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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: hero main character protagonist

Scriptnotes, Episode 514: Looking Back and Forward, Transcript

September 7, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 514 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Often on the show we talk about what’s happening in the WGA West, but today we’ll be taking a look at our sister union in the East and the debate over who the WGA should represent. Then we’ll be answering listener questions about reading lists, blue skies, bad agents, and bored executives.

**Craig:** Huh?

**John:** And in our bonus segment for premium members we will discuss how life has gotten better in the past few decades.

**Craig:** Doesn’t seem like it has, but it has.

**John:** But it actually has.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** And Craig this is our kind of unofficial but also official 10th Anniversary show. Ten years ago–

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** Was the first episode of Scriptnotes. So we’ll be doing later talking about sort of what actually happened over those ten years, but I do want to celebrate this milestone of ten years of doing this show.

**Craig:** That’s terrifying.

**John:** It is. It’s genuinely terrifying.

**Craig:** Yeah. We are aging and what we’re doing is leaving behind ourselves this enormous digital wake of yapping. But I do think for guys who have been doing it for ten years we still have stuff to say.

**John:** We still have stuff to say. I mean, as I said on our Episode 100 I had confessed that I didn’t know that we would make it past 100 because I’d felt we would run out of things. Nope, stuff just keeps coming.

**Craig:** Oh you thought we wouldn’t make it past 100 episodes?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh man. What’s today’s episode?

**John:** 514.

**Craig:** Oh man, we made it. So the question is are we going to make it to a 1,000?

**John:** I don’t know. We could.

**Craig:** Has any podcast made it to a thousand?

**John:** Well I don’t think podcasts have really kind of been along that long. Although there’s podcasts who do it twice or three times a week, so obviously they would have made it to a thousand.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yeah. But for a weekly show that’s good.

**Craig:** I think it’s amazing.

**John:** You were saying before we started recording that Bo who works with you started listening to this when she was in college. So, just crazy.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Or high school maybe even. Who knows?

**Craig:** Possibly high school. Well, no, she said she started listening to it when we was 20. So she was in college. But we started recording the show I think when she was in high school. So if we do this again, we keep going, and we make it to a thousand there will be people working for us who were not even born.

**John:** Born, yes.

**Craig:** When we started the show.

**John:** Uh-huh.

**Craig:** Well that’s going to be great.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They’re not going to resent us and our stupid old selves. Not at all.

**John:** So let’s start this episode by looking back at looking forward. So this is a question from Martin in Sandringham, Australia who writes, “Hey John and Craig. In Episode 167 back in 2014 you discussed superhero movies on the slate for the following seven years and I was wondering if you could now revisit this and see how it all unfolded in reality.” And Martin also notes “I did shudder when John posed the question about what the world would be like in 2020. Craig thought that we would all have phones implanted in our ears.”

**Craig:** Well…

**John:** Well…

**Craig:** Earbuds. Not far off.

**John:** We have our earbuds.

**Craig:** Not far off.

**John:** Not far off at all. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the transcript from that episode. And also the archived version of the article we were talking about, because this was an article on Newsarama that was sort of laying out the next seven years of superhero movies.

But I thought we’d take a look through and sort of what’s supposed to be there and what actually was there and Megana took a look at really tried to chart what movies actually came out on the days that they were supposed to come out and a surprising number did. So let’s take a look back, start back in 2015.

So 2015 was predicted for The Avengers, Age of Ultron, Fantastic Four from Fox, and Ant Man. Those all came out on the days they were supposed to which is good because that was the year the article came out. So within one year is pretty easy to predict what movies are going to come out within a year.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, did we doubt that they were coming out?

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Oh, good, well OK.

**John:** I don’t think we doubted it. But I think we were at the time surprised that any studio could have the hubris to suggest like oh this is the next seven years of movies we’re going to make.

**Craig:** I do remember this now. This is coming back to me from six years ago or whatever it was, seven years ago.

**John:** So 2016 the predictions were for Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. That did happen.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** They said Captain America 3 which became Captain America Civil War. X-Men Apocalypse. I don’t really remember.

**Craig:** It did happen.

**John:** It did happen?

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Doctor Strange was the untitled Marvel film. The untitled DC film was Suicide Squad and both of those came out on the date they said they were predicted to. But, the first movie that never happened, November 11 was supposed to be Sinister Six from Sony.

**Craig:** What the?

**John:** Sinister Six is a bunch of the Spider-Man villains.

**Craig:** Oh, so Suicide Squad.

**John:** Yeah, kind of. But different and better. And if I remember correctly I think Drew Goddard was supposed to be doing that. So, I feel bad that didn’t happen.

**Craig:** All right.

**Megana Rao:** Sorry. Doctor Strange was supposed to come out on July 8 but ended up being pushed to November of that year.

**John:** So Megana with a correction here.

**Craig:** Ah, OK. Yeah, but I’ll give them that four month leeway there. That’s OK.

**John:** Yeah, some sliding.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So we get to 2017. Fox had slated an untitled Wolverine sequel. That came out on the day that they predicted. So, March 3 that came out.

**Craig:** Logan, yeah.

**John:** That’s Logan. An untitled Marvel film came out which was Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2, originally scheduled for May but it came out in July.

**Craig:** It looks like it was originally scheduled for July and came out in May. That’s weird.

**John:** Oh is that right?

**Craig:** Yeah, it looks like they made it go faster. By the way I’ve got to tip my hat to the studios. The plan is working. This is terrifying.

**John:** Yeah. You’re going to notice that the Marvel films tend to be running much more on schedule than the other studios. Not a shock there.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Sony had Venom: Carnage, a Spider-Man spinoff. So it wasn’t called Carnage. The new movie is called Carnage.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But Venom came out and it they didn’t have a date for it but they said 2017. It actually came out in 2018. But it did happen.

**Craig:** Close.

**John:** But they were also supposed to have a female Spider-Man spinoff.

**Craig:** That did not happen.

**John:** No. There’s an untitled DC film set for November 17. That was Justice League. And then came out when it was supposed to. There were two untitled Marvel films on the release schedule for 2017. Those became Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok, although Black Panther actually got pushed to 2018. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 came out. Spider-Man: Homecoming out. And the untitled DC film became Wonder Woman which was a big hit.

**Craig:** So basically they’re getting everything right. I guess the question is what did they get wrong and there hasn’t been so much. There’s Sinister Six. And that’s kind of it. Oh, and then there was a female Spider-Man spinoff that didn’t happen. And then they kind of got everything else sort of right. Well, OK, once we start getting into 2018, and this is not surprising, it gets a little cloudier, right? Because they wanted a Flash movie. That didn’t seem to happen.

**John:** No. Captain Marvel came out later than was expected.

**Craig:** But you know I give them credit for that.

**John:** Yeah. Nothing bad about that. Moving into 2019 there’s an untitled DC film. That was probably Shazam. That came out in 2019.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We got some Avengers: End Game. There’s an untitled DC film which you could say was the Suicide Squad sequel. That came out this past year. There wasn’t really another movie in between there that could have fit that bill. We got some Birds of Prey. We got some Wonder Woman 1984. Fox had slated for 2020 a Fantastic Four 2.

**Craig:** That didn’t sound like it happened.

**John:** No. The thing is you don’t get the 2s if the first one doesn’t work. That’s the problem.

**Craig:** Impressive though. Overall you know what studios? I’m sorry for doubting you. I’m sorry for doubting your commitment to making 4,000 superhero movies.

**John:** Yeah. They said they were going to do it and you know what they did it. Some things didn’t come out on time. Some things were big hits. Some things were not big hits. But they can do it. So I guess it’s the planners in those departments, the big whiteboards, it’s nice when it actually works out for them.

**Craig:** If I say “I’m starting to doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion” do you know what I’m quoting?

**John:** I do. That is from Donnie Darko?

**Craig:** It is.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion. Richard Kelly.

**John:** Yup. A frequent Scriptnotes guest.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Great. Last week, or two weeks ago actually. Last time Craig was on the show we talked about conspiracy theories. And we answered a listener question about whether the writing conspiracy theories in movies and TV shows in 2021 is moral and ethical given sort of the craziness that’s out there. And we had people reach out on Twitter saying, yeah, that’s a great conversation. I think that you brought some really good points. Then we had people email in to say, no, those were not good points and you’re wrong.

**Craig:** Let’s see how they did.

**John:** So Megana you got a lot to read this week.

**Craig:** Let’s play the Make Craig Angry game.

**John:** Yeah. So I wanted to include some of them because not only did they raise counterpoints, but in many cases they are great examples of logical fallacies.

**Craig:** I had a feeling.

**John:** And so Megana if you could start us off. I know you got a lot of reading this week, so pace yourself. But why don’t you start with Matt in LA.

**Megana:** Matt in LA writes, “I think you’re giving Hollywood far too much credit. Conspiracy theories have existed for thousands of years throughout the world. The most obvious example historically is probably the centuries of villainizing Jewish people for pretty much anything. I’m not saying to write conspiracy movies or not write them. I’m not saying Hollywood hasn’t played some part. I’m just saying conspiracy theories have always been around and this isn’t the first time in history they’ve gotten ugly.”

**Craig:** That’s the worst. Ugh. Count the mistakes.

**John:** But Craig there are worse examples of fallacies here. So, I would call this as sort of what-about-ism. It’s sort of like it’s kind of changing the topic or redefining. Because I think we’re not talking about the same things. There’s scapegoating which is what you’re sort of doing to Jewish people and atrocities. Or that there’s evil forces out there. But that’s not the same thing as the government is both incredibly competent at keeping secrets but also we know they’re incompetent. That there’s a giant governmental plan to suppress or do something dastardly that’s being kept from you. That’s the kind of conspiracy theory we’re talking about which is different than sort of this idea that Jewish people are the root of all problems.

**Craig:** Even if these were equivalent comments it still wouldn’t make any sense because just because something is true doesn’t mean it is the only thing that is true. The fact that conspiracy theories have existed for thousands of years has absolutely nothing to do with the pernicious practice of spreading or fomenting additional conspiracy theories.

OK, so COVID-19 is out there. Therefore one should not blame some new lab for spilling some I don’t know chemical into the air. One has nothing to do with the other. Yes, there have been conspiracy theories and also we shouldn’t make it worse. How do you possibly argue with that statement? Well, Matt in LA has figured it out. I disagree with you Matt completely. 100 billion percent.

**John:** So I think where the scapegoating and conspiracy theories overlap is that they can be pernicious lies and they’re sort of memes that spread by themselves. But I think a conspiracy theory is different in that it has this unprovable, untestable claim and that if you try to push back against it they’ll say, oh, that’s what they want you to believe. Basically there’s no way to sort of package it up and defeat it because it’s always going to say like, oh, that’s exactly what they would want you to believe.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, just because we’re saying that Hollywood makes it worse doesn’t mean we’re saying Hollywood invented it. We’re just saying that we have a responsibility to not promote conspiratorial thinking. If everybody stopped promoting conspiratorial thinking there would be fewer conspiracy theorists in the world. They would never be eliminated, but there would be fewer. This is unobjectionable.

**John:** I think we’re also talking about how in so many of our movies the protagonist’s role is that conspiracy person, the one who is standing up against a hidden system of injustice that I only believe the truth and only I can expose it. And I think we are valorizing that person at our detriment sometimes because people want to identify with that person. Oh, I want to be obviously the hero in my own story, so therefore I should not believe what’s out there.

**Craig:** I mean, Matt knows this.

**John:** I think Matt knows this, too.

**Craig:** I think Matt’s just griping. Let’s see. I’m sure the other ones are going to be better. [laughs]

**John:** Help us out with Nate if you could, Megana.

**Megana:** OK. So Nate says, “I’m firmly pro-science and pro-logic. Yet, I’m concerned this sort of thinking is a big step on the path toward banning books or even burning them. We should never stifle works on art based on what the lowest common denominator might take from them. Not only would we miss out on the fun of fictional movies like The Manchurian Candidate or Conspiracy Theory, but more tragically we could no longer dramatize important true stories, like All the President’s Men, The Insider, Erin Brockovich, Spotlight, or The Post.

“I realize you weren’t suggesting our government might make it illegal to write conspiracy-related films.”

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** “But even self-censorship can be a dangerous proposition. So let’s just keep telling compelling stories that inform and/or entertain and remind ourselves that stupid is as stupid does and there’s nothing we can do about that.”

**John:** So many things wrapped up in this one.

**Craig:** Oh, Nate.

**John:** So, Nate, you are both slippery-sloping and straw-manning which is a hard thing. But basically you built a strawman and then you put it on a slippery slope down to–

**Craig:** You know what he’s doing? He’s Slippery-Manning.

**John:** He is slippery-manning.

**Craig:** And you know who likes that?

**John:** Oh no!

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** No. No.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** 10 years.

**Craig:** Nah. Go on. Talk about slippery-manning. Sexy Craig loves slippery-manning.

**John:** All right. So and again at the end Nate is trying to pull it out like let’s all agree that this is a reasonable thing. And that’s its own kind of thing, like trying to find a middle ground. Middle-grounding there at the end.

It’s really frustrating. Again, the strawman here is that you are saying that we said something we did not say which is that we should categorically not make these kinds of movies. We’re saying that we should actually think about the kinds of movies we make and the things we depict onscreen, which is a thing we do. It’s a thing we’ve decided we’re going to do as a culture, as filmmakers, as TV makers.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We’re going to decide what to portray and it’s changed over the decades. It just has. You look at shows from 20, 30 years ago, they were depicting the world differently. That’s progress.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know what? John, why are you self-censoring? I mean, it’s not illegal to make a movie where people are in blackface. So why are you self-censoring? It’s really dangerous. [laughs] This is so stupid, Nate. I don’t even know how to wrap my mind around it. Also, I don’t believe you believe this. You say you’re pro-logic. I challenge that. Because come on, man. Self-censorship is part and parcel with artistic creation. We are constantly making choices and then we’re constantly self-editing. Editing. Restraining. Refining. Holding back. Pushing forward. These are choices we make. What is your suggestion? That we just never consider the world around us when we tell stories?

That’s just ridiculous. And you are absolutely engaging in the most bizarre slippery-sloping. Do you really think that this is a “big step on the path toward banning or burning books?” Nate, Nate, come on, man. Cut it out. This is fun. Who is next? I’m enjoying this.

**Megana:** So Elijah says, “Yes, some people doing their own research will be led to the wrong conclusions, but others like myself know how to do research properly and wouldn’t have trusted the COVID-19 if I wasn’t able to verify from multiple doctors and healthcare professionals that it is safe.”

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** All right. So I wanted to save that last little argument because Elijah had written other stuff, too, which is similar to other people. But that last part is a fallacy of illusory superiority. It’s that belief that when people overestimate their own qualities and abilities saying everyone who thinks that they’re better than average. And basically well I’m a person who can do my own research and therefore I can do this. Well, then you’re sort of be default saying other people aren’t smart enough to do their own research. It’s a weird trap to fall into.

**Craig:** Yeah. Also you don’t have to do research. If you are concerned about what multiple doctors and healthcare professionals think just go to the AMA website, or the CDC. There’s really no need to do research. The inability of Americans to do research is astonishing to me. They like to say the word research, but what they really mean is Googling crap from nonsense sites and talking to each other on Facebook. That’s not research at all.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Or misreading studies, which is almost a national pastime at this point.

**John:** It definitely is. I think if you’re going to look at what doctors recommend you might look at what doctors themselves are doing for themselves. And if you see 98% of doctors are vaccinating themselves.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That might be a sign that that’s a thing you want to do. I think inevitably everything leads to COVID these days, but I wanted to include that here just because of conspiracy theories and people writing in about this.

**Craig:** I suspect, I could be wildly wrong, but I suspect that the reason that Matt, Nate, and Elijah have written these comments is because they engage in conspiratorial thinking and they feel called out. And so they are defending. They feel defensive. This feels like defensive stuff. It doesn’t feel like a calm, rational, observation, or concern whatsoever. I think that they engage in conspiratorial thinking and they don’t like the fact that we don’t like it. And you failed to change our minds.

**John:** Yeah. I think I’m trying to be aware of situations where I am thinking conspiratorially, which is not about national government stuff, but there are definitely situations in which I can find myself guilty of conspiratorial thinking and I will try to take a step back from that. But I don’t believe that the overall system of the universe is rigged against me that I have to research everything to death to figure it out.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Dave from New Hampshire I think actually had an email here that could point us to a way out.

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** So Megana if you could share Dave’s email here.

**Megana:** “If movies and television can exacerbate this conspiracy theory problem, could they also help fight it? I’m working on my first screenplay now. It’s a dark comedy set during the satanic panic of the 1980s and one of the major themes is about how dangerous and harmful conspiracy theories can be. Do you have any thoughts on how my or any other movie could be effective in slowing the spread of conspiracy theories?”

**John:** Yeah, Dave. So first off I think that’s a great thing to look at, because I remember that time. And D&D was of course wildly implicated in it and it was nuts. So here’s my suggestion is rather than have the outside character sort of pointing to this conspiracy theory is crazy and wrong, if you can find a person who believes the conspiracy theory and is able to get their way out of thinking that the conspiracy theory is true. That’s actually genuinely helpful. Because we have very few examples of people finding their way out of these labyrinthian traps of conspiratorial thinking. And if you can show that and show that progress that is terrific.

**Craig:** I agree. What you’re doing is certainly one way of doing it as well which is to look at the aftermath because one of the hallmarks of conspiratorial thinkers is that they leap frog from one conspiracy to another. Their stock and trade is mobile goal posts.

So, if one of their hard thought and hard one beliefs is just absolutely finally proven to be utter nonsense they move onto a new one. It’s what they do. And it’s important to follow up and to show everybody that they thought this, they promoted it, and they were wrong, and here’s the proof. That’s important. That matters.

The satanic panic of the 1980s was real, it was insane. By the way, the nonsense about whatever it was, the missing children. Remember how obsessed everyone was with missing children when we were kids?

**John:** Definitely. Child abductions. Stranger dangers.

**Craig:** Child abductions. Stranger danger. The threat to children was vastly overrated. What was underrated was how many kids were being hurt inside their own homes. So, Megana, you’re going to find this hard to believe but when John and I were children, first of all they would make us drink milk in school. So let’s just start with how stupid that is. And John I don’t know if your school district did this, but in our school district in New York City they put pictures of kids on milk. Like on the side of the milk carton. Missing. I mean?

**John:** Yeah. I knew what that was.

**Craig:** It was crazy.

**John:** For whatever reason our Boulder dairies did not care about missing children.

**Craig:** I see.

**John:** And so it would never print those photographs. They were involved obviously in the child abductions.

**Craig:** I don’t know why they thought milk – like why was milk the thing? People who like milk tend to also be great detectives? I don’t know. Anyway, the point being it needed to be debunked. And we must constantly debunk because it is the only thing I think that will stop people who are salvageable from continuing on that path. So I think you’re doing it. And I think John’s suggestion is terrific. Documentaries are a great idea.

And if you are doing a story where there is a conspiracy make sure to underscore how mundane it is, because most conspiracies are brutally mundane. They are not conspiracies of malicious people seeking to puppet master the world. They’re usually conspiracy theories of mediocrities covering up their own mess.

**John:** Yup. And a couple people, we trimmed these out of the emails, but they were saying like, oh, but Craig is being hypocritical because in Chernobyl he was talking about government cover up. But that is covering up a mistake. That is not from the start saying we’re going to do this thing and then we’re going to hide it.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** No, they were actually just trying to cover their ass.

**Craig:** There was no conspiracy at Chernobyl. There was a cover up but there was no conspiracy. They didn’t do this so that it would blow up. They just built a bad reactor because it was cheap. And then they kind of crossed their fingers and hoped that it would work. And then it blew up and then they tried to hide it. That’s not a conspiracy.

But that sad that people don’t understand the difference. In fact, I was pretty proud of how clearly we explained the mundanity, the kind of almost pathetic nature of the cause and aftermath of Chernobyl.

**John:** Yeah. All right, let’s move onto our next topic. So usually on the show we’re talking about the WGA West which is the organization that represents all the screenwriters and television writers west of the Mississippi, although you really could be nationwide. But most of when we talk about people running for office and the drama we’re really talking about the West, even though the East and West work together a lot.

But over the past month there’s new stuff coming out from the East that I think is worth talking about on the show. We’ve had East members on the podcast before. And many people involved are friends and colleagues. And so I really am sort of curious to talk through this because I think it’s an interesting issue that I think I can actually probably argue both sides pretty well about. And so far to everyone’s credit everyone is being really polite and civil and they’re really explaining themselves clearly and articulately. But no one is being finger-pointy and negative which is awesome and I love to see that.

So here’s what happening sort of overall. The WGA East represents film and TV writers like me and Craig, but they also represent folks who work for digital news outlets and things like Salon, or Slate, or Huff Post. And these digital places now account for almost 50% of the guild’s total membership. That can be a challenge because sometimes the things that the writers who are working for those organizations need are different than the ones who are working for the traditional studios, so folks who are writing for TV shows, movies, or for variety-comedy shows. And that’s the changing nature of the demographics there that is really the crux of this and it’s all coming to a head because there’s an election happening in the East and there’s a slate running for what’s called Inclusion and Experience which is basically how the guild has traditionally worked and a group called the Solidarity slate which is about continuing to organize these digital places.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well I will certainly give the Solidarity slate credit for a name that accurately represents what they stand for. The Inclusion and Experience ticket that’s kind of amusing because they really are quite overtly talking about exclusion, so that’s nifty.

So this is an interesting situation and we in the West contemplated many years ago when we were in the middle of our reality television organizing campaign. And there was a faction, a significant faction in the guild, that felt strongly that we should be organizing editors, reality television editors, into the WGA because the companies were essentially skirting around the idea of what a writer was by calling them editors. And they were editing, but they were also creating narrative.

And one of the arguments against this that was made by myself was that we would face an economic tremor. I wouldn’t call it an earthquake but there would be a tremor because – and this is where the law of unintended consequences rears up and gets you. For most people in these unions, I’m not talking about – some people are truly dedicated to certain aspects of what our unions do. Most members in our union and in the East I believe are primarily concerned about the preservation of residuals and the preservation of strong minimums and above all else a preservation of a strong and accessible healthcare plan.

The healthcare plan is entirely predicated on how much we earn. The companies put in a percentage of what we earn up to a certain number. We know that the amount of money you have to earn to qualify for healthcare is much lower than the amount of money that you have to earn to actually pay for your own healthcare. So, of course, the people who are earning more are subsidizing the people who earn less. And that’s a good part of a union. That’s how it should work.

However, that system only holds true if you have a certain kind of distribution of income. When you increase organization into an entire industry that across the board earns much less than the average income for the – well let’s call it traditional guild member – then you are absolutely going to negatively impact what your healthcare plan can do.

So, it’s an economic issue. I don’t think this is a moral issue per se. I think it’s just a straight up economic issue. The WGA East shouldn’t exist. Let me just go off into that. There’s a real easy way to solve this problem. We ought to have a national union with locals and our locals should serve the things that we do well. There should be locals that create their own contracts for news and for digital publishing and for television writing and for screenwriting. I would separate those two as well. And then you kind of work from there.

We should be organizing people. We should be bringing people into the union. But we are not designed – our current structure is not designed well for it. We have to revisit how we function as a union if this is what we want. Because if we think it’s as simple as just let them in, well, there’s going to be pushback and then there’s going to be as you can see – they’re not chicken little-ling here. It’s absolutely real. That economic tremor will grow and grow and grow.

**John:** So let’s talk about what unions do, because almost I’d say 95% of the discussion we’ve had on the show has been about, in terms of the WGA, has been about the contract with the studios, so the AMPTP, which is every three years we renegotiate and that is the basis of our minimums, our residuals, our healthcare plan, our family medical leave, all that stuff is an every three years negotiation with them. Or it’s been about the agency campaign which really just represents film and TV writers, traditional film and TV writers. The folks who are working under the auspices of the WGA who are not part of that contract would include news writers. In the WGA West we have some I think CBS people. There’s little bits and pockets. And the East often had broadcast news folks there, too, but now they have all of these digital houses.

Those are not working under the same contract. So the WGA is negotiating separate contracts with the individual employers here. Unions can absolutely work that way. That’s a great way for them to work. But it’s strange because most of the membership is working under one contract and then have these little pockets of things is different. And it becomes a question of focus. And when we see people who are working in IATSE or these giant unions that have all these disparate little pieces the needs of an editor in IATSE or god help them an animation in IATSE is not being as well served as they could be by a really dedicated, devoted union that was focusing on their specific needs.

**Craig:** Yeah. Now I think it would be fair for some people to question as many people have many, many times why do we need a WGA East and a WGA West? In particular for television and screenwriters why isn’t there some sort of folding in of those things? And there probably should be. Well, there definitely should be. It’s just sort of pointless. I don’t know if that would solve this particular problem.

A union is a good thing. And people working union jobs is a good thing. Not as you point out every union is good for every job simply because people work for the same corporation doesn’t mean that the same union should represent them. Maybe it used to function that way but given the way these corporations are structured now they are massive, they’re multinational. They have 400 divisions. They make sewing machines and they make movies.

So simple common employment isn’t the definition of common union membership. If the WGA East continues to organize digital writers as they are doing then, yes, it will become a digital writers union. Because it’s a very small union. There aren’t a lot of screenwriters and television writers who are in the WGA East. Much smaller union than the WGA West. And, yeah, absolutely. They will take over because it’s a democracy. That’s how democracy works.

It is a little squirmy to me to hear otherwise progressive individuals talking about keeping people from coming in because they don’t want changing demographics to cause an existential threat. That sure sounds like some nasty rhetoric to me. What you have to do is figure out how to restructure your organization to work for everybody fairly. I don’t think you can just shut the door.

**John:** I hear you there. And we’re going to include links in the show notes to various candidate statements that are talking through the various options and where they see the problems coming out there. So to try to explain what that argument would be is that because WGA East members can choose to join WGA West, film and TV writers could just choose to join the West, there’s a concern raised that a bunch of these writers might just say, “You know what? This is not the organization I signed up for. I’m just going to join the WGA West.” And East might just kind of collapse because most of the money is coming from film and TV writers.

That’s the existential threat to it.

**Craig:** It’s real. That’s real. If they don’t restructure that is correct. They would need to restructure in order to continue the path that they’re on.

**John:** And I think one thing that’s important to point out is that no one I’ve seen has ever suggested that the writers for these digital news places do not deserve a union. I think it’s the argument of sort of like what is a union that best would represent their needs and whether a different union would better serve them or spin them off into their own thing.

I’ll also include a link in the show notes to Adam Conover has a Twitter thread which I thought was a good explanation of the counterpoint to that which was that the kinds of places that are actually represented by the East or digital news places, they really are doing video. They’re doing stuff that kind of feels like TV but it’s not Netflix or it’s not Amazon. But it’s actually really kind of similar to that. And it’s the kind of stuff we keep talking about we need to make sure we are covering that because that’s going to be the next television.

**Craig:** Yeah, so I’m just reading it now. I think actually this is a pretty good version of the argument that I disagree with which is that common employment equals common union applicability. I just think it doesn’t necessarily work the same way like that. There is a reality you have to deal with. You can absolutely be a purist and you can just say we have to organize everybody. But my issue is the word “we.” We have to change what “we” is. Everyone ought to be organized. Everyone ought to be unionized in the face of corporate employment. I think it’s really important.

But the WGA East as it is currently constituted is a really poor delivery system for that. I do believe that. It is a very small union. It is kind of a boutique union that has continued to exist despite a thousand reasons for it not existing. Because a small but powerful group of very well paid writers in television and screen want it to, because they have I mean traditionally felt that they were a bit of a militant stake against a somewhat complacent and more company-friendly West, which would be surprising to hear – I think a lot of people would be surprised to hear.

**John:** So different now. I would also say that traditionally late night shows were made in the east coast and the writers who were working for those late night shows had a very specific set of needs and circumstances which was important. Now more late night variety comedy stuff is happening on both coasts so it’s not so exclusive to one guild or the other.

**Craig:** And the coast is no longer relevant either.

**John:** Where are these writers living? Most people moved home with their parents during the pandemic.

**Craig:** We all live on Zoom now. So the system has to be figured out there. Yes, if it continues in this way then the WGA will transform into a guild for digital writers. I guess that’s what we’re calling them, digital writers. And then I think a number of screen and television writers will go to the West. And transferring your membership from East to West is as simple as sending a letter to the executive director of the WGA East saying I want to transfer. And then they have to honor it by their constitution.

**John:** So, the last point I do want to bring up because I think it’s worth always remembering is that once upon a time there were animation who could have joined the WGA West and we always regret that animation was not covered by the West when it could have been. And instead those writers are kind of screwed and they’re in an Animation Guild which is not a powerful union and that’s not just money that’s being lost but it’s protections that writers who are working in animation really writing the same scripts as we’re writing for live action are not getting the protections that they deserve.

And so I want to make sure that – I want us to always be mindful of the fact that the stuff that we’re writing right now saying oh it’s not really what we’re doing, well for all we know in ten years it could be really the same thing as what we’re doing. And so to make sure that we’re not overlooking a very important group of writers who we are going to wish were in the WGA West because somehow they’re going to be in another union which is sort of a competitive union which is not going to have the same clout or power.

It becomes – I’m just always mindful that we need to be thinking not just about what are our needs in 2021, but 2041.

**Craig:** Yeah. I always like to point out that while we absolutely have a better situation for WGA writers than what is offered to writers in the Animation Guild, which is part of IATSE, that the people who run the Animation Guild are doing their best.

