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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: logline

Scriptnotes, Episode 470: Dual Dialogue, Transcript

October 5, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2020/470-dual-dialogue).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Craig Mazin is my name.

**John:** And this is Episode 470 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’ll look at what happens when two or more characters–

**Craig:** Well, the thing is if you have multiple bits of dialogue then you need to have people–

**John:** — talking at once, the best ways for writers to think about it. And–

**Craig:** — say them simultaneously. But how do you do that–

**John:** — portray it on the page.

**Craig:** — when they’re – oh.

**John:** Plus lots of follow up on delayed movies, mergers, assistant pay, and more. And in our bonus segment for Premium members Craig and I will discuss Halloween.

**Craig:** Ooh, Halloween. I love it.

**John:** Yeah. Do you love Halloween?

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** I don’t love Halloween. So we’ll get into that.

**Craig:** Well, I get why. I know why. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] You’ll have theories.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** All right. So lots of stuff in the news. First off, almost all the movies are delayed or the release dates changed. So we haven’t talked about this for a while but there was a pandemic. I guess there still is a pandemic.

**Craig:** So they say.

**John:** So they say. Some movie theaters are kind of opened. Most movie theaters aren’t really open. Tenet released in the US, sort of. Other movies have gone straight to video.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes to an article that looks at some of the big release date changes, but essentially coming through the end of this year all of the Marvel movies got pushed back. Some of the Disney movies are coming out. Some of them are not coming out. Something like Free Guys, December 11. Dune, of course, is December 18. Wonder Woman is December 25.

**Craig:** I don’t think they are. I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t think they are.

**John:** I don’t know if they are either. I was talking to some people involved with these movies and they said, “Yeah, I think it’s going to come out? Maybe it’s going to be out for like two weeks and—“

**Craig:** I would be shocked. Shocked.

**John:** I’d be surprised, too.

**Craig:** I think that this is going to be a while with these. If they don’t bite the bullet and just say, “We’re going to be charging you $30 to watch this at home,” then they have to wait. They just have to wait. Tenet was the movie that they all watched happen. And then they all looked at each other and said, “Ooh, no, no. We don’t want that.”

I mean, these things are economic propositions that have been well worked out with various formulae. A little bit like gambling where they’ve got it down to somewhat of a science, at least in certain ways. And not having a full theatrical release in the United States is simply untenable if you’re going to attempt to make your money back on some of these big bets. And they are pretty much all really big bets.

**John:** So I think the first question will be Pixar has some movies, Soul and the James Bond movie No Time to Die. Both of them are slated for November 20.

**Craig:** No way.

**John:** Yeah. That will be the first times we see. I mean, it’s not just the pandemic. It’s also it’s coming out of this election. I just don’t have a great sense for what America is going to be like at the end of November.

**Craig:** Normally if the movie theaters are open America is like I’m going to the movies. That’s normally what we’re like. But we’re not. We’re not going to be going to the movies on November 20. I don’t believe that. Unless something remarkable happens. It just doesn’t seem like it makes any sense. And the biggest moviemaking complexes are in the largest population centers. Those are the places that seemingly are most rigid and properly so about following the rules of social distancing. I just don’t see it happening. But, I mean, look, you can keep sliding things around on a calendar all you want. The nice thing is they don’t have to mail prints out anywhere anymore. It’s all beamed in electronically.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** But, nah, and I mean, and the marketing campaigns are flexible as well. So, no, I don’t think so. I would be blown away if we were watching a James Bond movie on November 20.

**John:** Yeah. And I don’t want to sound callous towards movie theaters. Movie theaters are a crucial piece of our infrastructure and they’ve just been completely hosed by what’s happened. And so I want theatrical movies to succeed. I want these things to be possible. I just don’t know that it is possible now.

And just using myself as a barometer, I’m a person who really likes to go to the movies and sees things opening weekend. But if I don’t feel safe going to movie theaters here, pretty well run movie theaters here, I just don’t see it being profitable for everybody.

**Craig:** No. The movie theaters are probably facing an extinction event in terms of the way it has been to this point. The removal of the consent decree and the pandemic have combined to – I don’t know how a large independent theater chain survives this. I really don’t. Maybe they have secret plans that are somehow opaque to me. But it does seem like the large media companies in the United States are sitting back waiting to see what happens with the pandemic ending and waiting to see how attendance works after that, at which point they will swoop in and buy these things at a cheap cost as distressed properties.

**John:** Very, very possible. I mentioned the election, Craig, what is your voting plan?

**Craig:** My voting plan is to receive my ballot in the mail. Fill the ballot out. And then I believe I’m going to be dropping it into a ballot drop box. That’s the last bit of research I have to do is see where that is. I assume it’s going to be at my post office. But it might be elsewhere. I will find out where that is. I will go to it and put my ballot into it. And I will do that on the day I get my ballot.

**John:** That is essentially my plan as well. I actually already got my ballot because the county of Los Angeles still thinks I live in France. And so they sent me this ballot early so it can get all the way to France. So I actually got my ballot. If it becomes a question of whether this is going to be problematic for me to turn it in early because they think I live in France then I will take this to one of the early voting centers and actually vote there as soon as I can do that.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So that’s the alternative. That’s what I did at the 2018 elections.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** So either way I will be voting as soon as I possibly can vote, just because you never know.

**Craig:** Well, I have always been a vote in person guy because I like the experience of voting in person.

**John:** I do, too.

**Craig:** I remember as a kid going into the voting booth with my dad. Back in the day, I don’t know if it was like this where you were in gorgeous Colorado, but in glum Staten Island what we would do is we would go to – it was actually my elementary school’s gymnasium and they had set up these little booths with this sliding curtain. And there was a machine in front of you. To me as a small child the machine seemed enormous. I suspect today it’s not. And it had levers. And you would flip the levers. Clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack. You make all your choices and then you would pull this big lever at the bottom from left to right and it would go…and it would register your vote somehow using, I don’t know, some ancient Babbage machine.

And then you would open the curtain and exit. And I just remember thinking that this was very high tech and very exciting.

**John:** Absolutely. So I remember my mom doing that once. And at some very early point voting in Colorado moved to the more sort of freestanding little desk kind of things where you’re poking holes and things, which aren’t nearly as much fun for a kid to see.

**Craig:** No. No. So in California we have the ink dot system, or at least we did, which I thought actually worked very well. You stick your thing in the thing and you flip the pages and you push down. The system now is more automated. It’s a little odd. When I voted in 2018 it was a little strange in that you tap the things on the screen and the thing comes out and then you have to stick the thing back in and then it comes back out. I guess for you to check and make sure.

Anyway, I’m filling my thing out at home. Bring it in. Let’s do this.

**John:** I’m going to fill my thing at home and make sure it gets in early.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But voting day is still a priority this year and sort of every year. Our friends Beth and Travis sort of spearheaded a movement to sort of get the WGA to say, “Hey, shouldn’t voting day be a paid day off for our members?”

**Craig:** Yes. 100 percent. So Beth Schacter worked in television for a long time. She’s currently an EP on Billions. And Travis Donnelly is one of our re-elected, freshly re-elected, directors on the board at the WGA. And they are both absolutely correct. This is something that we do need to encourage. The WGA cannot force showrunners to say, “Go ahead everybody, take the day to vote if you need to.” But we should be encouraging it strongly. And that means that the showrunners then have to turn around to the companies and say, “FYI, I’m doing this, and we’re not going to not pay people and that’s the way it is.”

It is incredibly important. And until we have a national holiday for voting this is going to be something we need to do. So, it’s a great idea. And we should encourage – the WGA should be doing this officially, encouraging the people running shows. And then you and I should just keep doing it and talking to our friends and leading by example in saying let people go vote.

**John:** Agreed. And hopefully WGA saying this and encouraging this will get other unions to be thinking about this. Hopefully this industry can be thinking about this way and other unions down the road can be thinking.

