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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: index cards

Scriptnotes, Episode 502: Free Will (Or, It’s Okay to Not Be a Screenwriter), Transcript

August 4, 2022 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/free-will-or-its-okay-to-not-be-a-screenwriter).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 502 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we keep saying it’s important that characters make choices that effect the story, but of course they really don’t. We’ll tackle the problem of free will as it applies to both fictional heroes and real life screenwriters. We’ll also answer listener questions about unready scripts and what happens after an option expires.

And in our bonus segment for premium members let’s discuss AP classes. Are they worth it? And what did we actually learn?

**Craig:** Oh, you just put a big old pitch right there. Right down the middle for me. Oh, I’ve been sitting on that fast ball. Here it comes.

**John:** All right. As always what actually is being discussed in an episode is a complete surprise to Craig. He’s not allowed to look at the outline ahead of time.

**Craig:** I mean, I’m allowed to. [laughs]

**John:** So this is all going to be Off-the-Cuff Mazin.

**Craig:** Basically the way it works is I’m like a hostage that gets – somebody puts a bag over my head and takes me somewhere. I don’t know where I am and then the bag comes off and they’re like, “Talk!” That’s how I am on these shows. And you know what? It works.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like improv theater but he’s the only person who has to improv.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s like I’m an improv artist but I’m working with people that have read a script. It’s very weird. No one else is improving. Just me. I’ve got to figure out how to make it work. And you know what? It does work.

**John:** Yeah. That was probably Robin Williams on many of his films.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m the Robin Williams of Scriptnotes.

**John:** You are the Robin Williams of the podcast.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Last week on the show we talked about the Breaker Upperers. And Fred wrote back in who said, “I just heard the episode and I realize I wrote Australia rather than New Zealand.”

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** “A perhaps even greater mistake than Craig swapping of Liverpool and Manchester. If possible please relay my sincere apologies to all the New Zealand listeners. In my haste to promote a great, under-seen movie I committed a grave error.”

**Craig:** You know, Fred, it’s OK. And I’ve got to tell you it’s not a greater mistake than the one I made. So, football fans in Liverpool and Manchester are not known for their own calm demeanor and forgiving natures. But everyone I’ve met from New Zealand has been the loveliest person ever. Everyone. It’s not that I’ve met a ton of people from New Zealand, but if you ever go to French Polynesia, for instance, you will run into quite a few Kiwis because it’s pretty close and they can hop over there. And they’re all lovely.

Melanie Lynskey, one of the best actors on the planet, from New Zealand. Maybe the nicest person who has ever been born. That’s right. And I’m including Jesus in that.

**John:** Yeah. Former Scriptnotes guest, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** There’s a whole bunch of talented people there. So, and including Taika Waititi who has never been a guest. I should have noticed when I read Fred’s statement on the air that like, wait, it’s Taika Waititi, that’s probably New Zealand and not Australia, but I didn’t question it at that moment.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So I regret my part in–

**Craig:** Everyone, it’s going to be OK. Because no one from New Zealand is going to yell at you. That’s what I’m saying. They’re forgiving, wonderful people.

**John:** A second bit of follow up, we talked in the game show segment, so this is a premium segment, so a follow up on a premium segment which I think is fair. I think it’s fair.

**Craig:** We can do that.

**John:** We can do that. One of the questions asked of us like what did we say was the death of screenwriters. And the answer was apparently we said many times on the show that children are the death of screenwriters. I was just reading an article this last week and Seth Rogan pointed out, oh, the reason why I get so much done is I have no kids. And it’s the first time I’d seen a person in the last ten years actually say that out loud. But I want to link to the article about that.

**Craig:** Other than us.

**John:** Other than us. And so sometimes we look at people’s output of work and it’s like, oh, did they have kids/did they not have kids? And in the case of Seth Rogan who is like I don’t have kids, I don’t want kids, and that’s why I get so much done.

**Craig:** I’m glad we’re all talking about it. And this is not anti-kid actually.

**John:** No. I’m pro-kid.

**Craig:** Yeah. We love our children. And anybody that has children, look, so at some point they’re going to make you insane. That’s just a fact. Pete Holmes, the standup comedian Pete Holmes, has this great bit about how when his wife gave birth to their first child they’re in the hospital and all the nurses keep coming by and saying, “By the way, don’t shake the baby,” and there are all these signs like don’t shake a baby. Never shake a baby. And they’re like who shakes a baby? And he goes what they don’t tell you is you’re going to want to shake that baby. And it’s true. It’s really, really true.

But it’s something that’s so impactful in your life that it is beyond the concept of regret. It is sort of life-changing and wonderful. But it definitely – it will reduce your output. That’s OK. I think it’s a perfect tradeoff.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Output and productivity are not the judge of a great life.

**John:** Yeah. So I just wanted to sort of point this out to acknowledge that like if you are going to have kids you’re going to take a hit in your productivity and that’s just actually fine and normal. And I think if we don’t talk about that then people might say like, oh, I used to be so much better, what happened. And it’s like what happened is you had kids. And so it’s something that every writer goes through when they have a new life in their house.

**Craig:** Yeah. We should acknowledge it impacts women more than men.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yet it doesn’t not impact men.

**John:** It’s true. Also in the news this week, everybody is merging. So, Warners and Discovery. They’re going to be combined together. So Discovery is HGTV and Discovery Network and Food Network. A bunch of other what we used to think of as cable channels but are of course just slices of reality programming. They’re going to be merging together. And it looks like Amazon and MGM are also going to combine. So, really Amazon is going to swallow up MGM.

**Craig:** That one is really something else. I got an email earlier this week from Casey Bloys who runs HBO and it basically said, “Hey, just so you know, nothing is going to change in terms of what we’re doing together and everything is cool. Just business as usual. Don’t worry about it.” And I was like, great. What’s he talking about? [laughs] I had no idea what he was talking about.

And so I looked online and then I tried to understand what happened. And I must admit the concept of a corporate spinoff is not necessarily something I have a great grasp on. But what I could get was that AT&T sold Warner Bros, the whole Warner Bros conglomeration to Discovery but also still owns most of it. I don’t understand. They own like 70% but Discovery is in charge of it? Maybe that’s what it means?

**John:** Well I think it’s just like if they both extended pseudo pods towards each other and the pseudo pods merged together to form a bigger blob of a company.

**Craig:** I see.

**John:** That is better positioned to take on Disney.

**Craig:** I don’t see at all. [laughs] I don’t understand.

**John:** I think it’s also interesting because the guy who is running Discovery will probably end up running this whole new thing. And even as you said, oh, that’s right you’re making a show for HBO, which is Warners. And I’m making a movie for Warners. And so it’s weird that the Discovery guy is going to ultimately have an impact on sort of both of our lives, which is just weird. And the way that everything is streaming now, it doesn’t matter that I’m making a theatrical movie and you’re making a TV series. It’s kind of all the same.

**Craig:** Well, this seems like a great time to point out how wonderful the guy who runs Discovery is and how much I admire him, or her, and think they’re just beautiful, and handsome, and kind. And don’t take any money out of our budget please. That’s all I’m really asking here.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** Leave our budget alone.

**John:** What if it turns out that the guy who runs Discovery actually just hates videogames and hates anything post-apocalyptic?

**Craig:** He’s in a weird business. I mean, the Discovery Channel definitely loves everything.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I don’t know what impact – I suspect that I have always been shielded, like a child, from all of the corporate shenanigans that go on. And so I will never sense what they are in this case either. But the Amazon/MGM thing is startling. Because Discovery has been in business on television for many, many years. Amazon is purely an Internet company and now they own the oldest, I guess, even if it’s not technically old, it feels like the oldest film company in our business. This historic Hollywood studio that lately – and when I say lately I mean in the last 20 years – was really more of just a distribution channel for James Bond movies and not much else.

**John:** And Creed. But yeah. Rocky.

**Craig:** And Rocky. It had things it did, but mostly it was kind of living off of the library. And it is kind of startling that the lion going roar is now owned by Amazon.

**John:** Yeah. So in my time in Hollywood it’s always been a thing with MGM is like who owns the MGM library. The asset was really the MGM library which would keep getting shuttled around from place, to place, to place. I have no idea what MGM actually owns of their library at this point. Amazon gets the Bond movie. They get other things and potential things they can remake. And again it’s always about streaming. So they get more stuff for Amazon Prime Video which is how they make their money in the entertainment industry.

**Craig:** And how – so MGM released Wizard of Oz.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But Wizard of Oz is controlled by Warner Bros because of some strange real estate transaction that occurred in the ‘80s I believe.

**John:** Yeah. I’m not sure how that all happened. But it has done very well by me, so I’m happy it happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. I feel like Warner Bros owned some sort of bit of real estate that Columbia – remember the whole thing when Sony bought Columbia and then they put those two guys in charge and it was a train wreck? And one of the things they did was try and get back some real estate from Warner Bros and trade it at MGM. Something crazy happened. I don’t understand it.

This episode should be called Craig Doesn’t Know How Business Works.

**John:** But at some point we should talk about LA real estate and the entertainment industry because it is so fascinating how much LA has been shaped by where those studios were placed originally and how the failure of Cleopatra is why we have Century City.

**Craig:** That’s right. And furthermore a studio that no longer exists like Fox, because Fox was purchased by Disney and is controlled by Disney mostly, that – my guess is that the real estate–

**John:** Oh my god. Worth so much.

**Craig:** Is worth more than Fox. That’s really the big prize there is the land. Because you can put at this point now soundstages – people just stick them out wherever. Like Santa Clarita, which is about an hour north of where you live, they got a whole bunch of soundstages up there because land is cheap. But Paramount and Fox and Sony, that land is invaluable.

**John:** Yeah. So at some point we’ll bring somebody on who can tell us about the actual history of the land in Los Angeles and how the studios shaped it. It feels a little bit more like some other person’s podcast, but we can do it.

**Craig:** You know what? It probably is. Maybe we’ll go on their show.

**John:** Yeah, that’s what we’ll do.

**Craig:** I’ll be just as unprepared.

**John:** All right. I want to talk about free will. And so the reason that this came up in my brain–

**Craig:** Do you want to talk about free will or do you have to talk about free will?

**John:** That’s really the question. Was it always predestined that we were going to talk about free will in this episode and that you’d be 15 minutes late because you confronted by production concerns? What got me thinking about it was this article I read by Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian and it’s really looking at this issue that philosophers have been grappling from the very start and now increasingly because of modern science they realized like, oh, you know what, free will probably is not quite what we think it is. And by free will let’s talk about sort of defining our terms. Free will being the ability for a person to make their own choices. To have agency. To decide what they’re going to do. That they’re not being forced to do a thing.

The problem comes from our understanding of physics and science these days is that things don’t just happen kind of spontaneously. There’s always a past event that sort of anticipated what’s happening next. And there’s just the billiard balls banging through the universe, except on a very small quantum level you can kind of always predict what’s going to happen.

**Craig:** Right. This is one of those great college chats. I sometimes think that it’s a bit of a pointless discussion because in the end we don’t know and we can’t know. But I side generally with the people who say we do not have free will as we understand free will. Because I literally don’t understand how free will could possibly exist.

**John:** Yeah. Where you are an independent agent who at this moment can make any choice you want to make because there’s nothing behind that.

**Craig:** Well, right, because I don’t understand how choices can be made without precursors. And we are nothing – I mean, when we try and analyze what consciousness is we really stumble around in the dark because we’re asking a microscope to stare at itself. So, just observer error is baked in. And we want to believe we have free will because we’re experiencing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct.

The fact that there are optical illusions should tell us everything we need to know about the accuracy of our brains.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s different levels of sort of how much people believe in free will on a philosophical level. And there’s people who truly think that we can do anything at any point. They’re kind of falling out of favor because that’s clearly not the case.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** There are strict determinists who say, no, literally you are on rails this entire time. You are not making any choices. And then there’s some compatibilism which is basically yes but it’s also – you can say that free will is an illusion, but it’s a common illusion to a lot of our other experiences. And like consciousness is an illusion. We recognize that what we experience from the outside world is not really the outside world. And that we are constantly living in this – it’s not even a simulation, it’s just like we are trying to synthetize a bunch of outside forces and it’s not really what’s happening outside of us.

**Craig:** Correct. The world that we see is not the world at all.

**John:** So that’s the struggle for us in the real world, but let’s talk about it in terms of people who really have no choice which are the characters in the stories we write, which is really what I want to focus on today. Because one of the struggles we have as screenwriters is we want to create characters who feel like they are making valid choices. That they are in a real world and that their choices have impact. But of course as creators we know they really don’t because we are limiting the choices they could make. We are basically making the choices for them and trying to make it seem like they’re making their own choices themselves. It’s like a very talented sleight of hand magician who says like pick a card, any card, but of course they are forcing you to take a specific card.

**Craig:** That’s exactly what we’re doing. It is that principle of magic. We are forcing cards. So, the trick to a lot of magic is convincing people that they are really choosing from a bunch of things. And that is what we do with our characters. We need the audience to believe, and we have to give the audience evidence that our characters have real choices to make.

And that means we have to bait those traps. We have to make them tempting. We have to make them reasonable. We have to allow the audience to experience a kinship with the character so they imagine themselves in that position and can feel what it’s like to be torn between two options. Even as the audience understands which of those will be chosen. And that’s the fascinating part to me.

We know what they’re going to do. We know what they’re going to choose in certain genres. But we still feel like maybe they won’t.

**John:** All right. Let’s zoom back and take a look at creating a story when we’re at sort of the whiteboard stage of the index card stage. And we need to make it feel like our protagonists are actually making choices that impact the world. And what are some of the things we’re going to do to set that character up for success and make it feel like they are making choices that are valid.

We talk a lot about where is this character coming from, what is the origin, what do they want. Really we’re kind of trying to decide what is a want to give that character that will help drive the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. And so the want generates a single sort of choice that you would imagine, right? I want that guy. So I just want to choose a guy. But then what do we have to do as screenwriters, we have to fire all of these other choices at that person to muddle their minds. We have to distract them. We have to pull them off the path.

There is of many, many Thief of Baghdad remakes there was one – I talk about this all the time. I just, maybe I’m wrong, maybe it wasn’t the Thief of Baghdad, but it was definitely a movie where there was a treasure cave and they had to go get something at the end of the treasure cave, it was the best treasure of them all. And the trick was you have to stay on the path to that treasure. But the cave would show you illusions on either side of the path and if you fell into that temptation and stepped off the path you would turn to stone. And so the place was full of treasure and statues.

**John:** Yeah. Aladdin has a similar kind of thing in the Cave of Wonders.

**Craig:** There you go. And so this is our job is if the choice is simple, I want that guy, then my job as a screenwriter is to show you different guys. My job is also to have somebody lie to you about the guy you want so that you don’t want that guy. This is what we do. We confuse and muddle and therefore create frustration in the audience. That frustration will ultimately be released. We want to see, just like when we go to a magic show we want to see the magician succeed. Also we want to see them fail. So it’s like they have to give us the sense that they are really struggling. That’s part of the showmanship. So that when they finally do pull it out you’re like, “Yes!”

**John:** Now, what you’re describing in terms of throwing other choices at that character and other options is valid, but if we just did that then it would seem like – you’d feel the heavy hand of the writer.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Because you’d feel like, oh, all this stuff is being thrown at them and they’re not actually proactively making choices. And so you’re also doing this thing where you’re looking at it from their point of view and it’s like, OK, what are reasonable things that that character could do in this moment? If they have their overall goal of getting that guy, what are their next strategies? What are their next tactics for what are they going to do next?

And so you’re trying to balance this like what is their overall thing, what would they actually realistically do next. And how do you set up those next choices in a way that moves your story forward but also feels valid for the characters, so it doesn’t feel like that character is just on rails.

**Craig:** And in this sense we are creating a maze. And there are lots of different ways to get to the end of the maze. It’s a very good thing as a screenwriter to lead your character into a place where you’re not quite sure how they’re going to get back towards where they’re going.

You allow three different doors and you imply that only one door is accurate or good, and the other two are doomed. But you know of course they’re not. As a DM when I’m DMing and you guys are playing you’re not on rails. You can do anything. And I know that I have to get you from A to B. Everything that happens in between A and B can be as squiggly and as backwards moving as we want. Moving away from things. Being inefficient in your path. These are all ways that we create the illusion of free will.

Especially when a character is choosing something that clearly is not going to move them toward their goal.

**John:** Absolutely. So D&D is essentially a conversation. Yes, you may have a map that you’re looking at, but it’s essentially a conversation about what choices are our player characters going to make. But I’m thinking back to fantasy videogames and so often you recognize that it feels like you can go anywhere. And really you can at any moment. I could go over there, go in this direction. But if you actually look at level design those levels are designed in very clever ways that like, OK, there really is one path through this. And it looks like you could go anywhere, but ultimately you’re going to go one way through. So how things are sloped, where you can walk, where you can’t walk, what doors are open, what doors are not open.

There is generally a linear path through that and careful level design makes it feel like you don’t sort of see the path, but it’s just there. And that really is what we’re talking about in terms of the whiteboard stage of a movie is that you’re doing level design. So there’s really one path the character is going to take through the story, and yet they’re not aware of it, and the audience is not aware that they were locked to that path.

**Craig:** And we can mess with the path. We can create gates. And in stories if it seems like there’s too direct of a path towards what the character will want through their will then you put a gate up. And the gate swings on a test. So, if you need to get – if you want that job and we say like if you work hard you get the job, well just work hard. Work hard for five minutes and you’ll get the job. In the movie it doesn’t work that way. The problem is there is a gate and that’s the person who already has the job.

Now, what do we do to move that person out of the job? And in D&D there may be a real simple, boring path that would cheat you guys of the story. And usually there’s a gate. There’s something that’s blocking you. And sometimes there isn’t. And sometimes you actually can just sort of go really fast and usually if you get through something really fast you should feel a sinking sense that perhaps you should not have wished for this. That there is something even worse – there is a punishment for essentially not having to work for what you want.

It’s punishing you for not exercising enough free will or enough illusion of free will.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about those gates or really decision points, decision tree points, and it’s making sure that when a character hits one of those moments it really does feel like a choice. That the choice was not so predestined that like, well, of course they’re going to take this way. That there actually are pros and cons to both things. And there’s a cost to taking either version. And that’s something you do hopefully think about on the whiteboard version, but really as you get into scenes that’s where you have to be clever about how you’re communicating what the choice really is. And so that we actually see that character making the choice.

It may not be dialogue. It may literally be they can pursue her or not pursue her, or decide what they’re going to do. But we need to believe they actually could decide not to do that thing. And most times we’re going to want them to take an action versus not take an action, because we want to see characters actively engaging in their environment. But, we have to believe they could just sit there.

**Craig:** Yes. And we can also emphasize the character’s inherent misperception of reality. It makes us feel like they have free will when they make a choice and within a scene they realize that they had misunderstood even what the choices were and therefore they reverse course and make a different choice. Or they stop in their path and question whether or not they should continue. Those kinds of things, those confusions, begin to mimic the way we move through real life. We may think we have free will because when we start the day we literally don’t know what’s going to happen next. We have some theories. And our characters have theories.

It’s important to give a character a theory.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** When they go into a scene they should have a theory of how it should go. An expectation. And then our job as screenwriters is to either reinforce that expectation so much that the character becomes paranoid that people are messing with them, or subvert the expectation in some way so the character has to figure out what to do next. Otherwise, you just end up with a boring day at the office.

**John:** Absolutely. So we want characters to have some sort of agenda. Basically you say expectation. Agenda would be a more proactive way of like this is how they see these things going. And we get to mess with them and interrupt their agenda. But just as important that we believe the protagonists are capable of making their own choices. We want to believe that the people surrounding the protagonists also have free will. That they actually could do things and they’re not just there to service that protagonist.

And when I see bad writing I often encounter characters, I don’t believe that they’re real because I don’t think they would do that thing that is just there to help our story. That it’s just there to provide an obstacle or provide support to our protagonist. You want to write these characters in a way that makes it feel like they could have not done that. They could have gone somewhere else. They didn’t have to say that thing.

And that’s one of the trickiest things to do in scene work sometimes is that you’re trying to make the scene efficient and also feel real and reality is not efficient.

**Craig:** Correct. Reality is a big old mess. And it’s confusing. If we think about The Matrix which is about free will as much as it is about anything, one way of looking at that movie is to think of the Oracle character as the Wachowskis. The Oracle is the screenwriter. If I put myself in a movie, me, Craig, as the writer in a movie that I’m writing and I’m sitting there and a character walks in I know everything. I know what’s happened. And I know what’s going to happen.

Also, I have total confidence that if that character says, “Am I the one?” And I say, “Uh, you’re not, sorry.” That they’re going to believe me and that that’s what they needed to hear. But I also know that that’s going to lead to them being free to do certain things because they no longer have the burden of feeling like they’re the one, so they’re going to start to do things, and thus they will be the one which they must be because I’ve written it.

And that’s the fun of that investigation. That you say to somebody, “You see this world you’re living in? You don’t have free will in this world. You’re actually part of a massive computer simulation,” which we all are anyway. “We’re going to show you the real world.” Except when you’re in the real world you’re also in a simulation. You’re in a freaking movie. And that’s the fun of it is that once you envelope people in the quirkiness and the backwards motion and the confusion they forget that it’s entirely determined.

The people with the least free will are the people we write. We literally chose everything for them. But it seems like they’re doing it. Isn’t that fun?

**John:** It is fun. And so we are creating these characters. We’re doing these things that we’re telling them to do. And it’s being played by actors who are reciting the lines that we wrote for them and having the whole scene being controlled by a director who is following our script but also following their own instincts. So, there’s so many levels of unreality being forced upon this.

And the fact that we can watch these stories and sort of believe and sort of accept them as being real is a testament to craft and our brains and sort of how art works. Basically even recognize that you’re seeing a simulation, you enjoy the simulation and it feels real to you because you can imagine yourself being in that situation.

**Craig:** Yeah. And when you’re writing these things, if you can try and surprise yourself then the odds are that the illusion of free choice/free will will be stronger. And of course we can’t really surprise ourselves because, again, it’s all determined. But if it feels like in your mind things are sort of unfolding in a fairly obvious, pat way, just try and throw something at it. See if you can – just surprise yourself. What would this person do that would be entirely unexpected?

Particularly if it feels like the scene you’re writing is something you’ve seen, or felt a lot. What do you do to make it different? And that will help also.

Because if you’re watching something and you think, oh, I’ve seen this scene quite a few times, the free will of it all kind of gets exploded. You just – it’s gone. Because those people are just copies.

**John:** Yeah. You’re watching a magic trick that you already know how the magic trick works because you’ve seen it a zillion times and it’s just not interesting anymore. There’s no surprise. Even if it’s really efficiently done, I can only see that magic trick a certain number of times to say like I don’t quite know how that magic trick works, but I know it’s a thing, and it’s just not interesting to me anymore.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** All right. So, in no part of our conversation about free will have we talked about three-act-structure and hitting plot points and how movies are supposed to work. And how official guidelines for sort of how things should be structured. And that’s sort of by design because I feel like structure as you often read in screenwriting books feels like it’s just – like here’s how you build the rails to sort of bring a character through a movie. This is how movies work. Put them on this track. And we’re arguing against that.

Yes, there probably is going to be a track and you’re going to build that track. But if you just are using somebody else’s track it’s not going to work. It’s not going to feel real.

**Craig:** Yeah. Those things are, as I’ve said, I think I said in my How to Write a Movie episode, those things are post-mortems. They are not guides for creating new life. They are simply excellent – sometimes – excellent analyses of dead bodies. They are things that already happened. They’re taking them apart and showing you, look, this connects to this and this connects to this. Has no relation to creation as far as I’m concerned. None.