**John:** 100%. I don’t want to slag on them.

**Craig:** They got kind of a raw deal, too. But you’re right. Where I think it’s a little bit different is that animation writing, writing animated television or writing animated films is still what it is. We were snobby about it a long time ago and we shouldn’t have been. Writing for Gawker is not the same thing as what you or I do. It’s just a different business. It’s a different business. It’s a different occupation. It’s a different vocation. And it’s not going to be the same thing.

**John:** But writing for The Onion or writing for The Onion’s video things, you look at The Onion’s video production and that could 100% be the same kind of material that would be on a late night variety show.

**Craig:** Exactly. And so what’s happened is there hasn’t really been a discrimination. It’s just been sort of – we’ve been defining it as do you write stuff? Then come on into the union. If the Writers Guild, and I mean to say West and East, could just finally combine and then create divisions within, subdivisions, that addressed the specific contract needs and economic realities of the writers in those divisions then this could absolutely work. If we don’t it can’t. It just can’t. Because 40 or 50 years from now people writing for Gawker will still not be doing the things that you or I do. It’s just a different thing. It’s not worse or better, but it is different.

We have that problem with news. And like you said in the West we don’t have many news members. And they are terribly underrepresented by us. They shouldn’t be part of our union. I think they get a terrible raw deal being a part of our union because we just ignore, because there’s very few of them. And in the East they’ve always had a lot more and there’s been a lot of conflict out there between news writers and television and screenwriters. So, we have to think much, much bigger.

Will the WGA West and the WGA East consider merging and restructuring and thinking bigger to do a better job of organizing and unionizing as many writers as it can? My prediction is no. So I’m very curious to see what happens in the East. This is an interesting watershed moment.

**John:** Agreed. All right. Let’s get onto our other listener questions. We have a bunch and we’ll see how many we can get through. Megana, do you want to start us off with Ghosted?

**Megana:** Great. So Ghosted writes, “Earlier this year two WGA writers approached me about writing a script from a treatment they wished to produce. They were offering $10,000 on behalf of a third producer. After some video calls I wrote a treatment and received the contract and commencement fee of $2,500. The contract makes clear that the project is a guaranteed first draft, rewrite, and polish. Although it doesn’t mention my treatment.

“I delivered a very good first draft on time and I received extensive notes, but no payment. After I asked what was going on the producer said that this draft didn’t count as a first draft and that I would be required to do additional rewrites until they were ready to call it a first draft. They promised it would only be one rewrite, but their notes indicated huge changes to structure, tone, et cetera, much of which conflicted with what we had discussed before I began writing. It would end up being a page one rewrite and they hinted this could become as many as eight rewrites.

“At first I considered doing the unpaid rewrite as a courtesy, because I’m an idiot and was dazzled by the opportunity, but the communication with the writer-producers became increasingly hostile and toxic to the point where I just wanted to leave the project. I emailed the main producer with whom I have the contract saying I would do the additional rewrites if I could just deal directly with him. After not hearing back I let them know I expected payment for the first draft and won’t be doing any free rewrites. It’s been about three months and I still haven’t heard back.

“Obviously based on the fee I’m not in the WGA and to make writers worse I’m not in the US. The contract says that disputes must be handled via arbitration but the fee to initiate arbitration would eat almost all of what I’m owed. I don’t really have that money to gamble so what should I do next?”

**Craig:** Oh dear god.

**John:** Oh dear god. Craig, so I’ve actually emailed back and forth with Ghosted a few times, but I’m really curious what your first thoughts are here.

**Craig:** Well, this is deeply regrettable. WGA members simply should not be doing this. It doesn’t matter if you can do it legally. In this case Ghosted works overseas so they can work in a way that is not covered by the WGA, but it’s just immoral. You are in our guild. You’re part of our union. You’re supposed to be part of the promotion and protection of the status of professional screenwriters. You offered $10,000 for a script which is atrocious.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And you also I don’t know if the two writers asked for a new treatment or not, the contract and commencement fee $2,500. You know, that’s embarrassing. Like they should feel embarrassed for offering that kind of money to another person. Do it yourself or offer a real fee. Don’t exploit people. That’s just exploitation as far as I’m concerned. And it’s wrong. And I hope that they set it right. Maybe they will hear this and they can set it right.

At the very least pay the $10,000.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That is owed. Or I guess in this case the $7,500. And I don’t care if the script is the worst thing you ever read. You hired that person, you’re accountable. That’s the way it works.

**John:** Hiring somebody is a gamble. And you gambled on this writer. And this writer delivered on time. And you may not be happy with it, but that’s not their problem. This is the situation that you’re in and you’ve messed it up by not getting back to this person, by being rude and dismissive. Pay this writer. It didn’t work out and you need to move on. That’s frustrating.

**Craig:** We’re hearing one side of the story.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So in my mind I’m altering it. I’m imagining a version of the story where Ghosted is just nuts and the worst writer ever, which is not true I’m sure. But let’s just say that Ghosted was nuts and wrote a really bad script. It doesn’t matter. You made an agreement which you shouldn’t have made in the first place because it was too low. And by the way you get what you pay for. They offered this money. They’re not giving it. And when they got the script they did the thing that we have been fighting against other people doing for decades which is saying, “Oh, it’s not really a draft because I need you to write eight drafts, or four drafts, or even just two drafts for the price of one.” Not even the price of one draft. The price of one-seventh of a draft.

That’s outrageous. You can’t do that. And it’ll get around. And it’s not going to work for you, either. I just don’t understand what the theory was here.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, karma will come back to you because the way you’re mistreating this writer others will mistreat you. And it’s bad and shameful. So, specific advice for Ghosted. Ghosted asked should I register the script so I can at least prove that I wrote this in case it ever becomes a thing. Yeah. I mean, you have your email your back and forth to show that you wrote this thing. It exists in a chain of title. If you really feel like registering it for copyright in your country or the US, you can. If you feel like registering with the WGA, that doesn’t actually do anything other than prove that you wrote it at a certain time, which your email already does. I don’t think that matters.

I don’t think it’s really worth necessarily starting the arbitration. If there’s basically a no cost way to indicate that you are starting it, or just basically do the very first little checkmark of I’m doing this thing I suspect they will just pay you out to make you go away, and that’s not the worst thing.

I feel for Ghosted because Ghosted is afraid of naming these writers because he doesn’t want to blow up his career. But also these people don’t deserve – they don’t deserve whatever success they’ve had so far. They don’t deserve to be hiring other writers.

**Craig:** Well, yeah. I mean, look if they can only afford to pay $10,000 for a script from a treatment then they are not in a position to blow your career up. They’re just not important enough. If they can’t afford to pay you real money they’re not important enough.

**John:** Yeah. And it seems like it’s not even their money, it’s the producer’s money. So really your argument is kind of even more about this producer. This producer needs to pay you the money.

**Craig:** Yeah. Whoever agreed to pay you the money needs to pay you the money. And they need to stop engaging in this kind of arrangement. I consider it to be unethical. Deeply unethical. And exploitative. And not becoming who we are as professional writers. And if they don’t feel like writing something themselves then they ought to stand up for the people that get hired. And I have been in situations where other writers have disappointed me. And that happens. That’s called life.

Just as you and I have disappointed other people. You pay them and you move on. You don’t do this. And I agree, John, practically speaking the situation here is such that I think the best Ghosted can hope for is perhaps that they settle out at $0.50 on the dollar or maybe they just pay Ghosted off to go away. But if there’s anything you’ve learned, Ghosted, it’s if you’re going to get paid $10,000 to write a script get paid as much as possible upfront. And if they refuse then they don’t even have $10,000 as far as I’m concerned. And now you’re dealing with knuckleheads.

**John:** I agree. Megana, what do you have for us?

**Megana:** So Audrey asks, “I recently had a meeting with a production company over Zoom. It was an informal chat about a project they’re looking for writers on. I’d be really excited to work on it and wanted to demonstrate my enthusiasm for the project, but I struggled because one of the women in the meeting just looked so bored. It wasn’t even that she looked like she was reading something else or checking emails. She was listening to me, but no matter what I said or did she looked totally unamused. Do you guys have tips for dealing with meetings like this? And how do I focus on the engaged listeners and not the bored ones?”

**John:** Oh, yeah, I’ve been there.

**Craig:** Me too.

**John:** So here’s what I’ll say. There always was the bored person in the room during a pitch, but in real life you just don’t look at that person. And on Zoom you can’t help but sort of see that person because their face is right there and you kind of can notice more like, ugh, that person is really bored and that sucks. As long as it’s not the main decision maker it’s not such a big thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And by the way be aware that you might be misreading. We think we’re better face readers than we are. Sometimes people look bored and it’s just that’s their face. And inside they’re thinking, OK, who are they also going to talk to about this and who should I get about. They also might have also had a really bad day and they’re doing their best not to cry. You never know what it is.

Sometimes they’re bored because they’re bored. My strong advice, Audrey, is don’t change nothing. You go in there to do a pitch, or a meeting, or a chat, do your pitch, do your meeting, do your chat. Don’t let their face make you change your course, because you just don’t know. Similarly don’t read too much into people that are incredibly engaged. Sometimes they’re just sociopaths.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. One of the things I think Craig is leaning towards here is really look for what the actual actions they’re taking. They might be saying nice things in the room, but if they’re actually sort of following up and really are engaged that is a sign that this went well and you should keep doing that thing. If the feedback you’re getting is like, oh, they didn’t think you were right, or there’s something that wasn’t right about that pitch, then you can actually iterate and see what it is that can work better. Because over the course of this pandemic I’ve had projects we’ve taken out and pitched to multiple buyers on Zoom and you do recognize like oh OK there are consistent patterns or there are ways that we can do this pitch better based on the feedback we’re getting.

So maybe that’ll be your situation. But in every one of those pitches there’s been somebody who has been kind of just a little bit checked out. That’s just Zoom. It’s fine.

**Craig:** It’s just Zoom.

**John:** Zoom. Megana, another question?

**Megana:** Jack writes, “I’m 20 years old and have been writing scripts since I was 14. I’ve also been reading scripts as I’ve heard you guys say that this is the best way to actually write a script. I was curious what books you guys were reading at my age. In an attempt to educate myself over the past two years I’ve torn through Syd Field, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, Adventures in the Screen Trade, Screenwriting is Rewriting. And now I’m writing Truffaut’s book on Hitchcock.

“Also Save the Cat has been shoved down my throat so many times over the past two years that I think I’m going to cough up a hair ball. Is there anything else I should be reading?”

**John:** Well, Jack, it’s great that you’re reading scripts. So let’s emphasize that. And really reading screenplays is the best education you can get. These other books sound great and useful to some degree. We all had to read Syd Field and maybe it’s good to read one other screenwriter book so you had a sense of like what people were talking about, but don’t read too many screenwriting books would be my advice.

I think production diaries and books about the making of a film are incredibly useful. The one that sort of inspired me was Steven Soderbergh’s book for Sex, Lies, and Videotape which is both the script and his production journal for going through it and how the movie changed as he was shooting it. It was just really helpful to think about this is what the intention was in the script and this is what the actual reality was shooting it and editing it. How you discover the movie as you’re making it. So there’s a ton of really good things. Like Do the Right Thing there’s a good production book for that, too.

Really learning about how those parts of the process work is super helpful even if you perceive yourself as “just a screenwriter,” because ultimately you are going to be responsible for making these movies and knowing how to make movies is important.

**Craig:** I agree with John. And I think that the books about the making of movies – I think the greatest amount of value there is probably how fascinating they are. They are engaging, they’re fascinating. And you do learn a lot of practical things about how movies are made. Will it help you write a screenplay? I don’t think so. The only thing that’s going to help you write a good script, Jack, is writing a good script. And before you write a good script you’re going to write a bad script. You write two more bad scripts. Then you write a mediocre script. You write four more mediocre scripts. Then you write a really good one, then you go back to bad, and this is how it goes.

But you don’t have to worry so much about the secret book that’s going to blow your mind. The one book that has probably meant more to me than any other is by Dennis Palumbo who we had on our show in Episode 99. I think it’s called Writing from the Inside Out.

**John:** Yeah. I have that book.

**Craig:** And it’s essays about the psychology of writing and that was helpful because it made me feel better. And these books aren’t going to make you a good writer, but that book will make you feel better. And writing stinks, so anything that makes me feel good I recommend that.

**John:** Always remember that writing is writing. And while screenwriting is its own unique weird art form, books that are about the writing process can be helpful for some writers. I really like Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. On Writing everyone loves from Steven King. There’s a new book out, Never Say You Can’t Survive by Charlie Jane Anders. And sometimes writers are really good about talking about their own process and the journey, the struggle, the getting through it.

And so remember that you are writer and that writing is hard, but other people have done this before you. I would say also look for kind of what are your weak spots. And if you don’t have great insight into character conflict and drama, well read books about how in real life people resolve conflict or how to deal with conflict. Look for books that fill in the parts of your education that you’re sort of missing out on because those will be helpful for you as you’re writing stuff.

So if you’re a person who is really good at writing action but you have a hard time with two characters in a scene having an argument, maybe really look at books on psychology or books about marriage dynamics and other things like that that can really dig into what the communication strategies are between two people. Because that may be a thing that helps you more than any book on three act structure.

**Craig:** Here. Here.

**John:** Cool. I think it is time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is the good news that the majority of Americans now believe in evolution.

**Craig:** How is this good news that it took this long? This is tragic.

**John:** I’ll take the good news where I can get it.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** This is coming out of the University of Michigan. So beginning in 1985 every two years they did a survey. They took these national samples of US adults and asked them to agree or disagree with this statement. “Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals.” And so from 2010 to 2019 that increased from 40% of people agreeing with that to 54%. So it got us over the 50% line.

**Craig:** That’s good.

**John:** That’s some progress. I’ll take that.

**Craig:** It is progress. I guess that’s part of what we’re going to be talking about in our bonus segment that even when things seem bleak or not ideal over time it seems like the trends generally are towards things being better, slowly but surely, in some areas slower than others. And maybe in some areas stagnant. But this is certainly a good sign. I see that in the study it says even among religious fundamentalists the percentage from 1988 to 2019 went from 8% to 32%. That’s a massive shift actually.

**John:** That is a massive shift. And I think that apparently also reflects that the number of people with college degrees has really skyrocketed. And so you sort of – it’s hard to get through a college education without having some understanding of some science or how things kind of work in the natural world. And so that’s probably one of the big factors. And so even among religious fundamentalists college education has increased and that’s probably a factor there, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a cultural thing there, too. It’s harder to maintain a belief in something that is absurd when a lot of people around you very calmly disagree. There aren’t a lot of people out there that are yelling about evolution in your face. They just know it’s true because there’s this insane tidal wave of evidence. And they simply leave it there. And they talk about it. And when you say, “No, god made the earth,” in whatever they think it is, 5,000 years ago or something, or 10,000 years ago. “And he made Adam out of some dirt and he made Eve out of a rib.” They look at you and say, no, that’s incorrect. And then they move away and go eat lunch with someone else. And you are forced to confront the absurdity of that point of view.

I’ve always believed in evolution but I came from a very blue collar/middle class kind of upbringing and I thought and believed a lot of stupid crap. And it changed while I was in college because I was exposed to people who knew better. And that’s part of that process.

**John:** Yeah. I may have actually had this be a previous One Cool Thing, but this is occurring to me now. While I was on my east coast trip this summer we stopped by Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut. I don’t know if you’ve ever been Dinosaur State Park.

**Craig:** I have not.

**John:** So what’s cool about it is basically they were doing some big construction project and they came across this slab of stone that had all these dinosaur footprints in it of these dinosaur tracks. And so they had to stop everything and they put a big dome over it and that’s now Dinosaur State Park. And it occurs to me I just feel like every person who doesn’t believe in evolution should just go there because you see, oh, there are these dinosaur footprints there.

So how did these get here? These are from billions of years ago, so please explain why god would have buried these footprints under this thing?

**Craig:** Well that’s what they say. I mean, someone once said to me that those bones were put there to test our faith. Well, at that point I’m going to go eat lunch with someone else.

**John:** That’s probably true.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So if you’re driving across Connecticut and you see the signs for Dinosaur State Park I think it’s worth an hour to sort of go through it because weirdly they don’t have the dinosaurs, they just have the footprints. But you can see that like, oh, they were just stomping around in the mud here. And you can see how massive they were. Nice.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** What’s your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** I’m keeping this streak going of games on iOS. I don’t know what it is. There was a real drought for a while of the kinds of games I like playing and then suddenly a bunch just showed up in a cluster. And this week my One Cool Thing is a game called What Remains of Edith Finch. This is not a new game. This is a game that came out in 2017. I think it was released on – oh yeah, so it was on Steam maybe or something. But you also could have gotten it on your PS4, your Xbox. But it is now available on your iPad or your iPhone maybe.

It is directed and written by a gentleman named Ian Dallas which sounds like a – that sounds like a fake tough guy name, doesn’t it? Well, Ian Dallas has made a beautiful game. This was published by Annapurna which in its short life was known correctly so for quality. And this game is quality. It’s a beautiful game where you are moving through a house that was occupied by a number of your ancestors. Your uncles and aunts and grandparents. All of whom died untimely deaths. Every single one of them. And as you move through the house you discover little shrines to them and you then go into their memories and the game play is very varied. Sometimes it’s incredibly simple and beautiful. Sometimes there’s actually a little bit of a challenge. But really is just an experience. And it’s lovely. Just gorgeous. It’s beautiful. The music is lovely. And it’s really creative. Each person’s world that you go into is wildly different than the one before, not only in terms of narrative but in terms of game design and tone and style.

So, I strongly recommend it. What Remains of Edith Finch. And that is available on iOS.

**John:** Excellent. And I think it’s important that you have a videogame recommendation for your One Cool Thing because in ten years I feel like by far the majority of your One Cool Things have been games. Consistency over the ten years is really nice.

**Craig:** It’s really all I care about is games.

**John:** And that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. Megana, thank you for all your reading this week. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Christiaan Mentz. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust. Craig is around there occasionally, but not too often.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them on Cotton Bureau and celebrate our 10-year anniversary today with our special 10th Anniversary t-shirt.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on how things have gotten better over the last 20 years. Craig, thank you for ten years.

**Craig:** Thank you for ten and here’s to another 40.

**John:** Yay.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right. So this bonus segment is inspired by this post by Gwern Branwen which is just an amazing name.

**Craig:** Welsh I presume.

**John:** I would assume. And they have this really long blog post that’s just talking about how life has changed since the 1990s. And really goes into great details and made me remember so many things that I had forgotten about what daily life was like in the 1990s which is not that far away, but also feels more distant when you actually look at just how you had to get stuff done, especially work stuff done.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I feel it all the time when I sometimes talk about these things with Bo because she is almost 25 years younger than I am. So when I talk about the way things used to be in the way that old people do sometimes she looks like, “Oh really? That sounds terrible.” And she’s right. A lot of those things were terrible. And a lot of things have gotten much better.

**John:** Well, so computers are a really easy one we can probably knock out quickly because they’re just so much cheaper than they used to be. I remember getting my – I stated on an Atari computer, but my first real computer that was my computer that I really loved and identified with was my Macintosh 20. I got the Macintosh with the–

**Craig:** The SE20.

**John:** SE20. So it had a hard drive built in. But that was $3,900.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Which was – that’s $7,000 now. It’s a huge amount of money for an incredibly underpowered computer with floppy drives. It was the best thing I could possibly get at the time and also just a joke by any modern standard.

**Craig:** Same. I believe my first computer was a Franklin Ace 1000 which was a clone of the Apple 2 or Apple 2E. I think it cost about $1,500 in 1982. I don’t know what that is today, but you’re right it’s probably like $7,000. And this was a computer that had 64k of memory total I think.

**John:** Yeah. But even this blog post is pointing out that not just the memory and speed of it all, but just mice. Do you remember having to clean out your mice because they all got gunk in them?

**Craig:** Disgusting. First of all, your wrists would. So we created a pandemic of wrist trouble. And then the mouse would get disgusting, or the track ball would get disgusting because we’re constantly shedding skin. And we are gross.

**John:** Yeah. And so people don’t understand mice used to have a ball in them that was actually rolling around on the mouse pad or on the table. And it would just pick up everything. And eventually it would stop working properly and you’d have to get in there with a Q-tip or your fingernail to get all the gross stuff out. I don’t miss that. Don’t miss that one bit.

**Craig:** Not at all.

**John:** We had no GPS. We had Thomas Guides to find our ways around places. At a certain point we had cellphones but they couldn’t do any of the things that our current cellphones did. We didn’t have cameras that could do this kind of stuff.

**Craig:** No. We didn’t have any of that stuff. How about real simple things? Let’s just already give everybody computers. Let’s give everybody phones. If you get an email on your phone and you delete it’s still there on your computer when you get home. How about just simple stuff like that?

**John:** Closer to home. Movie theaters are much better than they used to be. So we all miss some of the giant old screens. We loved some of those things. But seats are more comfortable now. You can reserve individual seats. You don’t have to line up an hour ahead of a screening of a movie to get a good seat. You don’t have to save seats anymore. This is progress. This is a good thing.

**Craig:** Not saving seats, and then not getting into arguments about the saving of the seats.

**John:** Oh god. It was just the worst. Laying your jacket across multiple seats to try to protect them while your friend is at the bathroom.

**Craig:** Terrible.

**John:** Craig, people used to smoke. Do you remember when people used to smoke?

**Craig:** I was one of them. It was amazing.

**John:** From what year to what year did you smoke?

**Craig:** I started smoking I want to say in 1990 and I went to like 1996.

**John:** Yeah. So college age and post-college.

**Craig:** Yeah, early 20s.

**John:** I never smoked. But I guess some of the advantages of smoking is you have an excuse to sort of step outside of the work to smoke. It gives you that little jolt of – the nicotine. What does nicotine actually do chemically for you?

**Craig:** Interesting. It can do two different things. They’ve done these fascinating studies. If you have a kind of rapid and shallow intake of nicotine vapor, whether it’s from a cigarette or vape, it will amp you up. It’s a stimulant. When you do slower, deeper draws it will actually calm you down. So what’s fascinating about nicotine is the system that it runs through, this nicotinergic system in your brain actually has a complicated pathway. That’s why it’s one of the best drugs there is. Just unfortunately the delivery system is really bad.

But, yeah, I love nicotine. That’s why I can’t have it. Because my brain loves nicotine.

**John:** But smoking was not only unhealthy for the individual but also just kind of sucked for society. And things smell like smoke all the time. The used car that I owned and that I drove out here to Los Angeles a smoker had it before this. And so whenever it would be parked in the sunlight a film would form on the inside of the windows from the cigarette smoke coming out of the seats. Smoking is just gross. I’m glad there’s much less smoking.

**Craig:** Megana, have you had the experience of being in a restaurant with a smoking section?

**Megana:** No. But I remember being little and having hotel rooms and you had to specify smoking or not smoking.

**Craig:** The restaurant smoking section was one of the great anti-choice of our childhood. Because they were honestly were like if you go over there inside if you’re in those tables you can smoke. Well the smoke doesn’t know that.

**John:** It doesn’t know there’s nowhere to stay.

**Craig:** In fact we know just from simple physics and diffusion that the smoke will fill the room equally over time. But in a very serious way wait staff were being poisoned by smoke.

**John:** Small things I would have not thought of but it’s actually very true. Wheeled luggage has gotten so much better. Because I remember old suitcases with wheels on it were just terrible and the wheels would always shatter and break. And then they just figured out how to make wheels good. They figured out how to make skateboard wheels and rollerblade wheels and they decided what if we actually put quality wheels on luggage and now luggage is just a delight by comparison to where it was in the ‘90s.

**Craig:** How about the fact that there was luggage without wheels? Because all the luggage didn’t have wheels. And the people that had the wheeled luggage were the flight attendants and the pilots. And I guess at some point someone was like, wait, why don’t I have that? Why am I carrying this? This sucks. Yeah. Were we stupid? Were the luggage companies stupid? I don’t know.

Oh, I got a good one for you. How about this one?

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** Diapers.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Yes. Disposable diapers back in the day were awful. Because the stuff inside of them was just not really well engineered. And then they came out with those little gel pellets. And now you can jam a bunch of diapers together in one thing and they soak up like four gallons of pee. They’re pretty incredible.

**Megana:** What do you mean by jam a bunch of diapers in one thing?

**Craig:** Ah. So when you would buy diapers, back in the old days, you would go and you would get a package of ten diapers. It was an enormous package because the diapers were really thick. There was no absorbent stuff. It was more like just here’s a–

**John:** Just padding.

**Craig:** Here’s a baggy with a sponge in it. But the baby would pee once and it’s coming out the sides. It just was useless. And now if you have a baby and you go to the store you can get a thing of 20 diapers and they’re so thin because of those little gel pellets. It’s genius.

**John:** Yeah. So until you are around modern babies, like the diapers do start really thin and then you do see the diaper sort of swell up as pee goes in there.

**Craig:** It’s amazing.

**John:** But the other thing is it sucks the water away from the skin and so they get less diaper rash and it’s more comfortable for them and it’s good.

**Craig:** When you take a diaper off a baby now it weighs like eight pounds. It’s incredible. And that’s just from pee. I’m not talking about poop. Just a pee diaper is heavy like a bowling ball. It’s amazing.

**John:** So, a controversial opinion here which people will write in about. I find the smell of a pee diaper is not bad to me. It’s actually sort of comforting to me.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** I don’t love it, but it makes me feel happy that there’s a baby around. A poop diaper is just disgusting. Nobody needs poop.

**Craig:** I wouldn’t say comforting. But, yeah, I’m happy a baby is around. And changing a pee diaper is like a joke. No big deal at all.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** See, you didn’t have a boy. The second you take that diaper off you’ve got to be ready with a cloth to drop on top of his junk or else he’s peeing right on you. Because as soon as the air hits that thing, boom, pee.

**John:** We lucked into a baby who just did not ever want to poop in her diaper, and so we sat her on the potty before she was a year old and she was just pooping in her potty.

**Craig:** What? That’s crazy.

**John:** It’s crazy but it works out. Not related to babies, another thing which is so much better do you remember car stereos and car stereos being stolen out of cars? God that just sucked.

**Craig:** Megana, let me explain something to you. When John and I were little in the car there was an FM/AM radio. You might remember those. But they weren’t digital. They were analog. So that meant there was a dial. And you would move the dial and this little red stick would just slide from left to right and land sort of on the station. And you had to really get it right. But once you found it there were these little push buttons and you could press one of them to make it your preset. So you would hit that button and the little stick would go ka-tunk. Ka-tunk. Ka-tunk. Ka-tunk. And you went through all of that so you could have your five stations stores, each one of which was mostly advertising and you couldn’t hit pause. Amazing.

**John:** But not only did you get to enjoy the car radio, but if you had a stereo that actually had a tape player or something someone might break into your car to still that thing and rip it out of the dashboard because they could sell it, because those things were sold separately from the car. They were not inherently a part of the car. They were often a thing that was added to the car. And so one of the choices you might have is like, oh, take the radio out of the car when you park it someplace. So people would actually take their radio out.

Or, the plate, the face plate of it would pop off so that no one would steal the radio, so you’d just take the face plate of your car stereo. I’m just delighted that’s not a thing anymore.

**Craig:** Seriously.

**John:** Or people would have GPS mounted to their windshield and you’d have to worry about someone stealing that. Nope. It’s just part of your car. It’s part of your phone. We’re in a better time now.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So we will revisit this segment in 20 years on the show and see what things we can’t believe we had to suffer through way back in 2021.

**Craig:** You know what’s going to be fun? If we keep doing this Megana is going to get old. [laughs]

**John:** Megana, we’ll bring you back. So as you’re running some – you have five shows on the air and a dynasty–

**Craig:** Still bringing you back.

**Megana:** Or I might still be here.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m actually OK with that. I really like you.

**Megana:** Me too.

**Craig:** I’m happy you want to stay with us.

**John:** Thanks both of you.

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

**Megana:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Episode 167, The Tentpoles of 2019](https://johnaugust.com/2014/the-tentpoles-of-2019) and [transcript](https://johnaugust.com/2014/scriptnotes-ep-167-the-tentpoles-of-2019-transcript)
* [The Original Superhero Slate from 2013 from Newsarama](https://web.archive.org/web/20140809000438/http://www.newsarama.com/21815-the-new-full-comic-book-superhero-movie-schedule.html)
* [Episode 512: There is No Conspiracy](https://johnaugust.com/2021/there-is-no-conspiracy)
* [WGA East Election](https://deadline.com/2021/06/former-wga-east-president-michael-winship-running-unopposed-will-succeed-beau-willimon-as-guilds-next-president-1234779475/)
* [WGA East Considers Spinning Off Digital News Members Into New Union Amid “Existential Threat”](https://deadline.com/2021/08/writers-guild-east-digital-news-members-spinoff-union-idea-existential-crisis-1234818316/) by David Robb
* [Adam Conover WGA East Twitter Thread](https://twitter.com/adamconover/status/1430682946898317314?s=20)
* [University of Michigan Study: Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans](https://news.umich.edu/study-evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans/)
* [What Remains of Edith Finch Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Remains_of_Edith_Finch)
* [Improvements since the 1990s](https://www.gwern.net/Improvements) by Gwern Branwen
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Christiaan Mentz ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/514standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 504: Writing a Script in (insert number) Days, Transcript

June 11, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/writing-a-script-in-insert-number-days).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 504 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show how long should it take you to write a script and how can writers best estimate that work? We’ll try to give you an answer. We’ll also look at new guidance for writers working on features at Netflix and Amazon and follow up on child prodigies, movie theaters, and free will.