**Craig:** The other unions do not listen to us. And we don’t talk to them, which we know. However, we can take the lead on this.

**John:** However, they do draft off of things we get. So that is a useful thing.

**Craig:** Sometimes they do. It’s true.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, there were no residuals until the WGA got residuals.

**Craig:** That was back in the ‘50s. That is true. That is true. Did you see the latest pandemic – there was this big agreement between the companies and the unions about how to proceed in terms of managing COVID and testing on sets. And again everybody involved accept the WGA. Do not know why. But you know what? That’s something the new board can figure out.

**John:** Yes. So let’s talk about our new board. The WGA elections were held. The results were that all the incumbents were re-elected plus Eric Haywood. So congratulations to the incumbents and to Eric.

**Craig:** Meet the new board. Same as the old board.

**John:** Obviously we’ll put a link in the show notes to the results. I know and work with all these people. I have nothing bad to say about any of them. You have bad things to say about Patric Verrone.

**Craig:** Nothing but bad. Nothing.

**John:** There was a big cliff between Patric Verrone and the next vote-getter after that. So it wasn’t even a close, tight election.

**Craig:** No, no. Patric Verrone happily inhabiting that eighth slot every two years. That’s where he lives. So, I was bummed out. I was bummed out because Daniel Kunka who was the one feature writer running did not make it in. I don’t think any of these people are feature writers. So, Betsy Thomas, Deric Hughes, Ashley Gable, Patti Carr, David Slack, Eric Haywood, Travis Donnelly, Patric Verrone. TV, TV, TV, TV, TV, TV, TV, TV, TV.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And this is not tenable. It’s just not going to work. And I don’t know what to do about it because the membership is skewed. So we have a large and completely unrepresented minority in our union. And that’s just a recipe for disaster. I don’t know how this is going to continue like this.

**John:** OK. So, as a screenwriter who was just on the board pretty recently. It’s not that we have no representation. Michele Mulroney is a feature writer. Dante Harper is a feature writer. It would be awesome to have more feature writers on there. That’s why were both pushing for Daniel Kunka to be a representative of that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Having talked to all the people who are currently on there, I know they are well-versed in feature issues. And I know it is important to them. It is not affecting them directly the way it would affect a feature writer. So, let us just remind the people who are elected there some things that are super, super important for them to understand about feature issues.

Free work abuses is a thing that feature writers encounter that TV writers don’t encounter to nearly the same degree, which is basically being held on a draft and turning it in, basically not being paid because they keep pushing more and more stuff for you to do. And so you are working endlessly on a “draft” whereas a TV writer would have turned a thing in because they’re more on a weekly basis. That is a thing that is so specific to feature writers.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, the problem that came out of mini rooms and the stretching of time where writers were getting paid the same amount in television for more and more time of work. The thing that made them crazy and led us to strike threat a couple of times. That’s been the state of affairs, times ten, for feature writers forever. So, if TV writers could just look at it that way. If they could just understand how much worse feature writers have had it in that area that they found so offensive for so long. If the 17 out of 19 people in board meetings could internalize that it would be enormously valuable for the thousands of feature writers that are in this union.

**John:** Yeah. Other things that are evergreen issues for feature writers is late pay. Basically you turn in your draft and it’s late coming. I will say there has been progress on this. Since the time I was on the board there would be more progress now that invoices and contracts are coming through to the guild. There’s already been work on this thing. It has to continue.

Teams. There are teams in TV. There are teams in feature. Teams in features, they’re screwed. You’re splitting a salary between two people. It makes it harder for everybody. So the issues that teams face are only magnified by the other problems in features.

And finally I would just want everyone to be mindful of the very definition of what is a feature film is in question. So if you’re writing a feature for a Disney+ or one of the other streamers let’s make sure we are using the terms of a theatrical feature and not getting dragged down to TV movie of the week. And we just have to be so vigilant that we are really treating these pieces of 110 minute entertainment that feels like a feature film that we’re paying these writers like they are writing feature films because that’s what they are.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is not unrelated to our discussion of a few minutes ago, the fate of theaters. If theaters eventually go away there are still movies. It’s just how we watch them. We don’t necessarily conceive of a massive difference at home. But the contract that we have with the companies dates back to the early days of television and the early days of theatrical exhibition. And that’s what it solidified into. Our contract is ancient. It is old and it is full of archaic language. None of which contemplated the Internet much less streaming and the blurring of features on big or little screens.

So all of that needs to be considered. But it can only be considered if it is a priority. And that means, again, that out of the 19 people in that room you have 16 board members and three officers. Of those 19 people, even though only two of them work in features all of them need to put features first. I don’t know how else to say it. Because all we’ve done is put television first and exclusively put television first for well over a decade. And I’m just going to keep banging this drum. I’m going to be – I’ll be that militant.

**John:** Be that militant. Several of the people I know who are on the board are also starting to do feature work. And I’ve had individual conversations with them about that. So I think as silos get broken down many of these writers will be more aware of what those issues are. It’s also the point in every one of these conversations where I also remind people that we have people who work in comedy and variety and they have it even worse than feature writers do. So, being mindful of those writers also facing challenges.

**Craig:** Sure. They will have to find their own Craig Mazin to bang that drum. I have one drum. One.

**John:** One drum. And he beats it loud.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** Let’s talk about Quibi. So Quibi–

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** Aw, Quibi. Quibi has short little videos for your phone. So, it won two Emmys this last week. Congratulations Quibi.

**Craig:** Oh. That’s pretty cool. I know that–

**John:** Yeah. It’s won more Emmys than I have. Fewer than Craig.

**Craig:** [laughs] No, Quibi has tied me for Emmys. Kaitlin Olson was nominated for an Emmy for her work on Quibi. I don’t know if she won or not. Was she one of the ones who won? I hope she was.

**John:** I don’t know. I didn’t see who actually won.

**Craig:** I’ll have to look it up.

**John:** So Quibi this last week engaged JPMorgan Chase to help the company review a range of strategic options. I’ll put a link in the show notes to the LA Times article about it. But let’s just talk about Quibi because we didn’t really talk about it when it launched. I had a conversation with Jeffrey Katzenberg, I don’t know, two years ago and there was a show I was going to do with Doug Liman and we just couldn’t make it work out financially or logistically.

**Craig:** At the Quib?

**John:** At the Quib. And I will say that the initial pitch I got from Jeffrey was kind of what the show ended up being and the problems that I sort of heard in the pitch became the real problems that were out there is that while it’s great in theory to have, oh, they’re videos that you watch on your phone, sort of like how you can watch YouTube on your phone. It wasn’t fundamentally compelling because those weren’t the kinds of things I wanted to watch on my phone. I wanted to watch things on my TV and I couldn’t watch things on my TV. I also couldn’t share anything that I thought was great about a show on clips on Twitter or Instagram. It couldn’t go viral because it was all locked down. There were fundamental things that were problematic about it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I have never understood it. I may be the only writer in America who has not gone in and met with people at Quibi and pitched anything to Quibi. I never understood it. To me, the concept itself sounded like an old person’s thrilling idea of how the Internet could or should work. But we have Quibi. It’s called YouTube. That’s how Quibi functions. Right? If you want short videos to watch on your phone, there’s YouTube.

But what people generally never wanted on YouTube were little mini-series that just played on YouTube. They just didn’t want that. That wasn’t a thing. They didn’t mind it on like a big laptop screen, but like on your phone? Nobody wanted that. And there’s been people who have trying that crap for a decade. It’s not what people want in that format. They just don’t.

**John:** So I’m going to take the position that Quibi in the end was a good thing in that it paid a lot of people a lot of money to make content.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Which is good. It increased employment. It got people to experiment and do new things. So even if it wasn’t a financial success for this company it basically took a bunch of stock market investor money and gave it to writers and creators and actors and other folks. And maybe that’s good.

