**Craig:** Oh! Oh thank god! [laughs]

**John:** So, here’s the deal on t-shirts. So, they’re really cool. If you are looking at this podcast on your iPhone or if you’re in iTunes you will see the typewriter is orange that glows. Well, there’s an orange t-shirt with that typewriter that is really, really good, that Ryan Nelson, our designer, did. And it’s fantastic. They’re beautiful American Apparel shirts.

There is an orange version. There’s also a very — a gray that’s like a heathery-blue gray. It’s a really good color with a white typewriter on it. Stuart and Ryan actually went down to our printers to check out the t-shirts themselves and the fabric. Stuart reports back that they blue shirt is the softest t-shirt he’s ever touched in his life.

**Craig:** Ooh. Well, I certainly like a soft shirt. And I will say that I, being completely color stupid and shirt stupid, showed a picture of it to one of my assistants and she said that it looked awesome and that her hipster friends would love it.

**John:** That is the goal is to have a shirt that is loved by hipster friends and by people like Craig’s assistant.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, they are good t-shirts that everyone can wear. Here’s the thing. I don’t want to be shipping out t-shirts for like the rest of my life. So, we are going to only be selling these t-shirts for about two weeks. The deadline on t-shirts will be June 21st is when we’re closing sales on t-shirts. So, if you would like a t-shirt, you should go and follow the link that is on this podcast or just go to johnaugust.com where there will be a post about buying a t-shirt.

**Craig:** I should buy one, shouldn’t I?

**John:** I think we’ll actually give you one. So you can choose either or blue and we’ll just give you one.

**Craig:** Blue sounds great. I mean, it’s the softest t-shirt of all time.

**John:** It’s the softest t-shirt in the world.

**Craig:** John, how is the sizing of these t-shirts?

**John:** They’re American Apparel shirts, so I think they’re sized a little bit smaller than most shirts. So, look through your closet and find an American Apparel shirt and recognize that it’s probably a little bit smaller than other shirts.

So, the shirts are $19, which basically covers our ability to make them, and then there’s some shipping. And so they’re available at johnaugust.com/store is where you can find them.

**Craig:** Nifty.

**John:** Nifty. So, again, a reminder, there’s only two weeks of t-shirts, so if you want t-shirts you should get on that.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** And you should wear it to our 100th anniversary episode. We might even have them done in time for the WGA thing.

**Craig:** Then we’ll all just look like a big cult.

**John:** It would be awesome.

**Craig:** Mm, big typewriter cult.

**John:** Yup. Craig, are you doing a One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** I do have a One Cool Thing this week.

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** So, I met Bob Gordon a couple weeks ago in Nashville, the Nashville Screenwriting Conference which was one of my One Cool Things many moons ago. Bob Gordon wrote Galaxy Quest, among others…

**John:** Oh my god, Galaxy Quest is so good.

**Craig:** It’s the best. So, I would love for us to do a whole podcast just on Galaxy Quest, because it kind of deserves to be…

**John:** Oh yeah! Let’s do that. That would be great.

**Craig:** Bob is awesome. And so we kind of became fast friends. And he and I were talking quite a bit about sort of the geeky/nerdy view of insomnia. He struggles with sleeping issues and we were talking about light and how light affects your circadian rhythm. And about the impact that we have now with screens, just screens in our eyes.

And I was a little behind the curve here. He kind of got me flat-footed because my understanding was that regular light bulbs kind of have a limited wavelength and that they don’t really impact us the way that the sun does. If you walk outside, if you’re sleepy and suddenly there’s sunlight in your eyes, your brain will try and wake you up.

And it is true that there’s a part of the wavelength called blue light that seems to trigger our wakefulness more than the rest. And that blue light isn’t really in your typical incandescent bulb. But it is, however, in these newfangled LED screens on your laptop and your iPad. So, there’s some research that indicates maybe shining that stuff in your eyes right before you go to bed might not be a great idea.

Enter this very cool piece of software called f.lux. And currently it is for the Mac and there’s a Windows beta. It’s also available for the iPhone and iPad. I have installed it and it’s great. And basically what it does is this: it figures out what time of day, or rather where the sun is for you in your time of day, so it accesses location services, and then when nighttime happens, essentially when the sun sets, it changes the lighting of your screen to reduce the blue and get it really nice and warm and brownish and not blue lighting, so that you don’t fry your suprachiasmatic nucleus with circadian rhythm shifting blue light.

I can’t tell you if it’s working or not. All I can tell you is it’s cool! And so I just like fact that my computer is like, “Yawn, it’s sleepy time.” So, check it out. You can go to justgetflux.com.

**John:** Cool. My One Cool Thing is something you should not do right before bedtime because you will be using your iPad and therefore waking up your circadian rhythms in ways. And you’ll also be thinking about this little game the entire time you’re trying to sleep. So, lesson learned — don’t try to do that.

Kingdom Rush, which was one of my favorite tower defense games of all time, this last week came out with Kingdom Rush Frontiers which is an expansion and redesign of Kingdom Rush, which is really terrific. So, if you like tower defense games, which the basic definition of a tower defense game is that monsters are trying to get from point A to point B and you can only set up these towers to stop them.

And it’s a really well designed game for the iPad. I love it. The remake they did for this new version is really smart. They sort of took what had been a very kind of classically fantasy, you know, dwarves and elves kind of thing and pushed it into a desert environment in ways that is actually nicely smart and rewarding.

So, I would recommend Kingdom Rush Frontiers, which is on the iPad right now. There will be a link to that. It’s in the App Store.

**Craig:** Sweet. And I should mention that f.lux is free!

**John:** Free is nice. We like f.lux.

**Craig:** Free!

**John:** Cool. Craig, thank you very much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And I will talk to you next week.

LINKS:

* The Daily Beast on [Nikki Finke’s 8 Greatest Freakouts](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/deadline-hollywood-editor-in-chief-nikki-finke-s-8-greatest-freakouts.html)
* The LA Times on how [Nikki Finke’s next big story may be her own exit](http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-nikki-finke-20130604,0,4915206,full.story)
* Time asks [What’s Next for Hollywood’s Most Feared Reporter?](http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/06/whats-next-for-hollywoods-most-feared-reporter/)
* The (one and only?) infamous [Nikki Finke headshot](http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/files/original/nikki_finke.jpg)
* Gawker on [Why Nikki Finke Never Makes a Mistake](http://gawker.com/5392863/why-nikki-finke-never-makes-a-mistake) and the [commenter edition](http://gawker.com/5501268/why-nikki-finke-never-makes-a-mistake-commenter-edition)
* The Writers Guild Foundation presents [The Screenwriter’s Craft: Finding Your Voice](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/the-screenwriters-craft-finding-your-voice/) featuring Scriptnotes Live
* [Submit your Three Pages](http://johnaugust.com/threepage) for the Writers Guild Foundation event and let us know you’ll be there
* John’s blog post on [this summer’s two live shows](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-live-in-la)
* [Amazon Storyteller](http://studios.amazon.com/storyteller) from Amazon Studios
* Get your Scriptnotes shirt from [the John August Store](http://store.johnaugust.com/) until June 21st
* [f.lux](http://justgetflux.com/) adjusts your displays for the time of day
* [Kingdom Rush Frontiers](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kingdom-rush-frontiers-hd/id598581619?mt=8) is available now

Scriptnotes, Ep 88: Ugly children and cigarettes — Transcript

May 10, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/ugly-children-and-cigarettes).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 88 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, we have a very big show today and we’re already getting a late start, so I thought we’d just dive right in. Is that okay?

**Craig:** Boom. Dive. Go.

**John:** Boom. Three things I want to do today. I want to talk about this New York Times article that everybody tweeted me this morning, because I think it was just designed to provoke outrage…

**Craig:** Umbrage.

**John:** …umbrage from screenwriters. We will answer some questions that have been stacking up in the mailbox. And we will look at three Three Page Challenge entries from our listeners.

**Craig:** Great. Oh my god, so much. Let’s go.

**John:** So much.

The only bit of housekeeping I need to do is that on May 15 of this year I will be hosting a panel for the Academy with some nice screenwriters and other film professionals including Damon Lindelof and Mark Boal. We’re going to be talking about the impact of technology on filmmaking. And it is a $5 panel, so come see us at the Academy Theater if you want to. That is on May 15.

And there will be a link in our show notes for how to come see that panel if you’d like to come see it. So, please come.

**Craig:** Nifty. Good group.

**John:** Yay. Let us start with this article that everybody tweeted me this morning. It’s an article by Brooks Barnes in the New York Times and it is about a man…

**Craig:** Vinny Bruzzese.

**John:** Vinny Bruzzese, who is, “‘The reigning mad scientist of Hollywood,’ in the words of one studio customer.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Yes. What Mr. Bruzzese does is he provides notes for filmmakers — really studios — on screenplays they are considering going into production. And he’s looking at them from the perspective of here is the data of a whole bunch of other movies and these are concerns about the script based on genre, based on specifics in the actual script and giving them suggestions on how to improve the screenplay based on the data that he has. So, for this knowledge he may charge $20,000 for this consultation which results in, I think, a meeting and also 20 or 30 pages of notes.

The article ran this morning and I think it’s interesting to talk about both from the perspective of what this guy is doing, but also to talk about from the perspective of entertainment journalism, because I think there are concerns I have about both areas.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, where should we start? Should we start with the article or start with what this guy is doing?

**Craig:** I mean, why don’t we start with the article because that will probably go faster and then we can did into Mr. Bruzzese.

**John:** Great. So, this article is written by Brooks Barnes, and I met Brooks when he first started working for the New York Times and he does a lot of these kinds of articles which is talking about the nature of the film industry.

And I was about halfway through the article when I scrolled back to the top thinking, “I bet Brooks Barnes wrote this,” and I was right.

Here’s what tipped me off that I thought it was a Brooks Barnes article, because he used the word “script doctors” in a way that’s actually not the way you use the word script doctors. He meant script doctors in the way talking about like a script consultant, which is what Vinny Bruzzese is.

But Vinny Bruzzese is not a script doctor. A script doctor is a screenwriter who comes in to fix a problem in a script. So, at times in my career I am a script doctor. That’s not what this guy actually is or what he’s doing.

The other concern I had sort of overall was that no one was on the record. Other than this guy, Vinny Bruzzese, and one screenwriter who was horrified, nobody was actually named by name in the article, which I think was really telling.

Now, at the end of the article Brooks Barnes talks about his theory on why people don’t want to go on the record, they don’t want to offend people. But I think it’s just really telling that nobody wants to actually talk about this by name because it doesn’t seem like a good useful thing that’s going to track well into the future. And nobody wants to be able to be Googled that they contributed to this practice or behavior in the industry.

**Craig:** Brooks Barnes…you know, I teed off on this guy years ago because he wrote an article — I think it was about residuals and he simply did not understand how they work.

Brooks Barnes tends to approach Hollywood the way that an anthropologist sometimes approaches some local tribe that they’re just encountering, describing it as if they’re alien life forms. This guy needs to just stop writing about Hollywood because he doesn’t really understand it. He doesn’t really get it. And the people he’s talking to, frankly, it’s like, you know, some of these people that he’s quoting, you know…Scott Steindorff? Okay.

I mean, is Scott Steindorff really representative of people that are actually holding Hollywood up with their hands? Not really.

**John:** I will actually amend my earlier statement, because Mark Gill is also mentioned by name, and Mark Gill is a person whose name you will see in actual trades and is actually making movies. Mark Gills is president of Millennium Films.

**Craig:** Yeah, but he’s president of Millennium which is just… — I’m sorry, I guess this will disqualify me from working for Millennium. They stink! That’s a bad company.

**John:** Millennium is a genre filmmaker that does a very specific kind of movie.

**Craig:** Well, they also do a very specific kind of thing where they treat writers poorly, I have to say, in my opinion. I think they treat writers poorly. We’ve seen this before from there where, you know, there was a whole thing recently where they had been asking writers to write stuff on spec for them in order to get a job, at least that’s how I recall it.

I just think that…I’m going to get sued now by Millennium films. Oh, whatever. What am I going to do? This is my opinion. My opinion is that they stink!

**John:** Yes. Now, let’s bridge a little bit into the actual work that Mr. Bruzzese is doing. So, basically they are providing this advice and in the article says, “But you can ignore the advice at your peril, according to one production executive. In analyzing the script for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer…Vampire Hunter…”

So, this is the example they’re actual citing. It’s the only movie that I think they’re actually talking about by name. “The company worked on behalf of the film and the production company supplied 20th Century Fox with notes. The movie flopped. Mr. Bruzzese declined to comment.”

So, the one movie you’re going to hold up as like, “Oh, this is the movie we worked on,” was Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer? Hunter. God, I keep saying Slayer.

**Craig:** I know. I like it.

**John:** Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. This is the movie that you’re going to hold up as like, “Oh, this is one we did notes for, and they didn’t take all our notes, and that’s why it flopped.” Really? Really? That’s why it flopped?

**Craig:** Well, now let’s get into this dude. So, can I just say first of all I kind of love some parts of him. So, first of all, I love that he’s Vinny Bruzzese because, you know, I’m from Staten Island and there’s a lot of Vinny Bruzzeses. And he seems like a cool guy actually in that regard.

I love that he drinks Diet Coke and Diet Dr. Pepper and smokes Camels all at the same time. I mean, the guy is cool. And I will also say this much about this guy: I love how totally upfront he is about how he’s trying to make money. And I have to say one of the things that drives me nuts about the cottage industry of these awful so-called script consultants — or people that Brooks Barnes bizarrely calls script doctors incorrectly — is that they’re always couching what they do in some sort of altruistic, artistic form.

And this guy is the opposite. And I love that he’s literally like, “Yeah, you know, basically I got into this to make money. And I really like making money. And I also am providing the service to studio executives so that they can cover their ass in case of a failure.” He literally says that.

**John:** He does actually say that. I do totally respect that.

**Craig:** I think that’s so great.

**John:** And so I will also defend him to some degree in the sense of using data to look at which movies should get made, because there is some value to that. And if you step back, studios have been doing this for a long time because there is actual Data-data that you can look at. You can look at what movies you’ve made. You can look at what movies have grossed. You can look at what dates you release them. You can look at what actors were in those movies and what other actors were in those movies with them.