And if you follow those things you will have something that looks kind of like a person, or it seems kind of like a movie, but really it’s just a boring kind of copy of stuff.

**John:** Yeah. Now, you may have started your interest in screenwriting by reading one of those books and at this point you may be questioning like, wow, do I even want to be a screenwriter, because what John and Craig are saying feels kind of unapproachable and sort of just how am I supposed to do all of these things at once. And I want to segue our conversation from looking at free will for characters to free will for screenwriters. Because a thing I think we don’t talk about enough on the show is it’s OK to not be a screenwriter.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I’m reading this book by Adam Grant called Think Again. And one of the points he makes in the book is that so often people pick a career, pick an interest, and sort of like double down on that interest without ever giving themselves permission to sort of question whether like, wow, is this even a thing I really like?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I think we need to give people more permission to say like you can enjoy us talking about screenwriting. It’s absolutely fine if you don’t want to be a screenwriter yourself at all. Or never write a scene. That’s OK.

**Craig:** 100%. And similarly it’s OK if you are a screenwriter and want to stop.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** Dennis Palumbo who was with us on Episode 99 – feels like we’re due to have him back, right?

**John:** We should.

**Craig:** Oscar-nominated screenwriter. And now therapist. And he’s been a therapist for many, many years. And one of the areas of his practice is aside from helping writers navigate through their lives, he also specializes in mid-life career changes, which can be traumatic for people because it violates this concept we have vocation. Vocation as in a calling. You are called by some higher power to do something. And then at some point you realize, wait, I don’t like it that much. Or, I don’t know if I’m actually that good at this. Or, I’m good at it, and I like it, but I want to try something new.

All of these things can be very disruptive and it’s OK to go through that process of disrupting these things. If you are pursuing the path of being a screenwriter and it’s not going anywhere you are bombarded with these messages of “don’t quit.” Don’t be a quitter. And persistence. That’s the key is persistence.

**John:** That’s what it is. Yeah.

**Craig:** I don’t know if persistence is the key. I’ve got to be honest. I don’t know if it is.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a concept that’s in Adam Grant’s book, I don’t know if he created it or if he pulled it from someplace else called Identity Foreclosure. And that’s when you fixate on one vision of yourself, or who you’ll become to the exclusion of all other ones.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** And it’s a thing that I see happening a lot in my daughter. Our kids are 15/16 and they get really – they go through phases where it’s like I’m going to be a rocket scientist. I’m going to be this. I’m going to be – and it’s so completely natural, but so unhelpful because it’s not asking the right question. It’s not asking the question like what are you really interested in. It’s thinking like, oh, I will do this job because then I’ll be this and I’ll make this much money and then I will be happy. And ultimately they’re getting to like they want to feel satisfied and happy and secure but they’re focusing on the job rather than what they actually would want to be doing on a daily basis.

**Craig:** And this is not new.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** When you and I were children they called it an Identity Crisis and I was always told teenagers go through identity crises where they are like who am I and what am I supposed to be. And I always felt like what a strange question who am I. I’m me. What other options are there?

But there is this desire to define yourself because if you do it’s like I’m finished. I’m completed. I no longer have to feel like I’m free falling or failing at things or grasping for who I am. It’s so much simpler to just say I am blank. This identity foreclosure has extended beyond just the notion of career. It’s also extending to notions of who we are in terms of our gender and in terms of our sexuality. I see my child’s generation grasping to immediately foreclose their identity because they can, whereas it used to be you couldn’t. And now you can. So this is a new area where they’re sort of like clamping down and at 15 saying I am this, or I am that.

And, of course, humans are, A, more fluid than that, and B, you’re still pretty young. So I think for a lot of people things are super clear because they are, and they’re factual. And for other people they’re still figuring it out. But the notion of foreclosing the possibilities is fascinating. I think that’s exactly right. And it’s a great thing to urge people to, as we would say to our son all the time, you have to sit in the discomfort of uncertainty. And that is very hard for people. It’s hard for a lot of people, especially if they’re neuro-atypical. But it’s hard for all of us to sit with the discomfort of uncertainty.

**John:** One of the things that can be helpful is to really plan for an audit. Basically twice a year to sit down and say, OK, what am I doing? Do I like what I’m doing? Is there something else I might enjoy more? And doing that might actually help you think rather than giving up something, like oh, I’m going to give up trying to be a screenwriter or give up trying to be a basketball player. Really think about affirmatively choosing something else you want to try. And not to think about it as a thing you’re going to be, but a thing you want to do. Because you can’t change – on many levels you can’t change who you are, but you can change what you’re actually doing on a daily basis, overall sort of what your activities are. And really think about it that way.

And so if you were to decide I’m not enjoying screenwriting, or I don’t think screenwriting is the thing for me, great. But if you can phrase that in terms of like I want to spend the time I used to be thinking about screenwriting in this other thing that I am more interested in, that’s great. To affirmatively choose something else rather than giving something up can be a useful way of making those tough choices.

**Craig:** And I think also it’s helpful, although scary, to admit that you are not in control. That the choices you make about yourself, the theories of what you think you want are not always accurate because, again, no free will. And that the world will collide with you in ways you cannot imagine and you cannot predict. And when that happens things change. And they change dramatically. When you look back at your own life, which you and I can now do and actually see five decades, man–

**John:** A lot happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. It certainly wasn’t planned. And you have to be ready for those things. I think the saddest thing that could happens is if you are so rigid in your identity foreclosure out of fear of uncertainty that when a collision occurs you do not allow it to change you, or you do not allow yourself to adapt and consider reforming your relationship with the world and reality because of what just occurred. That’s sad.

**John:** This is advice that’s been given a zillion times on this podcast, but it can be helpful to think of yourself as the protagonist in the story of your life. And so if you think about sort of you as that central character and the choices you get to make, maybe it’s time to pull out the whiteboard a little bit and say like, OK, where am I going? What is the story I’d like to be on? And that story you’re on may not be sort of where you’re at and think about sort of how might want to get to the story of the heroic journey that you’d prefer to be on. It feels like a time to be doing that.

**Craig:** Yeah. And just like we, screenwriters, when we throw things at characters we do it so they react.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, if you throw a bunch of stuff at a character and they never react and they just keep turning away for 90 minutes, boo.

**John:** Not good.

**Craig:** Don’t be that boring character.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our listener questions. But before we get to our listener questions I’m curious, Megana Rao, our producer, does any of this spark for you? Because you’re a person who changed careers. You started at Google and then you came over to work for us here. Does this resonate for you at all?

**Megana Rao:** Yeah. Something that I was also thinking about as you guys were talking is that no matter how much you research or job shadow it’s really hard to know what the reality of a certain experience is going to be like before you try it. Maybe you love film. You love screenwriting. And you love the craft of it all. But the weight that comes along with the industry of Hollywood is unappealing to the point that it outweighs your passion.

I mean, you just couldn’t have known that until you put yourself in that position. And I think about all the identities that I foreclosed on before I could pursue this dream and looking back I can thread together the aspects and how I got here. You know, I thought I was going to be a doctor, and then I thought I would work in tech for the rest of my life. And those were really difficult paths to turn away from because all of these external signals were validating my choices. But ultimately it wasn’t right for me and I don’t know how I could have come to those conclusions until I explored them as options. So, I would just say that trying – the act of pursuing something and putting yourself out there is really hard and if you realize it’s not quite right, congratulations for trying, and have some grace for yourself as you figure out what you want to do next.

**Craig:** That is really interesting. Particularly the doctor part, because you and I are basically the same person. And I was in the same spot. And I’m wondering, Megana, if you had the same feeling I did. Because I didn’t – I liked medicine. I liked the notion of it. And a lot of it still fascinates me to this day. But did you have a moment where you suddenly just thought “I’m not like those people and I don’t know why?” What was the moment where you realized, ooh, I think I should be doing something else?

**Megana:** That’s interesting. I feel like in the question of free will I never felt like I had free will because everyone I knew was basically a doctor.

**John:** Having read your script, you’re also the child of immigrant doctors.

**Megana:** Exactly. Exactly.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So no free will for you.

**Craig:** No. No free will for all the little Indian and Jewish children. That’s just how it is.

**Megana:** But the thing that I was interested in being a doctor was just people’s stories and talking to them. And when I think about how my dad is as a doctor I was like, oh OK, that is a very different approach to what this field actually is like. And the science aspect of it, like I like science and I think it’s cool, but it was never like oh that is what gets me going in the morning.

**Craig:** Right. So you were on a path and one day you realized I don’t have to be on this path.

**Megana:** Yeah. And I think I also realized I think in some ways I’m too sensitive to be a doctor. Because you have to be able to detach a little bit. And I’m not very good at that.

**John:** Yeah. Because all it takes is one “yup” from me and you’re questioning all your choices. [laughs]

**Craig:** This is why I think Megana you would have been a brilliant pathologist because they’re already dead.

**John:** Let’s see if we can help some of our listeners out with questions they have. Megana, can you start us off?

**Megana:** All right. So Jamie in Maryland asks, “I’ve had a situation come up a few times that I’ve never really gotten clarity on. I’ve had scripts optioned and been hired to rewrite. The complication arises when that script falls out of the option period but it’s been rewritten, and in most cases by me. Going forward, now that the material is back in my hands what do I own? And I don’t own the rewrite work how can I possibly forget improvements I may have made? Or what if I get similar notes from a producer who options the script in the future?

“I can’t really say, no, the old company owns that. What are the rules for dealing with this?”

**John:** This is a really good question. And Craig and I, we don’t write a lot of specs, and so we’ve not had this happen where we’ve optioned stuff out. So I ended up asking a lawyer friend about who deals with this a lot. And it’s actually more complicated than I would have guessed.

Let’s first start by talking about what an option is. Craig, can you remind us what an option is?

**Craig:** Well, an option is a payment to you, the writer, that says that producer who pays you the option has the exclusive right to arrange for the sale of that script to a studio and there’s a baked in price usually for what the price will be. And it lasts for about a year or so. And they give you some money for it. It could a dollar. It could be a lot. It’s not like a WGA thing because we haven’t been employed.

And then when that time is over the option ends.

**John:** And so in a vacuum you would get that script and it’s exactly the same script that you optioned to them, and so you still control copyright and it’s just entirely yours. Now the complication is generally they’ll option that script but then they will hire you, probably under a WGA contact, as a work-for-hire to do some rewriting work on that script. And that’s where it gets complicated.

So let’s say you make some changes to the script and improve it. And the option lapses. You get your original script back, but you don’t automatically get all the rewrites that you did back. And so if there’s things you changed that are not part of that, that is still owned by them, because they own that copyright on those rewrites because of work-for-hire.

So, it does happen some and here’s the advice I got from my lawyer friend on this situation. In your initial contract for the rewriting you could have had a clause in there saying that you get the rewrites back or for a certain fee at the end of this. That’s a thing that could happen.

More likely what’s going to happen is as the option lapses, and if you do want that stuff, you talk to them. And they may ask for all that money that they gave you for the rewrite back. They may ask for some percentage of that. More often what happens is that when you go to set something up someplace else, like you’re going to sell this script to someplace else, you then negotiate to sort of get that stuff back in. Or you put it as part of a – if you’re selling it to someplace else in that contract to sell it to this second company at the start of production there’s a payment made to the first place to get all that stuff back.

Here’s why you do that. Is because you can say like, oh, well yes, you had that idea to make those changes, but I also had that idea to make the changes and I did it slightly differently. It’s still copyright law and it’s still very clear that you had access to all the material. So, you could be in a lawsuit situation. Rarely. But it could happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, Jamie, the inflection point here is when you say hired to rewrite. You get hired. It’s a work-for-hire. So the person that’s hired you to rewrite, the person that optioned the script now owns that rewrite. They own it. They’re the writer. They are the legal author of that.

So, you can’t really undo that. Writing screenplays and developing screenplays is like cooking. So you should them a dish and they’re like, great, now I’m going to pay you money to take that and turn it into a stew. And you do. How do you un-stew a stew? It’s really not possible. You can go somewhere else and say I’ve made something new. It’s not the first thing I showed them, it’s something in between this and a stew. And then the people who own the stew are like, uh, you got stew elements in that.

So, my advice if at all possible is to not get paid to rewrite an optioned script. That sounds a little crazy, but hear me out. Your script is optioned. That means you own the copyright. They just have the exclusive right to shop it. Hold on. And if they want a rewrite, if they’re giving you advice on how to make it better and you agree, just say great, I’m going to do that on my own. And you can option that. But don’t give me money and employ me to do it. Because the most important thing you can have when a studio is interested in your script is ownership of it. And I can’t imagine the amount of money that they’re giving you to rewrite is as significant as the amount of money a studio will pay if they really want that script.

So if you can try and keep copyright all the way through until a real studio wants it. And then you give it away.

**John:** So, the con to that is that there may be reasons why, A, you need that money, or that money may actually get you into the WGA, or sort of keep you active in the WGA.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes.

**John:** So, there may be reasons to take that deal.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But I agree with Craig in that if it’s sort of a shopping agreement, if you keep control over everything that’s kind of ideal. Ultimately what we’re talking about is how did the option lapse. What is the end of that relationship like? And if the end of that relationship is good, and they want to still keep working with you on other stuff you’re going to have a better negotiating what you’re going to do with the rewrite stuff you did for them before. And really the best case scenario might be just a lien against that script for – if it goes into production they’ll pay you whatever money that was owed.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s fine and that’s reasonable. But it’s a good question to ask and I agree with Craig that if you’ve written this material and you can control this material it’s generally worth it to keep control for as long as you can.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Cool. Megana, what you got next for us?

**Megana:** All right. Maya asks, “I’m an up and coming writer that just got out of grad school. My program sent out loglines to industry folks and a manager who is now interested in reading my script. Problem is, it’s not ready. How much time do I have? Is it a bad look if I send in my script after a month of them asking for it? I just want to make the best first impression possible and I know that if I send my script right now that first impression is going down the drain.

“Should I let them know I need more time and expect my script in a month? Or should I just not reply until my script is ready? What I’m trying to ask, is there any leniency in this process or am I basically screwed?”

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** I like that Maya’s default position is everything is terrible. Maya, you’re not screwed.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** My instinct is to send an email and say like, oh my god, I’m so excited you want to read this script. I’m in the middle of a rewrite on it now and I can’t wait to show you the next version.

**Craig:** This is one of those areas where if you could only imagine how little other people are thinking about you it would blow your mind.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** You know, like someone is like, huh, that’s an interesting logline. I’m interested in reading that. That’s literally all it is. Then they forget. They move on. Now the next thing they’re worried about is lunch. And what they’re not doing every day is waking up going, “Where the hell is Maya’s script? Where is it? I said I wanted it. Where is it?”

And similarly if you send kind of along Hamlet-like email, like I’m so sorry, I do, but I don’t, but I don’t know. They’re going to be like, “What? What are you talking about man? Also, who is this?” It doesn’t matter.

Here’s what matters. You’re going to send a script and they’re going to read it and they’re going to either like it or they don’t. A logline means nothing. I think we’ve said that a billion times on this show. You’ve certainly intrigued them with the idea. What they’re really saying is if that script is good that would be good. As opposed to if that script is good I still wouldn’t care because I don’t want anything about that topic.

So, there is no reason for you to rush something out that you don’t think is ready. Nor is there any reason for you to fret or sweat or freak out every day that you’re taking too long because they’re sitting there tapping their fingers on the table going, “It’s Maya o’clock. Where’s my script?” Just relax your body, you know, waggle your head around. Take some deep breaths. Don’t tell them you need more time or anything like that. Just send the script. And when you do say, “You might remember that you were interested in this logline. Here’s the script.” And then they’ll go like, oh yeah. Oh yeah.

That’s it. Simple as that.

**John:** So my argument for sending the email now is, again, to be very, very short but saying like, hey, I’m so excited for you to read this. I’m doing a rewrite. I’m going to send it to you. It might remind them that like, oh, that’s right, I did read that thing. So that when they get it a month from now they’ll remember sort of what it was.

**Craig:** Sure. That seems reasonable.

**John:** But it should be nothing more than that. And you should not fret about it. But also I think sending that email will light a little fire under you to actually really get that work done. Because nothing helps a writer more than having promised it to somebody.

**Craig:** I think that’s true. You have a certain accountability. Yes, you can send a little short email that’s just like, great, thanks so much. I will send you the script as soon as it’s finished.

**John:** Yeah. One more question, Megana. What do you got for us?

**Megana:** OK, Bill from Dallas asks, “I have a question about child screenwriting prodigies, specifically where the heck are they? We’ve got pre-teen violinists who can play with professional skill, young mathematicians who can solve problems at graduate college levels. And of course plenty of chess prodigies. So where are the screenwriters? Where is that 10-year-old kid topping the Black List and clinking glasses with the finalists of Nicholls? Are we just not finding them? Or are there really zero out there? If the latter is true, why?”

**John:** So I’m going to find this Ben Stiller sketch from The Ben Stiller Show a zillion years ago where they had this young child prodigy director. And the line I remember from it is, “My movie is called Horses are Pretty because horses are pretty.” And it’s great.

I don’t know why there are not more teenage filmmaker prodigies except that maybe there are prodigies and they’re making TikToks and YouTube videos that are stunning but they’re just not writing screenplays.

**Craig:** There aren’t really novelists prodigies either.

**John:** True.

**Craig:** I think it may be because writing fiction is harder than all the rest of this stuff. Now, I can already hear people going, “What?” Because, you know, that’s pretty braggy. Like a bunch of guys writing movies about cars smashing into each other and people over there with Fields medals in math are like, “Are you serious? I’m unraveling the fabric of the universe and you think what you’re doing is harder?” It’s not harder, it’s rarer. How about that?

There are actually fewer working, consistently working, impactful screenwriters than there are mathematicians like that. It’s crazy. I don’t know why. It’s weird. It’s not harder. It can’t be harder. It’s not harder than chess. I’m so bad at chess. John, do you understand how bad I am at chess?

**John:** I believe that you’re bad at chess because I’m bad at chess, too. And I’m smart enough person. I understand how it all works. But I’m just not good at it. My daughter beats me regularly.

**Craig:** Anyone could beat me. I think my dog could beat me. Yeah. But, I don’t know, it’s rare. It just is. And it may be that the neurological components required for writing well, whatever that means, just take way more time. And require way more integration. So, all of the parts of your brain need to be working. And working at a certain level. As opposed to one part that’s just skyrocketing early.

**John:** I think to Amanda Gorman who wrote the amazing poem that was read at the inauguration. And she’s young. She’s not necessarily that young. She’s not a teen prodigy necessarily, but she’s really, really good. But poetry is also a shorter form. And one of the challenges of a screenplay is it’s 100 plus pages and that’s just a lot to manage. There’s a lot to sort of do.

So it’s certainly not impossible for a teenager to understand that and do that. People can write in with examples of like, oh, this is a teenager who did this thing. But even like Lena Dunham who was super young as she started, she wasn’t that young.

**Craig:** No. Poetry is very flexible. You can define it essentially how you’d like. In that regard it’s a little bit like lyrics.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And my daughter is an up and coming budding songwriter. And she writes really interesting stuff that is getting legitimate attention out there. And she’s lyrically very advanced. But it is a different deal. Because there’s a freedom to it. And that’s the misery of screenwriting and it sort of ties into our main topic is that there isn’t so much freedom to it. You are required to make things function in an interesting way in a fairly rigid format.

And I don’t mean on the page format. I mean just the structure and the reality of what it means to write a two-hour-movie, or a one-hour-episode of television. Or a 30-minute-episode of television. So, my final answer is very rare skill, requires high functioning across all aspects of the brain, including visual imagination, language skills, empathy, IQ, EQ, all of it humming, all at once. As opposed to one area that is like through the roof but could Einstein tell a joke? Eh, I don’t know.

**John:** Einstein’s episode of Friends, his spec Friends, was really disappointing.

**Craig:** Atrocious.

**John:** Just atrocious. Now, I’m sure we have teen listeners. So if you’re a teen listener who has other insights for us please do write in, because we’re curious what you think.

**Craig:** I know what they’re going to be like. “Shut up old guys.”

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

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks guys.

**John:** All right. It is time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. Two TV shows to recommend. The first is Hacks on HBO or HBO Max. I don’t even know what the difference is between HBO and HBO Max at this point.

**Craig:** Oh, I can tell you.

**John:** Tell me what the difference is.

**Craig:** I’m so glad you asked. HBO Max is the service that delivers both HBO and other programming. Now, does that sound confusing? It does sound confusing. I’ve been described like HBO, the branded HBO stuff, is on a tab. So, you know, for–

**John:** So Chernobyl is on that tab and The Last of Us will be on that tab.

**Craig:** Chernobyl is on that tab. The Last of Us is on that tab. HBO Max covers a whole other world of programming that is a little bit, like for instance I guess a lot of the – like the DC shows probably are on HBO Max. It’s a very strange thing.

**John:** It’s very strange.

**Craig:** It’s so weird.

**John:** Having watched the pilot episode for Hacks I cannot tell you whether there was the static-y HBO thing before it started, so I can’t tell you if it’s technically an HBO show or it’s just a show that I watched on HBO Max. Regardless, everyone would watch it because it’s really, really well done. This is the show that stars Jean Smart as a Las Vegas comedian who is kind of forced into hiring on a young joke writer and it’s their relationship. And it’s so well done.

It was written by Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs, and Jen Statsky. Here’s the reason why I think it’s an HBO show. It looks so expensive. It looks like Succession in terms of like, wow, they spent some real money on that. And I just love that. I mean, I respect people who do a lot with a little, but I also respect when people do just a lot with a lot. And it looks just great. And everything about it is just flawlessly done, so please – I’ve only seen the pilot, but it’s just really good and I can’t wait to watch more episodes of Hacks.

Another show I watched the whole season of this last week was Girls 5eva, which is on Peacock. Do you know the premise of Girls 5eva?

**Craig:** No, this is the greatest. Is it like a girl band kind of thing?

**John:** Exactly. And so it is a 2000s girl band that had sort of one big hit and then broke up, or sort of they never had a second hit. And so it’s following them up 20 years later as they are trying to form the group back again. It stars Sara Bareilles, Renee Elise Goldsberry from Hamilton.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** Busy Philipps. Paula Pell. The fifth member of Girls 5eva died in a tragic infinity pool accident. And it’s written by Meredith Scardino. Created by her. But it’s under the Tina Fey sort of umbrella. And so it has the 30 Rock-y/Kimmy Schmidt kind of feel and music. Real joke density. Just delightful. So if you enjoy 30 Rock or those kind of shows you really will love Girls 5eva. Great songs throughout.

**Craig:** Well yeah. I mean, Sara Bareilles and Renee Elise Goldsberry, those two alone – I mean, I just watch them sing. So if they’re singing at all I would be thrilled.

**John:** Oh they’re singing a ton. And Sara Bareilles is a really good actor.

**Craig:** Isn’t that fun when that happens?

**John:** It’s so good when someone is from a different field but they can actually – she can act her little heart out.

**Craig:** A little bit like, you know, I think in a couple of weeks there might be an episode of Mythic Quest with another brilliant performance.

**John:** I’m excited to see it.

**Craig:** I’m going to just tease it like this. Craig with hair.

**John:** Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh.

**Craig:** It is so weird. I sent Melissa a picture from the makeup trailer. And I was wearing my mask and so she couldn’t see my whole face, but I just sent a picture of me wearing a mask, but with hair, and she wrote back, “Who is that?” She literally didn’t know it was me.

**John:** Did not recognize her own husband.

**Craig:** Yes. Correct.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** And happily she wasn’t like, “Hmm, who is that?” She was like, “Eww. Who is that?”