**Craig:** Well, it gave the money to an executive who then gave it to a lot of writers and actors and folks. And if there’s a lesson here for the money people maybe it’s this. The guy who is famous for writing The Idea is Everything, Jeffrey Katzenberg, is not the guy who comes up with the ideas. He’s just the guy pointing at the concept of an idea and saying isn’t that important. Meaning what Jeffrey Katzenberg was famous for in the ‘90s was writing a memo saying, “Writers are everything. But let’s not pay them well. And also I’ll be in charge.”

Jeffrey Katzenberg, apologies to Mr. Katzenberg, doesn’t write anything. Doesn’t create anything. His big idea was to pay other people to have ideas. You don’t need him for that. What you need are people who come up with big ideas. Go to them. Go to them. You want them to be managed by somebody? I don’t know, hire four million mid-level managers for the same price of one Katzenberg. And his partner was Meg Whitman. She’s the Facebook lady, right?

**John:** Wasn’t she PayPal?

**Craig:** Oh, she was PayPal. She was PayPal and then she also ran for the governor of California at some point. Anyway, who needs them? They don’t do anything. They don’t do anything. I wish to god this capital would understand that. But I think sometimes the people who have billions of dollars only talk to other people that are like them. Oh, well Jeffrey Katzenberg is sort of like us. He’s an executive. And he talks in executive speak. Blech.

They don’t do anything. They don’t. Why?

**John:** There’s a struggle of disintermediation. So basically you’re objecting to the fact that people are giving money to Quibi who is then giving it to the people to actually make the things. And it’s like you should just give the money to the people who make the things. But someone has to build the distribution platform. So Quibi was trying to be that distribution platform the same way a Netflix is. The same way an HBO Max is.

It goes back to our discussion of theaters. You want to own the place where people see the thing because that is ultimately useful and powerful in your gatekeeper function. But I don’t know that it makes sense to – the same way that you don’t see a lot of tech money going into “we’re going to revolutionize movie theaters.” Or you see MoviePass trying to do that and it’s like well that’s a bad idea. Quibi is in many ways the MoviePass of video.

**Craig:** I think it is. And I don’t want to imply that there is no place for people that aren’t writers to run things in Hollywood, because there is. It’s just that most of the people that I work with are employed by a large corporation and their function is their utility in working with writers and filmmakers and directors and actors. They are good at it. So that’s why – at least most of them are good at it that I work with. And so that’s why they’re there.

But when you elevate a noncreative person to a kind of creative guru position then you are asking for trouble. Every time they do it. The Japanese via Sony truly believed that Guber and Peters they were gods of some kind. They knew something. They had cracked the code. And so if you’ve never read Hit and Run, which is a fantastic book about Sony’s purchase of Columbia Pictures you should. It’s amazing. And it really is just a story of how they got fooled by two guys who basically were just, you know, guys. One of whom may not even be literate. I mean, so I’ve heard. I’m not saying that in any actionable way. I’ve just heard that. It’s probably not true.

So this happens. Any time they escalate people like Katzenberg. And I have nothing against Jeffrey Katzenberg.

**John:** No. I think Katzenberg is very smart. And he deserves credit for the many things he has accomplished over the years.

**Craig:** Years.

**John:** And also congratulations you built a giant company–

**Craig:** Well, no. Now that one I’ve got to quibble – I’ve got to Quibi with.

**John:** You’ve got to quibble with Quibi?

**Craig:** A lot of people invested in that and are going to lose their shirts. And while the people–

**John:** I don’t think anyone is going to lose their shirts. I think it was money that was looking for a home.

**Craig:** Well, sure. But some homes are better than others. And these institutional investors, they themselves obviously are insulated from these losses because they’re fat cats. But they’re playing around with other people’s money. And those people ultimately get hurt. So anytime a business crashes of this scale, $2 billion, it’s bad.

**John:** And to stipulate it hasn’t crashed to – you know, $1.75 billion. It hasn’t crashed to nothing. It’s really hard to see how much it’s worth.

**Craig:** And on its way.

**John:** And who to sell it to. One of the interesting things about the Quibi business model which from the initial pitch is that the creators actually get their content back. And so after like seven years it goes back but they can also repackage it after it like two years, which does seem to be a tacit acknowledgment of like it sort of sucks to be working for somebody and have them own your thing for perpetuity.

Like I’m writing this movie for Netflix right now and it’s just it’s only going to be on Netflix. That’s all it’s ever going to be on. If Netflix goes away it gets sold off to somebody at some point.

**Craig:** Yeah. Somebody buys it.

**John:** It is locked away in ways that are frustrating for a filmmaker. So, Quibi was trying to acknowledge that.

**Craig:** Quibi was definitely spending money like a drunken sailor. And that’s the Netflix factor. This is why – I can imagine that pitch of just the only way to compete with Netflix is to out-Netflix Netflix. They’re a drunken sailor. We need to be an even more drunken sailor. And this is all in the short term good for folks who are receiving money for writing. In the long term it’s not good if it destabilizes because of eventually this all comes crashing down. Quibi has come crashing down way faster than I thought it would.

I’m confused by their insistence that this is related to the pandemic. The pandemic seems like it would be a gift from god for Quibi. But I don’t know.

**John:** Yeah. I think they built a user story experience where it was like you’re watching it on the train as you’re headed to work. That’s the ideal use case for it.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** But honestly that’s so New York centric.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s such a view of one way that people live their lives.

**Craig:** Also, I’m sorry, but that’s not what people – in New York if you manage the catch the working wifi in between stations on the subway, yeah, you’re listening to music or you’re playing a game or you’re texting. You’re not watching a Quibi. For god’s sake.

**John:** Yeah. No. One place we can read all of the useful insight and criticism of this is in the trades.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** And so the trades are–

**Craig:** You mean the trade? [laughs]

**John:** Exactly. The trades are what we call – originally they were printed newspapers, but Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline. They are the different places that report on our industry. And they’re now all essentially one company. They’re all one trade. So we will link to the Deadline piece on what happened. But essentially through joint ventures they’ve all basically become one thing.

Everything we think of being separate entities are basically one company.

**Craig:** Yes. And one of those companies is MRC which produces content in Hollywood.

**John:** Yeah. Funny that.

**Craig:** So you have a studio, essentially a studio, a financing arm of a studio that is the part owner of all of the major publications analyzing the entertainment industry. And that includes Rolling Stone, the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Billboard, Vibe, and Music Business Worldwide. That’s all of them. That’s all of them. So, you know, you and I growing up out here in the ‘90s as young screenwriters we knew that there was Coke and Pepsi. There was Variety and there was the Hollywood Reporter. And I remember being astonished at how much they cost. Because back in those days, because it was a bit of a kind of duopoly to get Variety delivered to your office every day, Daily Variety, you had to pay some insane yearly subscription at that time. It was like a thousand dollars. I’m like, what, this is insane.

And now apparently Variety is free as far as I can tell to everybody in the world. And Deadline disrupted everything. And now it’s just all smashed together into one thing. And what happens now–

**John:** And so I don’t know what happens now. So, I mean, it’s worth noting that Deadline was actually – Nikki Finke drove me crazy, but Nikki Finke created Deadline as a separate independent site that was just journalism about the actual industry and became incredibly influential because it was actually just journalism about the industry. And it was gossipy and all the other things we can sort of throw at it, but it was outside the norm. So it does feel like there’s a potential for an outside disruptor to come in here and make the new version of Deadline that is actually independent. So that’s a possible outcome of this.

But I want to talk about the MRC of it all. So MRC is a company that is also tied up with the agencies and sort of the affiliated productions of the agencies in complicated ways. But they make actual TV shows and features. So, Ozark, The Great, The Outsider, The Golden Globe Awards, Fire Fraud, which I think it’s great that they were the people behind that.

**Craig:** Knives Out.

**John:** The Billboard Music Awards. American Music Awards. Knives Out. Baby Driver.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** So it’s just so complicated to be the trades who are supposed to be reporting on an industry that you actually are making the things you’re reporting on.