There is a whole big giant set of data that you could look at that can be invaluable for determining, like, do I green light this movie? Do I not green light this movie? That is valid. And that is especially valid when you’re looking at, like, how will you be able to market this movie?

The challenge is that’s actually objective data. When you’re looking at a screenplay there’s almost nothing objective you can say in there. And one of the examples they cite quite early on in the article which I found just the best, and worst, and most telling was he talks about movies about demons and horror movies.

So, it says, “‘Demons in horror movies can target people or be summoned,’ Mr. Bruzzese said in a gravelly voice, by way of example. ‘If it’s a targeting demon, you are likely to have much higher opening-weekend sales than if it’s summoned. So get rid of that Ouija Board scene.'”

What is that? So, you’ve created a distinction between summoned demons and targeting demons, which I’ve never even considered. I don’t think any writer has really ever considered. You’re saying, “Well that’s the difference between why this movie does a certain amount of box office, and this one does a different kind of amount of box office.”

**Craig:** It’s ridiculous.

**John:** Yeah. So, with data, when you have enough data you can look for correlations and you don’t necessary need to say that that’s the cause of why this thing was what it was, but if you’re just making arbitrary distinctions you’re just cherry-picking little things in whatever movies were hits and whatever movies were not hits. And you’re using that to defend what really your decisions are. And that’s not actually using data. That’s just manipulating things.

**Craig:** Yeah. Let’s take the demon example, because it’s so bizarre. First of all, it’s pretty rare for marketing to specify whether someone has been targeted by a demon or has summoned a demon. So, right off the bat people don’t read the script for opening weekend. I’m not sure how anybody would know that for opening weekend.

But, let me give a counter example, and this is where this guy kind of, you know, look, you made your bed, let’s sleep in it. There’s a Ouija Board in The Exorcist. She uses a Ouija Board to talk to Captain Howdy. I’m pretty sure that’s in there. I’ll have to check and make sure, but either way there’s some kind of implication that she has summoned Captain Howdy. It’s just dumb.

Look, the thing about this guy is he’s not the villain here. What he’s really doing is basically hustling and giving notes on stuff. If his theory is that people like some things more than others…duh. Right? Okay?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If his theory is that, I don’t know, let’s go out on a limb here. I’m going to crunch some quick data here using my statistics program. In romantic comedies, people like it when the couple ends up together. Duh! Okay. We all know. We get it. We got it, okay? That’s called giving notes and that’s what studios always do. They’ve always done that. And we as writers have always tried to write towards an audience, but also sometimes challenge an audience, maybe turn things on their head a little bit.

The villain here are the people hiring this guy! Because it used to be — it used to be — that people in Hollywood who gave notes, while maybe not the smartest people all the time, had the courage of their convictions. That’s why they had a job. What the hell is their job if they’re hiring this guy to do exactly what they’re supposed to do? And the data doesn’t mean a damn thing. We all know that. The data…Fight Club.

Let me back up for a second. One thing that this kind of stuff will never account for are the Black Swans. You’re familiar with the whole Black Swan theory?

**John:** Absolutely. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I think, is his name.

**Craig:** I believe that’s correct.

**John:** And so his theory is that — a gross simplification of his theory — that there are going to be events or things that happen that are so outside of your expectation that you can consider them Black Swans. And those events you can’t fully prepare for but in a weird way you have to be ready for the fact that because you can’t prepare for them you have to prepare for them.

**Craig:** And also that when Black Swans occur they tend to have very large impacts, because the world is set up in such a way that we expect things. And when the unexpected happens it is either very, very good, or very, very bad.

In Hollywood, I think what we find is that there are a lot of Black Swans that in retrospect we look back as White Swans because so many White Swans follow them.

So, Star Wars is a Black Swan. Nobody thought Star Wars was going to work. Nobody. Fox literally let Lucas put his own money into it and gave him merchandising, because they didn’t — I mean, everybody thought the thing was going to be a disaster. And, frankly, based on the early screenplays and ideas it probably was going to be a disaster.

And, by the way, it may even be a Black Swan within the world of George Lucas. It may have been that Lucas just fluked himself into Star Wars and really Lucas is far more Howard the Duck than he is… — I don’t know. I mean, he did a good job on American Graffiti. But I guess the point is those are the things that make Hollywood Hollywood.

If you want to be in a business that follows various predictable patterns in order to grind out predictable income, what the hell are you doing in Hollywood anyway? The whole point is to chase things that are surprises. Isn’t that the point?

I mean, yeah, of course, you want to make Avengers, go for it, make Avengers. And when that works you can point to how it basically fit everybody’s expected pattern. Except take three steps back and then say, well then why didn’t the Hulk make all that money? And why didn’t the Bryan Singer Superman make all that money? And why didn’t, you know, they’re on their 12th iteration of Iron Man, it’s still working great, but when they hit the fourth Batman back in the ’90s it didn’t work great.

Nobody knows. And you can come up with all this nonsense, but the truth of the matter is what this guy is peddling is nothing special at all except comfort.

**John:** Yeah. He’s peddling comfort. I mean, he’s doing that retroactive pattern fitting to say, “This is the reason why these were successful, therefore we’re going to take this pattern and template and apply it to these future things. Oh, but never mind the things that don’t fit that template because those were flukes or we’re going to find somebody to explain why they do fit the pattern magically.”

What I will say is especially telling is that nowhere in this whole article does it talk about the quality of the actual product. And in a weird way I’d argue that the quality of the product is largely irrelevant to sort of how well it does. It’s not completely relevant, but it’s not the most important factor in how well it does. So, his notes and his opinion on what movies you make and how you make those movies is about the screenplay and it’s about sort of the actual movie you’re going to make.

But, the movie you made has very little impact on the actual opening weekend. The opening weekend is the biggest predictor of how much a movie is going to make. And nothing that they’re doing here is going to bump that needle for what that opening weekend is.

**Craig:** It’s right.

**John:** Your opening weekend is determined on somewhat the movie that you made, somewhat to a large degree the stars you have in it, to a huge degree the weekend that you’re choosing to open, the competition around that weekend.

So, all of these factors have nothing to do with this 20-page report that you pay $20,000 for. And it’s maddening to think that it’s going to all come down to these formulas.

**Craig:** I totally agree. And I have to say that his whole, that Brooks kind of skews this article and Bruzzese feeds into it, to suggest that the only people — the ONLY people that don’t like this are the writers. We’re the only ones.

I don’t care. Let me tell you something. If I’m working for somebody and they want to give this guy $20,000 to write up a bunch of notes, great. I’ll read them. If they’re good, I’ll do them. I have no problem with that. I mean, the fact that Mr. Bruzzese bills himself as a distant relative of Einstein, notwithstanding, if he writes good notes, terrific.

It’s just that what he’s trying to do is this game that I’ve been watching. He’s formalizing a game that I’ve been watching and experiencing for nearly twenty years now. And that is the game of, “My opinion is not an opinion; my opinion is a fact.” That’s the game people play.

When I’m sitting in a room with people and they’re like, “I think it should be like this.” Really? Because I think it should be like this. “No, no, no, it can’t be like this. It has to be like this because of this, this, and this. It’s a fact.”

No it’s not. Your opinion is not a fact. Nobody’s opinion about any screenplay is a fact. Ever. I can’t take it! That’s got to stop.

And all this guy is doing is dressing up opinion as fact so that these executives who don’t have either the courage of their convictions or convictions at all can present them to the writers as fact. But, look, if you can come up with all the pieces, do it! Go, spend another ten grand, maybe he can actually give you the demon movie that will do the best. But, until you can do that you have to acknowledge that there is an enormous ghost in the machine over which you have no control.

And, frankly, that’s what we do. So, I don’t mind that this guy is doing this. I applaud any hustler. I am so sad that people are lining up to play his three-card monte though. That is…oh god.

**John:** I wonder how many people are actually lining up to play his three-card monte, though. Because if you look at it, like no one else went on the record. No one else said that they were actually talking to him. So, my concern sort of from the journalistic perspective is it feels like a terrific press release for this guy. And in some ways selling the controversy is a way to sort of get more people talking about him and talking about this idea and this service that he’s providing when there may actually be nothing to it. There may not have even been sizzle before this article ran yesterday.

I don’t know. I mean, there’s a photo of them in a nice-looking office where he’s talking to some young woman who is a development executive there. Great, but I don’t know that there is anything to this at all.

**Craig:** We don’t even know that that’s his office.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** [laughs] I don’t know where he is. But I just think, I mean, I don’t know. Maybe I’m just not plugged in enough, but for instance it says, “Major film financiers and advisers like Houlihan Lokey confirm…,” who?

**John:** Who is Houlihan Lokey?

**Craig:** Houlihan Lokey doesn’t even sound like a real name. Is that a person or…?

**John:** It’s an amazing name, though. I love it.

**Craig:** It is a pretty good name, like Houlihan Lokey. Houlihan Lokey is like the old drunk in the saloon who ends up killing everyone because he’s still really, really good with a six-shooter.

**John:** Yeah. He’s notorious.

**Craig:** “Who did this? Houlihan Lokey! Ugh.”

I don’t know how that would be analyzed by Mr. Bruzzese’s spreadsheets, but all I can say is my reaction is not… — In the end he tries to, I love it when people do this, they try and basically pre-but you, you know, so in a rebuttal but a prebuttal he says, “All screenwriters think their babies are beautiful. I’m here to tell it like it is. Some babies are ugly.”

No shit. I mean, like do you really think that we’re all so stupid and narcissistic that we think that all of our scripts are beautiful? No. No!

Go ahead, ask how many screenwriters after their first draft, okay, you have a choice: you can get notes and we can work on this, or we will turn around and shoot this exactly the way it is and put you name on it and we can’t change a word. How many screenwriters are going to go, “Um, uh…”

**John:** Yeah. You want that chance.

**Craig:** Yeah, of course. Of course. So, no, we don’t think that all of our babies are beautiful. And, no, we don’t have a problem with notes and we don’t have a problem with anyone’s notes.

Compare this, by the way, to Lindsay Doran’s terrific talk about joy where she says, “Look, movies that end on joy really please audiences.” That’s a very dramatic statement. It is not specific. It doesn’t say, “You cannot summon demons.” You know why, because it is talking about an audience experience. It’s not talking about a story point.

She, unlike Mr. Bruzzese has made movies. She has actually sat and worked with writers. She understands how to talk to us. This guy understands how to talk to executives, who don’t make movies.

**John:** So, let’s talk about that specific example and Lindsay Doran’s perspective on it, and his perspective on it. He would come to saying like, “Well, the data says that moviegoers don’t like movies with summoned demons, they prefer the other kind of demon.” But he might have ten points of data. That’s not actually meaningful data.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So he’s only looking at correlation. Lindsay Doran can come to it with that same note, but she could say, “Here is why I think that’s not going to work, because in this situation it’s going to track through this way, and we as the audience feel this way about the characters at the end because of the nature of what happened with that demon situation.”

That is a meaningful note that you can actually think about and use and implement throughout your script. His saying like, “Don’t summon the demon, don’t use a Ouija Board,” that’s not…

**Craig:** Because it’s a fact. And by the way, all we’re doing now is just waiting for the movies that contradict those facts because that’s the business we’re in. We’re in the business of surprises and subversions of expectations. It’s constantly changing. There are movies that come out that don’t do any business in the theater at all and then in home video become phenomenon.

Look at Austin Powers. I think made $40 million in theaters and then was just enormous at home. Office Space. Nothing. Enormous at home.

Who knows? I have a movie coming out where we decapitate a giraffe, how does that work out on a spreadsheet?

And I’ve watch this with comedy testing all the time. Inevitably the highest testing joke is also the worst testing joke. But, you know, this is the same old snake oil as always, and shame on anyone who is so bad at their job — it’s your job. And you have to hire somebody else to do it for you? That’s embarrassing.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Why don’t you just quit at that point. Why don’t the people who employ you just fire you and hire this guy instead? What do we need you for, to write a check to this guy? Oh my god. This guy is fine. I love this guy. Good for him. Way to go, Vinny.

**John:** Let’s answer some questions.

**Craig:** You got it.

**John:** So, Jill writes in to ask, “A friend of mine wrote a pilot for a web series and decided to get some of our smarter writer friends together to punch it up. That’s when I realized I have no idea how to run a punch-up session. Can you give us some tips and tricks?”

So, Jill is talking about an informal punch-up session. Sometimes on a big movie, you and I have both been in these situations where it’s a WGA movie, and so therefore there are kind of rules about how you do it. So, you are bringing in people for a day, you’re paying them for a day, and you’re sitting around a table. We all sign these contracts saying that we know what we’re doing. And eventually we have to sign another form saying we’re not going to try and get credit on it.

That’s not what we’re talking about here. She’s just doing a little web series. So, let’s give some suggestions on the smaller version of what she should do.

**Craig:** Well, I have done these before. And the basic rule of thumb is if you’re running the session you should try and participate very little. Your job really is to kind of move people through the script. So, you’re sort of saying, “Okay, let’s just start,” usually you’ll say, “Here are some general areas where we’d love to punch up. Here is our kind of thing we’re looking for, some specific questions, but really more than anything, let’s just go through the script page-by-page and pitch out some thoughts as you have them. So, let’s just start. Let’s just start with page one. Anybody have any thoughts on page one?”

So, you can do a little preliminary “let’s just talk about the big issues,” if anybody has any big story issues, if you want. But then just go, page one, and then people start pitching and you’re like, great, great. And just be encouraging and you’ll find that some people are really good at it. Some people are terrible at it.

As the person running the session you have to kind of rescue and be kind to the people who are floundering because you don’t want to be mean. You don’t want the room to turn on somebody because they may have one joke that works, and it may be the best joke ever. So, you just don’t want to kill them. And just keep things going and keep things light. And just keep moving through pages.

You will find, inevitably, that most of what people have to pitch are on the first 30 pages or so. The last 20 pages everybody gets really quiet because they either stopped reading or it’s action and climax and it’s not joke time.