And in our bonus segment for premium members, Craig, let’s talk about UFOs.

**Craig:** All right. You asked for it.

**John:** Let’s do it. Let’s talk about UFOs. Because I know you are a strong believer in extraterrestrial life visiting earth. And I want to hear your detailed views and I’ll try to bat those wild theories away.

**Craig:** That is not how it’s going to go.

**John:** But let’s start with a little amuse bouche. A conundrum that came up on our weekly call this week. What is the statute of limitations on spoiler warnings for movies? Craig, when is it fair to say like, OK, now you should have seen that movie so we can talk about The Sixth Sense, or Fight Club?

**Craig:** Sure. Well it was a little easier back in the day when there was a somewhat conventional release pattern. A movie would go into theaters. You would see it there. And then it would leave theaters and it would show up on DVD or cable or something. And my general feeling was if you didn’t see it in the theater and it was finished with its run then, you know, sorry.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s the way it is. There will be spoiler issues. You know, now where movies come out the same day, I don’t know. A month? I don’t know. I don’t know.

**John:** Yeah. I think that there’s sort of two classes of problems. So there’s the movies that are more like TV shows because they’re coming out in different things, people can see them kind of whenever they see them. So for new movies those sort of TV rules apply. When you can talk about Mare of Easttown? I don’t know. I haven’t seen the show and I’m trying to avoid the spoilers, but I also recognize that people need to have that conversation. So there’s that.

But look back to like older movies, like The Sixth Sense, or Fight Club, or Citizen Kane, I just want to argue for there’s no such thing as a spoiler because you should have seen this movie.

**Craig:** There is no spoiler warning on old movies. And I must admit that I don’t necessarily think revealing the twists or endings of things in fact spoils anything.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Because that’s really not where I get my enjoyment from. I’m a weirdo I guess in that regard. I know how Fight Club ends. I love watching Fight Club. I’ll watch it again. It’s a great movie. It doesn’t matter to me that I know how it ends.

**John:** I will say it’s sometimes fun to watch a movie with a person who doesn’t know what’s going to happen, so you can see like, ah, ah, did you figure out what was actually happening there. So the Shyamalan movies might be a good example of that. So like my daughter probably has no idea what actually happens in The Village. I don’t know that I need to watch The Village, but I would be curious to watch The Village with her to see if she figures out what’s actually really going on in The Village.

**Craig:** Yeah. So to that extent it is amusing to watch other people getting fooled.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And, sure. But I feel like the panic over spoilers is – I just think it’s overblown. I mean, you know, anybody that is adapting anything, the spoiler exists. So people would worry about spoilers for Game of Thrones, but the books were there. So, you know, anybody who had read the books knew that at least in the book Ned Stark dies. And in the book there’s a Red Wedding. And a bunch of people get killed at a wedding. So what? That’s not – we’re not watching things for information and data.

**John:** Yeah. We’re watching them to enjoy them.

**Craig:** Yes. And I’m so much more interested in watching the people on screen react to what they didn’t know. That’s what’s fascinating. Not that I didn’t know it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So that’s my weird thing about spoilers. I’m not so wound up about them.

**John:** All right. Well we’ll have no spoilers for A Quiet Place 2, but that movie came out over Memorial Day Weekend and did so much better than people thought it could do. It made $57 million in theaters which is great. So, hooray for them. Cruella also came out and did $26.5 million. And it had its day-and-date release on Disney+ for $30 for subscribers. So, it looks like people want to see movies, which is great news.

**Craig:** It is. That $57 million is eye-popping, because that would have been a good weekend really at any point.

**John:** It’s not $100 million, but it’s still just terrific.

**Craig:** Sure. It’s terrific for a movie that I’m sure didn’t cost a massive amount. I think maybe helped a little bit by the fact that there’s not much else in theaters, so they occupy a ton of screens. If you wanted to see a wide release movie and you didn’t want to see a Disney film then I guess you were going to A Quiet Place. And if you did want to see a Disney film you had the day-and-date to kind of choose from.

What’s interesting financially to – and I don’t know the answer to this – is who makes more money here. So Cruella makes $26.5 million at the box office and then $30 a pop on Disney+. That’s a lot.

**John:** Yeah. So on Cruella, all five credited writers are previous Scriptnotes guests. And I was talking with one of the them, or texting with one of them. And that $29 for the Disney+ subscribers, the chunk you get from that is actually really good money. So, weirdly our five prior guests who worked on that movie will get more off of that than they would have off of the theatrical box office.

**Craig:** Well they would get nothing off the theatrical box office.

**John:** Nothing. You get nothing.

**Craig:** Correct. I mean, unless you have box office bonuses. But those have pretty much gone bye-bye over time. And, yeah, Internet sales, you know, we have a good rate. It’s basically five times the rate of the DVDs, or close.

**John:** Premium video-on-demand.

**Craig:** Yeah. So it’s – well, actually, no it’s not five times. It’s much better. The point is it’s better. It is five times. They will make good money off of that as long as the studios are fair about it and don’t attempt to argue that this primary exhibition, because they can. They can make that argument and we would make the argument that it’s not.

So interesting to see what happens there financially because we may be living in a time where this continues permanently. That most movies come out day-and-date and you have a choice. And I don’t know. I cannot predict.

**John:** So we also had some other big deals in the news this week. Coming off the success of this box office, it’s nice to see the Alamo Drafthouse is out of bankruptcy. There’s a lot of speculation that AMC might buy out our beloved ArcLight. So it would be lovely to see the ArcLight come back.

**Craig:** It’s available.

**John:** Hopefully AMC could run it the way the ArcLight was and not sort of the way AMCs are run. We’ll see. I don’t want ads in front of my movie. That’s really what it comes down to. More than anything else I want no ads.

**Craig:** Yeah. Look, if the movies are coming back, the theatrical experience is coming back, then it stands to reason that ArcLight would be profitable as it used to be. I think maybe the problem with ArcLight was they just didn’t have the financial cushion to weather the storm of this lengthy shutdown. I don’t know. But I agree with you, if AMC buys ArcLight what would be the point of buying it if you don’t let it be it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Which is I guess something that AT&T should have considered when they bought Warner Bros and HBO.

**John:** Yeah. I’m not even mentioning the Warner Bros/Discovery merger which has the absolute worst logo. Not since like the initial DreamWorks logo which was–

**Craig:** The boy on the moon?

**John:** The boy on the moon is fantastic. But the DreamWorks SKG, some of their initial logo-ing around that was not fantastic.

**Craig:** Oh, looked like it was made on like an [Amiga] against like a blue sky or something?

**John:** That’s what it was. The logo-ing for Warner Bros/Discovery, which I don’t understand why you’re keeping the Bros in there. It should just be Warner-Discovery makes more sense. But it looks like it was done in Word Art.

**Craig:** Oh good lord. Look at that.

**John:** Describe it for our listeners. Describe what this logo looks like.

**Craig:** I’m going to get in trouble as I’m an employee of this corporation. But that’s just silly.

**John:** I’m an employee as well.

**Craig:** So it is also against a weird dim blue sky with blue clouds. I don’t know why the clouds are so blue. Anyway, and then it says Warner Bros., Discovery. Discovery is underneath it. The letters are three-dimensional, sort of coming out, and they’re this fairly gaudy gold color. They have this bad reflectivity that again feels very kind of [Amiga] circa 1991.

And then underneath is a 2D line that says, “The stuff that dreams are made of.”

**John:** With no punctuation. The “of” is just dangling there at the end.

**Craig:** Dangling. I don’t like it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Don’t like that.

**John:** So I don’t like the main Warner Bros/Discovery logo, but I especially don’t like it against that blue sky. And then the thing underneath it just looks like they stuck it in. They were in Keynote and they were like, oh, we have to find a tag line. Quick, type a tag line.

**Craig:** I don’t think that’s going to last. I’ve got to be honest with you.

**John:** I don’t think it’s going to last. I don’t think we need to worry about it.

**Craig:** I don’t think it’s going to last at all. I’m just looking at the Internet, because I guess the Internet was going bananas about this. I had no idea this was going on. Someone said that it looked like something that was made in Microsoft Word’s Word Art Utility. Yeesh.

**John:** It does.

**Craig:** That’s not going to last. There’s absolutely no way.

**John:** We don’t need to worry about that.

**Craig:** No, that will not last.

**John:** But a deal that will last is CAA sold a big chunk of Wiip. So it sold the majority stake in the production company Wiip to a South Korean studio which is great. Good for them. And this is all coming out of the WGA deal with the agencies, basically forcing the agencies to divest themselves of their production entities. And I really wondered who was going to buy Wiip or who would buy Endeavor Content, and I should have been thinking of like, of course, there’s a lot of international money that would love to have some domestic production and they’ve got money. I think those are going to be the buyers for these places.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s hard to say what will happen with the larger ones. Wiip was not a big version of this. And like I had said many times in all my years as a client at CAA no one had ever even mentioned Wiip to me. I didn’t even know it was a thing. I didn’t know it existed. So they weren’t pushing it too hard back in the day.

So I don’t know how much Wiip was worth and I don’t know what the sale entailed, but I have a feeling, I could be wrong, but that maybe CAA sort of looked at this part of the settlement with the WGA as possibly a gift. Because I think what happened was WME got into this business in a massive way and everybody else sort of felt like they needed to. But didn’t necessarily commit. Yeah, I’m happy that the people that were employed by that studio, by Wiip, because there’s two Is in it, Wiip, will continue. Hopefully to be employed and they’ll continue to compensate people fairly and all the rest of that.

**John:** Yeah. And so Wiip I hadn’t realized made Mare of Easttown, so the second Mare of Easttown reference in this episode.

**Craig:** Well it worked on them. I don’t know if they made them. That’s the thing. Like I never know what these companies actually do.

**John:** Yeah. You never know. Did they throw in some money, or were they the studio behind it?

**Craig:** Were they there sort of at the beginning, kind of. I don’t know. I’m still – I don’t even know what Wiip stands for.

**John:** I don’t either.

**Craig:** Wiip. There’s two Is.

**John:** Too many.

**Craig:** One too many Is.

**John:** All right. Let’s do some more follow up. So two episodes back we wondered why aren’t there any child screenwriting prodigies, because obviously we have prodigies in chess and athletics and other things.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** We had several people write in with some good suggestions. Do you want to start with Victoria here?

**Craig:** Sure. So Victoria DiCapawa tweets, “In my opinion screenwriting successfully, let alone brilliantly, requires a tremendous amount of emotional literacy. It requires an extremely proactive curiosity about the emotional narrative of others and I think for younger people they’re still really figuring themselves out.

“I went to film school at 18 which was great, because it gave me the energy to do production in a way I really can’t in my mid-30s. But I also did not end up becoming a successful director the way I’d planned. It turns out no one wants to be directed by an 18-year-old.”

**John:** I think Victoria is making a really good point. It’s that if you’re writing movies you’re probably not writing people who are just your own age, you’re writing a whole range of people, and you have to have sort of theories of mind in terms of like why characters are doing what they’re doing and sort of how stuff works. And that just takes some time to develop and mature.

So whereas there are so many Taylor Swifts in the world and Billie Eilishes who are writing the brilliant and insightful songs, it’s a shorter thing where you’re not writing multiple characters interacting. It’s really sort of a singular voice and it’s a singular point of view. The ability to hold multiple points of view simultaneously may just be something that develops later on.

**Craig:** Yes. And songwriting occupies a much shorter space. So, you can make a single point and if you make your single point beautifully you’ve got yourself a good song, putting aside the musical aspect of it as well. You want obviously a good melody. But a screenplay needs to make a whole lot of points, every single scene, over and over and over. And all the scenes need to connect. And they need to reflect back on each other. It’s more complicated. It’s definitely more complicated.

**John:** That ties in well with what Gus writes here. Gus says, “Prodigy conducive mediums like math, music, and fine arts merely require immense talent and intuition, whereas narrative storytelling also necessitates a healthy dose of knowledge, as in knowledge gained from years of observing and consuming comparable material. A four-year-old might dictate a few brilliant lines of blank verse, for example, but would likely stumble over long form rule and structure heavy formats like sonnets.

“All that being said, feature filmmaking also has gatekeeping factors present in virtually no other medium. If a child or teenager writes an amazing screenplay that somehow makes it in to meaningful hands the response will almost certainly be, ‘You’re very talented. Keep at it. Or let me put you in touch with some reps I know,’ as opposed to, ‘We must spend millions of dollars turning this into a movie immediately,’ because that risk adverse exec would then look like a crazy person.”

Gus goes on to write that he sort of was that teenager who wrote that thing and couldn’t get any traction. But just a few years later a similar project when he was in his early 20s he could get set up and that’s how he got started as a writer. So I think he makes a good point. Your ability to write improves, but also your ability to be perceived as a writer and to do all the social aspects of screenwriting comes with age as well.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it does occur to me that one thing we haven’t talked about is that screenwriting is an art form that is designed for adaptation. And that in and of itself implies a certain amount of complexity. Chess is chess. Music is music. A song is a song and a painting is a painting. So a prodigy is doing the thing that is supposed to be done, and viewed, and seen.

A screenwriter is not. A screenwriter is actually imagining something and putting it in an entirely different format from what it ultimately must become. That is complicated and that may have something to do with it as well.

**John:** There are some examples of like fantasy novelists who got started in their teens, but even then, yes, you’re writing a very long piece of work, but you’re writing the final thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So what you’re writing doesn’t have to go through another stage in order to become the finished art form.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** Peter wrote in and this is something I should have been thinking about when we first discussed it, reminding us of the tale of Riley Weston. Do you remember Riley Weston?

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** So she was a writer who was employed on Felicity, I believe. She was 18 years old and it was a big story that like, oh, this 18-year-old who is writing on Felicity which is great because she has such insight as being part of that generation. And then in fact she was not 18 years old. She was 32. And she was passing herself off as 18.

**Craig:** Yeah. Which then became sort of the premise of Sutton Foster’s television show Younger. I mean, they weren’t basing it on this story, but that is, you know, the idea that in a business where people are perhaps discriminated against on the basis of age, passing for younger could be valuable. But there was not an 18-year-old. And even then in that case the alleged 18-year-old was working on a staff with other writers and not solo writing a movie for instance.

**John:** Yeah. So like Catherine Hardwicke is 13. She was collaborating with a teenager on that. But it was collaboration.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So someone with the experience of actually making the thing could use the voice of the person who actually knew that stuff. I was also thinking back to Lena Dunham. So I first met Lena right after she did Tiny Furniture, and she was young, but I had to actually Google to figure out how old would she have been, and she was 24. So 24 years old to make a feature as good as Tiny Furniture is remarkable, but that’s not the same as being a child prodigy. And her early work, the short film she did, built up to that. But she was doing the work and learning as she was making short films which are sort of that finished product. They are the poems and songs of filmmaking. She was doing that work before she got up to her first real feature which was Tiny Furniture.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t know how this happened but somewhere along the line in our country we forgot that people who are twenty-somethings are adults. We think of them still as children. But, yeah, I mean, that’s when I sold my first thing was at 24. It was not quite as good as Tiny Furniture, but certainly I could write a movie.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But I wouldn’t have been able to do it at 17. Or even at 21. That was probably about as soon as I could do it.

**John:** Yeah. Now that same episode we talked about free will and determinism and how it’s OK to not be a screenwriter.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** We had a couple people write in about that including folks who had stopped the ambition to be a screenwriter. Do you want to take Sam’s question here?

**Craig:** Sure. Sam says, “I’m in my mid-40s and I really wanted to do screenwriting.” I like by the way, just as an aside, I like “doing screenwriting.” I like that idea. Do it.

“And I really wanted to do screenwriting. I’ve always been full of imagination and this seemed like a way to get that on paper and share it. However I’m a senior project manager, which I enjoy doing, at Microsoft with a pretty good salary and it dawned on me that trying to switch seems like maybe a stupid move. So I decided to keep it at the hobby level and make my own movie which has been great because I’ve been learning about other aspects of filmmaking. In looking back at the whole journey I realized I was more in love with the idea of screenwriting than doing the same thing day in/day out to write screenplays. I also realized there’s a difference between screenwriting, writing screenplays, and being a screenwriter, writing Hollywood screenplays.

“All that to say if you’re just looking for a way out of your current work, be careful. It’s much better to run towards something than to run away from something. Make sure you’re in love with writing and not in love with what you think writing will be like. If you’ve never done it before and you haven’t done writing as part of who you are it might not be for you.”

**John:** Yeah. That point about running towards versus running away is so important to keep in mind for career stuff, but relationships, and so many things in your life. Why are you making this choice? Are you making this choice because you really want that thing that’s there, or because you don’t want the thing that you have and you’re looking for any other option that’s out there?

**Craig:** Same thing applies even inside of the writing of screenplays. We’ve often said that you don’t want to write away from a problem. You want to write towards something you like. And Sam is pointing out that there’s a romantic view of what screenwriting is, of what a screenwriter does. We’ve seen depictions of screenwriters that even in their portrayal of the clichéd misery seem kind of weirdly attractive and romantic. None of that is correct.

**John:** Oh yeah. The Barton Finks. All the sort of hacks with Underwoods. Oh, I want to be part of that downtrodden class of scribes.

**Craig:** Correct. And they’re always smarter than everybody else and more insightful than everybody else. And they’re overlooked until they’re not. And they are underappreciated until they’re not. And none of it is correct. It’s just like everything else. You’ve got to wake up and then just work. And it’s not – it is rare that you have these moments of high drama like any of that stuff.

The grind is the deal.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s the job is the grind.

**John:** Kara writes that she’s not a screenwriter and that’s OK. She says, “I was an unhappy lawyer and I finally paid off my loans and quit my job to explore other options right before the pandemic. Many of my plans were canceled, but I decided to take a screenwriting class. I know how you feel about those, but it’s where I learned about your podcast, and I’m glad I took it anyway.”

**Craig:** So now people are paying to hear about our podcast. [laughs] I’m angry.

**John:** You know how you find out about Scriptnotes? You have to take a class.

**Craig:** Ugh, so angry.

**John:** In order to listen to the podcast you have to take a class first. Kara says she wrote a complete screenplay using Highland2, of course. And felt like “my creative side, so long buried beneath soul-sucking contracts was reawakened. While I loved writing and still have potential projects floating around in my mind I don’t think it’s the right career path for me and like you said that’s OK. I’m now an urban gardener and trying to start our flower forming business in New York City. I still listen to your podcast every week while growing flowers on a rooftop out in Staten Island and in a parking lot in Brooklyn. Thank you for all you do and for embracing listeners like me.”

**Craig:** Hey, Kara, Staten Island! All right. I was born in Brooklyn and raised on Staten Island, so in many ways I’m like one of your flowers. And I think that’s great. And that’s another example of somebody that maybe was running away from something that she didn’t want to do, like dealing with contract law, and you know what? No big deal. There’s nothing wrong with taking a swing at something. And if you figure out really early that it’s not for you then you cut bait real fast and hopefully she has a little bit more passion for the flower farming business.

**John:** Well let’s look at what Kara did and did not do. What Kara did is she took a class and she wrote a script and she sort of saw like do I like this or do I not like this. She didn’t quit her job, move to Los Angeles to say I’m going to become a screenwriter without having written a screenplay. I would just urge everyone before making big changes to say like, hey, do I actually enjoy doing this work. Because you can then sort of – again, aspire to a thing rather than just be like I want to get out of the rut that I’m in.

**Craig:** Yeah. It also seems like Kara did not load this decision with a lot of emotional weight. If I fail than I am no good. I must be…I am called by the universe…you know, these things are setting you up for real trouble. Because any time you’re called by the universe to do something that very few people do the odds are that you’re not going to get there. So, just be realistic.

**John:** Let’s think about a hypothetical listener out there who might be listening and saying, “You know what? I’m not sure I want to keep being a screenwriter or doing the screenwriter job.” Like they may be here in Los Angeles but they’re not having a lot of success. Trying to think what good advice we’d offer him or her listening to this show right now.

I might start with the same thing that we learned from Kara is that really look at what are some other things that might be attractive to you. Rather than sort of I’m going to run away from screenwriting, or feel like I’m going to give up on screenwriting, say like what is there that is out there that might be really interesting for me to do that I could go and pursue and not be so worried about like I’m giving up screenwriting.

**Craig:** Yeah, step number one is to put screenwriting in its appropriate position which is a thing that some people do. But it is not the be all end all. And it is not a glorious life. It’s something that if you do it you do it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And if you had a dream of it and it didn’t work out, dream a new dream. Because if you can find something that you both enjoy and other people demand from you then you are fulfilled. You need both of them. And it’s not enough for you to love it, but for no one to want it.

I do like cooking, but if I cooked and nobody liked the food then I would maybe just cook for myself and stop dreaming of creating grand meals. It’s the same for this. And there’s no shame in it. There’s no shame.

**John:** Zero.

**Craig:** By the way, even for us, I mean, look, some people like things, some people don’t, you know, of what we do. Nobody is batting a thousand, or even remotely close to that.

**John:** So Garrett thinks we’re batting far below a thousand. So Garrett has a very long email he sent to us. It would be the whole podcast reading through this email, but Garrett, thank you for sending through this email. He was really focused on our discussion of free will and determinism. And so there is a school of thought that even sort of bringing up free will being an illusion and determinism is sort of culturally self-defeating. It’s bad for the individual to think through.

He writes, “Here’s what determinism does to your listeners emotionally. It grieves, deflates, and discourages. Why am I chasing this dream of becoming a screenwriter when I haven’t had a break up to this point? Maybe I’m not a chosen one after all. It’s just a new breed of Calvinism,” which I thought was actually an interesting point.

He says, “We must all live as if we do have free will.” And I think that was the point we were actually making in the podcast is that we can say that free will is an illusion, but it’s still an illusion that is important to kind of believe in. The same way we believe in consciousness, even though we don’t really understand it. Is that fair, Craig?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m a little puzzled by his point. Let’s pause it for a second, Garrett. That determinism is correct. There is no free will. And when he says it grieves, deflates, and discourages, why? Just because you haven’t had it now? When you say I haven’t had a break up to this point, maybe I’m not a chosen one after all, or maybe you are and it’s going to happen tomorrow. It’s not Calvinism. We’re not suggesting – the problem with Calvinism is that Calvinism did look at outcomes and then decide based on the outcome who you were. So if you were poor, it’s very hard to stop being poor, especially in unfair societies.

So Calvinism said, well, you’re poor, you deserve it because you were born bad.

**John:** Well it’s your fate. It’s your place in life.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And don’t sort of question it.

**Craig:** Don’t question it.

**John:** It even goes back to sort of older times. Yes.

**Craig:** There’s nothing indicative like that about screenwriting and whether someone has bought a screenplay or not bought a screenplay. That is not the deal at all. We’re not talking about anything like that. There’s actually no valuable information that I get from the fact that I don’t believe in free will because part of my lack of belief in free will is that the illusion of free will is just as determined as everything else.

So no matter what I do I’m still making choices, because I am a determined consciousness that thinks it’s making choices. Just like I think that the sky is blue. But if I were a different animal with different eyeballs it would be a different color. Yeah, it doesn’t mean any of this. You’re reading into it and you should stop. That’s what I think. You should stop.

**John:** And so I do appreciate long emails, but I agree with you that, yes, I think you can fall into a trap where nothing matters because we’re all on rails and just give up because there’s no point. And I’m actually arguing the opposite of that. Acknowledging that, yes, even if we’re sort of on rails and even if we don’t have the choices that there’s no little monkey inside of us who is actually pulling the levers, who actually has free will. It’s still important that we live that way because also we’re writing characters who must live that way, too.

**Craig:** We have no choice.

**John:** It comes back to being the protagonist.

**Craig:** We have no choice.

**John:** Be the hero in your own story.

**Craig:** We don’t have access to the things that determine all of what’s going to happen anyway. So we have no choice. This is how we live. And this is also why I get puzzled when people say, “Well do you believe in any kind of existence after death?” And I say I don’t. And they say, “Well then what’s the point of everything?” And I say there isn’t one. But the fact that there isn’t a point doesn’t mean that I can’t enjoy this whole thing tremendously.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I have things that give me joy and pleasure and there are things that are fulfilling and I have experiences and I learn and I engage. And that’s enough for me. I don’t need a purpose or a point in the long run. I don’t. There isn’t one. I think maybe he’s looking for one. I don’t know. But I’m fine with that one.

**John:** All right. Let’s move on in the spirit of self-advocacy and doing what we can do to look at this last week the WGA put out two articles of particular interest to screenwriters. And I thought these were great. I saw early versions of these and I think they are genuinely useful. The first is the Screen Compensation Guide for Streaming Services which looks at contracts over the last three years from WGA members for features done for Amazon and for Netflix and sort of what common threads we can find in this.

And there’s some really good news here. 90% of these deals were multi-step, so not one-step deals, with two guaranteed steps, up to five guaranteed steps. So if you’re writing for Netflix or Amazon the great precedent is you should get a multi-step deal.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s startling and I’m thrilled to see that. And I would direct the attention of the conventional movie studios to this because this is something that I specifically have been beating a drum about for well over a decade. And I got to say, again, hey regular movie studios if you’re wondering partly why these other services are eating your lunch it’s because they actually have a system where things can be developed, instead of your system where they can’t.

**John:** Yeah. Other good news, Netflix pays more than Amazon on an average, $375,000 versus $300,000 at Amazon. And almost a quarter of these deals begin with a treatment and Netflix is more common to ask for treatments.

So, my Netflix deal didn’t have a treatment on it, but I do see that happening with other writers I talk to where they are turning in – I think Godwin was telling us this. They’re asking for a treatment before the screenplay stage. OK. If that’s what they want. If they pay you for it.

**Craig:** You know me. I love a treatment. I think that’s actually also terrific. If Netflix can help garner a new farm system, a new bench of new screenwriters who are trained to outline and prepare I think it actually will help – even if those individual writers abandon that practice later on, because they don’t feel they need it anymore, it is a good discipline to learn. I do think there’s great value in it.

**John:** So the quick explainer on pros and cons of treatments. The good thing about writing a treatment for one of these projects is theoretically you’re all on the same page about what is the movie you’re going to write. And they’re also paying you for this step. So you can resolve some of these story issues before you get into your screenplay. So your first draft of your screenplay should be closer to what they want.

The downside of treatments as an actual step is you could get stuck in treatment for a very long time, and that’s a thing we need to be mindful of and sort of have reps who can push to say, OK, let’s really go to draft. Or producers who can really say like, no, we really need to have him start writing this project.

**Craig:** Yeah. If they are breaking things out into steps like this then hopefully they are following the basic rules which is we pay you this, you write a treatment. You give the treatment, you have written the treatment. So, a step for a treatment does not mean a step for four treatments. It means a step for a treatment.

And the whole point is that even if there are a bunch of things that people are like, ah, I don’t know about this, you have the discussion, you take the notes. Great. Got it. Done. The job has been done. You have your own new outline that you can use in note cards or whatever for the writing of the draft. But the good news is that they’re giving all these steps.

The numbers are not great, I have to say, for the medians. They’re not awesome. Because if the median for Amazon is $300,000 and most of those are for two steps, you know, that’s down I think from what – that’s a little bit lower than the median at big studios, I would imagine. Although I’m guessing on that.

**John:** It’s a hard thing to compare apples to apples because there’s so few multi-step deals at studios, at conventional studios.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, yes, that’s more math that we can do. But still promising. The second thing that the WGA put out this last week was Screen Deal Tips which actually covers some stuff that we talked about two episodes ago about selling projects, reacquisition, how to get back the – if you’ve done rewrites on a sale how to get that stuff back, which when you and I had that conversation I didn’t realize that there’s actually language in the MBA about reacquisition of originals.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** And reacquisition of the rewrites you’ve done on an original that you sold.

**Craig:** I mean, yeah, it is extremely hard to pull off. We have talked about reacquisition before. It does happen. But it is very rare. But it exists. So, yeah. Be aware of it.

**John:** So a couple key points to take through and we’ll put a link in the show notes to this stuff, but we talked on the show before because you cannot be assured that this movie that you’re writing for theatrical is actually going to come out theatrical, try to avoid language that so ties into the assumption of the theatrical release, like box office bonuses.

So, get this in as a deal point and don’t let this drag out to the contract stage because it could be a long time before you get your contract. So in your deal points talk about sort of like what happens if it’s theatrical, what happens if it’s streaming.

Make sure that credits bonuses, if there are credit bonuses, are tied to screenplay by and teleplay by, because there’s a possibility that this movie will be put into a streaming situation where teleplay by becomes a credit rather than screenplay by. So look for that. I know somebody who got tripped up by that.

And if it’s underlying material you don’t control, try to get stuff in your contract that gives you the right to acquire back any material you write. So if it’s based on a book and that book option lapses you have the ability to get the stuff that you’ve written out of that place, if possible.

**Craig:** And if you have a decent lawyer they are already on top of this. The nice thing is they all talk.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So anytime somebody gets speared by an unforeseen consequence, all the lawyers chit-chat together and say red alert.

**John:** Oh yeah. Don’t let this happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. So hopefully they’re on it.

**John:** That sense of like it’s not clear whether this movie is going to theatrical or to streaming, just as recently as a year and a half ago I was in deals with Ken Richmond, my attorney, and was like how do we protect ourselves in this situation. And he’s like it’s all still new territory and we’re still figuring this out. So, it’s important to keep this in mind as a writer, too, that the lawyers are on this but also they’re still figuring out the best ways to handle this.

