• 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, Ep 60: The Black List, and a stack of scenes — Transcript

October 25, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/the-black-list-and-a-stack-of-scenes).

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

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

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

Now, Craig, something feels different today. Is it an earlier time?

**Craig:** It’s definitely early. I’m feeling it. But I also feel like we’re not alone.

**John:** Oh, there’s an audience. [Applause] Hello! This is our first ever live Scriptnotes…

**Craig:** That was great.

**John:** …and people who are listening to this at home, they think like, “Wow, that is a huge crowd.” And they are exactly right. I cannot believe how big this crowd is.

**Craig:** I can’t believe how much noise 12 people can make.

**John:** Yeah. People were waiting in line. People have been camping out since 5 in the morning. So, thank you guys all so much for coming today.

**Craig:** Welcome, lucky ticket holders!

**John:** Yeah. Because, you know, it’s one thing when you see the download numbers, and it’s like, “Oh, that seems like a lot of people.” But when you actually see all of these people in front of us.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah. All 800,000 of them. It is a…

**John:** It’s crazy.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** So, this is our first ever live episode. But we’re also going to treat it like a normal episode, too; we’re going to do the kind of stuff we would normally do. So, we’re going to talk about some news. We’re going to talk about the craft a little bit, and answer some questions. The different thing is that we’re going to have some questions live here in the room, which is exciting.

So, in the news this week, one thing that came up a lot on Twitter, people have asked: What is the deal with the Black List? The Black List made some changes and it’s now a very different kind of thing. And so we’re going to talk about that. We’re going to welcome our first ever special live screenwriter guest.

**Craig:** I’m so excited.

**John:** And she’ll be up here on stage with us. Her name is Aline Brosh McKenna, and she’s kind of great. And we’re going to do these questions. Let’s get to it. Craig —

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The Black List. Have you heard of this thing called the Black List?

**Craig:** Sure. So, I’ll tell you what I know about the Black List…

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** …and then you tell me if I’m wrong. The Black List is basically the product of, well, Franklin Leonard started it, who’s an executive producer guy in Hollywood. And the idea was that assistants, and I guess some development people, read everything in Hollywood. They read all the scripts, and he basically decided that each year they should vote on the scripts they liked the most. Not necessarily the best scripts, or the ones that would sell, or the ones that didn’t sell, just the ones they liked the most, some of which I think haven’t even been bought, some of which have, some of which even were heading into development.

I think the deal is just that they couldn’t have been produced I guess in that year. And Hollywood loves lists. They love it. They’re obsessed with ranking things. And this really caught on. And I guess normally I’m — I don’t know, lists and rankings I go, “Ew,” but the great thing about it is that it helps scripts that otherwise would not have found homes, because Hollywood is obsessed with lists.

If you are one person in Hollywood and you read a script and you think, “Well this is very good, but no one else seems to have heard about it,” or “I’m just not going to talk about. It’s not on the list.” But suddenly it was on a list. And then a lot of scripts, and more importantly the screenwriters of those scripts, gained access inside of Hollywood. Malcolm Spellman and Tim Talbott who are here sort of famously got work because a script of theirs, which was completely unproduceable, was on the Black List.

**John:** That was the Robotard 8000 script.

**Craig:** The Robotard 8000 script. Exactly.

**John:** So, a crucial thing to understand about the Black List and its original incarnation is that executives are reading these scripts anyway. And so they had informal ways that they were always talking with each other about the things they were reading, and this was a way to sort of formalize it, but also anonymously sort of come to aggregate that information into sort of one master list of what the people who are actually reading those scripts and making those decisions thought were the most interesting things of the year.

And so it was very helpful to people to show up on the Black List, because that was a real mark of a possibility for them. So, this last week the change that happened is Franklin Leonard announced — and he actually tipped us off first he was going to be doing this — is changing the access, expanding sort of the mission of the Black List so that writers who wanted to submit their scripts to the Black List — to a site, a website for the Black List — could have their scripts read by executives who wanted to see it. People could read scripts on the Black List, rank them, rate them, contact those writers. It was a way for writers to be discovered through that process.

The issues that sort of immediately came up and sort of why people wanted us to talk about it is there was a fee to be listed on the site.

**Craig:** And you know how I feel about fees.

**John:** You love fees. You’re a fee-based person.

**Craig:** I’m going to get angry. It’s early.

**John:** I sense there could be some umbrage coming. That’s why everybody wanted us to talk about it.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And there’s also, you could have a professional reader associated with the Black List read your script and provide ratings for it to tell you sort of what they thought of the script.

**Craig:** I wish that this guy were here so we could ask him exactly…

**John:** Yeah, ask exactly those questions.

**Craig:** Yeah, just so we could grill him and make him uncomfortable.

**John:** That would be good.

**Craig:** Is he here?

**John:** He is in fact here.

**Craig:** He’s right over there?

**John:** So, let’s welcome up Franklin Leonard to talk about it.

[Applause]

So, this is again the luxury of being live in a place, and right now we’re in Austin; we can actually ask these questions of a person. So, Franklin, tell us sort of what the impetus was to create this new site/service that changes things.

**Franklin Leonard:** Well, I think the biggest one was probably the fact that everywhere I went — whether it was the Austin Film Festival, anywhere in Los Angeles, when I was on a plane and told someone what I did in Hollywood — the first question that I got was, “So, I wrote this screenplay. What do I do with it now?” And I never really had a good answer.

You know, there was “send query letters,” there was “enter the Nicholl, and the Austin Film Festival Screenplay competition.” And as I thought about it, those really seemed like inefficient ways to sort of get your script to the people who would actually read it. And in the cases where even that was successful, it created a situation I think for writers that was sort of less than ideal, or less than what could be ideal for the writer’s position.

And so I began to think that, “Hey, the Black List sort of aggregated this conversation around writers that people were liking — wouldn’t it be great if you could do the same thing for writers that weren’t necessary part of the system yet, and put them in a position of power where all of a sudden if their script was really strong they had one, five, a dozen people pursuing them, and then they could chose multiple options?”

**Craig:** And to be clear, what you’re offering now is separate the Black List, which still continues on and has nothing to do with who sent a script in or anything?

**Franklin:** That’s absolutely right. And that distinction I think is critical because a lot of people are like, “Oh, the Black List has lost its way.”

**Craig:** “They sold the Black List. Argh!”

**Franklin:** Exactly. No. We have not at all. The annual Black List remains a separate and distinct thing that will be voted on using the exact same process that was used for the last seven years. It has born a lot of really positive results. And it will still exist as the annual Black List. And I don’t think that there will be, at least in Hollywood at least, much confusion about the difference between this annual list that goes out and this new sort of website ecosystem community that will allow people access that they might heretofore not have had.

**Craig:** Right. Got it.

**John:** So, my kneejerk reaction — I think a lot of people’s kneejerk reactions — was that it felt weird that the business model was based around charging fees for people with dreams. Essentially there’s that mentality of making money off the backs of people who are trying to get into the system versus, you know… — And also the question of who is really the user of this thing: is it aspiring writers or is it producers and development executives who are looking for talent? Tell us about that.

**Franklin:** Right. I have the same level of discomfort with it, I suspect, as you do. And we designed it that way for a few reasons. The first of which is if the goal is to aggregate as many possible eyeballs from the film community as possible on the possible screenplays of aspiring writers, the best way to do that at least initially would be to have an incredibly low price point for the industry members that were coming on to join.

Anecdotally when we were in beta and developing the site we actually did charge industry members a very small fee which was in part designed to prevent us from taking sort of third party financing of venture capital, which would have prevented us from actually sort of staying very close to this goal that we have of creating opportunity.

And when we made the transition from charging industry folks to going free we quadrupled our membership in 48 hours. And so by being free it means that we can have the most possible sort of eyeballs on your possible scripts and that they’re good.

And then in terms of why we charge writers, I mean, first of all we do need a business model in order to function, in order to allow this thing to exist. But I also wanted to provide a slight disincentive for sort of throwing everything up against the wall and hoping it sticks. It’s really important that you believe in your script enough to pay some small amount of money. And we’ve kept the price point far lower than I know we could have charged for it because the price and elasticity of demand of something like this is actually very, very low.

And so as much as I would like to have the business model be different, I think this is the one that is sort of optimal in terms of making sure there are as many industry people as possible looking at these scripts. And making sure that we get a higher quality of material that we’re then going to wade through and have readers read.

**Craig:** I mean, look, you know how my thing is: screenwriting is the last free thing to do. I don’t hate this. I really don’t. I like a lot of it actually. And the part that — here’s what I hate most of all about, not about your thing, but about…

**Franklin:** It’s that you hate me, right?

**Craig:** Well, I don’t like you.

**Franklin:** There you go.

**Craig:** I love you.

**Franklin:** I love you, too.

**Craig:** Thank you. There is a world of charlatans who prey on you folks out there. And they prey upon you in the worst way by promising you access and insight that they simply don’t have. They don’t have access; that’s pretty much easy to see. They certainly don’t have insight. It’s a simple rule of thumb: If they had insight they would probably be doing what John does or Franklin does. They don’t. They’re doing what they do which is buying business cards for $14 and then convincing you that they have insight.

And even worse, they charge you a lot. They charge you $500. They charge you $1,000. And then they charge you by time, or by read, and then they promise you improvement. And so you just give them a little bit more, and a little bit more. And suddenly it’s like a therapist that keeps telling you, “If you just keep paying me, one day you will be better.”

But, also as is in the case with therapists, that’s not true. You’re not going to be better necessarily from them, because they don’t really know what they’re talking about. Here’s what I like about this — two things: One, it’s a flat fee per script. And that fee is?

**Franklin:** $25 per month.

**Craig:** $25 per month. So, $25 per month and your script will be read by industry readers who actually have access, because the people who go to the site for free, who aren’t charged, are basically people in the actual business, in your business, who are looking for scripts.

**Franklin:** Absolutely. And there are a lot of them. I mean, we have at present 1,150 industry members ranging from agency assistants to studio presidents in production.

**Craig:** And the way the system works is you submit a script for $25, it’s read by the industry readers, and then it is ranked.

**Franklin:** Well, not exactly. So, the way it works is you upload a script for $25 a month. That makes it available to our entire membership, and it is indexed along a number of different metrics that you provide. And then for $50 you can pay for one of our readers that we’ve hired to read it…

**Craig:** Oh, now it’s $50. Okay.

**Franklin:** No, no, let me explain.

**Craig:** All right.

**Franklin:** And that reader will evaluate the script. I think that’s another thing that differs between us and a lot of coverage services for example. We’re not offering you — we’ll give you an evaluation and you can take with that evaluation maybe insight into how to improve your script, but this is not something that you should be using to identify the things wrong with your script so that you can then improve it and sort of keep coming back to us for that.

**Craig:** It’s just a tool for the other people who are on the site to see what someone thought?

**Franklin:** Right. And the data that is generated by those evaluations we can use to create sort of a Black List of non-professional scripts, sort of a real time, that is sortable by genre, subgenre, words that feature in the log line. And then we also built a recommendations algorithm similar to what exists on Netflix and Amazon so that based on all of our 1,150 members’ individual taste, in the event that a script is particularly suited to one of those members’ taste we can send them an email and say, “Hey, our algorithm thinks that you’re going to love this script. You individually are going to love this script and you should check it out.”

And the reality is, and you guys know this, there are not a lot of great screenplays out there. The vast majority of the screenplays that are submitted to our site are not going to get discovered and create screenwriting careers that last a lifetime. But, for the people who have written great scripts, this is a fast track to getting it to the people that love it. And it is a far more efficient way I think than anything that currently exists to match those great scripts with people who can make them.

And hopefully put the writers in a situation where people are competing for their services and that people aren’t just taking the first option and the first phone call they get.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, a question about the evaluation. You have professional readers who are reading these scripts. $50 seems like a really low amount of money, not to write a check for $50, but $50 isn’t a lot of money to get paid to read a script, and they’re not making all that $50. So, what is that book report like? It’s not really coverage…

**Franklin:** It’s not coverage. And I think that’s one of the reasons why we’re able to pay far lower than what would be expected to pay for coverage. Because the vast majority — look, the reading of the script is not really what you’re paying for when you’re paying for coverage. You’re paying for the hour or two of sitting down and writing three, four pages of notes that require not only writing well but sort of giving intelligent, critical assessments of someone’s work.

Our evaluation includes an overall rating of 1 to 10. A rating of 1 of 10 along five different metrics, including dialogue, structure, setting, premise. And then three short answers to questions about the script’s greatest strengths, weaknesses, and commercial viability. And that’s I think why we’re able to do that is because ultimately for our readers we’re asking them for an hour and a half, at most two hours of their time instead of the five and six hours.

And I actually think we’re probably paying more per hour to our readers than a lot of coverage services are.

**John:** Okay. A question about sort of… — I can see how it makes sense for an aspiring writer. I can see how it makes sense for a development executive. Does it make sense for a writer who is actually working to have their scripts anywhere near this site?

**Franklin:** I think it can. I’ll admit that it remains to be seen exactly how it does. And one of the things I’m very excited about is being able to make available a lot of the quantitative data around how people are using the site, once the gears begin turning and sort of moving smoothly.

I think that there does exist that potential. I think there is a sort of site that exists alongside this and is part of it that basically the script titles and authors of professional scripts are also rated by these development executives and sort of moved through a real time Black List and recommendation engine as well. And I’ve already spoken with a number of development executives who sort of return to it daily to find out if there is a script that they didn’t know about that they need to know about.

It functions essentially exactly the same way as the annual Black List does, except instead of once a year in December everybody being able to find out the scripts that may not have known about, they’re able to say in the middle of May, “What are the most liked comedies that don’t have a director but do have a producer attached?” and that list is auto-generated. Or, “Which comedies without a director am I likely to like based on my tastes?” And then they can call the agent and get a copy of it.

And our industry professional membership is limited to those people who basically would have access to make those phone calls to those representatives or producers so they can get a copy of the script. We’ve had over 5,000 people apply for membership and have accepted less than 1,200.

**Craig:** I mean, look, we don’t endorse anything; that’s not our gig. But I do spend a lot of time attacking things.

**Franklin:** So, the not-attack I’m very proud of.

**Craig:** I’m going to give this a not-attack, which is pretty great. It’s my highest award.

**Franklin:** And it is immensely appreciated.

**Craig:** No, no. I think that what I like is that ultimately for — that you are providing access, true access. The thing that drives me the craziest about these services is that they fake access. Like when you go to the LA Convention Center and you meet people. None of those people can do anything for you except take your money. So, this is legitimate access. And, also, you guys don’t make a dime in their success.

**Franklin:** No, not at all.

**Craig:** You make money, you make your $25 a month. You make your $50 per evaluation.

**Franklin:** That’s right.

**Craig:** If they sell the script for $1 million you get zero of that $1 million. And that’s a really important firewall, because all of these pitch festivals and things that are actually — they’ve got their hand in one pocket, they’re reaching into that other pocket if you should actually do something. So, I think — I give this my highest rating of I-don’t-attack-it.

**Franklin:** But we do ask one thing in return is that if they find that success that they email us and let us know so we can join in that celebration.

**Craig:** I think they can do that.

**John:** They can do that.

Franklin, thank you so much for doing this.

**Franklin:** Thank you so much for having me.

**Craig:** Thank you, Franklin.

**John:** Thank you for coming here.

Just like all of our other podcasts, there will be show notes for this one at johnaugust.com/podcast. So, we’ll have a link to Franklin’s site. We’ll have a link to some good follow up questions that Franklin answered after the thing was announced. I did really respect that he took the time to sort of figure out, “These are the things people keep asking and I’m going to answer them in detail.” So, thank you very much for doing that.

And we have our first screenwriter guest. I’m so excited.

**Craig:** You don’t seem excited. [laughs]

**John:** I’m excited. I’m excited.

**Craig:** Did you just simulate excitement?

**John:** I’m excited because I know who she is. It’s a neighbor. These are good things.

So, we’d always talked about having guests. Like even from the very first episodes we were like, “Oh, we could have a guest on,” because we thought we wouldn’t have enough to talk about.

**Craig:** Well, but the truth is the two of us are so weird and we’re very… — You know, I was making fun of John for being so consistent about the way he starts every podcast, but I’m the same way. I think we’re both very happy just doing it the way we do it. And then I think somewhere around Episode 20 the thought of change started to freak me out. [laughs]

So, but this is great, because we’re in a different place. So, it doesn’t matter. It’s a road game.

**John:** New rules.

**Craig:** We can do anything, man.

**John:** Quite early on when the idea of coming to the Austin Film Festival and maybe doing the first live Scriptnotes, we were like, “Well who would be a great guest to have up on stage with us?” and we both though of…

**Craig:** Derek Haas.

**John:** Derek Haas.

**Craig:** But he was not available. So then…

**John:** [laughs] So, our second choice was this writer who worked on — who wrote The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses, Morning Glory, a movie that I really dug which not a lot of people saw, but I really liked it a lot. And I Don’t Know How She Does it. And We Bought a Zoo. She wrote all these movies, and she’s kind of awesome, and she’s a neighbor. And she’s the only woman who I think really intimidates Craig consistently.

**Craig:** Dude, like you have no idea. Scares me to death.

**John:** So, if you could all welcome Aline Brosh McKenna.

[Applause]

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** Hi guys!

**John:** Hello! And welcome.

**Aline:** How are you?

**Craig:** See? Scary.

**Aline:** Lovely to see you. Terrifying.

**John:** A terrifying person.

**Craig:** Very.

**John:** How is Austin so far for you?

**Aline:** Oh, it’s been great. I’ve really been having a good time.

**John:** Is this your first?

**Aline:** I came here five years ago. And this is the first time I’ve been back since then. And it has been fun; I love being here. It’s great.

**Craig:** Oh, I feel like you’re going to hit me. I really do.

**Aline:** Except that Craig’s here!

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. See?

**John:** All good except for that. This is my fourth time at the Austin Film Festival and I really enjoy it. The weird thing is I’m much more recognized now and that is — it’s lovely. And everyone is super, super nice, and so thank you; you can please feel free to say hello. But, it’s a little exhausting.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** I hosted a party the first night and first off I had to say, I was supposed to welcome everybody to it, but it was so loud that I was like standing at the bar and I had a microphone, and everybody could see that I was up there and had a microphone but couldn’t hear me.

**Craig:** Were you there? It was awesome.

**Aline:** It was.

**Craig:** This is what it sounded like at first, because, so you stood up there, because I was in the back, so I had a great view of this. And you had a microphone. And you were going — and then you realized nobody could hear you, so then you went [muffled indecipherable speaking]. And then nobody could hear that, either. So, then you realized, okay, well that’s not going to work, so I’m going to pull back a little bit. And then you just went back to — [audience laughs]. And you seemed happy with that actually.

**Aline:** John, the reason people are coming over to you is not the writing fame, it’s just sheer sex appeal. That’s it.

**John:** There’s that, too. Yeah.

**Craig:** We’re you talking to me?

**John:** Craig, do people recognize you here that much?

**Craig:** Yeah, people do. You know, they talk this year more about the podcast than anything else, which is very cool. You know, if I do a panel in the morning then they’ll come and they’ll say, “Hey, bad job,” or whatever.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But, no, people are listening to the podcast and so they say that a lot. They come up to me and say, “Cool podcast, man,” which is nice. I like that.

**John:** And, Aline, part of the reason why we wanted you on the show is because you actually listen to the podcast.

**Aline:** I really wanted to come on and talk about things that are [pause] interesting to screenwriters.

**Craig:** You’ve noticed that, right?

**Aline:** Interesting.

**Craig:** Yeah. Interesting.

**Aline:** What is that? What regional diction is giving you interesting?

**John:** Interesting. The way I leave out the T? Yeah, interesting.

**Aline:** No, I love it. I love the podcast. I love the Cool Thing. That’s what I listen to when I work out. Hmm, embarrassing.

**John:** Nice. So, today I thought we might talk a little bit about — a little crafty in the sense of I think I have noticed starting this summer I described some movies that I saw that I really liked, but I didn’t love, and I described them as “a stack of scenes.” And as I was thinking back to these movies, I liked a lot of stuff that happened in them, and I liked the things that I could sort of tell you, the things that happened, but I didn’t really feel like they held together as movies. And I want to talk about the difference between good stuff in a movie and a movie that holds together well.

And I thought you were a good choice for this because I look at the movies you do, and I was describing them yesterday as “want-coms.” People want to say they’re romantic comedies, but they’re not really romantic comedies. It’s usually a character who is very proficient who wants — is aiming for something. In Morning Glory, she wants to run this show, and there is romantic stuff that happens, but it’s really about her journey there. Same with Devil Wears Prada.

So, I want to talk a little bit about what it is that makes a movie story hold together.

**Aline:** Am I allowed to use profanity on this show?

**John:** Uh, yeah, you can use some profanity.

**Craig:** [Sighs]

**John:** We’re going to lose our little Clean rating in iTunes, but that’s okay.

**Aline:** Here it goes…

**Craig:** Just remember that Jesus is listening to you.

**Aline:** [laughs] I’ll give you the profane and then I’ll give you the airline version.

**Craig:** Cool.

**Aline:** My term for movies like that is Shit Happens movies. But for airplane purposes you could call them Crap Happens movies.

You want all your scenes to have a “Because” between them and not an “And Then” between them. And it’s something that you learn and get better at which is having everything cause everything, and everything build on everything. But I have noticed, particularly in the action genre, it seems like things have gotten very episodic. And there’s been episodic movies — have been around for a long time.

I don’t do it primarily because I can’t do it well. I can’t keep myself… — When you’re writing a script you don’t want to feel like these things could be in any order. And if you can, then that’s a problem. Another way to think about it is what you’re constructing is a story which should be as entertaining a story as you would tell to someone at drinks. It should be, “And then this happened, and then this, and then this,” and it has distinct causality, and if you told it in a different way it wouldn’t be entertaining. And that’s something to remind yourself of: Can you put the script down, can you look away from Final Draft and turn to someone and say, “This is the story of the movie.” And it’s particularly challenging in the second act.

And that’s what I find is a lot of movies have a ramp up, and they have some sense of where they want to go, and then in the middle you get scene salad.

**John:** Yes. And so I don’t want to slam on any particular movies, but I want to offer some concrete examples. So, this is not to slam on these movies or these screenwriters, but these are the movies I said a stack of scenes about.

The Master, which is really well made, but a few days later as I was thinking back to The Master I couldn’t tell you what order most of those scenes happened. And I felt like you could have rearranged a lot of that stuff in that movie and it would have been largely the same movie. There’s a sequence where Joaquin Phoenix is walking from the wall to the window, from the wall to the window. And it’s a really interesting sequence but it didn’t actually end up changing — you could have moved it to other places in the movie; it wouldn’t have changed the nature of the movie.

Prometheus is another movie where a bunch of stuff happens, but it could have happened in a lot different order. And I really like your “because” versus “and then.” It was a lot of “and thens,” “and thens,” and it was like every moment I was like, “Well, what is an interesting thing that could happen now?” It’s like, “That is an interesting thing that could happen but it didn’t change the nature of the movie. There wasn’t a ‘because’ stuck in there.”

**Craig:** You know, my thing about this, because if you just look at a plot it is “and then, and then, and then,” and hopefully there is a causality between those two that creates the “because” or “and so.” But, let’s say you’re writing a road trip or any kind of movie where it seems like the flow of the plot requires episodes. Then really the thing that connects these things together and makes them a story is theme and the characters.

**Aline:** And character.

**Craig:** Exactly. So, theme and characters. So, you can have, “and then, and then” episodes, but if the theme and the characters are evolving through those then I feel like there is some glue. How do you approach that when you’re dealing with that?

**Aline:** That’s a really good way to put it, because a lot of the stuff I’ve written, the plots are not exactly highly propulsive. And so you have to find propulsion, and it’s almost always in, “Okay, this character starts here and what don’t they know? What do they think they want but they don’t know they want this other thing? What is the trajectory of the goal they think they’re heading towards but the actual goal they should be heading towards — what is the tension between those two things?” And that is really what’s providing you your arc.

You know, the story stuff needs to be… — And in some ways what’s interesting is you can take the same plot elements, and it might be a good exercise, you can take the same plot elements of story and rearrange them, as long as you’re repurposing them character or theme wise. Do you know what I’m saying?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Aline:** Like you could say, “Craig and I had breakfast, and played Scrabble.” But if it’s like, “And that’s when I realized he was a serial killer,” where you place those revelations…

**Craig:** It’s a weird place to finally say it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** [laughs] Where you place those revelations, where you place the character on their journey in the events. And what I’ve noticed — And I can’t speak to it for The Master, because I feel like The Master is doing something else, and I feel like part of what The Master was doing was addressing this issue of do people change? do they progress? So, I feel like it’s slightly different. But — I have noticed that there are movies where they have now decided that it’s cool to dispense with setting up a character at all.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Aline:** So, things just start and you’re in motion, which I appreciate. You know, I like a movie where you get into the story pretty quickly. But sometimes I don’t know anything about the character. I don’t care. I’m not invested. I don’t understand where they’re starting psychologically. And so it is hard for me — I just feel like I didn’t get on the train. So, I’m not on the train; I’m just watching the train go by.

**John:** Yeah. The most recent Bourne movie is another movie I described as a stack of scenes in that each set piece is really lovely, but I felt like I was watching a video game that sort of like moves to the next section. And all the stuff that happens within that little section is like, “Oh, that’s all smartly done and really good. But I didn’t know who those characters were beforehand.” I couldn’t track that anything had progressed or anything had changed because I didn’t know where we really started.

**Aline:** Do you think video games have a lot to do with that?

**John:** I think there’s an aspect of it.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I mean, the truth is, because I do play a lot of video games, and frankly it seems like they are more invested in narrative and setup now than some of the movies. The really good ones at least are getting very cinematic and very narrative and they seem actually really obsessed with character.

I mean, obviously they play out in very different ways. The one thing that video games do that I don’t like, and I will see in movies, is they create segments that are entirely about the cleverness of the action, which I understand because it’s a video game and you need to play the game. But it does seem to me like sometimes screenwriters forget that clever is not good.

You may have a really cool idea for a scene in the flow of your plot, but frankly the only value of any scene, for me at least, even in action movies, is: What does it mean for the character? And what does it mean for the theme? I think one of the reasons we love Die Hard is because we’re watching a guy suffer. And each time he suffers he seems to be enlightened from the suffering. And we don’t like Commando as much because Arnold Schwarzenegger just seems to just get on a plane, shoot, get on a plane, shoot, get on a chopper, shoot.

So, I like to think about these things, like what the episode should be really should be the test for what the character needs at that moment to then move forward.