**John:** Yeah. I would say if you have the opportunity to do a reading of it right beforehand, that’s helpful, so it’s fresh in everyone’s head. Just read through what’s actually on the page so everyone agrees that they read the same thing together, that’s really helpful before you start flipping pages. You won’t always have that chance, but it’s great if you can do that.

I’d say provide plenty of food, a lot of carbs, to keep people going.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Pizza is always good. Be genuinely thankful for everyone who is there.

Inevitably in any group situation someone will probably kind of dominate the conversation, and maybe that’s a really good smart person who is actually really funny and that’s great, but if it’s the wrong person then you have to sort of do some judo to sort of get the other people talking a little bit more.

If you can get Nick Kroll to come to your punch-up session, he’s really good.

**Craig:** Nick’s funny, yeah.

**John:** So, that’s a good, funny thing, too. But have fun with it. And always ask the questions, like the what-if questions, and try and never shut down an idea because like, “Oh, that’s going to be impossible based on what everything else is.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Don’t shut down now. Just sort of improve rules of like, “Yes, and?” And just keep rolling because even if it is not an idea that is implementable right then, right there, you may find a way the next day, like, “Oh, I know how to do that kind of thing,” or that sparks something that’s really good.

So, take notes for yourself about not even what they’re talking about right there but what it inspires for you.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you have a producing partner or somebody that’s there with you, don’t worry and think that they’re going to somehow think that you can do something you can’t do, and vice versa. For those of you who produce don’t think that this is the time to jump in and say that’s not possible.

The two of you, knowing the script and the situation better than anybody, will have the exact same reactions afterwards. “Okay, well, we can’t do that, we can’t do that, we can do this, we can do this. What about this? What about this?”

So, just keep it light. Keep it moving. Don’t freak out. And, also, just be aware that when there’s a ton of stuff that people are going to be like, “That is so funny,” and in your mind you’re like, “And will never be in this movie because it’s totally off-tone or it’s going to stop the movie dead.” That’s okay. Just keep that to yourself. That is, 95% of stuff that gets a room laugh in these things — unusable.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I can think of one guy in particular who is awesome at these things and I never once have gotten anything usable from him. [laughs] But he’s fun to have. And he keeps the room laughing which in and of itself has great value.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** But, you will find some… — And you know, the fact is there will be all these little dramas that occur, usually little soap operas that happen at these things. People get jealous, they get weird, they get quiet, they get too talky. Sometimes they go after each other as part of like the comedy sport. Just, you know, you be mommy or daddy and just gently encourage everybody to stay on target.

**John:** Yeah. Next question. Matt in Orlando, Florida asks, “When you look at the pilot script for Modern Family you’ll notice the character introductions are done in list form directly under the title page before the actual script begins. It seems like a great way to save space, especially in a sitcom script where you have a lot of characters to introduce and a limited amount of time to do so. Is this common?”

The answer is, yes, it is common. That is a very standard sitcom format. And so I encourage all writers no matter what genres you’d like to work in to take a look at the different formats for how things are done. And in sitcoms, yes, it’s common to do that kind of character introduction, a page of these are the characters who are the regulars and these are characters who are unique to this show. And that’s a standard way of showing stuff in sitcom land.

Even a single camera comedy like Modern Family will often do this.

**Craig:** I take your word for it.

**John:** Yeah. But don’t do it in a screenplay.

**Craig:** No!

**John:** No one ever wants to see that in a screenplay. Don’t ever…don’t do that.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So, it’s a sitcom thing. And that’s why it’s important that if you’re writing a spec episode of Modern Family, which is probably not the right one to do because that’s an older show, but if you’re writing a spec episode of whatever great new sitcom, find an episode that’s a common — actually just mimic their formatting exactly because that’s what people want to see, that you know what you’re doing.

**Craig:** I’m sorry, I just have to interrupt because I just remembered one thing also that makes me angry about Brooks Barnes. [laughs]

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** Can I say it? God, so, in the beginning of his article he makes this really weird analogy to what Vinny Bruzzese is doing to what Facebook and Netflix do by analyzing the way people use their websites. They’re so not analogous…

**John:** [laughs] Not even remotely.

**Craig:** …in any way, shape, or form. They have nothing to do with each other. It’s just a totally different business, purpose, and point. Brooks needs to stop writing about Hollywood. Okay, sorry. Back to the questions.

I get nuts. I get nuts!

**John:** I know. I mean, it could have been the whole episode but it came up very late and so I thought we’d…

**Craig:** I know. We have so much to today. It’s a very busy show.

**John:** Heather in Dahlonega, Georgia writes, “Can you tell me why so many movies starting big names are going straight to DVD? I recently watched one on Netflix streaming called Fire with Fire starring Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Josh Duhamel, Vincent D’Onofrio, and Julian McMahon, and Red Lights with Cillian Murphy, Sigourney Weaver, and Robert De Niro.

“In the past a cast like this would garner a theatrical release, or if the movie just wasn’t good enough the actors wouldn’t have signed onto it in the first place. What’s going on with these movies?”

**Craig:** Ah-ha! Typically when a movie ends up going direct to video like that, and Netflix, however you want to describe direct-to-video these days, it is because the movie just didn’t turn out very well. Actors sign up for movies because they think the movie will be good. Sometimes, though, that just doesn’t happen. You know? Sometimes the movie doesn’t come out well.

And basically if it’s an independent movie — and these are almost always the case — if there is independent financing the idea is “let’s find a distributor.” And nobody wants to distribute it because distribution comes with great costs. There’s typically the cost of marketing, the number one, plus also making the prints, putting it in theaters and so forth.

And if they can’t find enough theaters interested and they can’t justify the marketing budget based on what they perceive to be the interest in the film based on test screenings and so forth, they have no choice. They have to cut their losses while they can.

**John:** Absolutely. So, back in the day when Variety was a print publication I would get, I always loved once or twice a year AFM would come up, and AFM — American Film Market — and, I guess, maybe it was twice a year. I always got confused about it. But, there would be this thing out in Santa Monica where these foreign distributors and foreign filmmakers would come in and they’d show the packages of movies that they were going to get made.

And so in Variety they would have these mockup one sheets of all these movies. And it was like you’d never heard of these movies. And sometimes they were movies that were going to go into production, sometimes they were movies that were already done. You’re like, “Really? This movie exists in some way?”

And that’s sort of what some of these things are. Like I suspect Fire with Fire was that situation where someone raised the money to make this movie, foreign financing/other financing, they were able to make this movie with the hopes of selling it to a major distributor because it was going to be so good and everyone was going to love it. And often that just didn’t happen.

I’ll also say that, you look at Nicholas Cage as sort of the classic example of this, like who’s in a lot of movies, and you can’t believe he’s in so many movies. Some of those actors, they’re meaningful overseas in ways that they’re not meaningful here. And so even if it doesn’t have a theatrical release in the US, it may have a theatrical release overseas.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Or home video may be enough overseas that it is worth it to make the movie with them.

**Craig:** I think that’s what — I remember the same thing at the same time, flipping through Variety as a twenty-something and going, “What is this AFM and what are these movies?” I remember the one that made me laugh the most was, it was shortly after RoboCop, somebody made a movie called Cyborg Cop. This is obviously just RoboCop. But it was like a flea market of movies, and that’s exactly what was going on.

Basically they were selling them to foreign distributors and then here in the US they would either get no distribution or direct-to-video. So, that’s what’s going on there.

**John:** That’s fine. And, you could say like, “Well, why would anybody be in these movies?” Well, they got paid to be in the movie. It may be the kind of role that they really wanted to try to do. And sometimes those movies are giant, great, big hits.

And so things like the Jason Statham movies, like The Transporter, that was probably that kind of movie and it actually took off well enough that it sort of established him as a bit of a star. So, sometimes those movies that seem like they come from a major distributor, they really were pickups and they were bought by some distributor here and it always seemed like they were a Columbia movie but they weren’t.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Let’s look at some Three Page Challenges. So, while we open these up I will give you sort of the backstory on these. If you are new to the podcast, every couple weeks we invite listeners to send in the first three pages of their screenplay and Craig and I will read it, and take a look at it, and share it on the podcast so people can listen to our critiques but also read the pages themselves and see if they agree with what we said.

If you have a screenplay that you want us to take a look at the first three pages, and only the first three pages, you can send it to us at the website. The link for it is johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out, and we will maybe take a look at it.

Stuart reads through all of them, all the ones who come in with the proper boilerplate language on it. And Craig and I get a small sampling of them. And Stuart sent us three today. Which of the three should we start with?

**Craig:** You know, I’m just ready to do any of them. And if you want me to summarize one, let me know. You know, I’m back to being your apprentice. Dad’s back.

**John:** [laughs] Let’s start with Sue Morris’s script. We don’t have a title for this. I can do the summary on this one if you want to do the next one.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** So, we start, we fade in on the nib of a quill pen, it’s moving in small, neat strokes on the paper. And there’s a super with text over it. We are in England, Christmas, 1126. So, we see a young woman giving birth. She has given birth to a baby girl. Next, we see at the Palace of Westminster we see two, we see Sir Thomas and Sir John, both knights, talking about the fact that she’s just given birth to a daughter and that daughters can still be useful.

Next scene we meet King Henry in his late 50s. He says that, “It has been six years since the death of our beloved son and heir, William, in that great tragedy which took the lives of so many sons and daughters.” He says that the next heir will be his daughter, Matilda, will be his successor.

Actually, no, “My daughter Matilda, widow of the Holy Roman Emperor, will be my successor, to rule over the lands on both sides of the sea.”

Some raised eyebrows but no one questions it. So, there’s obviously some sort of court intrigue happening there. More discussion, as we wrap up page three, more discussion about sort of what this means, and then we jump forward at the end of page three to a hunting lodge near Normandy and the king has died. And that’s where we’re at at the bottom of page three.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. Craig Mazin, talk to me about these pages.

**Craig:** I feel like I’ve read this kind of thing many, many times. I’ve seen a lot of spec scripts that are medieval dramas. More than you would imagine, actually. There’s quite a few of them out there.

This scene where the child is born I feel literally like it just gets repeated over, and over, and over. There is always the woman on the straw mattress and there is always the screaming and the blood and there’s always the midwife. I guess that’s how children were born back then. And no one ever wants a daughter; everybody always wants a son.

I got a little confused by the fact that King Henry is the king, but there was a boy who was the Holy Roman Emperor. Maybe I just don’t know the difference between the two, but I thought that once Charlemagne became the Holy Roman Emperor he was the king? I don’t know. I guess it’s two different things.

I didn’t really love the fact that we cut away from this to show the drowning. It just seemed a little strange.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** To have a flashback there on page two of a character we’ve never met. It felt very TV. And maybe this is TV. I don’t know. It feels very TV to me.

And then there’s just like sort of generally generic court murmuring. “So the King’s nephew precedes the King’s bastard.”

“You should know our man by now. Always determined to be the first.” You know, like political intrigue and stuff. It’s all fine, I mean, it’s written fine. I have no problem with the writing. I just feel like hopefully something crazy happens after this because otherwise, you know, been there.

**John:** Yeah. I was lacking point of view on this. I didn’t see what was going to be special about this versus The Tudors or sort of every other kind of big medieval drama. And, so, let’s start from the very top.

We see this quill pen writing. Okay, that’s a little cliché, but fine; quill pens can write, that’s great. But then there is a super. It’s listed as a super, but I can’t believe anyone would read this much onscreen. Here’s the text of the super: ‘If on the death of a baron or other of my men a surviving daughter is the heir, I will give her [in marriage] with her land following the advice of my barons.’ Clause in the coronation charter of Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy, 1100 AD.

That’s a lot to throw at me to read. And it’s not especially clear writing. That’s a hard, hard sentence to pierce. So, that’s throwing up a bit of a wall to me at the start.

Then we get to the actual birth stuff, and while it’s a kind of cliché scene I thought it was actually nicely written. Those are nice short lines breaking the action down.

**Craig:** Yes. I agree.

**John:** Two paragraph little chunks. I get it. I love it.

When we get to the Palace of Westminster we meet Sir Thomas and Sir John. Sir Thomas I’m told is in his early 20s. Sir John I get no information about. And if you’re just going to call them Sir Thomas and Sir John I have no way of really keeping them apart or separate. So, why am I watching these two people and what’s really going on?

I also got confused because, here’s the description of Sir Thomas and sort of what he’s doing:

Bright, cold sunlight. Leather boots crunch on frosted grass as SIR THOMAS (early 20s) strides across to meet the newly arrived MESSENGER dismounting from his horse. They confer briefly, breath condensing in the chill air.

Sir Thomas spins on his heel and strides back, towards a fellow knight, SIR JOHN. Sir Thomas says, “Another daughter.”

What was weird to me is like I think we were supposed to be in a really wide shot so therefore we weren’t hearing what the messenger was saying, but if you’re going to have people confer and we don’t hear it, kind of say that we don’t hear it, because otherwise that dialogue we’re going to assume is somehow between the people who — I just confused where we were at in the scene and whether that messenger was still there.

**Craig:** Let me also mention: a knight doesn’t walk across the lawn to go talk to a messenger; the messenger walks across the lawn to him. Much more interesting. I mean, these things are all about power, and rank, and privilege, and all the rest of it, so much more interesting to follow some exhausted courier to walk over to a guy and whisper something in his ear.

**John:** Exactly. So, if you’re going to have a similar situation, if you keep Sir Thomas on his horse or whatever, the messenger comes over with him, and then they pull back to reveal that Sir John is watching this from a distance and not able to hear what’s going on. That may be more interesting. That, again, suggests some cinematography here that’s happening.

With King Henry on page two, “King Henry may not be the largest man there, but by God he owns this place, and the assembled BARONS, the great Anglo-Norman nobles, all feel it.” Wow. That’s a lot. That’s a lot of clauses to throw at me.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so, “He’s not the largest man there,” but he is the King. It was just a weird sentence to me. It didn’t help me understand the power dynamic of that moment as much as it probably could.

**Craig:** And it is, I mean, “But by God, he owns this place, and the assembled BARONS,” so he owns them too. “The great Anglo-Norman nobles all feel it.” Oh, I see what’s she’s saying. You know, that’s that kind of tortured writing, the tortured sentence structure.

Also, his first line, I don’t, “My lords, it is time.” Eh.