**Craig:** It is. And good journalists will often, you know, encounter this because of these multinational conglomerates. You’re always touching on something. And so they’ll say, “Full disclosure, this publication is owned by the same parent company as blah-blah-blah.” And so you say that out loud and they will say, OK, that they will have independence, which is fine. And I believe them to an extent because they know that if they don’t have independence then the property they just bought will become worthless. Because it will be pointed out and it will be skewered and devalued.

But what is not good is that there is the potential for – it just seems like an obvious potential for consolidation here. So you buy all this stuff and then you sit there and you go, so, um, we have somebody that does the same job at Variety as this other person at Hollywood Reporter. Why don’t we just fire one of them? And actually why don’t we just fire half of these people and just make one thing called the Variety Reporter. And then people will lose their jobs and also you narrow the diversity of voices.

**John:** It’s true.

**Craig:** That’s what worries me.

**John:** It’s the problem of any consolidation and having monopolies to control, or at least an oligopoly. It’s not even an oligopoly anymore. It’s just basically a monopoly. And particularly when it comes to, you know, creative expression and to journalism to only have one source of truth is very bad.

**Craig:** It’s not good. Even about something as frivolous as what Hollywood is doing. You know, I got to say I’ve gone full Bernie Bro on this episode. I’m just like swinging at corporations, Jeffrey Katzenberg for no good reason at all. I don’t even know him. Just throwing bizarre bunches in a wild podcast style. It’s been enjoyable.

**John:** That’s what we do.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s been enjoyable.

**John:** One of the wild swings we were throwing–

**Craig:** Segue man.

**John:** — months and months ago was about assistant pay.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** This last week UTA raised assistant pay across the board.

**Craig:** Excellent.

**John:** Minimum is $22 an hour. Goes to $24 an hour for agency assistants and the agent training program gets up to $26 per hour. This is good. This is progress. And so I just wanted to call out UTA for doing good work here.

**Craig:** That is good.

**John:** And also doing it in a time which is admittedly very difficult for agents and for the industry. It’s hard to say like everything is struggling and so we’re actually going to raise pay. It feels like the right choice and a difficult choice.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree. And this looks to me I think the new golden standard here. I think that this is better than the Verve or CAA commitment.

**John:** This does feel better. And so the Verve and CAA had other things built in there in terms of like quality of life stuff, but–

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** But money is money. So let’s focus on that.

**Craig:** Money is money. So this is very good. And I do agree with you that this is a challenging time for the agencies, of course. But if the people at the highest level of these agencies who make an insane amount of money are willing to forgo a little bit of their enormous lucre, because if you say to, you know, whoever – who owns UTA? Jeremy Zimmer or something? I don’t know who owns it, like how that works.

**John:** They’re privately held. They have outside investors. But they’re privately held.

**Craig:** Right. But whoever the biggest shot is there, if you say to that guy, oh, by the way, just because for reasons you’re not going to get paid anything this year. They’ll be fine. They’ll be totally fine. So, like it’s good to maybe hit pause on the money pipe – I’m Bernie Bro’ing again. And give the people who are holding your business up, you know, a chance to survive and flourish. Ooh, I’m telling you, man. I am just swinging the flaming sword of the workers of the world today.

**John:** All right. Let’s do a little bit of follow up here. This is Ezra. He writes in about How Would This Be a Movie.

Ezra: Hi John and Craig. This is a follow up to a listener email from Episode 465 on using the Battle of Blair Mountain on your How Would This Be a Movie segment. My wife and I spent two physically and emotionally taxing years trying to have our first child. After a successful round of IVF we had our first in 2017. This past February we had our second, also through IVF. Science. It works.

As a way to do with all of the feelings I accumulated over that time I began working on a pilot script for a show called Trying, a half-hour comedy about a couple with fertility problems. I thought this was my Chernobyl, but sadly it was my Winds of War. I was a new dad with a time-consuming day job, whilst still working to finish it in March 2020 when AppleTV announced Trying, a half-hour comedy about a couple with fertility problems.

I could get into the differences between the ideas, for instance they’re not actually trying anymore, they’re seeking to adopt. But the underlying lesson remains. I dragged my feet and someone else who had a similar and probably better idea got it made. Can’t say you all didn’t warn me.

So to my fellow listener, it’s not only that other people have the same general idea as you. They can have literally the same idea as you down to the title. For an aspiring writer the struggle of infertility could not have been any more real than to watch someone else get to have the little writing baby I imagined for myself.

This is all to say that I agree very strongly with both of you that no one has a 100 percent claim on an idea or concept, putting aside all that legal stuff about owning ideas. If you had the thought someone else has had it as well. In the best case you are in a race to see who can get theirs over the finish line first. I dragged and my heels and now I need to find another darling to work on. It’s OK. Grappling with infertility gave me a much more nuanced perspective on other people’s successes. Congrats Andy Walton. And what kind of let downs I am actually capable of absorbing.

**Craig:** Wow. Ezra, you’re a grownup.

**John:** Yeah. Listen to grownup Ezra there.

**Craig:** Yeah. What an adult. It’s refreshing to hear an adult speak in an adult fashion about adult things. And, yes, that hurts. I get it. I don’t necessarily know that it’s over-over, because TV shows come and go. And also there’s very different kinds of TV shows that often have very similar premises. I mean, if you had an idea for a show about a group of detectives that use forensics to solve crimes, well, if you heard about another one it wouldn’t stop you. There are 12 on the air.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** There can more than one show. And so one of the things is asking yourself what is it about their show that is inherently different than the way you would have done yours. Is there a different way to swing it around? Can you make it a different kind of couple? What is it inherent to that story that you love? Is there a way to repurpose it and rethink it? But it’s also perfectly fine to let it go and move on. And you’re absolutely right. Any idea that anyone is working on, it’s already in the work somewhere else.

You know what I love about Ezra is that he didn’t do the thing that seemingly 90 percent of ding-a-lings do which is like, “I’m suing.” No. Yes, sometimes people come up with the same idea. And even the title. Trying. It makes sense. That’s pretty much what people call it. Yup, we’re trying. So, yeah, you know, you’re going to be good, Ezra.

**John:** You’re going to be good. I want to go back to our conversation about loglines because it feels like really what it comes down is that the logline for Ezra’s show and the show that’s on Apple right now are the same. They have the same title. But that show by its concept is going to be incredibly execution-dependent.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** This is not like a meteor is headed towards the earth. This is relatable humans doing relatable human things. And the general situation, the framing, the premise has an overlap, but that’s really about it. So, the thing that Ezra is writing, it doesn’t just go away because this other show exists. And so Ezra you should finish that thing. It’s probably a great writing sample for you for working on your next thing and could be hired to do other stuff.

I’d pick a different title just so it doesn’t get confused with the thing that’s out there.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** But you did great. The reason why I wanted to play this is that so often on the show we’ve talked about like somebody stole my idea. And it just doesn’t happen. People have the same ideas. They have incredibly, specifically similar ideas. And this is an example of that. So thank you for sharing that.

**Craig:** Terrific. Thank you, Ezra, that’s awesome.

**John:** Also, last week we talked about lawyers and I asked our listeners, hey, if you have advice for how you got a lawyer or ways to get a lawyer if you’re an unsigned writer how to do it. People wrote in because we have the best listeners. So do you want to take Susan from LA?

**Craig:** Yeah. Susan from LA says, “Go to IMDb Pro,” I see you’ve got to get that account, “and pull up well-regarded recent indie films or documentaries. Scroll down the crew list until you find legal counsel. Then Google that person and check out their law firm home page. You can also look at Variety/Hollywood Reporter,” well who knows, Varollywood Reporter’s “power lawyer lists, but they’re a bit pricy and will require a larger retainer upfront.”