**Aline:** Right. I want to bring up something else which is a little slightly off-topic but I think interesting is: I think television is a huge part of this. And I think we consume way more television at this point than movies; I think that’s correct. But, anyway, we’re all consuming tons of television. And one thing I think is interesting is there is a trend now, a lot of feature writers are going into television, and a lot of people do both. But I have this belief that they’re fundamentally different types of storytelling.

I think TV and film are completely different. There are many people who have equal mastery. But I feel like I have spent so much of my career training myself to write something that could only have happened this one time. It has to be — it’s a cumulative thing. This is a singular thing that happened to this character and the stakes are as high as possible.

So, I have not trained myself to tell stories that can generate themselves over at the end. And some people do that extremely well, and a great television series often is something that can kick out iterations of itself. Now, some TV series it seems to me, like Mad Men seems to me to be a 100-minute long movie. And that’s an amazing skill to do, because he doesn’t repeat, he progresses. But I think that a traditional, in particular a procedural or a sitcom, is something that needs to be able to be repeated. And I think that’s a huge part of how people process stories now.

**John:** You’re really talking about: what is the engine? And so in television there is an engine for the self-contained one hour. There’s an engine for the 30-minute sitcom. And there’s also this sort of new engine for this sort of mega novel series, like the way that Lost is: every episode has its closure but there’s a bigger ongoing cycle.

And I feel like my frustration with some of these movies recently is I felt like they haven’t had good movie engines to them. And in the movie engine, like natural consequence, characters trying to go through things. Even simple things like, “Tell me where the characters think they’re trying to get to,” which I think is — your movies point to — your characters clearly state their goals in terms of what they’re trying to do. And they may not reach those goals, the goals may change, but you know what the character is trying to do over the course of this movie. And you are invested in them because you want to see them — are they going to make that thing?

You talk about, it’s a race; it’s like we’re a very specific kind of runner. We’re not a sprinter. We’re not a season-long marathoner, but we run like a 10K. And some of these movies aren’t running their 10Ks the way you kind of hope that they could.

**Craig:** Well, the other thing, and this is something for you guys to keep in mind when you’re writing, is that all the pressure to reduce will be on the first act. I love first acts. I’m obsessed with them. I love setting characters. My favorite pages are the first ten pages. I care about them more than anything. And not in the script stage — I think in the script stage I think they all really appreciate it. It’s when they’re making the movie, or when they’re cutting the movie and they’re like, “Can we just get into this faster?” That’s their thing.

Once they’ve read it once — Sorry Franklin, I keep saying “they,” but it’s “they” — once they’ve read it once they forgot that they read it and so when they read it a second time they’re like, “Eh, oh yeah,” so they just skip past it because they’ve read it. They don’t realize that no one else has read it. The audience hasn’t read it yet. They’re only going to read it when they see the movie. But all the pressure then becomes like, “Well, I’m bored; I’m sitting here. I just watching you guys set up. It’s boring, it’s boring, it’s boring. Let’s just go, let’s just go, let’s just go.”

So, when you’re writing, because setup is everything, be tight. Be compact. Those first ten are precious. And when we read the first three pages, sometimes the first three pages seem so, I don’t know, just…

**Aline:** Purposeless.

**Craig:** And really just spendy. They’re spending their pages.

**Aline:** Right. And it’s such precious real estate.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** I’m going to stand up and argue for the last ten pages of a script, too, which is another challenge. You get to the end of some of these movies and it’s like, “Well, we got there? Was that a rewarding place for us to get? I trusted you with two hours of my time and I thought we would get to a more interesting, better place than that.” And the movies that I love tend to have great beginnings, but they tend to have great endings, like you really got to someplace really meaningful.

**Aline:** One screenplay I would recommend, and I think it’s pretty easily available online, is the True Grit screenplay, which is a clinic on both of those things. I mean, they set up the tone, the story, they get you into the magic of that movie instantly, and then they have this beautiful epilogue/coda ending. And it’s also for people to read, it’s just as a reading experience. They don’t use — have you ever read it?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** There are no slug lines.

**Craig:** Yeah, I like that.

**Aline:** It’s beautiful.

**Craig:** Don’t do that, by the way. But I do like it.

**Aline:** Yeah. [laughs]

**John:** The Coen brothers can do that. The other ones don’t do that.

**Craig:** When you’ve made like 20 films, and you’re a genius, and you’re writing for your brother, then you can do it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** But in terms of getting into, there are some scripts that are — it’s very deft if you can do that, get in, and have it feel purposeful because there’s a lot of hitting an alarm clock in the beginning of scripts. You know, there’s a lot of, “They start their day, they take a shower.” You know, generally there are a lot of tropes in the beginning. And you want to find some way to start that the audience thinks, “Oh, this is — wow, what’s happening here?”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. I mean, you know, it’s interesting, because it is the first ten and the last ten that I always think about. When you start screenplays — I don’t know if you’re like me — I need to know the beginning, and I need to know the end. I need to know the theme. I need to know why this story for that character is interesting. Do you always know the beginning, and the end, and the middle?

**Aline:** I always know the end. I always know the end. Because the end, I mean, the end is why you’re there in a lot of ways. The end is what you’re doing.

I love writing first acts. And they usually come very quickly because this is sort of the — they’re really fun, I think, to write. And if you’re set up properly the third, though it might not be fun, should be pretty quick.

**Craig:** Right.

**Aline:** I think second acts are the bear. And I think second acts, you know, separate the men from the boys. And I feel like it was Ted Elliott…

**Craig:** Sexist.

**Aline:** Yes. The boys from the men, or the Boyz II Men.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** Oh!

**Aline:** I think it was Ted Elliott who said the second act is the movie you wanted to write. It’s the thing that people came to see. It’s what is on the poster. You know, if you’re going to see ET it’s the part where there is an ET and they’re interacting. But it is that thing of it is hard in the second act not to stack scenes in exactly that way you’re talking about.

And I think what happens is in a pitching, in a development process you will find when you pitch a movie, if you’re pitching for 12 minutes you pitch the first act for six minutes. And you pitch the setup, and you know the setup, and you really worked on it. And so you sit down and write the script, and you bust out the first act, and you feel awesome, and you feel like a regular person. And then you get to the second act and there are parts where you go, “We never talked about this!”

**John:** The vast wasteland in the middle of the movie.

**Aline:** It’s a lot of real estate. And you have to construct it. And so I actually try and blow through the first act quickly so that I can focus on that stuff. But I always know, and sometimes it shifts, but I have to know where I want the character to end up at the end and what sort of ending I have in mind, even if you end up joojing the particles.

**Craig:** Joojing.

**Aline:** Jooj.

**John:** I will write the last ten pages really early on in the process. I will tend to write the first act, then write the last ten pages, and then sort of paint in towards the middle. Partly it’s just a work process. Those last bits of things you’re going to write you’re always going to have to sort of rush to get done I find. I’m always sort of behind on a deadline. And I’d rather be painting towards the middle of the room rather than sort of painting towards the edge. I don’t want those ten pages to feel rushed.

If I’m going to rush I want to rush that —

**Craig:** Can you do that? I can’t do that.

**Aline:** No, I can’t do that. I think of it more like you’re weaving something, and you weave, weave, weave, and you know kind of roughly where you’re heading in the second act, but you don’t really know what you need for — I mean, in the third act — but you don’t really know what you need. And if you’ve constructed the carpet properly you’ll have a lot of cool threads. And what I enjoy about the third act is, like, “Oh, you can pay off this, and pay off that.” And it only works if you’ve woven everything into the second act.

**Craig:** It’s a devastating critique of your entire career.

**John:** Yes, thank you very much.

**Aline:** I do a weird thing which is I sketch the whole story in a very, very rough, unreadable…

**Craig:** I do that, too.

**Aline:** I sketch the whole thing.

**Craig:** I do that on a piece of paper. And I make a line, and I sketch it.

**Aline:** No, I mean, oh, I mean I go through…

**John:** Craig, you’re wrong.

**Craig:** I sketch it.

**Aline:** [laughs] No, I go through and barf out a whole pass that’s legible.

**Craig:** Oh, you do that thing?

**Aline:** I am that thing. I build a skeleton. Because what I have found, early on in my career I would write that first act and then I would polish it, and perfect it, and hang little Christmas ornaments on it. And then it would be like, “Oh! I’ve got all this other stuff I got to do.” And you wouldn’t know, “Hey, the first act needs to be 10 pages shorter!” until you’ve done all this other stuff.

So, for me, I do a skeleton of the entire screenplay and then I go back and I put in the mosaics.

**John:** I will tend to do my last ten pages. I know that I’ll have to change some stuff in the last ten pages because I’ll discover other things along the way, but I tend to do that, filling in the skeleton sort of as part of my process. If I’m writing a scene and I’m basically done for the day, I’ll slug line the next seven things that happen so I can work on those things next, so I actually have —

**Aline:** That’s super smart. Because you want to have something to open up the next day.

**Craig:** I really note card it out. I always know what I’m doing the next day, you know. And my day — we work so differently, so my thing is I go, whatever I wrote for that day, the next day I start by going backwards and rewriting it. Because I just feel like sleeping has helped me. And also it just gives me a running start into the work of today.

**Aline:** But don’t you sometimes end up spending 80% of your time on the rewriting part?

**Craig:** You know, here’s the deal: I don’t work that much. There’s like jobs where people are on the highway working for ten hours. If I write for three hours it’s a pretty good day. So, if I spend two hours polishing and then one hour in a kind of burst of inspiration that that got me running into, you know, it’s hard to beat myself up for it. “Oh my god, I might have to work a fourth hour today!”

So I can’t — I’m okay with that. And my whole thing about the second act is really just to look at the character and their relation to the central arc or the theme. And I have a basic sketch out. And then I really sit — I just feel like even though I deviate from the note cards as I go, I never feel lost. I never hit a moment of despair. I get anxious, you know, I get worried. I stop and I go, “Okay, I’ve got a note card problem here.” But I’m never full of despair.

**Aline:** But for me the outline/note card brain is different from the writing brain. So, the outline/note — that’s why I don’t really love doing extensive, extensive outlines with people, particularly before. I will do a verbal outline of the whole thing that last about 15 minutes where I can pitch you through the whole story. But I find that they’re not very good guides of what it feels like to be in the movie.

And so I feel like it’s very theoretical information and often I’ll have in an outline or a note card, and then I’ll be in the scene and be like, “Oh, nobody wants to do — none of the characters want to do this thing that’s on this card.”

**Craig:** That, you know what I do, because you’re right — and so I have actually two rows of notes. More note cards is the solution. So, I have my this is what happens note card, but next to that note card, in a different colored note card…

**John:** Wow.

**Aline:** Wow. See, serial killer. I said that.

**Craig:** Okay. What I do — well, first I tell the people in my basement to shut up.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** I’m working! And then — and then — next to the what happens note card is a why, a why it happens note card. Because I feel like that is important. If I know why things are happening, how their relationship is changing, what it means, what they notice, then frankly the what can change to 100 different things. But really what I’m outlining is my intention as opposed to plot.

And when I outline my intention then I feel like the second act isn’t so scary anymore.

**Aline:** I like that.

**Craig:** Well thank you. You’re free to go.

**John:** [laughs] No, you’re actually free to stay. We are going to open up for some questions. And so if you have a question that you wanted to ask us…

**Aline:** Wow. The crowd has like doubled since we got here.

**Craig:** I know. It’s like The Birds.

**Aline:** There’s at 17 or 18 people here now.

**John:** Let us take, the jacket right here. Question?

**Male Audience Member:** What about openings? Can you talk about character introductions and really crafting the first time the audience meets our protagonist?

**John:** So, I’m going to repeat this just in case it didn’t get recorded well. The question is about introducing characters and how to handle that the first time we meet somebody.

**Craig:** Didn’t we do a podcast on that?

**John:** We did talk about it, but we could talk about how Aline does it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The first time you meet a character in one of your scripts, how many words do you give them?

**Aline:** I don’t do a lot, I don’t do a ton, because I feel like you’re going to want to learn from behavior. And you want to have them behaving right off the bat in some way that tells — you want them to do something that tells the audience everything you need to know about the character. But I really do, I was very influenced by the William Goldman book. And so I really do do that thing where picking out a detail about a character the way you would say to someone, sort of like if you met someone at a party and you were going to describe them to your friend, you would say, “Oh, he’s the guy who… He’s the type of person who… She’s the kind of person who would say this/wear this/be friends with this/live here.”

You’re looking for the salient detail. What I would avoid is things which are — the character descriptions should be as purposeful as your story. So, I would not include a lot of extraneous stuff, descriptions about clothing, or hair, or whatever unless it really is…

**Craig:** No hair.

**Aline:** Unless it is germane to the story.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’m not a big fan of these character introductions where you tell me stuff that I haven’t seen in the movie yet. I hate that. Yeah, I’m getting there. You know, “When Jim walks in the room he’s had a life of woe, but he’s about to meet…”

**Aline:** “He thinks of his mother.”

**Craig:** All I really try and do in a character introduction really is convey immediately non-verbally or sub-textually, “What is this character’s strength and what is their problem, the problem that they’re not aware of yet?” I just want to know what that is. I want to know what they’re good at and I want to know what they’re bad at.

And by “bad at” I mean just that they’re maybe misaligned, maybe priority out of whack, something tiny. But I think that’s ultimately what we hook into on characters is their strengths and their weaknesses, what they want will emerge naturally from the circumstances of the plot, but I want to know why they’re going to have a problem getting it. I want to know why they don’t already have it. But I want to see what is good and unique about them, because I’m with them, you know.

**John:** I agree very much with what they’ve said. The only thing I’ll add is use character introductions, use the extra sentence you might give to a significant character’s introduction as a way of distinguishing between the important characters and the less important characters. So, if it’s your hero, feel free giving an extra sentence or two to sort of setup, “This is your hero — yes, reader, pay attention — this really is your main person.”

Don’t do that for the person who is only going to be in the one scene, or the unimportant person, because it will throw the reader off and make them think this character is much more important than they really are. And so that’s why I don’t tend to give really minor characters individual names. They might be Agitated Guy versus giving him a name. Because the minute we see a name we think, “Oh, that’s an important person I need to keep track of.” And it sort of goes in your little mental checklist, like, “What happened to that guy who had the name?” So do that.

Another question from the audience. Here.

**Male Audience Member:** How do you guys feel about interactive storytelling, like the YouTube videos that allow the audience to make decisions that impact story. Have you seen it done well?

**John:** So, the question is about interactive storytelling that YouTube videos have, the ones where you can click and sort of fork through different paths. Have you guys done those at all?

**Craig:** No, I hate it. I mean, to me, that’s a game. I mean, I remember reading those books when I was a kid, Choose Your Own Adventure, and they’re a goof. But the point is, that’s not why people watch things. That’s not why people read things. They don’t want to play Choose Your Own Adventure beyond just a party game. They want a voice to carry them through a story. We love narrative.

That’s why the Bible continues to — it’s not Choose Your Own Bible. People actually want a narrative. And I’m not a big Bible fan, but the Bible does have impressive sales numbers.

No, I mean, I just don’t think — people will occasionally say, “Well, it’s the new thing, that’s where it’s going because people want to be involved.” They don’t. Going to the movies, watching TV, the engagement that we have is one in which we are accepting an artist’s intention or rejecting it, but not participating in it.

**Aline:** But it’s also telling you about, how a story turns out is your education about the world. It’s how we get information about what could happen, should happen, does happen. So, if you’re saying, you know, “this could happen, or that could happen,” to me it undermines the fundamental — I was never interested in those books, and it always seemed like a giant copout for me that you’re not giving anyone any information about your narrative. So, taste wise it’s not for me.

**Craig:** And it could only be about plot. Because what are you suggesting, that this character from the beginning somehow should live or should die, or should get married, or should have the kid, or shouldn’t? Oh, I guess it could be anything, so it doesn’t matter.

**John:** So, a little counter argument here. I would say…

**Craig:** Ugh.

**Aline:** No.

**John:** I’m saying in the video game world — and Craig, you play Skyrim.

**Craig:** I do, yes.

**Aline:** Wrong.

**John:** So, I would say there’s a kind of cinematic storytelling that’s happening mostly in video games that is very much: You’re choosing your path, but you really are the character. And that’s the thing that is happening in video games where the lead character is the person who’s playing it.

And so my friend Jordan Mechner often talks about, “You have to make sure that the story moments are playable,” that it’s not like you’re watching a cut scene where that cool thing happened, where you made that cool thing happen. And that’s an incredibly complicated, different, new kind of world to move into, that’s not sort of what we do. But the sense that you have changed the world in this way and because of what you did everything is now different is challenging.

**Aline:** One of the things that’s really interesting about writing a screenplay is you’re balancing, it has to feel completely ineluctable, but surprising.

**Craig:** That’s a great word.

**John:** First time it’s ever been used on this podcast.

**Aline:** That is what you’re doing. It has to be like it was destined to be this way and yet I was surprised that it happened that way. That is your job number one. Because a lot scripts you read that are not successful, that are proficient, tell you a story in a way that just seems like it could have been ordered in any way, or they tell you something where it does seem relatively organic but it doesn’t happen in a surprising way. Those are the two — a really satisfying movie satisfies those two things.

So, I think we’re the wrong people to ask because we’ve sort of dedicated our lives to making a story seem ineluctable, and that the characters don’t have choices.

**Craig:** Good stories can only be that way. Even video games… — Look, I played Skyrim a lot. The truth is, those moments are playable, but those are the moments you get. You don’t get other moments. You need to follow their story. It must end a certain way or you keep dying and you have to restart. You know what I mean? They won’t let you off those rails.

What video games do, and I actually hate it, is they will build in these silly choices like, “Well, if you were chaotic then you’ll get this cut scene ending, and if you were cool you’ll get this one.” It’s dumb. There’s really one ending. You can tell which one the ending is. Even then you can tell, “Well this was the ending they wanted. This is — ” Like I’m play Dishonored right now, and you have choice: As you go through you can be stealthy and just choke people out and let them sleep, or you can kill them. And if you kill them…

**John:** I think Craig kills people.

**Craig:** Wrong.

**John:** Ah!

**Craig:** Because I’m escaping from my normal life of killing. So, in the video game I just choke them out. Because I can tell the game wants me to. I can tell that that is the narrative, that’s the right one. This is the whole point — intention and purpose, they are the bedrock foundation of good storytelling and narrative. Without it, shh. I just made that up. It’s my version of ineluctable.

**John:** Another question please. Over here.

**Male Audience Member:** If we have a lot of ideas about sound design… [Inaudible].

**John:** So, a question about writing and sound design and sound in movies. And music.

**Craig:** Put it in. I mean, look, don’t get annoying. You don’t want to have a cue for every scene, because that can be annoying, unless your movie is about music and then in which case, okay.

You’re not stepping on anybody’s toes. By the time it gets to post-production your toes have been lopped off, chopped, fed back to you anyway. Everybody is going to have ideas. Music costs money; that’s obviously one of the factors. The director is going to…

**Aline:** I’m going to counter that just a little bit, which is I would only do it if it is something that your reader is going to recognize and understand the purpose of. Because I have a pet peeve about reading scripts where it’s like, you know, “This jangly song by obscure band,” and it means a lot to the writer and it means nothing to the audience. And I don’t want to go to iTunes.

So, if there’s a reason that you want to put in something, and it’s super specific. And I understand clearly it’s…it has to be what?

**Craig:** It’s got to be Free Bird.

**Aline:** If it’s so motivated by the story, and it’s so integrated in the story, and I’ve certainly seen it done well, but it starts to feel like non-sequiturs that are done to either demonstrate your groovy taste or because you’re insecure about your through line.

If you can take it out and it doesn’t make a difference in your story, then don’t do it. But if the audience is going to understand you’re using Brown Sugar here because you’re trying to evoke something specific and maybe you’re quoting a lyric, then by all means do it.

I think — if there’s one thing I could say that’s my recent, more recent, obsession is: Put less stuff in there. Just put less stuff in there. You probably have 20% too much stuff. And I notice when I first write, there’s just too much information. You want to be as — and I’m not saying write at a minimal style, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying you want as much information as is necessary to move your story where you need it to go. And sometimes stuff like your cool Snow Patrol song is just cluttering. That’s just my opinion.

**Craig:** I mean, he doesn’t seem like that kind of guy.

**Aline:** Snow Patrol?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The thing I’ll say is: Remember that a screenplay is only what you can see and what you can hear. And so most of what’s going on in a screenplay is the stuff you see, it’s the scene description, and it’s the dialogue, it’s the stuff that you’re going to hear.

If there is something really important that we need to hear that’s not dialogue, you can tell us, and that’s great. But I will very rarely use a specific song, but I might say, “Music swells as we transition to this.” It can also help make it clear to the reader like, “This is a sequence that is going to take us through…”

**Aline:** Oh, definitely. Didn’t you just write a script where there was a “Whomp” or something?

**John:** Yeah. “Woooooooom.” Yeah. Where, “There’s a reason why I’m calling this out, that there’s a song here is because these next couple scenes are one big sequence that all has to hold together.” So, think about these next things with a sound cue under it that’s uniting all those things.

**Craig:** That’s pretty much what I do, too.

**John:** Cool. Another questions. Right here.

**Female Audience Member:** I’m penning a novel version of one of my scripts. And over the last few days of the festival [inaudible]. How to attract interest in your screenplay by roundabout means, including a blog, or a website [inaudible]?

**John:** Cool. So, recapping the question: She is taking her screenplay and turning it into a novel, and what do we think about this sort of reverse engineering to create underlined material?

**Craig:** I mean, you know, look: If it’s a bad script you will successful reverse engineer it into a bad novel.

**Female Audience Member:** That’s not the case.

**Craig:** Oh! Then I have great news. Great news for you! You don’t have to turn it into a novel! It’s a great script! I mean, look, there are some people who — I think on some level there’s some specific material where you think, “Well, if they read it as a book they might like it more as a screenplay.” But, you know, the problem with access, and publishing has become a world of complete open access now where anyone can have a book on Amazon. You just self publish it and voila. Now anyone can have a book on Amazon, so that’s sort of gone away, too.

The agencies in Hollywood aren’t looking through Amazon to see who got the most hits on self-published. They do not care. Their feeling is…

**Aline:** Unless it’s a phenomenon. Unless it’s one of those phenomena.

**Craig:** Oh, but then that’s, yeah. If a sales number, Fifty Shades of Grey hits, but look at the numbers it had to hit — like mind-boggling — before they went, “Oh, okay, well this book that publishing houses didn’t want, people want.”

I personally think that you’d be better served either revising or improving your screenplay if you feel it’s necessary, or writing another screenplay, or being a novelist. But gaming the system by double writing your thing and seeing if they’d like a book and then, “Oh, look, here’s a screenplay!” seems an inefficient way to proceed through our short, brief, blink-like time on this planet.

**John:** What I will say is, there was for a time, people would do comic books or graphic novels. They’d write the script and then they’d actually make the comic book version of it, and then they’d sell the comic book version. And so some of those things sold. I don’t know of any ones that actually got made. And, so, yes, maybe there’s a chance that something could sell, but really your goal is to get a movie made. And I don’t know if that’s going get you much faster or closer to a movie being made.

**Male Audience Member:** Cowboys & Aliens.

**John:** Cowboys & Aliens, all right.

**Craig:** That’s why they don’t do it anymore. No, I mean, it’s true. Cowboys & Aliens was famously bought because of the title and the cover. And it was an amazing title and cover. Very cool. Man on cowboy and horseback, riding, looking back over an alien ship shooting at him. Cowboys & Aliens. And then, you know, you had to write it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it was like, “Oh god, there’s still Cowboys & Aliens. Uh…what do we do?”

I have a friend I know who’s a writer, and he had an idea, and this was about six or seven years ago when this was in vogue, and he and his friend just sort of wrote it up quickly as a thing for a graphic novel, and then they got it set up because — they didn’t even write the graphic novel. And this was sort of happening a lot six or seven years ago. Less now. I think everybody was sort of hip to it. They’re like, you know, “Just write a screenplay for us.” They make so many fewer movies now than they did six or seven years ago that their desire to churn through material, it’s been diminished and…

**John:** The only other counter example that just occurred to me is Derek Haas’s Popcorn Fiction. So, Derek Haas has this great site that he set up and other people are now running that does short stories written by screenwriters basically. And so Derek had a story that he wrote there that someone bought. It hasn’t gotten made, so it’s gotten made, so it’s not a good example.

Eric Heisserer did actually write a short story with the intention, but here’s the crucial distinction is he wrote the short story knowing he would love to make a movie out of it, but he wrote the short story first because that was the thing that he could sell, and then he wrote the script.

**Craig:** The short story essentially is a prose pitch, really. The thing is a novel, that’s a novel.

**John:** That’s a novel. A novel is a lot of work.

**Craig:** That’s a lot of work. It’s lot of work to do all of it and, you know what I mean, you might as well just write five pages of it and see if that. Or, you’re screenplay is already done.

**John:** Yeah, done.

**Craig:** You’re done.

**John:** A question from the audience. In back there, you.

**Male Audience Member:** [Inaudible]

**Craig:** Oh, d’oh! No.

**Male Audience Member:** [Inaudible]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Yeah, well don’t put babies in boxes.

**Aline:** Nobody puts baby in a box.

**Craig:** Nobody puts baby in a box.

**John:** Was that all of your question or was there more to it?

**Craig:** Was your question “Should I have done that?”

**John:** How do I get my baby out of a box?

**Craig:** How do you get your baby out of a box?

**Male Audience Member:** [Inaudible]

**John:** Oh, no, you’re basically asking Craig to take umbrage.

**Craig:** Did I pay you to do this?

**John:** …And you’re going to poke him with a stick.

**Aline:** Before, no, but you know what? I’m going to say this in defense of books, which is this: I think you can read one and I think it doesn’t matter which one it is. I think you could also take a six-week writing class. I think if you don’t know anything, if you’re starting from scratch, you need something that familiarizes you with the basic, it’s a three act… —

I mean, honestly, it’s a three act structure. There’s about ten or fifteen, you know, I guess you could call them rules, but ten or fifteen sort of givens that people have when they’re talking about scripts. I think most of the books, and I would just go with what are the most famous ones, will familiarize you with that. That’s all you need. You do not need to follow them. You just need to be familiar with those concepts.

And, what I always say is the good thing about — the best thing about writing is it’s highly, highly, highly subjective practice. So, anything that you do over, and over, and over again you will get good at. And the more you write the better you will write. So, that’s why I like, in an instance with the screenplay/novel thing, I would just say keep writing screenplays. Keep practicing. You’re going to get better.

I think it is good to be familiar with the basic, right?

**Craig:** Yeah. But read screenplays and you’ll become familiar with them. I mean, look, here’s the deal: Very simple solution. Whatever you did to your script, did you like it before you read the stupid book? Okay. So, throw away the one that’s the stupid one now. Go back to the one you wrote and just think about it. And think about, and show it to people that you care about and who are willing to be honest with you. And ask them for feedback. You cannot get through it but for going through it.