**John:** Elon Musk treatment there, yeah.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** The hair back.

**Craig:** Well, my One Cool Thing this week is sort of a redo of another one. At one point, I’ve been looking for translation apps because I’m working with a number of folks from other countries. And there’s got to be a really good one. And I was using one I think called Mate, and it was decent. It didn’t quite do a perfect job translating. And it would lose formatting. For instance line breaks and stuff, which was really frustrating.

And I’m so sorry, someone on Twitter, and I cannot find the tweet so I cannot give them credit, but I apologize. If you tweet back again I will give you credit next week. Turned me onto something called Deepl Translator. That’s Deepl Translator.

And like a number of these things there’s a cost if you want to use it fully. It works really well. And I ran a translation by Kantemir Balagov, our Russian director. Because I always feel like translating to Russian that’s a good challenge. And he was like this is really good.

So I’m using Deepl Translator. So if you do have needs for translating. And what I also love about the simplicity of it is, this is very good, you write a bunch of stuff, you want to translate it. You just highlight it and then you do, if you’re on a Mac, Command C twice. That’s all you do. You just do the copy command twice and it automatically brings up a screen and starts translating it. Very good.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. That’s the future.

**Craig:** The future is now.

**John:** One last request for our Scriptnotes listeners. We have a Wikipedia page like all things on the Internet. There’s a Wikipedia page for Scriptnotes. It’s really out of date. It’s like super, super out of date. And so if people want to take a look at that and bring it a little bit more up to date. I’m going to put links in the show notes to the Scriptnotes index that Megana worked on and also a Scriptnotes guest list that we have. Because I want our Wikipedia page to be just a little bit more up to date. And you’re not really supposed to do it yourself.
And so if you guys want to take that on as a little project that would be great to see our Wikipedia page be a little bit more updated if that’s a thing you like to do. I suspect we have some Wiki editors in our listenership right now.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah. I haven’t looked at it in a long time. Now that you’ve said that it’s just going to be like–

**John:** It’s going to be madness.

**Craig:** Massive vandalism on our Wikipedia page.

**John:** Wikipedia does a pretty good job dealing with vandalism. So I think we have responsible listeners who will do well by us.

**Craig:** We have the best listeners.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, the best producer. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Brian Ramos. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust. Craig is there but he just kind of sends gifs, so don’t really ask him any questions.

We have t-shirts. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts. And you can sign up for weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all of the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the AP exams.

Craig and Megana, thank you guys so much.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, so Craig this last week my daughter took the AP US History exam. And so she had the whiteboard filled with a timeline of all these things. And I recognized some of the names of these events that occurred in US history but I couldn’t tell you what actually happened in them.

I took AP US History and dropped it at the semester mark because I just did not like it. And I ended up finishing it on a tele-course over the summer and enjoyed that much more. I suspect, and you actually promised, that you have strong opinions about the AP exams.

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** Go.

**Craig:** They should be eliminated.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** They should be eliminated with force. They should be all piled together, put on some sort of space vessel, and shot into the sun. And here is why. AP exams are entirely unnecessary. The initial thought about AP exams was that if you were particularly advanced in a certain topic that you could test out of having to take an introductory class at the college level, which I understand. You’re paying for college. You don’t want to necessarily just sit there in a boring class that is a prerequisite to get to the class you want when it’s already something you already know. That’s all it was meant to be. Just place out of stuff so you could start a little further along in college.

And what it has become in an insane arms race regarding your GPA, your grade point average. Because AP classes, which are classes that are taught to exams, and the AP classes should not exist in my belief, load on bonus points to your grade point average. And this insanity in our nation that every ounce of your existence as a child must be focused to the great prime achievement of getting into “good college” which therefore defines you as a good person and a future success. All of that is nonsense.

It is destroying kids’ childhoods. It’s also destroying the entire concept of what high school education is supposed to be. It’s not supposed to be that. The stress that we are piling on these kids over this AP stuff is insane. Not only do they have to study massive amounts to take these exams and do way more work than they normally would have to basically do extra high school while they’re in high school, they’re also doing 12 other extracurriculars because they’ve got to be well rounded. You’ve got to be well rounded all so that you a group of people sitting in a room somewhere at freaking Dartmouth can go, “Yes, this person is worthy.”

Horseshit. It’s horseshit. Look, if I could wave a magic wand I would eliminate most colleges entirely. OK? Because I think the entire higher education business is largely fraud and a certification Ponzi scheme. But if I can’t do that, and I can’t, then at least give me a want to get rid of the freaking AP exams. Or, if I can’t do that, keep the AP exams, get rid of AP classes, and say to kids if you really do want to advance yourself when you get to college just study on the side at home or over the summer and take this test and then you can. But we’re not giving you anything for your stupid GPA. So stop asking.

And just go back to, oh my god, the highest number you can have for a GPA is 4.0. There you go. We’re done. No more of the valedictorian has a 6.8.

**John:** Now, Craig, does it make you feel any better that colleges and many schools are actually already taking your advice and they are getting rid of AP exams?

**Craig:** It does make me feel better. But it has to happen – OK, so education is largely driven by the major state schools. A little bit by Ivy League schools. But for instance almost everything that happens in the California public school system has to do with the UC system. If the UC system accepts something everybody is funneling towards that. Everybody. And it’s the UC system that has to say we’re not doing this anymore. It’s over. Stop it.

**John:** Yeah. So no more Stand and Deliver for Craig Mazin. He believes that is a false promise, a false goal. That Edward James Olmos should be ashamed of himself.

**Craig:** I don’t know about that because I don’t remember – what was he doing in that? Was he teaching an AP class?

**John:** He taught his high school, he started the first AP Calculus class at his school.

**Craig:** I mean, look, I have a whole problem with the entire genre. Like John Gatins, our screenwriting friend, has a genre.

**John:** Inspiring teacher.

**Craig:** Yeah. I didn’t know that insert, you know, minority could do that. I didn’t know that Latinos could do Calculus. That’s not a genre of movie, but it sort of somehow became one. Like, wow, I didn’t – yes, of course they can. Of course they can. And you should be able to teach anyone calculus. And if kids want to learn regular calculus just teach them calculus. Calculus is enough. Why is there AP Calculus? “Well, it’s extra calculus because I don’t want to have to do regular calculus at college.” Fine, then go do that on your own time.

But this – what we’re doing is we’re putting college into high school. Then what the hell is college for?

**John:** Now, Craig, back when you were in high school did you take AP classes?

**Craig:** When I was in high school I was in a magnet program for medical sciences. So it was like a pre-pre-med program. We didn’t have AP classes. I don’t think we even had them at Freehold High School in New Jersey. What we did have were some specialized classes in topics that were not offered normally, like for instance we had a class in organic chemistry. It was called AP Orgo or anything like that. It was just organic chemistry.

So we did not have AP classes as far as I understood them. I never took an AP exam. What I did was take a few of the SAT achievement tests. Do you remember those?

**John:** Yeah. They’ve gotten rid of those largely, too.

**Craig:** Exactly. All of it nonsense. All of it unnecessary. And I can’t explain how much I’m retroactively angry at the process of being a high school kid with this college insanity looming over me. I’m angry at how happy I was to get into the school I got. I’m angry that they made me happy about it. And I’m not coming from a point of bitterness. Meaning it wasn’t like I got rejected so I’m angry. I didn’t. I got accepted. And it’s wrong.

It’s wrong. The whole thing is wrong. There are wonderful schools out there who teach kids terrific things as young adults in higher education and we don’t know their names because they don’t have marketing budgets or a $500 billion endowment. And so nobody cares about them. They’re just driven to whatever the hell, I don’t know, USC wants.

But why? Why? Why? Why?

**John:** This is not a defense of AP exams.

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** But I will talk about my high school experience was I ended up dropping AP US History. I did take AP English. And I learned a lot in AP English, but I think it was just the Honors English class. We read good stuff. We discussed it. Great. And so whether I took the test or not it doesn’t really matter.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I also took AP Spanish Lit, which I think they still offer the test. It was a helpful test for me in that we read a lot of books and I took the test and I did well on it. And it was handy for me to get to college and I already had more than a semester done. And so it really lightened my load. In college let me sort of explore a lot more in college because I didn’t have to – I had so many literature credits going into it that I didn’t have to take certain classes which was great.

So I appreciated that. But I recognize that on this conversation you and I are both like stumbling blindly because we have someone else on the call who has much, much more experience with AP exams. Megana Rao, can you talk to us about your AP experience?

**Megana:** So, I just looked it up and I think I took like 12 or 13 AP classes.

**Craig:** Oh god. No.

**John:** And how do you feel about those AP classes and exams now looking back?

**Megana:** I mean, I agree with so many of Craig’s points, and like College Board and the whole thing is just a racket. But, I really enjoyed taking those classes. And I think at a lot of public schools it gives – just because it is so standardized it gives you a really rigorous curriculum that you might not be getting from your education in certain school districts. And I think like at Harvard they didn’t accept them, but if I were to have gone to Ohio State like I would have started off as I think a spring semester sophomore.

**Craig:** That’s crazy.

**Megana:** I mean, this is a larger conversation about, you know, higher education. But I think that does seem like a good option for people because college is so outrageously expensive. So I think that option of being able to, I don’t know, mitigate that at some level feels like maybe a positive thing.

**Craig:** But look what they’ve done? They’ve created a system where you have to jump through a thousand hoops as a child to then not have to pay them so freaking much because they charge so much. That is so warped.

And by the way, don’t get me wrong, I’m not against honors classes. I’m not against kids if they are at a certain level and they want to learn a little bit more they can. Honors classes are fine. But this thing where there’s any indication whatsoever that taking an honors class is going to move you ahead in college and leap frog you past other things in college is crazy. And the idea that you would get these weighted GPAs, so suddenly grade point averages are in these insane inflated numbers is crazy. And the fact that education, higher education, costs so much that you’re going to beat yourself up as a 16-year-old to try and get a bunch of free things, but you don’t have to pay as much. How about don’t pay them anything?

How about that? How about we shouldn’t even have to go to college? How about that?

**John:** All right. So let’s imagine AP classes go away and look at the pros and cons of that. So obviously from a college level once they’ve admitted you as a student they could just give you a placement test to see like, OK, which physics should you be in, which Spanish should you be in. That’s great and fine. They can absolutely do that. So we’re really not losing much there.

I want to get to Megana’s point which I had not considered but I think is really good is that if you’re looking across the country and different communities, where you have really good high schools or not really good high schools, the AP curriculum actually does give some comfort of like I know that if this student is taking this AP curriculum they’re going to actually at least have this. That they’re actually going to learn this and there’s going to be some kind of rigor, some sort of standardization. It may be too standardized. It may be sort of you’re teaching towards that test, but at least you know these people got this out of it.

And in a country where there’s such wild disparities of educational access and opportunity AP could help arguably to make sure that students have access to a certain kind of rigor that they might not otherwise get in their underfunded schools.

**Craig:** Allow me to rebut.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** If the school can teach an AP curriculum then it can teach an AP curriculum. Just doesn’t have to call it an AP curriculum. Meaning it’s capable of doing it, therefore it can and should do it. But let’s be honest about the way our system functions. If there is a deal where there’s a specific thing called an AP class that leads to an AP exam that lets you skip ahead then rich kids will always do better. Always. Because they can afford tutors. And because they don’t have to work. They don’t have jobs.

I had a freaking job.

**John:** I had a job, too.

**Craig:** I couldn’t have been in those classes. Like I couldn’t do the things. But, you know, these rich kids – did we talk about, what is it, the Polaris List? Did we talk about that on the show?

**John:** I don’t remember what that was. No.

**Craig:** He’s a kid, he’s a young guy. And he’s put together this list that basically is like every high school in the country, private or public, how many kids did they send to either Princeton, Harvard, or MIT. I believe those are the three that they picked. And it is astonishing. Astonishing. The top ten schools, it’s just like, wow.

So Harvard Westlake. Percentages.

**John:** Or Marlborough. All of those.

**Craig:** It’s a joke. It’s a freaking joke. My school that I went to, this is so good. Because any time there’s a thing like that, they’ll all say we believe in equal access to education and all the rest of it. Somebody pointed out that if say Harvard, or Princeton, why not. I’ll go after my own. Let’s say Harvard or Princeton really was committed to equal opportunity of higher education for everybody in the country what they would do if they were really interested in that is kill themselves. They would dissolve their institutions and take all that money and create a whole bunch of equal opportunity programs spread out across the country.

We’re talking about billions. Billions. Do you know what the Harvard endowment is?

**John:** It’s probably a billion dollars itself.

**Craig:** Oh, I think it’s got to be more.

**Megana:** It’s something like $30 billion or $26 billion or something.

**John:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** $30 billion. $30. Do you see what I’m saying? Like when you really look at it, I know I sound crazy. I know I sound a little like QAnon here. But if you really look at the situation with just a very sober eye there is very little in our country that is as insane and Kafkaesque as the way we are educating our children to a purpose.

And the purpose is getting more education from some place and then when they’re done we go, ha-ha, have fun. With no job. Have fun. You did it. You achieved something. You rode all the way to the top of the rollercoaster and that’s it. You just get to the top and then you fall off and you hit the ground. That’s it.

**John:** Megana, I want to hear what you think about a life without AP classes.

**Megana:** So I do agree with a lot of what Craig is saying. I recently read this tweet that was like Millennials have 4% of the national wealth and I think Gen X had had 9% and Baby Boomers have had like 21% when they were at this stage. And it’s because we have gone through the system and taken on all of this student debt and it has not paid off with the job market that’s been available to us.

But, I will say that, you know, I did not come from one of those feeder schools and I was I think like the first kid maybe from my high school to go to an Ivy League, to go to Harvard. And when you get there and there are all of these kids from super elite prep schools and private schools from all over the world there is something reassuring in being like, OK, well we all took these classes and – like for some of the classes I just read those AP books on my own and then took the test and did well. And I’m not saying, I’m not advocating for AP, but there is something nice about having that standardization that I was able to have confidence that I was stepping up to freshmen year on sort of an equal playing field. And that those resources were easily accessible to me.

**Craig:** I’m like you. I came from the same situation.

**John:** Yeah. I want some clarification here. So, how many AP classes did you have versus tests did you have?

**Megana:** I think I took 10 AP classes and then I took two that I did not have the classes for and I just took the test from reading textbooks.

**John:** OK. So that’s something Craig would argue kind of in favor of to some degree, to be able to prove that on your own you did this thing.

**Craig:** But the problem is that there are far fewer – the AP – let’s call it a ladder to success. That ladder is far narrower for people that come from backgrounds like yours or mine. And it’s why you were the first person to go to Harvard from your school. I don’t know if I was the first person to go to Princeton, but we didn’t send many people to Ivy League schools from my school and we still don’t. Maybe one or two.

And there are dozens, dozens, of kids every year coming from Harvard Westlake. Why? It’s not because they are inherently smarter. It’s because everybody is getting a boost up that ladder. Everybody. This is what happens when you – you extend an opportunity and people game it because the entire thing is set up to be gamed and smart people are always going to figure out ways to mess with it. If the SAT is designed to be a standardized thing that gives everybody the same chance, well putting aside the inherent biases and however the test is created, it’s not an even playing field because now you have tutors. You have the Princeton Review.

If you can pay for the Princeton Review you’re already doing better. If you go to two of those classes and you learn their simple methods of process of elimination and all of that stuff you are already doing better. It’s not – it all gets – by the way, Harvard’s endowment is $41 billion.

**Megana:** Oh my goodness.

**Craig:** Thank you. So, it’s like a small country. And these things that are dangled, if we eliminated all of it, if we just eliminated all of those things and we just said write your application and we’ll take a look, and we expanded the understanding of what a good school is, we’d be vastly better off.

The problem for Harvard or Princeton, and if I worked at one of those admissions offices I don’t know what I would do, because I’m taking in 3% of the applications I receive. How the hell am I discriminating between all of these people? It’s impossible.

**John:** It’s really hard. So I’ve been on Zooms with college admissions things that are organized to sort of talk through what they’re doing. And those admissions offices are on some of those Zooms. And they’ll say, listen, we’re not looking at ACTs or SATs. They’re just looking it up – in both UC schools – Cal State schools and UC schools are not taking SATs or ACTs. They’re not requiring them anymore. And so all of these admissions officers have to look for other things to sort of determine is this kid going to be able to succeed at our school.

They look at grades. They look at where that kid falls in class rankings overall. What activities. And basically – and this sort of feels appropriate for a podcast about something – is what is this kid’s story? Basically how can this kid articulate sort of where they come from and what they’re trying to do? And that’s ultimately what they’re making admissions decisions based on. It’s tough.

**Craig:** I wish they wouldn’t. Because that’s gross. When we take a step back and we think about it, some panel of eight people in a room are examining what my child’s story is? F-off. They don’t know my kid and they’re never going to know my kid from an application. It’s impossible.

The whole concept of it is insane. That’s my point. The whole concept of deciding who belongs here is insane. And the notion of selectivity is kind of insane. I just don’t get it. I don’t. And I will remain forever angry about it.

Oh, and also US News & World Report should go to hell.

**John:** All right. But, the good news is I think we actually have a first candidate for Change Craig’s Mind is like if we can change Craig’s mind on some aspect of the college process then that will be a goal for this. I don’t even know what I want to change him to.

**Craig:** Or anything. Just change it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh man, I feel bad for that person. Oh, this was a good one. I feel so good. I feel like I exorcised a lot of demons today.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** God, I hope some admissions officer writes in like, “Well, you know, we actually can tell about what a human being is like from their five pages and their dumb essay.” Oh please. Please. Beat it. [laughs] That’s all I have to say.

Thank you for tolerating me through all of that, by the way. You’re both incredibly patient and lovely people.

**John:** Thank you both.

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

**Megana:** Thank you. Bye.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [The Scriptnotes Index](https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes-index)
* [Scriptnotes Guest List](https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes-guest-index)
* Help us update the [Scriptnotes Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptnotes)
* [Seth Rogan on Productivity](https://www.insider.com/why-seth-rogen-and-wife-do-not-want-children-2021-5)
* [The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliverburkeman) by Oliver Burkeman
* [Hacks with Jean Smart](https://play.hbomax.com/series/urn:hbo:series:GYIBToQrPdotpNQEAAAEa) on HBO Max
* [Girls 5eva](https://www.peacocktv.com/stream-tv/girls5eva) on Peacock
* [Horses are pretty because horses are pretty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYZOlwsMGFA&feature=youtu.be) sketch on child-director prodigy
* [Deepl Translator](https://www.deepl.com/translator)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/502standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 516: 10th Anniversary, Transcript

September 21, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. Heads up that today’s episode has just a little bit of swearing in it.

Julia Turner: Hello, and welcome. My name is neither John August nor –

Craig Mazin: Craig Mazin.

Julia: But this is Episode 516 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. My name is Julia Turner, and I’m a deputy managing editor at the Los Angeles Times, and a co-host of Slate’s Culture Gabfest Podcast. And John and Craig have invited me here today to mark the 10th anniversary of Scriptnotes, 10 years –

Craig: Whoa.

Julia: By interviewing them about their first decade in podcasting. Hi, guys.

Craig: Hi.

John: Hello. Hi, Julia Turner.

Julia: I’m so honored to be here. This is a dream come true.

Craig: Oh, well, I would imagine the honor should be ours as you’re a legitimate journalist, and we are not.

John: Not even close.

Julia: We’ll get to your journalistic similarities later on in this conversation.

Craig: Hmm.

John: Hmm, all right.

Julia: Today, I’ll be grilling John and Craig about the legend and lore of Scriptnotes. And I’ll also be presenting them with some brilliant listener questions about the history of the show. Then we’ll have some listener follow up featuring a real life Scriptnotes love story.

Craig: Whoa.

Julia: And for our bonus segment, we’ll ask how would this be a movie about the first 10 years of Scriptnotes?

John: Oh, god, I’ve got some casting suggestions, so cool. Do stay tuned.

Julia: Might be low on pop, but I think there’s a couple ways to play it. We’ll get into it.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: Before we dig in, I should clarify for your listeners that my primary qualification for this gig is years of obsessive listening to Scriptnotes, which has made it really, really fun this past week to see how Scriptnotes works behind the scenes. Listeners will not be surprised to learn that when I say John and Craig have invited me here, I mean that John has invited me here. Craig did you know that I would be here until this very moment.

Craig: I knew that you would be here at some point. Oh, boy, that’s so true.

Julia: It all works exactly the way it sounds like it works.

Craig: Yes.

Julia: I also got to take a look at the show’s infamous WorkFlowy doc frequently referred to on the podcast.

Craig: Hmm, yes.

Julia: And I have to say it reveals John’s robot tendencies, like –

Craig: Thank you.

Julia: Beautifully. John, having invited me to come in and interview you in the document had laid out a whole set of things that perhaps I might want to cover, and a loose order and also some intro text, all of which I think is –

Craig: You get it? You get it now?

Julia: Intended to be very generous and welcoming. But I –

Craig: Yeah, you know –

Julia: I’m allowed to tease you, John, because the joke on my podcast is that I’m the robot. So from one robot to another, I salute you.

Craig: John used to write these things in machine language. So it was just hexadecimals.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And I just begged him, I said, “John, please, please, let’s put it in human language.” And he did. He got a new compiler. It’s now in human language. I love it.

John: Absolutely. I, I try to just map out like the shape of the show. So that it feels like, oh, okay, this is how we’re going to get through it. But I would say like over the course of 10 years, I’ve tended to write more and more in the actual Workflowy about like the things I’m going to say just because I’m not a great spontaneous speaker. It’s just the secret truth behind Scriptnotes. And so I just love having things to look at and read off of.

Craig: Whereas I don’t like to prepare anything. And I sometimes don’t know how my sentences will end when I’m three quarters of the way in.

Julia: Well, I’m going to take some but not all of John’s suggestions. And judging by the fact that you don’t seem to have looked at the Workflowy yet, Craig L., my questions will be surprises for you. So –

Craig: I love surprises. Yep.

Julia: We can dig in. I’m going to start with a few questions about the history of the show. And then we can move on to discuss its impact on the world and also on you guys personally. And then if we have time, we’ll do maybe a lightning round of –

Craig: Oh.

Julia: Some questions on the mechanics of the show and a few wildcards. There’s a lot to get through.

Craig: Yay.

John: I’m excited.

Julia: But let’s start with the zoom out. First, congratulations on 10 years of podcasting.

John: Thank you.

Julia: And, John, why did you start the show?

John: I’ve been writing this blog for years and years and years, the johnaugust.com blog, answering questions about screenwriting. And it’s just a monologue when you’re a blogger. You’re just talking to the void. And for a while I had comments turned on so people could answer back, but I hated comments so I turned them all off. Craig had his own blog that he gave up at a certain point. And I just decided, like, rather than have me talking, us talking together would probably be better. And I was listening to a bunch of podcasts that I liked, tech podcasts, but also like the Slate Culture Gabfest and Political Gabfest, and it’s like, oh, we should do something like that, which is just me and Craig talking. So I pitched the idea to him, and he had no idea what I was talking about but said, “Sure, we could try that.”

Craig: I thought for sure he had made a mistake. But he meant to call someone else but he called me. So I said, “Yeah.”

Julia: Did – by the way. John, were there backups? Like if Craig said no, were there other advice-dispensing screenwriters out there?

Craig: Great question.

Julia: Or was there anyone you asked before Craig who shut you down we’ve never heard about?

Craig: Oh, yeah, that’s a better question? That’s a better question. I like that one.

John: Craig was the first person I asked. I don’t think I had a backup list because I didn’t really have a fully formed idea of what it was even going to be but I just felt like he’d be the right person to talk with. But Olean and I were kind of friendly at that point, so she would have been somewhere in there. Derek Haas and I knew each other. So there were probably some backup contenders. But I, honestly, I don’t think I would have done it if Craig had said no.