**John:** Susan’s first idea there is phenomenal.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I don’t know why I didn’t think about that. But as I look at–

**Craig:** You’re bad.

**John:** Yeah. I’m bad.

**Craig:** You’re bad.

**John:** As I look at like the attorney who helped me out with The Nines and sort of does independent film like that, it’s exactly their kind of gig. It’s what they do. And reach out to them. They can probably do it for you and they have experience doing this kind of stuff. So that feels like a great place to start.

**Craig:** And a month of IMDb Pro is, what, like $12 or something?

**John:** Oh yeah. That’s fine.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So you can totally do that. Erin writes, “In my experience legit entertainment lawyers are not asking for money upfront, at least that’s how mine operates. It is for future commission. Granted, my manager referred me, but this is what I’ve anecdotally heard as well. I do my due diligence before paying cash for an option red line. There will certainly be good attorneys willing to do it for free with the idea that they will receive commissions once you start to get paid.”

I disagree with Erin there.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, I don’t think Erin is correct at all.

**John:** I don’t think so.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And here’s the difference. I think because Erin is coming in here with a manager I think that manager is talking to that attorney and saying like, “Hey, this is a kid who I think is going to do well here. Maybe you do this for free and then you become his lawyer.” That’s not the general case situation.

**Craig:** No. I mean, lawyers in the entertainment business do an enormous amount of work on commission. Your lawyer does. My lawyer does. But that’s based on the notion that they’re negotiating employment contracts or the purchase of literary material. Those are large sales or large employments. Something where someone is coming in and saying, “I need you to look through this option agreement,” which may absolutely turn into nothing – no, that lawyer is almost certainly going to charge you some kind of hourly rate. They would be nuts not to. Because they can certainly say, “And by the way if you’re happy for this and it works out when it’s time to do the employment contract come back. That is done on commission. You don’t have to pay upfront for that at all.”

But, no, I don’t think there’s going to be good attorneys willing to do these option agreements for free. No.

**John:** I agree. I think your first choice of find the person who does this for independent films or just get other recommendations from people in similar situations is going to be better serving you for that first contract which as I recall last week is about like a $1 option agreement and a red-lining.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s not a situation – commission on a $1 – not worth it.

**Craig:** Ten cents. Five cents. Sorry, a nickel.

**John:** Five cents for an attorney. All right let’s get to a craft topic. I want to talk about dual dialogue because this week I’ve been writing scenes that have a lot of dual dialogue in it which is not something I often do. And I want to – we’ve discussed on Episode 370, we talked about simultaneity, basically when two events have to happen in the same time, but dual dialogue is a specific kind of that where people are just overlapping. And we may want the overlap for effect. We may need to hear information from two different sides. There’s a reason why we’re doing. It’s always a choice to do dual dialogue. And let’s talk about when you make that choice and how you might portray that on the page.

**Craig:** It is a little bit of a trap because if you watch movies, particularly certain kinds of movies where it’s very conversational, very dialogue heavy, almost all of it at times will seem like it’s overlapping somewhat. And so there’s a temptation to think this is going to make it realer. If I do dual dialogue it will make things look realer. The problem with dual dialogue is that it is such a heavy-handed instruction to everybody. Everybody is now going oh my god I have to actually – we are talking at the same time over each other very specifically. This isn’t a natural overlapping but a forced overlapping. So you have to be very deliberate, I think, about when you use it. It really comes into play rarely. I must say maybe three or four times in a script it’ll pop up. And even then I feel like I could probably get away with two of them, you know, get rid of two of them or something.

**John:** Yeah. So I think we often confuse and conflate it with people speaking quickly.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so I think in a lot of movies that we see and we love we think they’re overlapping, but really they’re actually just speaking quickly. And they’re anticipating their next lines. There’s just not pauses between things. But they literally are not stacked on top of each other. So, we see a tool in Highland or in Final Draft that gives us the ability to dual dialogue and we think like, oh, that must be the way you do it. And I’ll tell you that on the page often that’s not how you do it.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So some of the choices you might make is as a parenthetical “overlapping,” basically saying like there may be scene description that says all of this is overlapping. Basically don’t wait to clear the other person’s lines before you start talking. That it’s meant to be sort of on top of each other.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** For example, Call Me by Your Name, there’s a sequence in which he’s sitting at the table and the parents and these other visitors are just all talking over each other. And it’s not important what they’re actually saying. It’s the experience of being there listening to that. And so that’s probably just an overlapping because it just doesn’t actually matter what the individual people are saying.

Other cases, you are very specifically trying to get information out there. So, we had Noah Baumbach on for Marriage Story. We had Greta Gerwig on for Little Women. And in those scripts, you can go back to those episodes and look at the PDFs, they’re very specific about where those overlaps are and you are supposed to be hearing what everyone is saying. And the fact that they are overlapping becomes very important. Be thinking about what the actual effect is you’re trying to achieve.

**Craig:** Yeah. But there are those moments where it really is the perfect tool. Like you say, it’s not frequent. I mean, for standard overlapping for casual overlapping you don’t want to do this. It is a heavy-handed instruction to everybody. But, then there are times where somebody is going to try and talk over another person. Arguments, for instance, where someone is going to be talking and the other person starts talking as if to say, “No, you stop talking,” but the first person will not stop talking. Or, situations in comedies sometimes where two people are trying to explain the same thing at once. It is a moment where it is absolutely required that two people are speaking intentionally over each other with knowledge that they’re speaking over each other and neither one of them is going to stop. That’s pretty much the best case use for dual dialogue.

**John:** Yeah. Basically neither one of them is yielding the floor to the other person to speak.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So even the conversation that you and I are having right now, we are anticipating when I’m going to stop talking and you’re going to start talking. But along the way I might try to shout over you a little bit. I may do an acknowledgment, which I think is a special case we should talk about here, which is the uh-huhs, the yeahs, if you’re doing The Daily, the New York Times podcast, it’s Michael Barbaro’s “Huh.” It’s that signal that you’re still part of it.

**Craig:** Huh.

**John:** So those are all meaningful things. And sometimes you’re going to choose as a writer to actually break up someone’s dialogue with that “huh,” that acknowledgment. But that’s rare. It would also be rare to put that “uh-huh” in a dual dialogue. So you’re going to make choices. Basically I’m saying you may not put every utterance of a person in the dialogue of your script.

**Craig:** And when you are there you are going to find some sort of naturalistic language that comes out. One of the stark differences between play text, from a playwright, and screenplay text from a screenwriter is that the play text is designed to be performed by as many different actors as possible. Whereas the screenwriting text will be performed by one. And unless there’s some remake of the movie 30 years later, it’s one person. So there is going to be a certain tailoring and idiosyncratic adjustment to that single performer as opposed to a play.

So actually I do see dual dialogue frequently when I look at plays, when I read plays. It seems like that gets called out quite a bit because it’s formalized. Whereas in movies not so much. It is a decent tool. It’s very useful for songs, when you’re writing songs in movies, and two people are singing at once. It’s perfectly useful. But I think it’s probably good to ask yourself do I need it. It is not fun to read.

**John:** It’s brutal to read.

**Craig:** I’ll say on the page. Yeah. If you see a page where it’s just strips of dual dialogue your eyelids will get heavy.

**John:** Yeah. Because you have to make the choice of, OK, am I going to read the left hand column and then go back and read the right hand column? It’s a lot of work.

**Craig:** It’s also hard to imagine. And you know we can play one voice in our head at once. We can’t play two. We just can’t.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, you know, you’re asking something there. Just use it – when you use it know that it is very intentional, very purposeful. It is a heavy spice, so sprinkle it with restraint.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to a question. Patrick writes in, “I was hoping you could discuss the singular they/them/their pronoun in reference to many non-binary people. I used singular they pronouns in a recent script for a non-binary character. It was a period piece where singular they was never used in dialogue, but it felt like the correct way to identify this seemingly genderless character in action lines. I referred to the character as androgynous in an introductory character description, and aimed to avoid pronoun confusion so it would be clear when the they referred to this character specifically versus multiple characters at once.