And certainly what you can’t do is impose something artificial on top of it, like a fake structure that a million movies defy anyway. And I will point out, as I’ve pointed out a million times: none of those people — none of them — are as successful as her, or me, or John at doing this. None of them.

Don’t you think that if they knew really the secret they would just write movies?

**Aline:** Yeah. But I still think you can pick up Syd Field and just get the basics.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Aline:** And there are certainly people who write about writing where writing is not the — he’s doing an analysis. I took a class at NYU with a great teacher who was a screenwriter, but one of the things that he said which has really stuck with me, on the first day he gave us a handout and he said, “You know how to tell stories.” You know, the average person by the time they’re 30 has watched something like 20,000 hours of narrative. I mean, it’s something absurd like that.

We have that in our bones. The problem is that what you know in your instinct and you gut is a great story, it gets confused when people start writing. And I’m not sure why that is, but it is sort of — even somebody who’s a great storyteller at the bar will sit down to write and all of a sudden they start violating everything that they instinctively know is a story.

**Craig:** Because it’s a long story. I mean, honestly, no one sits at a bar and tells a story for two hours.

**Aline:** Yeah. But people don’t sit down and write great 20 minute stories, either. I mean, it’s not like it’s easy to find a short film either.

**Craig:** I agree.

**Aline:** It’s just somehow the process of taking what we intuitively understand is a great yarn, and learning how to craft it…

**John:** Knowing the order in which it needs to go so that it actually makes the most sense, like the first time through it all makes sense, so you can’t sort of stop and restart.

**Craig:** There’s our lady.

**John:** Yeah, so we have five minutes, which is the perfect amount of time for some One Good Things.

**Aline:** Aren’t they One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean…

**John:** One Cool Thing/One Good Thing, we change it up.

**Craig:** No, we’ve never changed it until now.

**John:** So, Aline, if you have a One Cool Thing you can share it with us, or you can do what Craig does, when he does not have an idea, and then by the time I finish talking…

**Aline:** I want to hear what you guys do. I want to wrap it up.

**John:** Cool. My One Cool Thing is actually a website that I started and kind of forgot about, but then Stuart actually maintains. So, I have screenwriting.io. And so on johnaugust.com I started that site by answering a lot of questions. People would write in questions — actually, I originally did it as part of IMDb, so like people would write in questions about screenwriting, and I would answer the screenwriting questions, and Penelope Spears would answer the directing questions, and Oliver Stapleton would answer the cinematographer questions.

So, I started answering those questions. I started answering them on my site after awhile, and I just kind of sick of it because they were just kind of the same questions again and again. But people still have those questions, and I wanted people to be able to get those answers. So, I started screenwriting.io, and it’s just those answers. That’s all it is is just answers to common screenwriting questions. And like nothing is too basic to ask, sort of like, the old question used to be like, How many brads do you put in a script?” And people don’t really use brads anymore because they send PDFs. But answering really basic questions.

So, if you have a basic question about screenwriting, or somebody asks you a basic question and you’re like, “I don’t know,” you can send them there. So, it’s just screenwriting.io.

**Craig:** Well, I have a One Cool Thing, and it seems like it’s a little bit of a copout, and usually they are because like he says I think of them while he’s talking. But this is really is a Cool Thing. And my Cool Thing is this, is the Austin Screenwriting Conference, and I’ll tell you why.

**John:** Yay!

**Aline:** Shameless pandering.

**Craig:** Yup. Absolutely. Because get so angry, box baby guy, because I get so angry about these books and stuff, and you know, Syd Field, like learning about three acts and all that is great, but the truth is for you guys you are beset upon by charlatans, and thieves, and frauds. It is amazing; the industry of lies that surround the aspiring screenwriter is just so disturbing. And the titles of the books alone, it’s almost like they betray — they are crafted to be the opposite of what they are. How to Make a Good Script Great. Or, How to Make Your Okay Script Shitty. I mean, that’s really what happens.

Everything about it is wrong. And the only way — I do feel like the only way I’ve ever gotten better over the course of my career is by being friends with and talking to writers who are better than I was, and who have been doing it longer than I had been doing it. And who could look at me and say, “Eh,” because they had authority. And the authority came from experience. That’s why I like this.

If you’re going to spend your money on screenwriting, this is where you should spend it, because you hear from people who actually do it. You will get the actual truth, then stop spending money. So, you go here, so this is your money-spending for screenwriting for the year. Do it, and then don’t spend anymore until next October.

But, I think it’s a great thing that they do here and I want to thank them for doing it. It’s terrific and I’m very happy that you guys come to this. This is worth it, so good for you.

**Aline:** Wow. That should have been the last one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s how I roll.

**John:** He’s the closer.

**Aline:** Yeah, well you close.

**Craig:** “There’s an app I really like…”

**Aline:** Yup. It’s going to be like that. I’m done.

**Craig:** No, no, do it, do it, do it.

**Aline:** No.

**Craig:** Do it. Do it. Do the app.

**Aline:** So, I was going to recommend a blog, which is one of the few blogs that I read. Because I wanted to bring some lady energy to the panel, and because I told Craig months ago that I would be wearing my YSL Tribute Platforms, and I wanted to make sure he wasn’t going to be wearing his as well.

**Craig:** Fluevogs.

**Aline:** Oh, I know, you like those weird shoes. There’s a blogger, and her blog is called The Man Repeller. Has anyone heard of Man Repeller? It’s been around for a couple of years. And her name is Leandra Medine. And the reason that I’m drawing attention to it, it’s a fashion blog, but the reason I’m drawing attention to it on the podcast is she’s a really good writer.

And what I think is interesting is that her basic premise is that to dress for men would be a simple thing. You would wear a tight black dress, and high heels, and men would be happy.

**Craig:** Sounds good. Tell me more.

**Aline:** But what she does is use fashion sort of as a means of expressing herself, and being innovative, and mixing classic things with funky things, and really showing what you can do as a woman, not always worrying about what’s going to showcase your butt.

And I think she does it in a way that’s so funny, and so witty, and she’s very young — I think she’ s in her early 20’s. And she’s very clever. And if you guys have an interest in fashion — she’s just a great female writer. I think she has a really unique voice. And so I know that once Craig and John read that, the next time they do the podcast they’re going to be wearing something super cool and man repelling.

**John:** Done. Guys, thank you so very much.

**Craig:** Thank you, everyone.

**John:** Thank you, Aline.

**Craig:** Thank you, Aline. Thank you, Franklin.

**John:** Thank you, Franklin Leonard.

**Craig:** Thank you, Austin.

**John:** Have a good afternoon.

**Aline:** Thanks everybody.

Scriptnotes, Ep 59: Plot holes, and the myth of perseveraversity — Transcript

October 19, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/plot-holes-and-the-myth-of-perseveraversity).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, episode 59, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

How are you, Craig?

**Craig:** I’m doing fine, John. How are you after Halloweenie?

**John:** I’m doing pretty well. I actually wrote a little blog post about my feelings on it, because as we talked during the last podcast I didn’t know which of three futures we were living in — whether we were living in future where Frankenweenie did extraordinarily well, did just fine, or did less than hoped. And we are in the “less than hoped” alternate universe.

And yet I wanted to make sure that… — I was blogging about I want to make sure that I wasn’t letting that disappointment over how much money we made sour my experience of the whole movie, which has been my experience on other things where something you really love a lot, a bad thing happens, and suddenly you feel like, “Well I can’t love it anymore; I can’t even think about it anymore,” because you only remember the bad stuff.

So, it was a very therapeutic blog post.

**Craig:** I think that’s exactly right. And the truth is that these movies get discovered, and sometimes they get discovered in their own time. Didn’t Nightmare Before Christmas kind of go through a — it wasn’t a big box office hit, and then it just exploded later?

**John:** Absolutely. It became a phenomenon quite later. So, I think, that’s one of the things I cite in the blog post, but also Go, which did not come out roaring in the box office and ended up being a very useful thing for my career. So, yeah.

I’d rather have a good movie that doesn’t make a lot of money than a bad movie that makes a lot of money.

**Craig:** I’ll tell you the worst situation is when you have a bad movie that also doesn’t make a lot of money. [laughs] Because, you know, I mean one day we should do a podcast on Superhero, or what was absurdly retitled Superhero Movie, and what an awful experience it was for me to work on it, and make it, and then also to watch it crash and burn.

It was just sort of… — That might be therapeutic for me.

**John:** [laughs] Talking through it. The second Charlie’s Angels is a bit of that for me, because the first Charlie’s Angels was, you know, an adrenaline high of a really hard to make movie, but we ended up doing it right, and people liked it a lot, and it became sort of — we were an underdog. And then coming in with the expectations of the second movie, which was just a nightmare to shoot, and it not performing well, it was frustrating on a lot of levels.

**Craig:** Yeah. You never want to… — We are taught, there’s a narrative that if you persevere in the face of terrible adversity you will come out on the other end successful. And yet there are times when you persevere through terrible adversity and you still die. [laughs] You know, you battle cancer and they give you a clean bill of health and you walk out of the hospital and a bus mows you down. And those are rough moments, and frankly hard to derive very positive lessons from them beyond “sometimes you lose,” you know?

But that’s not what happened here, I don’t think, at all. I think you have a great attitude about it. Because I suspect that this movie will — good movies, especially good movies for kids, and especially good movies for kids that are tied to holidays, they have a way of living forever.

**John:** Yeah. Plus movies about kids and dogs.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. That’s exactly right.

**John:** Done. You have kids, dogs, Halloween, you’ve got animation of the dead.

**Craig:** And you have a great title, Halloweenie.

**John:** Exactly. If only we had chosen the Craig Mazin title rather than the actual title that we used.

**Craig:** I may be onto something.

**John:** So, last week was our very special episode in that we looked at the very first screenplays that we had ever written, and so we did our Three Page Challenge on ourselves, and looked at those three pages.

And one of our listeners wrote in a very smart follow up question. Kevin in Sydney, Australia wrote, “If you could each give your first screenplay writing selves one piece of advice that would help you learn the craft a little quicker, what would it be? Or, conversely, what thing were you stressed out about that turned out to be really unimportant?”

**Craig:** Well, I think I kind of said it in our last horrifying podcast. For me it would be to not overlook good, basic, non-comedy oriented storytelling. Make really good characters. Write really good interesting scenes. Don’t let the comedy lead everything, because you’re not doing a sitcom; you’re doing a movie.

And what was the second part of that question?

**John:** “Conversely, was there anything that you were stressed out about when you were writing that first screenplay that ended up being really unimportant?”

**Craig:** Oh, just, like, “there has to be five jokes on every page?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** No. One really, really good one is much better.

**John:** I would agree with you there. My two pieces of advice to young John August would be to make things worse for my hero. I think I had this sense, and a lot of new writers have, is that you love your characters and don’t want bad things to happen to them. But, no, you’re a screenwriter and you should make terrible things happen to your [characters], and so you should embarrass them in comedies and kill their loved ones in dramas. You need to make things as difficult as possible for your heroes, and that’s a hard lesson to learn, because you love these characters and you don’t want anything bad to happen to them.

But you have to make bad things happen to them, because you’re god. And god has to make disasters and floods.

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s right. And specifically you, as god, you look at a character and you decide, “I must put them through the most miserable thing for them, or else they will not come out the other end improved.”

**John:** Yeah. And I think my converse advice is that early on in my career I was so worried about pleasing everybody that I would sort of take notes and really try to work notes that were just not the right notes. And I would take notes from people who just really didn’t understand what I was trying to do and try to implement them. And that is just a recipe for disaster.

**Craig:** It is. That is a burden that we carry our entire careers. And there is always a time, in every movie, no matter how well it’s going, where you suddenly have a moment of clarity and realize: “I’m actually now just writing towards people, specific people. I’m no longer writing towards the audience.” And that’s when you need to stop.

And I have to tell you, in general, when you say to people, “Look, I feel like this is what’s happening,” they, too, suddenly become scared. They don’t want to be responsible for something bad. You can’t obviously say it every day, but when you have that feeling, you got to put your hand up. You have to put the movie before your own feelings, your need to be accepted, your fears, etc.

**John:** Yeah. It’s hard as screenwriters because I think we are by nature good boys, and we want to please people. And you are not always going to be able to please people. And it took me years to learn that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, today I thought we’d talk about three things. First, I want to answer some listener questions, because it’s been awhile and they’re sort of stacking up. Second, you had suggested we talk about plot holes, so let’s talk about plot holes. And third, we have two Three Page samples that we meant to get to last week, we didn’t get to last week, so I thought we’d do those this week.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** It’s going to be a full show. Let’s get started.

**Craig:** Do it.

**John:** First question comes from Ricardo in Italy. He writes, “I haven’t seen Frankenweenie yet, because the movie will come out here only in January, but I would like to ask you something. What is the exact meaning of all the names? I think I get all the references to classic monster movies, but why Persephone, Colossus, Toshiaki, Rzykruski? And Weird Girl has no real name?”

So, I’ve answered some questions on the blog people have written about Frankenweenie, but this was a good general purpose question, because I think how you name your characters is really important, so I can talk about sort of why I named these characters these names.

The hero of the story is Victor Frankenstein, because it’s always as Victor Frankenstein, but the rest of the characters are essentially new to the story. So, Mr. Burgermeister is the next door neighbor. “Burgermeister” actually means “mayor,” and so it’s like this fake Dutch town, and so Burgermeister is just the mayor of this town.

Persephone is the dog next door. Persephone is the queen of the undead in Greek mythology, and so it’s sort of nice to have a reference there. I think we had a different P name for the dog originally, the poodle, and Persephone just felt right.

Colossus is a joke. So, one of the boys, Nassor, resurrects his beloved pet and has this massive tomb, and he says, “Rise, Colossus,” and of course a little hamster comes out. So, it’s just the joke of Colossus.

Toshiaki, I needed a Japanese name, and it sounded like a good Japanese name. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t using the same first letter as any of the other characters in the story.

Rzykruski was the instinct to have the most difficult to pronounce name you could find so that all the characters in the movie would sort of avoid saying it if they could. And so when he wrote it on the board it was funny.

So, they’re all there to be sort of specific, and I didn’t want any Joneses or Smiths. There’s one Bob, but he actually just looks like a Bob. He’s sort of a big, chubby boy. And the rest of the parents, like the mom and the dad don’t have specific names. Bob’s mom is just Bob’s Mom. It’s really a story about the kids.

**Craig:** Should I give my answer now? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Yeah, what’s your answer?

**Craig:** I actually think that that’s really interesting. I obsess over the names. Obsess.

**John:** I do too.

**Craig:** And it’s funny because sometimes when you’re writing a movie where it’s not fantastic and it’s just regular people you think, “Well, why obsess over a name like Phil?” But it’s either right or it’s wrong, and you will type that name over, and over, and over. Don’t be afraid to change it if it feels wrong.

**John:** So, the pilot that I’m writing right now for ABC, there’s a family of four, and I knew one of the girl’s names right from the very start. It was an interesting name that was believable enough but obscure enough — that’s just right. I knew the dad’s name. The boy, found a good name for him. And then the mom, the wife, she was the hardest character because I had this image in my head of who she was, and she’s sort of an Amanda Peet kind of character. And so what do you name Amanda Peet in this role?

**Craig:** Well, I just did it. So, what did you name her?

**John:** I ended up naming her Lisa.

**Craig:** I went for Trish.

**John:** Trish? Trish is a great name. But Trish feels more like the snarky Amanda Peet, and this is sort of the little bit more serious Amanda Peet.

**Craig:** Yeah, my Amanda Peet was, yeah, she was kind of a slightly sassy but understanding wife. And I know a Trish who is a slightly sassy understanding wife, so maybe that’s — really, sometimes that’s all it is.

**John:** Yeah. Lisa feels like she could be an accountant. And so I had to violate one of my principal rules in that I have Lisa and Logan — Logan is the son. And usually I would not have two L names in a script, but they’re such different names, and one is a boy and one is a mom. I just felt like no one is going to get them confused.

**Craig:** A general piece of advice: If your character reminds you of or is inspired by somebody that you know in real life, take the name. Because just using the name sometimes helps, just helps you kind of connect with the person that you’re writing.

**John:** I agree.

Our next question is from Jack in Massachusetts who writes, “I heard on your latest podcast that Craig wrote the script Identity Thief. I wrote a much different script called Fake ID about two guys who steal the identity of a newly married man and woman and go on their honeymoon. So, although the premise of stealing an identity is the same, my script was obviously very different. Should I give up on the dream of having my script sold, or do you think because they’re so different I shouldn’t worry about another ID movie being made?”

**Craig:** Oh, I mean, if — Here’s the problem. There are two possibilities. Identity Thief is a hit or Identity Thief is not a hit. If it is a hit, you should know that that space has been occupied by a hit movie and it’s going to be tough for you to not look like a copycat. If it’s a bomb everyone’s going to say, “Oh, we don’t make movies about people stealing IDs. Remember Identity Thief? What a bomb.” So, it definitely impacts the salability of your script.

What Identity Thief nor any movie can impact is the quality of your script. So, while I and Universal Studios may have negatively impacted your fortune here, if you’ve written a really good script you will be noticed as a writer and you will work. So, I can’t say it’s all good news, but it’s not the worst possible situation.

**John:** I would reframe how he thinks of his movie. Because I think part of the problem is his title. Fake ID, the ID sounds like Identity Thief; it puts people in the same mind frame as that. But this is the logline or pitch for his movie: These two con artists take another couple’s honeymoon and hilarity ensues. Essentially if you frame it as these people and not sort of the identify theft of it all you have a valid premise there. So, I wouldn’t try to put a giant spotlight on the stuff that’s obviously similar, like the word “identity” or “ID.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And there you have a premise. Because people impersonating other people, that’s a standard premise. That goes back to Greek drama or comedy.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe just re-title it Stolen Honeymoon.

**John:** Yeah. Done.

**Craig:** Or something like that. And then — great point — then you sort of avoid the stink of it and you don’t have to worry so much about it. And, frankly, I don’t even think, just from what he described as his premise, the actual theft of the ID is probably something that you could change or alter anyway so that it’s not ID based.

**John:** Yeah, completely. I wanted to throw that question in because a lot of times I’ll be flipping through the trades or something and see a premise for something and it’s like, “Oh my god, that’s so totally my movie.” But that’s because I’m reading like a sentence of a log line. I’m seeing a title that seems similar to something that I’m working on. But, if I actually really dug into it, they are not related at all.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s only because in my head everything is about this one movie that I’m working on. And that’s not at all the reality on the ground.

A question from Joseph, who I don’t have a city for: “With the Austin Festival approaching I was wondering what type of experience an aspiring writer/director could have attending alone. Is it easy to network on your own? Or does everyone attend in groups?”

**Craig:** Well, my experience is that people do tend to show up with a friend or as part of a group, but networking — you know, I have been…that word has made me cringe for 20 years now. Because any social circumstance where you are trying to meet people or talk to people is akin to dating, and networking is very similar to going to a bar and working pickup lines, you know?

You will likely find other people with similar interests to you if you go to certain panels and you just strike up conversations. And don’t worry so much about networking, because the truth of the matter is most of the people you’re going to talk to at Austin Film Festival aren’t professionals. They’re not in the business. They’re just like you — they’re learning.

And so it’s less about networking and more about just making friends with similar interests. And if you go with that in mind, I think you’ll find that after basically once 8 o’clock comes around everybody starts drinking and having a great old time in the bar. And if you can meet some friends, you know, make some plans with them and get to know people and don’t be quite so calculating about it. I think you’ll have a good time.

**John:** I would agree. There is an opening night party. There’s the barbeque, which I assume is happening this year as well, which are sort of big open events where you’re sort of wandering around and it’s very easy to sort of strike up conversations with people.

I went to my first Austin Film Festival and it was really before I knew you and sort of the other screenwriters, and so I just wandered out there by myself and it’s fine. And everyone is friendly. And everyone is in the same boat, so you’re unlikely to have a bad outcome from just saying hello to a random person and talking. So, I would go for it.

**Craig:** Unless you’re a weirdo and then it’s just going to go as poorly for you as all other social interactions do.

**John:** Yeah. But, I mean, I would say you’re at least in good company. There could be plenty of other weirdos who are just as socially awkward as you are.

**Craig:** That’s absolutely true. There are a lot of weirdos there. I mean, they’re all good weirdos. I like — I mean screenwriting weirdos are a lovely group of people actually. I much prefer screenwriting weirdos to like Comic-Con weirdos…

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** …or even general movie weirdos that tend to obsess over source material and directors and actors. Screenwriting weirdos are actually pretty nice.

**John:** Yeah. So, people in Austin at the festival are good sorts overall, so I wouldn’t be too nervous about attending by yourself. And in a weird way going by yourself rather than going with some other friend, you may actually talk to more people, because if you’re just there with one friend you’re most likely going to just stare and talk at your one friend.

**Craig:** Correct. True.

**John:** James in Antioch, California writes, “I’m currently working on an outline for a drama that is heavily infused with Argentine Tango dance sequences. While there is a good portion of drama to fill the page, I have zero idea how to write the dance numbers that will appear throughout the script. Do I list specific dance moves? It sounds like it would be tedious, but then again writing ‘and they dance’ seems incredibly boring and shallow.”

So, this is really sort of a special case of how you write action. So, writing a car chase or a gun fight, you know, you’re going to have to write these things, or writing a sports movie — you’re going to have to write what you’re seeing on screen. And you want to write it in a way that’s interesting so the reader doesn’t just completely tune out of it. Dance isn’t one of the easier things to write. Craig, what’s your instinct?

**Craig:** I would think that every time your characters dance there is a dramatic purpose to that dance, something is going to change because of that dance. Someone is going to fail. Someone is going to fall in love. Someone is going to be inspired. Someone is going to realize that they’re better than they thought. Someone is going to realize that the competition is harder than they thought. So, that’s where you concentrate.

It’s less about the steps themselves, because frankly the steps are irrelevant. What matters is the drama and the characters and the change of state. So, that’s what you need to zero in on as they dance, and then as you describe the dance only describe the parts that really service that.

**John:** I agree. I would also point to looking at a scene; it’s not just the people who are dancing but everyone reacting to how they dance. And a lot of scene writing is just sort of painting with words what it kind of feels like. So, give some description for that. A good exercise for you honestly would be to look at some dance sequences in other movies, watch them a few times, and then just write what the scene would be that goes with that.

And if can sort of describe what’s happening in those great dance numbers in an interesting way, there is a good chance you’re going to be able to write a good dance number.

**Craig:** And I would do a quick search on the internet and see if you can find a screenplay for Strictly Ballroom, which is my favorite dance movie, and I think you could — if you find it, hopefully that would give you a great model for what you’re going for.

**John:** Dennis in New York City writes, “A lot of the movie I’m writing takes place on a computer interface which requires some Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I can’t use Google, can I, or CNN, or Twitter? For example, there are scenes where someone is using someone else’s Facebook account to look at their lives. How do you show these real interfaces in film without being lame, like renaming Facebook to something stupid like Social Net, etc?”

**Craig:** You don’t. I mean, you, the screenwriter, write anything you want. I’m putting aside the issue that so much of your movie takes place on a computer screen, which I think has the potential for great disaster for you, but presuming that you’re spectacular and the story is great, write Facebook, write CNN, write whatever you want.

Down the line it will be other people’s issues to get the licensing and figure it out.

**John:** I would agree with you on both topics. Looking at computer screens in movies is not generally a great idea. The Social Network did it as well as any movie I’ve ever seen, but still you’re not doing coding or Facebook for very much of that movie. Use the real stuff until they tell you that you can’t use the real stuff. And even when they tell you that you can’t use the real stuff fight them on it because you probably can.

**Craig:** Absolutely. There are certain instances where you simply can’t use a product, or you can’t use a name. They are hard and fast, depending on the circumstances and the context. Then there is a certain class that you can always use, and then there’s this big old gray area and a negotiation ensues between the filmmakers, the creative side of the studio, the production side of the studio, and then the business affairs department who will always, of course, default to protecting themselves.

And I have found over my career that there is an always an overturn, one or two overturns of a decision when it really matters.

**John:** A question from Anna in Australia who writes: “I’m a 24 year old Australian aspiring writer and will soon be visiting LA. I have a year-long working holiday visa, some savings, scripts, and a handful of contacts. I hope to spend to spend the year dipping my toe in the water to gauge my prospects and see if I even like it in LA. My question: Should I take care to use Americanisms such as ‘trash’ instead of ‘rubbish,’ fahrenheit instead of celsius, and ‘color’ instead of ‘colour’ in the scripts I send out?”

I have sort of two opinions on that. If she’s representing herself as an Australian writer and the script that she’s writing is set in Australia, then she should use Australian words for things in dialogue and in scene description. If she’s writing a script that takes place in America and there is nothing about it that says “isn’t it so interesting it’s an Australian writer,” I would Americanize it and use the American words for things and don’t put anything in there that can stop the reader.

And, honestly, just throwing in that extra “u” every once in a while, or that different word for some things we describe, could stop somebody, so don’t risk stopping somebody.

**Craig:** I’m halfway there with you. I think you definitely don’t want to use terms that some readers simply might not get. You know, we get “rubbish,” but it would probably stop you. It just seems a little odd. I mean, for us. “Rubbish” is commonly used for garbage in the UK and in Australia; here, “rubbish” is an old fashioned word. It’s something almost comical to us.

So, things like that I wouldn’t use. I would not use celsius simply because a lot of people don’t know how to do the math on it, and frankly, why do you want to stop them for doing the math?

The only thing I would say though is different spellings, alternative spellings, like for example “colour,” might actually give you a little bit of, “Oh, there’s a slight foreign glamour.” If you’re, for instance, writing a prestige piece, an awards-drama kind of movie, it might not be such a bad thing to cloak yourself in the — because, you know Americans do think that UK and Australian spellings are somehow more erudite than ours. So, that, you know, that’s the only thing where I might say, “Okay, well I suppose that’s okay as long as it doesn’t stop anybody.”

**John:** Yeah. I had lunch last week with Jonah Nolan who is a screenwriter and writer on the most recent Batman movies and also does Person of Interest. And so Jonah Nolan, if you’ve met him, it’s like, “Oh, he’s an American.” But his brother Christopher Nolan, if you met him you’d say, “Oh, he’s British.” And it’s because while they are brothers, Christopher was raised more in the UK and Jonah was raised more in America.

And so it was interesting talking with him because every once in awhile there is a word that will slip out, I think it was “pro-cess” (process) he said. And so like everything else, his entire accent is completely American except for a few special words. And so, don’t change who you are necessarily. I would just say look for reasons why somebody might stop reading your script and don’t give them those reasons.

**Craig:** Canadians say “pro-cess” also. The Canadian thing is really interesting to me because everybody there is basically like Nolan. There is no clear accent. I mean, there is a little bit of an accent, but there is no clear accent. And yet you will hear “pro-cess.” They will say “past-a” instead of “pasta,” which his fascinating to me.