Craig: Hmm, aww.

Julia: Craig, why did you say yes? You make a lot of noise about how you don’t know what podcasts are still practically?

Craig: I didn’t. Yep. No.

Julia: And certainly not then.

Craig: I didn’t.

Julia: So why – what was in it for you?

Craig: Well, in terms of knowing what podcasts were, it didn’t really matter because I trusted John. He was very web-forward is how I would put it at the time. And in fact, I had called John early on when I was putting my blog together just to have some technical questions about blog design and things like that. So I had been working on this blog, and it had been a bit draining. It had become a thing during the strike. It was a raucous bar of comments during the strike. And the Wall Street Journal wrote it up, and it got unwieldy and drifted apart from its purpose. And so, I – and also, you know, we write. So we write for a living and then I had to like –

John: Yeah.

Craig: Suddenly felt like, oh, my god, in this like, job, I had given myself that I don’t make any money off of to write more. So when John called it was the perfect time because it didn’t involve writing. And also, you know, John was like, he’s a big shot, you know, and I thought, well, you don’t say no to a big shot.

John: So I would say, interestingly, at the start of this podcast, I was a higher profile screenwriter than Craig was, and Craig had made movies, but I had a bigger sort of platform and was probably better known. I knew that Craig actually knew a ton about the industry. He and I worked together to try to set this writer’s deal at Fox. And so, I knew sort of how his brain worked. And I really thought he would have strong good opinions that were not exactly the same as my opinions and it would be a good conversation.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: You know, you both mentioned the blogging and the internet writing you were doing with sort of a similar audience of working screenwriters and aspiring screenwriters in mind. And, you know, the listener engagement in the show is such a big part of the show now. What’s the difference between that relationship you had sort of in the aughts web with written commenters versus the teens and 20s audio internet of audio listeners? What are the differences, similarities?

Craig: Yeah. Tell them about our commenters, John.

John: Yeah. So, I mean, comments on blog posts are just such a scourge because like, they’re going to be positive ones, but then just people will just write paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs. It’s like, “Oh, no, this is my space. It’s not your space.” And so, just be cool. Or you try to have like living room rules. The good thing about a podcast is like, we only can invite people in that we want to invite in even when we do live shows, we will stop a questioner if they’re just being a jerk. And the fact that it is really a conversation that we can invite you into versus you can just pile on at times is, I think, the big difference between writing online versus being on a podcast.

Craig: Yeah, it’s a bit like the difference between curation and moderation. All you can do on a blog is just go, “Oh, god, stop it or you’re booted,” but then they just change their name and come back and keep acting like jerks. And we can curate exactly what we present here. Which, weirdly enough, turns out that’s what people like. They think they want just unfettered access, but what they actually do want is a connection to a platform that has some kind of moderation so that there’s quality control.

Julia: All right, so it’s early days. You’re doing this show. You’re figuring out the format, and you’re figuring out whether you’re having an impact. How did you first begin to appreciate that you were finding an audience? Like what were the early inklings that this was not just you talking into microphones and in vain?

John: Well, with podcasts, you can see sort of how many people are downloading the show. So you get some sense of listenership through that, although in the early days, it was really hard to get good metrics. And like early podcasts really had no sense of how many people were listening to them. Now, you can get a better sense. For me, it was I think, probably when we went to the Austin Film Festival and did a live show there. And really could see like, oh, my gosh, these people know who we are. And they’re showing up because they do listen to the show. That was the first time I really felt the impact of it. Craig, did you have an earlier time?

Craig: No, no, I mean, to this day, I still repeatedly am shocked when people say they listen to the show. I know that people listen to the show. I don’t have access to those metrics. I mean, I suppose if I ask John nicely, he would tell me. But he just knows that I don’t really care. Like every now and then I’ll be like, “How many people do actually listen to the show?” And he’ll tell me and I’ll go, “No,” and then I’ll forget. But –

Julia: Wait. Hold on. How many people do actually listen to the show?

Craig: Yeah, how many people do listen to the show, John?

John: Megan is also on the line, so she can probably tell us, give us some specific figure, but it’s around 40,000, I want to say. Megan, correct me if I’m wrong?

Megana Rao: Yeah, it’s about 40,000 a week and then –

Craig: Good god.

Megana: Like, looking at the monthly metrics, like each episode usually gets to about 80,000.

Craig: What? Okay, well, that’s terrifying.

John: And I think the thing that’s been most surprising to me is I assumed that it would just be L.A. people who would really be listening to the show because it’s so Hollywood-centered and yet it turns out we have a lot of listeners in Europe. We Have listeners in Antarctica. We have listeners everywhere who are listening to the show because they want to write things for their own countries or to come to here. And also a ton of people listen to the show who have no interest in writing at all. And, I mean, Julia Turner, you’re not a screenwriter. So there should be no reason for you to listen to the show.

Craig: Yeah.

John: But you listen to the show, which is just terrific.

Julia: No. And I now edit the entertainment coverage of the L.A. Times. So your discussions are relevant to things that the journalists I work with cover. But that was much less true when I started listening to the show, you know, back when I was running Slate. So –

John: I’m sorry to play host here for a second, but do you know why you started listening to the to the podcast? I’m curious.

Julia: You’re allowed to play host on your own show anytime you want, John.

Craig: Right. Can I?

Julia: Well, I think Andy Bowers, who ran podcast at Slate, put me on to it. And I just love the way you guys, I mean, I am a culture critic on that show, right? So I’m, you know, the scourge of Craig’s mind, one of those baddies.

Craig: Yes, correct.

Julia: But I think it’s really interesting when you’re conducting criticism to know about how things are made, and why they’re made and what the mechanics are behind them. And so, I love learning about that from you guys. I loved the rapport, I mean, any chat show that you listen in on regularly, and I can say this, because I do one is just basically like a book club you like to go to where you don’t get to talk, like, you know, you just feel like you’re kind of hanging out with your friends. And I like the way you guys would kibitz and squabble and have interesting insights.

And then maybe it’s because I see parallels in this to journalism, but I love the way you guys balance appreciating screenwriting for the difficult creative art that it is, and knowing that a successful screenwriting career means having a lot of practical skills and –

Craig: Yes.

Julia: Qualities of temperament and comportment, for lack of a better word –

Craig: Mmm.

Julia: That are actually as important to your success as your creative genius. And I feel like you are so generous to the listeners we have who are aspiring screenwriters and encouraging their art while also encouraging them to be steely and practical. And something about that balance and the way you guys talk about screenwriting as a trade and a craft. It really appealed to me. I think there’s –

Craig: Thank you.

Julia: Aspects of that in journalism too where it’s a lot of people are writers and thinkers, you know, but got to turn things in on time. So long answer.

Craig: That is the problem for all of us, right. No, that’s a beautiful answer. And I think what I found along the way, it’s certainly, when I said yes to John, it really was because I admired him. And I thought, this sounded like fun. But what I found along the way was a natural instinct to save people from the trouble I had seen. And this business is full of trouble.

There is so much trouble in our business that if you’re a certain kind of person, and in this case, we’re both guys, there were layers of trouble we weren’t even seeing. So there’s so much trouble. And there’s so much trouble for writers and there particularly is a lot of trouble for writers in features. And so, trying to just save people some of the misery and strife, and also to debunk so much of the cottage industry of nonsense that had sprouted up to add insult to injury by taking money from people and preying on their fears and their ignorance and their worry and their desire and ambition. That felt great. I mean, the part of doing the show that makes me the happiest is the part where we provide this to new people, like you’re showing up, you’re new, maybe you don’t look like the sort of person that Hollywood has hired as a screenwriter before. There are no books that are really going to teach you how this business works. As far as I know, we’re the only game in town when it comes to telling you the truth. Uh, because Hollywood is very ashamed of the truth, and for a good reason.

John: I would say at the start of the podcast, I felt like there was an objective truth that we could sort of share, like this is our experience. This is how it actually really works. And I think one of the sort of journeys over 10 years is recognizing that we sort of don’t know everything and that our experience rising as screenwriters in the ‘90s is not going to match necessarily writers’ experience now, and that we sort of needed to invite more people onto the show to talk to us about their actual specific experiences, be it like genres that we’re not writing or for mediums that we’re not writing in that I think we just both developed a little bit more curiosity about how the other parts of this industry work.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: Yeah, I’ve noticed that. And actually, that brings me to one question I wanted to ask, which is sort of how did the show find its format over time? And how has that evolved? You mentioned bringing in more people, but how did you find the right mix between interview episodes, advice episodes, you know, Three Page Challenges, all of the different kinds of recurring rubrics you have, how did that evolve?

Craig: Well, mostly John, I mean, I’ll tell you, the Three Page Challenge thing came out of something that I used to do on this old board called Done Deal Pro. And it had its roots in a basic theory, which is, ah, I could probably tell you, I think it was at the time five pages. I can tell you in five pages if you’re going to make it or not, because it’s just, you could tell, right? Like there are people, they just write five pages and you go, “No, no, no, no, do something else, just do something else.” But out of that came this interesting notion that there is a lot you can learn just from drilling down into a very small amount of pages.

The vast majority of the format of the show is John’s conception. In my normal life. I’m a bit of a bossy person. I’m a producer, I’m a director, I run shows. I’m in charge. I’m alpha. It is so lovely to just – I’m even the DM in our Dungeons and Dragons.

John: Oh, yes, he is.

Craig: But it is so nice to not be that guy and to let somebody else who’s incredibly competent, and good, be that person. And I can follow. I love following John’s lead on the show. It is my place on the show, and I’m extraordinarily comfortable with it. I’m a sidekick. I’m Ed McMahon.

John: Which, in terms of the format, I think I originally sort of pattern them off of the Slate show, so that the Gabfests tend to have three topics per week, and then the equivalent of a One Cool Thing, our inaudible recommendation at the end, and then some boilerplate. And so initially it was just that, but then when Craig had this idea of like, “Oh, what if we would like a Three Page Challenge?” “Like, oh, that’s great.” And that became our first like recurring statement, so every once in a while we’d come back to that. And then How Would This Be a Movie became one. We’ve tried other things like This Kind of Scene. Listener questions were always really kind of from the start were an important part of it. So it just started to evolve that way.

In terms of bringing on guests, originally, they were just like our friends, like people we knew and we’d bring them on. And I think increasingly over the last couple of years, we’ve just reached out to people we don’t know and we bring on complete strangers onto the show, because we want to learn about their experience.

Julia: We actually have a listener question related to guests from listener Todd. Megan, do you want to cue that up?

Megana: Todd asks, “I’d love to know from both John and Craig who’s the dream guest who they’ve yet to land?”

Craig: Mmm, mmm.

John: Mmm. The White Whales. I just saw the Matrix trailer and we’ve always talked about having the Wachowskis on. And we’ve never been able to make that happen. But I feel like we could get Lana Wachowski on to talk Matrix. That’d be amazing.

Craig: I mean, I would love to. It would be a lot of weird fanboy gushing for me. You know, who I would love to get on the show, and maybe I just haven’t asked her and I should, is Shonda Rhimes.

John: Well, with Shonda Rhimes, we tried it for many times, so I think we actually got pretty close to Shonda Rhimes once for a live show.

Craig: I see. And then she was sort of like, “Nah, I got 12 shows I got to do.”

John: Yeah, so it becomes like a publicist thing. And if her publicists gets involved –

Craig: Oh, yeah.

John: As a guest, it’s just doomed. We just know that it’s doomed.

Craig: Right.

John: But I think Shonda is great. James Cameron, obviously a talented filmmaker, but it’s hard to overstate sort of how important he was as a screenwriter for us coming up, just like sort of how much he shaped like the early ‘90s action writing is sort of a James Cameron thing. So I’d love to have him on the show.

Craig: Uhm, it’s a good one.

John: Any other folks that we’ve just kind of always had on our dream list?

Craig: I mean, you know, I don’t think about the show much in between. I’m so tired.

John: Yeah. So there you go.

Julia: All right. If you guys were starting the show today, what would you do differently?

John: I don’t know if it would be just me and Craig, just to be fully honest, two White guys in their 50s. I think we would have reached out so it’d be a three-person show rather than a two-person show. It’s just my guess.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, what’s the joke? What do you call a group of White men? A podcast. So, just like, yeah, I’m sure that’s true. That makes sense. And, you know, in, I guess, in a way, we are kind of like a legacy act, you know.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: I mean, by and large, when people put things together these days, I think in a reasonable and appreciable way, they’re trying to present a diverse group of voices. So you don’t put together a panel of all White people. You don’t put together a panel of all men. You don’t put together a panel of all people in their 50s. So we’re sort of a bit of a legacy act. And, you know, I’m okay with that. I think what is important, if you are a legacy act, is that you keep up and you also open the doors as much as you can.

One of the things that we’ve done over the years that I’m really proud of, is, as John said, bring people onto the show that aren’t the traditional voices. We try and feature people from all different walks of Hollywood life, not just successful people, but also up and comers and also assistants. We’ve gotten involved in how people are paid in our business, including not writers, the Writers Guild spends a lot of time figuring out what writers should be paid. Nobody but us, as it turned out, was worrying about what assistants were getting paid, other than the assistants I mean to say. And it was really gratifying to kind of connect with the assistants and work on that with them.

So we do our best to kind of help move the ball forward because we know the world has changed, and for the better. And I’ve changed for the better. I think just being part of it and being exposed to different people, it helps you see things from other points of view. Hollywood is, and has always been, an utter mess, but it is getting better. And I can’t say that that was always the case. For a while, I guess, when you know, John and I started at the same time in the mid-’90s, stretching through really to, you know, about 2016 or ‘17, it was just sort of a flatline of bad. And then there’s this sort of fairly impressive upward curve towards better. I’m not going to say good, but I’ll say better. And so, it’s been nice to at least go along with that and do what we can as a couple of older White guys. And yeah, I agree with John. If we had started it today, I don’t think it would be him and me. It would be him and someone else. Let’s face it.

Julia: I want to hear more actually about the work you guys did on assistant pay. I mean, I think you guys haven’t been shy on the show ever about expressing opinions about things in Hollywood that were terrible or should change. In addition to the assistant pay issue, you guys have tried to reform the way executives give notes and offered to give them advice on how to make their notes better.

Craig: Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Julia: And, your podcast, I would argue, played a big role in kind of airing some of the concerns and grievances about agency behavior that presaged the WGA talent agency fight. You know, I’m curious how you think about that power you wield. In what ways do you think Scriptnotes has changed the world of screenwriting?

Craig: Geez.

John: Geez. I don’t know if we’ve changed the world of screenwriting. Because there’s always screenwriters, I mean, who have no idea that I host a podcast or this podcast even exists. What I do think we’ve done in our sort of limited way is because enough people listen to the show in the town, if we’re talking about an issue, at least someone is talking about that issue in their ears, and they’re thinking about it. And they might make some different decisions about what they’re going to do. And so, be those executives who invited us in to do that Notes on Notes session.

Or as we’re talking about assistant pay, for me personally, it was like recognizing my own blinders in terms of how I thought about assistants, having been an assistant, how I thought sort of like, oh, this is where you start and this is how you grow. And this is how it all works and not recognizing that the system was really fundamentally broken, and that I hadn’t been sort of inflation adjusting the expectations about sort of how that all works. And so, we weren’t the first people to discover that assistants were underpaid. I wanted to stress that. But we certainly were not shy to use our platform to push people to pay attention and to think about the ways they’re paying assistants and how they’re treating assistants to make sure that we could make some progress on that front.

Craig: Yeah. Yeah, I think we are both aware that people listen. At least, if I’m not aware of how many people listen, I’m aware that there are people that make decisions and run things who listen. And we, I think, handle that quasi influence fairly well. We don’t really go out of our way to change the world. But when we see things that seem pretty much like slam dunk easy ones, we go for it.

The nice thing about this podcast is that it is entirely pro social. This is not a, you know, profitable enterprise for me. I just want to underline that. So, we’re doing this because it’s a good thing to do. And when you’re doing something that is just for good, it is remarkably freeing, especially when you work in Hollywood where you start trying to do things for good. And then everybody gets in there and sort of throws a little muck on it and tries to steer it towards what would put money in their pockets, which I, you know, that’s a business, I get it. This is not.

So when things come along that we can kind of activate on, it’s really lovely to be able to do it. And we do it fearlessly. I was never concerned that any agency was going to yell at me for saying that they should pay their assistants more. You know, I had some interesting conversations in the days leading up to the divorce between the Writers Guild and the agents, with my agency, about the things I said about them, you know, and I stood by my words.

Julia: What kind of conversations?

Craig: Well, they took exception to some of my assertions and opinions. And I stood by them because they were correct. But it was a good conversation. And I just said, guys, this is how this is going to go. And this is the way the world is, and you can’t keep doing this the way you did it before. And there has to be an answer. I don’t know what that answer is. And I don’t know how to get to that answer. But I urge you to get to it. Because I would like to come back to my agency, because I do like my agency a lot. And I like my agent a lot.

And then, the nice thing about having a show like this is that I tend to get yelled at by everybody. So then I got yelled at by writers, because once we did sort of hit our divorce, and occasionally I would question the way the Writers Guild was doing things then the writers would yell at me. So if I’m being yelled by both sides, it’s a good day. And I have a feeling that for John, when no one is yelling at him on either side, it’s a good day for him. It’s just like we’re different that way.

John: Yeah, we are different that way. I’ll say one of the things about being a screenwriter, especially a feature writer is you just have so little control over the finished product. We’re there at the very start. And we are building the engine of the thing. And then it goes off. It takes off. And then we sort of see the finished movie. And maybe we had some input, but we didn’t have all the input we’ve wanted.

For me, what’s been great about Scriptnotes is every week like, it’s the show I want it to be. And so if I wasn’t taking notes from anybody else, it’s like, this is the conversation we had. And it’s what we talked about. And it’s not beholden to anybody else. We are not part of any network. We’re not part of any sort of overall structure. We don’t have to make money. It’s just the thing we wanted to make. And to be able to do that every week has been great. And to have a generation of producers who sort of come up through it and helped us do it, it’s been amazing.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So that’s been the real treat is like it’s a structured conversation every week between me and Craig. So it’s like therapy. But also there’s a thing, there’s a tangible thing you can say, oh, we accomplished that this week, and that’s great. Because so often, as a feature writer, you can spend a year on a project that just never happens.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Those pages just disappear.

Julia: That’s so interesting, because that sounds like you’re describing the satisfaction of creation and unfettered creation. Although, part of what strikes me about the role you guys have played in some of these Hollywood conversations is that it’s not the role of being an artist or a creative. You’re sort of quasi-journalistic because you’re reporting things out sometimes. You’re sort of an organizer role because you’re connecting people who have similar grievances sometimes. Sometimes you’re just making observations. Sometimes there’s a reforming zeal, I think would be fair to describe some of the umbrage taken with the agency practices.

Craig: Mm-hmm.

Julia: It’s a place in which you get to wear these other hats, but it sounds like your primary emotional satisfaction is actually the creation of the thing. Is that fair, John?

John: Yeah.

Julia: More to the point, how do you feel about those other roles that are wrapped up within it sometimes?

John: I think the advocacy thing was always there from the start, because, one of the real goals of the show is to debunk a lot of sort of the myths of screenwriting and sort of that everything had to follow the Syd Field formula or that the proper logline was the key to success, just all that sort of nonsense that screenwriters are constantly taught, and to really talk about the actual daily life of a screenwriter and sort of what really goes on and sort of dispel those other things.

Journalistic is sort of an interesting word, because I don’t think we’re reporting that much. We’re sort of reacting to what’s happening. So we will talk about sort of the stuff we see around us. And while we try to be accurate, we try to sort of be fair, I don’t see it fundamentally as a journalistic enterprise. It’s really just a conversation. And it’s hopefully, an entertaining conversation. It’s like, you described being the other person at the bar who’s overhearing a conversation but can’t contribute. That’s sort of what we want people to feel is that these two friends are having this conversation about things that are hopefully interesting to screenwriters and people who are interested in things about screenwriting.

Craig: I know that slogan.

Julia: Okay, fair, you’re not breaking much news unless it’s Craig Mason breaking the news of how many episodes of his next show to write.

Craig: Right, right. Yeah. Yes. Incredible, hot headline.

John: Yeah.

Julia: Do you have examples? I mean, in 10 years of screenwriting, there must be people who had no foothold in the industry who started listening to you 10 years ago –

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: Who now have successful careers, what kinds of interactions have you had with folks who’ve had that story?

John: Yeah, it’s been great. It’s terrific when you hear those success stories, or folks who read the blog, and then listened to the podcast, like Craig’s assistant right now, I guess, was like in high school or college listening to the podcast?

Craig: Yeah, it’s college.

John: It’s just – it’s impossible.

Craig: Yeah. Yeah, we – I do get these stories particularly when there are some sort of large event, if we go to a – if we do a live show or something like that, that’s where people come up and tell you these things. And sometimes it’s overwhelming.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: I don’t quite know what to say. You realize fairly quickly, and you’ve probably encountered this, Julia, because you’ve been doing your own podcast for so long and you have a connection to the public, that people who listen to you, especially for a show that goes on as long as ours has, they have a relationship with you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: You don’t have one with them. But they have one with you. And when you meet them, you are confronted with it. And it’s it can be very beautiful. It can be very emotional at times. There are times where I’m just overwhelmed by the things people say to me, I don’t know what to say in return because you realize that you have silently, and without any awareness, been an important part of another person’s life.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And that’s very gratifying and beautiful.

John: There are people who would drive across the country to come into a live show, which is crazy, but I also sort of get it because we’re talking about things that they’re interested in and they do feel like they know us because they do kind of know us. I mean, Craig and I are careful to keep some stuff out off of the podcast just for some little zone of privacy, but you are hearing our kind of unfiltered opinions. And that can be nice. It’s interesting, like some of the folks who I saw like the first live show, who then I see eight years later in another live show, you see oh, they actually grew up, they changed. They got married. They had kids. That’s kind of cool to see too. When we were just doing blogs, those were little forum posts. People are – you can connect with them. But like when you see them at a live show, oh, that’s that same person. I got to see sort of where they’re at in their life right now.

Julia: All right, we have a listener question from Dana.

Craig: Okay.

Megana: Dana asks, “Is it easier or harder to be a working, meaning paid, screenwriter now than it was 10 years ago?”

Craig: Well, I guess the first question would be feature or television, I’m going to presume feature because she said screenwriter. I think it’s harder. I think it’s harder because there are even fewer movies being made now than they were before. And the movies – where the movies have been expanding have been in the streaming area. I think that salaries have been pushed down quite a bit in those areas. I think a lot of the stuff that’s made is even more than it was 10 years ago, retreads, remakes, reboots, they’re adaptations of toys and things. Paramount just literally said that’s pretty much all we’re going to do just today. So I think it’s harder. And I think that doesn’t necessarily reflect some areas that have gotten better.

What’s gotten better? They are hiring more women. They’re hiring more people of color. The dark lining of the silver cloud there is that it’s the new hires that get paid the least. It’s the new hires that worked the hardest, and in many cases abused by being asked to do more and more work for free. So unfortunately, a lot of the people that are coming in, if they are diverse writers, they’re also being treated poorly. So that’s not a good outcome either.

I am not particularly optimistic about the future of feature screenwriting. It was always the worst place for writers to be in terms of how they were treated. And the way things are going, I don’t see that necessarily getting better. And of note, in the last five negotiations the Writers Guild has had, feature concerns have been minimal. They’ve mostly concentrated on television writers. I know that there’s an effort to at least think about trying to concentrate on feature writers. Problem is the Writers Guild is essentially a TV writers union, by demographics. So bad news feature writers, I don’t think it’s gotten easier. And I’m not sure it’s going to get easier from here, either.