**Craig:** All true.

**John:** Yeah. All right. Here’s a great sort of framework question for us to tackle. Nathan asks, “So I just booked my first professional screenwriting job and it’s with a major studio. I’m grateful and excited but also a bit scared about one important detail. They want the first draft in ten weeks from the official start point of writing. Now I know this isn’t a particularly short professional timeframe, but it’s the shortest I’ve had to execute.

“Putting aside fears of failure, how do I budget time for the writing process with the time I’m given? What self-imposed schedule would you give yourselves with that deadline for a first draft? How much time do I give myself to break the story versus actually scripting it?”

So let’s talk about estimating time overall for a writing project and how to fit writing into a prescribed time, like the ten weeks that Nathan is given.

**Craig:** Yeah. It is not a short amount of time, Nathan. But it may be a short amount of time for you. Everybody has a different speed. So the question is a little bit of a trap. Some writers are faster than others. It doesn’t mean that the ones that are moving faster are worse than the ones that are moving slower, nor does it mean that the ones that are moving slower are lazier than the ones moving faster. We just sort of have speeds.

But generally speaking your speed needs to roughly be around what they’re looking at there.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** They can tell you they want the first draft in ten weeks. This is where the first job is always tough. Because nobody knows what you’re doing. You can’t say to them, look, the last one I wrote, the one that you loved so much that made $100 million at the box office opening weekend, yeah, that one took 12 weeks. You don’t have the ability to say that.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** You want to try and hit that ten weeks number, or earlier. And there are some very simple ways to budget your time.

**John:** Talk us through how you would budget time, Craig.

**Craig:** Well, first things first, like you say you want to break the story. Now, some people don’t. Some people just start writing the script, see where it goes. If you’re a break the story kind of person, sounds like you are, then you do want to give yourself a good amount of time to break it. The clearer you are with that and the more you can suss out the potential inefficiency points, those points when you’re writing where you suddenly stop and say I don’t know what to do next, and then say oh my god I realize that the last 20 pages I wrote are wrong, and then solve it, and then realize the last 30 pages are wrong. That all is the stuff that expands your time.

And if you can save yourself some of that time by planning through and fixing the problems, the big problems first early. That’s good. Sometimes you can take three weeks doing that.

**John:** Now, one thing I should bring up here is that if Nathan has booked this job very likely a lot of the story is actually broken because you probably had to pitch to get this job, if it’s your first professional one.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So you probably do have some of this work done. But it may be expanding that out and looking at sort of like what did you sort of like wavy hands pitch, like OK this is how I’m going to do this thing, because inevitably pitches are sort of skipping over those details. And really fleshing out how you’re going to do this. How you move from A to B to C to D. I would spend maybe a week on that. I wouldn’t spend three weeks on that. But it’s really – you’re going to have to learn what works for you.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I’ve spent four weeks on that. It depends on the nature of the particular project. But then what you pretty much get to immediately is a very simple math equation. Pages divided by days. It’s as simple as that.

Once you know, OK, I’ve got my rough outline here. I have a sense of how I’m supposed to proceed. You have an amount of days and you have an amount of pages. I personally don’t like to kill myself. I think that the writing suffers. So, you know, start by just imagining a typical five-day-week. So each week – let’s say you’ve spent two weeks breaking a story. Now eight weeks. That’s 40 days. A typical screenplay is 120 pages. Three pages a day my friend. Doesn’t seem that hard anymore, does it?

Now, I will say that three pages a day is the average. Generally speaking, for me, and I think for a lot of people, the first 30 pages you’re not necessarily writing at the same clip that you will later. The end, because it’s inevitable, and because everything has led to it, often does go faster than the beginning where so much is being set up and created. So give yourself a little bit of flexibility and expandability there.

But basically divide the days up and you’ll see like, OK, you know what, and if you hit a day where you just didn’t have it, just OK well tomorrow I need to write five pages.

**John:** Now, Craig, by your division there Nathan would have finished his last three pages on the day he has to turn it in. So, I would urge that Nathan give himself some buffer for like, OK, and you actually have to make sure your script makes sense and works. Give yourself permission to – if that’s a week, if that’s a few days, whatever it is, some time to actually reflect on the script and see is this actually making sense. Is this script ready to hand in?

**Craig:** Yes. And, again, this is also part of the function of how you function. So, if Nathan you’re the kind of person that likes to write and move forward inexorably, and John is more like that, then you might need some time at the end to go back and review and tighten up some screws here and there, fix some thingies.

I do the opposite. I kind of go back over everything. That’s the first thing I do in the day is go back over what I did yesterday and rewrite what I did yesterday. If you’re doing that, well then odds are by the time you get to the end you’ve pretty much tightened all the screws up. So you might not need as much time to go through that polishing process. It just depends on how you function.

**John:** And there are also writers who are very much vomit drafts, just the absolute quickest version I can get on paper is what I’ll do and then I’ll just back and refine and refine and refine. And at this point, if you’re being hired to write a studio feature, you probably have a sense of what kind of writer you are. So I think Craig and I are both talking like we are fixers along the way more than that. And so I’m ready to turn in my script shortly after finishing the last scene.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But that’s not some other people.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Now, looking at sort of how other stuff gets estimated, this last week I was reading this article by Jacob Kaplan Moss on software development and he was talking about how when you’re tackling a software project you look at sort of what are the small, medium, large, and extra-large areas of complexity. How certain are you that you can design these elaborate plans for these things? And I was thinking about my career as both a software developer and as a screenwriter, and a screenwriter it’s really ultimately just sort of butt in chair time that is ultimately the factor. How many pages are you getting written?

And a thing I did a lot early on in my career is I would barricade myself for five days to a week at the start. I would get a hotel room and just sit and handwrite pages until I’d broken the back of it. So I would write like 50 pages in just a few days. And when I knew that, OK, I understand this script. I’ve written all these scenes. I’ve proven to myself that I know actually how to write this script.

And in those initial scenes I would write I would not let myself go back and edit them. I would just only keep plowing forward and writing the new scenes. That’s maybe an approach that works for you. It’s not a thing I do right now, but it’s a way that you may need to think about achieving a critical mass of pages.

A thing I still do to this day is I will try to write those last scenes earlier on in the process. So I’m writing towards the middle rather than writing towards the end. That just gives me a sense of like, OK, I know I can actually finish this because I know what those last scenes are that I’m writing towards.

**Craig:** Yeah. Everybody goes about this in their own way. All you need to do Nathan is know your own way. Listen carefully to your own rhythm. Don’t judge it. Just accept it for what it is.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And then divide days into pages. It’s as simple as that. And you come up with a number. And that number is pages per day. And you’ll get it done.

**John:** And it may help to promise your script to some people a little bit early. I always find that deadlines are great. And so you have a hard deadline at ten weeks. But if you had a softer deadline at eight weeks to show it to a trusted reader friend that can be great. Because that can give you the feedback that you need to sort of bring it from the it’s an OK first draft to, oh, that’s a great first draft you’re handing into the studio.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Nathan, could you write back with an update in 10 weeks to let us know what happened with the script that you turned in? We’d love to hear it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s time for Megana Rao to join us to ask some listener questions. Megana, what do you have for us this week?

**Megana Rao:** Hi guys. All right, Sawyer asks, “When writing an odd couple two-hander do we have to choose which of those characters will be our eyes into the world? I’m having trouble with this and could use some examples. If you take a look at say Lethal Weapon, who would you say serves as our entry to the world?”

**Craig:** Those are two different questions actually Sawyer. You’re asking who are our eyes into the world and then who serves as our entry into the world. But those are two different kind of things. Because sometimes you use somebody to get in there, but really the perspective of the movie sits with the other person. To be honest with you, you have to do both. You need both of them. You can’t have just one of them be the sole perspective because then the other one just becomes luggage.

**John:** Well, Craig, let’s think about Identity Thief. That’s an odd couple two-hander.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** The Jason Bateman character is our window into the world. But does the Melissa character, she still has storytelling power when Bateman is not in scenes, right?

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, she gets her own introduction without him, prior to her ever meeting him or knowing him. And in fact that was actually, of any arguments that I had about the development of that, one of them was that everyone seemed to want to take that away from her or limit it. And what we had there was much less than what I wanted.

What I wanted was a much fuller exploration of who she was and why she was doing what she was doing. But both of them had – they existed independently of each other and they both had a point of view. And then really it’s about the relationship. So, the question implies that these two characters are actually two characters, when really when we watch these movies, whether they’re on television, or in a theater, what we’re actually coming to appreciate is the relationship between the two characters, meaning that’s the thing you should be servicing. Relationship. Not so much which one of them is eyes in, or which one serves as an entry.

**John:** Yeah. I’m working on a project that’s essentially a two-hander right now. And it is interesting how whoever we see first we tend to sort of give more credence to like oh they’re the person who is actually driving story. But in some cases it’s the wilder character who is actually creating more of the incidents, that is pushing stuff along. So, there’s always going to be a push/pull between these two characters and in theory you’re writing a story that can only exist because these two characters are together.

So, it becomes a little bit moot to say which character is really your principal character, which of the characters is the eyes into the world. It tends to be the less wild character, you can sort of relate to them more, we can sort of sit in their point of view a little bit more, but it’s not especially helpful when it comes down to really doing the scene work.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** What else you got for us here?

**Megana:** OK. Hans asks, “A few weeks ago a producer/friend of mine asked if I would be interested in working as a writer and maybe direct one of the episodes on the TV series she’s putting together. From the conversation I assumed that it would be a paid gig where I would be joining a group of professional writers. Last week I went in on a meeting thinking that I would hear the terms and details of the project. However, the meeting was two to three hours of brainstorming on the characters and the storyline. Participants of the meeting were the producer-friend, an actor friend of hers, and myself.

“So only one writer, which was me, in the room. When I asked what the plan is for the project the producer-friend asked us to meet every week for a meeting like this for at least a few weeks. After our first brainstorming session she gave us research homework for our next meeting.”

**Craig:** Aw, did she?

**Megana:** “Is this a general process for preparing a TV series idea? What do you think I should do? I’ve written and directed a small feature film before, but I don’t have experience working on other people’s projects. I don’t want to ruin the relationship with the producer, but I also don’t want to spend too much time and energy without getting some kind of compensation.”

**Craig:** I swear to god if we had a nickel for every time someone said, “I don’t want to ruin the relationship with the blank.” You know who is not worried about ruining relationships? The blank. They never worry about it. They have no problem sitting there going like, “Oh you know what I’m going to do, I’m going to exploit the hell out of a friend of mine and have them work week after week on something that’s some vanity project for me and an actor. And we’re not going to even tell them if they get paid, or not. And we’ll be in charge of the whole thing. And who knows who will own what. And that’s fine. I don’t mind ruining my relationship with that writer.”

It’s so frustrating.

**John:** Now Hans you’re being exploited. And this is not a real thing. This is not going to become a real thing. They’re asking you to do free labor. Don’t do it. It’s not helping you. This thing will never become a thing.

So, let’s imagine a scenario where the three of you really did genuinely come up with a great idea. Like you came up with It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and it’s like let’s figure out what this is and then if you were sort of voluntarily spending these hours to come up with this approach for how you’re going to do this and how you’re going to make this thing that’s awesome. But that’s not what this is.

This is a producer, who maybe has credits, you don’t say, an actor who maybe has credits, we don’t know, and you, the only person who can actually write the thing. And you’re supposed to somehow be the person to make this thing come to life. No. Just stop. It’s not real. You have our permission to tell them that they need to listen to this episode. You can give them this episode and tell them they have to listen to this and say like, no, this is not an acceptable thing to be doing.

**Craig:** Hans, in television the person who should be in charge is definitely not the non-writing producer. And it’s definitely not the actor. Non-writing producers are incredibly important when they’re great. I appreciate the ones that I work with deeply, because they provide enormous amount of value. But they’re not ultimately in charge of the series.

So when you say this one is pulling together a series, you’re supposed to be pulling together a series. That’s the way television works. The actors, you obviously need great actors. They’re essential to the success of the work, but again also generally speaking they aren’t the people that are pulling together these series. The writer is. Because the writer is the person that is going to be generating the content and the vision over many episodes and ideally many seasons.

The bottom line is you’re getting used here.

**John:** Yeah. In terms of getting people together to form an idea for a TV series to pitch out, yes, you could go in for a meeting with a producer, a general meeting with a producer, and really spark, OK, let’s work on a pitch for something we can take out on the town. That does happen. That’s real and that’s true. So you go in for a meeting at Berlanti’s company or wherever and say like, OK, let’s figure out what this is we want to do and we’ll take it into the studio to pitch it. That’s real and valid.

What this is is not real and valid. This is an idea that they had and they’re looking for some good writer to work for free on this thing and see if they can get it set up. So, no, stop.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just the fact that you didn’t even understand how speculative this was. And be aware. If you haven’t written anything down that two to three hours of brainstorming you did, that belongs to everybody and nobody. They can just go and pitch that to somebody. Yeah, this smells bad.

**Megana:** Do you guys think it’s worth him asking for compensation or should he just walk away because this seems like a fishy situation?

**Craig:** If you have to ask then the answer is…

**Megana:** Got it.

**Craig:** No. Like if you come to someone and you’re like, “Um, can I please be paid?” And they’re like, “Oh, you know what? Yes.” That never happens. Never happens. Nah, they’ll be like, “Oh, you will be. You will be paid. When we sell this for a billion dollars.”

**John:** But Megana in your question I hear another important question. What should Hans actually do or say next? Because what is that conversation that he has next with this producer? And I think it’s that you say, “Listen, it was great talking with you. I’m not interested in pursuing this as a non-paid gig. And I don’t see where this is going next.” And it doesn’t have to be any more acrimonious than that, but just make it clear that you’re only looking to do paid stuff, otherwise you’re going to focus on your own stuff. That’s fair.

**Craig:** You could even be less forthcoming and just say, “I’m so sorry, I loved meeting you. This sounds like a good idea. But the stuff that I’m working on right now that I’m buried in is just taking up too much of my time. I didn’t quite realize the extent of the commitment here. So I apologize, I have to withdraw.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And that’s that.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** God, it’s amazing how we care so much about our relationships with these people and they just don’t care about us at all.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Megana, thank you for these questions.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** We care about you, Megana.

**John:** We do.

**Megana:** Aw.

**Craig:** God.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a special I saw on Netflix this last week, Bo Burnham’s Inside.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. People loved this.

**John:** It’s really good. And so Bo Burnham is the writer and director of Eighth Grade. He’s a standup comic and obviously mostly known for that and started on YouTube. This is a comedy special filmed entirely at his guest house during the pandemic. Just him. And just him setting up cameras and lights and doing stuff. And the first half of it is really funny in the way that his specials have always been funny. But it morphs into something very unusual and special. And so it’s not even like a standup special. It’s just sort of a film made by and starring only him and what he’s going through.

So just really so well done and so inventive and so remarkable. And so I recommend people check out Bo Burnham’s Inside.

**Craig:** Well my One Cool Thing I got from you, John, on Twitter. Megana, have you seen this? Jack Plotnick’s video Disney Made a Tiki Room?

**Megana:** Oh, yes, is this the one with the women and the birds?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Megana:** Yes, I also saw that on John’s Twitter and laughed so much. It’s wonderful.

**Craig:** It’s amazing. So there was this old television show called, what was it, the Wonderful World of Disney, which would air on whatever it was, ABC, or something. And it would always begin with Walt talking to you about, you know, whatever things they were working on or the park or something. And then some movie or show would begin.

And it looks I guess that this is from one of those. And Disney had the Tiki Room. I don’t know if it still exists. But it was not one of their better attractions. It was kind of known as the thing you would go into because it was really hot and you didn’t want to wait in line.

And he’s talking and in the background there are just four women in very ‘60s/’70s clothing working on building these animatronic birds. And Jack Plotnick sort of puts himself in all of their wardrobe, plays all of them. And through the magic of editing, and brilliant acting, like very subtle shades.

**John:** Really good acting.

**Craig:** He manages to make all those women their own person and you know them instantly. And it is brilliantly funny. It’s just so well done. And it even has its own villain. Its own unlikely villain. And it just – we know the song. We know the song.

Anyway, you’ve got to see it. It’s wonderful. Jack Plotnick is a very funny, very talented guy. Disney Made a Tiki Room.

**John:** So I’ve known Jack peripherally for like 20 years. I think I probably know him through Melissa McCarthy and a whole bunch of those friends. Just so talented. And obviously what we’re seeing here is not even really drag, because the character work is so specific.

**Craig:** No, it’s acting.

**John:** It’s just acting and really small subtle details. So if you like this the good news is it’s not just this video. He has equivalent things for the Plaza restaurant. And the Small World ride. And basically all the stuff that’s happening. And so he’s playing all these women who are around Walt Disney while he’s doing these things and their side conversations. It’s just so smartly done.

**Craig:** It really is. And like, yeah, I would watch a movie of these women together.

**John:** And actually very much a good match to the Bo Burnham because like he is somehow doing this all himself and is just a remarkable writer and filmmaker in addition to being such a great performer.

**Craig:** He’s a really good editor. I’ve got to say.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Or if someone is working with him and editing, apologies, but the editing was outstanding.

**John:** The jokes are working because they’re cut so perfectly.

**Craig:** Brilliantly. Speed. Tempo. Rhythm. All of it. Lovely.

**John:** Good stuff. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** You know it is.

**John:** It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Always.

**John:** Our outro is by Eric Pearson. If you have an outro you can send us a link at ask@johnaugust.com. The folder is getting a little bit thin, so we would love some more outros coming in please.

ask@johnaugust.com is also where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions on Twitter, I’m @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on UFOs. Craig and Megana, thank you so much.

**Megana:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** So, So Craig a lot of news about UFOs this last week. So, I’m linking to a New York Times story here. US Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects But Can’t Rule it Out Either. There’s a bunch of navy footage, including naval video footage, of navy fighter jets seeing this stuff and like we don’t know what that is, but it’s moving fast.

**Craig:** Why don’t they just title this People Still Can’t Prove a Negative? That’s what this article should be called. I liked it. Can’t rule it out. Yeah, of course, can’t rule anything out.

**John:** No. Craig, let’s break this down granularly. So these navy pilots are seeing things in person and on their screens. What do you think these unidentified flying objects they are encountering are? What are some possibilities in your head for what they’re seeing?

**Craig:** Possibilities are things that are very close to the cameras but through distortion appear to be far away. They could be video artifacts. They could be things that through optical illusion appear to be in different places when they’re really in one. Distortion of something. Or they could be aliens flying around in such a way as to be seen, but only by fighter jets, and only vaguely. And never landing or doing anything. Just flying around.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** So those are the choices.

**John:** Yeah. I have friends who have seen UFOs in person. And they’re not telling me they saw alien spacecraft. But they saw, like at a lake. A bunch of them at nighttime saw this thing that like what the hell is that. And they could not understand what it was they were seeing at a distance.

My inclination is it is something like that. It is something like how mirages form and distortions of things. Stuff that is not where it’s supposed to be. It’s understandable that there’s a real phenomenon that you’re encountering, but that does not mean that it’s an alien out there.

Craig, do you believe that there is other intelligent life in the universe?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Yes. And do you believe that intelligent life in the universe has at any point visited earth?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I am not so certain of that. I think it’s more plausible that an alien civilization would have visited earth at some time during our whatever billion years the earth has been around. I don’t know that they’re ever encountered our civilization or would even be curious about our civilization.

**Craig:** I mean, yeah, it’s possible that they stopped over, looked around, said this is a real shithole. It’s full of large lizards and plants and it’s very humid and let’s go. Because humans have been on this planet for a blink of an eye in terms of the planet’s history. Yeah, so it’s possible that they did that. In the way that we landed a rover on Mars and then we die and four billion years from now there are Martians and they’re like I wonder if anybody from another planet got here. Yeah, OK, well we did, but who cares? It was just a rover. It doesn’t matter.

But, no, I think that if you have the technology to fly across massive distances, enormous hard to comprehend distances, and bring your ships here, then you would do so with a purpose. And you certainly would not be doing this, which is just taunting pilots by zipping around weirdly and doing sort of circus aerial tricks. It just doesn’t make any sense.

**John:** Now, one of the things on the list of possibilities which I don’t think you included was that these actually are aircraft but they’re not aircraft that we are currently aware of. That they could be other countries’ drones, or things like that, that we’re just not aware of how they work.

**Craig:** Unlikely. Unlikely that other countries have built something that is so spectacularly superior to what we have that we can’t even believe our eyes. And yet still are flying it around in front of us. It’s all very, very unlikely. Doesn’t quite add up.

UFOs, particularly wonderful term for what these things are. They are unidentified flying objects which would cover alien spacecraft, bugs, dirt, drones.

**John:** Blimps.

**Craig:** Blimps. Everything.

**John:** Albatrosses.

**Craig:** Correct. So, the fact that we can’t explain what our eyes just saw, I know we want to say listen to these pilots when they’re talking, listen to how amazed they are. Well, OK, now go watch Harrison Ford see David Blaine pull a card out of a piece of fruit in his house. It’s the same face. But it doesn’t mean that it’s magic. It just means we got fooled by something. And sometimes we’re fooled by things that we can’t believe. Optical illusions alone, we’ve said many times, just the existence of optical illusions should give us enough doubt about the value of our own eyes.

**John:** Now, you are a skeptic at this moment. But at any point did younger Craig Mazin like UFOs? Because I remember going through a period, six, seven, eight, maybe all the way up to ten, where stuff like the Power of the Pyramids, loved it. The Bermuda Triangle. Loved all that stuff. And, yes, I outgrew it. But did you ever have that phase?

**Craig:** Never.

**John:** Never?

**Craig:** I never believed any of it. I never believed in god. I never believed in pyramids.

**John:** You never had Santa Claus.

**Craig:** No, I mean, I believed in the story of Santa Claus. I mean, I knew that there was a narrative. So like he existed the way that the Grinch existed. They’re characters. But I never believed in angels, demons, devils. The Bermuda Triangle is obviously nonsense. What’s the point? That’s really what would happen is I would read this and go why? Why would there be a thing there where ships go through a hole in the world and land somewhere? What’s the point?

**John:** Because the City of Atlantis has to be somewhere Craig.

**Craig:** It really doesn’t. [laughs]

**John:** It only makes sense that Atlantis would be in the Bermuda Triangle.

**Craig:** Sure. And that it would need ships to get pulled through? None of it makes sense. None of it ever added up. There is no Sasquatch. None of that crap. There’s no Loch Ness Monster. It’s all nonsense and it’s always been nonsense.

And, yes, I’m aware that I’m lumping God in with Sasquatch. But it’s all the same to me.

**John:** Hmm. Do you think we will find another cool mammal somewhere on earth? Like a big cool mammal?

**Craig:** Yeah, that is very possible. In certain remote regions we can discover. Will we discover a mammal that has never been seen before? That is unlikely to me. But will we rediscover one that we thought was extinct? I think that actually has happened a few times. I could see that happening again.

**John:** It has. Certainly with mammals and also with fish. I feel like the oceans are so vast and we’ve explored so little of them. I think there’s probably very interesting stuff down there that we’ve not even begun to explore.

**Craig:** Yes. The depths of the ocean. There are fish down there we have not yet laid eyes on.

**John:** Craig, if an alien spacecraft were to visit earth, let’s assume you’re president of earth. I think that’s a fair assumption. What do you do?

**Craig:** Oh, well, if an intelligent life form visits the planet I would treat them as visitors. And welcome them to the planet, and tell them how excited that we are that they’re here. We presume they’re here to have an exchange of ideas, cultures, learn about each other. And if they’re here to destroy us, well, I guess we’ll find out if they can. Because if they can, they will.

But I would also just wonder why. Now, of course, I’m sure that a lot of the people who are sitting around in countries that got colonized by the British were also like why? Why are you doing this? And then they’re like, oh, you need stuff that we have. So it’s possible. That’s the standard plot of the movie.

**John:** They’re going to use us as food or to work in your mines.

**Craig:** We’re not great food.

**John:** We’re not great food, no.

**Craig:** For instance, we have a lot of a certain mineral that they really, really need. It turns out you know what’s incredibly rare in the universe? The rarest element in the universe is iron. And we have all of it. Then I could see that being a huge problem. But short of that I would hope that they were just like, hey, just as we would. I mean, it seems like if we were flying around and we landed a rover on Mars and a Martian came out and said hello that we would be like, “This is amazing. Hi. Don’t watch Fox News. But look at this. Look at this. Here’s a John Lennon song.”

**John:** So, all right, Craig, I’m a little saddened to not believe in these UFOs, but also I get it. I understand. I don’t want to be a pessimist. I don’t think human beings in our form will ever leave the solar system. I think our bodies are just not meant to be in space that long.

**Craig:** The solar system is very hard to leave. Yeah, that’s really hard to leave. Just traveling to Mars would be very difficult. Grueling and lengthy journey of many, many months and quite a number of dangers. All to land on the closest planet to us.

**John:** Yeah. The most hospitable planet.

**Craig:** Correct. The closest and most hospitable. Exactly. But, yeah, getting out of the solar system. Unless we have our Star Trek First Contact moment where someone invents the hyperspace drive. Oh, I’m going to get yelled at because it’s not called that. The Hyper Warp Drive. I’m sorry.

**John:** Warp Drive.

**Craig:** C’mon guys.

**John:** I predict that within maybe not my lifetime but my daughter’s lifetime we might find the equivalent of a Dyson Sphere or something that’s out there that indicates like, oh, there is actually a huge engineered project out there that shows that OK there’s some other civilization out there.

**Craig:** My concern is that we routinely underestimate the vast nature of what is out there. That we are essentially an atom inside of an elephant. And we are imagining is there another atom like us somewhere near the tail, or by the toe. Hubble has seen quite, quite far for us. And they ain’t seen nothing yet.

**John:** But it’s also easy to underestimate our kind of logarithmic progress in computing power and ability to sort of look, look, look, look, look, and as it increases we might actually start to make a dent in our visible area of space.

**Craig:** John, you know how they say that the universe is endlessly expanding?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Doesn’t that remind you of when you’re walking around in a videogame and the background just keeps filling in on you?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know what I’m saying?

**John:** I do. Yeah. When there’s a little lag, a little latency. Like, oh, it’s pixilated now. It’s filling in.

**Craig:** There it is. The better the telescope, the more nothing it will see because this isn’t real.

**John:** Oh no. Getting back to that.

**Craig:** It’s not real. What are the odds that we’re the only, I mean, come on. We’ve been around here. We’ve got all this stuff and telescopes and things and, nope, not even one little tiny thing after all this time. It’s because this is a big show. It’s not real. Simulation.

**John:** Yeah. And now it’s over.

**Craig:** Wait, now?

**John:** [laughs] At least this episode of the show is over.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. And boy, talk about lack of free will.

**John:** Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you John and thank you Megana. Megana, I hope I didn’t bum you out too much.

**Megana:** I hate when we get to the simulation point.

**Craig:** Excellent.

Links:

* [Alamo Drafthouse out of Bankruptcy](https://deadline.com/2021/06/alamo-drafthouse-completes-sale-out-of-bankruptcy-five-new-theaters-box-office-revives-1234767261/)
* [Speculation that AMC may buy our beloved Arclight](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-06-01/amc-eyes-arclight-theaters-but-what-about-cinerama)
* [Warner Brothers Discovery Logo](https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/warner-bros-discovery-logo-mocked-1234985685/)
* [CAA Sells wiip](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-06-01/caa-sells-majority-stake-in-production-firm-to-south-koreas-jtbc-studios-co)
* [Screen Compensation Guide for Streaming Services](https://www.wga.org/members/employment-resources/writers-deal-hub/screen-compensation-guide-for-streaming-services)
* [Screen Deal Tips](https://www.wga.org/members/employment-resources/writers-deal-hub/screen-deal-tips)
* [32 year old passes for 19 for TV contract](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/17/arts/tv-writer-32-passed-for-19-bloom-is-off-her-contract.html)
* [Jacob Kaplan-Moss on estimating software development](https://jacobian.org/2021/may/25/my-estimation-technique/)
* [Bo Burnham’s Inside](https://www.netflix.com/title/81289483)
* [Jack Plotnick’s Disney Made a Tiki Room](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9-5lxa9Hm8&list=PLAxvenXhNoAfDoleh_wZ1PLuva0rVwMuW&index=2)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Eric Pearson ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/504standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 499: Live and In Person Transcript

May 11, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/live-and-in-person).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 499 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie where we take a look at stories in the news and discuss how they would be adapted to a big or small screen. Plus, listener questions on writing routines and the seduction of supporting characters. And in our bonus segment for premium members Craig will talk about his trip to Canada and getting ready for a big expedition to make a television show.

**Craig:** Big, great, white North.

**John:** But Craig something feels different today. I’m trying to put my finger on exactly what is different about this podcast than other podcast recordings.

**Craig:** You can put your finger on my face.

**John:** You are three feet away from me. We are for our first time in more than 14 months to record a podcast live and in person across the table from each other.

**Craig:** Through the magic of Pfizer and Moderna we can now do this kind of thing. And I don’t know, it doesn’t feel like it’s been that long. I think our ability to adjust to insanity and then the undoing of insanity is remarkable.

**John:** It is incredibly remarkable. So, Megana looked it up. The last time we recorded in person was December 16, 2019.

**Craig:** Oh, wow. That’s a year and a half ago.

**John:** And I haven’t seen you in person since that time either.

**Craig:** Although, I mean, we see each other every week on Zoom for Dungeons & Dragons, which is far more important than anything else. It doesn’t seem like I haven’t seen you.