**John:** And, of course, “a-boot.”

**Craig:** And “a-boot.” Yeah, I mean, that’s sort of a general accent. But the complete alternate pronunciation on certain words. And “shed-ule” — I think a lot of them do say “shed-ule”. And I’m fascinated by cases like Chris and his brother because there are people that are really good accents. I mean, everybody remembers sitting in foreign language class in high school and some kids would just ace every test, but had the most atrocious accents. And other kids actually had great accents; they just couldn’t remember any of the grammar or vocabulary.

Accent is very musical. It’s just a different part of the brain than the actual linguistic part that processes grammar and words. And so I’m just fascinated by — for instance, my sister and grew up on Staten Island. And we have audio tapes of each other when we were kids with the most outrageous New York accents. And my parents have really strong New York accents. And my accent is gone. It just went away.

We moved to New Jersey and I’ve always, I don’t know, I have good accent ability. Don’t have great foreign language ability, but I have good accent ability. So, it just went away, and Karen’s stayed. It diminished, but it stayed. It’s an interesting skill that some people have. They just — it falls away.

**John:** Friends of mine moved to Australia with their daughter who is my daughter’s age. And so she was 6 when they moved to Australia. And so it was interesting, they came back after four months and the girl’s accent had started to drift to somewhere in the middle of the Pacific. And now you hear her and you go, “Oh, she’s completely Australian.” Things hit at a certain time and they’re not aware that they’ve changed these things, and they’re not aware that they’re doing it.

A question from Natesh in India. He says, “I live in India and my financial conditions aren’t so good, so I cannot come to LA to sell screenplays or search for agents in these conditions. What should I do? Do I need to be in LA if I want to sell my screenplay? I really want to break into Hollywood but I know I cannot come to LA now. So, how do I handle all of this from my place?”

“What should I do,” essentially, asked many more times.

Oh, Natesh.

**Craig:** Well, if he had asked this question 15 years ago I would have said nothing. But, we live in a time now where the Korean rapper Psy has 400 and something million hits for Gangnam Style. The internet is the world’s greatest megaphone. I think you should put your script on the internet. And I think you should put it on — obviously you speak English which is essentially the lingua franca of media.

**John:** Yes, big Hollywood media, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, you should put it on the internet. And you should try and see if you can attract attention that way because, frankly, I’m not quite sure — I mean, it sounds like you’re not interested in Bollywood or the very large industry there, so that’s what I would do. I’m not sure what else I could think that you would do.

**John:** If he has a hope, it is the internet. I would also write things that you can specifically make in your current situation that are smaller and shorter that you can actually put up online. So, if you have any interest in directing I would write yourself things you can direct locally and put up online so people can see them, and develop your skills as much as you can there since you can’t move someplace else.

And sometimes magic happens. I forget all the details about the South American visual effects filmmaker guy who did this sort of alien invasion movie that was a little short that was terrific. And he did it all sort of himself. And you could be that guy and find the way that it breaks out to the next step.

I would also look for every — sort of the Sundance model of script development and sort of like screenwriting labs. Almost all the other countries have their own equivalent of that now. So, I would look for what is the equivalent of Sundance in India and try to get involved with that and see if there are ways you can sort of reach out beyond your little smaller place to the bigger India. And eventually get to either the UK or America.

**Craig:** Yeah. And the last piece of advice I’ll give is that Hollywood tends to not notice things unless they accrue enormous attention prior to their attention. The good news is you don’t live in a small country. You live in an enormous country with a billion people. And if you put something up there, part of what you should be thinking about is how to show evidence of attention. A counter of how many times downloaded or viewed.

If millions of people are suddenly liking and enjoying what you have done, someone will notice at that point.

**John:** Last question comes from Joe in Rancho Cucamonga. “I wrote a script a few years ago that I gave to my mentor at the time to read. He’s a professional screenwriter with a few credits and I’ve always valued his opinion. He happened to like the script very much and had some notes and suggested I did a little rewriting and he could show it to people. I was thrilled and got to work right away. I incorporated his notes and worked with him closely to craft the script into a sellable or at least readable asset.

“He read the read the new draft and congratulated me on a much improved draft. However, then he laid a bombshell on me that I still have trouble understanding: My protagonist happens to be a screenwriter and the bulk of the second act involves the making of this fictional movie. My mentor told me that regardless of how good he thinks the script is screenplays about moviemaking get thrown into the trash.

“Rather than completely reconstruct my script I moved onto the next one. But, I still really like that script. Is that a real thing, or was that just his way of telling me that it wasn’t good enough and wanted to spare my feeling?”

**Craig:** Uh…go ahead.

**John:** I would say he’s — there’s an aspect of truth to what he’s saying. Movies about moviemaking are a hard sell. Movies about screenwriters are a hard sell. There are not a lot of big successful examples to point to. There are little successful ones to point to, which seems surprising considering screenwriters know screenwriters and could write about that craft very well.

So, I think there is some aspect of truth to what he’s saying. If you have really good writing in your script, that’s fantastic, and that’s great and good. But it shouldn’t be a surprise that Hollywood is not knocking down your door to make that movie because it’s just about a screenwriter. And, kind of who cares about a screenwriter?

**Craig:** Yeah. The thing about movies about Hollywood is that the point of a movie is to escape into a story, and no matter how good of a job you do writing about the making of movies, you are reminding people that they’re not watching a real story; they’re inside of a movie because you’re inside of a movie. The whole point of the movie is that the movies are fake and somebody is writing it, so that becomes a barrier between them and the experience of watching the movie.

It’s not impossible. The Player is a wonderful movie.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Didn’t really find an audience in theaters maybe because of this, but it’s about as good as you can do.

**John:** Sunset Boulevard.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sunset Boulevard. Yeah, you’re right, an absolute classic. But I’m a little annoyed that he didn’t just tell that right off the bat. It’s kind of lame — I mean, why tell you after you did all that work? But, that said, look, it could be both.

He’s right: Movies like this are a difficult sell. And also he may just be letting you down easy because he doesn’t like it. That might be true, too. But as we say over, and over, and over on here, a well-written script is its own reward and also will lead to other rewards.

**John:** Agreed. I would say there may be very good reasons why he said this thing about your script, partly because of what he read on the page and partly because of the genre and sort of the nature of trying to make a movie about Hollywood, or a movie about screenwriters.

If you’re picking your next thing to write, just a general audience thing, writing about screenwriters is not usually the best choice for a subject matter.

**Craig:** It does imply that you have a poverty of experience or insight into the world, because you’re writing about the thing that you’re literally doing in that moment. That’s sort of my gut feeling. You know, they always say, “Write what you know.” Well if you’re writing about being a screenwriter, I’m presuming that you don’t know anything else.

So, that’s a little bit of a ding on you. But, listen, if it’s a really good script, you know, I wouldn’t sweat it.

**John:** I agree. So, Craig, let’s talk plot holes, because you brought this up as a topic for something that we should discuss on the podcast. And when you brought it up I said, “Oh yeah, absolutely, sure.” But then I was like, “What are we going to mean by plot holes?” Because it could mean a couple different things. And so I wanted to give the Wikipedia definition of plot holes first and see if we agree with that.

**Craig:** Okay.

**John:** “A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story’s plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behavior or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.”

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s not a bad definition. I tend to use plot hole to mean an omission, rather than an inconsistency or illogic. Although, I guess that’s a plot problem or just a mistake. [laughs] But to me, plot holes are things where it appears that you’ve left stuff out of a story because it would have made the scene you wanted to write impossible. And people stop and go, “But wait a second, how did he get there?”

**John:** Yeah. There’s a question of refrigerator logic, which is like, as you’re watching it, “Oh, okay,” and then as you’re going to get a soda out of the refrigerator you’re like, “Wait, that doesn’t actually make sense.”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. If you really look at the logic of it, the movie is impossible as constructed. There are movies that naturally invite this sort of thing, like time travel movies, because time travel is inherently impossible. It is inherently paradoxical. Therefore, every time travel movie will have some sort of plot hole or inconsistency.

But the areas where we have to really be careful about it is when we’re writing movies that don’t involve the supernatural or things that should invite plot holes. And what happens is, I think, a lot of times screenwriters come up with something they want to do in the story. It solves a lot of problems for them. It is interesting to them. It is dramatically compelling.

The problem is it’s just inconsistent with what’s come before it, and yet what’s come before it is what’s making the scene interesting. And so you suddenly have this cognitive dissonance between what you want to do and what you can do.

And, so, a lot of times people just go, “Yeah, screw it. No one will notice.” But they always do. [laughs]

**John:** They always do. And one of the sites that does, there’s actually a site called movieplotholes.com. And so I looked there and they defined, they have like different categories of plot holes which I thought was interesting. They have what they call “minor plot holes,” which is something that affects the logic of an individual scene. So, an example of that would be in Speed when Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock’s characters have an early conversation they know each other’s first names even though they’ve never introduced themselves to each other.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s a minor thing. It only affects that scene and the world is not going to come crashing to an end.

A major plot hole affects the logic of main characters. An example would be what they called “induced omissions or stupidity.” So, like, you have a character doing something that either they know way too much information or they are doing something dumb for the sake of necessary plot advancement.

An example they cite is in The Avengers, Loki, the evil Norse god, he does mind control over Hawkeye and he’s controlling him for a lot of that movie. But why Hawkeye? Why doesn’t he control somebody more useful or powerful like Nick Fury, who is, like, running S.H.I.E.L.D. and running the whole operation?

**Craig:** Yeah. That to me is less of a plot hole and more of just bad logic, you know. The plot hole to me is, for instance, the name thing. A lot these plot holes happen because of editing.

What happens is, if you run a movie site called movieplotholes.com, well, you’re going to go ahead and chase down those plot holes the way that the Gaffes Squad chases down the discontinuities in movies, like, “The liquid in the glass keeps going up and down.”

But when you screen movies for people, what happens is you start to realize that some of the information that you felt was necessary is not. And that, in fact, a two minute scene designed to actually strengthen and support something isn’t enjoyable for anybody and they don’t need it. There is actually a certain amount of plot hole that is required. Movies are discontinuous; we’re doing it all the time. I mean, people get in a car and suddenly they are somewhere else.

And so the intermittent motion of the film itself kind of metaphorically spills over into the story itself. So, in cases like, I guarantee that there is a scene that was cut out of Speed in which they learned each other’s name. But, everybody will presume that it was never shot or thought of by the screenwriter and will say, “It’s full of plot holes.”

I mean, The Hangover for instance, there is a big deal about “let’s not mess up my dad’s car.” And when they get home it is trashed. Well, the dad never says a word about it. It’s a deleted shot. Just, you know, they shot it. It’s just people didn’t care at that point. They were onto other things, didn’t matter to them, their attention was elsewhere.

My feeling is you actually don’t know what those things are going to be until you screen the movie, so as screenwriters we have to write the scene where the car is explained.

**John:** Yes. I think it’s very crucial just to point out that the ones the screenwriters are responsible for, and sometimes those are the questions of motivation. Like, suddenly a character is acting in a very different way for no clear reason, or has information that they couldn’t possibly have. And that is often a screenwriting problem. You needed them to do that and that’s why you’re having them do that, but it doesn’t actually make sense. And then a lot of what we call plot holes are really just deleted scenes.

And, in Frankenweenie, suddenly Weird Girl shows up along with this group of boys to go reanimate the dead. Well, where does she come from? We hadn’t seen her for awhile and suddenly she’s with this group of boys. Well, there is a small deleted scene where she joins in with them, but it wasn’t crucial enough in the story to get that little bit in there.

**Craig:** Exactly. I think for the audience — I think people who get outraged over certain plot holes need to understand that it likely… — And people who get enraged but also are surprised that other people aren’t enraged need to understand that it’s because other people aren’t enraged that the plot hole exists. That the idea of the movie isn’t to satisfy the most demanding logician; it’s to satisfy the broadest audience.

**John:** And so this website also defines what they call a “Super Plot Hole,” which is a plot hole that makes you question the entire logic of the story. And this is, I think, a meaningful one for us to talk about screenwriting. An example would be like a villain has a weapon that can destroy a whole city but he’s using it to rob a bank. Or things like Signs or War of the Worlds where the aliens are invading but they seem to have no basic idea of how earth works, that water can kill them.

**Craig:** Right. Signs was sort of rife with them. I mean, there’s this whole thing where they just didn’t know how to turn a door knob but they had mastered intergalactic travel. And at that point what happens is you just get angry, because you understand that Shyamalan had come up with this really cool scary scene with this thing in a closet, and a knife under the door, and it was tense, and it was Hitchcockian and cool. The problem is it just didn’t make sense with what had come before it. And so it’s just not legal. And it angers people.

**John:** There are two last categories I want to talk through because I thought they were good ways to distinguish two ideas. A “plot contrivance” is an unlikely event or coincidence. And I’ve talked a lot about sort of the perils of coincidence on the blog, and I’ll link back to my post on that, but I feel like a movie gets one, maybe two coincidences that can happen.

A premise coincidence is absolutely fine and good. Like in Identity Thief, the coincidence is that these two people have the same name. That’s the premise of the movie so you can’t say that’s really coincidence. That’s the premise. Or in a romantic comedy, like these two people happen to meet and they wouldn’t have otherwise met. They could have met anyone else, that’s great.

It’s when you have a bunch of things, like they just happened to be there at the right moment to see this thing in the third act. That feels frustrating.

**Craig:** Actually even in Identity Thief they don’t have the same name. She basically just looks for people whose names she can pretend to be.

**John:** Even better.

**Craig:** But every movie needs a contrivance or coincidence to get things going, because the whole point is the story of a movie is exceptional. So, therefore, one exceptional thing should happen. In the case of Identity Thief, she makes an appointment at a salon under his name and they call to confirm Jason Bateman. And when he realizes that someone has stolen his identity he also knows I know where she’s going to be at a certain day and time. And so that’s the contrivance or coincidence.

And you not only get one, you need one. But once you get into two, or three, then you realize that the screenwriter simply isn’t in control of a good story.

**John:** One thing I will say about coincidences: a good way to sort of take the curse off them is to give the coincidence to the villain every once and awhile. So, if the villain can have a happy lucky thing happen to them every once and awhile, then you can sort of take the sting off a little bit.

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. And also if there is a coincidence that gets a laugh then I think it’s good. I mean, there’s that moment in Pulp Fiction where Butch pulls up to the light and there’s Marsellus just happening across the street in front of him. They look at each other and it’s just funny. [laughs] It’s just funny, and so it’s okay.

**John:** The last thing they separate out is an “unaddressed issue,” which is like a natural question that comes up about the plot or the universe of the world that the movie doesn’t really address. And that’s fair, and I think it’s nice to sort of separate that out from plot holes. Yes, in this elaborate science fiction universe we’ve created of Star Wars there is stuff that you don’t really know how that all works, but every movie isn’t responsible for answering all of those questions, because if they did you would have no movie. You would just be — a bunch of people giving exposition to the screen.

You can’t answer all of those questions that could come up because of the nature of your movie or your universe.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it gets a little uncomfortable at times when you’re in the test screening process and you realize that there’s been some information left out that does make you uncomfortable that it’s not there. You feel like, “Okay, people are going to think I did a bad job here.” But the audience just doesn’t seem to care. I mean, there’s like three people that are grumbling about it, but everybody else is like, “Ah, shut up.”

Because the truth is as screenwriters we are that guy. We’re always the guy who is like, “But, but, but.” And so sometimes it’s a little uncomfortable. It’s one of those things, I always talk about the illusion of intentionality, that when an audience or critics view a movie the presumption is that every single thing was intentional and that nothing else was shot. “There was not one other foot of film shot other than what I saw, and no mistakes were made.”

**John:** And if it’s a legendary director like Kubrick that intentionality means that, well, that chair that’s there in one shot and not there in the next shot, that was a deliberate choice.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Where if it’s a comedy then these people are hacks who don’t know what they’re doing.

**Craig:** Pretty much. “They didn’t even bother to explain why A and B happened.” Mm, they probably did and the audience was squirming in their seats at that point and didn’t seem to care. And so what do you do at times like that? It’s a tough one.

**John:** So, as a screenwriter what we’re talking about with plot holes and trying to anticipate what could be perceived as plot holes is you’re really trying to make sure that people are going to be able to suspend their disbelief throughout the entire read and then through the entire movie that they’re watching. There is nothing that’s going to come up that’s going to make them say, “Hey, wait a second. That doesn’t actually make sense.”

And there are two techniques which I sort of commonly go to when faced with these issues. The first is to take away the questions, which is to anticipate when they’re going to start asking those questions and answer them before they can ask them. And sometimes you can collapse a lot of questions together.

I worked on — we talked about time travel movies — Minority Report is essentially a time travel movie, that you have these people who can see the future. And it creates a host of story and logic problems, because if they can see the future how can they know what the future is? One of the ways I tried to address that is a scene where Tom Cruise’s character rolls a ball down a table and Cog girl’s character catches it before it drops off the end. He’s like, “Why did you catch that? It was going to fall.” “How did you know it was going to fall?” And the fact that Cog girl stopped it didn’t mean that it wasn’t going to fall.

I’m explaining this poorly. This is explained better in the dialogue in the actual movie. But it was a way to sort of — there were going to be all these questions about causality and how if you’re stopping the crimes these things can come up. And so very early on I needed to have a scene that sort of took all those questions off the table, like, “We understand, this is what we’re saying in this movie, and let’s not keep asking that question again and again.”

**Craig:** Precisely. I mean, there’s a scene in Identity Thief where he kind of comes up with this plan and Jason Bateman and I spent days and days just sort of going back and forth about the need to know that when this guy goes to get this woman it makes sense, it is the only option, there is nothing else that’s going to help him. It must be this.

Because if people are going, “Well, but why is he — why don’t they just call the police,” then you don’t have a movie. So, you have to make those as interesting as you can. You have to make them as compelling as you can without turning into homework. And it’s a real challenge.

**John:** It is. The second technique is something that Jane Espenson’s blog referred to as “Hanging a Lantern,” which is if there is something that sort of sticks out, you hang a lantern on it so that people say, like, “Oh, yeah, I’m aware that this thing is here and it’s addressed and we know it’s there and we’re going to keep moving on.” And so you’re in a space environment and you need to talk about the lack of gravity — gravity being there/not being there is important. You sort of hang a lantern on it by having the gravity generators fail at a certain point so you can say like, “Yes, we do know that there is gravity, or people are referring to it.” So, you’re acknowledging that this is part of the rules of the universe of your movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, what’s that line from Casablanca? “Of all the gin joints in the world she had to walk into mine.”

**John:** Classic example.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, yeah, that is pretty insane. And yet it needed to happen for the movie and he acknowledges that it’s a wild coincidence, but here we are.

**John:** So, that is some plot hole talk. Let’s go to our samples now.

**Craig:** Let’s do it. Which one first?

**John:** Well, last week I had said that we’d gotten 200 samples. I was wrong. Stuart says we’ve actually gotten more than 500 samples.

**Craig:** Good god almighty.

**John:** So, Stuart as read all of them, except for the ones that didn’t have like the proper header stuff which he deletes immediately.

**Craig:** Stuart has read 500 of these things? [laughs]

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Oh my god. Stuart…

**John:** Yeah, Stuart, god bless him.

**Craig:** I’ve got to get him some flowers.

**John:** Our first script that we’re going to look at today is from Greg in Lichtenstein. And here is a summary — we don’t have a title for it, so here is Greg in Lichtenstein’s script in summary.

**Craig:** [Thunder rolls] Did you hear that?

**John:** That was great thunder. I like it a lot. Now is there actual rain with your thunder or not?

**Craig:** Is it rainy thunder did you say?

**John:** Yeah, is it rain or just thunder?

**Craig:** Oh, no, no. It’s raining here. It’s coming, buddy.

**John:** Oh, it’s sunshine here.

**Craig:** As goes Pasadena goes Hancock Park.

**John:** I don’t think that’s how it works, but that’s okay.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** We open in Central Park where a bird, a harrier, catches a worm and swoops up to its nest, which is high atop the Empire State Building, which is still being built. It’s 1929. A rope snaps, a beam falls, and the nest is knocked down. As it falls a single egg in the nest remarkably survives by falling into a truck full of pillows, then it hatches revealing a little chick named Dave. He gets washed into the sewers, emerging later as an adolescent harrier.

We seem him chase a squirrel named Skip, but he’s not trying to eat him, they are friends. And that’s the three pages of Greg’s script.

**Craig:** Yes it is. And it appears to be an animated movie.

**John:** Yeah, and I wasn’t sure it was animated at the start, because I thought, “Oh, maybe this bird is actually setting up the world of New York City.” And then by the time you get to the animals are talking, it’s probably animation.

**Craig:** Yeah. I really liked when I saw the Empire State Building being constructed. I thought, “What a great way of establishing our place and our time.” It was very cool.

However, I didn’t like the fact that I was delayed, because here’s the thing: This bird is flying along Fifth Avenue and getting dangerously close to the ground in the middle of rush hour traffic. Well, those cars would be cars from the ’20s, ’30s. Whenever the Empire State Building was built. Oh, it’s…

**John:** 1929.

**Craig:** Oh, it was on the edge. So, we would already, the surprise is ruined. The Empire State Building being constructed is such a great surprise, and since New York is such a relatively old city, I would have just hit that first.

We then have an impossible sequence. I mean, this is a real problem. The idea of the movie clearly is that this harrier eagle, this harrier eagle egg, is dropped and separated from his family, although, then later it seems like his father is still around, and goes through this traumatic thing, and yet the baby survives. And that’s fine if it’s possible.

And so our writer does a pretty good job of showing how the egg is falling through some shades and things, and there’s a gag I’ve seen a lot where there’s a pillow truck. You know, it’s the old feather truck gag they’ve done on the Simpsons. And then you miss the feather truck, and you land in the glass shards truck. So, I’ve seen that joke too many times.

But the point is the egg hits the street. It hits the street after falling from the top of the Empire State Building. It says, “The egg hits the street — missing the pillow truck — the shell breaks in half — a miracle — the very cute, helpless BABY HARRIER is still alive. This is DAVE.” No, he’s not. He’s dead.

Sorry. [laughs] ‘Cause I don’t know — if you want me to believe that bird is alive, there are no stakes left in the movie anymore, because I can’t think of anything more dangerous that you could do to unhatched egg than drop it from the Empire State Building and have it hit the street. So, that’s a huge mistake.

**John:** I agree. I feel like it could land in somebody’s drink or something like that. I would buy that there’s some way it could land, but just not on the street.

**Craig:** Right. Not on the street. And then we sort of jump ahead to the modern day. It appears that, I guess Dave has been adopted by other creatures and he is — we now do a little bit of a misdirect. He is flying but then it turns out he’s not flying, he’s running, which I liked. So, I like the idea of a bird that never learned to fly. I can see where this movie is going already. I can already tell you in the end he has to fly, and that’s great. I’m all for that.

He is with his buddy, Skip, who is I assume like an adopted brother. He’s a squirrel. And the squirrel is beating him in the race, which is cute. And then he stops, turns around, and starts his victory dance. “Ha, ha! I win again? I am a winner, You are a looser. I am a winner, You are a looser.” But, Greg from Lichtenstein has spelled loser “looser” not loser. And you and I had a little pre-conversation about this — people misspell loser on the internet constantly. It’s one of those words that, I don’t know why it’s hard for people to spell it L-O-S-E-R as in I lose, loser, as opposed to looser.

So, I don’t know if Greg is making the internet mistake or making an English mistake. Or, as you thought, maybe he was trying to say “Looooser” mocking, in which case he needs a couple extra Os.

**John:** You need at least four Os to make it clear that it’s not a typo. “I’m deliberately spelling it wrong to draw something out.”

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. And then the last line of dialogue is a bit too — it’s one of those lines where someone is saying exactly what they’re thinking.

**John:** Yeah. The last line of dialogue is, “It was only three times and we really have to get going now. I don’t want a sermon from dad again for being late.”

**Craig:** Right. Better maybe if the dad just delivers the sermon when they get back.

So, I think there is the bones of a good animated film idea here about an eagle that’s been adopted by squirrels and doesn’t know how to fly. I can see a grand adventure and I love the setting of art deco 1930s New York. We just need to work a little bit on some of the mistakes.

**John:** I agree. My issues were, from the very start, what is a harrier? He doesn’t say it’s a bird, and so I’m reading this and I’m like, “Is it a jet? What is it?” It took me awhile. I had to keep reading the first couple sentences again. I was like, “Oh, a harrier is a bird.” I just wasn’t clear. And even once I knew it was a bird, I didn’t know what kind of bird that is. Is it like a dove? Looks like it’s more like an eagle, I guess.

But assume your reader has no idea of what a harrier is. So, I would start with that.

I thought the opening gave us a lot of scale, and once I understood it was animation I was less frightened by sort of the unproduceability of it. In animation, unproduceable stuff is fantastic because you’re doing things you couldn’t do in real world stuff. But I wasn’t getting a lot of sense of character or comedy or what kind of movie this was.

And once we actually started getting into dialogue it wasn’t funny, so that is an issue. Because I feel like this wants to be a comedy — the premise is a comedy premise. So, those first lines need to be funny, and it didn’t feel like we were going to get there.

**Craig:** Yeah. The scenario, the concept that he’s running and not flying, it was a good way to introduce that important fact right off the bat, but it didn’t actually — the scenario itself, the character of his friend, it was playing very young.

You know, Pixar does such a good job of pitching their comedy to adults, and yet also being acceptable and enjoyable by kids. And this just felt very kind of Nickelodeon sitcom.

**John:** Yeah. And I should have said right from the very start that if you want to read along with us on any of these Three Page Samples, there are links along with this podcast. you can look at johnaugust.com/podcast and find all of the links to the samples that we’re talking about today.

Our second script sample is by Vance Kotrla. I asked Stuart to pick the most difficult names possible.

**Craig:** He’s doing a great job of that.

**John:** It’s good stuff. It’s a script called State Champs. So, here is the summary: We start in 1987 at the Houston Astrodome, Texas, at the Texas 5A High School Football Championship. With a minute left in the game Quarterback Martin Peavey, 17, gets sacked. His finger is dislocated but he doesn’t want to get off the field, so tailback Dave Enstein yanks it back into place. In the final seconds Martin throws a shaky pass that nevertheless results in a game-winning touchdown.

We dissolve to today where 42 year old Martin throws a football in the back yard with his 10 year old daughter, Rachel, who doesn’t even like sports. Meanwhile, Martin’s son, Sebastian, is at a high school football practice. And as we come to the bottom of page three he has closed his eyes preparing to get hit.

**Craig:** Right. Would you like to begin?

**John:** I will begin. Oh, so we start in a football game, and football games are not my forte. It was an okay description of a football game. There was nothing kind of unique or magical about this one football game. It felt like a Texas football game.