John: So I agree with a lot of what Craig said. But that actually sort of points out like one of the areas of conflict that’s always been on the show is because Craig will say like the WGA doesn’t care about screenwriters and like, oh, I was actually on the board for, a two-year term, and was involved in all these negotiating committees so I actually know sort of the other side of that story, and sort of why these things happen and don’t happen. And so, I get frustrated when Craig says like the WGA doesn’t care because I was elected and I cared then and we did a lot. And so, there has been a lot of stuff that has happened for screenwriters through the WGA, but just not through the contract, and the focus on the MBA negotiation as the sole thing the Writers Guild does for feature writers, I think, is a very limited view.

Craig: I don’t – I don’t think that the Writers Guild doesn’t care about feature writers. I too was on the board and I too did things for screenwriters.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I think that you care about screeners. I think I care about screenwriters. I think some people care about screenwriters. I think the institution is designed to serve the membership. And the membership mostly is not feature writers. Also, feature writer problems are just harder to negotiate.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And they’re tricky.

John: It’s absolutely true. So I think on the pros and cons of being a feature writer now versus when we started is that when Craig and I started, there was a lot of development. So it’s not that more movies were getting made. Also, a lot of movies were being developed. And so you could work for quite a long time on movies that never shot, but you were still getting paid. And that was awesome. Now, for better or for worse, writers are being hired to write stuff for the studios or for the streamers. And those things are only for projects they think are actually going to get made. And so, the jobs you’re getting are these high-pressure cooker things for this thing has to work because it has a slot, it has a thing and it’s just a different environment than what Craig and I grew up in. Things are just changing and because the whole industry has warped itself just to make things for streamers.

Craig: Can I just say that one of the things I like about our show is that we do model, I think, a way to disagree.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Do you know what I mean? Like, we don’t always agree. I think we agree a lot.

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: I don’t want to present us as Crossfire, but when we disagree, we figure out how to disagree. There’s precious little of that in the world right now. People just yell at each other and then just take sides and become teams and squads and things. And I’ve heard this fed back to us a few times from listeners that they just appreciate that we can disagree with each other respectfully and thoughtfully and that’s nice. I like that we can do that, and that’s a credit to you and to me. I’m going to take half the credit for that.

John: You deserve half the credit as well.

Craig: Thanks.

Julia: I have been part of some podcast fights that have led listeners to write in and be like, “Are you guys okay? Are you still friends?” Have you guys ever had a podcast contretemps that either caused your listeners to worry about your bond and/or actually tested your relationship?

Craig: I mean, we faked one once for our conflict show. That was great.

John: Yeah, the conflict episode. That was really great. That made people really, really nervous. People pulled over there car on the side of the road because they’re like, “Oh, no, they could crash.” Just true confession, during the middle of the agency campaign or sort of early in the agency campaign, it got really uncomfortable between me and Craig. And so when we would need to talk about this stuff on the show, we’d have to sidebar and really figure out, okay, how are we going to talk about this in ways that we can both honestly express what we want to say but doesn’t blow up our relationship or the podcast or everything else around us. And that was probably the hardest time over the 10 years for me doing this podcast was our genuine disagreements about what was happening in the agency campaign.

Craig: Yeah. And a credit to both of us again, because, I have values and I believe in the value of the questioner and challenging authority. I’ve always been that guy. I love dissent. And I’ve always had a weird relationship with the Guild because I love my union. It’s why we do the shows is because John and I both love and care about the status of screenwriters and television writers. So then there’s this organization that sometimes does really good things, and then sometimes just blows it. And I get angry at them. And I get angry at them, in part, because, I’ve also been on the inside as well. And during that whole time, it was challenging, and I appreciated that John was in a really difficult spot. And I think he appreciated that I was in a difficult spot. Because, I’m supposed to be me. And he’s, you know what I mean?

John: Yeah.

Craig: And he’s supposed to be him. And so, we had to negotiate it without feeling like we were abandoning principles or anything like that. And we did. And I will say that, underneath all of it, as dedicated as I am to challenging authority and questioning whether or not things are going the way they should, that John and I have been doing this for a long time. I would never, in any circumstance blow this thing up for that. I would not give the Writers Guild the satisfaction of being the cause of blowing this up. Hell no.

John: But I will say that whole period was probably toughest actually on Megana Rao who had to listen in on those conversations and deal with the stress and anxiety of, like, dad and dad are not getting along, so.

Craig: Yeah. You know what, Megana? It’s okay.

Megana: Thank you so much for acknowledging that because I was sitting here and I was like, this is incredibly triggering for me.

Craig: Aww.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Well, what happened was, we would start to argue about something and then eventually just because psychologically it was beneficial for us, we would triangulate and blame Megana. So, you know, I get it. I get it.

Megana: I do not. I call bullshit on that answer. That’s just not –

Craig: Yeah. No, I don’t. I definitely made that up.

Megana: Since I have invisible relationships with you of a decade long, I can tell.

Craig: Yes.

Megana: Because I know you so well. That’s not what happened.

Craig: Yeah. No, that is not what happened.

Julia: All right. I want to ask you guys a zoomed out question about the state of the industry. And it’s connected a little bit to that, that question about the changing status of feature writers. But just looking back on where the industry was 10 years ago, you launched Scriptnotes 18 months before House of Cards launched on Netflix –

Craig: Oh, wow.

Julia: I believe in the months around your show they were like quietly launching streaming services in Bolivia. But like broadly –

Craig: Wow.

Julia: Streaming was not yet the primary way that American entertainment consumers got their media. You were both pretty firmly film writers, if I’m remembering correctly.

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: Correct.

Julia: I’d love for you guys to project forward 10 years. I mean, we’re living in a moment where as you guys say, it feels like the TV writer is ascendant and the film writer is under duress. But if you zoom out a level further and look at what the average 18-year-old is doing with their time and how much gaming they’re doing and Twitch they’re watching and how many YouTube personalities they aspire to be rather than movie stars, which they haven’t heard of, and maybe they do or don’t watch sitcoms. Where will screenwriting be in 10 years? How do you think that industry will have changed in 10 years by 2031? And what do you guys imagine your places in it will be?

Craig: Well, you know, my place will be obviously as the emeritus. I will be considered the grandfather of – I have no idea. I don’t know. I think that movies, theatrical, the theatrical experience is in trouble. I think that the combination of COVID, streaming and the dissolution of the Paramount decree is probably going to lead to a large amount of movie theaters being purchased by large corporations like Disney Marvel, Pixar. And they will – you know how Disney has got that lovely theater in Hollywood, El Capitan, I suspect that maybe in 10 years, the theatrical experience will be really more of an extension of the studio theme parkish experience, where there will be Marvel theaters that play Marvel movies and charge a lot of money for them.

I think that the generation coming up will bring their interests forward in terms of the kinds of comedy that shows up, I think that’s where we’ll see at first. My son and daughter’s generation have an entirely different concept of what comedy is. And I love it. I mean, it’s great. We will not recognize it. We will watch it. And as we should, as old people, we will say, “Ah, it’s not funny,” and then they will look at us and say, “You’re old, just go back to watching your Friends reruns old people.” And we will because that is the way of the world.

The structure the business will continue to accelerate along the paths of just piping things directly into your home. And even homes will change. As they build homes, I do think that where you used to have certain things that – like large dining rooms are no longer necessary. They will be eliminated entirely. Nobody needs a dining room. But you will have home theaters. People will just have little rooms with little seats, and a big screen TV. Because the movies are going to your house. It just feels like that’s where it’s going. I can’t imagine that it doesn’t accelerate even more than it has been, especially because you have entire studios like Paramount just giving up. They just gave up officially. Paramount, that made, you know, The Godfather, they’ve given up.

John: I am much more bullish on the future of roughly two-hour movie experiences that are shown outside of the house. I think that is an experience that will still be around in 10 years. I agree with Craig that with the fall of the Paramount consent decree, you’re going to see the big studios buy those things out. But I think people want to leave their house. They want a reason to leave their house and a movie, going to see a movie is a way to do that, especially for a teenager, it’s just the thing – it’s a place you can go and a thing you can do. I think that will continue.

I also don’t think that the home theater thing is going to be such the bonanza because I look at my own kid and she wants to watch stuff on her computer or on her phone. She just doesn’t care about it being on the biggest screen possible. So I don’t know if that persists. But for the writing of it, I think there’s still going to be writers who are writing those two-hour features. There’s going to be a lot of writers writing all the streaming television. I think that will persist and continue. I don’t see a real coming crisis for that.

Where it’s going to change though is like this blurring of lines, we have to talk about video game writing and how video game writing is writing. And it’s very analogous to what we’re doing. I think there’s going to be universe building that requires a tremendous amount of writing. And it’s going to be really murky and awkward to figure out what covers that and when it should be that becomes advertising and promotion writing or copywriting or toy making versus screenwriting. I think it’s all getting blurrier. And that’s only going to persist and continue in the next 10 years.

Julia: Right. I mean, I guess my question is, are the people who write games going to consider themselves screenwriters? Or, you know, the biggest celebrity in my kid’s mind is like some guy on YouTube who narrates his Minecraft world.

John: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Of course, like a Jacksepticeye, that kind of person. Yeah.

Julia: Yeah. And, you know, there’s no writer for that entertainment. And they watch hours of it, and they’re not watching whatever is on – I don’t even know –

John: Yeah.

Julia: What the popular Nickelodeon shows are right now because they don’t watch them or care about them, you know. Like, Are you concerned about the rise of content that’s not written in the way that you guys talk about writing things?

Craig: No. No, nope because it’s different. It’s just different. It is a lovely thing to watch. But to me, when my kids or your kids are watching a Twitch stream, or YouTube, just people putting makeup on YouTube or something, it’s a little bit like when my sister and I were just parked in front of the TV and watched The Brady Bunch, or I Love Lucy, meaning it wasn’t new. It was just sort of there. And it filled time and we enjoyed it. Now that was obviously scripted. This is not. But watching I Love Lucy and watching the karate movies on channel five and watching The Brady Bunch didn’t keep us from wanting new content that was scripted. We did like that. And similarly, I do see – or here’s something that, you know, John knows. So his daughter and my daughter are the same age, and we watch these things sweep through that cohort.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: And so, for whatever reason, what was it last summer?

John: Yeah, Criminal Minds.

Craig: Yeah. Every 15-year-old girl was obsessed with bingeing Criminal Minds. I don’t know why, but they work, which means it still works, right? It still works. And we know that as you get older you do gravitate more toward narratives. That’s always, I think, been the case. For my parents’ generation, they probably got more of their narrative from books, but they also would watch movies that we would find boring. I think that the world of narrative is not only alive and well, it’s thriving. There’s more of it than ever. It’s everywhere. And the people who make it and make money off of it are spending money in ways that we’d never thought was possible. Never. I mean, the amount of money that Amazon is spending on the Lord of the Rings show alone is mind boggling. And it’s not slowing down. And in a good way, the amount of money that they’re spending on reliable show runners who produce quality content is also skyrocketing.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: We will always, as a group of professionals in Hollywood, struggle with income inequality. Our income inequality is even more grotesque than the income inequality in the United States. But one of the things that I think John and I talk about and that I think we should continue to ring this bell as much as we can, is getting the salaries of writing staffs up. We think that the Writers Guild can solve all these problems, but I will point out for the one millionth time, writers are in charge of television writing rooms. It’s the writers who do the hiring. It’s the writers who figure out the budget and allot what they allot. So hopefully, the rising tide will start picking up a few more boats as it rises. But narrative is not going anywhere. If anything, there’s too damn much of it.

John: The other point I would make about 10 years down the road is ultimately, you don’t need a studio with a history and library necessarily to get started in this business. You just need a ton of money and there are people out there with a ton of money. So I think there will be new players that come online and it won’t just be mergers of the existing ones. Other folks are going to come online like Apple did, or Amazon did just because they have so much money they need to do something with that money. So there will be some new names that we – we’re not even thinking of 10 years from now.

Craig: I think Apple is going to buy Netflix.

John: Could be.

Craig: I’m just putting that out there.

John: Yeah, yeah.

Craig: Not, not anytime soon.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Don’t – don’t take that as a stock tip. I’m just saying eventually.

John: Like Peloton will inevitably start doing like scripted series. There are just companies that have big money and who will want to do things and ultimately those people will write those things and hopefully that’ll, you know, Megana.

Megana: Right.

Craig: Oh, no, come on, we can do better than Peloton for Megana.

John: Well, okay, all right. The next step.

Julia: We’re going to – we’re going to check back in 10 years and see whether in fact Apple has bought Netflix and Peloton has started making television shows.

Craig: Yeah, I think we should. Yeah.

Julia: Your predictions are officially recorded here.

Craig: Nice.

Julia: We got so many wonderful listener questions that I think are informed by that dynamic of people who feel like they know you as people and care about you as people and are curious about you as people. And I think we should ask a couple of those before we do our One Cool Things.

Craig: Sure.

Julia: Let’s take a question from John from London.

Megana: John from London asks, “From all of the guests you’ve had over the years, what’s the best piece of advice you’ve applied to your own writing? And what’s the one thing that someone has said that stuck with you?”

John: I am thinking back to Katie Silberman. So I don’t remember what episode she was on. But she came on to talk about her writing on Booksmart. And she prewrites. She will have two characters talking about nonsense and just really get a sense of character’s voices independent of the scene. And it’s one of those things like, I always felt I probably should do that. But I don’t know anybody who actually does do that. And her doing that got me thinking oh, I should try to write some unimportant plot scenes just for the character so I can hear their voices. And I’ve started actually doing that. So that’s a Katie Silberman piece of advice that I took to heart.

Craig: I don’t have any, just flat out. I don’t have – I don’t remember any of it. Yeah, I don’t. I love having these conversations. But I can’t – we’ve had a thousand of them. I can’t remember the individual things. This is why I think it kind of works. John really does plan and he thinks these things through and there’s so much intention. And I really do fly by the seat of my pants through it and try and be as experiential as I can within it.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: Everything is a surprise to me. Everything is in the moment. So when we have these conversations, I do think to myself, oh, that was amazing. It was such a great – like we had a great one with Dave Mandel and Julia Louis-Dreyfus. And I just remember being delighted with it. But then if you ask me what did we talk about, I can’t remember. I’m old. And I can’t remember. I’m being as honest as I can. I think this is probably what no one ever does, right? They just pretend. They just make up something, right. And I have to just be honest. I can’t remember. How did you remember that?

John: Because I actually did it. But I also, it was in the WorkFlowy.

Craig: There we go. There it is.

John: I thought about the question ahead of time.

Craig: You thought about it ahead of time.

John: I did my homework. That’s really how I thought of it.

Craig: All right. You know what, I will say, I know that we talked to Lindsay Doran.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: And whether or not Lindsay Doran said this in our podcast, it is a piece of advice that has stuck with me ever since she said it. So I will repeat this advice. And it is that it is incredibly important to know what the central relationship of your story is. If you don’t have one, you’re in trouble. I, at least, think of everything through the lens of relationships. And what Lindsay points out, there are all these relationships and people can get stuck viewing everything kaleidoscopically. But humans need one. You can have other relationships, but they need one central one. They need the one that matters the most.

John: That’s me and Craig.

Craig: Yeah.

John: That’s the central relationship.

Craig: It is. Well, you know, I think the central relationship is me and Megana. But I appreciate that you do what you do.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: All right. We’re only taking questions from listeners in London, let’s hear it from Anna in London.

Craig: Great.

Megana: Ana in London says, “I’d be interested to know if there are any opinions you’ve expressed over the years that looking back now you’d like to edit, especially if you’ve changed your mind on a craft thing.”

Craig: Oh.

John: Oh, I’d be surprised if I changed my mind on a craft thing. Although, I think before I started this podcast, I had gone to a single space after a period. So I used to be a double space writer and I went to a single space.

Craig: Oh.

John: Single space is where it’s at now.

Craig: Yes.

John: But if there’s any opinions I’ve expressed that I want to take back, you know what, we tend to get like a lot of listener mail when there’s like a really bad opinion expressed. And then sometimes we’ve addressed it in follow up, actually, I’d say our follow up on this show is an important part of the history of the show. The early tech podcast I was listening to would always have follow up at the start of their show. And I really liked that. And it’s not a Slate thing. And that’s a thing that I took from other podcasts. And so, we try to address when we misspoke or said too much or said something that was incorrect or inaccurate. But I don’t know that I have an opinion that I want to go back and erase.

Craig: Yeah, I’m sure if I were confronted by a number of the stupid things I’ve said, I would be embarrassed by most of them. Obviously, since I can’t remember anything that I said, it’s hard for me to answer this question. I don’t remember what I’ve said either. But I can say that over the course of this show, I have learned things from John that I think have made me a better person. I’m still very different. I’m still much more fiery. And I get very passionate, and I get angry, which I appreciate. I value that. But I also think about people more. And I think about their feelings more. And I try and temper myself more because I think John sets a really good example that way. And also over the years, I think I have required myself to be a little less – there’s this kind of old guy thing that happens where you just start to insist that –

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: Everybody that makes it makes it because they did it. And if you don’t, you didn’t, and it’s a meritocracy, brah, brah, brah. And I have weeded quite a bit of that out because it’s not a meritocracy. And I think the more that we discuss that and appreciate it, the better off we are. It’s not an ameritocracy. It’s not random. And that’s not what anyone is going for. But it is additionally challenging for a lot of people in a lot of different ways. And almost everyone has some kind of challenge. But some people have more than others. And so I’ve tried to – I change my point of view and the context with which I evaluate things. That certainly has changed over time.

Julia: I want to note as part of the beautiful synchronicity between you guys sometimes that among the things that John proposed is things I might ask about and that you might answer. One was what we got wrong, and a bullet under that was meritocracy. So –

Craig: Ah, there you go.

Julia: I take it.

Craig: See? And you know I wasn’t cheating because I didn’t read it.

Julia: I take it from the WorkFlowy that John agrees. Is that fair, John?

John: Absolutely. And I remember trying to defend meritocracy at some point on the blog, even pre-podcast and it feels as a White guy growing up and having some success you feel like, oh, well, I earned it. And it’s like, well, yeah, you did things that actually helped you. But it’s so hard to acknowledge, oh, but you’ve had many advantages coming into it. And I think over the course of the 10 years during the podcasts, and really just talking with a bunch of other writers, I’ve really learned a lot more about oh, these were the challenges that I did not face just based on who I came into this industry as and when I came in. So I think meritocracy is just a bad word that we just shouldn’t say.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: All right, a couple last lightning-round questions. Craig, did you retire sexy Craig of your own volition or did John make you do it?

Craig: He’s not retired. Oh, no. Oh, no. Sexy Craig is right there. He’s right there with you in those moments when you’re alone, and your mind starts wandering, he’s there.

Julia: Oh, no. Have I started another fight, John? Tell him to –

Craig: Oh, yeah.

John: What’s John answer to this question?

John: It’s somewhere between a shudder and a cringe anytime Sexy Craig shows up.

Julia: It is somehow audible, as a listener –

Craig: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Julia: Even though you make no sound.

Craig: Yeah, inaudible shudder. You shudder already.

Julia: All right. Next question.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: This one is from listener Chris.

Megana: Chris asks, “If you both ran for the presidency, who would be president and who would be VP? And who would you have in your cabinet?”

Craig: Oh, well, I mean, I’m, I’m not going to do any of that. So VP, for sure.

John: Yeah. I think Craig is the VP.

Craig: Yeah.

John: But the cabinet is going to be full of really fascinating people. A recent addition to the show, but also just a superstar is actually Nicole Black, she needs to be in there providing comedy and context and warmth. Love her. Alene has to be in there because she’s an all-star. I don’t know what department she’s running.

Craig: Department of good taste.

John: Yeah, that’s what Alene is doing in there. Does Malcolm makes the cabinet cut?

Craig: I hope so.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Because I need somebody to talk to.

John: We have a lot of really great guests who can come in there and help make things run properly. And also, we have friends with many show runners and the showrunners get stuff done. So it’ll be a somewhat chaotic country, but stuff will happen.

Craig: It’ll be organized by WorkFlowy.

John: That – there’ll definitely be a WorkFlowy behind it all.

Julia: All right, my last question, what do you each hope for the next 10 years with the Scriptnotes?

Craig: Hmm.

John: Hmm. Oh, that, it presupposes that there will be 10 years of Scriptnotes. And I have no intention of shutting it down. But also just recognizing that stuff happens and things change. And podcasting could change. If Craig got really busy doing his show. If I were directing a movie at the same time Craig was doing a show there could be no Scriptnotes. But if we make it to 10 years, I hope just continuing to evolve and feeling that there’s new segments that always feel like they always should have been part of the show that it feels like it’s a continuity, but you can see that was Scriptnotes in black and white and this is Scriptnotes in color.

Craig: Yeah, I don’t know what 10 years will bring. And if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans. But I would imagine that somewhere along the line, somebody should really replace me, don’t you think? I mean, somebody should just gradually replace me. I think that would be great, you know.

John: I could also – I could also imagine at some point, the show is me and Craig. And so, there was at some point a suggestion, like, Craig and John should just give the show to other people to do Scriptnotes. Like –

Craig: Mm-hmm.

John: As is Scriptnotes is the thing that is just independent of me and Craig.

Craig: Right.

John: But there probably would be a way to transition out and become the occasional hosts, or just how to be a thing that exists independent of us the same way that the Slate shows, even if all three hosts are gone, it’s still is the show, kind of. But we have no intention of doing that. We have no plans to do that. But if we were to move on at some point, I think we would try to do a gradual fade out and handover the torch to somebody else.

Craig: Like when Blue’s Clues changed the guy.

John: Absolutely. It was just too abrupt. You got to send Steve off to college in the right way.

Craig: Right.

John: And Craig I’ll send you off to college.

Craig: Yeah. Exactly. Oh, you sent Craig to “college.” And if I died, you know, like, if I died.

Julia: On that note, I think we have one piece of follow up.

Megana: Yeah. So on an earlier episode, I think you guys said that we have heard a lot of stories of screenwriters who’ve had professional success, but we haven’t heard any Scriptnotes love stories. So Isaac wrote in and he wanted to share his love story and prove you guys wrong.

Craig: Okay.

Isaac: Howdy, folks. Back some time ago, I was listening to one of your episodes and heard Craig mention that, though you both hear plenty of stories about people succeeding in their screenwriting professions with the help of this podcast, you’ve yet to hear any good Scriptnotes love stories. Well, back in 2019, I was walking to work and listening to a podcast where John mentioned a live recording was happening at theater of the Ace Hotel. And it just so happened to be taking place on that very day that I was walking to work. There were a few tickets left. So I nabbed one and left work early.

Once I arrived alone and introverted, I went to the bar and was immediately drawn to the bartender. She chatted me up and encouraged me to come back and talk more, which I did several times. I would pour out each drink in the bathroom and wait a few minutes so I wouldn’t actually get drunk. I had no interest in alcohol at that point. The show started. You killed it with Melissa McCarthy and Rob McElhenney. And I ran to the bar again the moment that it ended, but she was gone. I hung around, bought a Camp Scriptnotes shirt to kill more time, which I wear every week, but she never came back.

Back home, I came up with a simple plan to see her again, just go back to the Ace. Problem is I needed to buy a ticket to the event. And the only one in the near future was a $600 VIP ticket to the Sundance Institute presenting The Farewell. I was desperate and dumb. And worse came to worse, I just get to hang out with Lula Huang and Awkwafina for an hour, I crossed my fingers that I wouldn’t have any medical emergencies in the near future and bought the ticket.