**John:** No. But we haven’t actually seen each other.

**Craig:** Weird.

**John:** It’s odd. I’ve seen Aline plenty of times. We’ve gone for walks.

**Craig:** Everybody sees Aline. If you say Aline’s name into the mirror three times Aline will appear and criticize your clothing.

**John:** So we normally don’t record this in person live, but we occasionally would together and it was lovely to get together. And now we can do this again. Except that you’re now leaving for Canada.

**Craig:** Right. Well, you know, a little last hurrah. Actually, I didn’t even think about that. But it actually worked out quite nicely.

**John:** Yeah. Lovely.

**Craig:** You ain’t gonna see me again.

**John:** Nope. All right, let’s start with some follow up. So we’ve been talking about the Scott Rudin situation. Anonymous wrote in to say, “Craig spoke about vulnerable people being particularly targeted by abusers because we don’t have those healthy mechanisms of what I call consent and boundaries based on histories of abuse or mistreatment carving away our self-esteem and ability to advocate for ourselves. That is a very important part of this conversation. But what is being overlooked is the very real practice of blacklisting that is still happening to people who come forward, especially if they aren’t already established or ‘famous.’

“What happens when you Google the names of the people who have come forward. If they weren’t already famous and even if they are they are tied inextricably to their abusers. And so many people with hiring and/or buying power will refuse to work with those who have may be seen as whistleblowers or worse troublemakers.”

Anonymous writes that “I was dropped by a rep after coming forward. So this is not hypothetical. I experienced blacklisting firsthand. And I’ve seen it happen to friends who have gone on record about abusers. I know it affected my acting career and I’m concerned it’s going to affect my ability to get literary representation.”

**Craig:** Well, that’s true. It’s unfortunate. One would hope that it is becoming less true than it was before. I think before when the default setting in Hollywood was let’s all just keep our mouths shut about this terrible thing and move on quietly then you were rewarded for keeping your mouth shut in theory. Things have changed, happily.

I want to believe that as more of this happens it becomes harder and harder to engage in this kind of worrisome practice. Also, I’m not sure there’s a purpose to engaging in the worrisome practice anymore. Why blacklist people who are complaining about say Scott Rudin? It doesn’t make any sense.

There is this gray zone where somebody can make an accusation and other people can doubt them. And then you can be assigned this troublemaker moniker. And we as an industry have the same challenges that every industry has. Every aspect or walk of life in our society is struggling with this because there is a tendency sometimes to just say, oh, well you’re crazy. I don’t want to deal with you anymore.

**John:** Yeah. So I think the Friends situation. Remember there was a writer’s room and there were complaints about PAs in that writer’s room felt like they were being mistreated. And it was complicated because you both want to have a vigorous debate and discussion within the room, but it was also clear that terrible things were happening in the room, or things that shouldn’t have been happening in the room were happening in the room. And so how do you balance that out.

When you have a person whose name is identified with it it becomes somewhat of a challenge. But I do agree with you that I think it’s less of a challenge in 2021 than it was in 2019 or 2017. I think we’re recognizing that people who are calling out this behavior aren’t troublemakers. They are just speaking to reality.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But the trend is certainly positive. I think sometimes of Megan Ganz who is the brilliant co-showrunner and executive producer of Mythic Quest and worked on Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Community. And she had a very public I guess confrontation with Dan Harmon who was her former boss at Community and who had engaged in just poor behavior. Really bad behavior. And I think you could call it – certainly it was abusive in the sense that he was her boss. And he made that work environment the absolute definition of hostile. And she handled it beautifully. It’s not like it’s incumbent upon the people who suffered to handle things beautifully. That said, she handled it beautifully.

And I do know that while if you Google Megan Ganz that will come up, so will a whole lot of other things. And I suspect that as the years go on she will continue to do outstanding work and be recognized for that which is correct. And the Google page rank of that unfortunate chapter in her life will lower down on things.

It is important to not be afraid to confront people. Even though there is some sort of risk there I guess I would just encourage people to note that it’s getting better. Not perfect but better.

**John:** One other thing you could note from both the Weinstein and the Rudin situations is that when people come together as a group there’s less focus on the individual person who comes forward.

**Craig:** Yes. So when it’s one person talking about one person our stupid little lizard brains turn it into a he said/she said. It’s our favorite phrase. Somehow that becomes, I don’t know, salacious. And then, you know, I would say that the group of people that need to think about this the most carefully are our dear friends the agents who are not known for their bravery. And as a group tend to shy away from things that seem like they are just going to be difficult. They love the path of least resistance and most money. And they need to not do this sort of thing.

**John:** Well you’re saying that because agents are connected and agents do have access to those whisper networks. They do have a sense of what’s going on. And they should not be sending people into situations where they suspect there is going to be a problem. And they can also have the ability to connect clients who are having similar things and hopefully make some changes.

**Craig:** And certainly if they have a client who does confront somebody or make an accusation they should really not ever contemplate just dropping that person because. So, for instance our anonymous writer here says, “I was dropped by my rep after coming forward so this is not a hypothetical.” Now, I can certainly imagine a case where somebody makes an accusation. A long stretch of time goes by. And then an agent says our professional relationship isn’t working here. Agents aren’t wed to you permanently. But they should not be able to just dump you – a little bit like the unions come in to try and unionize a shop. By law you can’t fire the organizing employees.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Not allowed to. And they still do it anyway. But you’re not allowed to. And you can get, you know, taken – dragged into labor court. And similarly I think if you’re an agent and you have a client who makes an accusation or confronts somebody about abuse you should not be dropping them at all. You need to wait and be respectful of that process.

**John:** Agreed. Back in Episode 494 we talked about typos in Three Page Challenges. And Frank from England wrote in to say, “When listening to Episode 494 a couple weeks ago my heart sunk a little when you said that you instructed Megana not to consider scripts with typos anymore. I totally understand your frustration with typos, but please just consider for a moment the circumstances of the writers who sent those first three pages of their script for feedback. In my case, I’m not only dyslexic but I was also abused throughout my childhood by my late mother. And I was also bullied at school and work. So, my circumstances make it very hard for me to trust people and make friends that can give me feedback on my writing.

“Please help to spread the word that readers can try to be a little bit more understanding as they read and judge someone’s script. I care very much about my writing and it probably takes me three times longer to write anything than a more abled writer. I imagine my lack of success as a writer is probably directly linked to my dyslexia and people judging me as someone who doesn’t care or doesn’t put effort into their writing.”

**Craig:** Well…

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** OK, so Frank I sympathize with you, but I’m going to disagree with you and I’m going to put sort of a firm thing down here for all of our benefit. Because of course you know me and John through the podcast, but you have no idea what we were dealing with when we were growing up at all. So, when you say that you were abused as a child and bullied as a child you don’t know whether or not that is the case for me or John or both.

Similarly, you don’t know if either one of us are dyslexic. As it turns out I am not. But I do have a son who is not neuro-typical and I have a lot of experience working with him. And I can tell you that what I’ve always told him, and what I’m going to tell you is your challenges are not everyone else’s responsibility. It is important for us to acknowledge that other people have different challenges. And it’s important for us to acknowledge that things may be harder for you than they are for other people.

However, the world will evaluate things the way they evaluate things. And writing, it is important to write with a concern for the reader. And that means typos. I don’t have a problem with you saying I struggle to write without typos. I do have a problem with you saying but also because I’m scared of showing it to other people, or concerned, or it makes me feel bad, or triggers me, I’m not going to. Instead I’m going to show it to you guys.

Well we’re also people, right? And I think there has to be somebody in your life you can trust that you feel safe enough with to help you with this. People want to help. And this is the mildest form of help possibly. Simple proofreading of three pages. You’re going to have to figure this out because we are weirdly the nicest people you’re going to meet when you send pages to the rest of the world. Oh boy.

So, what I’m saying Frank is I’m encouraging you to stretch a little bit here and confront a little bit of that fear to at least ask for the help required to get you where you need to be. It’s not wrong to need help. It’s not shameful to need help. But if you don’t ask for it then you are going to suffer unnecessarily.

**John:** I am also sympathetic to Frank’s situation and I want to sort of provide a little context around things. Because we get three pages and we don’t know anything about you and your situation. And you’re essentially anonymous coming into us.

It would be a different case if we were university professors, university writing professors and we see these pages and then we can talk with you and learn that, oh, you have these challenges. Great. So let’s take a look at those challenges individually. If we could look at you as an individual and not just a set of three pages, I think it is important to sort of acknowledge people’s backgrounds and histories and sort of what they’re coming to and sort of how we can best help.

But we don’t have that. And so putting a disclaimer on the top of these three pages to say like hey this is my whole situation. I’m dyslexic. Don’t judge me for these things. Sure. We could do it for the Three Page Challenge, but it’s not going to help you in the long run because everyone is going to read your script without knowing that context.

**Craig:** Yes. And that’s a hard thing to deal with. Because it would be nice if the world were willing to expand its tolerance for everyone. We’re not here to behave like the tough, uncaring world. We’re just two guys who are offering to read your stuff for free and then comment on it. And so, you know, we have certain standards that we indeed are allowed to have. So I strongly recommend again Frank, first of all, congratulations for working through the dyslexia. And congratulations on pursuing writing despite that.

And I know that there are other emotional issues that you’re struggling with and dealing with and I’m proud of you for writing this letter. Because it seems like you’re actually more capable of confronting these things perhaps than you’re indicating. All you need to do in this case, it’s pretty simple, find one person you trust and have them help you with typos. That’s it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Easy.

**John:** You could pay that person, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, geez, if you have to pay them. I mean, it’s three pages. Don’t pay them too much, Frank.

**John:** No. Megana also makes a very good point here is that the Three Page Challenge is in addition to us discussing them online we also post them online so people can download them. So, you want your best work out there. So your name is going to be linked to these three pages and it’s going to be Google-able. You do really want them to be the best possible pages you could put up there.

**Craig:** Yes. All this, we should add just because it’s been on our minds lately, it is important for us to hear from disabled writers. And we don’t ask people to identify who they are. We don’t even need names. But we’re certainly not asking people what their genders are, their sexuality, or their status as an able person or a disabled person. But if you are disabled and you want to let us know you are free to do that because we are – we do want a good cross section.

For a long time what we were concentrating on was just straight gender because our gender breakdown was horrendous. How is it lately by the way?

**John:** Improving.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** We haven’t done the numbers recently. And again we don’t ask when people submit. Megana, correct me, we’re not asking when people submit, are we?

**Megana Rao:** We’re not asking. I go based off of names sometimes.

**John:** We’re guessing based on names. We aim for inclusion in terms of making sure we have people, writers represented from across the spectrum. So, you know, you can speak up and let us know if that’s your situation.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Which reminds me, I meant to say this ahead of the show. We talk about equity inclusion a lot on the show. And there’s actually survey for WGA members. That’s going to be in your inbox as you listen to this episode. So, take a look there. If you’re a WGA member there’s a survey specifically looking at feature writers’ equity and inclusion which is a harder thing to measure.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so it’s going out to all the membership because sometimes TV writers are also pitching on features. And so it’s to everybody. But if you are a WGA member, WGA West member I think, look for that survey in your mailbox.

**Craig:** I can’t wait to fill it out. [laughs]

**John:** You love WGA surveys.

**Craig:** I love WGA email. I love WGA surveys. They’re my favorite.

**John:** All right. 497 we talked about the hierarchy of genres. And Jesse wrote in with sort of a three part discussion of hierarchy of genres. And I thought there were three good points and I thought we might tackle them separately.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** Number one, “Since the primacy of drama seems to be fueled by awards shows, isn’t it likely that we are all just living in the promotional universe established by big studios who have created these award shows in order to drive audiences to underseen dramas since dramas often have the lowest box office grosses?”

Do you accept this thesis?

**Craig:** No. And the reason I do not accept the thesis is because award shows are the result of voting. We just saw an interesting occur at the Oscars where it was quite clear that the Oscars and the production of the award show was assuming, as were all of the odds makers and pundits, that Chadwick Boseman was going to win for Best Actor posthumously. And so they put that category last, which it never is. And he didn’t win. And why didn’t he win? Because voters voted for Anthony Hopkins. And that’s how voting is.

Do you remember in 2016 when voters did a weird thing?

**John:** Uh-huh.

**Craig:** Now, by the way, I don’t want to take anything away from Anthony Hopkins. Sir Anthony Hopkins, one of the great actors of all time. I haven’t seen, it’s called–

**John:** The Father.

**Craig:** The Father. I haven’t seen it. But I imagine it’s an extraordinary performance because all of his performances are extraordinary. The point I’m making, Jesse, is that the award shows can’t predict anything. It’s the award voters that seem to love drama. And because they love it that’s what ends up coming out. The award shows are certainly used by studios to help try and push and promote things, although in this day and age I don’t know even know what that means anymore. Because it used to be that Nomadland would need to win an Oscar so that people would go see it in theaters. But Nomadland is on my computer. So no one is going to – I can see it – I don’t know.

**John:** It was a weird year. That’s why we’re not – we don’t really talk about the Oscars anyway, but I just felt like this year was just – it’s a Mulligan. There were some lovely movies made. But I’m not counting it as a normal year.

**Craig:** It was an odd year. Do other art forms have the same hierarchy? Of course.

**John:** Books have the same hierarchy. Painting, yeah, sort of like serious art versus–

**Craig:** Of course. Dogs playing poker, which I vastly prefer.

**John:** Sculpture does, absolutely. Dance, of course. You look at NBA dancers versus ballet. There is a higher and low form.

**Craig:** Yes. And also in music. Pop music is considered pop music. Pop music wins awards at pop music awards shows. But, you know, your fancier, I don’t know what you call them, critics are always going to – I remember when I was in high school Rolling Stone came out with like their 100 best rock albums of all time, or even 100 best albums of all time. And I remember there was like – there was an album by Richard and Linda Thompson in the top ten and I’m like, “Sorry who? What? Huh?” There was also Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.

Now, have you ever heard of Captain Beefheart?

**John:** I’ve heard the name. I have no idea what [unintelligible].

**Craig:** Richard and Linda Thompson are the Beatles as far as I’m concerned compared to Captain Beefheart and his album Trout Mask Replica, which is utter nonsense. I’m aware that a number of aging weed smokers are running to their computers or slowly crawling to their computers to write me angry dude mail about how I just don’t get it. The comedian Marc Maron who does his very big podcast has a great thing about Beefheart and how he tried to get into Beefheart and he failed to get into Beefheart.

Well, Captain Beefheart isn’t one of the ten best albums of all time, or Trout Mask Replica. The name alone–

**John:** I can’t even parse what you’re saying. Trout Mask Replica?

**Craig:** Trout Mask Replica. That tells you everything you need to know. It is garbage. And, sorry Captain Beefheart if you’re out there. It’s not very good. It’s just nonsense. It’s like – it doesn’t matter. The point is sometimes in the world of snooty critics weirder and more [a formal] and bizarre is considered better. There are still people that think that Revolution Number 9 is a great Beatles song when of course it’s garbage.

**John:** All right. So Jesse is asking what can we learn by the comparison, and I think what we can learn from the comparison is there’s always going to be the fancy version of things and the popular common version of things. And so you see that in dance, you see that in books, you see that wherever. And what is the actual impact of that in what we do in terms of screenwriting? It can kind of suck. That prestige thing can kind of suck.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** But also comedy writers do get paid good money.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** There’s recognition of despite the we want Aaron Sorkin to write these fancy dramas, that’s not sort of keeping the lights on in studios.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a gif – I say gif – that I saw this morning. I can’t even remember what the context was. But it’s from Mad Men. And Elizabeth Moss’s character is saying sort of tearily to Jon Hamm’s character, “You never say thank you.” And then he says back, “That’s what the money is for.” Which I think is freaking awesome.

And so, yes, for comedy writers the awards shows never say thank you. That’s what the money is for. The one thing that bums me out is that at least in the Emmys there is a full category for comedy. And there isn’t one in the Oscars and that’s a mistake. It’s just a permanent, endless mistake.

**John:** So you’re saying the Golden Globes people have it exactly right? By having a comedy–

**Craig:** Globes people do not. So they’ve combined comedy and variety, or comedy/musical. So they’ve combined comedy and musical together into one monstrosity where that’s why The Martian gets put up for Best Comedy or Musical for the Golden Globes, which makes no sense.

**John:** I would see a Martian musical.

**Craig:** Yes, well of course. But the Emmys have Drama, Comedy. And that’s great. And I think the Oscars should have Best Drama and Best Comedy. Because what happens to the world of comedy and comedy writing in features is that everybody just eventually gets embittered. Because you’re sitting there going there have been years where the comedy business held this whole thing up. And then everybody goes, “Boo, dumb comedy. Anyway, here’s a movie that four people saw.” Oscars!

And, you know, you start to feel like – no comedy? None deserves any award ever? For decades?

**John:** So here’s a difference I will point out is that when we talk about high art/low art, comedy/drama, in many of these other fields those art forms are completely separate. Ballet and hip hop dancing, they’re never in the same place. Where we’re all doing the same thing. We’re literally doing the same stuff. And for it to have a snootiness about it is ridiculous.

**Craig:** It is. And I’m not a member of the movie Academy, but you are.

**John:** I am, as is Aline.

**Craig:** As is Aline. So I feel like the two of you–

**John:** Singlehandedly we’ll start a revolution.

**Craig:** You could start a thing, you know, where we get – maybe comedy could be a category. I don’t know. Here’s what always blows my mind about the Oscars is that they hire a comedian to please the audience to tell jokes and then all the presenters come out and routinely there are little comedy sketches throughout as if to say we are aware that comedy is entertaining and wonderful. Also, no comedy is getting an award tonight. None.

That’s weird.

**John:** It is weird.

**Craig:** It’s weird.

**John:** It’s weird. Final point. It’s also useful to investigate our paradigms. We’re talking about awards and accolades, which would probably rank the primary genres drama, action, comedy, whereas viewership and likely cultural impact would rank them as action, comedy, or drama, which is another way of saying like viewers want to see things in a different order than how we rank them societally.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s a common argument where people say awards aren’t popularity contests. And if all that mattered was popular than we would give all the Grammys to the people who wrote the Baby Shark song.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Which I understand that. Which by the way they should. But I think that’s a pretty fake argument. Nobody really believes in the slippery slope of it has to be only popular or only whatever quality is. This is partly reason that people just don’t watch these shows anymore. I mean, the Oscar viewership hasn’t just dropped, it’s tumbling off a cliff.

I was looking at the numbers and it was horrifying. Now, maybe the people have just lost interest in awards. I don’t know. But I think part of it is that the Oscars generally do feel like they are awarding a bunch of movies no one has seen or in some cases even heard of. So, at least if they had the comedy category there’d be one thing that people had heard of. Because people have heard of comedies. Although, watch, then they’ll give it to some weird obscure comedy no one has heard of. Oh, Oscars.

**John:** That’s how it happens. All right, now it’s time for one of our favorite segments. How Would This Be a Movie?

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** And so this week I was scrolling through my Twitter, which Craig doesn’t scroll through Twitter as much anymore.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** But Rachel Syme had this really great tweet that people were responding to and quote-replying to. And her question was, “What’s a photograph you would like to see made into an entire prestige TV series?” So people were like putting a photo in and saying like I want to say the series about this. And we’ll put a link in the show notes to this thread. But these were cool, iconic photos. The one that struck out the most to me was it looks like it’s the 1950s or ‘60s, a Black woman has her purse on her left arm. She’s smoking a cigarette. And seems entirely unimpressed by these military police soldiers who are standing right by her.

It just felt great. And I was like I want to see Octavia Spencer play that character. I don’t even know who that person is, but I wanted to see that moment.

So we often think about starting with a story, a story in the news, but sometimes just an image can be the feel for what the movie would be.

**Craig:** I remember reading a story about the Coen brothers and the creation of Miller’s Crossing which I love. And apparently it started with an image. It wasn’t a photograph but rather something that they had just imagined, but it was the image of a hat blowing by the wind through a forest. I just thought, you know, if I had that thought I would have probably been like shut up Craig. No one cares about a hat in the forest.

Those two geniuses, god, the excellence of those guys. Just the consistent excellence over the years. Just amazing.

Anyway, it is fascinating to think like – and if you watch Miller’s Crossing sure enough a big deal is that hat blowing along through the forest.

**John:** There’s a 2005 Brazilian film called House of Sand, or The House of Sand, by Elena Soarez, she wrote it. And I remember going to a screening and she was talking about it. And it was all just based on one photograph. And so the director had this photograph. I want the movie that could lead to this photograph. And so she wrote this elaborate story and it’s terrific.

**Craig:** It’s actually a great prompt if you’re stuck. Just pick some photo and go to town. Fun game.

**John:** So we asked our listeners to write in with their suggestions for How Would This Be a Movie. We’re going to start with the Super League, the European Super Soccer League, which was all over the headlines for about 48 hours.

**Craig:** That’s as long as it lasted.

**John:** I woke up to it and I didn’t know what it was. I don’t really understand European football. I assumed that somehow my friend Ryan Reynolds and your friend Rob McElhenney had somehow done something terrible.

**Craig:** No. Although I did hear a lot about it from Rob. So, the fascinating thing about European football, or as we know it soccer, is that their leagues don’t function the way our professional leagues function here. So Major League Baseball, the NFL, NBA, NHL, they are professional teams. And those are the teams. Every year a bunch of them are in last.

Now sometimes what will happen is a franchise will move out of a city and move to another city. But the point being your performance doesn’t impact whether or not you’re still a Major League Baseball team. Not so in Europe. There is the Premier League. So the idea is that’s kind of like the Major Football League. Individual teams by performance qualify to get into, or can drop out of it through poor performance.

So this speaks to this very odd culture. And it goes way, way back. And it is all tied up in super old European stuff that comes down to pride of city and all the rest of it. If you’ve ever seen videos of Mancunians singing You’ll Never Walk Alone you’ll understand. This is like it’s more than sports to them. It’s life.

And what happened was a bunch of the huge teams were like why don’t we all just get together and make our own league, because we’re the ones that make all the money. And we’ll make even more money like this. And the people not only from the teams that weren’t invited to this super league but the people from the teams that were, whose teams would have benefitted from this, were like, “Over our dead bodies. You are not going to topple the traditions of this system. It’s the way it is.”

And they were really speaking to the somewhat greedy capitalists who were trying to take away the beauty of the sport and make it even more exploitative financially. And it fell apart, oh man, when things fall apart in Europe it goes fast. It really does.

**John:** Now, let’s think about this as a movie because this – it fell apart so quickly that I’m not sure that there’s necessarily a second or a third act. But there are interesting moments along the way. And what I do like about this as imagining characters in it you have the team owners and the team owners have a specific agenda. And they’re doing a lot of things in secret, which is exciting. We love to see when people have secret plans and there are coded things for how they’re going to do stuff.

And then you have fans. And I think this idea of fan ownership and fandom we’ve talked a lot about in terms of movies and sort of Marvel fandom and how toxic they can be, but also there is that sense of local identity and culture and pride. And it’s grafted on to this team that also has a different motive. And that tension is really fascinating.

**Craig:** Yeah. It would have to be one of those sort of tick-tock movies. I don’t mean TikTok. But rather this minute, this hour. We’re going to tell the story of the craziest 48 hours in European sports.

**John:** It’s Chernobyl but it’s–

**Craig:** It’s Chernobyl but with soccer. And no one dies. And I think it’s a movie. I don’t think it’s a series. There’s just not enough there. But the problem with these stories ultimately is stakes. When they’re true stories and it ultimately comes down to rich people “we’re not able to get a bit richer” it doesn’t really that much. When you see a small team suffer because this happens and everybody wants to leave and there’s a grand tradition of working class British comedies in particular about sort of the downtrodden.

**John:** Billy Elliot.

**Craig:** Billy Elliot is one of the greats of all time. And The Whole Monty. And you could see–

**John:** The Full Monty.

**Craig:** Sorry.

**John:** It doesn’t really matter.

**Craig:** The Full Monty. Why did I say The Whole Monty?

**John:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** The Whole Nine Yards. I combined The Whole Nine Yards and The Full Monty. We’re not editing this out.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** We’re keeping this. I’m willing to be vulnerable and say that I said The Whole Monty. And now that I have said The Whole Monty it’s always going to be The Whole Monty.

**John:** Yeah. It’s going to be one of those, what do they call it when – now–

**Craig:** We’re keeping this, too.

**John:** What do you call it when you are convinced that it always was the Berenstain Bears?

**Craig:** Oh the Mandela.

**John:** It’s the Mandela Effect.

**Craig:** Mandela Effect.

**John:** It always was The Whole Monty is what I’m saying.

**Craig:** It always was The Whole Monty. There’s millions of people who believe it’s The Whole Monty. Our brains are terrible.

**John:** All right, so let’s talk about tone because what we have for references, of course Ted Lasso which is a stunning achievement. It creates a very specific tone that is positive and uplifting and human, but truly a comedy. Then we have the FIFA scandal which we’ve talked about before which was probably a drama. You could do it as a black comedy kind of, but it feels more like a drama. Where do we want this movie to land?

**Craig:** I would probably want it to go towards comedy because the straight dramatic story, there’s just no real drama there. The story is something bad almost happened, then didn’t. That’s not great.

**John:** Yeah. So a challenge with this story is that I agree with you that it’s going to be a tick-tock where we’re looking to two different sides of things. But you’re not going to have obvious protagonists. There’s not going to be a character who starts the story with one set of beliefs and has to change in a meaningful way. There’s going to be victors and losers and situations that are happening, but it’s not going to be a classic hero’s journey kind of story.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t really think this is going to be a movie.

**John:** Yeah. I think there could be something about it. But I agree. I don’t think it’s necessarily a movie-movie.

What is a more likely to be a movie is this Russian man who was trapped on a Chinese reality TV show.

**Craig:** Spectacular.

**John:** Who desperately tried to get voted off the show.

**Craig:** So great. So great.

**John:** Joanie Remmler, thank you for sending this through. We’ll link to a piece in The Guardian about it.

**Craig:** That’s Jonni Remmler. That’s Bo’s boyfriend, Johnnie.

**John:** Oh my gosh.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So thank you to Jonni Remmler, Bo’s boyfriend apparently who sent this through.

**Craig:** That’s right. By the way, interesting trivia about Jonni Remmler that I only knew – I learned this like a month ago.

**John:** All I know about Jonni Remmler is that he’s Bo’s boyfriend.

**Craig:** Correct. I’m going to give you a second piece of trivia. John, do you remember a song when we were kids, we were probably like in fifth or sixth grade. And it was this song. [hums]

**John:** Was it like a radio song or something we would sing ourselves?

**Craig:** Nope. It was a radio song. It was German.

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

**Craig:** It’s a German song and the chorus was “Da-da-da.” It was by a group called Trio. But I think Trio was just one guy. And that was Jonni’s father.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** Yeah. Jonni Remmler’s dad.

**John:** Jonni Remmler’s Da.

**Craig:** His Da was Da-Da-Da. How cool is that? I love this story. I love this Russian trapped story. This is amazing.

**John:** So would you do this as the actual thing that happened, or would you – because I can imagine a Black Mirror version of this story. Or would you do what really happened?

**Craig:** I mean, I would take the concept. Someone is already working on it. Guarantee you, someone is cooking on this. So, you take the concept. And the concept here, what had happened was this Russian – he looks like a kid. He looks like he’s 16 or something. A young man. He’s working as a PA or something on a Chinese reality television show where I guess they put a bunch of teens on an island and force them to compete as teen idols or boy bands or something.

And they asked him, because he’s very good-looking. And so the producers were like, hey, do you want to be on the show. And he’s like, oh, this is really boring, I guess fine.

**John:** And when we say very good-looking, he looks like an anime character.

**Craig:** Right. He is absurdly good-looking actually. He doesn’t seem real. And they were like do you want to be on the show? And he’s like yeah, sure. And then what happened was he couldn’t get out. He did not like it. He did not enjoy performing. He wasn’t good at performing. He can’t sing. He hated doing it. And he just wanted to leave and get voted off. But the problem was he was so obvious about it that everybody was like no.

So it was a little bit like the Sanjaya Syndrome, you know. Definitely Sanjaya was – this is, already now people are like who?

**John:** Who?

**Craig:** Sanjaya was a contestant on American Idol.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** And he was a good-looking kid, very sweet. There were probably 40% of the people voting for him honestly liked him.

**John:** This is probably season four or five, so it had all been established.

**Craig:** More than half of the people that were routinely voting for him week after week were basically doing it for the LOLs, because he stank. Sorry Sanjaya, you were not great. And similarly I watched a video of this kid, so he just does a half-hearted Russian rap. He’s terrible. And everyone is still like, “Yes!” And there’s this whole, I guess it’s like a Chinese cultural thing called – did you see this called 996? 996 is the Chinese shorthand for you work from 9am to 9pm six days a week. So everyone is like if we have to 996 so do you, Russian kid.

And they would not let him go. And that to me is a basis for a very funny movie. Like that feels like a Will Ferrell kind of thing.

**John:** It is a Will Ferrell kind of thing. So, that sense, so thematically the sense that fame is a prison. That the thing you most wanted becomes a trap in and of itself. That we create these illusions and you sort of get stuck in these illusions. So the fact that he sort of stumbles into it is a choice, but if you wanted at the start it does change his approach to it.

**Craig:** I would say that this feels like the most straight down – and why mess with the straight down the middle on this one? There’s this kid. He’s a PA. He’s working on this show. He is kind of at love from a distance with this boy or girl that’s competing. And that person is really good. That person should win. And then they’re like hey good-looking guy. And so he starts doing it and he hates it, but everybody keeps voting for him. And now the problem is he might – and then the two fall in love, except that then he’s like doing better than the good one because of the joke of it all. And now he wants to get out and he can’t. He’s trapped. That person dumps him.