My concern was that we’re being introduced to a lot of characters along the way, so Dave Enstein, some of these people may come back, some of these people may not come back, but I was having a hard time following what was going to be unique about this thing, because I’ve seen that last minute left to play a lot. And I’ve seen it as an opening a lot, and it wasn’t particularly wonderful or special. I wasn’t even sure kind of how to feel about sort of the shaky pass that he wins. I was concerned that we were getting into cliché territory really, really fast with this opening.

Then we jump forward to the present. We see the 42 year old guy. I didn’t get a lot of sense of who he was now, and then why it was important that I saw the young version, sort of how he grew into it.

We meet the daughter, but there’s barely any time to sort of know who the daughter is. And then it’s not fair to criticize Sebastian because he was just barely getting started there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, I would say by the bottom of page three I wasn’t sure what kind of movie this was. And is this a family comedy? Is it a comedy? It felt like it was trying to be funny. I just didn’t know where we were aiming as we got to the bottom of page three.

**Craig:** Well, Vance is lucky because he comes a week after my disastrous debut as a screenwriter in 1995. So, please Vance, take all of this in the context of I too once fumbled badly. This is a comedy. It is a comedy for sure. It wants to be a comedy. And I understand why we’re opening where we are. This is going to be a redemption story where the father whose life was defined by one moment of glory in high school, and who I suspect probably no longer has any glory like that wants to relive it again through his children. And yet comedically it is the daughter that has all the talent and the son doesn’t, and he’s going to have to figure out how to connect with both of them and accept them for who they are.

That’s okay. I don’t mind predictable. [laughs] Here’s what I mind. The opening sequence, I agree with you by the way, I get a little confused, especially when I have Claire and Coach Stapp and they both begin with C. These little things, believe it or not. And Clear Lake.

We have Clear Lake. Claire. Coach Stapp.

**John:** Conroe. The other team is Conroe.

**Craig:** Exactly. So we have a ton of Cs. I’m confused between Clear Lake and Conroe. I had to go backwards when I saw that he was playing, that Sebastian was playing with Clear Lake High School. I had to go backwards to make sure they hadn’t left town and gone somewhere new.

But, look, those are minor things. Here’s the biggest issue: We have a dramatic situation here where this young quarterback, who is pretty great, and who has a girlfriend that perhaps he’s now married to, Claire, is worried because it looks like he’s been hurt, and he’s hiding this pretty severe injury. I do not think that the way to go about this is to be broad. The injury itself is rather severe. He’s dislocated his finger and he doesn’t want to come out.

I need two things. One, I need to understand why that’s not a selfish, bad thing to do. Or, is it a selfish bad thing to do? When you’re hurt, and the game is on the line, and you’ve dislocated your finger and you’re job is to throw a ball, you need to tell me either, A, the backup quarterback is a disaster and you guys know as well as I do if I don’t throw this it’s not happening. Or, B, someone needs to say, “Look, we’ve got a good backup over there.” “No, I’m doing this. Pull it back into position.”

So, I just need a character moment there to explain. Because the truth is, staying in a game when you’re hurt like that is meaningful, and I need to know which way it’s meaning about this guy.

**John:** It’s being selfish or selfless?

**Craig:** Exactly. So, that’s question one. Then the second thing is when they snap the finger back in place, don’t do, “I need someone to pull my finger,” ha, ha, ha. You’re just killing the drama of the situation. The whole point is the movie is going to rest on this dramatic thing. And if it’s not dramatic and stupid, or goofy, then we just don’t care. Why am I supposed to cheer for a bunch of guys laughing about pulling fingers? And I say that as someone who has written far too many fart jokes in his life.

And, similarly, “You gonna pass out? I think I am,” and then “without warning Dave gives Lucky a NIPPLE TWISTER.” Now we’re doing gags between secondary characters and I would argue that if the point of all this is to setup people that we’re going to see later, don’t. We need the big ones. We need Dave, we need his wife, or his future wife Claire, or maybe she’s the one that got away. Either way, I’m sure she’s important. And maybe Coach Stapp who’s still the coach. And maybe even if you needed his buddy Dave, I understand, I’m sorry, Martin. But then to add on Lucky and to have them interrupting everything with a nipple twister is just off tone. It’s just a bad idea — don’t do it.

**John:** I would agree. If you look at page two, most of the dialogue comes from these minor characters. Dave and Lucky have the bulk of page two, and who wants that? That’s not your story. That’s not what you should be focusing on.

I would probably call Dave “Enstein” rather than calling him Dave. Using somebody’s last name helps distinguish that first names could be your primary characters and secondary characters have their last names, so that’s a thought there.

Just fewer people talking, less C words and I’d be able to follow the sequence more clearly. And really know what the stakes are. Putting a joke on something so early kills all the tension. I think you’re much better to cut that out.

**Craig:** Yeah. And then on page three we’ve got bad dialogue here. Martin throws a pass to his daughter, who catches it, and I like that. And I like that she doesn’t like the fact that he’s working her so hard. And then she says, “Maybe if you went slower…” And he says, “We’ve got a winning tradition in this family. I’m counting on you to keep it going.”

No. No, no. Humans don’t say stuff like that. That is entirely subtext. And no one should announce. And then she says, “But I don’t like sports.”

**John:** “Why can’t Sebastian do it.”

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s like, come on. We’ve got to do better than that for sure. For sure.

**John:** Cool. I want to thank our two writers this week, Greg and Vance, for sending in their scripts, because that was hugely brave of you, and useful, and helpful, and I got something out of it. I hope people did who are listening. And I hoped we helped some.

**Craig:** As do I.

**John:** Craig, do you have a Cool Thing this week?

**Craig:** Ugh, you know, last week I had one and you weren’t going to do it. And then I wasted it last week.

**John:** Yeah, that’s fine. I’ll talk about mine, and maybe you’ll think about yours in the meantime.

**Craig:** Okay, yeah, sometimes that happens.

**John:** Sometimes it happens. My Cool Thing is I got the new Kindle. And I really liked my old Kindle. I had the $79 cheap Kindle that I liked a lot. And I use it, especially if I got to New York. I can stick it in my pocket and read at restaurants. Or, if I’m not home with my family I tend to read myself to sleep and it was great for that.

But what wasn’t great is because it was an e-ink Kindle, you had to have a light turned on in order to read it. And so it was tough for reading in bed. The new Kindle, the $119 version that has a side lit screen, so it’s not really backlit, it’s lit from the sides. But it’s really well lit. And it’s actually quite great. I’m enjoying it a lot.

The way the side lighting works is that during daylight hours the light is actually on quite bright, so it makes the screen look much whiter than a normal Kindle screen does, because Kindle screens have always been kind of gray. And so this one actually looks white, and it looks really, really nice. And then at nighttime you can bump the brightness way, way down and you can read in bed or in the dark with it, and it’s actually quite pleasing. And it’s not as hard on your eyes as trying to read on a iPad which is like glowing at you full time.

So, I really quite like it. It’s a tiny bit thicker than the cheap $79 Kindle that I had. And I wish it were not thicker, but I’m happy to have the light. And I’m sure that’s the battery that’s mostly doing that. The touch screen works pretty well. The interface is a lot better than the other Kindle was. So, I enjoy.

I would recommend it. If you’re considering a Kindle for reading books, I think it’s great. Some people always ask, “Oh, can you read scripts on it?” And the answer is yes, sort of. You can email yourself a PDF and it will do a reasonably good job of trying to convert that to read on the screen, but it’s not ideal. And I think if you want to read scripts you’re probably better off with an iPad.

**Craig:** I have heard good things about the new Kindle, so I’m going to check that. And while you were talking a Cool Thing did emerge for me.

**John:** See, I thought it might.

**Craig:** And you know what? It’s a Cool Place. I spent the last three, four days in Nogales, Arizona, where we were shooting The Hangover Part 3. And Nogales is a border town. We were literally feet from the actual border. It was kind of bizarre to be somewhere that close to the border where you can see folks on the other side watching you, looking at you. Border guards everywhere on bikes. Guns. It’s an interesting environment.

But, when you come to a small town, and Nogales is a small town, which a large movie production it is disruptive. You’re disrupting traffic. And you’re also recruiting, in this case, because we were shooting outside and we were shooting both day and night scenes, we were on splits which is, for those of you don’t know, a split schedule is when you’re in a location and you need to do both daytime and nighttime work. So, you start shooting at say two in the afternoon and you finish at two in the morning. It’s sort of the most dreaded of production schedules for crews.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But we needed people, we needed a lot of extras, so we needed a lot of local people to come out. And I have to say the people of Nogales were spectacular. They were — they kind of reminded me that this is actually fun. That as hard of a job as it is, it’s fun. And to the point where there was a crowd that came, the first night we were there the crew was really just sitting up and rigging lights. And they stayed with us until two in the morning, just a crowd of people, just watching us rig lights.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** I mean, I wasn’t rigging lights. [laughs] But, they really were — they just loved it. And all the extras who came out, and extras — so, extras are people that are walking through the scene, but a lot of people don’t realize a lot of times extras are people just driving their cars through a scene.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so they just drive in a loop. And they drive on a loop all night until two in the morning. And when you come back the next night, because you’re shooting a different part of the same scene, you think to yourself, “Oh, they’re not going to come back. I mean, they’re just going to say, ‘Well the hell with this. I’m not driving in a circle.'” They did. They all came back. And they came back again.

And the crowds of people, you know, cheering for the actors and the actors were great, and talked to them and held up signs and things. And also for all the people that were standing out there and who could have disrupted shooting by being noisy or honking horns or being disruptive, incredibly quite, and respectful.

It was a wonderful place to shoot and I just want to thank the people of Nogales and the mayor for just coming out and being the perfect town for us to be in and visit and they were great hosts. So, thank you, Nogales.

**John:** That’s wonderful. It’s great when production shooting goes well on location. Because there are horror stories, so it’s nice to hear the happy stories.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly.

**John:** Hooray. Well, Craig, thank you for another fun podcast. if you have comments about this podcast you can Twitter to Craig, @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. You can also leave a comment for us in iTunes, which we love, which is helpful and helps other people find the show.

And that’s our week.

**Craig:** And are we going to record again before our big live podcast in Austin? Or is that the next one we do?

**John:** I think that may be the next one we do. We’ll check our schedules. So, our next one, it could be you and me in the studio, or it could be a live festival in Austin, so we’ll see.

**Craig:** We’re getting close. I love it.

**John:** Getting close. All right, Craig, thanks so much. Have a great week.

**Craig:** You too, John. Bye-bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 57: What is a movie idea? — Transcript

October 4, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/what-is-a-movie-idea).

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

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

**John:** And this is episode 57 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, the one thing that’s interesting to me as a screenwriter is I just saw your trailer for Identify Thief.

**Craig:** Teaser trailer.

**John:** Teaser trailer is the short version. But it felt like a satisfying appetizer to a big meal.

**Craig:** That’s the idea, yeah. It was interesting. There’s a lot about it that’s very cool that I like. I mean, sort of selling the scope and the action of the movie. My suspicion is that the official trailer when it finally comes will have more character and interaction between Jason and Melissa, which is for me the fun part. So, I’m kind of excited to see where it evolves.

But I love the posters. I think they’re really funny and cool.

**John:** Oh, what I liked about this teaser trailer is it setup what the basic idea of the movie is. So, Jason Bateman is a person whose identity gets stolen. He has a name that could be mistaken as a woman’s name, and in fact Melissa McCarthy is the woman who has assumed his identity. And she is insane, which is crucial.

**Craig:** Yeah. She’s pretty out there. But one thing I like about the movie is that she’s out there, but not maybe as out there as you might initially think. So, there some cool surprises and some cool twists.

And this wasn’t my original idea. A guy named Jerry Eaton wrote a spec script many years ago and I essentially did a page one rewrite. I mean, I sort of just started fresh, but I used… — It’s a great idea. And I think it’s one of those ideas that’s great because it’s relevant.

And it’s also one of those ideas where you hear it and you go, “I can’t believe no one else thought of that. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that. Why didn’t I think of that?” So, kudos to Jerry for a spectacular idea. And I have high hopes. I think people will like it.

**John:** Great. And it occurs to me now that this will be the last podcast before Frankenweenie comes out.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Frankenweenie will be in theaters this Friday, for people who are listening to this on Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday. And Frankenweenie turned out really, really well. It’s nice to have a movie that I can sort of talk freely about, because it’s been screened enough that I don’t have to keep any secrets back or away. We screened at Fantastic Fest in Austin. And we’re screening at the London Film Festival, and lots of places where people can see this movie.

And it turned out really nicely. So, I thought today we would talk about three different things, one of them being this process of putting out a movie. Topics I proposed for today:

First is, what is a movie idea? And so what is the difference between an idea that might be great for a book, or great for a play, but what is a movie idea.

Second, I want to talk about press junkets, something that I just went through, and you’ve been through a bunch of times. And it’s sort of how the sausage is made.

And, finally, David Denby has a long article in the New York — actually, I think the New Republic…

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** …on sort of the perceived death of not the film industry overall, but of a certain kind of movie. And I thought we might talk about that a little bit, too.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Cool. So, let’s start on, this actually came from a question that a reader wrote in. I will read you this question. John from Austin asks, “On the podcast you and Craig both say that one of the first questions a screenwriter should ask him or herself is, ‘Why should this be a movie?’ I was wondering how you guys answer that question when you set out to write your scripts. For instance, why do you think Go needed to be a movie? Or why Big Fish needed to be adapted into a movie and now a play? Is it because the material is highly visual, or action-packed? When writing myself I usually answer the ‘why should this be a movie?’ question with, ‘because I want it to be.'”

And so I want to sort of pull that apart into two threads here and really talk about one of them. When you say something “wants to be a movie,” you’re really talking about two different things. One is does the universe want this story to sort of exist? Does it feel like the kind of thing where there’s an audience for some version of this story about your blind pickle maker who inherits a rat factory? Does this want to be told in some capacity?

And if the answer to that is yes, this is really the more crucial piece that we’ll talk about right now, is that idea a movie idea or is it some other kind of idea? Is it really a better idea for a TV series, or a short film, or a short story, or a play? Does it want to be a movie? Is that the best incarnation of that idea? So, I thought we’d talk about what makes a good movie idea.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, we’ve talked in the past about the idea of why the sort of heart and soul of whatever the movie is. And so, I just like to ask what would an audience relate to through this story that is not specific to the plot of the story, which is a weird kind of thing to say, but we tell stories because there are universal truths. There is some kind of enlightenment inside of them that is applicable for everyone sitting in the theater. Everyone.

So few of us have been in a car chase, and yet there is something about a car chase. So few of us have had a spouse kidnapped, but there’s something about that that allows us to put ourselves in the position. And ideally there is a takeaway from the movie that isn’t about the specifics, but rather is about a larger dramatic question. “Is it better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all?” That can be put into any number of scenarios that have nothing to do plot-wise with each other.

So, that’s the first question when I ask does this need to be a movie, or should this be a movie. I want to know that there is something at the heart of it that is relevant beyond the details of the movie itself.

**John:** But when you talk about that central dramatic question, I agree that’s a crucial element to a movie. I really feel like that’s a crucial element to most kinds of literature we’re talking about though. That’s a crucial question for a novel, that’s a crucial question for many things.

**Craig:** You’re right.

**John:** So I want to sort of drill it down on sort of what makes something a movie idea. And I had a couple criteria, and maybe you can add some criteria or push back on anything you don’t agree with.

I think a movie idea tends to have, no, it needs to have a beginning, and a middle, and an end. Which is that a movie idea has to have an idea that is expressed well in, “This is how the story starts, this is the middle of the story, and this is the end of the story.”

And, if you think about a TV series, a TV series doesn’t necessarily have an end. A TV series is the kind of story, the kind of idea, that should be able to sort of keep propagating itself, and keep rolling along. So, a TV series can go on for seven seasons. Or, some British TV series may only last for eight episodes, but eight episodes is a very different feeling than a two-hour movie.

So, is the best form of this story going to be told with a beginning, a middle, and an end that’s going to fall in about a two-hour window?

**Craig:** I agree.

**John:** And some ideas lend themselves to that; some don’t. Second thing I would point out with movies is: movies are about characters. An essay could be about an idea. A choreographed number could have people in it, but they’re actually representing the waves, or — like — a wall. The movies are about characters. And specifically they’re about characters who have some sort of identifiable objective or goal.

It may not be classically the Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Quest, but there is something — you can point at a character in any movie that you watch on the big screen and you know what that character is trying to do, both in that moment and hopefully overall within the course of the story. Fair?

**Craig:** Yeah. That is fair, well, to an extent, because television is also about characters.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Specifically when I think of sitcoms, they’re almost solely about characters, even though they’re called “situation comedies,” the whole point is the situations themselves, they’re farcical or they’re silly, but it really is just about watching these people navigate their daily lives.

The thing about movie characters is they are in need of completion. Movies are conclusive. So, if your story seems to want to be about someone who has a specific flaw that needs to be repaired, somebody who has an injury that needs to be healed, somebody who has a fear that needs to be overcome. And all those sentences involve conclusion, and completion, then it seems like a movie story.

If you have an idea that’s really about characters who are slowly evolving, changing, falling in love, falling out of love, encountering a new way of life and it’s more of a — and the value of your story seems to be more in the journey than in a sense of conclusivity, then it may be more of a TV idea.

**John:** Absolutely. There is a reason why Friends is a TV series. And that you’re watching these characters week after week, and you’re watching them slowly grow and change. And what you can point to, “This is Rachel’s objective in this episode.” That’s not her overall life objective that we’re seeing reach some sort of conclusion in this period of time.

**Craig:** Right. In fact, she doesn’t have an overall life objective.

**John:** Which is part of her character. Yeah.

Another thing I would say as you’re looking at movie ideas: movies are set in some kind of concrete space and time. So, you can say there is central dramatic question, but behind them and behind those characters and the things they are doing, they take place in an identifiable world or universe. Now, it could be a completely made up world. It could be the Matrix, or it could be Avatar, but there’s something we’re seeing on screen behind those characters. And you compare that to some surrealist fiction, or you compare that to songs, or essays, or dance pieces, those can be really abstract and do not have to be pinned down to any one place or time.

Movies are more literal. There’s going to be something that you’re seeing on screen. And if you’re not sure of what you would actually see on screen, then that maybe is not a movie idea yet. Or you haven’t found the expression that it is a movie idea.

**Craig:** Right. Yes. If your story seems to demand a limitation of space, if you want to tell — and I hesitate to say this because there are always exceptions, you know. But if you are telling the story of three friends who meet every Friday at a diner, it may be a TV show. Now it also turned out to be a movie. [laughs]

**John:** And now it’s a musical.

**Craig:** And there have been wonderful movies that seemed to be centered around a place. There’s that terrific movie Smoke, I really like that movie, and that really takes place in a shop mostly. But by and large if your story is confined by a single space it may be better suited for either a stage play or a television show, because stage plays and television shows are also confined by space. The economics of television, for sitcoms specifically, demands kind of a set place. They try and limit your locations.

Now, if you were getting at a comedy, if you’re talking about a story that seems to require serialization, you certainly want to obviously go towards television. You never, and I hear people say things like this, they’ll say, “Well, I’m writing a movie, and it’s really the first of five movies,” or “it’s the first of a trilogy.” Don’t do that, because nobody is really buying a trilogy, ever.

They’re going to need to make your movie. It’s going to need to stand up on its own, by itself, and then they’ll decide if they want another installment.

**John:** It’s great that you have an idea for what the trilogy would be…

**Craig:** But if you need that, then you should be dealing in television

**John:** Yeah. Last sort of criteria I would say is that movies need to make sense while you’re watching them. And that sounds crazy, but if you’re reading a book you have the opportunity to stop and go back and flip through pages, like, “Oh, I forgot who that character was; I can go back and see that.” Movies have to be able to make sense the first time through.

That doesn’t mean that a person couldn’t be watching it on DVD and go back and see something, or on the third time viewing it they catch something new. But on the whole they need to actually make sense the first time through. That’s not necessarily going to apply for a short story, or an essay, or a choreographed performance.

Something that’s a movie needs to actually make sense by the time the lights come up.

**Craig:** Yeah. Television has a rhythm that demands cliffhangers. Even if you’re, aside from commercial television, cable television demands cliffhangers because people will watch their episode and that last scene needs to tease them to watch the next one. And we don’t have that in movies. We have reversals, and we have mysteries, and we have moments, but our stories don’t demand cliffhangers. If you’re writing television, any serialized television, your story needs to be able to provide you cliffhangers.

I guess we could talk about the reverse question, “Well, is this really a TV idea or is this more of a movie idea?” If your serialized television idea doesn’t inherently provide you the opportunity for cliffhangers, you might want to think about maybe a movie.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s take a look at some actual properties. Let’s take a look at Game of Thrones. So, Game of Thrones, based on a wildly popular series of giant novels, was adapted as a television series. And so why does that want to be a television series as opposed to a movie? Or, what would be different if we were looking at that as a movie idea?

**Craig:** Well, first of all, you’re dealing with scope. So, the scope of the source material is such that a movie is impossible. There is some source material that could go either way. The Watchmen very famously was sort of viewed as unadaptable for many years because it was 12 comic books, each one of them was very dense with material and it just didn’t seem possible to tell the story coherently, even though once you had read — as a movie — even though once you had read all 12 you could see that there was an enormous amount of thematic unification in the whole thing. And it would be ideal if it were a movie.

I actually think that Zack Snyder did a pretty good job. But when you look at Game of Thrones, there’s no question. You simply could not contain that world and therefore you could not deliver what is satisfying about the books if you jammed it into even a three hour movie.

It’s the same reason that Peter Jackson famously turned down the opportunity to make Lord of the Rings as one movie with the Weinsteins and instead made it as three movies with New Line.

**John:** But what I would point out with Lord of the Rings, though, is Lord of the Rings at least has a clear beginning, middle, and end. You have a quest to do something. We have to bring this ring, you know, there’s one specific thing we’re trying to do. It’s incredibly complicated all the way around it, but there is a beginning, a middle, and end to that…

**Craig:** True.

**John:** …which is there is not in Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is an ongoing saga with no clear central protagonist, very long arcs, sudden reversals. To me it feels like a TV idea.

**Craig:** For sure. Yeah, and you’re right because in fact there was an animated movie of The Lord of the Rings that was made in the ’70s and it was one movie. I mean, that is a containable — you’re right: One protagonist; one main quest line. And quite the opposite for Game of Thrones.

Also, Game of Thrones is not yet resolved, [laughs] so you don’t even know if you even wanted to try and tell the story of Game of Thrones in one movie. You couldn’t because it hasn’t been written yet.

And, so, you just have to ask: where is all the joy? Where is all the good stuff in this? And the good stuff in Game of Thrones is in the details. And if you read those books you will see even how Martin will end chapters with cliffhangers. And you realize, “Oh, well that’s where the episode should end.” You know, David Benioff and Dan Weiss do a spectacular job of corralling that material into discrete episodes, each one of which feels like it deserves to exist, and none of them feel like a filler episode just to pad out a season. I suspect that that is 50% of the agony of making that show is trying to figure out how to compress that which needs to be compressed and how to expand that which feels like it should be expanded.

But, yeah, you could never do that as a… — You could do it as a movie, it would just stink. So why?

**John:** Yeah. You’d be leaving out so much stuff that it wouldn’t be the same idea. So, let’s talk about another example. This is the Charlie’s Angels movie, the first movie, which is based on a TV series. And so I want to talk about the changes you make in taking a property that was a TV series and worked as a TV series and how we had to look at it as a movie.

Obviously the plot of the movie has to be… — We have to introduce, a TV series you don’t have to introduce the Angels each time. You introduce them in the pilot episode and then it’s just a given that these are the three Angels who work for Charlie, and they go on these cases, and there is going to be resolution with the cases every week. In a movie we have to introduce who these young women are. We have to introduce what these women want. And the characters themselves have to motivate much more of the plot and the story than they would in any given episode of Charlie’s Angels.

Charlie’s Angels as a TV series, the plot is beamed in. The plot is given to them and they work on the plot and they solve the plot. In a movie version of Charlie’s Angels, the Angels have to create a lot more of the plot, and that means in many cases it’s really the subplots, the individual things they’re trying to do. But they’re responsible themselves for much more of the plot. And it needs to be a story that can have the builds and changes over the course of a two-hour movie that a one-hour episode would never have to do.

So, you couldn’t just take, “Oh, that was a really good episode of the show,” and sort of expand it into a movie. It had to have its own engine. And the Angels themselves had to be at the wheel for the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure. When you adapt for the screen you also have to account for just the size. Just the size of the screen. Television is small. They’re getting bigger, but traditionally small, certainly in the time of Charlie’s Angels they were small.

And so it’s a bit of a waste to create large cinematic set pieces because they just wouldn’t fit very well on the screen. They’d look dumb. When you’re making a movie on a big screen you want to excite the audience and you want to use the physical space you have in front of them.

When I adapted Harvey, I was adapting Mary Chase’s play. And so it was set up for stage. And I think there were two sets basically, two places. Three, sorry. There was a bar, a house, and basically a mental institution.

**John:** But I would point out that in the actual play you never go to that bar. They talk about the bar, but you never actually go to that bar.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, you’re right. You know what? The bar was actually in the movie in the first adaptation. But even the movie — when they made movies of plays they oftentimes just shot them like the play because it was cheap, and it was easy, and people were used to movies on sets.

The old movies, a lot of old movies look like filmed stage plays. Not all of them, of course. We’ll be talking about Stagecoach and The Searchers later. But, when I did my adaptation I really tried to avoid what I called “claustrophobia,” for lack of a better word. I wanted to get outside. I wanted to see New York. I wanted to put them in the park. I wanted to put them on the street. I wanted to have them get out of the city for a day and make that meaningful and make the change of space meaningful.

These are the things you have to think about, because ultimately someone’s going to have to sit down and shoot this thing. And after the twelfth day of shooting in the same room, everyone is going to look at each other and say, “Why are we still here shooting?”

**John:** Yeah. That’s not to say you can’t make My Dinner with Andre. It’s just that’s going to be challenging in ways that you’re probably not anticipating sustaining the audience’s interest, because you are not using most of the tools that you’ve been given for making a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I want to also talk, one last thing occurs to me that could kind of go both ways, which is Preacher, which I adapted as a movie, and before had been adapted as a TV series, neither of which has shot. And when I got the assignment to write Preacher as a movie, there was a tremendous amount of fan boy comments, like, “Oh, that’s a terrible idea; it should be an HBO series. It should be a series for cable.”

And I think the instinct behind that was that people were looking at the comic book series and seeing like there are all of these stories and there’s all this stuff that happens. And if it’s too much for one movie, and so therefore it needs to be a series. And people were sort of figuring out, “Oh, these things together could be one season.” They basically had everything mapped out for me, so that was great — so just go ahead and do that.