**John:** Eh. Yeah. It’s cliché.

So, here’s a problem with those clauses there. “But by God he owns this place, and the assembled BARONS, the great Anglo-Norman nobles all feel lit.” The “and the assembled barons,” does he own the barons? He owns this place and the barons? What? Huh?

So, it could read either way. It’s actually sort of interesting both ways. It’s actually probably more interesting if he believes he owns the barons.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And then I agree with you, there’s a flashback on page two which is like, oh my god, I don’t know who anybody is and we’re already getting a flashback to somebody who dies and therefore is not going to be part of our show. So, that’s…

**Craig:** We just don’t care.

**John:** These are all issues. And then we jump again at the end of page three and at that point we may be ready to actually start the story and so that jump may feel great if we hadn’t jumped around in time on page two.

**Craig:** And if the idea here is that these two guys, Stephen, late 20s, the golden boy of Henry’s court, and Robert, Earl of Gloucester, a decade older than Stephen, are going to be competing with each other for the favor of this newly minted widowed queen, I’m suspecting as much.

Then, that’s the perspective we want to play here. That’s what we want to do. And it certainly can’t be manifested by a weird shoulder scuffle fight. “A few moments of shoulder-barging and scuffling between the two men. They glare at each other.” That just seems comedic. And I don’t think that this is supposed to be comedic. I mean, that’s just funny to me in a bad way.

**John:** Yeah. I would say I hadn’t guessed that Stephen and Robert would be the focus of things. If they are the focus of things I want to see them on page one or page two, rather than page three. And, honestly, we could get them there just by cutting out some stuff that I didn’t think we needed in page one or page two.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** Agreed. Not bad, Sue. Not bad.

**John:** Not bad at all. And, you know, everything on there was nicely written. I didn’t have any sort of issues with sort of how you were describing things on the page. It felt professional. It just felt like something I had seen before too much.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Next let’s do Robin Peters. The Gaffer. Do you want to do the summary here?

**Craig:** Sure. Okay, so we begin at a fancy restaurant, and we’re in England, where Simon page, in his 20s, is proposing to his girlfriend, Trudy, and he’s given her a small diamond ring. And she doesn’t feel that it’s big enough and basically says I can’t, “I don’t want to spend the rest of my life with a market trader.” So, she’s unhappy with his status in life.

Next, we’re in Simon’s office, sort of, and someone is congratulating him and they don’t even know his name.

Now we’re in a park and she’s very happy because I guess she’s heard that he’s gotten a promotion but he tells her the catch is it’s in Texas. So, he’s been promoted but he has to go to Texas. And she basically says, “I’m leaving you because that’s not good enough.” She hands him his ring back. He begs for her to come back. She does not. And he chucks the ring away, hitting a duck.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, my first concern here is specificity. And that’s a word we use too much on the podcast, but I think it’s actually really important for here.

We start, “EXT. NORTHERN ENGLISH CITY — NIGHT.” Uh, just tell us the city.

**Craig:** Right. Manchester takes fewer letters than Northern English City.

**John:** “Lights flicker against the night sky.” Yeah, but maybe you could think of something more specific. Maybe you could just paint our world a little bit more specifically because I have a hard time clicking in because I just don’t feel like you know what these things are. And I lack confidence because you don’t seem confident in your choices here so far.

We’re “INT. FANCY RESTAURANT.” Okay. I mean, if you don’t want to give the name of the restaurant, that’s great, but just paint our world a little bit in that first line here.

Simon and Trudy, okay, proposals are an interesting thing, or diamond rings are a thing we’ve seen a lot at the start of things, but it’s a natural way to start something, but that scene never really quite clicked. I wasn’t sure at the end of that first scene how I was supposed to feel about things.

Then we jump to the next “OPEN PLAN OFFICE,” again, really generic, before we start this next thing. Every place we go to is just the most basic description of what it could possibly be. And I just don’t feel — I never click in because I don’t know what I’m supposed to be looking for.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, this is a comedy. And I don’t know if Robin is English or not, but it certainly reads English. The problem is that it’s not very funny. And it’s not very funny, I think, in part because the characters are so broadly and thinly drawn.

You’re absolutely right about all the specificity. And there’s also a kind of TV-ish quality to it, for instance, starting with the first line of dialogue on an establishing shot that’s rather boring, and then coming inside and moving through diners. You might as well have a waiter carrying a tray through. It’s all very kind of cliché and generic.

Bu the biggest issue is, if I can summarize, Simon is basically a schmo and Trudy is a gold-digger, mean lady. I don’t know why these two are together at all. I don’t believe, frankly, that they are together. I don’t believe that anybody talks like Simon. When she finally breaks up with him, because she doesn’t want to go to Texas, he keeps begging after her and I hate him for it. And she’s acting in a way that’s just sort of broadly sociopathic in a mean girl way which I kind of just don’t believe.

I’ll give Robin credit for getting the plot out on page two. Englishman is going to be a fish out of water in Texas, I presume. That’s fine, but I don’t know anything about his job. I don’t really know why market trader is better or worse than “junior” — “They could use a junior in Texas.” I’m not sure what that means.

His office was very odd. Talk about generic: INT. OPEN PLAN OFFICE — DAY. Simon exits a room into a gleaming corporate open plan office, reeking of wealth. A SUIT comes up to him.

Well, let’s count the genericisms here: Open plan office. Room. Reeking of Wealth — gold? A suit. I don’t understand what’s happening. Frankly, this would be a much more interesting scene if it were one scene and it started with a guy proposing to a woman and she was super happy because he was giving her everything she wanted and he’s telling her that he knows that she was waiting for this promotion because she knows, I mean, explain it in terms that women — so women watching this don’t feel like you hate women. She really wanted to make sure that she was supported and secure in her life because of how she grew up, whatever it is. And he says, “But the only thing is we’re…” And as part of the surprise, because he knows this is the big pitch. It’s not the ring is the big pitch. The big pitch is, “Texas.”

And off of her face the next shot you see is him at the airport alone. And, you know, the airport lady is like, “And you are traveling alone?” “Yup.”

Just there’s so much… — Be more interesting about this. This is just not interesting to me.

**John:** Well, also what you described in that take of a scene is you were giving a moment where he could actually be funny.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** Because none of these scenes that he’s actually funny now does he have the capability of really being funny, because he’s just reacting to other people.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And so in either his trying to sell this idea to her, what’s his motivation? What is he attempting to do? And you need to give him something to attempt to do. So, either he’s attempting to get her on board with this idea of moving to Texas, or, alternately, we can see that whatever that room he came out of, well what happened in that room? Was he like making a pitch for himself and trying to stand up for himself about why he should get a promotion, and then he gets Texas out of it, which is not what he wanted, but it’s something new — that’s a moment where you can see him actually driving something.

I would also back up one step, because when I talk about sort of Northern English City, you know, working on a musical for the last 10 weeks I’m very keenly aware of you kind of need the “This is our world” song before you get to the “I want” song. And I didn’t get either of those so far.

And it’s fine, if the first three pages were really just like a “This is our world” song, that’s great. And you can setup this is the nature of the universe that we’re in. That can be wonderful.

And then by letting us see that guy in his world, then we can see the decision of what is it he wants. What is it he’s trying to do? And I wasn’t — none of those gears were sort of clicking in on these first three pages for me.

**Craig:** Yeah. Agreed. If it is, in fact, going to turn into a fish out of water comedy, we do need to see the fish in water. And we need to know what that means. And it can’t just be simply one shot of him at a park, which we describe as “Park,” kicking a stone around like a football, and then mentioning a local fast food joint. It’s just not enough.

Yeah. I think that this needs a little bit more remedial work and study to make… — And you’ve got to be careful about these jokes like, she says, “I don’t mean to be heartless, but I can’t spend the rest of my life with a market trader, can I?”

“Yeah, of course. Sorry, which bit of that wasn’t heartless?”

Well, okay, if you know it’s heartless, why are you still there? She’s heartless. What is going on here? And the issue with this, yes, we know people in real life who are pathetic doormats, but we don’t root for them in movies. We need to see some spark of something with this guy.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s why so typically people will find if the movie starts with a breakup they find their mate in bed with someone else because we understand that they were deceived. But this guy — she is such an open book, I really hate this guy for not getting it.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** All right, our final Three Page Challenge of the day comes from Kevin Pinkerton.

**Craig:** Pinkerton.

**John:** It’s called The Morning Briefing. And I will attempt to give a summary here.

So, we start on the Pentagon Basement Corridor.

**Craig:** Wait, did you say Pentag-AN.

**John:** Pentag-ON.

**Craig:** Pentagon. You said Pentigan.

**John:** I did say Pentagan. That doesn’t make any sense at all. I rhymed it with Alyson Hannigan and Bennigan’s.

**Craig:** [laughs] Bennigan’s. Exactly. Or it’s like Houlihan O’Reilly, or that guy, one of the biggest financiers in Hollywood? What was his name? Houlihan Lokey or something?

**John:** Yeah, something like that.

**Craig:** That’s great. Pentagan!

**John:** So, we’re at the Pentagon Basement Corridor, and the president is walking next to a Special Forces Sergeant. They’re appearing and disappearing into pools of light. The president wipes his forehead with a red, white, and blue handkerchief.

They come to an unmarked door. The president says, “Let’s get this over with.”

Inside is a chamber. It’s sort of dark and ominous inside. And, in fact, on a low circular dais is a creature, a giant creature — looks like it’s made of rotted meat in over-muscled humanoid form. There are also children on bleachers who are chained there watching, and terrified.

The president expects this creature to be there, and the president says, “Begin.” The creature gives the president advice about what’s happening in the future. And so tells him to, “Deploy the ships to Bosporus. Acquiescence is certain.”

The president asks about press reaction. So, basically this monstrous creature is an advisor who has some ability to see into the future. And so at the end the president thanks him to some degree, but also says, the creature is hungry, and the president agrees, okay, well, you can eat the children. And then the president leaves and we hear in the background the sounds of the children being eaten by this monstrous creature.

**Craig:** I love this.

**John:** I loved it, too.

**Craig:** I loved it.

**John:** And let’s talk about reasons why we love this.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, I mean, first of all, just from a craft point of view, it’s really well written. At first I was nervous because on the first page it seems like, oh no, this is just a bad version of a Roland Emmerich movie, because they’re doing that thing where they walk down the hall, “lit overhead by a row of dim bulbs.” And I’m like, dim bulbs?

He’s got a red, white, and blue handkerchief which feels like…

**John:** Yeah. I flagged that, too. I was like, oh, no, no, no, that’s cheesy, but then I was like, no, it’s deliberately cheesy.

**Craig:** Deliberate, exactly. It’s deliberate, which is great, because it’s a choice, and it’s a smart choice given what we’re about to see. And then we go into this room, and again, I’ve seen this room in the basement of the White House before, so everything just feels like, oh god, I’ve seen it…and then there’s like an alien there. Oh no, but then there’s these kids. And I’m like, well, what the hell is that about?

A dozen children, and I love how unapologetic Kevin is here — he doesn’t pull a punch at all. “a DOZEN CHILDREN, ages five to seven,” [laughs], the cutest age, “wide-eyed and weeping in horror at the thing before them, as they sit gagged and chained to their seats.” Brilliant. I love how audacious this guy is.

And then the president snaps his finger at the creature and one word, “Begin.” So, you know, here’s just so you guys playing at home, the home game, what I love about this line, it’s the first line of dialogue, or rather the second line, and it is, “Begin.” And what that line tells us is this has happened before. In fact, this is so frequent that the president is actually annoyed. It’s like, “I don’t have time, let’s go, begin.”

That is such a great tonal shift, because we’ve been set up to believe that this is like so horrifying, like the way in Independence Day they visit that alien that they’ve captured and it’s like so super serious. This guy is like, “Begin, let’s go.”

And the creature delivers these predictions. And the funny thing about the predictions, even though it’s not done funny funny, is that they’re so mundane. “Press reaction?”

“Acceptable.” [laughs] It made me laugh. “On the crux of the Senate standoff, the weak vote…” The creature is like a Beltway insider at this point, which is so great. He even gives a weather prediction.

**John:** Yeah, so the creature says, “Thunderstorms in the D.C. Metro area. Hail.”

**Craig:** Hail!

**John:** “But I’ve scheduled a speech.”

“I have seen the storm. It is already cut on the lathe of time. What more? Enough.”

**Craig:** On the lathe of time! I know. The creature is like, “Get out, I’ve given you…stop questioning me.” And the president is trying to figure out exactly, like his concern isn’t about the world, or any of that stuff, his issue is he’s got a speech and it’s supposed to hail. [laughs] It’s like, “Are you telling me? I just want to be clear.” And then he’s like, “Back to the Russians.”

Creature: Tired.

“I just want to be clue, the carriers, the Russians won’t be –”

Creature: Hungry.

And the president is like, “Eh.”

**John:** So, let’s talk, I do have a little bit of some criticisms here. On page one, “THE PRESIDENT walks beside a SPECIAL FORCES SERGEANT.” Well, how are we going to know he’s the president? We’re not necessarily going to know he’s the president. So, you’re telling us he’s the president. I’m not sure we’re going to necessarily get that originally. And it’s very important that we know that he’s the president.

So, you may want to throw in a, “Mr. President,” like he comes out of the elevator, “Mr. President,” just let us know. Because it’s much funnier if we know from the first frame that he’s the president.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The overall more general concern: this was a tremendous little sketch, a little moment. There’s nothing there that leads me to believe that this is a good sustainable idea over the course of a full-length movie, but I kind of don’t care, because I’ve enjoyed reading these three pages so much that I want to read the next pages.

And that’s, there’s a lot to be said for that. Kevin had a perspective, and a voice, and it was enjoyable to read. And these are — it felt confident. And, god, just give me some confidence…

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** …and I will just keep reading.

**Craig:** Such a great point. I mean, he is totally in control of this. And he is unapologetic, and specific, and frankly, there’s just a lot of craft. I really like the way the dialogue flows. There’s a great rhythm to it. And we cannot teach that to anybody. There’s just a really smart rhythm to it. I can tell you that Kevin is a funny guy. He’s a very funny writer. I thought it was really good.

And I think, if I were to predict what this kind of movie is, it feels a little bit like those early — you ever see the early Peter Jackson.