And then he has to actually get good or something.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then there’s the end. But it just feels like one of those movies. It would be enjoyable to watch because it would be just mainline that into my veins.

**John:** I think you’re smart to focus on adding a character who can be a love interest or some other person we can care about, because if it’s just him versus the producers we’re stuck.

**Craig:** There must be love.

**John:** There must be love. Next one, sent by Robert Hilliard, is Out of Thin Air: The Mystery of the Man Who Fell From the Sky. We’ll link to a Guardian article about this. So this tells about a Canadian Airlines flight and a person who fell out of the wheel well of this and crashed through to a patio. And spoiler is they never actually found out who this person was. But the article goes through the history of people trying to hide in the wheel wells of passenger jets.

**Craig:** Which seems like just a horrendous idea. Although oddly some people make it. But they went through the reasons why it’s unlikely that you will survive. So first of all you get into the wheel well. There’s a chance that when the wheel comes up that the gear will crush you to death.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But congrats. Somehow you managed to avoid that. Great. As the plane ascends you are not in a pressurized area. The temperature will drop to some horrifying minus whatever 30. And then there’s a little bit of heat coming off of the hydraulic cables, but not really enough to keep you from going into hypothermia. Plus, the air is so thin you barely get enough oxygen. Typically you just go into some hibernative of–

**John:** Hypothermia and you sort of hibernate. Your body just sort of shuts down.

**Craig:** Your body shuts down.

**John:** And so the problem with that is ultimately the wheels are going to come back down and it doesn’t come down right before the ground. It’s like you’re thousands of feet up in the air and the wheels come down and you drop out of the plane.

**Craig:** Yeah. In fact they were saying that they will find bodies not at Heathrow but on the kind of approach.

**John:** The flight path.

**Craig:** The landing approach to Heathrow. Because that’s where those flaps open up. And then unconscious people just sort of tumble, half-frozen, to the ground. So, just word of warning to our listeners, don’t.

**John:** Don’t do this.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Especially if you’re in Europe. I mean, that Ryanair. I mean, it’s like–

**John:** Plus, you’ll try to do that and they’ll try to sell you headphones.

**Craig:** Ryanair will. You know, Ryanair, I flew a lot of regional airplanes when we were making Chernobyl in Europe. And I believe it’s Ryanair. They run lotteries on the plane.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** That’s crazy.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Anyway.

**John:** Will We Crash scratcher?

**Craig:** Yeah. A little scratcher before we go down. I don’t see a movie here.

**John:** I don’t see a movie here either. And also I left this one because I wanted to say let’s not even perpetuate this trope of like going into the wheel well. Because I could see this being in a movie and people saying like oh that’s a thing I could do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It’s not. The wheel well is an even less likely air vent.

**John:** Yes. It reminds me of the air vent problem.

**Craig:** You’re not going through a duct. And – by the way, I was playing Spider-Man. So there’s Spider-Man and then it turned into Miles Morales when the PS5 came out. And in the beginning of Spider-Man they do a very typical thing for videogames where they throw you into an action sequence. But it’s designed to really teach you how to do things. And in that he is crawling through these massive vents. And he remarks, “These vents are huge and really clean.” And I thought, OK, I’ll give it to you. All right.

**John:** Hang a little hat on that.

**Craig:** You’re winking. We’re cool.

**John:** Our next How Would This Be a Movie are The Saboteurs You Can Hire to End Your Relationship. This was sent in by Brian Erickson. We will link to a BBC story on this. I think this is the most promising of the potential movies.

So essentially again we’re in Japan where all these kind of crazy stories come from. We talked before about the fake families you can hire.

**Craig:** Right. Fake families.

**John:** This is a situation where you hire somebody, these are firms that are usually connected with private investigation agencies basically to seduce your spouse and therefore they start an affair and then you can break up with them and it’s sort of their fault.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And also it makes the divorce easier because they think they’re in love with another person.

**Craig:** Yes. And I think the specifics of divorce in Japan, but surely also here to some extent, it is that if you have evidence of infidelity it just gets put in a different category. It’s all terrible. Terrible thing to do. So, it’s immoral. But it is kind of like the anti-Hitch or something. Interesting.

There have been quite a few movies that propose these jobs that sort of exist but don’t really exist, like there was The Best Man where I think was that Kevin Hart where the idea is like I’m a best man you can hire because you don’t have one. But that’s not really a thing. And this is sort of a thing, but not really a thing.

If it were me I would probably want to steer away from the idea of like we’re professional breaker-uppers because that seems a little broad and have it more be like you seem like the kind of person that – like I just watched you steal some guy’s wife. Can you please steal my wife? And then what happens?

**John:** Yeah. I like that as an idea. Honestly kind of like Strangers on a Train, like a crisscross. What if we were to help each other out? What if we seduced each other’s wives and get ourselves out of this situation.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Or, honestly as you said this, husbands that get each other – that’s an interesting thing. You want that complicated relationship between this person you are using to break up a relationship and really get into sort of why are you doing this, what is the nature of love. What if it starts fake but becomes real? Those are interesting things. And tonally you could do this as a comedy, or you could do this as a pretty dark drama.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a version of this where you have, let’s say it’s two women who agree to crisscross. They want to get rid of their husbands and make the divorce go well. So you seduce mine, I seduce yours. We get pictures and we’re done. And then what happens is they each begin to fall in love with the other one’s husband. And then they also start to feel jealous that the other one has taken their husband. And so therefore the love is rekindled, so you’re not going to steal my guy. And then there’s a competition of a kind.

And you could do that with two men, two woman, men/women. You could do any version you want. Kind of all is fair in love and war kind of thing. Could be fun. Or it could just be dark and depressing.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, there’s definitely the noir version of this which could be kind of great. Basically either I’ve hired this person to do this thing, or this is an old friend who I’m getting in to do this thing. And we owe this, but then real feelings start to get involved and it just becomes complicated. And complications are why we make movies.

**Craig:** Complications are why we make movies.

**John:** That’s good. Our final How Would This Be a Movie has no plot really at all. It kind of goes back to how we framed this thing. Here’s a photo that sets up what is this movie. So this is in Turkey. These high end basically castles that were being built for rich people, but they’re sort of like townhouse castles. You have to look at the photo, but basically it looks like–

**Craig:** So weird.

**John:** Like Cinderella’s castle, but stacked all together.

**Craig:** Tiny. So like tiny versions of Cinderella’s castle. And there’s like a hundred of them and they’re identical in rows. So it’s sort of the height of luxury and not luxury. They really nailed something that has never existed before. Who was going to buy those?

**John:** I don’t know. But people did buy them. People put in the money to build this and then because of economic collapse and Covid and everything else they’ve lost all their money. So it’s this ghost town of these half-built townhouse castles and it seems fascinating.

You could set a story here but there’s not actually a story. I think what I want to get to is it’s a fascinating place to put something, but I don’t think the actual falling apart of the plan to build these things is the story.

**Craig:** It’s more of a location that I could see somebody using for interest. The problem with that location is it doesn’t seem real. So when you look at these photos you think to yourself – well you think, OK, this is in a journal. It’s real. However, you could also make that with Photoshop in four seconds. Because that’s what they literally did in real life. They Photoshopped a bunch of these things and just made them for real.

So there’s a sequence in Skyfall where James Bond goes to the villain’s island, Javier Bardem’s island. And they used a real place. It was an island where the Chinese built this massive city and then never put anybody there. It’s just a huge abandoned city with multiple structures just sitting there. And it was a cool location.

This thing I don’t even know if it would be a cool location because I think people would watch and go, “Oh, it’s like CGI.”

**John:** You wouldn’t believe it.

**Craig:** No, you wouldn’t believe it. It’s weird. It’s like the house of mirrors. It’s the strangest thing. Turkey.

**John:** Turkey.

**Craig:** Turkey.

**John:** Yeah. Choices. All right, so of the movies we discussed today, or potential movies, which one do you think could actually happen? Because we have a good track record of things happening.

**Craig:** We do. I actually think Russian man trapped on Chinese reality show feels like something that not only can but will be made for a streamer. It just feels funny at its core. I know what the plot is. I don’t have to sit there and wonder. The whole arc has been spelled out for me. I can do it. And it would be fun. People would watch it.

**John:** I think Will Ferrell is the right kind of tone approach to it as well. My second choice would the saboteurs to end your relationship. I think there’s a version of that.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Thank you to everyone who sent in these things.

**Craig:** Thanks folks.

**John:** These are great. Now, we get more stuff that people sent in. It’s time for Megana to come on and talk us through the questions people have asked.

**Megana Rao:** Hello.

**John:** Actually, Megana before you start I want to get some clarification. So yesterday on Slack you asked a question should I send through the How Would This Be a Movies to Craig and to Bo and I answered “yes” on Slack. And then I saw you give a thumbs up. And then that thumbs up disappeared later on. And so then I typed, “Oh sorry, yassss.” It’s a tone situation.

Talk me through this. Did you interpret my “yes” in a negative way?

**Megana:** Just because it was my kneejerk reaction I was like oh man that was a dumb question. He just said yes, not exclamation.

**Craig:** Did you put a period at the end of yes?

**John:** There was no period at the end of yes.

**Craig:** Oh, so that was less horrible I guess.

**John:** The tone was like yes.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Megana:** And even though I know you were joking, I so appreciated the “sorry, yassss.” I loved it. I loved it.

**Craig:** Let her off the hook.

**Megana:** I loved it.

**Craig:** I think the iPhone thumbs up is a great – like everyone likes the iPhone thumbs up.

**John:** Is that correct Megana? Does everyone like the iPhone thumbs up?

**Megana:** Yeah. I love the iPhone thumbs up.

**Craig:** Yassss.

**John:** So from now a thumbs up will be the answer rather than a yes or even worse a sure.

**Craig:** Oh sure. Sure.

**Megana:** But “yassss” is the–

**Craig:** Yassss is obviously.

**Megana:** I welcome that whenever.

**Craig:** Sometimes Bo will ask me if I want coffee. I do like a 15-A “Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas.”

**Megana:** But I didn’t mean to remove the thumbs up. I think that was an accident. Because I was trying to re-thumbs up because it didn’t show up for me.

**John:** I gotcha. All right. Let’s get to some questions now that we’ve gotten that taken care of.

**Megana:** OK, great. So Malachi in Indian asked, “I was wondering if you guys write every day. And if so, what does that look like when you’re not working on a specific project? I’ve been in a bit of a writing slump lately, mainly due to the pandemic/depression, and not being able to experience things. No input equals no output. But I’ve been wanting to write during this time. When you guys are in this situation do you sit down every day and just write anything? Do you use idea generation? I journal every day and I try to brainstorm ideas, but is there something more I can be doing to keep working my writing muscles until I find my actual ideal?”

**John:** Craig, do you write every day?

**Craig:** No. I’m supposed. But I’ve also come to understand that there are days where I just don’t have it. And I will say it out loud. I’ll just say, “Oh I know what this day is. This is one of those days where I don’t have it.”

I used to feel a little bit of guilt. More than a bit. But over time I began to realize that those days were actually not indicative of some sort of problem. They were just indicative of being a human. And that there were other days where, you know, I would write more and it would all catch up. It’s kind of regression to the mean as it were.

So, there are days where I don’t write. But there’s never a day where I don’t have something to write, nor is there ever a day where I don’t know what I’m supposed to be writing. For Malachi, it seems like part of what’s going on there is Malachi isn’t really quite sure what to write at all. Maybe a little switch of genre might help you Malachi. Consider just doing a short story. Like three pages. Five pages. Real nice short one. A poem. Just write something.

Write something that you can actually start and finish. It’s a nice feeling and it gets the muscles moving as you would say.

**John:** I was going to say. Give yourself a prompt, a challenge. Say I can only write 300 words. I have to tell a story in only 300 words. Do something that sort of forces you outside of your normal comfort zone is a good idea.

I attempt to write every day. And so I attempt to leave space in my day every day to write. And so it’s always on my daily agenda for like write sprint on this project. And so either it’s a thing I owe somebody, or it is something I’ve wanted to work on for myself. So I’m always giving myself the brief to write. Do I always actually generate words? No. But like Craig I sort of give myself permission to say like it just didn’t happen today. But I try not to give myself that permission too much because then stuff doesn’t get done.

**Craig:** And you don’t. As it turns out you really don’t. It’s not one of those things where you think I don’t have it today, but really. I do. I just don’t want to. And then 12 days in a row you’re like I don’t have it today. Give myself a break. That doesn’t happen. You want to write, it’s just sometimes it ain’t there.

**John:** What I do find generally helpful is I will say like I really don’t have it today, so I’m just going to take quick little notes. I’m going to just jot down some little things. And sometimes that’s all I do. But sometimes it’s like oh actually pieces start fitting together and you’re like I didn’t think I was going to write stuff, but I wrote stuff.

**Craig:** And the things we do in between help. Reading helps. If I’m not writing, maybe I’m going to read something. I’m certainly not going to do nothing today. So what can I do to just keep my mind working or focused on narrative? Solving puzzles, always a good one for me.

**John:** Or take a shower.

**Craig:** The shower is the greatest of all. I want to get a house that’s just a huge shower. Like you walk in, there’s the little antechamber where you get to take your clothes off, and then you go to the next room and it’s like a little air lock. And then the next room is the entire house entirely open, just nozzles everywhere.

**John:** It can just be like a concrete floor with the gentle slope you don’t really notice so that all the water drains.

**Craig:** All of it. And just showers firing down at you from all directions. Incredibly wasteful.

**John:** So the half-finished Turkey village. It had hot tubs on every floor.

**Craig:** Shower Town. If they sold it as Shower Town I’d probably buy a block or two. Because I understand it’s cheap right now. There’s no one there.

**Megana:** Can I ask you guys a follow up question on that?

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Please.

**Megana:** Thinking of creative work as work. Do you take days off? Do you write on vacation? Do you write on weekends?

**Craig:** Oh, days off. I’m supposed to take days off. So the other side of the some days you don’t you have it, like OK my job is Monday to Friday. I’m supposed to be writing. Well, Thursday comes along. I don’t have it. I didn’t write. Saturday comes along, I suddenly do have it, and now I do write. And this is annoying to the people who love us. And I beg forgiveness, but sometimes you’re just like, oh god, I got it. Get away from me. I need 20 minutes. Which I think is 20 minutes, and it’s three hours. Because you’re just in the zone. The flow, you know.

It’s not great.

**John:** I will say when I was doing the Arlo Finch books I had to be the most disciplined by far because otherwise those books would just not get written. I needed to write a thousand words a day. And so even when we were on vacation I would say like I still need an hour a day to write. And so I would just – to the family was all clear and I’m going to take my computer downstairs to the hotel lobby and I’m just going to write for an hour. And I got a lot done.

And I think sometimes just, again, constraints to help writing so much, if I only have an hour I will get an hour’s work done in that time. And stuff does finish.

**Craig:** And I will say my wife has probably picked up on this, and I don’t know if Mike has picked up on this, and maybe they don’t tell us but I’m hoping. That they know that if they give us the hour when we shouldn’t be taking it we’ll be way more fun after that hour is over. The difference between I wrote today Craig and I didn’t write today Craig is pretty severe.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a grim kind of sloggy, self-flagellating misery to didn’t write today. And then the guy that wrote and got stuff done it’s like my legacy is secure. Onwards. I’ve stolen that from Patton Oswalt. I’ve stolen so many things from Patton Oswalt at this point–

**John:** Have you ever met him?

**Craig:** Yes. A couple of times. He wouldn’t remember. Wonderful guy. So nice. So fun. One of the funniest people in the world, ever.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** Patton Oswalt. We should get Patton Oswalt on the show.

**John:** 100 percent.

**Craig:** Only because I just want to hang out with Patton Oswalt. I mean, I want to hear what he has to say. I don’t want to put him down. I want to hear what he has to say. He actually writes a lot. He gets called in on so many – he does a whole bit on punching up animation which is amazing. So great. But we’ll have him on the show. He’ll talk about it.

**Megana:** Thank you guys for that.

**Craig:** Of course.

**Megana:** And so Dana asked, “Why do we screenwriters tend to make our supporting characters more interesting than our protagonists? Any tips on avoiding this tendency?”

**John:** Yeah. This is Supporting Character Syndrome. This is a well-documented thing. Here’s why. It’s that supporting characters don’t have the burden of having to shoulder the plot and the story on their backs.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They’re not required to [protagonate]. They’re not required to grow and change. They can act purely on their own ego and id. They can do what they want to do.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, they are designed to be entertaining. The only reason they can exist is because they push forward as amusing. They’re not as real as protagonists. They are not accountable to emotion and inner life. They are there to be – they’re often bigger than life. They’re absurd. If you actually had to live with supporting characters after a week you would probably kill them because they’re not real people. But they’re fun.

**John:** They’re fun. So I do a presentation on want in movies, and I talk about supporting characters because supporting characters tend to have really clear, easy to identify wants. And they go for it. And they’re not held back by other constraints. And there’s a reason why, especially in animated movies that go through long development, so often the supporting character becomes the main character. They get rid of the main character and they bring that supporting character in as the person driving stuff. And it’s good advice. You’re most interesting, fun character should be driving your movie.

**Craig:** Correct. Although there is a joy in the Sebastians of a movie. So Sebastian, the crab – is he a lobster or a crab?

**John:** He’s a crab.

**Craig:** He’s a crab. Seems weird that I wouldn’t know that.

**John:** I say that with the definitive–

**Craig:** Totally. Yeah. I think he’s a crab.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** And his entire existence is to just be kind of like the nanny. And just be like, “Oh, Ariel, don’t do that. Oh no! Ah! Aw! Ooh! Go ahead.” But when he goes home, like does he have a day off?

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Because what happens on his day off? Does he just go into his shell, his little crab shell, and just sit there and stare blankly waiting for somebody to come along whose romantic life he can meddle?” That’s the thing about side characters. They don’t have any other – they only exist when the protagonist is looking at them.

**John:** Also a great example is the Frasier Crane from Cheers. When Frasier becomes the hero of his own show he has to be modulated and softened a little bit and you have to surround him with much more extreme characters.

**Craig:** Wackadoodles. Right. So he’s way less broad than he was on Cheers, because he’s centered. But then you do have–

**John:** You have to have a Niles. But then if you try to make the Niles show you’d have to change Niles and surround him with – Maris would have to be just a literal monster.

**Craig:** There would be wacky people all about. And Niles would be the somewhat more boring one, but the realer one. Yes. Absolutely. This is just the way it goes and there’s nothing we can do about it. Nothing.

**John:** All right. Let’s ask one last question.

**Megana:** Cool. Also, I think Sebastian has a successful career as a composer also, or a conductor?

**John:** That’s a very good point. So he has a busy life independent of just taking care of Ariel.

**Craig:** When you say successful, Megana, doesn’t he appear to be enslaved by King Triton? I’m just putting it out there. I don’t see money.

**John:** I would say that in underworld cultures the difference between patronage and servitude is murky, which also mirrors the European, in a 13th Century.

**Craig:** That is problematic. I think we have realized just how problematic. Well, look, The Little Mermaid was already problematic.

**John:** It’s incredibly problematic.

**Craig:** Change for your man.

**Megana:** We have the basis for the spinoff now.

**Craig:** I know. I do want a spinoff of just – maybe about Sebastian’s kids. Or was he even allowed to love and have a life?

**John:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** Because if he had children they would just be like why did dad do this? Dad? You had no agency. Flounder. What does Flounder do?

**John:** No. I mean, Flounder hangs out with Nemo. Yeah.

**Craig:** Flounder is not in Nemo. Oh, you mean there’s the crosspollination of those. So he hangs out with Nemo. And Nemo is like, oh, Flounder is here. Great. And then Marlin is like just come on, be cool Flounder.

**John:** Absolutely. They’re cousins or something.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s your boring cousin who has nothing of interest.

**Megana:** I would love that movie.

**Craig:** It’s a fun.

**Megana:** OK. So Unprotected wrote in and asked, “Dear John and Craig, should I bother trying to protect myself in a situation where I’m trying to break in and a well-respected, mid-level producer wants to take a feature pitch out with me based on his idea? I’d be doing all the work and wouldn’t be able to do anything with the materials if it doesn’t sell. But does it matter? Should I just move forward for the experience alone and the contacts that could result from it?”

**John:** My answer is yes. My answer is you need to have the experience of taking a pitch out. If this person actually has some connections and can get you in rooms and get you practiced doing that thing. Hopefully you get a job, and you get the job writing. That would be awesome. But if you don’t you’re getting the experience of what it’s like to be taking a pitch out. You get some contacts. You get better at doing this part of the job. That’s my gut.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree. Keep in mind that you’re going to want to write something. So even if you’re just pitching it’s important for you to write something down. You don’t have to worry about the leave behind/don’t leave behind thing because they’re not asking. This is your original work. So you have copyright on it. And the reason you want to write something down here is so that there is actual literary material that is evidence of your authorship and participation so that the well-respected, mid-level producer can’t deny the existence of you and just have somebody else do it.

So, I would say yes. Especially because he’s not asking you to write a whole screenplay. But just rather this pitch. Yeah, you’d be doing all the work. Just the one thing to look out for, Unprotected, is to not let the well-respected, mid-level producer just note this pitch to death for years. Really give yourself a timeline. Do it expeditiously. And don’t be afraid to say, listen, I understand that there’s things that we have to polish and figure out, but we’re just two folks. The buyers may have their own feelings and things that they want to tweak. And honestly they’re not going to not buy this because of that one thing you just said.

You’ve got to just limit the scope of the work and then get out there into those rooms and pitch.

**John:** Yeah. The other thing to keep in mind is that if this mid-level producer really wants you to be going out and pitching this person should also have connections with managers and agents and can get you started on that process as well.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. And you’re going to need somebody like that because you need somebody in your corner.

**John:** Yup. All right, Megana, thank you for these questions.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two this week. The first is a Twitter thread by the Internet Archive People about how they digitize old LPs. And so there are a bunch of old albums that only exist in physical copies and the Internet Archive is trying to digitize them so that the music on them can be saved and preserved and found again.

It’s really cool. They basically have to clean these discs and put them on special turntables. And it’s all calibrated in really cool ways. But the turntables actually have four different play heads on them simultaneously with different styluses so they can get different versions of what comes off of it, because I don’t really know physical albums that much, but like what the needle is tremendously effects how the sound comes out.

**Craig:** Yes. Oh my god. The world of those people with all their fussiness about that stuff. Yes.

**John:** So this is not about vinyl being better. It’s about vinyl eventually will go away and so you need to be able to hear that music again.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** How to save that.

**Craig:** I like that.

**John:** My second one is something that’s specifically for Craig. Craig, are you aware of Dr. Fill in terms of the crossword puzzle universe?

**Craig:** Of course. How dare you? Of course I am.

**John:** I assumed you would. I’m going to link to a Slate piece here talking through the history of Dr. Fill and sort of what’s happened. So basically the same way that AI can play chess and Go and master these things, AI can obviously solve crossword puzzles. And there were two approaches to doing this. The first was just brute force where it would just take the grid and throw words at it and figure out what pattern of words could actually fill it up. That works. The other version would be to take a look at the clues, the questions, and use that to figure out what words could be in places.

The two teams came together and put it together and now it won a big crossword puzzle competition.

**Craig:** And there’s a little bit of a controversy. So Dr. Fill, that’s Fill, in the crossword we call Fill is the stuff that goes in the grid. The letters. Typically not the ones that are the theme answers. The fill is the stuff in between. And there’s a little bit of controversy because what’s happening now is a number of constructors are being asked to create puzzles that Dr. Fill can’t beat humans on. And their whole thing is like we don’t care about Dr. Fill. We just want to write good puzzles that humans enjoy solving.

There is in a way a bit of a pointlessness to the deep blue chess engine and Dr. Fill solving crossword puzzles. You know, OK. Cool. But whatever.

I think we’re growing up. We understand now that just because we can make software that solve crossword puzzles faster than human cans doesn’t mean that the computers are better than us. It just means they’re fast. They’re fast. And they don’t enjoy it. Dr. Fill derives no joy.

In many ways Dr. Fill is the Sebastian of programs.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Pointlessly serving his master without any question as to why.

**John:** Yeah. Because when you complete a crossword puzzle you get a blast of happy chemicals in your brain.

**Craig:** Just waves of dopamine. Waves. It’s my crack.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** Your other crack though is D&D.

**Craig:** Oh yes. So here’s my One Cool Thing. We got an email from a listener named John Harmston. And John, day one listener of Scriptnotes, to all the way back then. And he is a dungeon master. And he’s been designing an adventure for Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition. Because anybody can design their own adventure using those rules.

And he said that he had really used a lot of the things he had learned from our show in the creation of it. And I looked at – it’s currently on Kickstarter. And it’s called Dawn of the Necromancer. I already like that. Because I love Necromancers. They’re the worst. They should die, ironically.

And what I loved about this was that it is big. So, this is an adventure. Right now I’m DMing you guys in Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Dungeon of the Mad Mage takes characters from fifth level to 20. That is the longest run ever that I’ve ever dealt with. Dawn of the Necromancer takes you from 1 to 20. This is a big long adventure.

**John:** This would probably take years to get through.

**Craig:** It seems like it would. And he’s clearly put a lot of time and thought into it. And specifically into making sequences cinematic. Because a lot of times, as you know, it’s sort of like go into a room, fight things. And so he’s really tried to make it somewhat innovative in that regard. So I immediately was like, yeah, I’m going to kick some dough in and back this thing. He is past his initial requirement amount. So he will be making this.

But one of the things that was listed is they have their stretch goals. I do love a stretch goal. So one of the stretch goals was to provide battle maps. It says, “If we get 250 social media shares we will add digital battle maps of every major encounter to every pledge level.” And I was like, hey John–

**John:** Craig needs that.

**Craig:** I do. So I’m like how many social media shares would being One Cool Thing on Scriptnotes count for?

**John:** Hopefully a fair number.

**Craig:** And he was like maybe all of them. So, John, I feel like I’ve done my duty here.

**John:** We’re going to get some digital battle maps.

**Craig:** I want those maps. And then I want you to put dynamic lighting lines on for Roll 20. So that’s like a whole other thing. But I’m totally into this. I’m excited. Who knows? This could be the next grand adventure that we all play.

**John:** I’m very excited for it.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** That is our show for this week. But you will want to tune in next week because next week is Episode 500.

**Craig:** Oh. My. God.

**John:** And we will be announcing something very, very historic.

**Craig:** I’m getting fired?

**John:** On the 500th episode. Yeah. Basically we’re sending you off to Canada and you’re fired.

**Craig:** I feel like I’m the Russian guy. How do I get off this show? I’ve been trying. I clearly don’t prepare. I don’t know what else I’m supposed to do. [sighs heavily]

**John:** [sighs heavily] Thank you, Craig. It’s so lovely to see you in person.

**Craig:** Likewise. I will see you next from Canada.

**John:** Yes. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Andrew Smith. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions on Twitter I’m @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and sign up for the weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record. Craig, thank you for being here live in person.

**Craig:** Thank you John for having me in your home.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Craig, you are headed off on Sunday to begin production on The Last of Us.

**Craig:** Well we’ve been in preproduction for quite some time, but finally at long last I ran out of runway here. I like to stay home as long as I can, but it’s time. We don’t start shooting for a few months, but there’s an enormous amount of prep to make a lot of television. So indeed I am heading up to Calgary, Canada. And learning all sorts of things. I haven’t flown.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** In over a year. So there’s all sorts of stuff. And I have all sorts of paperwork. This is exciting. But, yeah, I’m heading up there for a while.

**John:** So we will back on our normal Zoom things rather than being in person, but I’m curious like we’ve talked before about writing on set. And this is sort of a different stage where you are still writing scripts for the show.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So you’ll be in a hotel room or some sort of rented property for an extended period of time alone. Do you like that?

**Craig:** Well, it’s not quite that desolate. I will have an apartment. I’m in the same building as Bo and Jack, so I’m never alone in my building. That’s always nice. But we have production offices. So I go into the office. And I work there and I see people. So it’s not quite that isolated. But it’s a bit like when Covid happened. I’m permanently quarantined human being. So, it’s not a huge thing for me. The bummer is just not being – I’m going to miss my wife. And that stinks. But once the Covid situation improves and travel becomes a little bit more fluid back and forth between the countries then obviously it’s very easy for me to shoot back home and then shoot back up there.

As opposed to when we were making Chernobyl where it was just, oh boy.

**John:** Oh boy. So, I went through more of this having to work away from home doing Big Fish for years and years and years. And then all the international versions of Big Fish, or like the Boston version, or the London version. And it is a weird thing. You get to a certain point in your career where you’ve had some success and I can set my own destiny. And then like, oh, I’m in a rental apartment for a time. And I’m just like I have all this stuff that’s not here with me and it’s just me and my laptop and I’m making do.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it can get a bit much. It’s fun to be in a new city. It’s a bummer now. But when I first went to London for the initial casting phase of Chernobyl we got to go to some excellent London escape rooms and just walked the city. It’s one of my favorite cities in the world. And similarly Vilnius is a beautiful city and got a lot of escape rooms in Vilnius. I got to escape rooms everywhere.

Well, the escape rooms are currently not open in Calgary but they have quite a few. So as soon as those open up we’ll be digging into those. And getting to know that city as well. So I do like the new place aspect of it. But you begin to feel like an astronaut. You know, like I know I’m not on my normal planet. And it can get in your head a little bit.