And someone actually had tried to do it as a series for HBO and it hadn’t happened and it hadn’t worked. So, when I took Preacher as a movie, what I argued is that — I had sort of this road trip analogy in that the heart of Preacher to me is a road trip with these three characters. And it’s a cross-country road trip to discover what’s really going on here. And that the journey of Preacher is really about being in the car with these three people.

And so if in the comic book series they took a 50 day road trip across America and this winding path all across the 48 states, the movie version of this would be a quicker route through some different places, but the same kinds of things would happen because you have the same three people in the car, and that the same character stories could very easily happen in a movie version, and it would be a rewarding experience.

So, some things can go different ways.

**Craig:** Well, people who love material tend to want to see all of it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If you’re going to shoot something I love and I know every single panel of, or every single word of, I want you to shoot all of it, and I want it to be just like I saw it in my head. And I don’t want you to cut corners. And I don’t want you to leave things out. And for the love of God, I certainly don’t want you to change the story just to make it fit.

But, you have to look at what the material is. And there are times when frankly not everybody loves it quite as dearly as some of the people who are devoted to it. Now, one interesting example of this is Sandman, the absolutely mind-blowing graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman. One of my favorite things — I won’t even say one of my favorite pieces of art or literature; just one of my favorite things.

And Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott were hired many years ago by Warner Brothers to try and make one movie out of it, which on its face seems just as impossible as making a movie of Game of Thrones. I mean, there were — I’m not sure how many specific volumes of Sandman there are, but it covered many years and it is — in scope it is mind-boggling, absolutely mind-boggling. You’re going across thousands of years, multiple dimensions, probably 50, 60, 70 characters. Sequences that completely remove you from the narrative and put you into side narratives.

All of which amazingly reconnect, like, two years later into the series. I mean, I don’t know how he did it. Truly, I can’t imagine how he did it. But, so Terry and Ted have this seemingly impossible task, and they made a choice, which was to pull one story out, a good one, a significant one, and tell the Sandman story just limited through the lens of that story.

And ultimately Warner Brothers didn’t make the movie. I would love to see Benioff and Weiss take a crack at that one when Game of Thrones runs its course. I think they would be — to turn that into an HBO series would just be unbelievable. Unbelievable.

**John:** Yeah. So we look at however many issues of Sandman there were, it is a drop in the bucket to how many episodes and issues there were of Batman.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so you say like, “Oh, you’ve changed something in Batman.” Well, which Batman are you talking about? Are you talking about the original Bob Kane Batman? That would be really fascinating to see that as a movie, or a series, or anything else. But that’s not sort of Batman anymore.

And so in the process of time and other adaptations, Batman becomes a generalized enough character that we’ve accepted the fact that there can be multiple incarnations of it. And so we can do a Batman movie and it makes sense.

And now it seems weird to think of a Batman series, but of course you could do a Batman series.

**Craig:** And they did.

**John:** Yeah. And we have the Spiderman Musical.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, Batman is the work of collective authorship, even though Bob Kane sort of — it begins with him. There have been many people who have written for Batman. You can’t look at Batman and say this is the work of singular authorship. Frank Miller reinvented Batman. There are multiple people involved.

Sandman is Neil Gaiman. Just like Watchmen was Alan Moore. And they were contained. Nobody — I mean, they’re trying to do a new Watchmen, and I think they are doing a new Watchmen. I’m not going to look at it, I just can’t. But there shouldn’t be any other Sandman, just that one, you know. So, when it’s a standalone work of single authorship it’s harder to sort of just do another thing. Whereas Batman, Spiderman, Superman, they feel accessible and retellable. And I think that is function of the multiple author nature of that storyline.

**John:** Great. So I want to take a quick pass at two ideas and let’s talk about them as movie ideas versus other kinds of ideas. So, just random ideas.

So, an alien artifact is discovered in the Himalayas. What’s the movie version of that? Or what’s a movie version of that?

**Craig:** And actual existing movie you mean?

**John:** No. If that was the idea, like there’s this alien artifact and it’s discovered in the Himalayas. So, how does that want to tell itself as a movie.

**Craig:** I mean, my immediate instinct is that you’ve got an expedition trying to climb Everest. And probably a character that needs to climb Everest. And then they encounter this thing and the climb becomes — which was already a difficult test — becomes one of much larger survival. Man versus alien in the snowy cliffs of the Himalayas.

**John:** Exactly. So, there are characters who are doing something whose trajectory is changed by the discovery of this thing and they have to resolve what this thing has unleashed in the course of that two-hour movie.

**Craig:** It’s a pretty cool idea for a movie.

**John:** As opposed to, that could also be the inciting incident for the pilot of a TV series. But then it would be sort of like: What has this artifact changed about the world so that the nature of our world is different on a week, to week, to week basis?

**Craig:** Yeah. It can’t be a TV show because you’re stuck in the Himalayas.

**John:** You’re not necessarily stuck in the Himalayas. Maybe you’re discovering this thing in the Himalayas but you’re transporting it someplace else.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe then.

**John:** Another simpler topic. So, the idea is a family in which everyone has that disease the kids have in The Others where they can’t be in sunlight, so the whole family has that disease. So, as a TV series, you can sort of see that. That they are sort of like the night family. Their world is upside down because they’re at night.

In a movie, though… — So you could accept that as a preexisting situation in a TV series.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** In a movie there would be a new thing that happened in the movie, or something big has to happen at the start of that movie that creates a specific situation for this family that changes their situation.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you were doing a movie version, I could see that you would start with say a girl who moves to town and is normal and meets this guy at night. And then discovers he can’t be outside during the day. And there is some kind of romance and test. But, it seems…

**John:** It’s like a Nicholas Sparks. It’s like a really dark Nicholas Sparks movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. And a little bit of kind of vampire romance, even though they’re not vampires. But it’s not resolvable. And, frankly, it seems so odd; it seems like when the movie ends you think, “Yeah, but they’re still stuck in their house.” There’s something — the premise that you just laid out there implies continuation.

**John:** I agree with you. And so I think that family is only half of a movie idea. I think it’s a good underlying TV idea. It’s only really half a movie idea because that’s not actually telling you plot. Whereas that alien artifacts sort of implied a plot. We need to know what the resolvable plot is within the course of this two hours for this to be a successful movie.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah. Because they can’t go outside. So, if they can’t go outside there’s no completion there. It just seems a little odd.

**John:** Yeah.

All right. Next topic. I want to talk about junkets, usually press junkets, because I just went through this this last weekend for Frankenweenie. And they’re bizarre. And the only, I think, onscreen portrayal I’ve ever seen of them was in this movie America’s Sweethearts with Julia Roberts and John Cusack. And I didn’t love the movie, but it sort of felt like what a press junket feels like.

So, here’s the idea behind a press junket, is there are so many newspapers, magazines, and particularly blogs that you want to put your filmmakers in front of and your cast in front of. And if you were to try to do this individually it would take forever. And so, “Well, what if we just got all of our cast and all of our filmmakers together and we got all of these journalists together and we stuck them in rooms? And just over the course of one or two days just banged it all out?” And that was the instinct behind a press junket.

And so I just went through this this last weekend for Frankenweenie. And this was at the Grand California, the big hotel that’s next to California Adventure/Disneyland.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And, it was kind of fun. It was kind of exhausting. And you’ve been through this on many movies probably, right?

**Craig:** Oh yeah, for sure.

**John:** Yeah. So I’ll talk through what happened with this, but it’s pretty typical and we can talk sort of pros and cons and what you learn from them.

So, in the morning they gather everybody together, they feed them with coffee, and they give them lots of sort of swag from the movie, little dolls and things. And then they break the journalists up into different rooms. And so in this case there were seven rooms. And so there were maybe 10 or 12 journalists in each room.

At the front of the room is a table, and there were two microphones, because they broke us into teams of two. So, Tim was talking to journalists I think by himself. But all the rest of us were in teams of two. So, I was partnered with Don Hahn, Executive Producer of the movie and sort of animation legend. And the cast were partnered in twos.

And so they sit you down at the front of this table and the journalists ask questions. And it goes on for about ten minutes and then a publicist says, “Time’s up.” They grab you and they pull you to the next room. And so essentially there are seven teams that are sort of rotating through all the rooms. The journalists stay put and they move the cast and talent around between the rooms.

So, people are asking similar questions, but you quickly figure out what the theme is of that room. And so like, “Oh, you are all Japanese journalists, okay. You’re going to ask me the normal questions but you’re also going to ask me about sort of Kaiju monster movies and those kind of things.”

This one room was clearly like mommy bloggers. [laughs] Another room was like, “Oh, these are the dog people.” And I remember from Big Fish one room was like — “What is this room?” And I was trying to figure out. And I was like, “Oh, it’s all the Christian press.” And there was a Christian press room for Big Fish.

So, that’s the morning. And then you break for lunch and Martin Landau tells you stories of how it was back in the day that are fascinating. And then in the afternoon what they had us do is they would put each of us in a separate room and then they would send in certain journalists who got to have one-on-one interviews with us for like ten minutes, or sometimes up to 30 minutes, and they can ask you more detailed questions about things.

So, in both cases there are a bunch of recorders sitting on the table, and I meant to take a picture of like all the different iPhones recording the conversations throughout the time. But, you do this, and then all of these interviews that happen during this time are basically banked for a day or two before the movie opens. So, the movie opens October 5, so October 3 you’ll suddenly see all this stuff as if on that day I did it.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah, it’s a bit of a surreal experience. The other movie I would point people to is Notting Hill. There’s a — I don’t know if you ever saw it.

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

**Craig:** There’s a great sequence where Hugh Grant arrives at a hotel to talk to Julia Roberts, who is this big movie star, and he kind of gets mistaken as press, and he invents a magazine. I think it’s like Horse Fancy or something like that, unique, and he starts acting like a press person at one of these things. They’re very odd. I find, having gone through a few junkets, a couple of things stand out.

As the screenwriter you need to understand that you are not anyone’s first pick for an interview. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just that people like movie stars — that’s who they want to talk to. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I find sometimes that the best interviews for screenwriters at these things are with people that are slightly off the beaten path of mainstream press because they are specifically interested in the screenwriter and what the screenwriter does.

So, I tend to enjoy those more. I don’t get caught up in, “Well, why am I not on camera with ABC. Why am I here with…” you know. And then you realize, well, actually I’m doing a phone interview with Cole Abaius, who has an awesome podcast, you know, and who cares, and actually asks great questions.

So, you shouldn’t get hung up on stuff like that. It does give me an appreciation for why actors get tired of press. It’s easy to sort of say, you know, “You made millions of dollars on a movie and you’re complaining about press? Come on, man.” And yet when you’ve been asked the same question for the four millionth time something happens in your bones and violence starts to rise up. You start to feel like you’re in a dream world where you’re just answering the same question over, and over, and over, and over. And you slip into the zone.

Phil Hay, who is a friend of ours, a screenwriter, said at some point in the middle things you stop really answering questions and you start trying to just not make a mistake because you don’t want to say anything dumb, or insulting, or something that’s going to hurt the movie.

But in general they are fun to do. They are more fun to do for movies you like. They’re more fun to do for big movies. When you have a little movie that’s struggling or isn’t that great, and I’ve been there, no one wants to be there. You don’t want to be there and they don’t want to be there. [laughs] That’s awful. But, you know, for the one or two times a year that screenwriters do these things, they’re pretty fun.

**John:** I think the role a screenwriter can play in these junkets sometimes is the provider of logic or the provider of like helping people fit things together. Because in most cases they will have just seen the movie and they’re trying to formulate their opinions or how to actually talk about the disparate facts they’re getting.

And so sometimes you can be the person who is providing framework, or at least talking about one aspect of the move that no one else up there is going to be able to talk about because it’s not really their — it’s not what they did. And so Frankenweenie has a large sort of pro-science bias, which is sort of unusual for a monster movie because most monster movies are about the dangers of science and ours is about the dangers of ignorance and sort of ignoring a science. And so that sort of became part of my function to talk through that.

And a weird thing happens in a lot of these junkets and stuff that like by two-thirds of the way through the day someone will ask a question that — either the question, in this case the question — sometimes I just formulate it but never answer. And I realized like, “Oh wow, I wish I could like go back and redo all those other interviews because I now have a much better thing to say.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, one of the interviewers, and I can’t remember which one it was, said, “In the movie the teacher, Rzykruski, says that perhaps the difference between why your first science experiment turned out well is because you did it with love and your second science experiment turned out poorly because you didn’t care about it. Is that really a metaphor for the artistic process and sort of movies you care about and movies you don’t care about?” And I was like, wow, that completely is a metaphor for that, and it was not an intentional thing, but I would have completely claimed credit for that.

Because it’s true. There are the movies that you deeply love and that turn out really, really well because you were deeply 100 percent emotionally connected and invested in them. And then there are some moves that you know aren’t right and aren’t working that way, and so you do disconnect to some degree and the movie suffers for that. So, it was a really great insight that was not mine at all, but I’m gladly going to keep repeating it as if it were my insight.

So, that part of it is cool. And I like talking, but after awhile it’s not just that you’re sick of giving the same answers. You can’t remember if you just said that same thing to the same person. And that gets to be challenging.

**Craig:** It does. It gets exhausting, but you’re right that for a screenwriter press junkets are an opportunity to convey your intention. And people will often miss these things. Sometimes they’ll misconstrue them. And sometimes they’ll believe that something was done for a reason and it’s just not true. And so it’s an opportunity to get into it and talk about the whys of things and to sort of give your opinion on things. We are generally unseen and unheard. And I’m not so militant as to demand that screenwriters be on the cover of Us [Weekly], but we do have a very interesting perspective on these things, because we were there with the intention before the execution.

And, so we actually can provide a pre-context of things that no one else can. Literally no one else can. And for that reason alone these things are good for screenwriters to do.

In the past, when I first started in the ’90s, it was rare that screenwriters would even be invited to these things. And I understood why. There were so few outlets. Frankly, the people doing the interviews didn’t care about the screenwriters. And nobody bothered.

That’s really changed. The way that entertainment news is reported now, there’s 1,000 outlets. And there are people that really are interested solely in the screenwriter. So, it’s a much more interesting thing for screenwriters to do now. And I would encourage all screenwriters to be active. Frankly, if you have a big movie coming out I think it’s a good idea to get yourself a publicity person and help kind of generate opportunities for you. Not because you need to get your name out there for ego purposes, but frankly just to provide some interesting context for the movie.

We do love and care about these things — usually — so, why not help others see what we were trying to do? And then they can decide if they liked it or not.

**John:** One of the points of context I think that was really helpful in terms of the mommy bloggers of this was I was talking about I wanted to make sure that the rules of the world were clearly a little bit magical. So, even though he’s bringing it back with science, there’s something unusual about this town, about the windmill.

Very early on we set up the fact that there is something strange going on in this town, which is why kids are able to bring their dogs back and their animals back to life. That was born out of just as a parental concern that I didn’t want kids trying to plug their hamster into the wall. And so that gets a laugh, but it’s also true; I was genuinely concerned about sort of the contract we were making with parents, like, “We’re not going to encourage your kids to do dangerous things that are going to get them electrocuted.”

And so that’s a helpful thing that as a screenwriter I could do.

**Craig:** Yeah. You saved a hamster.

**John:** I hopefully save a hamster, or maybe even a small child.

Our last topic today is this very long article by David Denby, a prominent critic, who wrote this for The New Republic. And I thought it was really interesting. And he wrote a critique of how Hollywood is making its movies and really focusing mostly on our action movies, although it sort of talks about all aspects of movies, and where it’s missing the boat.

And what I liked about it is that sometimes it picked on some really easy targets, and sometimes it picked on some — like it picked on The Avengers, which is a movie that I really loved, and he was able to make points though about it that I was like, “Well, I will acknowledge that point. It doesn’t mean I necessarily agree, but I see the point you’re trying to make there.”

And I also respected that he seemed to be able to anticipate exactly the criticism that he would face with the article and was sort of ready for it. So, Craig, what did you think of this thing, because I just sent it to you this morning.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m not sure he’s going to anticipate my criticism. Maybe he has. It wasn’t evident in this article in which he spared no words. It’s funny, I think that David Denby has a very good point; he’s just made a terrible argument in support of his point.

And I want to talk first a little bit, and people are going to have to read this thing. You’re just going to have to slog through it. It is quite long and —

**John:** Craig, I thought I might hit a few little high points in it first, so if people haven’t read it. So, one of his central theses is that, “It has come to this: A movie studio can no longer risk making good movies.” And those are his words. And the elaboration on that is, essentially: in trying to only pursue these giant tent-pole movies, they can’t worry about something that’s — they can’t even try to make something that’s execution dependent, because that’s too big a risk. So, they’re only going to try to make the safest, biggest movies they can make.

**Craig:** But in support of that he comes up with a bunch of bad reasoning. I think he misses what’s really going on here. And I’m not surprised he missed what’s going on because he is a film critic, and he is an educator, a professor of film. I don’t believe he’s spent any time doing what we do. He is examining the sausage and saying, “This is not very good sausage; it used to be much better sausage. They don’t like to make good sausage anymore because they want to see more sausage.”

They’ve always wanted to do that. Anyone who thinks that the business people running Hollywood have ever cared about anything other than money needs to get their head examined. That has been the way since celluloid was invented, since Laemmle and Edison put sprocket holes in film. That’s why the people running studios have made movies.

And he doesn’t have the benefit of seeing the killing floor the way you and I do. He makes a couple of mistakes. He makes a few mistakes, I think, of logic. One is he cherry picks. He tends to say things like, “Well, movies in the ’30s were better because look at Stagecoach and now look at the 2000s.” Well, yeah, but there were also about — I don’t know — 80 or 90 miles of film of crap in the ’30s, just as there is today. It’s a little unfair to sort of cherry pick and say “Okay, well that was going on there.”

He has certain opinions that he confounds with fact. For instance, he holds up Inception as an example of studio failure of risk when in fact I think Inception may be the riskiest movie ever made. Incredibly expensive. I loved Inception. I think he’s wrong about it. Interestingly, he’s also offbeat critically. So, he takes a movie that frankly disproves his central thesis and argues that it proves it because he just doesn’t like it, and I don’t think that that is quite logically compelling.

Similarly, The Avengers, you know, I wasn’t a huge fan of The Avengers, but again he seems out of step with critics; at some point you do have to say, “Well, if the great majority of the audience and the great majority of the critics all together like this movie, I’m not sure I can hold it up as an example that I’m right when I say it’s not very good.

He tends to do a little bit of apologizing. For instance, the deconstruction of cinema was okay in movies he liked, like Annie Hall. It’s not okay in movies he doesn’t like, like the Michael Bay films.

And, lastly, he makes a couple of factual errors. For instance, he cites The Hangover obliquely, by referring to “hangover debauchery,” I think, as an example of movies that studios make because they can’t miss, when in fact The Hangover was considered such a risk the director had to forgo his entire salary in order to get it made for $33 million. So, he’s just wrong about that.

What he’s right about is that Hollywood has changed to the extent that they are very scared of a certain kind of movie they made all the time, and that was profitable for them a lot. The one thing he doesn’t point out, and to me it’s the only reason that this is happening: It’s not that Hollywood has gotten more venal or vulgar. It has always been venal or vulgar. It is not that Hollywood has suddenly become greedy. It has always been greedy. And it is not that people have become more or less stupid or interested in nonsense. Children have always loved nonsense and always will, just as they will always love candy and always will.

The problem is one of attention. The problem with Hollywood today is that in order to get people’s attention in a world where there are more ways to divide their attention, they have to spend more, often, than they spend on the movie just to let you know the movie exists. And that is what has corrupted the process. Not stupidity. Not venality. Not giving up on quality. None of that.

He’s wrong about why things have gone wrong. But he is right that they’ve gone wrong. Unfortunately for him, and me, and people who like lots of different kinds of movies, his argument provides a way out. Mine doesn’t. [laughs] That’s the really depressing thing. If I take David Denby’s argument to heart, I can think, “Well, different people running the studio with different values and different approaches could revive a certain kind of film.”

But, given the way attention is these days to get people to see a film, I don’t know how we get there again. I don’t. And it does depress me, because I don’t just like, you know, I don’t just like big, huge, incredibly marketable spectacles. I like all sorts of movies.

**John:** I’ll step in as sort of like partial defender to Denby just because he’s not here. He has his own essay to defend himself a little bit. I would say he — I felt that he recognized that he was cherry picking to some degree and that in talking about the, citing that the movies of the ’30s were better, I felt like I actually saw him sort of acknowledging the fact that critics of this essay are going to say that “I have selective memory, too. I’m forgetting all the bad things that happened back in those days.” So, he does do a little bit of that. Maybe not enough.

And my recollection of his concern with Inception wasn’t the cowardice of the studio, that it was a safe choice. It was really a criticism of the film itself, and sort of what the film was attempting to do. His criticism of like sort of where we’ve come to in movies I thought was interesting. Not always apt, but interesting.

A couple things I highlighted from what he said: “The problem is that too many ordinary scenes in big movies are cut like car chases.” Maybe? I think it’s a valid idea to look at sort of, why has everything become so fast cutting? Maybe that’s just the style.

**Craig:** I don’t know that that’s true. Over time we have become better at processing audio visual information. Children today are better at processing audio visual information than I am. And I’m better at it than my parents are.

Naturally, the language of cinema will change to that end. I don’t know if that’s bad. I mean, if I’m moved by a movie, I’m moved by a movie.

**John:** But he would argue “that you leave the theater vibrating, but a day later you don’t feel a thing.”

**Craig:** But that’s not true, because I still think about Inception. And I’ll go back to Inception, because there were scenes that I thought were paced quite deliberately in that movie. And really what it comes down to is he’s saying, “Inception is an example of what I’m talking about because I don’t like it.” He says specifically it portrays dream states and they don’t feel like dreams at all. Well, I completely disagree. I mean, the last thing I wanted to see was a very lazy, “Ooh, we’re a surreal dreamy world,” because I’ve seen that already. And I thought it was actually a very smart choice by Nolan to not do that.

So, what I didn’t like about his citation of Inception was that he seemed to be saying, “I’m going to actively discount a movie that obviously rebuts what I’m saying.” And, frankly, the fact that he is anticipating criticism does not qualify as rebutting the criticism. It’s just simply saying that he anticipate it.

**John:** Absolutely. I was trying to use some of his anticipation as an in-the-moment rebuttal. Then let’s talk about the Michael Bay aspect of it all, because he does harp on Pearl Harbor a bit, which I think some people can say is an easy target. He would say that Annie Hall is deliberately knowing that it’s breaking these conventions in order for it to achieve a certain effect. Pearl Harbor many times I feel is just cutting to cut. And it’s just basically, “How many shots can we cram into a 30-second reel?” And there’s not intention behind it.

**Craig:** He’s right. I don’t like Michael Bay movies. I think Michael Bay — when Michael Bay shoots action sequences, often they’re spectacular. I think the car chase scene in The Island is one of the greatest car chases ever put on film; I just thought it was spectacular. I don’t like the movie. And I don’t like Michael Bay movies in general.

But, Michael Bay becomes a convenient exemplifier for what when wrong with Hollywood. There have always been movies made by people who have an aesthetic that is very fast food and very, I guess, freebase cocaine style. “I’m just going to strip away subtly and nuance and just pound you in the face.” There have always been those. Maybe they’re not quite like Michael Bay movies, but Michael Bay isn’t ruining Hollywood. He’s not.

All Michael Bay is doing is making movies for people that like Michael Bay movies.

**John:** I would take away from Denby’s argument that he wants to be able to see filmmakers get budgets to make bigger movies that are not big blockbuster action movies. And I think that’s something that I would like to see, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. I guess. Where he’s right is that it is criminal that guys like Paul Thomas Anderson have to try and scrounge for financing. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson made Boogie Nights on a shoestring and it’s sublime. It’s just perfection.

Woody Allen’s movies in the ’70s, and ’80s, and ’90s, and 2000s, and 2010s are not high budget movies, nor do they need to be high budget movies. Not everything needs to have money.

The one guy that he points out that I do think, when I go, “Oh, boy, great point, David Denby,” is the guy who did Children of Men.

**John:** Oh, yeah, Alfonso Cuarón. Alfonso Cuarón is maybe what’s like a Kubrick. Like, you wish he just always had the money to make whatever he wants to make.

**Craig:** Alfonso Cuarón is really, really, really good at what he does. And, the kinds of movies he makes actually do require a budget. And I don’t know why it is that Alfonso Cuarón hasn’t had a movie in theaters since Children of Men, which I think is amazing.

It may be that he can’t find the budgets for the movies he wants to do. It may be, frankly, that he just hasn’t found the right thing or that he hasn’t perfected it. I don’t know. But it does give me pause. I hesitate to think that Alfonso Cuarón isn’t making movies because they’re shifting that money to do a 7-day reshoot on a big popcorn spectacle that frankly could have just as easily done without that money.

You know, they’re remaking half of the zombie movie at Paramount at tremendous expense. And, sure, it would be great to see that that money go to something for $30 million or $40 million that could actually be amazing. But, again, I’ll just say: at no point in Hollywood’s history have movie studios just thrown money at artists because they wanted to see a good movie. They don’t do it. They want to make money with everything.

So, the attention thing — to me the attention thing has driven marketing budgets up and it’s reduced the amount of movies they make. That’s the problem. That’s what I think is limiting opportunities for guys like Alfonso Cuarón.

I still think that people like Paul Thomas Anderson can get their movies made for reasonable budgets. I don’t think Paul Thomas Anderson needs $40 million or $50 million. The actors often work for scale and participation at the end.

**John:** Although, if you see The Master, The Master looks really, really expensive. There’s a reason why that movie cost a lot of money.

**Craig:** I haven’t seen it yet.

**John:** It’s really — I loved it.

**Craig:** I’m looking forward to it. It’s certainly not a new problem. The issue of money and art goes back to pre-Renaissance. It’s always been a problem. Art costs money and some art makes its money and some art makes less money. And this has been an age-old problem.

But, again, I’ll point to a movie like The Hangover — which he seems to think is an example of an easy give — and say: With due respect sir, absolutely not.

**John:** The second Hangover was an easy give.

**Craig:** Yeah, of course. You don’t get to the second Hangover if you don’t take the risk on the first one. If Todd Phillips doesn’t say, “I’ll work for nothing; I’ll just work for backend and a gamble here because I want to make this kind of movie. I want to make a rated-R comedy when they’re not hot. I want to make a rated-R comedy with three guys that aren’t big movie stars. I want to make a rated-R comedy that at times gets pretty out there. And I’m willing to work for nothing to do it if you’ll let me do it.” And that’s what it took.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know. So, I don’t think that — sometimes what happens is people reverse engineer from the results.