**John:** Oh yeah, early Peter Jackson.

**Craig:** Just like over-the-top comedy/horror/grotesque/funny, obviously satirical. I think it’s really cool. And I think Kevin did a great job.

**John:** I think so, too. It reminds me of sort of mid-era Whedon or sort of like the Buffy and Angel sort of at their peak. This would be like the cold teaser opening to something and you’d meet, like the new villain of the season would be the president and he would have this monster. And that would be the villain for the season, or half the season.

It felt great and solid that way.

**Craig:** Yeah, very cool.

**John:** Nicely done, Kevin. And nicely done, Stuart, for picking that sample for us.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s so nice to leave on a high note.

**Craig:** On a high note. Left on a high note. Well, well done Kevin Pinkerton.

**John:** I have a Cool Thing this week. My Cool Thing is actually, this is going to sound really self-indulgent, but it’s a book that I’m featured in. It’s a book called The FilmCraft Book of Screenwriting. And, as we’ve talked about on the show, I don’t like most books on screenwriting. And what’s nice about this book is it’s just a bunch of interviews with a bunch of screenwriters. And so there’s me, there’s Billy Ray, there’s Whit Stillman, there’s Mark Baumbach, Guillermo Arriaga.

It’s a really nicely put together, really pretty, pretty book that this British publisher put together. It’s $20 and it’s actually kind of great. And so I have an interview in there where I’m talking about sort of different movies I’ve worked on and sort of process, but everyone else is really fascinating and great, too.

And so if you’re looking for a book on screenwriting, or want to give a gift of a book on screenwriting, I think it’s actually a really well put together book. So, edited and written together by Tim Grierson. And there will be a link to that in the show notes.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Oh, I also have to say, it also has the most misleading cover in the history of any book you’ve ever seen. So, the cover is Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in Bed from Benjamin Button. And it’s this incredibly sexy shot. And it says Screenwriting over the top of it. [laughs] It’s like there is nothing sexy at all about screenwriting.

And so this was waiting for me when I got back from Chicago. I opened the envelope and I’m like, what the hell is this? And I had no idea that I was featured in it. Then I found it inside and it was good.

**Craig:** Nice. I’m cool-less this week. But it’s such a big podcast.

**John:** It was a big podcast.

**Craig:** Maybe my Cool Thing this week is Vinny Bruzzese.

**John:** It’s a great name.

**Craig:** Vinny. I love…Vinny is like, “You know what? I’m busy. I’m smoking. I love Diet Dr. Pepper, but sometimes I also like Diet Coke.”

**John:** Yeah. Mix them together it’s good.

**Craig:** Boom. “Open, hey, genie, I want both. Give me both. Open them both! And Camels.”

I don’t know why I imagine Vinny yelling at genie.

**John:** Because he probably does.

**Craig:** He might.

**John:** He might.

**Craig:** But he may be a very soft-spoken guy. The point is, I love him. I love this guy.

**John:** I love him, too.

**Craig:** He’s cool.

**John:** All right. Craig, thank you for another fun podcast. If you have questions about anything we’ve talked about, including how to submit Three Page Challenge samples, or this book I just hyped, or any of the Three Page entries that we talked about today, you can find them all at johnaugust.com/podcast.

This was Episode 88, but there’s 87 episodes before this if you want to go back through and look at them.

If you are not subscribing to us in iTunes you probably should, because that way we know that you’re subscribing in iTunes and other people can find us. So, look us up on iTunes at Scriptnotes.

And we will be back next week. And next week I think we’re going to have exciting news about our 100th episode live show.

**Craig:** Very excited.

**John:** Which could be very exciting, because we got a great email today. So, I think that could work out nicely.

**Craig:** It could. Could!

**John:** Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. And welcome home.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Bye.

LINKS:

* [Turning the Page: Storytelling in the Digital Age](http://www.oscars.org/events-exhibitions/events/2013/05/turning-page.html) at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater
* [Solving Equation of a Hit Film Script, With Data](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/business/media/solving-equation-of-a-hit-film-script-with-data.html?hp&_r=0) by Brooks Barnes
* Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s [Black swan theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory) on Wikipedia
* Screenwriting.io on [multicamera script format](http://screenwriting.io/how-are-multicamera-tv-scripts-formatted/)
* Three Pages by [Sue Morris](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/SueMorris.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Robin Peters](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/RobinPeters.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Kevin Pinkerton](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/KevinPinkerton.pdf)
* [FilmCraft Screenwriting](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0240824865/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Tim Grierson on Amazon
* OUTRO: Thompson Twins’ [Doctor Doctor covered by Danny McEvoy](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpHAgyUKn-0)

Scriptnotes, Ep 87: Moving On is not Giving Up — Transcript

May 5, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/moving-on-is-not-giving-up).

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

**Craig Mazin:** I’m Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, Episode 87, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

**Craig:** Hmm, interesting.

**John:** I put it in there this time.

So, Craig, this is my last episode broadcasting from Chicago. I am flying home on Friday night. I just cannot tell you how excited I am to be back home in my own bed. I have not really been back in Los Angeles since February, so it’s been a very long time.

**Craig:** These stretches are difficult. And I know feeling all too well. There is just something about your own bed, your own house. In fact, I play this little game with myself where I think to myself even though it’s in the future, I’m going to be walking to my front door, and when I walk to my front door I want to remember what it was like when I thought it was in the future. [laughs] It’s a very strange thing I do. But, somehow it’s comforting and it gets me to the point in time I want to be.

**John:** So, it’s been a remarkable time and stretch here in Chicago. And we’ll talk about a bunch of things today, so let me talk about the topics on our agenda:

I want to talk about moving on, which is both how you move on from a project that you’ve been writing for a long time and recognize that, well, maybe you should just not keep rewriting that project.

In a more general sense, how do you recognize that maybe screenwriting is not a career that you should be focusing on.

I want to talk about reviews, because I remember like when you had Stolen Identity, that movie that you wrote, you got all those reviews and you had a bad reaction to the reviews from that. And I had an interesting situation with the reviews here for Big Fish.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** And, finally, we should talk about the Zach Braff Kickstarter thing because that’s a thing that happened this week.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not going to veto any of that.

**John:** Great. So, let’s go in reverse order. Let’s talk about the Zach Braff Kickstarter thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** We had an episode a few weeks ago where we talked about Kickstarter in a general sense, and Veronica Mars in particular, and you were not high on the idea of Kickstarter-funding projects, like making movies based on funds raised on Kickstarter. Is that a fair assessment?

**Craig:** It was. It wasn’t so much an issue with the Veronica Mars people. I think in the end I probably had a larger issue with just the concept of Kickstarter and what it does. But, the specific circumstance of Veronica Mars made it hard to criticize them. They had somebody who owned their copyright saying, “Unless you come up with a whole bunch of money that you don’t personally have, we’re not going to let you make this.” So, okay, I got that.

**John:** This week Zach Braff announced that he had the ambition to make a follow up to Garden State and that he was using Kickstarter to raise the money, or some of the money, to make that movie possible. And it was funded — as we’re recording this it got up to about $2 million, and maybe higher than that right now. And it looks like there’s going to be enough money to make the movie.

There was a lot of criticism and blow back about Zach Braff doing this and sort of he’s here, you have like a rich actor, or perceived to be a rich actor coming off the TV show Scrubs, and sort of why should we be paying for him to make a movie.

**Craig:** Well, there was a bunch of criticism. One was, yeah, okay, here’s a guy who at one point was reported to be making a third of a million dollars per episode of television and he’s asking for $2 million from people without granting them, of course, any kind of stake in the profit. That seems a little odd.

The other criticism was that he wasn’t saying, “I can’t get this money elsewhere.” What he was saying was, “I could get this money elsewhere, but then I wouldn’t necessarily get my way.” And that’s a very different situation than the Veronica Mars thing. He can make this movie without Kickstarter. He just doesn’t want to.

So, there was some, certainly some push back there as well.

**John:** Now, I’ve met Zach Braff on a couple occasions, always like social things, so not on any particular projects, and he was actually always lovely. So, I don’t have anything against Zach Braff in general. I would say that some of the criticism I read about his scenario was that he didn’t come off well in how he was presenting himself and the project.

And I think it would be a good primer for anybody who’s considering using Kickstarter to raise money to be really careful about your messaging because I feel like that push back against him, in a way that was not favorable.

**Craig:** Well, he still got his money, so in that end, you know, from just a pure ends orientation he won. I think that, I don’t know. Look, I’m friendly with Michael Shamberg and Stacy Sher, the producers on this. I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. And I told Michael as much, you know.

Nothing against Zach Braff. I don’t understand this. He wants final cut on a movie, you know, I don’t know. Earn it? Or, you know, plenty of people go out there and get financing for small movies like this and do get final cut because it’s a small movie and they’re not getting paid that much.

Or, put your own money to it. You know, someone sent me a link just today. A year ago there was a big article in, I think the New York Times, about Zach Braff’s awesome loft in Manhattan and how he had just redecorated it. [laughs] I’m just reading this going, “Ugh, man, why do you need $2 million from people out there?” I don’t understand it.

At one point he referenced a guy who, you know, he said most people don’t know that Garden State happened because one guy funded most of it. Well, where’s that guy? Garden State made a good amount of money based as far as I can tell. It should have had a good return on investment. Where is that guy? I don’t understand this. I just don’t get it.

And here’s the thing: In the end, I can say, well, I find it tacky on some level, but I can’t blame Zach Braff because it worked. I can’t blame, again, you know, when we talked about Kickstarter last time, my whole point was every business if they could just get capital for which they had to offer no equity would do it and should do it. So, let’s just call it the Sucker Born Every Minute theory.

Who are these people giving him…I don’t understand it. There are so many other things to give money to in this world. Why this? I don’t get it.

**John:** Well, I think as we talked about in Veronica Mars, one of the reasons they want to do it is because they want a thing to exist. And Garden State, I liked that movie. And I think a lot of people liked that movie and they would love to see a follow up to that movie. If this is a way to make that happen and sort of bend the universe in that direction, that’s fantastic.

From the Zach Braff or the existence of the movie’s perspective, yes, I think he could have gotten the money someplace else because, yeah, you kind of want to make a sequel to Garden State. I can see the logic behind doing the Kickstarter model, though, because it generates publicity and interest in a movie that does not even exist yet. And it will be the movie that raises money on Kickstarter, so people will already know about it a year before it comes out. And that can be useful.

And I think that some of what people use Kickstarter for isn’t even so much to raise money as to raise awareness that something exists. And that’s potentially useful. It has a publicity scope.

**Craig:** It’s even worse now to me. I get your “let’s just cause it to be created” argument. And in the case of Veronica Mars, that’s true. It literally was the only way that it was going to happen because barring those people… — And I don’t believe that, for instance, it’s as easy for Kristen Bell who starred on a show that didn’t make it into like big syndication dollars and all the rest of it to just say, “Okay, we’ll here’s the $4 million we need to make this show, or this movie rather.”

But this could exist — he said as much. He said, “Yeah, I could make this movie. I wouldn’t be able to cast this guy.” And then he pulls the guy in from Big Bang Theory who I’m pretty sure he could cast. It’s a $2 million movie. Or, it’s a $3 million, whatever it is, why not? That guy is on the biggest sitcom in America.

I don’t know, maybe I’m just out to lunch here. But then your point is like, well, so now these people are not giving money to something for which they receive no profit in success, they’re also funding the publicity campaign for the thing for which they receive no profit in success. And I just don’t get it at all. And if people are asking me to apportion some kind of blame here, I’m going to say 98% of the blame goes to people giving money to this on Kickstarter. [laughs] I just don’t get.

I don’t get it at all. And, you know what? There are people out there who really don’t have access to what Zach Braff has access to who really need Kickstarter. They’re not just going to Kickstarter because they don’t want some — because they want final cut. They don’t have anything or any way of knowing anything, or any way of anyone giving them anything except Kickstarter. But, $2 million goes to this.

I don’t get it.

**John:** I wouldn’t apportion any blame to anybody. I think I share a general frustration about this situation in the sense of you have a person who you know to be wealthy who you know, however much money he has, you know that he has the ability to make this movie in some other way and has chosen to go this route to do it for reasons that you’re not entirely sure you agree with. And you don’t want all movies to happen… — I worry about a scenario in which all small movies feel like they have to go through Kickstarter. If they didn’t they’re not real.

That’s the only concern I have is that, you know, working with a lot of the Sundance movies, like they’re always scraping to get funds. But if the expectation is that not only do you have to sort of impress investor people but you have to do this Kickstarter thing, it just becomes this weird beast of figuring out your t-shirt campaign before you’re figuring out your movie.

**Craig:** Well, it doesn’t appear to be working for Melissa Joan Hart who tried the same thing. And, ironically, her movie is called Walk of Shame, which is the expression they use for Kickstarters that don’t reach their goals. It was made mostly that it was on purpose.

I just wonder if we haven’t seen the last of these. In other words, the Veronica Mars thing was met with just pure exhilaration. This one, not so much. Frankly, it took a bit. I mean, Veronica Mars had made more than this thing did in like 24 hours practically. This one kind of like dribbed and drabbed its way to $2 million.

I mean, granted, it took, whatever, four days. I mean, that’s fast. Don’t get me wrong. But there’s been a lot of criticism. And, you know the internet, John. You know it the way I know it. It just feels like, I wonder if the worm has turned here and the next person who tries this isn’t going to just get absolutely slammed in the face.

**John:** We’ll see.

All right, next topic. Let’s talk about reviews, because last week we talking about getting notes. And getting notes and getting reviews are kind of related topics, but also very different topics.

Usually when we’re talking with screenwriters, reviews come a long time after you’ve finished your work. So, you have written a script. Like, Frankenweenie is a good example. That was the first movie that I just did not read any reviews.

And it was actually very easy for me to not read any reviews for Frankenweenie because I had been done with that movie for like a year and a half before the movie came out. So, it wasn’t very close and personal to me. I loved the story, but I didn’t have a lot of emotional stake in it immediately. So, I knew that the reviews were basically good. I knew that my life wouldn’t be greatly improved by reading them, so I just didn’t read any of them. And it was actually lovely not to have read the reviews.