The next day, however, I got an Instagram DM from the bartender. It turns out she had clocked me as well. And thankfully, I paid with the card, because she took that opportunity to memorize my name so she could look me up later. We joke now that both of the things that we did were sort of creepy if the other person wasn’t quite into it. But it worked out. We went to get coffee the next day, and I told her about the farewell premiere, but not the price because I’m not a psychopath. She said that she’s glad that she remembered my name and reached out because she was about to leave for a family vacation and wouldn’t be working at the Ace for a few weeks.

Yes, I still went to the Sundance event. It was wonderful and surprisingly opened up a lot of doors that were closed to me originally. The bartender, who turned out to also be an exceptional actor, and I saw each other as often as possible after the first date. And a little over two years and one seemingly unending pandemic later, I asked her to marry me. Anyway, I just wanted to reach out and thank you two for putting this podcast together. To this day, when we get especially starry-eyed about the future, we’ll look to each other, smile and say, fucking Scriptnotes.

Craig: Fucking Scriptnotes.

John: Ah, that make – that just makes my heart my heart sing.

Craig: Wow.

John: Yeah. And so, I love the Scriptnotes wedding. I love the Scriptnotes baby. I love, you know –

Craig: Oh, my god, look at that.

John: Any people brought together by these circumstances.

Craig: You think, John, that Isaac knows her name yet because he’s just calling her the bartender. Do you think maybe he never found out?

John: Yeah. Or maybe there’s – she could be in witness protection. And that’s obviously a possibility. Yeah.

Craig: Oh, either way, man. That’s pretty awesome.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s, you know what, that’s pretty – I’m glad.

Julia: Wouldn’t she still have a name if she were in witness protection? She would just have a new name?

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah. A false name.

Craig: Yeah, I think that that’s one of the things they try and do otherwise they know it’s, yeah, if you just like, “What’s your name?” “Bartender.” And they’re like, “Oh, you’re in witness protection.” Now, they get – she has a name, I just don’t know if he knows it. Look, if you want to stay with her because John and I have been married for a long time so we can tell – not to each other. But we can tell you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: One of the keys is knowing your partner’s name.

John: It’s really good. Name, birthday, just the basic facts. You know, be able to recognize her face in a crowd –

Craig: Yeah.

John: So you can actually see here. Yeah.

Craig: Oh my god, like there’s like this sad part where she never came back and he was hanging around. Aww, I, you know, I feel like even though Isaac is saying that it’s Scriptnotes brought him and his wife together really it was just alcohol. I don’t think it was us at all. I mean, if you – if you really interrogate what he’s saying, he’s saying that he left the show to go drink and talk to her. So we actually were kind of in the way. Fucking Scriptnotes.

John: And so it 10 years.

Craig: Oh, ah.

Julia: Ten years, a lot of impact.

Craig: Ten years.

Julia: Is time for One Cool Things? I don’t feel like I can say that unless John decrees that it is.

John: It is time for One Cool Things.

Craig: Whoa.

Julia: So who goes first, John? You go first?

John: I’ll go first. Sure. I have two One Cool Things. My first one is a hawk named Spencer. So Spencer is the hawk who flies around the new Academy Museum and scares away all the other birds who might poop on the amazing glass dome that they built there. So I just love that there is a trained hawk who comes out there twice a week to fly around there and scare birds away. I just love that we still use hawks to do things like this. So this is a story in the L.A. Times. For all I know Julia, you may have been the person responsible for the story, but it’s written up by Deborah Vankin. I just – it’s cool that there’s like a hawk flying around Los Angeles to protect our new museum.

Julia: I can take no credit for that story because I’m on maternity leave, but I was delighted to see it.

Craig: Good job, Deborah.

Julia: Deb is a specialist at finding – she did an amazing story this year also about how the Getty fights moths, which is apparently a terrible thing you have to fight at a museum.

John: Oh.

Craig: Ooh. Oh, yeah.

Julia: She’s got a sub beat of museums, and they’re animals.

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: Yeah.

John: My second One Cool Things is actually just kind of a humble brag. Not a humble brag, just to brag. I built this typewriter out of Lego and it’s so cool. It took me nine hours to do but it looks great. I love vintage typewriters. And now I have a vintage typewriter made out of Lego. You guys can click the link in the WorkFlowy and see what it looks like. But, uh, it turned out great. It was my first Lego kit I’d ever done as a grown up and I just loved it and it actually makes little clacky sounds and the cartridge moves as you type. It’s delightful.

Craig: I see in your Instagram that Alex and A. Smith says, “My money is on this being next week’s One Cool Things.” Correct.

Julia: I saw that on your Instagram.

Megana: I was just going to say I’ve watched John make this Lego typewriter the pictures do not do justice to how complicated this was.

Craig: You are talking to the guy that built the 5,000-plus Millennium Falcon. So –

John: Wow. So really nothing – doesn’t mean for you.

Craig: What I’m saying is LOL to your Lego typewriter.

Julia: Hmm, I don’t know. I also am engaged in some high-level Lego building over here with my 8-year-sons –

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: And have also been given adult specialized Legos. So maybe we need to have a Lego off.

Craig: Ah, I would totally be into that. The key to building Legos is to just commit.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Just commit.

Julia: You know, but I remember hearing before I had kids like, “Oh, Legos, it’s so terrible. There’s no creative building anymore. The kids just want to follow the rules and build these sets.” And like as a non-kid haver and non-Lego doer, I was very sympathetic to that kind of cranky Gen-X argument. It’s not like we were when we were little. And then having kids, these sets are so cool. Like, they’re really fun –

John: Yeah.

Craig: True.

Julia: And you learn a lot like, I mean, yes, there’s the problem that they make you buy new Legos and capitalism, etc. But I anticipated loathing Legos in parenthood and instead have found them a great source of parenting pleasure.

Craig: Yeah, of course, the sets are amazing. When I was a kid, and I didn’t have sets. I just had a huge, big bag of Legos. I built a large brick. I built the largest Lego brick ever. It’s the kind of thing that gets you institutionalized.

John: Yeah.

Craig: If people really consider what you’re doing as a child, “What does your son do with those Legos? He built one massive Lego. Okay, well, he’s a danger to society.”

I’ll tell you what is my One Cool Things and some people consider it dangerous to society like for instance, Stephen King who doesn’t get the genius of this, Ketchup Doritos. So in Canada there are all these ketchup things like they have ketchup potato chips, and they have Ketchup Doritos. And it sounds disgusting for I think a lot of people. I thought it would probably be disgusting.

Ketchup Doritos are wonderful. They’re the greatest thing ever. I have a bag of Ketchup Doritos that I keep in my trailer and I try and work through it slowly like over the course of a couple of weeks. So I’m like – I don’t eat out of the bag. I like take a handful, put them on the table, put the bag back, eat my eight Doritos and I feel super happy. Although I will say, I’m pretty sure that Bo steals a lot of the ketchup Doritos because there was a time I think she ate through one-and-a-half bags. Nobody can eat food like Bo by the way. Bo is my assistant, Bo Shim is very small, and she can eat more food than I can. It’s amazing. Regardless, Ketchup Doritos, I don’t know if you can get them in the US.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: But if there’s some sort of Canada deal where they can ship it to you from Canada, and you got a few extra bucks and you feel ketchup-ing it up, hmm, so good.

John: Well, then, it sounds great.

Julia: All right. I’ve got two One Cool Things as the vernacular has it. The first is just a book that I want both of you hosts to read and actually Megana too given her background as I learned about it on the show. Have any of you read Empire of Pain by Patrick Radden Keefe, the book about the Sacklers?

John: Um, it is sitting on my Kindle to read. I’m excited to read it.

Craig: I have read it.

Julia: I found it to be such a great mix of really impressive reporting and really gripping storytelling. It’s very hard to write nonfiction that is both rigorous in its standards of accuracy and inquiry and reads like a fucking potboiler. And I could not put this book down. I found it so impressive on both levels. And it’s fascinating about the evolution in the pharmaceutical business and all of the terrible decisions that brought us the opioid epidemic.

Craig: So many.

Julia: But if you haven’t read it and those subjects sound at all interesting to you, read it. It’s not a beach read, but it’s a page turner, yes, page-turner.

Craig: it almost is a beach read. There are these moments where the stupid humanity of it all. Like, first of all, the way that they ended up with the name Purdue Pharmacy is incredible. So weird and shabby. And then the fact that the whole thing ultimately can be traced back to one poorly cited study in a journal that shouldn’t have even been in there. It’s awesome, and terrible, and wonderful. Definitely, great read.

Julia: All right, so that’s my first Cool Thing. And my second one, possibly stepping outside my role here as the ruthless journalist come in to interrogate you guys. But my second Cool Thing is Scriptnotes. You guys have built something really extraordinary here.

John: Aww.

Megana: Aww.

Craig: Aww.

Julia: And it’s been lovely over the years to hear all of its ramifications, all the different people you’ve touched, all the impact you’ve had, all the interesting knowledge you’ve surfaced. And as a longtime listener, that’s my Cool Thing in honor of your 10th anniversary is you guys.

Craig: Oh, Thank, Julia.

John: Thank you.

Craig: That’s so sweet. And thank you for doing this.

John: Yes.

Craig: This is awesome.

John: Now, Julia, you have the opportunity, but not the requirement to do the boilerplate at the end of the show. Do you feel like doing that or would you like me to do that?

Julia: Oh, man. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited Matthew Chilelli. Our outro today is by Matthew Chilelli. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes online as @clmazin, and I am always @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and the sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts, and they’re great, from the Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net, where you can get all the back episodes and bonus segments.

Craig: Thank you, Julia.

John: Thank you so much for doing this. And please stick around after this because you have a bonus topic for us to talk through which I’m very excited about on How Would Scriptnotes Be a Movie.

Julia: Very briefly, I know we have a cutoff, but I have one question I had wanted to ask you was, “What is the story of the Scriptnotes theme, where those notes come from? What’s the deal?”

John: So the Scriptnotes theme comes from, the bump, bump, bump, bump, bump, actually came from a short I did called The Remnants. It was a pilot for a web series, which we can put a link in the show notes to that, and I just wrote that as the opening jingle to The Remnants and I needed some intro music. So just like grabbed those, and so the actual name of that is Bloops and that became the basis for all of our outros. And so, all the outros should have that same pattern in there. And sometimes we get outros that are like really cool but you can’t actually hear the bloops in there. And they get dinged because we have standards.

Craig: Stuff I don’t know. The stuff I don’t know about this show is just a mountain of stuff I don’t know.

John: Oh, also, one thing we didn’t talk about, who came up with the name Scriptnotes? It was Craig Mazin.

Craig: Oh, also didn’t know that. Is that right?

John: Yeah, that’s true. You were the one who said Scriptnotes and –

Craig: Oh, okay.

John: Scriptnotes is meant to be – only the “S” is capitalized. There’s – the “n” is not capitalized, and it drives me absolutely crazy when people capitalize the “n” in it. So it’s, it’s one word, just to capital on the “S” whatever. And Craig –

Craig: When John sees it, he has a kernel panic.

John: I really do. Like, the camel case is not appropriate for this kind of work.

Julia: Why one word instead of two?

Craig: Yeah.

John: Just because I – it should be one word. I don’t know why. It just feels like it should be one word.

Julia: All right, mysteries, mysteries persist –

Craig: Yeah.

Julia: At the end of this conversation.

John: Just taste. Yeah.

Julia: Just taste.

John: And thank you, Julia Turner, for coming on to do this. But you should listen to her every week on the Slate Culture Gabfest which is phenomenal. And of course, subscribe and read the L.A. Times, which is a great local newspaper. Julia Turner, thank you so much for doing this.

Craig: Thank you, Julia. That was great.

Julia: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Hello, and welcome to the bonus segment of Scriptnotes. I’m doing the Slate Plus intro tone of voice here, but you guys will just have to roll with it. Today we are playing How Would This Be a Movie with the first 10 years of Scriptnotes. Is it a buddy comedy? Is it a bracing Hollywood critique? Is it kind of Norma Rae where you get the assistant’s better pay? And who plays each of you?

John: That’s the crucial question. All right. My choice for Craig –

Craig: Oh.

John: Is Paul is Paul Giamatti.

Craig: I mean, he’s a little too old.

John: He’s a little too old. That’s the problem. So –

Craig: I think you’re thinking of 10 years ago, Paul Giamatti.

John: I’m thinking 10 years, so like, Josh Gad, could you – who else could do it? Now, who do you want to play you?

Craig: I don’t know. Just somebody sort of Jewy and grumpy, who’s sort of Jewy and grumpy. There’s so many of us. I don’t know. I have no idea.

John: And maybe Craig plays himself honestly.

Craig: I mean, I am an actor.

John: You’re quite a good actor.

Craig: Thank you.

John: You are an actor. Yes.

Craig: Thank you. Thank you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Maybe Craig plays himself. But I am played on the show by – I think by Jim Parsons of Big Bang Theory, that’d be my choice.

Craig: Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

John: Yeah, because he could do that sort of, like, good-natured, but gay and also can be robotic at times.

Craig: Yeah.

John: That’s –

Craig: I mean, he’s sort of got that market cornered, actually.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So I’m saying Jim Parsons. But what is the tone?

Julia: Yeah, yeah, casting is fun. But like what’s – yeah, how would it be a movie?

Craig: Hmm. It’s a boring goddamn movie. I’ll tell you that.

John: Yeah. So the drama-drama came out during the agency stuff, but much of that is especially good. It could be like one of those sort of backstage comedies like getting ready for a live show. Because that’s always sort of interesting and scrambly because here’s what tends to happen, especially an Austin is Craig would put together a dinner before the show.

Craig: Yes.

John: And we have like 30 or 40 writers around this big, long table, and we take forever to get our food and like, “Craig, the show is going to start in 10 minutes, we have to go.” And Craig is like, “Oh, great, Who should we have on as guests, and so that we bring really drunk people on the show?” So that stuff behind the scenes would be half the fun. Like, we’re sort of like, Game Night. It’s like Game Night, but without trying to put on a live show.

Craig: That’s not bad. I mean, there is a version where we do the show, but really, we’re spies or something, I mean, the whole thing is a cover. We’re not even screenwriters.

John: Yeah, no.

Craig: But –

John: That’s a very long con.

Craig: There could also be a version of this where we hate each other.

John: Yeah. Oh, I love that version –

Craig: Yeah.

John: Where like, it’s all we just detest each other. And so like –

Craig: Yeah.

John: So, you and I both know, it’s like some TV shows where they’d be cast members just despise each other.

Craig: Yes.

John: And could not actually – they could like, cameras rolling, they’re great. And they never spoke offset. That could be us.

Craig: I think that would be kind of fun. And then I guess in that regard, the hero of that show would be Megana.

John: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Or she’s like sort of trapped in the middle of the first shot.

Craig: Yeah, she’s like, so it’s from her perspective, like Megana wakes up, and she’s like, “Oh, my god, I got to go to work with – ” And everyone is like, “Oh, my god, you’re so lucky. You get to produce that show with those guys. They’re so great.” And she’s like, “Mm-hmm.” And then she gets there. And we’re screaming at each other and she’s like, “My life sucks. And then and then she falls in love.”

John: Yeah. But I think –

Megana: Ah, with who?

Craig: Exactly. See, you’re into it. So I’m feeling like, there’s another podcast that we’re super angry about because they’re getting into our stuff, and we hate each other but we hate other podcasts more. And you and the producer of that podcast –

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: Start to commiserate over some drinks. And then it happens. And then the thing – it’s like Romeo and Juliet.

John: Yeah, so we may be begging the question, Craig –

Craig: Oh.

John: Because we’re assuming that this is supposed to be a movie, but I don’t think it really is a movie. I think it is a –

Craig: It’s inaudible.

John: It’s a series. I mean, it really is –

Craig: Great use of begging the question. Great use of everything.

John: Thank you. I want to take all the praise you can give me. I think it really is, though, a – it’s a comedy. I think it’s more like Veep, honestly, where like, we are incredibly dysfunctional.

Craig: Right.

John: And Megana is the equivalent of that chief of staff like trying to hold us all together.

Craig: Right?

John: And that’s Craig…

Craig: Perfect. It’s like the first – maybe it’s not the first comedy – but it is of a model where finally the millennials have to take care of the diapered up Gen-Xers. You know what I mean?

John: Inaudible.

Craig: Like, we’re just cranking and out of it. So out of it.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: And I like the idea that you are super racist behind the scenes.

John: I think that – well, you know, I’m Southern. I try to keep my accent hidden but I’m actually from the deep, deep south, the really racist south.

Craig: Yeah. Yeah. And so like –

John: So –

Craig: When once the thing, like, you know, it’s Hollywood, nothing is ever what you think. Like I’m the nice one. You’re a dick. And then, Megana, she’s like, deal with that, but you know, I think it would be wonderful. That’s – how would it be a show?

Julia: Reverse Odd Couple where the odd couple you play on the podcast, you are the opposite odd couple behind scenes.

Craig: Correct. Reverse odd couple plus generational babies. Yeah. I love it.

Julia: Yeah.

Craig: Plus romance. Romance is the key.

John: Oh, so much romance. Yeah.

John: I’m really excited about this whole Megana romance angle. We do it to figure this out.

Megana: I’m excited about it, too.

Craig: I know. Megana, let’s talk. We got to figure this out.

John: Yeah. But it has to be like, like fumbles along the way. So it has to be like, sort of like –

Craig: Of course.

John: I mean, because it has build over the course of season like will they or won’t they? But then of course, stuff will sort of pull them apart and there’s terrible stuff about him too.

Craig: You know, I feel like that’s something that is from our time. I think that for millennials, there’s no will they or won’t they.

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: It’s you will – we will.

John: Yeah.

Craig: But then what?

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s exciting.

John: But then it got awkward. Yeah.

Craig: Yeah, exactly. Now it’s like, oh, my god, am I on his Insta, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. This is great. Love it.

Julia: All right.

Craig: I’m just summing up an entire generation with the word Insta.

Julia: Okay. I think we can conclude that Scriptnotes should remain a podcast based on this conversation. But thank you for indulging my inquiry.

Craig: Of course.

Julia: And thank you listeners for supporting John’s effort to enrich himself at the expense of Craig.

Craig: Thank you. Hey, finally, someone gets it. We did it!

John: Yay!

Craig: Yay!

John: This was so much fun.

Craig: Whew! Whew!

Julia: Thanks, guys. This was really, really fun.

Craig: Thank you so much.

John: Thank you so much, Julia. This was amazing.

Links:

  • Julia Turner on the LA Times and Slate Culture Gabfest
  • The Matrix Trailer
  • Scriptnotes, Episode 411: Setting it Up with Katie Silberman
  • Empire of Pain by Patrick Radden Keefe
  • The Academy Museum Hawk Deborah Vankin for the LA Times
  • Lego Typewriter, check out John’s finished project!
  • Ketchup Doritos
  • Check out the Scriptnotes Index for our first 500 episodes
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Julia Turner on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

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

June 11, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

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

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

Craig: All right. You asked for it.

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

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

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

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

John: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

John: No.

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

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

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

John: Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

John: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John: Nothing. You get nothing.

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

John: Premium video-on-demand.

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

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

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

Craig: It’s available.

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

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

John: Yeah.

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

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

Craig: The boy on the moon?

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

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

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

Craig: Oh good lord. Look at that.

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

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

John: I’m an employee as well.

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

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

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

Craig: Dangling. I don’t like it.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Don’t like that.

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

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

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

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

John: It does.

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

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

Craig: No, that will not last.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John: I don’t either.

Craig: Wiip. There’s two Is.

John: Too many.

Craig: One too many Is.

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

Craig: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: Right.

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

Craig: Precisely.

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

Craig: I do.

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

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

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

Craig: Yeah.

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

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

John: Yeah.

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

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

Craig: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The grind is the deal.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s the job is the grind.

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

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

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

Craig: Ugh, so angry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John: Yeah.

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

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

John: Zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: Right.

John: And don’t sort of question it.

Craig: Don’t question it.

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

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

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

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

Craig: We have no choice.

John: It comes back to being the protagonist.

Craig: We have no choice.

John: Be the hero in your own story.

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

John: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: Right.

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

Craig: Oh yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John: Yes.

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

John: Oh yeah. Don’t let this happen.

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

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

Craig: All true.

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

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

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

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

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

John: Mm-hmm.

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

John: No.

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: Yes.

John: But that’s not some other people.

Craig: Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

John: Yup.

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

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

Craig: Yeah.

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

Craig: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

Craig: Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: Agreed.

John: What else you got for us here?

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

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

Craig: Aw, did she?

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

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

It’s so frustrating.

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line is you’re getting used here.

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

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

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

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

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

Megana: Got it.

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

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

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

John: Yeah.

Craig: And that’s that.

John: Nice.

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

John: Not a bit.

Craig: No.

John: Megana, thank you for these questions.

Craig: Thanks Megana.

Megana: Thanks guys.

Craig: We care about you, Megana.

John: We do.

Megana: Aw.

Craig: God.

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

Craig: Oh yeah. People loved this.

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

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

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

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

Craig: Yes.

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

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

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

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

John: Really good acting.

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

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

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

Craig: No, it’s acting.

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

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

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

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

John: Yes.

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

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

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

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

Craig: You know it is.

John: It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Always.

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

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

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

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

Megana: Thanks guys.

Craig: Thanks guys.

[Bonus segment]

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

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

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

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

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: So those are the choices.

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

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

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

Craig: Yes.

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

Craig: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

John: Blimps.

Craig: Blimps. Everything.

John: Albatrosses.

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

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

Craig: Never.

John: Never?

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

John: You never had Santa Claus.

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

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

Craig: It really doesn’t. [laughs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig: We’re not great food.

John: We’re not great food, no.

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

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

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

John: Yeah. The most hospitable planet.

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

John: Warp Drive.

Craig: C’mon guys.

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

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

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

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

John: Yeah.

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

John: Yeah.

Craig: You know what I’m saying?

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

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

John: Oh no. Getting back to that.

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

John: Yeah. And now it’s over.

Craig: Wait, now?

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

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

John: Thanks Craig.

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

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

Craig: Excellent.

Links:

  • Alamo Drafthouse out of Bankruptcy
  • Speculation that AMC may buy our beloved Arclight
  • Warner Brothers Discovery Logo
  • CAA Sells wiip
  • Screen Compensation Guide for Streaming Services
  • Screen Deal Tips
  • 32 year old passes for 19 for TV contract
  • Jacob Kaplan-Moss on estimating software development
  • Bo Burnham’s Inside
  • Jack Plotnick’s Disney Made a Tiki Room
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Eric Pearson (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 357: This Title is an Example of Exposition — Transcript

July 10, 2018 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/this-title-is-an-example-of-exposition).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 357 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

That’s an example of exposition and this week on the podcast we are going to be talking about exposition. Craig and I are going to defend and debate one of the most maligned aspects of screenwriting. That is how do you tell the audience what they need to know without being labeled a hack. Plus we have a follow up on screenwriting competitions, toxic fandom, fridging, and more.

**Craig:** This is going to be an exciting episode.

**John:** Yeah. So Craig we’re both back in the Los Angeles area. I was away at the Sundance Filmmakers Lab. You were off shooting your TV show. But at the moment we are both in sunny California.

**Craig:** Yeah. Fairly rare alignment of the stars. Remember when we always used to be together?

**John:** Yes. I do.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But many things used to be different and better. So, we do the best we can with what we have.