**John:** Now friends of ours have had shows in production where sometimes they’ve been on set, but a lot of times they’ve just been literally at home in Los Angeles watching a live feed of what the cameras are seeing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And is that appealing to you or not appealing to you?

**Craig:** It’s not. I mean, some of it will happen, and particularly on this show because there’s still a few episodes left to write while we begin the very long process of shooting all of this quite massive season of TV. There are going to be moments where I’m going to probably be in a trailer near the set writing while keeping an eye on the monitors. And then I can always walk over there and discuss.

The problem with being really remote is there is a magic to being with people, particularly actors. And also there’s a magic to walking the space and understanding that space, whether it’s something you’ve built on stage or it’s a location, to understand the options that are available.

In general we’ve gotten, all of us I think have gotten better at video conferencing stuff. It’s not as weird as it used to be. But, you know, being in person is a thing.

**John:** Yeah. I remember being on my first doomed TV show, DC, and one of the lovely things about it, this is because we had standing sets, I could sit on the bed in one of the set rooms and just write a scene that takes place in this thing. And that was great to actually sort of be like right where you’re doing stuff.

**Craig:** It’s kind of fun, right? It feels Hollywood when you do stuff like that.

**John:** It does.

**Craig:** I remember, oh, I think it was the third Hangover movie there was a scene, it wasn’t quite working, and it was on stage. And so Todd and I just found some stoop of some other thing that was being built there and sat there and rewrote that scene. And I remember thinking this is Hollywood.

**John:** This is Hollywood.

**Craig:** This is so Hollywood. Look at us. Writing guys doing writing on set. It’s kind of fun.

**John:** Where I think I’m going to have the biggest trouble adjusting is that I went out to lunch with friends, sitting outdoors at a restaurant, and it was great. But it was also overwhelming and really exhausting. And I realized that I’m just not used to being around physically other people. And there’s a mental energy that’s required. And so I feel like being in an office and later then being on a busy set will be – it’s going to be hard for me to build up the stamina for that.

And remembering people’s names. Seeing people – realizing that people can actually see me.

**Craig:** That’s – remembering people’s names has always been a tricky one. I didn’t have any – when I did my little acting stint on this season of Mythic Quest, upcoming on May 9th or something like that, it was very enjoyable because I did actually derive energy from – I guess it’s that extrovert/introvert thing. What recharges your batteries? And I did like it.

It wasn’t too jarring. But I think in general in life Covid or not Covid at some point I usually say, oh, I’ll be right back, and then I disappear for 30 minutes because I need to be alone. And that’s important.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s actually one of the nice things about acting is that you get to like ahhhhh and then like, OK, we’re turning around, and then you get to go be alone.

**John:** Yeah. It’s nice. No responsibilities.

**Craig:** None. Zero. You’re like a child. It’s wonderful. They dress you. They comb your hair. If you drop something they pick it up. [laughs] It’s wonderful. Really. I’ve been thinking about just making the full switch. Oh, just falling backwards into that warm pool of acting. So nice. Maybe I’ll get an Oscar.

**John:** That would be amazing.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s the only way.

**John:** Got to work on the EGOT.

**Craig:** Yup. Oh, yeah, EGOT. That’s the thing. Ooh, a Tony. That’s what I want next.

**John:** A Tony is good.

**Craig:** I want the Tony.

**John:** I got my Grammy nomination, but that doesn’t really count.

**Craig:** Yeah. That doesn’t count. So you need a Grammy, an Oscar, a Tony, and an Emmy. So I have an Eeh. That’s my E.

**John:** Travon Free got three quarters of his way to his EGOT. So Travon Free, a writer who did Two Distant Strangers. So happy for him to win his Oscar. But he actually predicted this is where my Oscar is going to go. He had a spot on the shelf for where it goes.

**Craig:** Damn. That’s confidence. So our composer on Chernobyl, Hildur, had not gotten any awards or nominations or anything. And now she’s got EGO.

**John:** Oh wow.

**Craig:** In one year she got an Emmy for Chernobyl, she got Oscar for Joker, and she got Grammy I think also for Joker. So, she just needs a Tony.

**John:** And she’s already in the music industry. So the Tony is – but that’s not the kind of stuff.

**Craig:** Well, if they make a Chernobyl musical I think she’s got a shot at it. It’s the only reason to make a Chernobyl musical is to get her the EGOT.

**John:** Yeah. The kind of music she does is not Tony kind of music. It’s not Broadway music.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, I think what would happen is we want to pair her up with a Seth Rudetsky.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh man. That would be the best pairing in history. I’d pay money to see that my friend.

**John:** Bleak but witty.

**Craig:** Bleak but witty. In your face.

**John:** [laughs] I can see that on the marquee.

**Craig:** Bleak but witty.

**John:** Bleak, but witty.

**Craig:** Yes. Icelandic and so Jewish. We’ve never had Seth on this show.

**John:** No, we’ve not.

**Craig:** We should get Seth on this show. I’ve been on his show.

**John:** Within the next 500 episodes we should try to get him.

**Craig:** Yeah, we’ve got another 500 to go.

**John:** Thanks so much, Craig.

**Craig:** Thanks John.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Rachel Syme Twitter](https://twitter.com/rachsyme/status/1387803897276870656?s=21)
* [Russian Man ‘Trapped’ on Chinese Reality TV show Finally Voted out After Three Months](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/27/russian-man-trapped-chinese-reality-tv-show-voted-out-lelush-vladislav-ivanov-produce-camp) by Helen Davidson and Andrew Roth
* [European Super Soccer League](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/sports/soccer/super-league-soccer.html) by Tariq Panja and Rory Smith
* [The Saboteurs You can Hire to End your Relationship](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200731-the-saboteurs-you-can-hire-to-end-your-relationship) by Christine Ro
* [Haunting Photos Reveal a Massive Abandoned Town of Disneyesque Castles](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/haunting-photos-reveal-massive-abandoned-town-disneyesque-castles) by Jessica Cherner
* [Dawn of the Necromancer](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dawnofthenecromancer/dawn-of-the-necromancer-5th-edition-adventure) on Kickstarter
* [How the Internet Archive Digitizes Old LPs](https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/1386423512810721284?s=20)
* [Dr. Fill and AI](https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/american-crossword-puzzle-tournament-dr-fill-artificial-intelligence.html)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Andrew Smith ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/499standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 493: Opening Scenes, Transcript

March 26, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 493 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’ll take a look at opening scenes, how they work, and what writers should consider when planning them out. Then we’ll dive into the weird world of foreign levies and why our friend Stuart is getting mysterious checks.

**Craig:** I don’t want to know.

**John:** Finally we’ll discuss the rise of the megaplex and with it the past and future of movie-going.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** And in our bonus segment for premium members Craig and I will help a listener answer a question about clichés and conventions. This is a listener in Copenhagen, so it’s a Copenhagen question about clichés and conventions.

**Craig:** All right. We’ll get into it.

**John:** We will do it all. But, first, Craig you and I have not talked about this on mic or off mic, but if you are planning to have another kid my advice for you would be to wait until after May 2. If you can wait until after May 2 it will behoove you.

**Craig:** You would have chosen by now if you were to be having a kid after May 2. I’m definitely not having any more kids. You know what, I say definitely, you never know.

**John:** You never know.

**Craig:** You never know.

**John:** I would say that the shop is closed, but I see babies and man I like babies. If I could have a baby for like a year I would be just the happiest person in the world. It’s that toddler and sort of like – honestly it’s that awkward kid’s birthday party stage I don’t want to go through again.

**Craig:** I’m good with five to 10. That’s what I like. I like when kids are children and they’re running around and playing and they’re going to grade school and nothing really matters and they can laugh and have fun. But they also aren’t peeing and pooping in their pants. And they’re not teenagers.

**John:** Yes. I believe it’s important that writers make decisions about when they want to have kids.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And that could be a little bit easier for some writers in the WGA because starting May 2 the details have just been announced that on May 2 the paid parental leave will go into effect.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So this was something that was one at this most recent round of negotiations. And it’s pretty good. And so if you are a WGA member and you have a kid after May 2, or adopt a kid, or otherwise add to your family after May 2 you are eligible for the paid parental leave. And it could be a real boon for many writers in our guild.

**Craig:** Yeah. So basically the rule is you can’t work and also receive – you need to the leave part of the paid parental leave in order to get the benefit, but the benefit is pretty solid, especially if you are a staff writer on a show. They’re trying to kind of get in near whatever perhaps minimums might be. So, $2,000 a week for up to eight weeks and they don’t need to be taken consecutively. And it looks like it also covers both birth and adoption and fostering. And placement for adoption. That’s interesting.

**John:** So if you are also a married writing couple who both of you are WGA members and you are having a kid you are both eligible for it, which was something I wasn’t sure was going to happen. So, that’s also a boon. Anyway, just some good news. It’s the first ever of its kind in the nation. The first ever sort of union paid parental leave that goes with you wherever your job is. It applies to screenwriters, variety/comedy writers as well. So, check that out if you are thinking about having kids or if you are currently pregnant try to wait till May 2 to give birth.

I was actually talking with a writer who is in that situation. Who is like my due date is May 1 but we’re trying to make it May 2.

**Craig:** It’s OK because the benefit is available for a 12-month window from the date of birth, adoption, or placement. So, you might have a couple of weeks of unpaid parental leave but then it gets paid. So, there is that. And it doesn’t have to be taken consecutively. So, you can do four weeks on, four weeks off. So that’s a terrific thing and it’s wonderful that we did get that concession from the companies as part of our collective bargaining power.

**John:** Yeah. So for follow-up. Hannah asks a question about gray areas. This is from Episode 492. Do you want to take Hannah’s question?

**Craig:** Sure. Hannah says, her question is regarding screenplay credit before it has been arbitrated. She says, “I have seen several examples now of writers being listed as the, insert big movie name, writer when the movie has not in fact come out yet. But the writer is taking credit where credit may or may not be due. Where do you come down on screenwriters taking credit and using it for personal promotional gain pre-arbitration?”

And we have talked about this to some extent before. John, where do you come down on this?

**John:** So, before credit is determined obviously if there’s a Variety story if someone was hired on to work on a thing that’s part of what you’re currently working on, so it’s totally fair game to talk about you working on it. No one has any disputes about that. Where it gets more awkward, I was actually having a conversation with another screenwriter about that, is when you’re talking about a project where you have a really minimal credit but you still talk about it as if you’re the writer on the thing. Or it’s a thing where you kind of feel like you probably won’t get credit on it, but you’re being listed for it. It’s awkward. And it’s a known awkwardness in how stuff is discussed in this town.

**Craig:** Yeah. So Hannah there’s something that might help you a little bit with the gray area here is that part of our rules are that before the arbitration happens the company does have the right to make a good faith guess of what the credit should or would be and then publicize it. Meaning they’re allowed to put the name of the writer on a movie poster before the arbitration is done. And there have been cases where there are posters with credits that then don’t reflect the final credits, so the poster changes. The idea there was we didn’t want writers to be disappeared off of things just because the arbitration hasn’t happened.

And arbitration sometimes take a really long time to get to. And they take a long time to finish. So, my feeling is that it’s perfectly fine for a writer to say, yes, if Variety is saying they worked on this to say, yes, I did work on it. That’s the way I put it. I worked on it. What I don’t think we should say is, “I wrote it,” because other people might also have written it.

**John:** Yeah. So, I think we’re trying to distinguish between employment and writing credit. And writing credit is a WGA credit. And employment, like I am working on this thing, is a thing you would say in a meeting, that’s a different beast.

Another follow-up question. Anonymous wrote in about whisper networks, which we talked about last episode. “One thing I felt was missing from that segment is that the whisper network exists to be amplified by those in positions of relative power. Those disempowered cannot convince the empowered of injustice or mistreatment because they’ve already been disempowered. So if someone like Harvey Weinstein hears from a woman that women are not his personal sex vessels it means nothing because he’s already decided that women are not worthy of full agency. It takes a whole bunch of men, people he respects, condemning him to rectify that.

“It’s hard to use Harvey Weinstein as an example here because it doesn’t seem that he respects anyone, but I hope I’m getting my point across.”

So, Craig, let’s follow up on this whisper network thing because I feel like Anonymous has a different idea of whisper networks than what you and I were talking about. So, for my conception a whisper network is like a warning system to others in a group rather than something that’s trying to systematically take down the abuser.

**Craig:** That’s my understanding, too. That is in fact why it is whispered. The point is the whisper networks, I think, would benefit from being amplified by those in positions of relative power, but they come into existence because specifically there is not a free and respected space for those opinions or information to be expressed.

**John:** So the whispering part of this is important. It’s like you’re not publically saying it out loud. But I think the network part is really especially problematic here because you have to be in the network to get the warning. So you have to – you know, a whisper network is only useful if you are actually able to hear the whisper network, or you’re part of it. And that can be the problem is that people who can be taken advantage of or having bad things happen to them is because they’re not benefiting from this network that they’re being excluded from. And that is a real issue.

And when we talk about the gray areas and sort of like when someone like you or I should speak up it’s because there are people who are being excluded from this whisper network as well that can’t get the warnings that you and I have heard.

**Craig:** Well right. So, that’s the other thing that’s important to note is that because of the nature of those whisper networks and the fact that they are typically an in-group kind of network it’s quite often the case that people who are in positions of relative power don’t know about it, because it’s being whispered. So, I did not know about a whisper network about Harvey Weinstein. I was not part of the whisper network about Harvey Weinstein for good reason. Nobody is going to call me up and say, “By the way, you need to know that if you’re going to take a job over there that you don’t want to be alone with Harvey,” because I’m not the one that’s going to be suffering there.

And so they’re actually protective of each other I think in a good way because they’re concerned that exposure will have negative impacts. That’s at least my understanding of how it functions.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, Harvey Weinstein is sort of an extreme example. Let’s step back and say that for many, many years I heard people talk about how Ellen DeGeneres was mean. I think you probably had the same experience too. People would talk about Ellen and Ellen is mean and that she has a great public persona but she’s actually mean behind the scenes. And I don’t know that to be true, but I heard it a lot.

And could I have spoken up more about it? I don’t know that it would have benefited me or anyone, but also there’s a difference between what I was hearing was sort of like she’s kind of mean and I wasn’t hearing anything worse than that. And so I did nothing.

**Craig:** Well, that’s also part of the issue with the whisper networks is that they have a freedom that expressed and amplified points of view don’t have. Expressed and amplified points of view are often held accountable to fact and truth. And so that’s where you start to end up in situations where you’re saying, OK, I have heard and therefore I need everybody to know that yada-yada-yada, well we have defamation laws. And we have lawsuits and we have all the rest of it, and for good reason, because you don’t want people to just simply say – anybody can say anything about anyone, of course. So, what I find fascinating and encouraging about the whisper networks that have existed from what I can tell they have operated extraordinarily responsibly.

I know that there are some people who don’t think so. Usually they’re the people that are being knocked by some of the whisper networks. And then you have to sort of, OK, figure that part out. But, you know, one thing that has maybe not been observed enough about the era that we live in now, we’ll call it the #MeToo or post #MeToo era, I guess we’re still in the #MeToo era and we will be until that problem goes away, is that there is enormous amount of power available to somebody in a sense to take someone else down.

And it doesn’t seem to me like people are behaving poorly, or abusing that power, which is rather amazing. Because the whole thing is in response to abusive power. And so there’s a group of people that have been the victims of abusive power. They get a kind of power which is to name and shame and they don’t abuse it. They just use it responsibly and fairly and justly. That is pretty amazing. And gratifying. And encouraging.

**John:** And I will say that when you try to move from informal networks, like whisper networks, to official systematized processes for investigation and such there’s definite pros to that. There’s definitely accountability. You can actually take actions that you couldn’t take in an informal network.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** But it also is really challenging to decide sort of what the rules are you’re going to make and what are the standards. It is really difficult and it is a thing we’ve seen out of #MeToo. It’s a thing we’ve seen in other efforts to hold people accountable for their actions. So just to acknowledge that it’s difficult.

**Craig:** Incredibly so. And terrifying. Because just knowing something to be true isn’t enough. And I think most reasonable people understand this. It’s not good. We don’t like it. But we know that just knowing something is true is not enough to save your abuser from re-abusing you, casting you in a different light, turning themselves into the victim, turning you into the problem. This is the playbook. In fact, we know from the Harvey Weinstein, was it Lisa Bloom? Was that his lawyer? Was essentially saying this is the playbook. This is what we’re going to do. We’re going to destroy these women by dragging their reputations through the mud.

If you know that that’s going to happen then it takes a remarkable amount of bravery to get out there and say what you say. And people are going to come at you. And they’re going to come at you for all sorts of reasons. I mean, when I look at the sort of things that have been said about Rose McGowan, there’s a mountain of stuff that just gets slung their way and it’s a hell of a thing to go out there and take all the shots, know that you’re going to take all the shots, and still stand up for what fact is, and what truth is.

**John:** Yeah. So, we will not be able to solve these problems in the industry.

**Craig:** Segue.

**John:** Segue. But, what we can do is talk about really specific crafty things which I feel like you and I are much better in our element to discuss. And so this actually comes from a question that Martin in Sandringham, Australia wrote in to ask. “I’m curious about the process to decide on the beginning point of your screenplays. Have you noticed a pattern of thinking that you tend to follow when choosing that first line of a script to be in the story? Or is it purely driven by the unique nature of the story that you’re telling?”

So, Craig, it occurs to me that often we do a Three Page Challenge and we’re looking at the first three pages of a script. We’re really looking at these opening scenes and yet because we’re only looking at that scene we don’t really have a sense of what that scene is doing for the telling of the rest of the movie. We’re really just focused on what is the experience reading these scenes, what are the words on the page, but not what is that scene doing to establish the bigger picture of the movie.

So, I thought today we’d spend some time really looking at opening scenes and our process as we go into thinking about an opening scene for a movie, or writing one.

**Craig:** It’s a great question, Martin. And I think it has changed over time stylistically, which is no surprise. When we were kids and we saw movies from 30 years earlier, meaning the ‘50s, the opening scenes seemed a lot different than the opening scenes we were used to. I mean, we’re sitting at home watching a VHS tape of Raiders of the Lost Ark. We see how that opening goes. And then maybe dad shows us a movie from 1955 and it’s much slower, and more expository in a flat sort of way. Perhaps there’s jaunty music happening or sweeping violins.

These days as time has gone on it seems like opening scenes more and more are about a strange kind of disorientation, a giving to you of a puzzle that the implied contract is this will all make sense. But I think of maybe the most influential opening sequence or scene in recent television history was the opening sequence of Breaking Bad which was designed specifically to be what the hell is going on. What is that? Why are there pants there? Why is there an RV? What is happening? Why are there bullet holes? And then the puzzle gets solved.

**John:** So, I like that you’re bringing up the change from earlier movies to sort of present day movies in how openings work because I think you could make the same observation about how teasers and trailers for movies from a previous time worked versus how they work now. And you look at those old trailers and you’re like oh my god this is so boring. This is not selling me on the movie at all. And in many ways we now look for these opening scenes, opening sequences, to really be like a trailer for the movie you’re about to see. They’re really setting stuff up and getting you excited to watch this movie you’re about to watch and to sort of reward you for like thank you for sitting down in your seat and giving me your attention because this is what’s going to happen.

So let’s maybe start by talking about what are the story elements that need to happen in these opening scenes or opening sequences. They don’t have to happen, but tend to happen in these opening sequences. What are we trying to do story wise, plot wise, or character wise in these scenes?

**Craig:** Well you have choices. You don’t actually have to do anything. Sometimes the opening is just about meeting a person. And you are accentuating the lack of story. They’re happy. They’re carefree. Everything is fine. But I agree with you. More and more there is a kind of trailerification of the opening of a movie or a television show. And there is the indication of a thing. And it’s often a thing that the characters don’t even see. Or if they do see it they’re looking at it from a different time. This is later, or this is earlier, whatever it is, but there is an indication of something, there is a crack in reality that needs to be healed somehow.

**John:** Yeah. So from a story perspective you’re generally meeting characters. If you’re not meeting your central character you’re meeting another character who is important or a character who represents an important part of the story. So in that opening scene you might be meeting a character who ends up dying at the end of that scene or sequence but it’s setting up an important thing about what’s going to happen in the course of your story, the course of your movie.

You’re hopefully learning about the tone of this piece. And what it feels like to be watching this movie. The setting of this world. How the movie kind of works. And some of the rules of this world. Like if you’re in a fantasy universe is there magic? How does gravity work? What are the edges of what this kind of movie can be? Because in that opening scene you want to have a sense of like this is the general kind of movie that we’re watching so that you can benefit from all the expectations that an audience brings into that because of the genre, because of the type of movie that you’re setting up.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think about openings that have always stuck with me as being confusing. And challenging, which I’ve always loved. And I often look at, very curious opening to Blade Runner, which was not the original opening that they had planned. But it’s the opening they ended up with. And neither of the characters in that scene are main characters. There is an unknown investigator and there is a replicant who we don’t know is a replicant. But he’s not the important one. He’s not the head villain. He’s a henchman essentially.

And you have no idea what the hell is going on. There’s one man in a very strange device that might be futuristic, or antique, asking strange questions of this guy and seemingly zeroing in on something important. And then the man feeling somewhat trapped by the series of very abstract questions kills the investigator.

What happens there is a challenge to you to try and keep up and a promise that it will make sense later. But in addition I know that this world looks a certain way. I know people are going to dress a certain way. And I also know that it is going to expect some things of me. It’s good if the first scene gives the audience a difficulty level. It doesn’t have to be high difficulty, right? I mean, sometimes your first scene says this is going to be an easy play. But let people know what the difficulty is with that first scene.

**John:** So, as you’re talking about that I’m now recalling that scene and it works really well and it’s setting up that this is a mystery story. That there are going to be questions of identity and sort of existential issues here. Even though you don’t know that it’s necessarily a science-fiction world it’s a pretty grounded science-fiction if it is a science-fiction world, so all these things are really important.

Now, Craig, an experience I’ve had sometimes reading a friend’s script, or someone I’m working with’s script is that I will really enjoy the movie that they’ve written, but I’ll come back and say this is not your first scene. You have written a first scene that does not actually match your movie and does not actually help your movie. And it’s a weird way to run into, but I often find that some scripts I really like they just don’t start right. They start on the wrong beat.

Or, and sort of dig deeper, you find that the writer wrote that scene first but then they kind of wrote a different movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And they need to write a new first scene that actually helps set up the movie they actually really wrote. Is that a common experience you’ve had?

**Craig:** I’ve noticed this. I think sometimes, well, it’s hard to hit that mark because nothing else has been written yet. So, it’s your first swing. Sometimes the first scene suffers from a sense of, oh, you’ve been thinking about this as a short film for about seven years and you finally got the nerve worked up to finish it. But the problem is this thing feels like it’s a seven-year-long thoughtful short film, and then the rest of it is just a movie.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Sometimes it’s the opposite. Sometimes there’s a sense that the opening is fine, but it is not special. And the opening is our chance to be brave. I think that we have two moments in movies or in any particular episode of television where the audience will forgive us a lot. And it’s at the very beginning and it’s at the very end. In the middle you’ve got to stay in between the lines on the road. But in the beginning and the end you get to have fun.

**John:** Let’s talk about why you have that special relationship with the audience at the start, because they’ve deliberately sat down to watch the thing that you’ve created. And so if they were going into a movie theater to watch it there they’ve put forth a lot of effort. They bought a ticket. They’ve driven themselves to that theater. They’re going to probably watch your whole movie whether they love it or they don’t love it.

And so in those first minutes they really, really, really want to love what you’re giving them. Their guards are down. In TV they could flip away more easily, so there’s some issues there. But their expectations are very malleable at that start. So you really can kind of take them anywhere and you get a lot of things for free. You get some – they come in with a bit of trust. And if you can sort of honor that trust and honor that expectation and get them to keep trusting you they’re going to go on your story. If you don’t set that hook well they may just wander off and they may never really fully engage with the story that you’re trying to tell.

**Craig:** Yeah. They’re hungry at the beginning. They’re hungry. So don’t just immediately shove all the food down their throat. You can have some fun here. You know that they want to feel that anticipation. When you go to a concert and there’s the opening act, and then they’re done and they leave, and then the PA system is playing just songs and you’re waiting. And then the lights go down. And it’s not like the lights go down and then the band comes out, “Here we are, let’s go,” and then they immediately start a song. There’s usually some sort of like…you know, they get you ready. And it can go on for a while. Because everybody knows oh my god it’s happening. Right?

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** So let it be happening. Don’t have it just happen if that makes sense.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about some of our own writing and our own opening scenes and sort of what our experience was with this. So, I’m thinking back to Chernobyl. Chernobyl if I recall correctly opens with an old woman and a cow.

**Craig:** That is how episode four or three opens.

**John:** That’s right. So it was later on. It’s not the very first image of it. What is the first image of the first episode?

**Craig:** The first image of the first episode is a couch with sort of an afghan type thing of a deer and we hear a man talking. We actually hear his voice before we ever see anything.

**John:** Yeah. And so we don’t realize at the time it’s going to be a Stuart Special. That we are setting up the past and that we’re going to be jumping back and forth.

I think the reason why I was remembering that cow scene is it’s an example of we don’t have context of who these characters are, sort of why what’s happening is happening. Are these characters going to be important? No, not really. You were just setting up sort of the question of that episode and that world and what kind of story this episode is going to be. And I thought it just worked really well.

**Craig:** Well thank you. So every episode needs its own beginning. And so I’m pretty sure it was the beginning of episode four. It’s sad that it’s all mushing together now.

But that was designed to be a bit confusing. Because we don’t know what exactly this guy is doing there. And we’re not sure what his orders are. And we definitely aren’t sure what her deal is. And we don’t know he’s just standing there. And so this goes on. And then at the end of it we know. We know a lot. And that is kind of a standalone intro, which we didn’t do much of. And generally I don’t. But sometimes it’s OK to make this opening its own thing that announces something about the world and then we catch up to the people that we know and care about.

And we think, oh, did they know that they’re in a world where that other thing is happening?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So certainly one way to go.

**John:** So, completely analogous situation is the opening of the Charlie’s Angels movie.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So, of course, again, you’re establishing a place, and a time, and a world, except that it’s in a very candy-colored, we’re in a plane and we see all these characters. We see LL Cool J is the first recognizable star that we see. And there’s clearly some sort of heist thing happening. And it’s only as the sequence plays on that we realize like, oh, the Angels were actually part of this the entire time and this is an elaborate sequence to get this terrorist off this plane before he does something dastardly.

That sequence was important to establish the tone and feeling of this movie. And sort of what the rules are of this movie. And the heightened kind of gravity-optional nature of this movie. And sort of what it’s going to feel like to watch this movie.

So nothing that actually happens in that becomes important for the plot. It’s just introducing you to who the Angels are in a very general sense. The fact that they could kind of go into slow motion at any point if it’s glamorous. And just kind of how it feels. And it was one of the only sequences that made it all the way through from very early, before I came onboard to the movie, through to the end because it just felt like a good, goofy, fun start to this franchise.

**Craig:** With a punchline. I always feel like your openings need punchlines. And it’s weird to say like, OK, the punchline of the opening of the first episode of Chernobyl is a man hangs himself, but that’s kind of the punchline in the sense of there’s a surprise end. Similarly the old woman and the cow you’re pretty sure that soldier is going to shoot her and he doesn’t shoot her. He shoots the cow. Punchline.

You need to land something surprising. If you can, then the additional benefit you get from your opening is you’re putting the audience on alert that you are one step ahead of them so far. So, this is a good thing now. They’re leaning in. They’re trying to see what comes next. But they are also aware that you’re not just going to feed them straight up stuff, which is good.

**John:** The most difficult opening sequence I ever did was Big Fish. And I’m trying to establish so many things. I’m establishing two different worlds. A real world and a story world. That there are two protagonists and that both of them have storytelling power. So getting through those first eight pages of Big Fish and sort of setting up the storytelling dynamic of Big Fish was really, really tough, yet crucial. That was the case where like if I didn’t have that opening sequence the movie just couldn’t have worked because you wouldn’t know what to follow and what to pay attention to.

**Craig:** This is kind of high anxiety time. I like that you care – I think sometimes when I read these scripts, and we’ve said I think the word “precious real estate” or phrase a thousand times. You need to nail it. You’ve got to make that opening fascinating so that the audience says I will keep watching. If it’s just kind of meh then, I mean, you could have done anything there. The moment you have an opening you have limited what can come next. There’s a narrow possibility for what comes next.

**John:** You build a funnel. Yeah.

**Craig:** You make a funnel. A logical funnel. But not in the beginning. In the beginning there’s no funnel. You can do anything. And if you don’t do anything interesting I don’t see why people would think, well, this will get better. It won’t.

**John:** No. And weirdly it is probably the scene or sequence that as writers we spend the most time looking at just because by nature we’re going to kind of end up rereading it and sort of tweaking it a zillion times. And I do wonder if sometimes, let’s talk process here, at what point do you figure out that opening scene versus figuring out everything else in your story?

Sometimes I think the best approach would be to figure out where your story overall wants to go before you write that opening scene. Because so often you can be sort of trapped in that opening scene and love that opening scene but it’s not actually doing the best job possible establishing the rest of the things you want to do in your story.

**Craig:** 100%. If you do know what your end is. It would be lovely if you had that in mind when you wrote your beginning. Certainly I did when I did Chernobyl because it works like Pink Floyd’s The Wall album. It begins with I think it’s maybe David Gilmore saying, “Where we came in,” and then the song starts and then that album happens. And then at the very end you hear him say, “Isn’t this where?” And so you go, ah, ah-ha, in a very Pink Floyd cool way. I see what you did there, Pink Floyd.