You chose to read the reviews for Stolen Identity.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was mistake. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] It was a mistake. So, here with Big Fish, we just opened. And so last weekend was our opening and so the reviews came out. And Andrew Lippa, the composer and I, decided deliberately that we were not going to read any reviews. We were not going to read the good reviews, we were not going to read the bad reviews. We were going to read no reviews.

And it was actually the right choice I think because it was a weird thing with a musical because a movie, you’re done. A movie, you’re done and you’re finished. Whereas we’re in this preview process so we’re still making changes all the time and we’ll make more changes before we go to New York.

And even reading the good reviews in a weird way would have been toxic because it would have made us, you know, I don’t know, when you put words to something and you read something in print, it gives it a sense of authority that may not really be warranted. And so even if you read something, like a glowing review, saying this is the best song or the best scene in the whole show, in a weird way you’re nervous then to change it. You’re nervous to do the actual work you need to do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, what we chose to do is we said — the producers, obviously, we’re going to read all the reviews — and so we said, “Read the reviews. And just tell us the generalities of what things are common. What things everyone agrees we need to work on. Not everyone, but what is the consensus of the stuff we need to work on.” And, thankfully, there was consensus. And the consensus was exactly what all of our friends and colleagues who had seen the show said we needed to work on as well. So, that was good.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** And then there were also raves. And so like the Variety thing was a rave. And so they can say it was a rave. And I could know that there was a rave that I didn’t have to read which was a wonderful thing.

But, I want to talk about, you know, last week we talked about notes and sort of how you approach notes. And what’s different is when you’re getting notes from somebody you can actually engage them in a conversation. A review is like a monologue about what you did. And there’s not a way to ask questions about back about it. There’s no way to sort of engage with them. And if there were they’d be, I don’t know, more useful.

**Craig:** It’s funny that as we talk about reviews, the areas in which they can be useful keep getting pared down, and down, and down. So, they’re not useful to you early on. They’re not useful to you later. [laughs] They’re not useful to the artist at all. They’re not.

**John:** Well, in a weird way these reviews are sort of like on any cool news where they used to have like test screening reviews, and I’ve always criticized those because like someone is trying to review an in-progress product. It’s like, it’s not the final product.

With theater, you necessarily kind of have to have those reviews because we are selling tickets. I think it’s fair to review what we’re doing and sort of where we’re at in the process.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And the best, you know, a lot of the reviews said these are the things that worked and these are the things that need to be improved before it gets to New York. And like that’s a lovely way to phrase it. But it’s still sort of judging a thing as it stood that night when the next night it was different. It’s like trying to give a moral assessment of a seven-year-old kid. They’re still growing. They’re still changing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I would imagine that talking to audience members could give you a very similar snapshot. The truth is, it’s audience members that you want to attract. Famously, Les Misérables when it opened in London got terrible reviews. Same show. Same show that has been running forever, all over the world, and then the movie, and the multiple cast albums. Terrible reviews. The critics just didn’t matter. They weren’t right.

Or, let’s not say that. They weren’t applicable to what people on stage are going for which is to fill a theater with people. So, talking to people I would imagine would give you, like you said, all they did was say the same things that your friends and your other preview goers were saying.

**John:** Absolutely. One of the most fascinating things that happened this last week was we had groups sales meetings which is they fly in a bunch of the people who sell whole big blocks of tickets to tourists who are visiting New York City. And so it could be church groups, educational groups. It could be conventions, whatever.

And these people are fascinating because they see a zillion shows, because they see all the shows that are coming to Broadway. So, afterwards we did this Q&A and they could ask questions. And one woman was like really, really direct about the things she liked and the things she didn’t like, and who she was going to recommend the show for and who she wasn’t going to recommend the show for. And that was actually really useful because I could engage her in a conversation. And a lot of what she was saying was consistent with the other notes we were getting, and with like honestly apparently what’s in the reviews which is great, because that means that’s a thing you can address.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The process is like as if we’re editing a movie but the Avid, we’re putting a new cut off the Avid every day and have to show it to an audience. It’s like you’re having 35 test screenings back, to back, to back. And it’s wonderful to have that opportunity, but also exhausting to have that opportunity.

**Craig:** Yeah, I can see that.

Well, I think it’s very smart that you guys were not plugged into the reviews and in the end they simply — they are, I guess, just associated with the experience, but they are not causal to it in any way.

**John:** They’re a snapshot of sort of what the show was like at a certain time and what the reaction to the show was at that time.

**Craig:** Through one person’s camera.

**John:** Through one person’s camera. And, honestly, like what happened that night, because some nights are really, really good, and the audience is fantastic, and just everything kind of clicks. And some nights a line gets dropped or some cue doesn’t work quite right, and it is like the sustained magic trick. Even with a movie, you’ve seen scenes where like literally cutting one reaction shot changes the whole scene.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s the kind of situation we’re at now where like some stuff has to be polished exactly one way or it doesn’t really work right.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, and I totally believe you because you’ll see that with movies, and movies never change. But the audience changes, or a theater changes, or a venue, and it’s just weird sometimes. It’s just one thing that they respond to in one room, they don’t in another. So…

**John:** You and I have both been to experiences where they’ll have a premiere, but like there will be too many people for one screen. And so there will be theater A and theater B. And it’s the exact same movie playing in both places and people have different experiences which is so…

**Craig:** So weird.

**John:** It’s crazy.

Now, partly why I didn’t read the reviews was sort of a psychological self-defense. It’s like knowing what was going to send me off in little spirals and make me unproductive. But, psychological self-defense is really sort of our third and biggest topic today which is how do you recognize when it’s time to move on from either a project or from this thing of writing.

And let’s talk through that, because I have 12 produced movie credits, maybe. I think 10 or 12. And a lot other movies I sort of worked on along the way, but there’s a whole bunch of scripts I wrote that never shot. And I’ve had to sort of move on from them. And you have a big shelf of stuff, too, I assume?

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure.

**John:** So, let’s talk about when you decide to just be done with a project, or do you decide — does it just fall off or have you officially sort of said goodbye to any projects?

**Craig:** I have said goodbye. There’s one project that I was hired to do by a studio and I really loved it and my producer really loved it, but there were circumstances that made it sort of impossible to green light it. It just wasn’t a good fit for the studio and it was very expensive. And I think it has just been there. I don’t know if anyone has ever really worked on it again. I think it’s just dead.

And, you know, in a weird way, it doesn’t bother me. I guess that’s okay, you know. I’m okay to rest on those things. There’s a spec script that I wrote that has some really cool stuff in it, but then just stuff that’s not quite right, and I kind of realize, “Uh, I don’t really want to write this anymore.”

And, so I quit on it. And I have no problem with that at all. Do you feel great sadness when… — Do you feel like quitting on something is a bad thing, or ending like that is a bad thing?

**John:** I can offer two perspectives. I think every movie that I write is real to me in the sense that I’ve entered into that world and I’ve written everything from the inside, and so those characters are as real to me as the characters are in the movies that get made. And so there’s a certain sadness when like something doesn’t proceed because I know those characters are never going to see their full life. They’re only ideas of the final movie. And so they’re real to me, but they’re not real to anybody else. And so that’s a sad thing.

One of the themes in The Nines was that sense of these characters are sort of trapped forever in 12-point Courier. And what is the creator’s responsibility to their creations. Am I responsible for, having created these characters, am I responsible for making sure they exist in the world for real? At what point are you allowed to sort of walk away from the things you’ve made, be it a story, a script, a universe? At what point is a creator allowed to walk away from the things he’s made?

So, some of those things, it is different when it is my own original baby, when it was like a spec script I came up with. It was entirely mine. I own every little bit of it. That’s a tougher thing for me then sometimes there’s a bundle of rights that I was hired on to write this thing. It’s not my thing. I did everything I could. I took care of this thing as well as I could, but it’s not ultimately mine.

That’s a situation like Preacher. I would love the Preacher movie to exist. I just can’t actually get it to happen. And I don’t own those rights and so I can’t push it any further. And I can get people on the phone, but I can’t get the next thing to happen, and that’s the reality of it.

**Craig:** I mean, it’s not the end of the world. I mean, I guess, you have an experience writing something and I always feel like we learn every time we write. We push ourselves or challenge ourselves in some way. And there’s an upside, frankly, to the things that are unmade. And that is you get to enjoy them perfectly in your mind. And no one can mess with those.

**John:** So, I think there’s sometimes an opportunity cost to holding on to things. And that opportunity cost is like that is time when you’re not writing something new.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That is time where you’re not pursuing something new. And that’s an important thing to remember, because honestly the easiest thing to do is often to work on another draft of that project. And so sometimes you promised it to somebody, so you’re going to fire up the word processor, and like Final Draft, and go through and just do a new pass for somebody. And a lot of screenwriters in Los Angeles have written one and half scripts.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** They’ve written that first spec script. They started on another script. They didn’t really finish the second script. And they’d go back and they’d keep writing that first one, which might have had a pretty good idea on it, but all they sort of know how to do is how to rewrite that first script.

In most cases, people would be better off say acknowledging like that was a lovely script, I learned a lot from there, and move onto the next one.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The first thing I wrote which got me an agent will never get made. And it should never get made. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a perfectly valid piece of writing. It just wasn’t a movie that the universe wanted to exist.

**Craig:** I also think that for a lot of these writers they are belaboring under a misconception that their script must be as perfected as possible, or I guess the proper way to say that is their script must be perfected in order for someone to truly appreciate it. And it turns out this is not at all the case.

A, there is no “perfected.” There is only perfected for you. B, nobody ever reads a script and says, “It’s perfect. Shoot it!”

**John:** No one.

**Craig:** And, C, most importantly, and most encouragingly, the stuff in your screenplay that is basic, and intentional, and specific to your screenplay will shine through flaws every day of the week. Everybody, frankly, is looking for something, even if it’s one great scene, or just the basic idea. They’re going to get it or not. They never pick up these scripts — no one, forget the cartoon producers and studio executives that you might imagine are out there, anyone, no one is going to pick up a script and say, “It is flawed, therefore no good,” or “It is perfect therefore good.” That’s not how it works.

So, when we redo, and redo, and redo, and redo and just sit there sanding and polishing we are unfortunately misusing our natural obsessive compulsive disorder for bad. We let that get out of control. We need OCD to be able to fill 150 pages, and we need OCD to redo it and fix it in large, gross ways.

But, when you start to indulge the OCD, that is when you are entering the line of diminishing returns and it is time to consider maybe moving on.

**John:** Yeah. Here’s a sign: If you go through a draft and you’ve mostly change punctuation…

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** …that was not a productive draft. Because you start to recognize that all you’re doing is polishing the script but you’re not actually changing the movie. Like, the movie that you actually make from that script would be almost exactly the same script. You’re just kind of improving the words.

And it’s not to say that the words are unimportant. The words are incredibly important and you should — every word in your script should be deliberate. But that doesn’t mean you should have spent three years on those words and every word in that script, because that’s not good and productive use of your time.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** In many ways I feel people who get a chance to work in television benefit from recognizing that perfection is a trap. And the time pressures that they’re under in TV is like, “How do I write what needs to be written in this scene so that…” You know, good enough is sort of a trap too… “but that it does its job, and that therefore the scene will work and I can move onto the next scene.” It’s how to write the best scene for what it needs to be the first time through.

**Craig:** Right. That’s exactly right. And just keeping checking into yourself. If you feel like you’re still eating meat, keep writing. If you start feeling bones crunching, stop. You’ve gone too far, you know? And you’ll know. I think we all know.

Because we care so much about these things, sometimes when we finish a script and we feel really good about it we just read it, and read it over, and read it over, and we’re just congratulating ourselves by reading what we’ve done. And that’s a perfectly fine way to indulge yourself if you’d like. But that’s also a pretty good sign that you should probably now start to ease off the pedal and send it out into the world.

**John:** Yup. A friend of mine who’s very smart and sort of much more psychologically self-aware than I think I will ever feel comfortable being…

**Craig:** Is it me? Is it me?

**John:** [laughs] No, certainly not you. When she’s moving on, she will write a letter to the script saying, “These are the reasons why I’m moving on.” And it’s a weird sort of closure exercise for her, but like, “This is why I’m done. You’re fantastic. But I’m not going to be continuing to pursue you anymore,” which I know sounds a little bit crazy, but the actual process of writing that saying gives her permission to stop thinking about it and obsessing about it.

**Craig:** That doesn’t sound a little crazy. That sounds a lot crazy. But, if it’s working…

**John:** If it’s working. Because what I do find is that sometimes there’s just the open loops that you just sort of keep thinking about. Like, oh, I need to go back and do that. Oh, I need to go back and do that. And it becomes a sort of stacking kind of guilt.

And if you give yourself permission to just be done with something, that can be useful. And if it takes writing a letter, or just a little note to that thing saying, “This is why I’m not going to worry about you anymore,” that could be useful.

**Craig:** Whatever it takes. You know, you just want to try and find the sweet spot between the ding-a-ling who starts 12 scripts but never finishes and the other ding-a-ling who’s on his 20th draft of something where he’s now fixing tiny things no one would have noticed in the first place anyway because he’s on the 12th level of revisions.

And, by the way, for the way, for those poor people, god help them when other people finally read it. They don’t recognize that you’ve already gone through this process and that you’re 12 levels in. They’re just like, “I got bored here.”

**John:** Yeah. A lot of times people keep writing that thing because they’re scared of, who am I if I’m not writing this thing. So, maybe you should set a limit. So, like I will not rewrite this script until I’ve written an entirely new script, because that way at least you’re moving forward. And probably in the process of writing that new script you will recognize, “Oh, you know what? I’m a writer. I’m not just one script.”

**Craig:** And there you go.

**John:** And you’ll keep moving on. But, let’s push a little bit further. What if you’re not a screenwriter? And how do you know whether you are a person who is just maybe not cut out for screenwriting?

**Craig:** Well, I was thinking about this the other day because someone on Done Deal Pro sort of did some back-of-the-envelope math about what the odds were of becoming a professional screenwriter. And while the back-of-the-envelope was pretty loosey-goosey in terms of all the assumptions and things, obviously it’s low, right? The odds are low. I don’t know what they actually came up with, but let’s just say the odds of — you know, when you look at all the people who want to be a screenwriter, all the people trying to be a screenwriter, let’s say that the odds are 0.05% of them become professional screenwriters in however we define that term.