**Craig:** Exactly. Life goes on, man. You know what? This is us.

**John:** This Is Us is not just a TV show on the NBC Network. It is also life.

**Craig:** It’s also us.

**John:** It is also us. If you would like to know more about This Is Us you can listen to the episode that we had the showrunners of This Is Us on.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** But that’s not this episode.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** This episode though we do have some advice from other very smart people. Michael Arndt who is a fantastic screenwriter and friend, he wrote little movies called Little Miss Sunshine. He wrote–

**Craig:** Toy Story 3.

**John:** Toy Story 3. Oh my god.

**Craig:** And Star Wars: The New Beginning. What was it called?

**John:** He also worked on the Star Wars movies.

**Craig:** Star Wars: Here We Go Again.

**John:** Yes. That’s the movie he did. He a couple years back did a great video called Beginnings. He just did a new video called Endings, which is terrific. So we’re going to put a link into that. That just went up I think yesterday as we are recording this. And they are great. And Michael is very smart so you should check those out.

What I like so much about his videos is the very strong pronouncement that these are not rules. This is not how to write a movie. This is not the only way to tell a movie. These are just some things he’s noticed. But he noticed some really good things.

**Craig:** Kind of weird that the smarter you are the better you are. The more professional you are and the more experienced you are the less you push some sort of orthodoxy on people. It’s almost like the people that push the orthodoxy aren’t particularly good, talented, smart, professional, or experienced. Huh?

**John:** Huh?

**Craig:** Huh?

**John:** Maybe that’s worth further study. Yeah. Get a grant and study that.

**Craig:** A grant.

**John:** With some of that grant money you could also buy a Scriptnotes midnight blue t-shirt.

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** So the people who print our t-shirts, Cotton Bureau, they’re having an anniversary sale and so they asked whether they could print more of the Scriptnotes shirts. And we said sure. So they’re printing some more of them, so if you missed out on a chance to buy a Scriptnotes midnight blue shirt, which I’m actually wearing at the moment. It is a super soft beautiful shirt. I think for another week or so they’re going to be printing those shirts. There will be a link in the show notes or you can just go to Cotton Bureau and we are up there as one of their shirts.

**Craig:** What’s the logo on the midnight blue?

**John:** That is just the typewriter.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. A classic.

**John:** Classic, yeah.

**Craig:** Classic.

**John:** Nice dark blue shirt. Wearable with anything. Except for like certain jeans. If your jeans are exactly the same color as the shirt that looks a little too much like a jump suit for me.

**Craig:** You know what that is? That’s what the fashion people call matchy-matchy.

**John:** It’s a little matchy-matchy. Yeah.

**Craig:** I learned that from Fashion Police, which my wife watches. Matchy-matchy.

**John:** I don’t watch any fashion shows. I don’t watch Project Runway. I don’t watch any of those things because I’m sure they’re incredibly great, but I don’t have the time to watch those things. I’m also not that interested.

**Craig:** I think that’s what it is. You’d make time. You’d make it.

**John:** I’d make time.

**Craig:** It’s just not your thing.

**John:** All right. Let’s do some follow up because it’s been a while since you and I have been on the Skype together. Because last week I was talking about animation, and that was a lovely conversation. But two weeks ago or even before that we talked about screenwriting competitions. And we had a lot of listeners write in and defend some screenwriting competitions, in particular in defense of ScreenCraft which is one of the things that was sort of the impetus for this whole conversation about why screenwriting competitions mostly don’t matter except for Austin Film Festival to some degree and Nicholls Fellowship to a large degree.

Craig, you and I both got a bunch of emails. Some to the ask account, but some to our personal email accounts. So, tell me how you’re feeling about this.

**Craig:** Not good. Here’s the thing. It was a thinly disguised PR campaign by ScreenCraft. I assume what they did was they reached out to people who had won their awards and said would you write these guys and tell them. But I don’t know. Did they supply them with a template? Because every single one of these people wrote the same email to us. I mean, with mild variation it was all the same. All of it.

The tone. It was all very Stepford email. So, I’m sorry, I don’t believe it. And also none of it, yeah, it was not persuasive in any way, shape, or form to me because it seemed to clearly artificial and campaign-y. I cannot and will not recommend that people send money to a ScreenCraft competition. I just will not. And the form emails, bordering on form emails, actually in my mind makes it worse.

**John:** So, I want to take each of those emails an individual writer’s individual experience going through this process. And some of them credited this organization with more of their success. Others said it was one of the little steps along the way. This was a good guy. I’m going to take all that at face value. That all of these people who are writing in are writing in with their own honest reflections. At the end of the day I don’t think it changes my overall impression that taken as a system, looking at overall, is this the kind of procedure we would recommend people do to sort of get to the next step? I do not still have the recommendation that that is what people should do.

Now what people have written in and said, the general patterns as Megan has noticed all the emails we’ve gotten, people ask “Well how else can you break in if you’re not in LA?” People will make the point that it’s good to have deadlines and a sense of community. Or that any feedback is helpful and I don’t want to give it to industry people, like real industry people, until I have some eyes on it. I can understand all of those general urges. And sort of why you might want to be thinking of those things while you’re entering a screenwriting competition.

But I also feel like so many cases the screenwriting competition is like, well, it’s a thing I can do and I feel like I can’t do anything else. And I get that. I get that frustration. But I still come back to the point that most of these screenwriting competitions are almost worse than doing nothing.

**Craig:** I agree with you. And I think you put your finger on it here. When people said well how are we supposed to break in if we’re not in LA. It’s hard. We’ve always been honest about this. There’s a mistake that people are making in their minds. They’re saying I’m not in LA therefore I have to do something to break in from outside of LA and these competitions are available to me, therefore I should do them.

There’s a missing piece in there which is “and they work.” They don’t. And if you write a script that is good enough to win that thing and launch your career – forget about winning it. You read a script that’s good enough for somebody to like and want to hire you or buy the script or option it or whatever, then you know, you probably should have sent it to one of the precious few screenwriting competitions that anyone cares about. There are hundreds of these. Hundreds of them.

And by the way ScreenCraft interestingly they not only have readers that are judging their competition, they also then – they supply readers for other people’s screenwriting competitions. I don’t think people know how this works out there. There’s too many competitions. I mean, what do you think there are? A million qualified readers who are all brilliant and know exactly what a great script is? You think that’s going on?

No, my friends. No. If you have amazing taste in screenplays you’re not working as a reader for ScreenCraft. You’re working in Hollywood. And if you’re a great writer you don’t need ScreenCraft. Put your script on the Black List and get a 10. Enter it into Nicholls and become a semi-finalist or finalist, whatever they do. But this is the problem is that what these competitions are peddling to you is comfort. Well, beware.

**John:** Beware. So, I do promise that at some future point we’ll have a Scriptnotes episode where we’ll talk to the folks who did enter into screenwriting competitions like Austin, like Nicholls, and we’ll talk about how it worked. And what those steps were after you placed in one of those things, because we have gotten feedback from folks who placed at Austin and that’s how they got their manager. Or they placed in Nicholls and it was coming out to Los Angeles to do all those meetings after that that started them in their career. So I do promise we will connect some dots here. But we just want to stress that we don’t think that most of the people who are writing in these emails really have connected the dots in that meaningful way.

And I don’t want to fault any of those individual people for writing in to tell about their stories. But systemically I don’t find them compelling.

All right. Let’s go on to–

**Craig:** So polite.

**John:** The episode that I was not part of. You talked to Leigh Whannell about his movie Upgrade.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** A different Megan, not our producer, wrote in to say, “While I loved the conversation about making low or medium budget movies, I could not but feel you missed an opportunity to talk about the fridging trope. For me, I was really excited to see Upgrade until I realized it’s another one of those movies where a woman exists for the sole purpose of being killed so that same guy, usually a love interest, but occasionally a family member is motivated to seek revenge. Maybe the movie is great despite this. I mean, hey, Jason Bourne managed, but honestly I’m just so tired.”

So, Craig, before a couple weeks ago I had not heard the term “fridging.” Had you heard of fridging?

**Craig:** Yeah, but not too much earlier than you had. Maybe a couple months ago. So, I think it was a comic book where someone finds their girlfriend or wife jammed in a fridge dead. And so they go crazy and begin a rampage of revenge. And Megan is absolutely correct. This is a trope that has been part of storytelling for years. Also, it’s been a part of storytelling for thousands of years actually. I mean, revenge is one of the great storylines.

**John:** I see this and some people sort of shot back at me saying how could you not have heard of fridging because that’s a thing and you’re a screenwriter. You should know about fridging. And it’s like well I was aware of this thing. I wasn’t aware of the term that popular culture or TVtropes.org had provided for it.

I get it. And I think it’s worth noting that as a trope and as a cliché. And asking whether this is the best way for us to be starting our films. But I’m not going to dismiss a movie just because it has this trope in it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, first of all, we can’t beat each other up for not knowing a term, right? Because the Internet is really good at creating new terms all the time. And so, you know, for instance up until maybe three, four years ago, something like that, I didn’t know about Mary Sue. That was a term that people knew about in certain communities but I didn’t know it until finally I did. But I’m aware of the concept.

Similarly, you know, not knowing the term fridging but you do know the notion of, oh, it’s a movie again where some guy goes crazy because this woman he loves, who he’s never – I mean, you know, in John Wick we never even get to see her. She doesn’t get killed. She dies of cancer. Yeah, I guess maybe we get to see her face like once, but the entire movie is really about him going bananas because of that.

So, yeah, I get it. And there is a healthy discussion going on now about using violence against women as a narrative tool and whether that is good and healthy for us to do. And I think that’s a great discussion to have. In the instance with Upgrade it just – generally speaking when I’m interviewing a writer I’m talking about their writing process. I’m not a film critic. And I’m not a film reviewer. And I try and be incredibly positive with the people that I interview. So, you know, it’s unlikely that I’m going to sort of criticize somebody’s artistic choices. I’m really just more trying to in a very student-like innocent way trying to kind of dig into their head and see how and why they do what they do.

**John:** As we discuss other movies or we go back and look at – you know, we do segments like this kind of movie, or you know, remake this where we sort of talk about existing films and sort of how you would approach that material now, I think looking at fridging and sort of representation is absolutely a crucial part of what we think about as we make movies now. And so that’s maybe a good way for us to fold this into the conversation down the road.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, look, in general, you and I, we are against sort of tropes anyway, right? I mean, there are some of these tropes that there’s an argument to be made that they are bad for us. Just bad for our souls. And then there are some of these tropes where we just say they’re just – it’s enough already. Stop saying, “You and I, we are not so different after all,” because it’s enough. It’s enough with these.

So, in general yes. But then again every now and then something comes along and it sort of reinvigorates an old trope. Because tropes are tropes. They become tropes for a reason. A loved one being murdered and you taking revenge is–

**John:** About as old of a storytelling device as you can imagine.

**Craig:** Pretty much.

**John:** I’m sure before we had any written texts those were part of the first stories told around a campfire.

**Craig:** Exactly. And they are ingrained in our minds because shortcut to emotion. So, that’s why they stick around. But, yeah, I think it is – it’s a great idea to have a discussion about – I mean, because – see, I always try and think of things practically speaking. As we change as an audience we then have to kind of change the way we tell stories. These things aren’t going to work the same way they used to. Because people are going to be uncomfortable. They’re going to feel good. I mean, you could also argue that people have been feeling uncomfortable about them for a long time, it’s just that we weren’t paying attention to those people.

So it’s a really good discussion to have. But generally speaking that’s not the sort of discussion I have with somebody when I’m talking to them about the movie they just made.

**John:** Agreed. Mike writes to say that in the most recent episode “you guys talk about screenwriting competitions being a waste of time.” Yes we do. “How different would your advice be for entering film festivals? I’m new to screenwriting. Have never made a film. But I’m working on a script with the intent to try to make it myself. What are your thoughts about using festivals as a way to break into the industry? And do you have any tips?”

Craig, up or down on film festivals?

**Craig:** Up. Up, up, up. I mean, here’s the good news about film festivals. You’ve made your movie. You submit. They either say it’s going to be in it or not. And then audiences watch it. And then there is a discussion. And people are there, film critics are there, film writers are there, and they may catch hold of it and love it and then write an article about it.

These are the things that happen with movies. They never happen with scripts. There’s no place where you send a script and then people come in from the Internet and blogging sites and Twitter and read the scripts in a big room together and then discuss them over drinks. Right? That just doesn’t happen. So, yeah, I would say submit to film festivals. Of course, some are incredibly prestigious and some are like who cares. But in my mind it’s like people are seeing your movie and all you need is that one person to just go bananas about it on Twitter or on their blog and then that gets picked up. And something is ignited.

**John:** Yep. My movie The Nines, we opened at the Sundance Film Festival and we went to – I guess we played at Toronto and Berlin, but I also went to the Venice Film Festival with it. That is a great place to have people see your movie. Because people are there to watch movies and find things hopefully that they love. And can talk about.

So, the difference between a screenplay competition and a film festival is like you’ve made the thing. Your film exists. Everybody can come see your movie and see the thing you actually set out to make. Versus a screenplay which is the solitary experience of one person flipping through the pages of your script and judging it based on what they think it’s going to become down the road. So, it’s a really different situation.

Now, I will say that just like there are a plethora of screenplay competitions, there are a plethora of film festivals that I don’t think are probably worth your time. And I do know people who have made small films who have then spent like the next year entering and going to every film festival on earth. And so there are services like Without A Box. There are services there that help you submit to all these festivals, which could be good, but also could mean that you’re going to 1,500 film festivals over the course of the year and that’s probably not the best use of your time because you’re not making new things if all you’re doing is trucking this film around to show it other places. And sometimes there are fees to enter it.

**Craig:** Hmm. Yeah.

**John:** There’s reasons why you may not want to enter every film festival. But, yes, go and here’s the other thing about a film festival is that there are people there you can talk with. There are other filmmakers. You may meet the next person you want to collaborate with. So that is another great thing about film festivals. I am in general a big fan of film festivals.

**Craig:** Yeah man. Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. Hey, do you want to take Tom, because he’s talking about neuroscience?

**Craig:** Oh sure. OK. Well, Tom says, “Just listening to your toxic fandoms conversation and I came across a nugget about the neuroscience of how we consume art that changed the way I think about how fandom works. The theory, as I understood it, is that humans experience pleasure from art in two distinct ways. The first is a serotonin response which you get when a thing is beautiful because it just seems right, like an idealized platonic form of that thing. Your brain sees a piece of art and reacts positively because it understands that this is the way things should be.

“The second is a dopamine response. This is the hit of pleasure that you get when you decode a piece of art. The pleasure is as much an understanding what it means as the aesthetics. The thing about the dopamine response is that it is acquisitive. It makes the reader desire ownership of the art in a way that the serotonin response does not. My inference is that when we see great pop art, Star Wars for instance as kids, we get that strong serotonin hit and it makes us feel everything is right.

“But as a fan seeks out more and more information about the thing they love they become expert. They start decoding what they see on screen. With that comes the dopamine rush and urge to own the art. And because dopamine is like a drug we want more and more. This works well for a merch company selling limited edition posters and collectibles, but with properties like Star Wars that have cultivated a universe full of connections and Easter eggs it’s almost purpose-built for fans to feel that sense of ownership and entitlement.


“When an author comes along and claims literal ownership by doing something unexpected with a property, it’s like taking away their hit. Anyway, caveats to this: I’m not a scientist. And most of reasoning is based on a radio program I heard a year ago and can’t source properly.” Tom, you’re the best.

“I had a quick Google and read around to check. I’m not completely off-base, but it certainly lacks nuance.”

So, what do you think about Tom’s theory here?

**John:** I think Tom’s theory is fascinating. I don’t know honestly whether science backs everything up, but I would tell you that to me it feels plausible and feels kind of right. Because there is this sense where if you see a beautiful landscape that’s going to be that first kind of response, like wow, this is just beautiful. I love this. But I cannot take any ownership of this. This is just a thing that is there. I cannot do anything with it.

Versus a piece of art, you might have that initial instinct, but then you can become obsessed and you can start pulling it apart. You can start really digging into it. And so as we talked about the Sherlock Holmes nuts, that’s that sense of like well there must be more here. We have to pull it apart. There’s actually something below this thing that I like that is even better or more fascinating. And that does feel like a second kind of rush. And it does feel like a bit of an addiction kind of rush which is what dopamine is.

So, Craig, but you are more the brain scientist. You tell me what you think of this.

**Craig:** Well, I’m not quite sure that the neuro-chemistry here adds up. But I do think that there is certainly a psychological aspect of this that makes total sense. Particularly the part where as people begin to seek out more information about something and steep themselves in it, they begin to have a different relationship with the art. They are not watching it once and enjoying it or even watching it twice or three times. They’re now starting to kind of investigate more and more of it to, I don’t know–

**John:** Obsess?

**Craig:** Not obsess, but just have a deeper, like an intimacy with the art in a way. You know, it’s like you start to become an expert at it and you become a collector of it. And your relationship with it is very different now. It’s not even about the movie anymore. It’s about all this other stuff. It’s about the universe. It’s why weirdly when some of these toxic fans talk about Star Wars they talk about franchise which horrifies me, because franchise – the first time I heard franchise being used it was some suit at a studio talking about a movie franchise. And I thought, oh god, now they’re talking about movies like McDonalds. You know, it’s a franchise. It just seems so gross to me.

Well now everyone says it because they’re using that term as part of this notion of ownership and branding. They like all of that stuff. And that’s how their relationship functions with it. So when someone comes along and adds to it in a canonical sort of way because that’s the other thing they’re obsessed with is canon, meaning what is real and what is not. Quick giveaway, spoiler, none of it is real. If something gets added into the “canon” that they don’t approve of, it is literally disrupting their relationship. And their relationship with this is something that kind of gives them comfort. So it’s causing legitimate emotional distress and discomfort.

However, I would argue to people who do feel emotional distress and discomfort from some new entry into some ongoing film franchise, that that is your emotional problem to handle. It is not the artist’s problem to address.

**John:** I would love to see some piece of intellectual property literally just become a franchise model. So franchise the way that McDonalds was a franchise. Anybody can open up a McDonalds in their town. They have to follow certain rules and they have to kick back some money to the big corporate client. But like anyone can make their own Star Wars. They just have to kick back a little bit to them. That would certainly solve the like let’s remake the Last Jedi situation. If they could just get a franchise license and just make their own Last Jedi, problem solved.

**Craig:** The remake The Last Jedi, so there’s this group of people that want to remake The Last Jedi–

**John:** Or is it a group of people? Or is it just one very clever troll?

**Craig:** I don’t know. But it’s witless. Absolutely witless.

**John:** As a piece of performance art I kind of love it. It says so much about just where we’re at in this world where that sense of ownership. I’m curious a year from now whether we really find out the truth behind what that campaign was and sort of what – I mean, I loved how Rian interacted with it. I loved how Seth Rogan interacted with it. As a piece of just cultural thing that was floating out there, fine, great. It was distracting from like other horrible things happening in the world. So I didn’t like the place it took on my Twitter timeline necessarily, but–

**Craig:** We’re not equipped to handle the world right now. Our minds simply cannot do it.

**John:** Nope. We have a very simple request from Bill. He said, “Would Craig take a photo of his fancy corkboard and share it with us?” Is that a thing you feel like you could share?

**Craig:** Yeah, my fancy corkboard, sure. I mean, I’ve got some cards up on a movie that I can’t share, so I’ll turn those around I guess. But, yeah, I can show you the fancy corkboard. I mean, it’s not that fancy, by the way. I mean, it’s awesome but it’s old. It’s a beaten up old thing, but I love it.

**John:** Maybe tweet that and we’ll put a link to the tweet?

**Craig:** Sounds good.

**John:** Cool. Emily writes regarding Episode 336, the Call Me by Your Name episode. That was the one I did with Peter Spears and Aline Brosh McKenna. “Recently I was introduced to Scriptnotes in San Francisco and I have been obsessively listening to that episode with John and Aline and Peter Spears. I fell in love with the whole episode, and especially the second half where the thoughts in my head were echoed back threefold. A queer romance where there are no villains and visually showing the internal quest for love, accepting parents, and the reins of sexuality loosened.

“My question is how does an aspiring queer filmmaker jump the hurdles and through the hoops to get a queer romance made? When I listened to Episode 336 again, only 12 hours later, I actually started to feel disheartened. How is it possible for more queer romance to be made? Is it possible for two women to fall in love on screen minus the struggle and sexual fetishizing?” Yeah, Emily, yes. It’s possible. At some levels I’m happy that you’re excited to make it, but I’m also surprised that you feel like it would be impossible or daunting. Because if you listen back to that episode, yeah, they had a really long hard struggle to get that movie made because it was a movie of a certain scale and size and needed to take place in Italy and it needed to have movie stars. There were lots of obstacles in its way. But I just feel like this last year we’ve seen a tremendous number of queer romances in queer movies that aren’t about the sturm und drang of everything that have come out and found an audience.

So, you know, we’ve had Love, Simon, Alex Strangelove for Netflix. God’s Own Country. Freehold. There’s been a lot of movies out there and they found an audience.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I’m a little confused because things have never been better, I think, for queer filmmakers. And not just because there are a lot more ways to make movies now and a lot more platforms to show movies, but I think the audience has changed, too. You know, I think queer film used to be for the queer community. And now it’s sort of everybody goes to see Call Me by Your Name. I mean, remember like when you and I were kids, I remember John, do you remember when Personal Best came out?

**John:** I do. I remember it existing. I didn’t see it, of course, in the time, but I knew it was out there.

**Craig:** I didn’t see it either because it was Rated R and I wasn’t allowed to, because it was like 1981 or something like that. And also I don’t think I would have wanted to go see it because I was, whatever, an 11-year-old boy and this was about two – I think they were in college and they were marathon runners or something.

**John:** Yeah. Long distance runners I think.

**Craig:** And Muriel Hemingway was in it. And somebody else. And I don’t know who. And they fall in love and they have a lesbian romance. But I just remember at the time it was so weird to have that out there that people talked about it to the extent that even I was like “Oh I’ve heard about that movie.” It’s like, whoa, that’s a whole thing. I think there’s like one of those a week now, you know. I don’t think there’s anything particularly shocking or, I don’t know, challenging in a sense.

I mean, yes, on a big scale and we’re talking about big huge movies, we’ve got a long way to go. We’re still waiting to kind of see LGBTQ relationships in big huge franchises, right?

**John:** Hmm, franchises.

**Craig:** Franchises. But when it comes to making television and film for and about gay audiences, queer audiences, bi audiences, yeah, it seems to me like it’s everywhere.

**John:** Everywhere. So, some movies I want to steer Emily towards if she hasn’t seen them: Weekend, which is fantastic, which is just the slightest kind of Linklatery kind of two guys meet over the course of a weekend and sort of how that goes. And then go a little bit further back in your lesbian history here and go to Go Fish, which is Guinevere Turner I think has been a previous guest on the show. You’ll see her in that. Those are some recent bookends for movies to see.

But also I’d tell you that Sundance Film Festival, Outfest, these movies do exist and they are being seen by audiences in the US and worldwide. They’re there. And you should make more of them. And if there’s a kind of movie that you feel you’re not seeing, you know, that should be a call to action to make that movie. I sort of always say like make the movie you wish you could see in the world. And if that movie is not out there, take it upon yourself to find a way to get that movie made.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, Emily, you live in San Francisco, so I’m guaranteeing you there’s some sort of LGBTQ+ film festival going on, geez, at least once a month.

**John:** Yep. There’s going to be stuff. I’m going to also put a link in the show notes to 7 Lesbian Movies Coming Out in 2018. So, it’s a good article about that.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to our big feature topic which is exposition. So exposition is that thing that happens in movies that gets a really bad name because some character is saying something that the audience needs to know and when it’s done terribly you notice it. When it’s done artfully you don’t notice it. Let’s talk about how we avoid the worst of it and savor the best of it.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a real challenge. It’s particularly hard for new writers because they tend to compartmentalize. I think as you write more and more you start to integrate all of the aspects of your writing. So you have character, you have dialogue, you have stuff happening in the scene. Let’s call that plot. And then you have information which is separate from what a character is thinking or desires or what is happening. Information is sometimes just the nuts and bolts of why am I here, what do I need to do, why can’t I do it this way, and why do I have to do it that way?