“However, I’m still worried that readers may be confused or distracted by the singular they. I want to leave it like it is, but I’m not sure I should. Have you had any experience using singular they in scripts, or reading scripts where others have? Would you advise us to use or not use it? And is a disclaimer necessary?”

**Craig:** Well, there is a natural singular they/them/their usage anyway. It’s not completely foreign to our longstanding use of the English language. When there is a gender – what would you call it – ignorance, I don’t know–

**John:** You just don’t know.

**Craig:** Yeah, I don’t know if this is a man or a woman, so it says the police officers walk in, adjust their guns, I guess that’s plural. But there’s ways where you do use it. I think if it’s a non-binary character I would probably want to call it out early and say I’m going to be using, just for the reader, just let them know I’m going to be using they/them/their because they’re non-binary. And maybe I might capitalize it inside of sentences if I am using a lot of other pluralized they/them/theirs for other people so as to not create confusion. But probably I would just call it out early on and not let…

So it says I refer to the character as androgynous. I would have added and I will be referring to this character, meaning I will be referring to them as they/them/their.

**John:** Yeah. I think Patrick is right to plan for – there’s a difference between the dialogue that we’re hearing as an audience, are we going to get confused by the they/them/theirs which can be a challenge? Because in real life conversations, like we have friends who have a non-binary kid, and the they/them/theirs are–

**Craig:** It’s tricky.

**John:** It can be tricky just because sometimes you don’t know, wait, are they talking about the group? Understanding whether you’re talking about the individual or the group can be tricky with it. That said, we’ve used it in English for centuries. We’ve used this as a singular thing for a long time when we didn’t know what gender to apply to a person that we’re talking about.

So I would say for Patrick if the dialogue and it becomes important to say this person uses they/them/theirs I would call that out just so that it’s not confusing in dialogue. In many cases it may be possible, because you have the luxury of time, you’re not actually speaking this aloud, to find sentence constructions where it just doesn’t become an issue and where you end up using the character’s name rather than a they/them/their. Basically just use the proper noun rather than the pronoun and you may not have this much of a problem.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s going to be hard to only do that. Because it can kind of get–

**John:** For a supporting character. For a character who only has a certain number of scenes, maybe you’ll be fine.

**Craig:** Sure. You can avoid it. But, yes, you’re right. We have this usage where it’s like the child brought their pet in to show the class. That is a normal usage we have for a singular person with the their. It’s in our minds, so you just have to spell it out for people early on that that’s what you’re doing. And by the way, if people are confused then they’re confused. Because that’s part of the deal is like our pronouns have not caught up necessarily to the way we’re starting to look at people and their gender. So there’s going to be some confusion. And, you know, you can just acknowledge that. Sometimes honesty is the best policy.

You can just say, “If you get confused it’s understandable. That’s kind of how it goes.” And they will try. I think most readers when they see something like that they’ll at least know that you’re acknowledging it. If you don’t acknowledge it then they’re going to think like I don’t know if Patrick understands how confusing this is. If you acknowledge then they’re like, OK, he knows how confusing this is.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Or they know how confusing it is. I don’t know if Patrick is binary.

**John:** Let’s do one last question here.

**Craig:** All right. Theo asks, “I’m a big fan of the podcast. It’s a phenomenal resource to both learn about screenwriting and to distract myself from screenwriting. I have a question though for John about his #writesprints. They seem straightforward if the purpose of the sprint is to write scenes from an outline. But how do you structure them when the project you’re working on is still in the development phase and you’re doing more brainstorming and character discovery?”

John, can you explain the nature of your tyrannical write sprints to Theo?

**John:** So, with write sprints this is when I sort of declare on Twitter that starting at the top of the hour for the next 60 minutes I’m going to be writing and just writing, no distractions, no nothing else. And then I’ll see in 60 minutes, and if people want to join in and do it that’s great. And this is an idea I took from Jane Espenson who is another former guest who is just phenomenal.

I’m using doing write sprints when I’m in scenes. When I’m doing real scene work or in the case of the Arlo Finch books when I was writing chapters. But I will also use them for outlining phase. Basically if I want to do a solid hour of work and not be distracted that’s the same thing as a write sprint. And so it’s just being purposeful for a period of time about the work I want to be doing. That counts as a write sprint.

If you’re doing an outline, maybe you’re not generating the same number of words, but if you really are figuring out stuff that’s what this is. It’s basically just trying to be single-minded on a project for a period of time.

**Craig:** Yeah. I find sometimes that if I’m in the state of progress that Theo is in that the best version of the write sprint is the write walk, where I take a walk. And I just go, well, I’m going to go walking around thinking about this. And I’m going to turn around and head back when I feel like I’ve achieved something in my mind, some sort of clarity or construction.

I don’t do formal write sprints like you do for actual generating pages. I just mostly wait until I’m disgusted with myself and then I start – but I only write in write sprints. That’s just my natural way of doing it. When it’s time, it happens.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, I’ve just never been a slogger. I’ve never been a like I’m going to sit down for a three-hour session and get stuff done, because I just found that those were not productive to me.

**Craig:** No, like I know what I’m supposed to do. I know where I am. I know who is in it. I know what’s going to happen. I know what they say. Now just do it, stupid. And then eventually I do it. And when I do it I do it. I get lost completely in it and I do it until it’s done. So, that’s basically my day, day after day, every day for the last 25 years. Good lord. Geesh.

**John:** Good lord. All right, it’s time for One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is an article that Ashley Nicole Black linked to. It’s an article in the New Station with Judith Butler. And she’s a professor, writer, gender theorist. And it was a discussion of trans-exclusionary radical feminism, which I knew about only because JK Rowling was associated with it. Basically JK Rowling just kept saying dumb things. And everyone said like that’s a dumb thing to say. And she would just double down on dumb things.

What I liked about this article was that Judith Butler was just so masterful at being able to sort of cut through the questions. Basically just challenge the premise of the questions. If you’re just curious about like how to handle arguments, or how to sort of deal with controversial topics being thrown at you I thought she just did a very smart job of dismantling what was being thrown her way and presenting it back in a way so that you basically can’t even like hit the ball back. It’s like, oh, crap, I can’t even do that.

So, an example sentence here. She says, “Women should not engage in the form of phobic caricature by which they’ve traditionally been demeaned. And by women I mean all those who identify that way.” And so she can just take some of the arguments being tossed her way and look at them and saying, nope, I’m taking this apart and giving it back to you.

So I just recommend people check that out because it gave me a good education in some of the terms and thinking behind this and also going back 30 years. So, I’ll put a link in the show notes for that.

**Craig:** So far afield from what you just said. My One Cool Thing this week is you and your fellow party members in our Dungeons & Dragons game. You guys made me so proud.

**John:** We did pretty well last week.

**Craig:** You did great. So, one of the things about being a Dungeon Master is you are not in control of anything. You are gently creating situations and then your characters do things and you have to react in an endlessly improvisational way. You have to hold boundaries, but you have to know when to be flexible. You have to know when to be rigid. And the whole point is to create situations that ultimately are fun, not necessarily fun in a kind of I put my videogame on god mode way fun, but fun in a sometimes my heart is pounding a little bit and sometimes there’s danger.

And last week you guys just played beautifully. You were collaborating and you were being creative and you weren’t all seeking individual glory but working as a team. And you defeated a very difficult enemy. And you defeated that enemy I would say handily.

**John:** Yeah. It was surprising. And I was definitely the person who was most nervous going into that encounter. What I will say was galvanizing and this is probably applicable to anybody thinking about storytelling is that this group of protagonists were only able to come together after the death of one of their party members.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And basically it took a death for us to analyze what went wrong and how do we avoid making that same mistake again. And so I feel like looking at those moments of failure and learning from them is such a fundamental thing in both life and in fiction. And I was happy that we were able to do that and sort of go into this next encounter with really not just a plan but – because stuff happens and you sometimes can’t follow that plan. But a set of principles in terms of what we are going to try to do and what are priorities are going to be. And by sticking to those principles and each person rising to do the thing that they are best equipped to do we were able to defeat this really far too challenging of a future for us to be facing.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, you did it perfectly. And you guys have come a long way. And it makes sense. As you go through these things, just like in regular screenplays and stories, the character gains abilities and talents and insight and then the question is what are you going to do with it. That’s the booby prize of life is insight, as the great Dennis Palumbo says. What are you going to do with it?