And my argument back to all of them was, no. Those are the odds, maybe, let’s stipulate, but they’re not your odds. Your odd are 0% or 100%. That’s it. The general odds don’t apply to you. So, with that in mind, really what it comes down to is: Are you wasting your time?

And, this whole concept of “follow your dream” is so important and so vital for the people whose odds are 100%. And so destructive and limiting to the people whose odds are 0%. And I think it’s important for us to speak to all of those people out there who are doing this to say: Listen, there may come a day where you start to believe that perhaps it’s not supposed to happen. You’re not what is wanted in the world for a screenwriter. And you’re not loving it. And I think it’s okay to say, “I’m going to stop now.”

We shouldn’t associate shame with that. I know too many people who have wasted a lot of time and there’s other stuff to do. And, also, frankly, I mean, I’m sure you’re the same way — screenwriting is a huge part of my life. It’s my profession, it is my vocation. It has been so for nearly two decades now and hopefully for another decade still. It’s not the most important thing in my life by far. By far!

You know, my wife, my kids, it’s not the be all, end all.

**John:** Two points to sort of reiterate is that moving on is not failing. Moving on is recognizing what’s working and what’s not working and making a choice to pursue what is the best path for you to be pursuing next.

Second off is the difference between what you do and who you are. And your identity cannot, should not be in most cases your profession. Your identity should be the things you stand for, the things you love, the people who are in your life. It shouldn’t be what you do on a nine to five basis.

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure. If that is your identity something has gone terribly wrong.

And, frankly, if that’s what you’re chasing, too, there are kids who really want to make that baseball team. They really want to make the tournament team because they love baseball. Then there are kids who really want to make that tournament team because they really want that uniform that says, “I’m on a tournament team.”

A lot of people out there I think want the uniform.

**John:** Yeah they do.

**Craig:** [laughs] And, I got to tell you, it ain’t that great. When I was…I’m going to tell you a little story. Let me tell you a little story about little Craig Mazin.

Little Craig Mazin went to public school on Staten Island for kindergarten through fifth grade. And his public school was as New York City’s Board of Education love to do, because they were super creative, our school was, Public School 69, PS69. — No jokes please. — So, I went to PS69.

And in PS69 if you were in fifth grade you could become a safety monitor. And a safety monitor basically got to stand in the hall and do safety stuff, I guess. But really what it was was this: you got this white cloth band thing. It would sort of go around your waist like a belt. But then it had this other thing that went diagonally from the right side of the belt, up over your shoulder, and then back around. And then there was a badge on it.

**John:** So, it was a sash-belt-badge combo.

**Craig:** Sash-belt-badge combo. And you could do things like check for bathroom passes and stuff like that. You were essentially a little Gestapo. And did I mention badge?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh my god did I want this! I wanted it so bad. And I don’t know what the criteria were for selecting hall monitors. I was, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I was a star pupil. Star pupil. Now later in life it occurs to me that that’s probably not — the high performing students weren’t necessarily what they wanted for their goon squad. [laughs]

But oh my god I wanted that thing so bad. I had no interest whatsoever in what it actually meant. And I remember feeling so frustrated by the casual “who cares” attitude of the kids who were awarded the sash-belt-badge combo and who didn’t even seem to care about it. Or, god forbid, forgot their sash-badge combo at school. You know?

**John:** So, Craig, you were never given that sash-badge?

**Craig:** No, I was not. I never got the sash-belt-badge combo.

**John:** This is explains so much, Craig. It also explain why you fundamentally reject anybody who sort of wants that kind of thing because now — not having gotten it yourself — anybody who would want such a thing, or who’d want to…or who would want to kick-start a campaign to make sash-belt-badge combos is suspect in your world.

**Craig:** [laughs] I would love, by the way, if one of our listeners actually found an image of this somewhere on file. It has to be a sash-belt-badge combo thing from a New York City public education school from K-5, which is what we had, and it has to be circa ’70s. I’ll go as high as ’81.

Anyway, no, the truth is it was a very, very 10-year-old thing of me, but yet those 10-year-old things never go away. They’re always inside of us.

I’ll give you another one. When I was in college I really, really wanted to be in one of the a cappella singing groups. And I was good enough to get a call back, I just wasn’t good enough to actually make it. And I was — I felt, it’s not jealousy, it’s the frustration of denied aspiration. It’s really hard to deal with. But, you know, the thing is, you do have to look in your life at the things that you do get, and then remember everything that you get at some point becomes a job, becomes work, becomes a task.

And if all you see is what’s romantic about it, and there are some romantic things about screenwriters. You and I get to hang out with famous people and be on movie sets and go to premieres. That is romantic. And we get to talk to people, you know, and be interviewed. On this side of the line, of course, it’s like, blech, right?

So, for those of you who are fueled primarily by romantic aspirations, think about that means.

**John:** I would also say when you have this idea about what your life is going to be like when you’re having that job, when you’re in that position, you’re really doing the same kind of thing which I had some problems with the reviews, is that you’re putting your self-esteem in someone else’s hands. Your sense of self-worth is based on whether someone else thinks you are good enough in this situation or in this world.

And so, be it reviews, be it getting your hall monitor sash, you have decided that how good you are is based on how someone else judges you. And that’s not a productive, happy way to go through your life. Ideally your self esteem should be based on the things that you do and can control and things that you want that you can achieve that are meaningful to you, not meaningful to other people.

I definitely get that. My daughter has a similar situation to your hall monitor/hall pass thing. She’s seven years old and one of her good friends does ballet. And so she’s like, “Well, I want to do ballet.” It’s like, well, why do you want to do ballet? “Because she does ballet. They get to do the Nutcracker and stuff.” It’s like, well do you want to do that? “Oh, I really, really want to do that.”

But we actually really drilled down. She kind of just wants the trappings.

**Craig:** Right. She wants the shoes.

**John:** She wants the shoes. But she doesn’t want the work. She doesn’t want one more thing on her schedule which is already sort of over-packed. In a weird way she doesn’t want someone else to have something that she doesn’t have.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And that’s a natural instinct, but you have to sort of push beyond that natural instinct.

And so I feel like a lot of people approach screenwriting because they really want to be in the movie business, but they recognize that they have no idea how to direct a movie. They feel like they don’t have the funds to make a movie. They don’t feel like they know people who can help them make movies. They know on some level that they’re not actors.

So, the only thing that seems like approachable in the world of making movies is writing a script, because anyone can write a script, so that is what they pursue. But, it’s not..I would say 80% of people who are aspiring screenwriters wouldn’t necessarily classify themselves as writers. It’s not like they wrote stuff before this. They just want to make movies, and so therefore they’re writing screenplays.

And that’s not likely to work out well for the 99.5% of them. Because they’re not getting into it for the right reasons.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Most of the people we know who are successful screenwriters, they were good writers before they ever approached screenwriting. And they were writing for other things and then they came to screenwriting. That’s a common trend amongst most screenwriters I’ve met. They were always good writers. Is that true for you, too?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ve always been good with words and my — the vast majority of writing I did prior to screenwriting, frankly, was non-fiction writing. It was essay writing. It was persuasive writing. Investigative writing. I was a student journalist. But always trying to tell a story.

So, I was working with narrative inside of non-fictional topics. And you can see, you know, the non-fictional writers that we tend to appreciate the most in a sort of popular way are the ones who are able to place things within a narrative.

I’ve always been obsessed with narrative, and with mythology, and I’ve always loved movies. So, yeah, I was always a lexicographically-minded person.

**John:** I think there’s a reason why a lot of non-fiction writers tend to sort of drift over to screenwriting is, you know, writing for a magazine is very much creating a narrative but with very specific constraints in that you don’t have all the space and time that a novel has. You have a very specific kind of writing that you need to do. There’s certain restrictions placed upon you, the same way there are restrictions placed upon screenwriters. And screenwriters can only talk about things that you can see and hear. A journalist can only report facts. They’re limited to the truth.

You know, an investigative journalist only has the things that he or she can actually find and put into the story. So, there’s a reason why people who come from those field tend to come into screenwriters. Mark Boal is an example of that. Someone who comes from a journalism background. I was a journalism background as well.

So, I do feel that a lot of people come to screenwriting out of this desire to be part of the movie business. “I like movies a lot and so I want to write movies.” That’s not necessarily the best bridge between the two.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah, just be on the lookout for that. As you go through this, at some point you my start to feel like it’s a slog. That you’re doing all this but not for “it.” You’re doing all this for other reasons.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Or, you’re doing it for the right reasons, it’s just not working. And all I can tell you is if you should come to that day where you just don’t like doing it, stop. Just stop. It’s okay.

**John:** It’s okay.

Last week on the podcast we talked about, someone wrote in the question saying like isn’t it really annoying when people do this kind of thing, and I proposed a hash tag called #CutItOut for stuff we needed to stop doing as screenwriters.

Se, a classic one is, you know, air ducts are just…we have to stop using air ducts because air ducts are cliché and they’re gross. But we proposed if anyone had other ideas for things that they need to — we need to stop seeing in movies and that screenwriters need to take responsibility for just not putting them in movies, to tweet them with a hash tag.

And some people wrote in with some good suggestions. So, here are a few.

Dan Slovin wrote, “This trope I’m bored of, ‘Oh god, he’s broadcasting on every TV on the planet.'”

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, like the guy who takes over the main switching station for all TV channels? [laughs].

**John:** Yeah, exactly.

**Craig:** Yeah, what is that?

**John:** Yeah, what is that? Because it’s not really practical. I don’t even know sort of what they would be?

**Craig:** It doesn’t really work that way because there are different satellites. What are you — you’ve got control of every satellite and what you’re going to do with that is broadcast something?

**John:** Exactly. And when was the last time I watched broadcast TV? I haven’t watched broadcast in months. [laughs]

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, you know what? I never even considered that. It makes no sense. You’re right.

**John:** Aaron Bradley wrote in with three. One is, “Dropping one’s camera in the face of unspeakable horror.”

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, yeah.

**John:** Yeah, you see that a fair amount.

**Craig:** Yeah, with the slow backing away.

**John:** “There’s no such thing as…followed by whatever thing doesn’t exist.”

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s the Gilligan’s Island, “I’m not wearing that dress.”

**John:** “The girl telling the slacker man who’s the hero of the story if he can’t do it she’ll get someone else who can and then storming off.”

Yeah, I see it as a general idea. Like, “Well, if you can’t do it, I’ll get somebody who can.” Eh. That’s clammy.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s more clammy then…I mean, it’s a clammy line, yeah.

**John:** “How about a sociopathic antagonist with an Old Testament Name.”

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s pretty good.

**John:** Yeah, that’s pretty good. Eli, Josiah.

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah, Hachaliah. I always loved Hachaliah. I think that’s in Inherit the Wind when William Jennings Bryan is losing his mind and having a stroke. He starts yelling names of biblical books and Hachaliah was maybe one.

**John:** This is actually a pet peeve of mine. This is from Devin O’Neil. “A character receives shocking news, so shocking in fact that after much dry heaving they vomit.”

I’ve never received news that made me throw. I think it does actually happen. I just don’t want to ever see it in movies again.

**Craig:** Has that happened in movies? [laughs]

**John:** Oh, it’s happened in movies.

**Craig:** Really, where somebody throws up because of a message?

**John:** Yeah. They get so overwhelmed that they throw up.

**Craig:** Oh, the big throw up, I see. Yeah, okay, now that I think about it, yes. Got it.

Throwing up is gross anyway. Although it’s funny, I watched The Sixth Sense with my son last night who’s 11. He loved it. And I really appreciated it, probably more than I did when I watched it the first time when it came out. And there is that terrible moment where the ghost of Mischa Barton throws up. It’s really scary.

**John:** Yeah, Mischa Barton.

**Craig:** Mischa Barton.

**John:** She is scary.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** “This ends now.” That’s a clam more than anything else. But, no, just stop that.

**Craig:** That is a message for itself.

**John:** Yes. David Bratton suggested that.

We’ve talked about this before, but like an opening scene where somebody hits an alarm clock, or hits an alarm clock and knocks it off the nightstand.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Stop that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Nobody does that.

**John:** Nobody does that in real life.

**Craig:** No one.

**John:** “Tight on an eye as it opens, pulling back to reveal the hero waking up in the desert not knowing how he got there.”

**Craig:** Um…

**John:** Uh, that’s awkward.

**Craig:** Does that happen?

**John:** It does happen. I mean, it’s not always the desert. But just that sense of like waking up someplace and having no idea how you go there.

**Craig:** Oh, okay. I guess. I mean, that’s not so bad.

**John:** Says the writer of The Hangover movies. [laughs]

**Craig:** Well, I didn’t invent that language in the first one. [laughs] So, I can’t take credit or blame for that. But, I don’t know, I mean, I guess. That’s like, what a close-up, a disorienting close-up? I think we have to keep that within our language.

**John:** Nick Rheinwald-Jones writes, “The criminal protagonist is bailed out of jail by a guy who wants him to do another crime.” Yeah, that needs to stop.

**Craig:** And, again, maybe my film vocabulary is weak, but is there a famous example of that?

**John:** Oh, I think it’s actually really common in heist movies where the guy gets out of jail and is immediately recruited in to do the same thing, or sometimes it’s the government who comes to get the guy. It’s like, “We need you to do this thing because you’re the only person who can do it because you did this crime before.”

**Craig:** Right. Okay, got it.

**John:** So, let’s stop that. August Benassi writes, “The character decides to quit drinking. Dramatically stares at bottle. Opens it, and pours it out.”

**Craig:** Yeah…

**John:** Yeah. I think that probably does actually happen in real life. I’ve just seen it a lot. And I saw it in John Gatins’ movie, Flight, and I thought was the last time I needed to see it.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, that doesn’t offend me. Some of these don’t bother me. [laughs] They really don’t. Maybe I’m just more cliché-oriented than most people, but I don’t…that doesn’t bother me. Yeah, I’ve seen it before, but it’s something that every single person — one of those people has to do it, so…don’t they?