**John:** Totally. All the James Cameron successes. “Well, of course that was a success.” Then if you actually look at sort of the actual process of making it, it was anything but obvious.

**Craig:** And that was also another thing that kind of surprised me is that he had this kind of interesting love for Avatar, which I didn’t like at all, and yet was beating up Inception.

And I’m not a James Cameron basher. I think the guy is a genius on a different level. And I will defend Titanic and the screenplay for Titanic with my dying breath, even though many people malign it. But I just thought, you know, at some point it just seemed like basically he looked, saw a problem, and decided the reason for the problem was that that the movies that he didn’t like were being made. And the movies that he did like weren’t being made enough.

And, frankly, that’s simply not correct.

**John:** Cool. So, anyway, we’ll have links to that and everything else we talked about in the show notes at johnaugust.com/podcast.

Craig, let’s do our One Cool Things. I know you have a One Cool Thing which is actually a repeat of an earlier thing that is still going on. So, do you want to tell us about the Heart Walk?

**Craig:** Yes. So this is your last opportunity, folks. So here is the deal. For all of you out there, I mentioned this in a prior podcast. For all of you out there who wail, “Why will no one read my script?” Somebody will read your script. In fact, Daniel Vang at Benderspink, which is a real actual legitimate production company, and he’s an actual legitimate real manager, he will read your script. He will read it!

And here’s what you have to do: You have to donate to a charity. Not put money in the pocket of some baloney screen guru who has never done anything and has absolutely no relation to Hollywood whatsoever.

If you donate $25 to the American Heart Association’s South Sound Heart Walk, then Daniel Vang of Benderspink will read the first ten pages of your screenplay. And if he really, really likes the first ten, he might even go further on his own. If you donate $50, he’s read the first 50 pages. Again, if he really, really likes it he might just keep reading.

If you donate $100 he will read your entire script. There are guys out there charging $1,000 to put in their pockets — who couldn’t help you no matter what — to read your screenplay. And here’s a guy saying, “You give $100 to the American Heart Association, I’m actually in the business, I manage screenwriters, I produce movies, I work at a real company. I’ll read your entire script.” I don’t understand why everybody isn’t take advantage of this.

You have a limited time here. Donations will be accepted up until October 6, which is, by the time the podcast airs, imminent.

**John:** Imminent. Yes. It will be the day after Frankenweenie opens.

**Craig:** It is what we like to call post-Frankenweenie.

**John:** Yes. The post-Frankenweenie era.

**Craig:** Correct. In the post-Frankenweenie era. So, this is day one of PFW. And you want to know how to do this, very simple. Go to John’s website, and he will have a link for you.

**John:** Yeah. And you’ll click it.

**Craig:** Oh, and this was all organized by Joe Nienalt, a screenwriter. So, a ton of credit to Joe for doing this. And a ton of credit to Daniel for doing this. And please, please, even if you don’t think your screenplay is any good, donate.

**John:** Cool.

My One Cool Thing this week is called The Last Express. And it is a great game from way back in time from the ’80s and ’90s that Jordan Mechner created. And he created it for the normal computers, the computers we had at the era. Well, the computers we have of this era are iPads and iPhones, and so there is a brilliant new port he’s just done of The Last Express.

So, this isn’t a remake of the game. This isn’t a reimagining of the game. This is actually the game which was, in its time, very sort of groundbreaking in the sense of it was animated and takes place on a train and is sort of for grownups. And there is adventure, and mystery, and intrigue.

So, what I love about it is it is both kind of fresh because it is this really unusual sort of cell frame animation, but it’s also vintage in a way that’s really, really fun. So, you may remember the game from its original incarnation.

**Craig:** I don’t. I don’t remember this.

**John:** You may have never seen the game before, but it’s really worth checking out. It’s $4.99 for iPad or for iPhone. It’s on the App Store. I think you will dig it. So, that is my One Cool Thing this week. And there will be a link to that in the show notes as well.

**Craig:** Is it action? What is it?

**John:** It’s an adventure game. So it’s not like, “pick up knife, poke knife in hole.” It’s not Zork like.

**Craig:** But it’s Zork-ish?

**John:** It’s an adventure game taking place on the Orient Express.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** And very much has that Murder on the Orient Express kind of feel, that period-vintage feel done with sort of story animation, done with sort of beautifully drawn things which at the time were ground-breaking to be able to happen in a computer game, and now feel kind of ground-breaking to happen on an iPad.

And it weirdly feels like it should always be on this.

**Craig:** Well, you know what, I’m downloading it right now.

**John:** Craig, you should probably wait to download it until we’re actually off the podcast so it doesn’t interfere with the Skype.

**Craig:** Well, I’m doing it. It’s too late. [laughs]

**John:** Craig, you ruin everything.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, but thank you so much for a fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you, too. And thank you, David Denby, for writing a very thought-provoking essay, even if I didn’t agree with all of it. I think you have identified a very real problem, sir.

**John:** Yes. So, we got some Denby, we got some junkets, we got some movie stories. It was a good week for us.

**Craig:** I think it was a pretty good week. And we are closing in on Austin. Let’s not forget. Do people know?

**John:** I think people know. So, as we’ve talked about before, we are doing our first ever live Scriptnotes. It will be at the Austin Film Festival on Saturday, October 20, I want to say.

**Craig:** Yeah, sounds right.

**John:** If I had the notes in front of me, that would be like an organized podcast. But, anyway, the Saturday of the Austin Film Festival in the morning we will be doing the first ever live Scriptnotes. It will be me and Craig and the show, and our special guest which we can announce now, Aline Brosh McKenna, who is fantastic.

**Craig:** Aline. Yes. And, frankly, having been to Austin a few times, I can tell you this will be the greatest thing that ever happened at that screenwriting conference. Period. The end.

**John:** It may be the best thing to ever happen in Austin. But I don’t want to oversell it.

**Craig:** It might be the best thing that ever happened in history.

**John:** It could be fantastic. We will be doing live questions and answers in the audience. It’s going to be longer than our usual show, so it should be fun.

If you are able to come to Austin to come to this event you should come to this event. If you’re not able to come to this event we will have audio for our week’s podcast shortly after the event.

**Craig:** Awesome.

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

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

Scriptnotes, Ep 51: Dashes, ellipses and underground monsters — Transcript

August 24, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/dashes-ellipses-and-underground-monsters).

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

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

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

Craig, I have kind of a big agenda for us today.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** I thought we might answer four questions and do three samples of the Three Page Challenge.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Are you up for it?

**Craig:** I’m always up for it.

**John:** Great. Let’s get right to it. This is a question from Bianca in Ann Arbor. She writes, “I’m moving to Los Angeles in a few months and I’ve already got a final interview lined up for an assistant position at a top 4 agency. I’ve already had the first interview. I want to be a writer and I have a short film I’d like to direct. A friend of mine says I should skip the assistant job and get a steady 9 to 5 non-industry job so I can have more time and money to work on my writing and directing. I wanted your honest opinion: Am I better off pursuing an entry level industry job with long hours and low wages so I can make contacts and learn how the business works, or should I get a steady 9 to 5 job outside the industry that leaves more time for writing and directing? I’m not sure which way to go.”

**Craig:** I am. [laughs]

**John:** What’s your opinion?

**Craig:** I’m super sure which way to go. You should go work at the agency. Of course. Of course. Look, yeah, it’ll be long hours. But, did she say how old she was?

**John:** She did not. My guess is she is kind of immediately post-college.

**Craig:** Okay great. So, guess what? You’re bulletproof and immortal and you can work a lot longer hours than I can. You don’t have a family, you don’t have children. You’re going to work. Yeah, of course. But the point is by working at an agency you are going to have people to give your script to. You’re going to have access to people who represent the best writers, actors, directors in the world. You will not get any of that working at TJ Maxx. I’m sorry. I don’t understand your friend’s advice at all. It makes no sense to me.

I’m sorry you might be a little tired. Yeah, tough. That’s called breaking into the business. Your friend could not be wrongerer.

**John:** Here’s where I think the friend has the right instinct but isn’t sort of putting all the pieces together: Bianca is moving from Ann Arbor. She probably doesn’t know a lot about how the film industry works. She probably doesn’t have a lot of contacts. She would get both those things working at an agency.

She would also have a tremendous amount of stress and long hours and she probably wouldn’t get as much creative work done for the first year that she’s in Los Angeles. Maybe that’s okay, because the tradeoffs, the things she would get out of it, are pretty great.

Should she stay in a very busy industry job she despises after a year or so of experience? Maybe not. And I think there does come a point in time where if you really are going to be a writer-director, if you’re really going to be trying to do that stuff, you can’t have an agent-assistant job and still be working on being a writer-director. There could be a place in your early career where you have to sort of pull the rip cord, get a boring job, and just buckle down and write. But that’s not when you’re first moving to Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Yeah. 100 percent. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. And I want to add another thing: Right now you think you want to be a writer-director. No, no, right now — I take it back. You do want to be a writer-director, but the point is you don’t really know what writing and directing professionally means exactly.

One of the interesting things that happens when people move to Los Angeles and get involved in the entertainment business is they suddenly find that there are 50 different things to do. And their skill set, their passion level, may change. What we see in front of us affects what we’re going to do.

I didn’t come out here to be a screenwriter. I just kind of found it and it was exciting. But really I came out with a very open mind. Some people do come out to be screenwriters and that’s exactly what they become. Some people want to be producers that become screenwriters. Some people want to be screenwriters that become directors.

But the point is access, friends, people that you can show your work to, people who can help you find financing — frankly, these are the things that set apart most people from the hundreds or thousands behind them who just have a script. So, I strongly urge you to take the agency job.

**John:** Yeah. Is there a chance you could become trapped in an agency job and not fulfill your dreams of writing and directing? Yes. But you would have trapped yourself. And you can’t be voluntarily trapped, so you can always leave the job if it’s not what you need it to be.

I moved out to Los Angeles to come to film school at USC. I got into a producers’ program, so I was learning sort of the nuts and bolts of the business, everything from contract negotiation to scheduling and budgeting. And development was part of it, but my whole life plan wasn’t to be a writer-director. I kind of knew I would write, but I didn’t know what it was. And that’s the place that you’re at right now. You don’t know what it is that you’re really going to end up doing. So why not go someplace where you can see as much as you possibly can, read a ton of scripts, and figure out what you want to do?

**Craig:** Yeah. For sure.

**John:** Next question. Mike writes, “I work on a TV writing staff where one of the junior writers rather brazenly bragged about writing during the WGA strike.” So, the great WGA strike of a couple of years ago. “She thought it was highly amusing that she wrote for studios at night while picketing during the day. Needless to say, no one else found this amusing. I’m very curious what you or Craig would do in the situation, which unfortunately probably happens more than anyone would like. Should I call the WGA? Should I talk to her one-on-one about how her selfish, self-centered actions affect others? Just forget she ever said it and move on?”

**Craig:** Boy. I mean, look, I have no, not one ounce of sympathy for somebody who was scabbing during the strike. I mean, if they’re a WGA member and they’re writing for signatories during a strike, I loathe them. I loathe them.

Yes, I think there is an excellent case to be made that you should pick up a phone and call the Guild and tell them what you heard. I don’t like — we all have a kind of “don’t be a tattle tale, don’t be a rat” built into us. I don’t think talking to her directly is going to do a damn thing. She’s already made herself and her position clear. I’m not sure what talking to her is going to do other than maybe she’ll think twice when the next strike rolls around?

No, I think that frankly there is a case to be made that, yeah, you pick up the phone and call the guild. I don’t like it any more than you do, but if we’re going to strike and people are going to do this, I mean, what’s the point? How do I turn around and tell somebody who’s barely hanging on, “Yeah, don’t write,” because we’re all in this together except for that person.

**John:** I think my overall concern… — I have two concerns. One is that this writer evidently did scab and write during the strike. Sort of my bigger, more immediate concern is that she’s bragging about it, and which to me sets a very dangerous culture of expectations so that, “Oh, it’s fine.” If you sort of let that go unchallenged like, “Oh, it’s fine that you did that.” If you don’t say anything, it’s sort of tacit approval. So I think having the conversation with the staff, “That’s not cool,” is make sure that everyone who has heard this conversation understands why that’s really not cool.

And then, listen, I don’t know your position on the staff, I don’t know her position on the staff. I don’t know sort of how it all works there. But I would say, “You know what, that’s not cool.” If nothing else it will probably shut her up from saying that again and again and setting this expectation that what she did was okay.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s important to make sure that she actually was scabbing. Because she’s an assistant, there’s a chance here in my mind that she actually wasn’t a Writers Guild member. If she wasn’t a Writers Guild member, she was not — I mean, she was essentially hurting the strike, but she wasn’t breaking any rules.

**John:** Well it says here, it doesn’t say that she was an assistant during that time. It says, “One of the junior writers rather brazenly…”

**Craig:** Oh, junior writer. Oh, I’m sorry. I heard wrong. Well then I’m going to presume that she was a member of the Writers Guild. So I do agree that, yes, everybody else in that room needs to know that’s not cool. Frankly, I would think about firing her for sure because that’s disgusting to me. And then on top of that I would call the Guild. I hate to say it, but yeah.

**John:** Next question from Sean. “When writing slug lines for scenes that take place in a high school, is it acceptable to write, for instance, ‘INT. HIGH SCHOOL — STAIRWAY — DAY?’ Or it preferable just to write ‘INT. HIGH SCHOOL STAIRWELL — DAY?’ The majority of the film takes place in a school, so it seemed to make sense to specify the exact area of the school in the slug line. I’m just not sure which or either is the correct approach.”

**Craig:** How would you go about that? I mean, I know what I would do.

**John:** If most of the movie is taking place at the high school, to me I would cut the “high school” out of it at a certain point.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Because it would just become an extra sort of cruft on the page. There are times where I will do the specifiers where you talk about the general location — dash — the specifying location inside that. But that’s usually if it’s going to be… — You’re always thinking about the reader. What’s going to make most sense for the reader? Is the reader going to get confused if I don’t do it this way?

**Craig:** You’re absolutely right. If most of the movie is set in this high school, or a long sequence is set in the high school moving around within different locations inside the high school, once you’ve established that you’re definitely in the high school it’s okay to just lose that part and just say INT. STAIRWAY, INT. HALLWAY, INT. PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE, INT. CLASSROOM.

The second you leave the high school when you come back you’ve got to do high school again. The whole point of the slug line stuff, at least initially, is to make sure the reader knows where the hell they are. There is no slavish need to follow some kind of orthodoxy. Eventually when the movie goes into production, if there’s any question or concern from the first AD they will come and ask you, “Is this is the high school or…?”

But, I mean, everybody should be able to get it. So, clarity should be the rule of the day.

**John:** Absolutely. So, clarity for the reader. Simplicity for the reader. Ultimately you’re trying to avoid ambiguity for production so that if it says INT. HALLWAY, “Wait, is it the hallway of the high school or is it the hallway of the house?” You have to sort that stuff out. But at this stage, generally the shorter slug line is going to be the better choice.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Next question is not really a question. It’s one of those things that it’s sort of phrased like a question, but at the end it’s just, “So what do you think?” So it’s really more of a statement.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s a little essay?

**John:** It’s a small essay with a question mark at the end.

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh, okay.

**John:** But I thought I would bring it up because it’s a guy who wrote in before and I thought it made interesting points that we can talk about. Tucker writes, “From where I sit the business looks like it’s in real trouble. The business model itself seems broken, especially on the creative side. Making big, dumb, loud movies to build international franchises is fine if people buy tickets and like the product. The problem is they don’t and they aren’t. This has been a bad year at theaters; attendance is in a major downturn.”

So I’m going to pause here for one second because I want to challenge the thesis of that second part which I think it’s reported a lot really without backup. So the idea that the business is down a lot isn’t really… — It’s harder to defend that. If you actually look at the year to date, this year versus previous years, going up through — we’re recording this on August 15th. I pulled it up on Box Office Mojo.

Year to date we’re at $7.1 billion for 2012 versus $6.8 billion in 2011. So we’re actually $300 million ahead of where we were this time last year, so you can’t say that the business is down. You can say that attendance is probably down. I don’t have it broken down by the months, but overall ticket purchases have dropped since the high in 2002, so that is true to say that it’s down. But I get frustrated by the articles that sort of preface themselves saying, “Everybody knows the movie industry is falling apart,” when in fact by the actual dollar figures it isn’t down.

So, that’s my pause.

**Craig:** I agree with your pause. I have more to say, but go ahead, keep reading.

**John:** Tucker continues, “And I feel there is a perfect storm going on. The studios need to make big bets on big franchises that makes big committees come together to manage the creative, and there are all these Hollywood pros and execs in a grip of fear from the bleeding the business is going through, and that fear makes us play either safe or stupid, so the product lacks innovation and freshness and passion. And the public notices and stays away.”

So, let’s go back to the pause.

**Craig:** Wait. Wait. Where was the question?

**John:** Oh, I had cut out the part of the question which was the, “What do you guys think?”

**Craig:** [laughs] Ah, if that was the question I would give him a… — Look, I think that he’s half right. There’s no question that the business has become obsessed with big, loud franchise event movies. They are convincing themselves that event movies are the business of movies and that that’s where all the money is going to be. Event movies lend themselves to 3D and IMAX, which allows everyone to greedily pull down higher ticket prices.

And they are doing that in part to supplant the disappearance or the continuing disappearance of the DVD market. Where he’s wrong is that people are absolutely still showing up. No question. You can’t look at The Avengers — which I think would be a prime example of what he would call big and loud, because it is big and loud, it’s an enormous, big, loud movie, although I liked it —

**John:** It’s not dumb. It’s very popcorn, but it’s not dumb.

**Craig:** It’s not dumb. I mean, look: when he says “dumb,” I don’t know what he thinks dumb is. I don’t know if he thinks dumb is anything that’s big. I don’t know what he thinks dumb is. All I can say is you can’t look at what The Avengers did and go, “Oh yeah, the movie business doesn’t work anymore and people don’t want to go see this stuff.”

They absolutely want to see it. And frankly international audiences want to see it just as much if not more so than domestic audiences. So, really part of what’s going on in Hollywood is that they’ve decided that there’s a certain kind of movie that they should make. And it’s not that the audiences are rewarding them. It’s just that the audiences are failing to punish them for it. I don’t recognize that the movie business is floundering. They still pack ’em in, all over the world.

I absolutely recognize that the movie business is under-serving a certain market. And they seem to have forgotten that you can still make a lot of money making a certain kind of movie that isn’t the big, huge, loud spectacle.

**John:** Yeah. A lot of what we talk about on the podcast comes from the perspective of screenwriters who are trying to write the movies that will three years down the road become the big movies. And as the studios have pursued these big giant tent poles, my frustration which I think you share is that a lot of times the decision is basically, “We’re going to make this movie come hell or high water. We will throw a director at it. We’ll throw an actor on it. And somehow we’ll make it happen.” And they are not actually developing movies to shoot anymore. They’re just trying to… — They’re writing a one sheet and figuring out what a trailer is and then trying to make the movies to match that.

That is absolutely true, and that’s a frustration of content creation and the process early on. But as far as what is actually hitting in theaters right now, I don’t think that’s really entirely fair to be slamming the movies that are coming out right now. Often when people talk about like, “Oh, the movie business is doomed,” they try to bring up John Carter from earlier this year. And there’s nothing at all cynical about John Carter. I saw John Carter. I mean, John Carter is a big, goofy, delightful film.

I wish it had made a lot more money, but it’s not indicative of some sort of, like, Hollywood falling apart. Yes, it was really expensive. You can talk about it being really probably too expensive. But you can’t say that it was trying to be this big, dumb movie when it was kind of a swing for the fences. And so I kind of wish we would reward the chance that it took, or acknowledge the risk that was taken on John Carter, and not be slamming it for its simplicity.

**Craig:** John Carter is the worst example for people to use. The fact is when people think about risk they are completely upside down on the reality. They think that small independent movies take on this enormous financial risk and studio films aren’t risky at all. It’s the opposite.

The little independent movies, people have to understand this: They don’t get made unless… — not unless — often unless the financiers can pre-sell that movie overseas. So if the movie is going to cost $5 million and it’s this little beautiful, not loud, not noisy, not dumb art film, they’re not making it for $5 million unless they know ahead of time, “I’ve actually already sold this movie overseas based on who’s in it, or who the director is, for $5 million.”

“When we start to make this movie, I’m even. There’s no risk there.” That’s that model. And then it really is just about, “Okay, can we make a little bit of money, or a decent amount of money, or a lot of money for the effort?” And that’s that model.

When you look at John Carter, that’s a company that decides, “We’re going to spend $300 million just on the production alone. We’re going to make a movie that is based on a book no one has read, and almost no one has heard of, Edgar Rice Burroughs. We’re going to hire a director that is brilliant but has no live action track record whatsoever. And we’re going to let him make his movie.”

I’m sorry. Yeah, it didn’t work out. Okay? They don’t always work out. But to me, John Carter is an example of studio bravery.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And so when people bring up John Carter I go, no, no, no, that’s not the problem. The problem is Battleship. That’s the problem.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I say that as somebody who is friends with a number of people who were involved. But the issue with Battleship is when you take something and you make it for too much money because you think the audience wants it, because they know the name or the word but there’s really nothing there.

I mean, look, John Carter is a novel. It was literature. I mean, I can’t say it’s great literature, but Burroughs is no slouch. Whereas Battleship was just pegs. It was pieces of plastic that were sold to us as children. And there is no narrative inherent to it. So, let’s not blame John Carter. But let’s also not engage in this pointless sort of… — I always smell resentment underneath these essays, like, “Good, the fat cats are dying. And now it will be time for the YouTubers to take over the world.”

No. Sorry. People still go to movies. I wish it were easier for $30 million comedies that are interesting to get made. I do. And it’s hard. But, you know, the same producer that made Battleship made Identity Thief. He’s a good guy. He sees that there are plays on both ends of the spectrum.

And so I would love to see Hollywood kind of be a little less pie-eyed about these big huge movies, especially when they can get you in trouble like this, you know, the World War Z movie that’s…

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** …you know, they’re going to have to do a lot of reshoots and a lot of money because they have so much into it. But, no, I don’t think we should be dancing on… — If you want to dance on the corpse of Hollywood, don’t dance with glee. Because I’ll tell you what, buddy: when this thing goes down, nothing will take its place, not like this.

**John:** I think the only time… I’m trying to think of examples of where you can really fault Hollywood cynicism. And Battleship does feel like one of those cases because Battleship was made kind of for the wrong reasons. To me they were clearly chasing Transformers. It felt like Transformers on water. And I wasn’t rooting against the movie, but I was concerned on those levels.

I see DC Comics/Warner Brothers trying to emulate the success of The Avengers and trying to put together the whole super group of their heroes, and that feels.. — I can’t help but feel that that seems a little cynical. “Well that worked for them, so we should do it with our group.”

It’s like, well, but there was something really inherently right about doing it the way Marvel did it, and it was tremendously risky and, god bless them, they took the risk and they made it. But I’m concerned that they’re going to spend $600 million, $800 million trying to assemble these heroes to make this movie that I’m not sure that we definitely need to make.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s possible. Certainly Hollywood, this is nothing new. They’ve always chased success. There’s a movie coming out about 21 year olds who have a hangover night. There is also a movie about 70 year olds who have a hangover night. [laughs] And there’s the DC one, Justice League, I think.

They have done this throughout history. A big movie comes out and then people make movies like that movie. They’ve been doing that since I got into the business. There’s no trend here. That’s standard operating procedure. Mind you, not only in this business, in every business.

Look around at smartphones and find me one that isn’t a rip-off of the iPhone. Everyone in every business does this. Absolutely normal. But, of course, it’s the people that innovate successfully and first, I guess that’s sort of inherent in the word innovate who really reap the benefits and the rewards.

And I have to say, year after year, while things get creaky and maybe things get really, really top heavy, there are always good movies that come out. There are always movies that take us by surprise and that we really like. And I just feel like if you’re going to take a look at the business, look at it objectively and leave the resentment out f it. Because I don’t hate Hollywood. I love it. I love it enough to say, “Stop doing dumb stuff like A, B, and C, and do more smart stuff like D, E, and F.”

But I do love it. I love movies and I love Hollywood.

**John:** Yeah. Schadenfreude helps nobody. And it’s sort of a cliché, but a rising tide lifts all boats. And you want the box office to be really good because then they’re going to be spending more money to make more movies. It does actually help everybody if my movies succeed.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** All right. I’m ready for our Three Page Challenges if you are ready to start?

**Craig:** Heck yeah. Gosh yes.

**John:** Let’s start with Terrance Mulloy’s one. It’s the one that starts in New York City. It doesn’t have a title.

**Craig:** You’re going to hear pages rustling around because I printed it out again, John.

**John:** You did? That’s fine. You’re allowed to print.

**Craig:** I know you hate that.

**John:** So while you’re rustling through your pages, I will give a quick summary of what Terrance’s script is about. I should say that if you are interested in reading any of these Three Page Challenges that people sent in, they are all linked to on johnaugust.com. You can go to the podcast section and read the screenplays along with us. So, we can pause here for a moment so you can do that.

**Craig:** Pausing.

**John:** Pausing. This is Terrance Mulloy’s script. And I want to thank our three people who wrote in and volunteered to have us be talking about their things on air. That was very generous of you.

So, here’s Terrance:

So we have establishing shots of New York City. We then descend through the concrete and into a subway tunnel where two MTA maintenance workers are walking and talking. They talk about chili and try to figure out where they are on this map. They get off the tracks and the train goes passed, or sort of rushes, blasts passed. And one of them sees a human shape hop down into a hole. After the train passes, they investigate, thinking it’s maybe a homeless person, but it’s not.

And one guy gets his throat ripped out as we get to the end of page three. So it’s some sort of monstrous creature is in the subway tunnel.

**Craig:** Underneath Manhattan.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** These pages were… — Nothing wrong with the way they were written. Everything seemed okay. The dialogue was sort of fine in its craft. Everything here was fine except that I’ve seen this a billion times.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There’s no invention here really. I mean, if you were to say to anybody, “Can you write a scene like the one you’ve seen a million times in the horror/monster movies where two guys are just innocently walking along in the darkness, doing their job, chitchatting about nothing, and then suddenly a monster kills one of them and the other one goes, ‘Oh my god!'” It would be this. It’s incredibly generic. So, I’m not sure what else to say.

You can’t ignore the 14,000 movies that have come before you. You have to really surprise us.

**John:** Yeah. I feel like with this, the conventions, it’s following the conventions so closely that I wanted to see some pushback, because by the bottom of page one I kind of knew what was going to happen. Like, if we are descended down into the subway and two people are just walking and talking and doing normal stuff, the minute I see, like, a shadowy creature move by it’s like, “Well, I know exactly what movie this is.”