And I like that. I like the sense that you catch up. And you complete the circle. It doesn’t have to be temporal like that. It can just be commentary. It can be somebody’s face ending in a similar position to how it began.

Here’s an example. Social Network. Opening scene, fantastic. And down to nothing but dialogue and performance. Two people sitting and talking. That’s it. Excellently written and excellently performed and excellently shot. And at the very, very end of the movie he goes back to looking at that girl’s profile on Facebook. She is not mentioned. Or referred to at any other time. It’s just the beginning and then the end. And then you go, oh man, this guy.

And so that’s how you can kind of think about these things. The beginning is the end, the end is the beginning. Know them both. It will help you define that opening scene much, much more sharply.

**John:** Cool. And now as we look at Three Page Challenges going forward let’s also try to remember to ask that question in terms of like what movie do we think this opening scene is setting up. Because that’s really kind of a fundamental question. We’ve talked so much about how those first three pages, that first opening scene is so crucial to getting people to read more of your script. But let’s also be thinking about what movie we think is actually establishing because we have strong expectations off the start of that.

So just a note for ourselves. We will try to think about how those opening scenes are setting our expectation for the rest of the movie that we’re not reading.

**Craig:** I think that tees us up nicely for a Three Page Challenge next week.

**John:** Yeah. We’ll try to do it. All right, next up we got a question from Stuart Friedel, former Scriptnotes producer. Do you want to read Stuart’s question?

**Craig:** Stuart, aw, writes–

**John:** We love Stuart.

**Craig:** “I just got a check in the mail from the WGA for foreign royalties for two episodes of Vampirina that I wrote. It’s the first time I’ve ever gotten anything like this. It was made out to me, not my S-Corp,” his loan-out corporation, “through which I got paid for these episodes originally. And the show is Animation Guild, not WGA. Is this normal? What’s going on here?”

John, is this normal?

**John:** It is both normal and weird. So writers get these checks all the time. But it’s not normal WGA residuals. It’s a whole special thing that I actually had to look up again because I remember it and then I forget and then I remember it and then I forget it.

**Craig:** I think we’ve done a run-through on the show at some point. It was probably years ago.

**John:** Stuart has listened to every episode, so Stuart should have known.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** But we’ll give a brief recap here. So foreign levies are the fees that some foreign countries, largely European countries, they collect and they’re mean to compensate the rights holders when films or TV are broadcast or copied in things.

I remember originally it was like blank VHS tapes and blank DVDs, there was like a tax put on those thing.

**Craig:** Oh yeah, still. In fact probably the largest chunk of the foreign levies we collect are feed levied on blank disc media, disc drives. So basically the theory, it’s a lot of South American countries, too. The theory is that people are going to use blank media to copy things and watch them again. The artist should be compensated for that, but we don’t know how many times they’re watching things. So we’ll just tax the things that let them do that.

It’s a fascinating sort of thing to do. And we are not the authors of stuff here. But we are there. And that’s where it gets fun.

**John:** Yeah. It’s where it gets complicated. So under US law we tend to write these things as work-for-hire. So, we sort of pretend that the studios are the authors of the properties. But many of the countries say like, no, no, that’s actually not true. It’s the writers and the directors who are the authors. And so it became this big fight. And so in the show notes we’ll link to the history of how foreign levies came to be and how the DGA and the WGA came to collect that money. It’s fascinating and complicated. And there was a lawsuit about how the money was being distributed out.

But, the answer for Stuart is that the foreign countries are sending in that money and it is the WGA’s responsibility and the DGA’s responsibility to figure out who those people are and get the checks out to them. And so that’s a thing they do.

**Craig:** It’s not based on union work. So, the rest of the world does not have work-for-hire and they have moral rights of authors. So, France collects this money and then they turn to us and say we would like to give this to the moral – the moral authors of this movie, which we consider to be the writer and the director. And over here the studios are like but there’s no moral author. We’re the author. And so France said, nah, we’re not going to give it to you then.

And so then we had to hammer out some deal. The split between us and the studios did adjust over time. It’s been a while. It should be 100% us. So, will continue to have to broker that somehow. But then this other issue happens where they say, well, OK the WGA steps up and says we will collect all this. The other countries say, “Uh, just one thing, we’re not breaking this out by who is in your union and who is not in your union because we don’t care. We’re just going to send it all to you and you distribute it.”

And so now the WGA has this interesting situation where they’re collecting money on behalf of people that aren’t members, like for instance in this case while Stuart Friedel is the member of the Writers Guild they’re collecting money for him that he earned through the Animation Guild. Here’s another fun fact. We collect a ton of foreign levies from porn.

**John:** Hmm.

**Craig:** So we have to find the porn directors and writers. And that is kind of how we did it. We just agreed that we would do this. And for that there is some fee, of course, some sort of administrative fee that the Writers Guild takes. This has been litigated. Members of the Writers Guild have sued over it. Other people have sued over it. It was sort of like incredibly hot potato in the 2000s and has since ceased to be that hot potato. It’s now just kind of this passive stream of money that shows up in a brown envelope, or on a brown check instead of a green check.

**John:** Yeah. So to date the WGA West has distributed $246 million in foreign levies, and including $37 million to non-members and beneficiaries.

**Craig:** Ah, yes, that’s the other thing. If someone is dead–

**John:** They still get it.

**Craig:** They have to give it to whoever controls the estate.

**John:** Yeah. So right now there’s a little bit over $9 million that can’t be matched to writers and directors. And so we’ll put a link in the show notes. There’s a way you can search for like, oh, am I owed foreign levies. And so they try to match up those funds. But it’s possible that some money will just never go to the place it’s actually supposed to go, or to the person it’s supposed to go to. So, based on the settlement at a certain point that money, if there’s any money left over, goes to the Actor’s Fund which we’ve talked about before is the charity that supports the industry.

**Craig:** Correct. And that number, $9 million, sounds high. It’s not. It used to be much higher. There was a point where it was like at $25 million. It was becoming a real liability. You can’t just sit on $25 million of other people’s money and not do something about it. So the guild has actually made really good progress on that front. My guess is that’s probably as low as it’s going to be, because there’s always going to be some stuff that comes – it’s really hard sometimes to understand these – you have governments sending you lists of taxation based on their information. Sometimes it’s not complete.

**John:** Yeah. It’s going to happen. All right. This last week I was listening to an episode of 99 Percent Invisible, and this one was one megaplexes. It was about sort of how everything changed when AMC opened up the Grand 24 in Dallas. And I realize we’ve talked about exhibition before on the show, but I think we’ve never talked about our experiences of going to the movies and sort of when movie theaters changed.

And for people who are younger than us they probably don’t remember clearly a time before megaplexes and before stadium seating and sort of what that life was like, but we saw both sides of it. So I thought we’d spend a few minutes talking about our experience with that. And also the podcast episode, which was trying to make the point that the physical changes of theaters actually had a big impact on sort of what movies were getting made and then as theaters started to collapse a bit also change what movies were getting made. So I thought we’d talk about both our experience as movie goers but also what we saw happening in the industry as the exhibition itself changed.

**Craig:** I used to go see movies at the Amboy Multiplex. The Amboy Multiplex, not a megaplex like the AMC Grand 24, the Amboy Multiplex I think had eight screens which was considered insane at the time.

**John:** That was pretty big at the time. Was that the first theater you remember going to?

**Craig:** The Amboy Multiplex might have been the first multiplex. It’s in New Jersey. Well, it was. It’s no longer there. And I believe they opened in maybe ’78 or ’79. I remember for instance seeing Star Wars in just a single screen movie theater. And that was kind of what you had. The multiplex was pretty great because if you were a family my dad and I could go see Raiders of the Lost Ark and my mom and my sister could go see, you know, Max Dugan Returns or something, I don’t know. I can’t remember what was going on.

But the point is families could split up and see different things.

**John:** That was such a great point. And I had not considered it, but yes, I mean, on a single screen theater everyone is going to see the same movie and you can’t do that thing where you divide up and see different stuff starting about the same time. And that’s a huge difference. Like you’ve sold more tickets because more people can go.

**Craig:** Correct. And they also because they had that many more screens running the concessions became a massive part of it. Because now you’re not feeding the amount of people that fit into one room. You’re feeding the amount of people that fit into eight rooms. It all becomes a much bigger money maker. And you could just feel like, OK, if I’m a single movie theater and I’m showing one freaking thing, first of all if there’s a – so the blockbuster emerges out of the ‘70s out of Jaws and Star Wars.

Now, you can say we have these blockbuster films like Raiders, we can show them on more than one screen. So you’re losing money when you’re turning people away from a theater. The multiplexes didn’t have to. They said we’ll just stick it on another screen. No problem.

**John:** Now growing up in Boulder, Colorado my first experience in a theater was probably either the Base-Mar, which had two giant screens, or there was the Village 4 which were one really big screen and three smaller screens. That’s probably where I watched Star Wars. It’s where I saw 9 to 5. Or I saw a lot of early movies. I saw The Muppet Movie there.

But eventually we had – Mann built a six-pack theater with six identical size theaters and I think at about six is where you start to see some of those economies of scale. Where they can just sell more concessions. They can put the same movie on two different screens at the same time. There really are reasons they can just make more money off of things by sort of sticking a bunch of screens together.

But that was a real innovation. So, you know, the history of movie theaters were those giant sort of movie palaces that sometimes would get carved into smaller screens. But it’s still a pretty bad experience and not very efficient.

Now, something like the six-pack that I saw most of my movies in high school at that was still pre-stadium seating. When was the first time you experienced stadium seating Craig?

**Craig:** That’s a great question. I think it was when we – I’m going to say it was back in the early 2000s I remember going to a test – we were doing a test screening and it was out in like Chatsworth or something. And there was this stadium seating and I thought well this is absolutely terrible for comedies. And it is. It’s the worst. Because you laugh outwards and you basically hear yourself and some of the people behind you and that’s it.

Whereas in the old days when you were in that flat room everybody heard everybody and laughs were just so much bigger. It was like being in a comedy show. And now it’s not. Obviously it’s terrific for viewing. I get that. But I was disturbed.

And now that’s it. It’s that and nothing else.

**John:** Yeah. So younger listeners don’t have a memory of going to see movies and having to make sure you weren’t sitting behind someone taller than you. And having to look behind you to make sure you weren’t blocking somebody.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And that whole experience. And what’s also surprising to folks who live in Los Angeles now is you said you went to a screening out in Chatsworth and that’s where you saw stadium seating, like LA when I moved here had the worst movie theaters.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. Bad.

**John:** We had Mann’s Chinese which was like a movie palace and just gorgeous, but it actually had terrible projection and sound.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** And could only show one movie at a time. It was great to see a big movie there because it was huge, but was not a good theater. And all the rest of the theaters were just terrible. They were sticky floor monstrosities. And so now we have great ones, but we were kind of late to get our great theaters.

**Craig:** It’s true. We were. And there is now a generation of parents who don’t have the joy of saying, “I can’t see!” When you would go to a theater and you would say, “I can’t see,” would your parents say some version of, “Don’t worry, when it starts you won’t even notice.” Because my parents would always say, “Oh yeah, don’t worry about it. When the movie starts you won’t even notice that that guy is blocking half of the screen.”

And they were kind of right, in a sense.

**John:** They weren’t entirely wrong. I would say because I had an older brother, it was my older brother who was mostly responsible for taking me to movies. And so he and I might switch sometimes, but that was going to be about the extent of my accommodation for my shortness growing up and going to movie theaters.

Now, let’s talk about the impact of the change in movie theaters had on the movies that were getting made, because this is a point that this podcast was trying to make and I wanted to push back against it but then I thought, OK, you know what? They actually did have a point here.

So, I remember pre-multiplexes if you wanted to see a David Cronenberg film, if you wanted to see a David Lynch film, if you wanted to see an art film you had to go to an art house movie theater. But with the rise of these bigger and bigger multiplexes it became possible to have one screen that was showing a Being John Malkovich, showing something that was – a Miramax movie. Something that was outside the realm of just the big studio blockbusters. And I think more people saw some indie movies on a big screen in their home town than would have if we hadn’t built out these multiplexes.

**Craig:** Depending on your town, I think. Obviously it’s a little easier if you’re in a city. It’s a lot easier if you’re in a city. But that’s true. And there are still theaters now that kind of pride themselves on showing you a mix of both. So the ArcLight companies for instance, they take pride in their cinematic fidelity. And part of that is not only sound and picture, but that you can see a Spider-Man film and you can also see a Jim Jarmusch movie and that’s kind of their thing.

But over time I think the big megaplexes, the AMCs, and whatever the Regal Cinemas or whatever they’re called, they’ve really adapted to the way that studios have changed, because studios used to put out a movie every week or two. And now they put out a movie every month and a half. Maybe. And what that means is that movie is just steroided-out. It’s the equivalent of the Butterball Turkey. It can barely stand on its own legs because it has been steroided and fed for size.

And now everybody has been like, oh my god, we’ve got to go see The Avengers 7, and so Jesus put it on all 28 of your screens. And so then these movie theaters kind of become like The Avengers’ movie theater for four weeks.

**John:** Now even the ArcLight which can still hold some screens for the smaller movies, but Spider-Man is going to be on eight of the 14 screens. Which can be good for an audience because it means I can actually see something opening weekend. And I do definitely appreciate that. The frustration of not being able to see a thing that you want to see is a thing. And not be part of the cultural conversation about the thing. It is great to be able to see things opening weekend and I look forward to being able to see things opening weekend as theaters start to reopen.

But, I don’t know, the anticipation was part of the experience as well. And I remember before there was reserved seating having to line up and get there in time to sort of get your seat. Yes, it was a hassle, but it also was part of the experience of going to see the movies.

**Craig:** It was communal. But another shot has been fired. It was fired yesterday. Another shot across the bow of the way movies are released and seen. And that shot was Zack Snyder’s Justice League.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about that.

**Craig:** So, Zack Snyder shot Justice League. He was in the middle of editing and working on it and then there was a family tragedy and he had to stop. So, the studio brought in Joss Whedon. I assume just to sort of finish and Joss Whedon was like, ah-ha, how about instead of finishing I just redo most of this.

And so he did. And it was a different movie. And people did not like it. And for many, many years there’s been this clamoring for the Zack Snyder cut. Now, I’m going to tell you something I’ve never mentioned before on this podcast.

**John:** Tell us.

**Craig:** I saw the Zack Snyder cut back when he was working on it. Because they were talking about maybe doing a week or reshoots or something like that. And so he invited two or three – I think there were three or four of us, writers, to watch the movie in the state it was in and then just have a conversation about some things that they might be able to do to tweak some things up over the course of a week of writing.

And I, you know me, I’m not like a huge superhero movie guy, but I really liked it. I liked it. I thought it was really good. I thought there were a couple things, like OK here’s some suggestions and things. And then Zack left the project. And so that was it. Literally, I think he left like the next week. And I never saw the Joss Whedon version.

But all this time while there was this fan movement for the Zack, there was like a mythologizing that the Zack Snyder cut was going to be amazing and it was going to save that movie. And a lot of people are like why would you think that? And I quietly was sort of like but it’s really good actually, like I hope that that does happen. But I didn’t want to say anything because I didn’t want to be in the news. Because people are obsessed with this stuff.

Well, I watched it last night and it’s fascinating. First of all, it is good. I really enjoyed it. It’s four hours.

**John:** Now, was the movie you watched previously four hours long?

**Craig:** It was probably three-ish. I think he went and shot some additional material. In fact, I know he shot additional material because there’s like an entire sequence at the end that wasn’t there when I saw the film. And there was a bunch of things that I think he went and reshot and did some work on.

But by and large, yeah, the movie was the movie I saw. Except like finished and good. And what I find fascinating – and people have received it very well. It has been reviewed very well and people are enjoying it. And I think this is a new kind of thing now. Everybody is going to stop and go wait a second, so now we can do these like really long experiences and people will watch them on streaming.

And that is a new challenge to what movies had become, which was we’re going to give you the 2.5 hour extravaganzas. And now people are like, “Or, give us four hours.”

**John:** Four hours at home.

**Craig:** At home. And this is interesting now.

**John:** So, I have a counterpoint for you. We can wrap up the sequence with the counterpoint example of another superhero epic, the last Avengers movie. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the fan reaction to the arrival of the other superheroes at the end of Avengers.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s great.

**John:** And to hear, I mean, you’re not seeing the audience, you’re just hearing the audience and the audience’s reaction to what happens at the end there is a great reminder of sort of why the communal movie theater experience is so different and so vital.

You talk about test screenings with a comedy and how a comedy plays with a crowd, well this isn’t a comedy but the cheering you hear and the feeling you get off of people’s reaction to it is just so different and so dynamic and it’s a thing you’re never going to get in streaming obviously.

**Craig:** Correct. And I don’t think that we’re going to lose that big movie experience, meaning I think movies will return. But, I also think that there may be room now for this other thing, which is the mega-movie, gig-a-movie. You see like say Avengers, the final one, and then two years later you see this four hours version of it, where all this other stuff is happening. Some of which was cut out. And some of it is just new. Like you can keep making those movies.

**John:** Yeah. I would say basically the whole Marvel canon in a way does feel like it is already kind of there. It’s this epic movie that just sort of keeps going. It’s like a series that just keeps going and there’s always a new installment, a new chapter. And WandaVision feels like it’s a six to eight hour Marvel movie that’s in the middle of it. So, it’s exciting.

**Craig:** Yeah. We’ll see where it goes.

**John:** But let’s wrap this up and talk about the megaplex experience because theaters kept getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and nicer, and nicer, and nicer, and I’ll be curious to see what happens next with the theater experience. And assuming we get back to just butts in seats and people are watching things, you know, I think this may give an opportunity for closing off those less performing locations and focusing on building good new theaters.

Sometimes when there is a crisis people can sort of cull things off their sheets in ways that is useful. Like Alamo Drafthouse filed for bankruptcy but I don’t think Alamo Drafthouse I will go away. I think it will just reorganize.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, bankruptcy doesn’t mean you go out of business, it just means you’re taking a pause to pay your creditors back because you need time. And, yeah, I don’t romanticize small movie theaters with terrible projection and awful sound. I think the trend towards making a movie theater more like your living room will continue. So you’ll have the lazy chair style seating and reserved seating. Ticket prices will go up.

If movie studios purchase large theater chains, and I think they’re sitting back and waiting. If theater experience comes roaring back I think we’ll see that. And then at that point you’re going to get to variable pricing on tickets. All sorts of things are going to happen.

But the theater business was remarkably stable, as much as everybody kept screaming about it, ticket sales were insanely stable for decades. And now all bets are off. I have no idea what happens now.

**John:** But, whatever does happen, MoviePass is going to be part of it. Because MoviePass is coming back. And when there’s an update we’ll see what that is. But they announced that they’re coming back, so in some version there’s going to be a MoviePass out there.

**Craig:** [laughs] Man, I’ll tell you. I want to give us a pat on the back for that, but I can’t. It was so obviously ridiculous.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh lord.

**John:** You know I’m not joking? MoviePass has announced – MoviePass really is coming back in some version.

**Craig:** What? I’m sorry, no. What? Oh no.

**John:** Who knows what it’ll be. But the MoviePass account is suddenly active again. So something is happening.

**Craig:** So MoviePass is going to come back and they’re like, OK, new deal. You pay us $80 and we let you see one movie.

**John:** Craig, it will involve the block chain in some way.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** [Unintelligible].

**John:** Craig, it’s time for our One Cool Things. Before we get to your One Cool Thing, I’ve been asked by Megana for an update on your Upstep insoles. How are your insoles going?

**Craig:** Now, Megana, are you asking because you are also interested in some foot support?

**Megana Rao:** No. But as I was listening to the episode I was just like I wonder how that’s going.

**Craig:** I like that you’re just generally interested in my foot health.

**Megana:** The anticipation from all of that unboxing.

**Craig:** OK. It has worked great. They fit perfectly and they are very comfortable. They do this thing that all kind of orthotic inserts do which is they squeak. So when I walk it’s wah-wah-wah. I think over time that will probably stop.

**John:** Well WD40 should help.

**Craig:** Exactly. That’s what you want in your shoes. But, yeah, they work great. And they are experientially identical to the ones tht cost way more that you’d have to go to the doctor for. So, I give a big thumb’s up to the Upstep insoles.

**John:** And don’t forget to use the promo code “umbrage” at checkout to save 15%.

**Craig:** CraigsFootHealth49. Yeah, I just did an ad for Upstep and I’m not getting paid.

**John:** Weird. Weird that.

**Craig:** God, my streak of not getting paid on this show continues.

**John:** Yeah. What’s your real One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** You know what? Let’s make it that. It’s really good.

**John:** Craig wasn’t prepared.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** My One Cool Thing, I was a guest on another podcast this last week which I think many of our listeners would really enjoy, like the podcast overall. My episode sure, but this is the Screenwriting Life Podcast. It’s by Meg LeFauve and Lorien McKenna. They do it weekly. They are up to episode 35 right now, so it’s going to stick around for a while. What I really dig about their podcast is it’s very much just about talking through the writing that you’re doing each week and what the highs and the lows were. And it’s very much the emotional process of it all. So, we had a good interview and I’m sure all their interviews are great. But I really enjoyed how the two of them just talked about the work they were doing on a regular basis.

Now, Craig, you and I have referred previously on the show to you and I sort of write in our little bubbles and we just do our own writing. We don’t sort of share and don’t talk about stuff. But we have friends, especially women friends, who are involved in each other’s writing a lot. And I’ve always been really envious of that and I really appreciate the way they can just focus on what the experience is of writing on a daily basis. And so especially for aspiring writers who are listening to this I think just check out them and their advice because I really think you’ll enjoy that show.

**Craig:** It’s got to be mentally healthier than what I do, which is just curl up in a ball and shiver with fear and self-loathing. Right? It’s got to be healthier than that?

**John:** And play some videogames.

**Craig:** Oh yean. And D&D.

**John:** And D&D.

That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Peter Hoopes. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions, but for short questions on Twitter I’m @johnaugust. I might be able to answer your question.

We have t-shirts. They’re lovely. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, Craig, we got a question from Julie in Copenhagen. Can you read Julie in Copenhagen’s question?

**Craig:** Indeed. She writes, “I’m currently writing my master thesis in film and media studies focusing on the meaning and use of clichés and genre conventions in Danish youth dramedy television series. I have interviewed Danish screenwriters, critics, and two focus groups of the target audience to hear how they define and feel about clichés.

“But there doesn’t seem to be a clear cut definition of what a cliché is and how it differs from genre conventions, or what the relationship is between conventions and clichés.”

Well, this is a question that is universal. It travels beyond the borders of Denmark.

**John:** Absolutely. Even places without Lego, they have clichés.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, let’s talk about that, because as she raised the question I was trying to sort through what I felt is a cliché versus what is a genre convention.

And so I went to Wikipedia to look at their definition of cliché which is pretty good. They say, “A cliché is an element of an artistic work, saying, or idea that has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.” And I think that last clause is really important there because a cliché didn’t start as a cliché. A cliché probably started as something relatively clever or sort of clever or at least new. But just through overuse it’s not that anymore and it just feels terrible. It’s an idea that doesn’t know that it’s busted.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah. I think that is a valuable way to discriminate between the two. I would say, Julie, that clichés are specific things that put your teeth on edge because you’re like, uh, it’s mean to make me smile, laugh, or be shocked or something and it’s not because it’s just unoriginal. Conventions are things that just keep showing up. They’re not demanding a lot of attention. They’re just sort of baked into the structure or concept.

So, for instance a convention of a space opera is a dogfight between spaceships shooting lasers at each other. That’s just a convention.

**John:** Yeah, not a cliché. So clichéd moments can happen during it, but the idea of a space battle, fine.

**Craig:** Exactly. So, like a cliché is someone gets shots a laser into my X-Wing and I go, “I’m hit, I’m hit.” That’s a cliché. It’s like, oh, what an original moment. But the existence of the convention of the space dogfight could actually be good.

So, there was like some really cool stuff that Rian did in The Last Jedi. It’s a convention, but inside of that convention original and interesting things happen. Please don’t @ me, because I like that movie. I don’t care.

So, I would say that like in zombie movies the convention is that a lot of people are zombies and a group of people who are not zombies need to get away from them. But inside of that there could be a ton of clichés. A ton of little moments that you’ve seen a billion, billion times.

**John:** Yeah. So trying to save someone’s life in an extreme situation can be a genre convention. There’s military versions of trying to save a person’s life, like doing CPR on a person. That is a convention. That’s great. We get it. Saying, “Don’t die on me,” that is a cliché. There’s no version of “don’t die on me” that will not be a cliché. And it will ring the bells.

And the first time a character said that it was great. But then the fourth time a character said that it’s like, ugh, that’s not fresh. We know it’s not fresh. And that not fresh feeling is really what makes something a cliché.

**Craig:** That not so fresh feeling.

**John:** An example of good genre conventions, we have vampires, we have vampires drinking blood. There’s lots of things about vampires that are genre conventions that are good, sort of come for free. But the vampire flourishing his cape in front of his face that’s just a cliché. You feel like you’re in Count Chocula territory when you do that.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So you’ve got to be mindful of that.

**Craig:** Yes. So, a vampire speaking with a vaguely Romanian accent is sort of cliché. It’s not a convention, because vampires can be anywhere. And that’s sort of the deal. Conventions in and of themselves aren’t bad. You can absolutely do something and be unconventional in the way you do it. But you will find just as often that there are vampire conventions that are turned around because they are executed in a way that is not cliché.

So, I think we talked about Near Talk at some point.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Kathryn Bigelow’s first film.

**John:** So good.

**Craig:** So good. A ton of vampire conventions in there. Sun burns you and you’ve got to drink blood. And there’s a lead vampire. But the execution, the setting, the tone, all that stuff, clearly she avoided cliché every step of the way and it’s one of the reasons that the film feels so exciting even though it’s full of vampire conventions.

**John:** So here’s a convention I want to throw your way. You’re in a western and there is a hooker a heart of gold. Is that a cliché or a convention?

**Craig:** I think it’s a cliché because the convention I always think of is connected to plot, setting, the inciting incident, the goal, that sort of thing. So a convention would be a bunch of unlikely allies in a western have to make it from one town to another while being pursued by bad buys. Well, if you are doing Stagecoach, well there’s the hooker with the heart of gold. That’s fine. It was 1930-whatever. But these days you wouldn’t do that. Because it is cliché.

You would want the individual characters to feel fresh even inside of the convention of it all. So in The Hateful Eight there’s a lot of western convention in there. But then these characters are just, whoa. Not clichéd characters.

**John:** So I would steer listeners to TV Tropes which is a great site which sort of goes through in any genre what are the clichés and conventions. And so you have to be careful to read through this to not assume that anything you see there is by default a thing you need to avoid. A lot of those things are just part of the genre. So you have to sort of understand what everyone sort of accepts as an audience and what things are hackneyed or stale.

And so you have to be a student of what’s happened in that genre before in order to avoid those clichés.

**Craig:** Yeah. So if you’re doing a romantic comedy you will want to fulfill certain conventions of the genre, most likely. But you’re going to want to avoid the cliché ways of getting them across. A girl meets a man. Girl meets a boy. Boy meets a girl. Boy meets a boy. Man meets a man. Whatever it is, then you don’t want them bumping into each other in the middle of the street and one person dropping all their stuff and the other person saying, “Oh let me help you pick that up,” and then they look in each other’s eyes and go, “Ah!” because that’s cliché.

But you’re going to want them to meet.

**John:** Yeah. They do have to meet at some point.

**Craig:** That’s the challenge. Do the convention. But be original.

**John:** And Tess Morris has been on the show to talk about rom-coms. And like, yes, again it’s always about understanding the conventions while avoiding the clichés.

We’ll put a link in the show notes to a video essay talking through the makeover sequence, the makeover montage. And that transformation of essentially the female character in one of these stories and how troubling it is and how we really need to look at that sequence and think about what it is we’re trying to say through those sequences.

**Craig:** We’re trying to say that if you’re pretty you’re valuable, and if you’re not you’re not.

**John:** There’s that.

**Craig:** That’s pretty much what those movies are telling everybody as far as I can tell. That until you are physically attractive by some normative definition you’re worthless and a loser. And I say that as somebody who has never been attractive in any normal sort of way. I’ve always been like but my face is weird. What about me?

**John:** Aw. Craig.

**Craig:** Oh, Craig.

**John:** Thanks.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [WGA Parental Leave](https://www.wga.org/members/membership-information/new-paid-parental-leave-benefit-details) begins May 2!
* [Learn more about foreign levies](https://www.wga.org/the-guild/levies-payments/foreign-levies-program/history)
* [99 Percent Invisible Podcast Episode: The Megaplex](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-megaplex/)
* [We’ve Outgrown the Ugly Duckling Transformation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa4bR5ZO3dM) by Mina Le on Youtube
* [TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VampireTropes) – Vampires
* [Listener Guide Submissions](https://johnaugust.com/guide) send in your favorite episodes from 300-500!
* [Check out the Screenwriting Life Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-screenwriting-life-with-meg-lefauve-and-lorien-mckenna/id1501641442) and this episode with [John!](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/35-john-august-on-worldbuilding-in-your-writing/id1501641442?i=1000512898141)
* [Upstep](https://app.upstep.com) – the review is positive!
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Peter Hoopes ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/493standard1.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • 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 (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.