And so you get all these powers and then, ooh, like we can polymorph people. And there was a session we had where one of our wizards polymorphed one of the bad guys into a dolphin while in a bar fight, which was smart on the one hand.

**John:** Don’t bring a dolphin to a bar fight.

**Craig:** Yeah, don’t. Because the dolphin doesn’t need to be in water to breathe. And the dolphin can hit people that are five feet away from it. And so it did. And everybody was upset. But I’m like that was a bad choice. You could have made it a lot of other things. And you chose to make it the worst possible water thing.

Well, this time around much smarter and thoughtful and just working things through. Because you’ve grown into your powers, which is exciting, because it’s going to get more and more dangerous as you go. Just like life. But I was so proud of you guys. You did such a good job. It was a joy to DM and I can’t wait to kill more of you later.

**John:** Aw. Nice. Tonight–

**Craig:** Oh, that’s right, tonight. You know what, I probably won’t kill any of you tonight. Not tonight.

**John:** All right. That is our show for this week. So stick around after the credits if you’re a Premium member because we’re going to talk about Halloween. But meanwhile Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Med Dyer. 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 Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. We have t-shirts and they’re great. Go to Cotton Bureau to find those.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts. You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Craig, thanks for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Hey Craig. Halloween is coming up.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** It’s always the end of October. Growing up I loved candy so I liked Halloween for that.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But if I’m being honest I was never a big Halloween person. Were you a Halloween person as a kid?

**Craig:** Well, I was. I was. So on Staten Island Halloween had more of an anarchistic feel. So, I was a good kid and my parents were very strict, so I had to put on my stupid costume. Remember the costumes, they were like vinyl? And then you had the plastic mask that you could stick your tongue out of the rectangular little mouth-hole that would then cut your tongue.

**John:** Uh-huh. And it sort of hurt your tongue. And it had the elastic that went to the back.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** And the mask could crack really easily, too.

**Craig:** Oh, absolutely. And the suit, “suit,” was just like a vinyl apron that tied in the back and had a smell on it, like an off-gas and plastic smell that almost certainly took years off of our life. And I would go out with that and my little hallowed out plastic pumpkin candy holder.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But the other kids, like if you were slightly older, it was shaving cream and eggs. They would throw eggs on everything and they would put shaving cream everywhere. So my memory, my sense memory of Halloween is the smell of Noxzema or whatever that shaving cream was, or Barbasol. Walking around, getting candy. And my sister and I after it was over would sit down in my room, we would dump it all out on the floor, and then we would begin to barter. Because I liked certain things and she liked certain things. And you make the swaps.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Loved it.

**John:** Bartering is important. And obviously I had an older brother and there’s, of course, the manipulation that happens both as the younger brother and as the older brother.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Now, did you have something growing up where the school district, I think it was the school district, maybe it was the city, they really wanted kids home by a certain point. I think by 8pm they wanted all kids home. Maybe it was it was like 7. It was really early.

**Craig:** This was New York. They were dealing with Son of Sam. They didn’t have time to worry about us.

**John:** So we had a thing where at school we had to fill out this little form with your phone number and then parent volunteers would say this is the goblin calling to make sure you’re home.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** And then it was like a raffle. If you actually were home you could win a pizza party.

**Craig:** Well that feels really actually quite frightening in a Handmaid’s Tale sort of way.

**John:** Goblin calling.

**Craig:** This is the goblin calling to make sure you are home before 8pm when the witches come out.

**John:** So basically they’re going to have a stranger call children at their house.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s really what the whole plan was.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is all backward. But we grew up, you know, John, the kids today don’t get it. We grew up in a time of full-throated panic. Gary Goldman has an amazing – this is my second One Cool Thing, my bonus One Cool Thing. Gary Goldman has an amazing standup special called The Great Depresh about his depression.

**John:** Oh, yeah, I’ve watched it. It’s good.

**Craig:** And Gary Goldman is just a legendarily good standup. And he talks about how in the ‘70s growing up America was inflicted with this notion that children were being snatched off the streets constantly. Some guy went on the news and said 50,000 American kids are being stolen and kidnapped off the streets every year when it turns out actually it was like 200 people. So, everyone went crazy. We lived in a time when we would go to school, we would get milk at school, and there would be some lost child’s face on the milk carton.

Everyone was in a panic, all the time. As he said vans used to be beloved, and now they were objects of fear. So around Halloween there was this additional aspect of the whole point of Halloween is someone is going to put a razorblade in an apple. No one wants the apple. No one wants the apple.

**John:** It never happened. No.

**Craig:** No one wants the apple anyway. Go ahead, put razorblades in the apple. No one will ever get cut. No kid is eating the apple. And also, no, no. That’s not lunatics work.

**John:** But it got to the point where you would take your candy and they would x-ray it at the hospital, which is just absurd.

**Craig:** Insane. Now you’re radiating food. It’s just insane.

**John:** So, Craig, you’re saying things are much, much better now because all we have is QAnon.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** I think there’s a natural progression from this fear of an outsider coming. Antifa is going to poison your kids’ candy.

**Craig:** Antifa and QAnon are the new razorblade and apple of our lives. One quick question. When you – because we grew up at the same time there were probably the same weirdo candies floating around that aren’t much of today. What were some of your favorites, like in terms of the weird ones?

**John:** I was always a Milky Way. Milky Way is go to. If I wanted a candy bar it was a Milky Way. Nothing against Snickers. No one wants a Three Musketeers.

**Craig:** You’re wrong. See, here’s the thing. You’re normcore. You’re so normcore.

**John:** Oh, 100 percent. I’m completely normcore.

**Craig:** Oh my god. You’re so normcore. I was all about the weird ones. I loved the Three Musketeers.

**John:** And the Marathons.

**Craig:** I loved how light it was. Marathon. I was also a fan of those old creepy candies from the ‘50s like the Mary Janes. Loved Mary Janes.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** I know. What is it? It’s made of plastic and nuts and dirt and sugar. I don’t know. Delicious.

**John:** A recent episode of The Boys, the second season, show on Amazon, they talk about the island of misfit candy bars. And people who are fans of the Bit-O-Honeys and stuff like that.

**Craig:** I love Bit-O-Honey. Love it. Most of the things that I liked tended to be mostly wax, I think.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Didn’t like those things that you have to like–

**John:** What was the wax bottles with a sugary thing inside? Who thought that was a good idea?

**Craig:** Those, the wax industry? Honestly the wax manufacturers of America had figured out. Those were called – I can’t remember what they were called. But, yeah, you would bit the top off and then drink the sugar liquid out and be left with just a tasteless thing of wax.

**John:** Wax. Yeah. Good stuff. Or like Wax Lips and other stuff like that.

**Craig:** Wax Lips. And of course the candy cigarettes which were the greatest.

**John:** It’s good stuff.

**Craig:** Teach your kids.

**John:** So this year’s Halloween, I thought Halloween would just get canceled, but then if you think about it it’s like, you know what, kids are already wearing masks. They put a mask over their mask. It’s actually not that dangerous. You’re outdoors. I say let the kids trick or treat.

**Craig:** Well, I think trick or treating has been somewhat canceled or something. I don’t know.

**John:** Over the years or for this year specifically?

**Craig:** No, for this year. I think that they have sort of said maybe don’t do it. I have looked up by the way what those things were called. The wax bottle liquid stuff. They were called Nik-L-Nip Wax Bottles. Nik-L-Nip. I don’t know why it’s called that.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** But that’s what they were called. Sounds kind of dirty.