And new writers I think sometimes will sort of hit pause on the movie part, which is the characters and the desires and emotions, do some talking about the facts, and then, OK, let’s unhit pause and let’s get back to the movie. And this creates problems.

**John:** The other real danger you see is that newer writers are so terrified of anything that could feel like exposition that they’re not putting in the information that is really essentially for an audience to understand what’s going on. And that can be just as troublesome.

So this last week up at Sundance Film Labs we were working with these filmmakers on their next projects and the screenwriters who were up there as advisors, one of the things we talked about is some of these scripts had some challenges just getting the exposition in there. There was stuff we just didn’t know because they weren’t telling us. And I think sometimes they weren’t telling us because they were worried that putting it in there would feel forced or fake or wouldn’t work.

So we did a little workshop lab kind of thing just two hours where we talked about the process of writing scenes. And I gave them assignments for like you need to write a new scene now and the only thing that needs to – the thing that has to happen over the course of this scene at the end of this scene we need to understand that that character is not the father but the step-father. That’s the only information you need to get in there, otherwise make a great scene. Do something enjoyable but that information needs to come in there.

And to their credit, these filmmakers found really inventive ways to get that information out without it feeling just forced. It was a natural way of revealing, oh OK, that’s really who that person is and it’s not the father but the step-father.

**Craig:** This is one of those areas where we actually have to do better than reality. Because in reality we can just say these things. The reason we can’t just sort of spit them out unless we do it in a fascinating way, and there are ways to spit these things out in fascinating ways, we don’t do it that way because it feels easy. And generally speaking audiences reward us for not doing things easily. The whole idea is that there is an organic struggle against fate. And when somebody walks in and says, “Oh by the way, this is my father, it’s actually my step-father,” or to have somebody just, I don’t know, have my name is on a name tag. It just feels easy. And so we deduct points from the movie because it feels like it didn’t challenge us. It feels like it just puts something in a spoon and shoved it in our mouth. And we don’t like that.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, sometimes it’s the simplest solution is the best solution. And if you can sort of get it in there while it feels like it’s part of something else you can get there. But let’s talk about the things to avoid. Let’s talk about what gives exposition a bad name. These are the things, often the phrases you hear that make you go “Ugh. This is going to be one of those exposition moments.”

Craig, as you and I both know, I’m going to tell you something that you already know, but we’re going to talk about it here so that the audience can understand it.

**Craig:** Yeah. As you and I both know, well, then why are we saying it?

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Why in god’s name? Have you ever said that to anybody? As you and I both know, and then gone on at length? And the other person doesn’t stop you?

**John:** I would say in real life I have sometimes said like, “Well as we all know,” and then I’m stating a point where maybe the person I’m listening to doesn’t really know but I’m sort of giving them the credit that they should know.

**Craig:** That’s different. That’s manipulative.

**John:** That’s manipulation. A related thing is where we are defining our relationship in our initial dialogue. As your brother, Craig, I need to tell you.

**Craig:** Geez Louise. That’s, I mean–

**John:** I puckered a bit just doing that.

**Craig:** I know. Well, Scott Frank always talks about how we never use our names with each other when we speak, but people are constantly using names. And there have been times where I’m so touchy about it that I’ve gotten to the end of a script and then somebody reads it and goes, “By the way, I don’t think anyone ever said her name.” Oh god. That’s right.

**John:** And so here’s why saying her name is important or getting the name out there is important. I think people have a subconscious radar for people’s names. And they’re always kind of listening for them. And you go through half a movie and you don’t know a character’s name, it’s unsettling. Particularly if you feel like this is a main character. It’s like, oh weird, it’s odd we don’t know her name. Also, if you do hear a person’s name you assume that they’re going to be important for some reason. It’s just a natural thing.

If someone is introduced in the story with a name you give them extra credit there. OK, this is a person worth following. So, it’s weird when we don’t know their names. But sometimes you just won’t.

**Craig:** Yeah. And what we don’t do is sort of walk into a room and say, “So, John,” it’s immediately weird.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You’re looking at me. So why are you saying my name? You know who I am. It’s just weird. It’s weird.

**John:** But you see that guy standing over there? Well he used to be one of the top rodeo clowns in the business.

**Craig:** Oh boy. I mean, geez.

**John:** So you and I are over here, but we’re going to point over and talk to that person. And especially if you and I are not major characters, but we’re going to talk about that other character over there to sort of set him up, that’s not tasty.

**Craig:** Let’s call those guys the backstory brothers.

**John:** They are the backstory brothers.

**Craig:** Backstory brothers. They meet each other in the hallway and they go, “You see her? She used to be something, but then back in, you know, 2005…”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Ugh. God.

**John:** She’s getting a divorce, but she doesn’t really want to. And it’s complicated. And her dad is one of the CEOs of a Fortune 500 Company.

**Craig:** Really? Yeah. And we never hear from those guys again.

**John:** But it’s almost as good as when the hero turns on the TV and it’s a news report that’s about exactly the thing that we need to know about.

**Craig:** We’ve talked about that one. So that’s the world’s most relevant news channel. 24 hours a day. Bringing you the news that you must need to know right now at this second per the thing you’re discussing.

**John:** So I’m sure someone has used this as a trope, but I want somebody to have just relevant news. Like the channel is just relevant news.

**Craig:** They’ve done it.

**John:** Did somebody?

**Craig:** Yeah. Somebody sent it to us. I’m trying to remember what movie it was in or what show. Yeah, it’s been done.

**John:** I love it. It’s been done. Yeah. Sometimes that information comes out as voiceover or sort of like kind of what feels like forced ADR. So like we’re on someone’s back while they give us a little extra piece of information. Sometimes there’s a fix in post. But that sense of like you just feel like it’s tacked on a bit of extra information. I mean, there are good examples of narrators who sort of start a movie, who sort of get you into the flow of it. That’s a totally valid choice. There’s nothing wrong with a narrator in the right kind of movie, but it can feel really awful when done poorly.

**Craig:** Yeah. So a lot of times what happens is there’s an ongoing argument. The argument begins I believe inside of the screenwriter’s head. Then it floods out, so it becomes an argument with everybody. The studio argues about it amongst themselves with the writer, with the director. The director argues about it with the actors. Everybody – the editors argue about it with the director. And the argument is how much do they need to know.

And really what it comes down to is sometimes you feel like people need to know something because they’re not going to appreciate what they’re going to watch if they don’t know it. And other times you think why are we saying this? It should be obvious. And we’re actually hurting ourselves by talking down to people. We’re pandering now.

And when you hear a line, an off-screen line, where somebody is suddenly saying, “It looks like somebody accessed the computer and pulled out the records, but we can’t see who because they put a virus in to cover their traces,” that means that they had a big argument, like how do they not know who did it this way, and then they decided to solve it by having some dumb ADR in there. Because they thought it was important that people know that. That is frustrating.

In general, it’s not always true, but in general the studio wants to tell people everything and the filmmakers want to tell people as little as possible.

**John:** Yep. You know, it always comes back to how much does the audience need to know at that moment. It’s so hard sometimes as the screenwriter and as the filmmakers to get a sense of like what it looks like from the audience’s point of view. You’re doing everything you can to sort of put yourself mentally in the seat and only experience the movie from their point of view. But sometimes you’re wrong and sometimes you do need to do some things to clarify.

A lot of reshoots aren’t about big character or plot things. They’re about little small things like just connecting some dots and sort of making it clear how we’ve gotten from A, to B, to C. And that’s reality.

**Craig:** Exactly. And another problem way of relaying exposition it occurs to me are the intentionally stupid characters. They’re not stupid. They’re regular characters but then suddenly they become stupid.

**John:** Explain it to me like I’m five, Craig.

**Craig:** OK, go over this one more time. You mean for us and the audience? Because it could not be more obvious what’s happening here. And I think that’s the worst kind of mistake because now you’re deliberately undermining your characters just so that you can get some facts out. That is not a worthy sacrifice.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a TV show that I really loved and in late seasons I felt like they did some things to the central character where the central character was asking questions that was actually her profession. And it got to be so frustrating. They were trying to get information out and they were trying to set up some comedy and stuff, but we’ve already established that you’re an expert in this field, so why would anyone need to explain anything to you. That gets to be really frustrating.

**Craig:** It gets frustrating.

**John:** Let’s talk about what does work. Let’s talk about ways you get exposition in there that does not feel painful or terrible. So, the most obvious one is you ask the questions that the characters in the scene would naturally ask. So you provide the information that the hero or what other characters are in that scene would necessarily ask. Completely relevant to the scene that’s there. And provides crucial information that they are themselves looking for.

**Craig:** That’s right. And there’s nothing wrong with a kind of honest exposition if that’s what would naturally happen.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** There are times where your movie or television show is discussing matters that are complicated. And in those circumstances it makes sense to have somebody sit somebody down and say let me walk you through this. Because at no point are we thinking, “Oh, this movie or television show is taking some sort of silly shortcut to tell me stuff that they could show me otherwise.” There’s no other way to convey this information.

So, at the beginning of Jurassic Park they show a little movie in the park to explain how they have cloned dinosaurs. That’s necessary.

**John:** It’s a great moment.

**Craig:** It’s wonderful.

**John:** And screenwriters will sit around tables and talk about how well David Koepp did that moment. By making it fun, by making it a film strip that everyone there is watching, we buy it. Because those characters would be seeing that introductory video the same way that we need to see that information.

**Craig:** Exactly right. And we don’t fault, I mean, we give the movie extra credit because it was done in an entertaining way, but we’re also – it’s a little bit of a demanding thing to say to an audience “We’re going to teach you something now.” Because we’re used to racing along with a narrative. But that’s what you sometimes need to do.

God knows in Chernobyl there are multiple moments where a nuclear scientist has to explain things to a career Soviet bureaucrat, which makes sense. Because otherwise people won’t know what’s going on. So, it has to happen. In those circumstances I think honestly the best way to do it is to just do it openly. Don’t try and disguise the lesson in some way. Just do it because that’s what would happen.

**John:** In The Matrix, you know, the first Matrix, Neo asks questions that are completely reasonable and he is told information, the backstory of what the Matrix is and the illusion that he has been living in, which are completely natural because that is the situation the character finds himself in.

Now, in later movies you might become a little bit more frustrated because people are having to have these conversations about things that you kind of feel like they should already know. It can be a little bit more forced down the road when people are talking about events that happened before all this started.

**Craig:** That’s right. So The Matrix is a great example because there’s, god, about 20 or 30 minutes of exposition in it, but it’s all fascinating because what they’re doing is saying to Keanu Reeves and then by extension us let us tell you how this works. And we’re not going to do it in a slowly developing way. We’re just going to lay it out for you in a way that’s interesting, but we’re going to tell you what happened to the world, why this is going on, how it works, what we’re about, what we do, what the Matrix – they tell you everything.

You get kind of one big lesson.

**John:** Yeah. And they’re smart to make it feel like a lesson. Part of what’s going on here is he’s being brought up to speed. He’s being taught some things. He’s being taught how to fight. And also while some of the stuff is happening they’re showing us things and not just sitting across from us and telling us. And so they are visualizing some of the information so we have something to look at other than just Morpheus staring directly at us.

**Craig:** Which would get pretty old pretty quickly. In that regard, one of the best ways for audiences to learn information is to see things. So, show-don’t-tell is one of the classic instructions that everybody gets. Sometimes it is better to tell. But if you can show, and there are interesting ways to show that are effective. This is the most important thing. Be effective, right? Nothing worse than showing exposition and no one even freaking notices it, right?

But if you show it and it is interesting and you perhaps show it in a way where there is a discrepancy between what you now know and what somebody else on screen knows, those are helpful things. Then the exposition isn’t simply information. It’s now evidence of something about a character. What they do or do not know. And there are all sorts of ways of showing these things. You can also hear them. Meaning no one is telling you but you’re hearing sounds or recordings or, you know, there’s little tricks of the trade.

**John:** So, a scene so good that they actually did it twice, in the X-Men movies establishing how Magneto got his powers or how he discovered his powers, he is at a concentration camp. He’s being separated from his parents. He reaches out to them and in reaching out to them his magnetic powers manifest and he pulls the gates towards him. That is showing. That is – I mean, it is exposition, it’s explaining the origin of his powers. It’s explaining his basic sort of world mind view that he sees himself as a person who has to save the mutants from extinction and from genocide.

That is a moment that could just be spoken and be terrible exposition, but by visualizing it, by staging it it is a much, much stronger moment.

**Craig:** Yeah. No question. And we sometimes forget because we see these movies that they could have gone another way. In our minds it seems so obvious. Well, OK, it’s a good dramatic scene. Well, I don’t have to tell you many other people would have not written that scene and then later on in the movie Magneto would have said to what’s her name, Mystique, is that her name? Mystique? He would have said, “As you know, my parents died in Auschwitz.” And he would have had some sort of scotch-swilling speech about his parents in Auschwitz and I saw them being led into the gates and I couldn’t do anything. And I swore then…

That’s exposition. And he could have done it that way. So there’s always an alternative. When we see it right, let’s always remember to give those people credit for doing it right.

**John:** Absolutely. Another great recent example is A Quiet Place. So A Quiet Place has almost no spoken exposition because they cannot speak. And so the screenwriters have figured out ways to visually show you the information, by staging scenes that walk you through what’s happened, at least as much as they’re going to tell you about what’s happened, and why you have to be so careful. There’s one sequence in the movie that I find a little bit frustrating. This is not really a spoiler. But when we’re in John Krasinski’s little lair place, some of the art direction was just a little bit on the nose for me there in terms of the – he has a whiteboard and it says on the whiteboard the three things he’s noticed that are going to become important later on.

**Craig:** Ah, yes. The whiteboard of doom. So this is the bulletin board or whiteboard where someone has laid out all the information they have. Typically they connect things with strings.

**John:** Yes. There’s no strings in this case, but–

**Craig:** I don’t know why they use freaking strings. And so you can just sit there. And then there’s inevitably a shot – and by the way I think that this scene is shot the same way every time. So you get a close-up of the person’s face, and then you have a close-up of a picture, and then a string, and another picture, and another one. And then there’s a big wide reveal of them standing. And you’re behind the person and they’re staring up at this massive board of interconnected. And you can see it all. You can see it all.

**John:** They’re at the center of the web. Yes.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So I want to give credit to A Quiet Place. There is no string. Those connections are not there.

**Craig:** That’s the key. No string.

**John:** It’s the key. No strings. That’s what really makes it all work. You singled out a moment in Raiders. Talk through this moment in Raiders that you thought worked so well.

**Craig:** Yeah. I love it. So, early on in Raiders, Indiana Jones is taken into a room at the university where he works and he is given a talking to by a couple of guys from the CIA. And they essentially lay out all of the exposition for Raiders of the Lost Ark. They tell him that Hitler is trying to find the Lost Ark. They tell him why Hitler is trying to find the Lost Ark. They tell him information that they have about where Hitler is and what he’s doing. And it’s a lot.

There’s a buried city of Tanis. There is an amulet. There is what is the ark itself. What is the ark? Well, it turns out the ark is this big cabinet that holds the original two tablets that Moses got from God. Blah, blah, blah. There’s just a ton of exposition here.

And why I think it works so well is that as these guys are talking, Indiana Jones’s mind is racing ahead of them, which is a very natural thing. If you think about it, when people are describing stuff to you and they’ve come to you for a reason because you’re good at this sort of thing, in this case Indiana Jones is a professor of archeology and a noted treasure hunter, that you are not passively listening. You’re going to try and anticipate and see where they’re going. And so there is an excitement as they talk where he is grabbing onto what they’re saying and then he meets eyes with the man, his boss, who runs I guess the museum and the college there, Denholm Elliott. Because now they both realize, Tanis, OK, they’re on top of it. They’re getting excited. That makes the exposition interesting.

The exposition in and of itself is just facts. But watching people get excited by facts is exciting for us.

**John:** Yeah. So keeping the characters alive in the scene during the exposition is one of the most crucial things we can stress to anybody. Which is sometimes there’s just natural conflict. So the exposition is coming out of conflict. In the back and forth between these people we’re getting that information out there. In the case of Raiders, it’s not direct conflict but we see our hero being engaged by it and changing the nature of the exposition as it comes out.

That’s crucial. The same dialogue but without Indy’s reactions to things, without Indy’s engagement, would just be dead on the page.

**Craig:** It would be very, very boring.

**John:** So I want to single out a moment from Aliens. So Aliens is my favorite movie of all time. This scene comes quite early on in Aliens. So this is the sequel. Ripley in this scene, we’ll play the audio for it, but Ripley has just woken up in this medical center. Burke arrives — Burke is the Paul Reiser character — arrives with her cat. And this is the conversation they have. And just take a listen to it and listen for the backstory. This is for the exposition that they’re getting in there so that you understand what’s going on. So let’s take a listen to this scene from Aliens.

[Aliens clip plays]

**John:** What I love so much about this scene is that it’s giving out crucial pieces of information. That it has been 57 years. That this universe that we started this movie in is different than the universe that we started before. So none of the other characters should be coming back. That there is still continuity to the earlier expositions, the cat that she traveled with is still there. So there’s some things that are familiar, but everybody else she would know is presumably dead.

As Burke is giving out those bits of information about how long it has been, he takes the sting off of some of the lines. You know, very cleverly he undercuts himself. He doesn’t make it sound like big pronouncements about the facts that he’s putting out there. He’s sort of stepping back away from them.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s a careful consideration of what we need to know and what we don’t need to know. For instance, how does that work? How does the hyper sleep aging blah-blah-blah, nah, who cares?

**John:** Who cares?

**Craig:** Who cares? It doesn’t matter. We know it works. And it’s not necessary. And we also presume that she knows how it works. So that’s the kind of thing where I guarantee you somebody said, “We have to explain that,” and then James Cameron said, “Nah.” No we don’t.

**John:** Let’s think about the nurse who is talking there at the start before Burke comes in. She’s there. Her lines are just to – we’re never going to see her again – he lines are just to establish that she’s been there for a few days. We saw her being cut out of the ship at the start. But she’s been there a few days. But she doesn’t really remember being there. It’s all confusing to her. The nurse is just there to establish stuff.

But if you didn’t have nurse, then we would have a natural question about like, wait, has she seen Burke before? What’s going on here? So it’s just to establish that this is a new person coming in. The sort of like opening the curtain to reveal a new character.

Burke is a major character. And I love how the very first thing he says is like, “No, but I’m a good guy,” which of course he’s not a good guy. Is doing character work even as it’s establishing crucial bits of exposition for us.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s a good example of how James Cameron doesn’t hit pause for exposition. We know, we’ve had a whole conversation, a whole episode about how to introduce characters. Well, here he introduces a character through exposition. This character is now delivering this somewhat awkward, reluctant speech to her about what’s happened to her. And even as he does it we sense a certain insincerity. We can just feel it. And so we’re learning about him and therefore we are not – we don’t get the feeling that this movie exists simply to fill us in on information that maybe could have just been printed on an index card and handed to us before we sat down.

**John:** Absolutely. Now, we’ll put a link in the show notes to this so you can also see this scene. What’s crucial about how it’s shot is that Burke’s entrance, like we do get some good close-ups of him, but it’s really about Sigourney Weaver’s reaction to what he’s saying. And so it’s her processing this information. And her close eye contact to really try to read him and to see what’s actually going on here. So, it’s not just what’s on the page. It’s really framed in a way to make sure that we stay in her POV to be hearing this information.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. And have we done a whole show about point of view?

**John:** We haven’t. But we need to. Because that’s another thing that came up in Sundance this year which is: POV is a fascinating thing. POV in the sense of which characters are allowed to drive scenes, but also there can be sometimes scenes where if you have two characters who can drive their own scenes, well, if they’re in a scene together who is in control? And it generally is the person who we saw be in control most recently. And so that becomes an interesting thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. We got to do a whole show on perspective.

**John:** We will do a whole show on perspective. Any further wrap up thoughts on exposition, Craig?

**Craig:** Well, I just thing that it’s something that happens with practice. You get better at it with practice. There’s really no – I wish I could give you all sorts of wonderful practical tips, but the truth is you’ve seen enough, you know enough. Just try and do exposition with something else.

The one nice thing we know about exposition is that it’s between human beings. That implies a relationship. So at the very least when you’re doing it think about what the relationship is between those people and think about why one person is telling this information to the other. And how it makes one or the other feel. That will help a lot.

**John:** That will help a lot. Even if that person who is telling the information is not ultimately a major character, as long as they are important in that scene and have an important interaction with that principle character that matters. So they’re just not an information dumb. That’s what you’re trying to avoid.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Cool. I think it is time for our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is a film. It is a film that I saw two years ago as a script at the Sundance Screenwriters Lab. It is American Animals by Bart Layton. It is just great. And I don’t want to spoil it by telling you too much about it. It’s probably useful to know that it is based on a true story. It might be helpful to know that Bart Layton is a well-known filmmaker in the documentary space. But this film does some really interesting and inventive things in the heist genre. And so it is a film that involves a heist, but also involves heist films. I just loved it.

I loved it as a script. I loved the early cut I saw. I am so excited for this movie to be out there in the world. If you go to see it, I would try to go with somebody else just because you’re going to want to talk about it with somebody. And if there’s no one else around to talk about it you’ll be frustrated.

**Craig:** OK. Well that’s a pretty good sales job right there.

**John:** Thank you.

**Craig:** I’ll go check that out.

**John:** Hopefully I sold two tickets to that.

**Craig:** Me and I know I have to go with someone. So yeah.

My One Cool Thing this week is a sequel to a game that is available on your phone and tablet called Isoland 2: Ashes of time. Isoland was this wonderfully quirky touch and go puzzle mystery adventure. You know my favorite sort of games are those. You know, all descending from the great Mist. But it’s very clever. It’s got a wonderful animated style to it. And very quirky. Very sad and philosophical at times. It’s one of those games where you’re doing puzzle work but then there’s just this layer of art all over the whole thing that makes it so lovely and enjoyable.

So, strongly recommend. I just started playing it. Isoland 2: Ashes of Time.

**John:** Very nice. That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited, as always, by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Timothy Vajda. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions and feedback like some of the things we addressed earlier in the show.

But for short questions, on Twitter I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts or where you get your podcasts. It’s free there. Leave us a review. That helps. Helps people find the show.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. They go up within the week.

You can find back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net.

If you would like one of these cool midnight blue t-shirts, I think they’re printing them for another week, so you go to cottonbureau.com.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** You’ll see them there. And that is our show. Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. See you next week.

Links:

* [Michael Arndt](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1578335/)’s thoughts on [Endings](http://www.pandemoniuminc.com/endings-video) (and [Beginnings](http://www.pandemoniuminc.com/beginnings-video))
* Midnight blue typewriter Scriptnotes [t-shirts](https://cottonbureau.com/products/scriptnotes-midnight-blue) are back on Cotton Bureau for a limited time!
* [“Fridging”](https://www.vox.com/2018/5/24/17384064/deadpool-vanessa-fridging-women-refrigerators-comics-trope) is the [trope](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge) of violence against women motivating a male protagonist’s plot.
* [These seven lesbian movies](http://gomag.com/article/7-lesbian-movies-hitting-the-big-screen-in-2018/) are coming out in 2018.
* This exposition scene in [Aliens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGY5nVIOytY) does it right.
* [American Animals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKvPVvy2Kn8), written and directed by Bart Layton
* Isoland 2: Ashes of Time for [iOS](https://itunes.apple.com/US/app/id1320750997?mt=8) and [Android](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lilithgame.isoland2.gpen)
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](http://johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Timothy Vajda ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_357.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.