**John:** Yeah, I just…yeah. Giving up drinking in movies overall is a sort of source of frustration for me. It just feels like, you know. I mean, it’s a thing that happens, just it annoys me for some reason.

**Craig:** You know what annoys me, come to think of it? It just annoys me because of what we do. Any time there’s an author in a movie, he has, or she has, writer’s block. And then something happens. And then they just start writing and they can’t stop.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s the most ridiculous portrayal of how writing works. It’s not some crazy coke binge where it’s like one crazy night because I finally got over my problem.

**John:** Yeah, they get like graphia or whatever where they just can’t stop writing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And they’re so happy. And it’s just that shot of their face while they’re typing. And then a shot of pages that turn into a stack of pages. It’s crazy!

**John:** Yeah, it’s the corollary to ripping the paper out of the typewriter and crumpling it up.

**Craig:** Exactly!

**John:** Tossing it into the overflowing trash can.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know! And that scene is always there, too.

**John:** John Meehan writes, “On the desk or shelf or on the wall we see a faded old photo of a younger, happier main character alongside a woman and a child.”

**Craig:** Uh…

**John:** Yeah. That’s sort of an establishing shot of who the character was in a younger, happier time. That’s…

**Craig:** Yeah, that is cliché. I mean, we actually did a little spoof version of that when we did Superhero Movie because it is so cliché, and that was a pretty funny scene, I liked that. Just the happier times and in each picture the things around his poor, dead dad, the things that his dad was doing were increasingly dangerous. [laughs] It’s just kind of funny. I liked it.

**John:** [laughs] Jason Markarian writes two different ones. “Our disheveled lead long pours a beer into his cereal.” Yeah, beer and cereal, no. Stop that.

**Craig:** Yeah, maybe I’m just not seeing enough movies. That just sounds stupid anyway.

**John:** “Our disheveled lead, straight from bed, chasing far too many aspirin with a huge swig from a vodka bottle.”

**Craig:** Well, yeah, this whole like “I’m going to drink in the morning, look how crazy my life is,” I also don’t believe that that happens.

By the way, I don’t know about you, but my other thing that…this isn’t even a trope. This just makes me nuts is when people wake up in the morning and start kissing each other. Like, brush your teeth. It’s gross!

**John:** “The female lead has a boozy one night stand with a guy who the next day turns out to be her new boss or coworker.”

**Craig:** Yeah, okay.

**John:** Yeah, I’ve seen that a lot. Don’t do that.

**Craig:** That sounds pretty familiar, yeah.

**John:** Joey H. wrote that, thank you for that.

“Showing open boxes of takeout in a single person’s fridge to show that he is single.”

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** Yeah, Wilson Kelley, good call there.

**Craig:** See, that’s a good example of something we should just cut out, because it’s not useful anymore. It’s actually dumb. It doesn’t even seem true.

**John:** Yeah. So, I would say, yeah, let’s not do that. Or, if you’re going to do it, again, make a joke out of it. There’s probably a good joke to be had there because it’s so expected that you can probably surprise us with something else that’s different there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Oh, here’s a good one. Getting the bad guy…okay, “The bad guy gets captured because it’s part of his essential plan.”

**Craig:** Right. I’ve seen that a lot.

**John:** It’s happened a lot recently. So, that’s in Skyfall. It happens in Avengers. It doesn’t need to happen again.

**Craig:** It happens in, I mean, the Joker does it.

**John:** Oh, yeah, that’s right.

**Craig:** And I never understand it frankly. I honestly never understand that whole, “I want you to capture me thing.” It did, by the way, as much as I enjoyed all the movies we just mentioned, I didn’t understand why he had to do that in Avengers at all.

**John:** No. I don’t understand why he had to do it in Skyfall, either. If he had the capability of doing all of those things he was already doing, there was no reason why he needed to get captured in that, either.

**Craig:** Plus, it always backs the screenwriter into a weird place because they want it to be a twist. Well, if it’s a twist, that means the villain has to behave as if they don’t want to be captured. But, once we find out that they did want to captured, you have to reconcile their prior behavior which is really hard to do.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Like why were you kind of behaving like you didn’t want to be captured so that you would be captured? None of it makes sense.

**John:** It does not make sense.

Joe Dinicola writes in, “When the boss baddie turns away, then turns his back and shoots one of his own guys.” Yeah, when you shoot one of your own guys to show that you’re a badass, yeah, I’ve seen that a lot. It’s not the best use of your time.

**Craig:** When you say to prove that you’re a bad guy, you shoot one of your own guys?

**John:** Yeah. I think that’s what he’s implying. So, it’s one of those things where like the villain shoots one of his own people sort of cavalierly.

**Craig:** Oh, I see. Oh, you know, I’m guilty of a lot of these.

**John:** Yeah, but you’re a successful screenwriter so…

**Craig:** I mean, I feel like when I do it it’s really entertaining! [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Maybe in your next script you’ll consider it.

**Craig:** Maybe I’m done with them now, now that I’ve gotten them out of my system.

**John:** Our final from Erica Horton, “The crazy/awkward priest or minister at the wedding.” Yeah, I think I’m done with that, too.

**Craig:** Example?

**John:** If you’re doing a wedding scene, like I don’t need the priest to be eccentric. I just…

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s normally…again, I’m drawing a blank. Where does that happen?

**John:** Oh, I think that happens a fair amount. So, I think Four Weddings and a Funeral, I think that’s a trope that’s in there. There is something where Robin Williams is a minister.

**Craig:** Well, that was License to Wed and that, while the movie doesn’t rise to the test of what you wanted that movie to be, but the whole point was that he was a nut. I mean, it wasn’t like there was a scene and in the scene the priest was goofy.

**John:** Yeah. I didn’t see that movie.

**Craig:** I did. I saw it. And, you know, it wasn’t for me.

**John:** You didn’t work on it?

**Craig:** No, no. Went to the theater. I’m not sure why.

**John:** I have not been to the movies in seven weeks. I’m so excited to see a movie, any movie. It will be great. I’m so excited to have a night where I’m not writing Big Fish. That will just be a delight.

**Craig:** It’s too much fish.

**John:** So, let’s get onto our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is actually very much related to this topic of moving on. So, my friend Gabe Olds, who was an actor on DC, his mom is a famous poet, Sharon Olds, who just last week or the week before won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry. And her book is called Stag’s Leap.

And the Pulitzer people say it’s fantastic, but I also think it’s just fantastic. I read it this last week. And it’s the first book of poetry I’ve probably read since college. It’s just free verse. Nothing rhymes.

What it chronicles is her divorce. And so it’s her divorce of her husband of 30 years. And it’s just breathtaking and amazing. And sad, but really just terrific. So, I highly recommend it. And especially if you haven’t read poetry in a while, it’s great to be able to read a bunch of poems that are about one thing. Because so often, like in The New Yorker you’ll read a poem, and like, oh, that’s a really good poem, but it’s one little appetizer of something.

And so this makes a meal out of this whole situation and there’s a whole arc to it which was terrific. And poetry, in a weird way, matches up to some degree to what we do in screenwriting because unlike normal prose which has full, complete sentences and has paragraphs and stuff, the stuff that we write is also kind of free verse-y. It’s just like it’s words scattered on the page to create an effect, and that’s what she does incredibly well in this book of poetry.

So, Stag’s Leap by Sharon Olds is my recommendation.

**Craig:** It’s a very difficult thing to marry a poet because on the one hand they can be super depressing and then you want to leave them. But then if you leave them you know that they’re going to destroy you in poetry.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like dating Alanis Morissette.

**Craig:** God, it’s just like dating Alanis Morissette. It’s true. You know she’s going to get you like Dave Coulier got gotten.

**John:** Yeah. I guess. I have friends with personal experience in that front. So, yeah.

**Craig:** But, you know, that album was good.

**John:** It was good. Or Fiona Apple. I remember my friend Rawson Thurber at one point said like, “I do just want to date Fiona Apple for a couple months in the hopes that she’ll write an album about me.”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. Just an angry, hallowed out album of anger sadness.

**John:** What I will say that also really impressed me about Sharon Olds’s book is that in it you can recognize that the fact that she was a poet who was writing about their situation did have an effect upon their marriage. He was the knowing subject of some of her work. And who wants to be in that kind of spotlight?

**Craig:** Apparently not him. [laughs]

**John:** It was not him.

**Craig:** Yeah, he punched out. Hard to blame him. Hard to blame him.

Look, I don’t want to take sides in this difficult divorce, but I am saying to this guy, you know, you might potentially have a friend in me here.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** I mean, I get it. That’s all I’m saying.

Well, I have a One Cool Thing this week. So, let’s talk about energy for a second. If I were to say to you, John, that the international space station is the largest scientific — international scientific collaboration on the planet. That would be true. But do you know what the next largest scientific collaboration o the planet is, measured by how many nations are participating through labor and money?

**John:** Is it the Super Accelerator?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Oh, what is it then?

**Craig:** It is a big huge fusion reactor.

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** So, there’s this project called ITER, that is the Latin pronunciation of I-T-E-R, which means the way, which sort of sounds culty, but it’s not. And it is a massive project. It’s actually housed in France. And they are essentially trying to solve this problem that they’ve been chasing for a long, long time for fusion energy.

And the cool thing that happened is that this week basically they got approval for — the final approval for the design of the most technically challenging part of this thing. And by getting that final approval they’re actually on the path to making this thing work within 10 years. That’s the theory.

And I think it’s going to work. And so basically regular nuclear power is fission power where we smash apart uranium atoms, I believe. And the fission of those atoms releases a lot of energy. It also releases a ton of radioactive waste and there’s always the chance that it could have a runaway chain reaction. Those are the problems that we all know about.

Not the case with fusion reaction in which they are actually smashing atoms together and by smashing atoms together releasing a ton of energy. In fact, that’s how the sun works. The sun is basically a big fusion reactor using hydrogen, and helium, I think, and something. Well, hydrogen. [laughs]

In any case, here are the benefits of fusion reaction. You can’t have a meltdown, you can’t have a chain reaction. It does not give off radioactive waste of any significant amount. And the fuel is basically kind of water. But, to make it work you have to kind of heat it all up with plasma to hotter than the center of the sun. It is incredibly — basically you have to get temperatures of over 100 million centigrade.

But, they’re close. They’re actually getting close. And, if they can figure this out, we’ve solved the energy problem permanently. It’s done. You can sell your oil and gas stocks. It’s over.

And I think, John, despite our advancing age, you and I will live on a planet with fusion energy.

**John:** That will be fantastic if we do. Now, I’ve seen different fusion things along the way. One of them was like a laser-based thing. So, it’s a bunch of lasers that have to fire at exactly the right moments and exactly the right spot to create this. Do you know what the engine is that creates the heat?

**Craig:** They’re basically using a version of what’s been around all the way back to Soviet Russia called a Tokamak which is a big, huge donut. And then they use these big, big magnets that old the fuel, because the fuel can’t be held in anything…

**John:** Because it would melt through it.

**Craig:** Yeah, melt through anything, right? So, they’re using magnets to basically hold this stuff in place and they’re using plasma and then firing helium and tritium and something at each other. So, it doesn’t look like it’s lasers. It just looks like it’s just gases and magnetic coils and stuff.

**John:** And smashy smashy.

**Craig:** And smashy smashy. And so the theory is that they will be, now that they’re kind of on board to finish the construction, the big part of this construction. And we’re talking, like this is how precise it is –there’s these 18 magnetic coils that weigh hundreds of tons. And they have to be positioned with a precision of less than two millimeters. That’s how careful they have to build this thing.

But they think they might even be able to inject the plasma into it in 10 years. And another five years after that they put the tritium in and, zoom, supposedly then you’re off and running.

**John:** Hooray.

**Craig:** Yeah, so just hang on, people. Just hang on.

**John:** Just make it another 15 years. We’ll have power.

**Craig:** We’ll have clean, super clean, super safe power and then, of course, the ice age will follow. Because we were supposed to warm the planet. You know it’s coming. You know that’s going to happen. It’s inevitable. It’s just…we can’t win.

**John:** Yeah, well, what we can do is thank our listeners for listening to us. And if you have questions about anything we talked about you can find notes and links at our show page, johnaugust.com/podcast. We are on iTunes. You’re probably listening to us through iTunes, but if you’re not go to iTunes and search for Scriptnotes and subscribe. Leave a note if you’d like to leave us a note, a comment; it helps people find us.

And, if you have a question for me or for Craig, small questions are great on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. If you have a longer question that we sometimes answer on the show, it is ask@johnaugust.com.

And thank you guys very much for listening. Craig, thank you for a fun podcast. I look forward to being back in Los Angeles so I can still not see you and still talk to you on Skype.

**Craig:** Very exciting.

**John:** But I’ll be closer.

**Craig:** You’ll be that much closer.

**John:** We’ll be in the same time zone at least.

**Craig:** That will make it easier. Welcome home. Congrats on a successful Chicago run. And I’ll see you next time.

**John:** Great. Thanks.

**Craig:** Bye.

**John:** Bye.

LINKS:

* Zach Braff’s [Wish I Was Here](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1869987317/wish-i-was-here-1) on Kickstarter
* ValleyWag’s [Braff-Kickstarter vitriol](http://valleywag.gawker.com/rich-person-zach-braff-wants-the-internet-to-pay-for-hi-479541247)
* Braff on [why Kickstarter is right for this project](http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/zach-braff-on-why-kickstarter-is-the-next-best-thing-to-actu), and Psychology Today on [why independent filmmakers should celebrate his presence](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-luck/201304/why-is-zach-braffs-kickstarter-campaign-causing-envy)
* Scriptnotes 49: [Losing sleep over critics](http://johnaugust.com/2012/losing-sleep-over-critic)
* Scriptnotes 77: [We’d Like to Make an Offer](http://johnaugust.com/2013/wed-like-to-make-an-offer), in which Craig discusses Identity Thief reviews
* Done Deal Pro users [try to calculate the odds of “making it”](http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=72040)
* [Stag’s Leap](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0375712259/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Sharon Olds on Amazon
* [ITER](http://www.iter.org/): The way to new energy
* OUTRO: [Last Day of Our Acquaintance](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG290pRgOQI) cover by AAAdriennne

« 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.