And so if you’re going to give us that shadowy creature walking by, surprise us somehow. Let us know that there’s something — there’s a reason that something different is going to be happening, that you’re aware of the conventions. I mean, it doesn’t have to be Scream where it’s meta conventions, but you need to surprise us a little bit more than I felt like we were getting in these three pages.

I would say overall I was more curious about the story than I was about the writing. And sometimes you can write something that’s kind of conventional, but if it was really, really well-written that could serve you very well. Here the writing, it was only okay. It was doing what it needed to do. There were some significant typos that I wanted to point out.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We had an “it’s” and “its” problem.

**Craig:** That kills me.

**John:** Yeah. So the possessive “its” is just I-T-S. There’s no apostrophe. And it doesn’t make sense, but it’s just how English works. “Chili” has one L. And then I want to talk about these two MTA workers who throughout the three pages are MTA Worker #1 and MTA Worker #2.

**Craig:** I got so confused. I didn’t even know who was dead at one point.

**John:** Yeah. So here’s the thing: It’s fine to say MTA Worker, but if you’re going to have two of them and they’re going to be talking for more than two lines, just give them actual names. I think they should probably have last names, so one is Ramirez and one is Jones. It doesn’t kind of really matter. You don’t have to get into great detail and you don’t have to write up whole backstories on them. But just so we can keep them straight, because there’s a lot of times in the scene description where like, “MTA Worker #1 stops to survey through his surroundings.” But it’s like, “Wait, which one is that? Is it the guy who said this, the guy who said that?”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Give us some actual names so that we can focus on that a little bit more.

**Craig:** Yeah. You get trapped in the garden of “he”s and “she”s where you’re not sure to whom the pronoun is referring. And also, I’ve got to tell you: if you write the script well enough and somebody wants to make this, sooner or later some casting lady is going to be calling going, “Um, MTA Worker #1, white, back, tall, short?”

**John:** That’s where Ramirez saves your ass. It’s like, boom, helps you figure it out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Give us something. I mean, but in general I can’t… — You’re right, if for instance, there are ways where you can sort of say, “You know what? The pot of this movie is going to be incredibly generic. What’s going to be interesting is the speech of the people in it. I’m going to go Tarantino on this,” if you want. And sometimes that works. But this sort of had generic… — It just felt like kind of one of those movies, you’re flipping around late at night, and then suddenly there’s this sort of generic never-was-released monster movie starring somebody that might have been on TV once. There’s nothing to it to make me go, “Ah, cool.”

**John:** Yeah. Syfy Channel does originals of those now.

**Craig:** Yeah, even the monster. I’m like, “Okay, so it’s a pale Gollumy dude. It’s C.H.U.D.” You know what I mean?

**John:** I’m actually fine with it if it’s unapologetically that. But maybe it needs to acknowledge what it is a little. I don’t know, it felt like it wasn’t quite acknowledging what it was yet. Granted, it was only three pages so maybe there was a remarkable twist on page 6 that we see that actually there is a bigger thing happening. But I don’t necessarily have faith…

**Craig:** Yeah. There wasn’t even a sense of campiness to it, like, “Okay, that’s where the fun is going to come in. This thing is going to be just over the top and sicko,” or something. It just felt very down the middle.

**John:** So, there was a question that came in this week and I thought I would not actually raise the question because we could talk about it here just on these pages, which is the difference between ellipses and double dashes, because this is a script that uses a lot of ellipses. And so it uses them — it never really ends sentences. There’s just a lot of “…” and “…” and it’s a style. You see a lot of screenwriters that use it, and it’s absolutely fine.

It’s not a style I particularly care for, but it’s certainly a style. So, if you’re trailing off the end of a sentence that’s leading into a line of dialogue, often you’ll see, often I will use “…” so it sort of flows into the next line of dialogue. So this is going from scene description into dialogue. Dashes also work. The Wibberleys are big dash uses. And so there’s a script that they worked on, that I worked on, that they worked on, and every time it went back and forth one of the first things we would ever do is change all their dashes to ellipses, and all the ellipses to dashes.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** Either one is fine. If you pick a style and you like it, that’s great. This guy is using “…” and it’s not a way I would do it, but it reads fine.

**Craig:** I didn’t mind it. I always say about these things: if the three pages had been really interesting and gripping, I wouldn’t have cared less. I will say that I tend to use “…” the way you do, to trail off things and then to break up things inside a paragraph if I’m sort of reporting. “He turns. Oh my god, a shot — ” Then I’ll do “–” because the “…”s somehow get a little…they look a little cluttery on the page. It makes my eyes hurt a little bit.

But it’s not really… — If somebody is writing a great script and they want to “…” the hell out of it, have fun.

**John:** Yeah. Either one is okay with us.

I’m trying to think of other last notes on this. The first bit of dialogue in a script is really crucial because that gives us a sense of the tone and sort of what kind of movie this is. Right now they’re having a discussion on chili con carne with garlic, and it just wasn’t great. And there’s probably a great version of this kind of conversation. Basically, if we’re laughing because what they’re saying is so funny then the horror stuff is great. But if it’s just so two people talking, it’s not going to really work for us.

**Craig:** Yeah. The only other suggestion I would make, just something to think about: I read once that Spielberg likes to find within the first image or the first few images something that’s thematically symbolic to the movie, to the guts of the movie.

I think the opening shot of Schindler’s List is a woman praying over a candle, and we just see the smoke kind of going up in the air and the whole thing, it’s like, “This is life, it burns and then it goes to smoke and it’s gone. It’s that fragile.” And I always thought that was a really interesting idea. And a lot of times I do try and think, “Well, what is that first thing I see?”

Now here it’s a trick, and it’s a trick we’ve seen, again, a billion times, where we do the macro to micro bit, where we fly down into Manhattan, and then we’re into people, and then we’re underground. But really all that’s done is say, “Look, there’s stuff underground Manhattan.” Yeah. We know. We know about the subway. [laughs]

So then the question is: what else could you do? I mean, is it two guys walking underneath and one of them sees like a bug and crushes it? Something where we get a sense that maybe there’s a bit of hubris that we think that we’re in charge here and actually there is this whole world underneath us that’s pissed off and ready to revolt?

Just find something that makes it visually significant. This to me was just, again, a very generic, technical trick. It was empty aesthetics.

**John:** It felt like the compulsory exercises in figure skating. It did its circle 8s, and it did a good job in circle 8s, but it wasn’t expressive in a way that could be awesome.

**Craig:** It was not a Triple Lutz.

**John:** No Triple Lutz there. There was no Lutz at all.

Next, let’s go to Trunk by Mario DiPesa. Here’s a synopsis of Trunk. So, we start at a tranquil lake and then suddenly a car plunges into it and sinks. Then we get a card that reads “Seconds Before.” We’re in a new scene. We see the car parked at the edge of a cliff. There’s a driver at the wheel. He looks at two bodies in the car. The police come up from behind, tell him to surrender. Then he drives the car off the cliff into the lake, so the thing we just saw before.

A new card that says “Minutes Earlier.” We see the car racing down a road pursued by the police. The men in the car are shooting at the cops who shoot back. And we have some dialogue among the men. And that’s the three pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. So you figure out pretty quickly that we’re doing a reverse narrative here. I presume that once we see that three scenes have now occurred moving backwards through time that we’re in Memento-ville.

And obviously that’s the first thing that people are going to read is, “Oh, okay, so we’re Memento-ing some kind of heist or criminal move that’s gone bad and we’re ending with a death and going backwards to see how it all starts.” And that’s, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that.

**John:** I don’t know. I’m not convinced…

**Craig:** If it works, and it’s great. Memento is so good and it’s so good at that, and there’s also that great Gaspar Noé, I mean, it’s kind of a sick Gaspar Noé movie called…

**John:** Irreversible?

**Craig:** …Irreversible, I believe. So, okay, you know, the reader will have to either be into that or not into that, and there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s your deal.

I like the way that this writer wrote. I thought the description was well done, because I didn’t get bored and I didn’t get lost in it. And I thought it was a nice mix of poetic but not purple. I was infuriated on page 2 when there was a type in dialogue.

**John:** That was terrible.

**Craig:** I mean, if you’re going to do the its/it’s thing in action, or you’re going to do something in action, I get it. But in dialogue, that’s just embarrassing.

**John:** You’re talking about, “Comes out now, this is your final warning.”

**Craig:** Yeah! I mean, guys, you’re only sending us three pages. We’re not asking you to proofread with a fine tooth comb 120 pages. At least read the three pages you’re sending. It’s embarrassing to you, because we’re going to make fun of you and embarrass you. [laughs] So don’t do that.

I also thought the dialogue, I liked the dialogue in the sense that it seemed very simple and realistic to the moment of what was going on. It was certainly not over-written. I’ll take under-written any day of the week when people are driving from cops, and wounded, and bleeding, and trying to get away.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, a lot of good things here to say.

**John:** I liked it too. I don’t know that this time conceit is actually going to stay for the whole movie. I feel like this may be a setup kind of thing and once, at a certain point we may not be moving backwards in time. So I’m curious whether that’s going to happen. And my curiosity is partly what would keep me reading more of the script.

So, I liked the technique and I thought it was sort of well-handled. I felt like if the driver is going to have a name he should have it by now. So right now the driver is just called Driver. And maybe that’s fine. I think he’s probably our main character. I think we’re going to follow him through the whole movie. If that’s the case, and he’s going to have a name at any point in the movie, he should have his name by now.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Maybe it’s Drive and he doesn’t have a name. And that’s fine. Maybe it’s actually a sequel to Drive.

My theory with the typo is I’m not convinced that Mario DiPesa is a native English speaker. While it’s well-written, there are some strange choices that to me indicated that English may not be his only language. On page 2 he says, “Shifts the car’s gear.” What is it, “He shifts the car’s gear.” That isn’t sort of the way we would actually say that.

**Craig:** I guess. But then so much of this other stuff feels, I mean, I agree that that’s a little awkward, but I mean a lot of this stuff feels like, the action stuff, it’s hard to imagine this isn’t somebody that speaks English.

**John:** I think he speaks English, but something feels a little wrong. Also on page 2, “Wheels SCREECH as dust fills the air behind the car.” Fills the air behind the car? That seems like it’s coming from a different language.

**Craig:** I’ve got to tell you, [laughs] if this guy isn’t foreign he’s putting a gun in his mouth right now.

**John:** He’s just mortified right now. Maybe he’s special.

**Craig:** I don’t know. But, “The car bobs like a cork for a brief moment, then slowly sinks.” That’s very colloquial.

**John:** But, and then in the next paragraph; this is a style thing which isn’t an English speaker or not, but first page: “Water explodes like a thousand broken mirrors. The car bobs like a cork for a brief moment, then slowly sinks.” The double simile isn’t the most graceful. They have two likes back to back. That’s not ideal.

So, we’re “like a thousand broken mirrors” and “like a cork” back to back. It feels a little less graceful

**Craig:** That I agree with. That’s the sort of thing you want to kind of comb through and not do, but that’s not indicative of not speaking English. That’s just indicative of…

**John:** Well I will say that if Mario DiPesa, if you do speak English natively I apologize for implying that you didn’t, but I think you’re a much better writer in English than many people are. Anyway, so…

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s terrible.

**John:** No! I’m saying…

**Craig:** Because I really do think he is. I think he’s American and I think he’s like so a better writer than people, than you are in French.

**John:** Oh my god. He’s so much better.

**Craig:** Thanks.

**John:** I’m just wondering whether maybe he’s spoken English for ten years, and so is therefore really good, but some stuff is always going to be a little bit off. I’m looking him up right now to just see if he has an international…

**Craig:** See, the “Comes out now” thing is definitely a typo. Because the captain says, “Come out of the car with your hands on your head.” And then two lines of dialogue later, “Comes out now. This is your final warning.” It has to be a typo.

Also, because S is right near E on the keyboard.

**John:** Oh my god. So I just checked through my email and I’m completely wrong. So, Mario, I believe reading an actual email from you.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** For some reason I guessed that you are not a native speaker, but you are a native speaker.

**Craig:** Hey, Mario, listen, you don’t have to take this crap from him, okay? [laughs] I want you to do something. I want you to write in and really give him hell.

**John:** He actually wrote in about our last podcast and had, like, many paragraphs. And this does not feel at all like a person who does not speak English natively.

**Craig:** Shame. On. You.

**John:** Maybe he’s just poetic.

**Craig:** I think it was just a typo.

**John:** Well, no, “the car’s gear,” that read weird to me. Like I read that three times. Like, “Wait, that doesn’t actually make sense.”

**Craig:** It’s not good.

**John:** You don’t shift the car’s gear.

**Craig:** You’re right. That should have just been, you know, “Takes a deep breath. Puts the car in gear.” We put the car in gear. We don’t shift it into gear. But, meh.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not enough to take the guy’s citizenship away.

**John:** No, it really wasn’t.

Our last Three Page Challenge entry is by, oh, here I am going to try it: Andrew Lauwasser. Lauwasser? It’s a good name. I just don’t know how to pronounce it.

**Craig:** I would say Lau-wasser.

**John:** Lau-wasser?

**Craig:** Lau-wasser. Yeah.

**John:** Let me give you a summary here. So we meet Justin and Amy in their apartment. They’re both mid-20s. Amy tells Justin she’s breaking up with him. We cut to a new house where we meet Marshall who’s around 60, and Brooke, his wife, she’s mid-30s. She’s divorcing him. We cut back and forth between Justin and Amy and Marshall and Brooke while they have dialogue and start to break up and move stuff out.

And that’s the three pages.

**Craig:** You want to start?

**John:** I’ll go first. This felt very setup-y. And setup-y in a way that I could see some credits playing underneath this maybe? It was, you know, I’ll give it this: It gets going really quickly. You see like, okay, these are two guys who are being dumped by the women in their lives. And the script is called Wingmen. I suspect they’re going to buddy up and help each other out. See the guy in his 60s and a guy in his mid-20s and they’re going to help each other out. And so I get the conceit of the character.

The Amy character is so horrible; I want her to be eaten by sled dogs. She says just the meanest things. And not in sort of like a really funny way. I didn’t… — Weirdly I had… — This happens sometimes in movies: if you see somebody who is in a relationship with somebody who is just terrible you stop having sympathy for them at a certain point. It’s like, “Why are you with this person?” So I felt that with Amy.

**Craig:** Uh…yeah. Okay, well, and by the way, I kind of suspect that this is a father and son thing. I don’t know why.

**John:** Oh, maybe.

**Craig:** I think that’s what the payoff will be. But, look, Andrew, come here. Come here, buddy. Let’s sit down, okay, let’s have a drink. You and me.

So, you got your drink? Good. I’ve got mine, too. I have written stuff like this before. Okay? So don’t take this the wrong way. This does not mean that you stink. It just means these pages stink. Okay?

I’m glad you got these out of your system. They’re terrible, but I understand why you wrote them this way, because I’ve done it before. When I was starting out, I would do this a lot. What you’re doing is you’re supplanting clever and quippy for human. These are not human beings. They are little joke glands you’re squeezing to get out lines that you think are clever. Frankly, none of them are that clever anyway, and the worst thing about being clever is you never really get credit for it anyway.

People smile at clever things. Your job as a comedy writer is to be making them laugh. To make people laugh in a theater, it’s not easy. God knows I know it’s not easy. You’re trying to cause an involuntary physical response. It’s a tough deal, okay?

People laugh when they see human things happening. They can identify with the humanity in it. Even if it’s slapstick it is partly about connecting with the humanity of it. The issue with this stuff is none of these people are real. Nobody breaks up like this. Nobody talks like this.

Oh, ah, Marshall says — he’s the older man — “You’re leaving me?” Brooke, “I don’t like to think of it as leaving. More like escaping.” I mean, that line alone is brutal. I mean, escaping from — first of all, I’m like, “What? Was he beating her? What was going on that she needs to escape?” And it’s so cold. And by the way, that’s not the character that John is talking about, who’s even worse.

Then Marshall says, “Is there anything I should do?” Which is a weird thing to say. And he’s not upset oddly, and she says, “Ah! I almost forgot. I need you to sign the divorce papers.” How? Really? You almost forgot? And the divorce papers were shoved in your purse? And he didn’t know? And he just goes ahead and signs the? Without even reading them?

And then when he says, “How long have you been carrying these around?” “Since I started seeing Ian. Sign on the…” “I know where to sign. You’re cheating on me?” Really?

This just doesn’t feel like humans responding to human things. The Amy situation is much worse because Amy just seems sociopathic. You have to ask yourself: Why was this person with this other person in the first place? I mean, he says, “We’re going to sit here and we’re going to talk this out. You can’t just throw away nine years like that.” Nine years of what? Living with this psycho? It’s crazy.

Then let’s go back to Marshall. And listen, Andrew, I know this sucks, okay? But we have to do this because I want you to get this out of your system. Okay?

Your first scene with Marshall and Brooke. Marshall is oddly calm. “(Not upset),” in parentheses, “Is there anything I should do?” “Here. Sign the divorce papers.” “Okay. You’re cheating on me?”

Next scene. “You’re such a bitch.” What?!

Then he starts talking about her tits. And now he’s complaining about the tits and now doing a joke about gravity and Parkinson’s, like a boob joke. And now she’s doing a dick joke. None of this makes me understand a single thing about who these people are. Does this really hurt either one of them? Are they real? Is this the way people really do breakup?

No. Not even in comedies. Okay? So, I want you to say with me, Andrew, because I’m your friend. Because you’re a comedy writer and we’re all friends, okay? So say this with me: I’m going to let go of this clever stuff and I’m going to start writing people. And when I write people, unless I’m writing a spoof, and then you can be an absolute idiot, okay? It grants you full license. But if you’re writing a movie that’s a romantic comedy like this is going to be, then find the comedy in the real stuff. And you can push it a little bit, but you can’t do this.

**John:** No.

A few craft things I want to talk about along the way, as he’s rewriting this, and as people are reading along with this. I kind of liked what he said about Justin, “27 years old and lean, with a mop of curls on his head and a face that only knows puppy dog sincerity.” Sure.

But he introduces both Justin and Amy in the same very, very long sentence. That sentence is five lines long. No. Don’t do that. Shorten. Each of them, they’re main characters, they deserve their own sentence. Break that into two sentences.

Both of these introductory scenes would be so much better if we cut out the first lines of them. So if the first line of the movie were actually Amy’s, “I’m keeping the apartment, so technically you’re the one who’s leaving.” That’s a much funnier start of a scene than, “You’re leaving me?”

**Craig:** That’s a great note.

**John:** Start with the answer rather than the question. And then you can cut out Marshall’s question, too. Start with Brooke like, “I don’t like to think of it as leaving, more like escaping.” That’s a good start, a funny line of a scene. Kind of everything that follows after it has to change. But it’s not a bad way to start a scene.

**Craig:** I just want to interrupt you for a second. This is why I love what you’re saying. Because by cutting out that lead-in line, my mind will fill in that there was a reasonable, rational, human exchange that led to that line. But with the lead-in line there isn’t, because it’s not. So that’s a great, great note.

**John:** Cool.

Beyond that, my notes are your notes, but probably kinder and softer, but maybe some tough love was needed.

I get what he’s kind of going for here. I think he’s just so desperate to sort of start the comedy engine that he’s not taking the time to actually make these people real human beings. And he’s making the two women so unlikeable that we don’t know what kind of reality that we’re in.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s another danger here, too. I’ve read a million comedy scripts, so I’m going to tell you what happens in this one. These two guys are going to get together and they’re going to go looking for women. And they both feel beaten up by women and angry at women. And then they’re going to meet women and those women are going to change their minds. Naturally.

The problem is the script starts off extraordinarily misogynistically. [laughs] There’s nothing wrong with one mean woman. I loved, I loved Rachel Harris, right, in The Hangover. That’s her name, right? Rachel Harris, the actress?

**John:** Yeah, she’s awesome. Blonde.

**Craig:** Yeah. The blonde one. Exactly. Who’s married to Ed Helms. Are they married? No, they’re going to be married. They’re engaged to be married, I think.

**John:** Congratulations to them.

**Craig:** And she was hysterical because she was this over the top horror show, but I also understood that he was an absolute weenie. That was his character. He had no spine at all. That’s why their relationship was stable. He was the beaten wife and it was actually kind of funny. But, it came inside the context of a movie where another one of his friends is getting married to a really nice girl who’s a normal, healthy human being that isn’t mean or awful.

We are starting the movie with two mean, awful, cold women. And I’ve got to tell you, there isn’t a single woman in the audience who’s going to be interested in watching past that because, frankly, it’s insulting.

It’s also just not honest. I don’t think it’s honest. And if comedy is false it’s just not going to work.

**John:** Let’s think about those first two scenes where we’re meeting the guys, if they are going to be our protagonists for the course of the movie those scenes need to be about them. And it needs to give us a sense of what they need to accomplish over the course of the movie. So, your description about Ed Helms is apt. It’s like, you know, Rachel Harris’s character was there to let us see what was wrong with him and where he needed to grow. So, as he’s rewriting these scenes and figuring out how this movie starts, those scenes need to be about those guys and not about the relationship falling apart.

**Craig:** 100 percent. Because all I know about these guys is that they made really bad choices of women. I don’t know what’s wrong with them. They are the protagonists. It has to be about them. All the more reason, frankly, if these women are leaving that they should be right. The women should be correct to leave.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** Those are our pages.

**Craig:** But Andrew. Andrew, I’m serious dude, you can do this. Everybody that writes comedies makes this mistake at some point. You made yours. You can do this; I believe in you.

**John:** Yeah. Step away from the balcony.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Terrance, Andrew, and Mario, thank you so much for writing in with your three page samples. That was very brave of you and I hope it was helpful. I hope we gave you useful things to think about with this script and with the next thing. And thank you for sharing with everybody else who’s going to read these pages and get some sense of how they might want to start telling their stories.

I think the time has come for our One Cool Things. And you have a very cool thing this week in that you’re going to play us a song.

**Craig:** I’m going to play a song. That’s right. Do you have a cool — and by the way, because we have 100,000 people listening.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve consistently crossed over our 100,000 barrier. So we have a lot of good listeners out there. And 100,000 of them, at least, which is amazing.

**Craig:** It’s awesome.

**John:** And nuts. So, you will play us out this week so there won’t be a normal song, so I guess I should do my Cool Thing now, and then we can just be done.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So my Cool Thing, I recognize that a lot of times the Cool Things are like, “buy this product,” and that’s never the intention. I don’t want to have an Amazon link for everything that we talk about. So my One Cool Thing is absolutely free, which this week is the LA Public Library, and your local public library if you don’t live in Los Angeles.

Because the thing is I sort of stopped going to the library for many years until I had a kid, and then you go to the library because it saves you from having to buy a gazillion books. And so you just take them to the library and they pick a bunch of books off the shelf, and you return them after three weeks.

What’s weird is going back to the library as a grown up and recognizing that libraries are kind of amazing. It’s sort of like Netflix, but for books. And that you don’t have to like actually purchase things, you can just borrow them, and then when you’re done with them they go away and they don’t have to live in your house anymore. Because so much of what I read now I read on the Kindle or through iBooks or whatever. And that’s great for like the modern books, or the new book that you read about online and you really want to read the book.

What’s so good about the library is it’s not just… — The books that are on the shelves aren’t necessarily books that you would ever want to buy. They’re books that you wonder why they’re on the shelf at all, and that’s kind of amazing.

So these last couple weeks at the LA Public Library, I found The Anarchist Cookbook, which I can’t believe is actually…to me it always felt like the Necronomicon, like — one of those things that’s rumored but doesn’t actually exist.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But The Anarchist Cookbook, which was this sort of famous book of the late ’60s, which told you how to build bombs and stab police officers, is actually on the shelf there, which I thought was kind of amazing.

This last week I discovered that our local library actually has big books of sheet music. So there are piano songs I want to learn — they’re right there. So I would say go visit your local public library. It’s not just for homeless people who want to get out of the rain. It’s a useful resource that’s out there. And just take advantage of it. Go in there and wander.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Some of my favorite childhood memories are going with my dad to the New Dorp Library in Staten Island. New Dorp. [laughs] It’s one of the great names. New York was sort of founded and settled by the Dutch, so there are a lot of strange Dutch names. And the New Dorp Public Library was this wonderful old east coast institutional building. It was the kind that had the fallout shelter signs, you know. It was very midcentury-ish.

And I loved it. I loved going. And I would just go and just look through the stacks until I found a book that interested me. And I would always walk away with three, or four, or five of them because I loved reading. And I take my kids to the La Cañada Public Library, and it’s a great thing.

And for those of you who do live in Los Angeles, if you haven’t been to the big downtown library, just go and walk around to marvel at it. It’s gorgeous. It’s just a beautiful building. Absolutely beautiful. Even if you’re not there for a book, you just want to walk around. It’s spectacular.

**John:** Growing up, one of my favorite libraries in Boulder was this little small library they built into the Meadows Shopping Center. And it seemed so weird to stick a library in a shopping center, but it was actually kind of genius because it was around places where people already were. And so people could just, like, drop into the library. And it was close to the grocery store. I liked that it sort of took away the fanciness of like it’s its own building and has this great thing. Like, no, it’s part of the mall and you can go in there and get the books you want to get.

And libraries in all forms are great. And I think I had sort of forgotten about them until I had a kid and ended up going to the library more. They’re cool.

**Craig:** Yeah. Fantastic.

**John:** And also I should say: we’ve been trying to get rid of a lot of books. We’re sort of doing a house purge. And I have this sort of rule that if it’s a book that I haven’t touched in five years, I don’t think I’ll touch in the next five years, it’s better off on somebody else’s shelf. And so the library has been taking a lot of our old books and they sell them in book sales and they make some money. So libraries are also a great way to part with the books that you believe should be on someone else’s shelf.

**Craig:** For sure.

**John:** Cool.

So, Craig, it’s come to that time. So, what setup do we need to do for your song? Tell us about this?

**Craig:** There’s no real setup. I initially tried to figure out how to run my acoustic — I have an acoustic electric, so it’s an acoustic guitar but there’s a little pickup inside. And I bought this little Behringer thing to connect in directly so I could record the guitar on one track and my voice on the other. That thing does not work at all. [laughs] Could not get it to work at all. So, I think I’m just going to play guitar and sing into one mic. So, it’s going to sound a little different because I’ve got to adjust the mic and whatever.

But the song is by John Prine and it’s called Killing the Blues. It was made slightly more popular by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.

**John:** Krauss, yeah.

**Craig:** Is that right?

**John:** Yeah. Alison Krauss.

**Craig:** Yeah. Alison Kraus. And it’s short, so it won’t bore you. And there you go.

**John:** Great. Craig, thank you very much. Have a great week and we’ll let you play us out. Thanks. Bye.

**Craig:** Here we go.

[Strums and sings]

Sorry about all the bus noise. But no sirens!

« 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.