**John:** It does sound dirty. Like some sort of…yeah.

**Craig:** You would bite it and drink it and it’s nasty.

**John:** Yeah. I just don’t know why the wax companies needed to do that. I mean, they said extra wax.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, I think that was probably what it was. Someone was like, “You know, we could take this extra wax and put some sugar in it and morons will drink it.” They were right.

They were right.

**John:** So, Craig, Happy Halloween.

**Craig:** Happy Halloween, John.

 

Links:

* [Movie Releases Pushed](https://twitter.com/ErikDavis/status/1308814242569580544)
* [Black Widow Shifted to Summer 2021](https://deadline.com/2020/09/black-widow-jumps-to-summer-2021-spurring-marvel-pics-release-date-shift-west-side-story-delayed-a-year-soul-stays-theatrical-1234582771/)
* [Quibi Sale](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-09-23/quibi-sale-value-bidders-katzenberg-whitman)
* [All the Trades are Basically One Company](https://deadline.com/2020/09/pmc-mrc-form-publishing-content-venture-that-brings-rolling-stone-thr-billboard-vibe-under-one-roof-1234582626/)
* [UTA Raises Assistant Pay](https://variety.com/2020/film/news/uta-raises-assistant-pay-agency-wide-new-average-hits-24-per-hour-exclusive-1234778549/)
* [WGA Election Results Board of Directors](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/writers-guild-west-unveils-board-of-directors-election-results)
* [Scriptnotes, Ep 465](https://johnaugust.com/2020/scriptnotes-episode-465-the-lackeys-know-what-theyre-doing-transcript)
* [Scriptnotes, Ep 370](https://johnaugust.com/2018/scriptnotes-ep-370-two-things-at-the-same-time-transcript)
* [Judith Butler on the Culture Wars, JK Rowling and Living in “Anti-Intellectual Times”](https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [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 Med Dyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/470standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 468: Should You Pitch or Spec That? Transcript

September 18, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2020/should-you-pitch-or-spec-that).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August. And this is Episode 468 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is gone today, but luckily we get to welcome back our favorite north of the border screenwriter, Ryan Knighton. Ryan, welcome back to the show.

**Ryan Knighton:** I love that I’m your favorite north of the border. I think Vancouver is basically the northern suburb of Los Angeles at this point.

**John:** I didn’t want to get too narrow, because I could say like our favorite blind Canadian screenwriter. But really that just becomes insulting at some point.

**Ryan:** Then they’d be like well which one are you talking about.

**John:** Yeah. But you proposed – I’m so happy you’re here – because you proposed our main topic for today. So tell us what the question is that you asked that we will try to answer today.

**Ryan:** Well, the simplest way to put it was my question to you was what goes into the strategy between choosing whether you pitch a project or spec a project. And I know like there’s different conversations probably for whether we’re talking about television or feature, we can get into that. But it kind of came up recently for me, and I think it has for a lot of people, because of the pandemic. You know, the industry has really hit a kind of parenthesis since March and we’re waiting for the other end of that parenthesis.

But it’s made me rethink sort of my assumptions about how to take out a project and how best to put food on the table really in this time. So that’s what I was thinking about, because I don’t want to take anything for granted anymore. I mean, I’ve always assumed I had a certain approach to selling projects and now I don’t know if that’s sort of the right way.

**John:** Well let’s stay into that today. So that’s going to be our main topic. And so I reached out to a bunch of our Premium subscribers and asked for their questions about this. And so we will talk through your projects, my projects, and their projects to figure out what makes sense to pitch, what makes sense to write yourself, and hopefully figure out for 2020 what is the best approach.

I also want to talk today about the Academy put out new requirements for Best Picture. And there’s also questions about options and lawyers, so we’ll see if we can answer those questions. And then in our bonus segment for Premium members I want to talk to you about how you plan to spend this year training to become an amazing surfer and how you’re going to become a competitive surfer apparently. That’s what you–

**Ryan:** Critical screenwriting information for everybody.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s all about Canadian surfing. That’s really what this podcast is about. Hey, so let’s get started with some news. You saw this piece that the Academy is changing the rules for eligibility for Best Picture starting I think in 2023. Did you have an initial take on this? What was your read on these changes?

**Ryan:** Long overdue. It’s interesting, sort of the criteria that they’re using that there are sort of four categories I believe it is and sort of two of them must be met to be eligible for Best Picture, I looked at it and I thought, well, when you have a logjam sometimes you need a blunt tool. And I don’t necessarily think it’s the most elegant solution to a cultural problem. But sometimes you’ve got to kind of kick at the logjam in a very blunt way to get things moving. And obviously the status quo hasn’t been working. And meritocracy is not an argument when we haven’t seen a lot of change happening.

So, I welcome it. I don’t know what sort of the long view of this is. Because maybe this is what we needed all along. Maybe this is a great solution. But I don’t know, what do you think? Where is your mind at?

**John:** Let’s try to describe what it is, because it’s actually complicated. So we’ll put a link in the show notes to what the actual criteria are and how you can meet your eligibility requirements. And this is only for Best Picture, not for any other category. But essentially there’s four basic ways in. There’s four tiers that you need to hit. And within those there are specific requirements of things you can do.

So the first one is about the representation onscreen. So these are actors in roles that are being portrayed by historically underrepresented groups, so including different ethnic groups, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people. So that’s one way in.

**Ryan:** Canadian surfers.

**John:** Canadian surfers. I was thinking you and me together, you’ve got the gay screenwriter, you’ve got the blind writer. There’s some way to packet us together and we can make a Best Picture.

The second way in is the talent behind the lens. And so these are like you and me writers, directors, casting directors, costumers. So all the people who are not in front of the lens. And so representation among those groups. And that first category is also about the subject matter of the picture itself, and so that can be a fact that pushes you across the line.

Beyond that, you can look at sort of the studio or financier behind it. And so if they have programs that bolster inclusion that is a way to meet that requirement. Or the marketing and publicity engine behind the release of the film, if they have representation that meets certain requirements that can do it.

And so one of the natural first things you think about is like, OK, well there’s certain movies that it’s going to be hard to hit those requirements if it’s just about representation onscreen. So classically like a WWII war movie, it may not be possible to have a lot of different representation onscreen. That’s part of the reason why there’s other ways to sort of hit those requirements.

So, will it work? I don’t know. I think the reality that everyone is frustrated by this announcement probably means that it was pitched just about right in that people feel it doesn’t go far enough or it goes too far. So, in that way it may be sort of that sweet spot of actually making some changes. I think I could imagine that a studio looking at making a picture is going to have to be thoughtful about how they’re going to achieve these requirements and in thinking about how they’re going to achieve these requirements they may make some decisions that will bolster inclusion within the industry. I guess that’s the best case scenario for me of what’s happening here.

**Ryan:** It seems to me too like it’s a way of encouraging better behavior. Again, it’s sort of a blunt tool, but I think it’s a way of also just creating better habits in the way we think about how we both work behind the camera and in front of the camera and the stories we tell.

I think it’s also, you know, the other thing that kind of gets muted by this is what are we afraid of here by putting something like this in place? It’s not like they’ve put it in place rules that say you can’t make a movie if you don’t have these things. It’s just for the Best Picture nominations. And it’s interesting because I think your movies will change by virtue of the people that you include in all those aspects. I mean, it helps inform story. It helps inform sort of the point of view of the way that story is told. I don’t see a reason to be afraid of that.

**John:** I don’t really either. And especially in terms of looking at the behind the scenes talent, you might say like, OK, well it’s hard for us to find people that meet these requirements. It’s like well that is actually the problem and actually by incentivizing you to find those people you actually are increasing the supply of those people who you want to see more of in this industry.

Naturally I think everyone looks back at the work they’ve done before and figure out like, oh, which of the movies I’ve worked on would meet these requirements? And so I can’t say exhaustively sort of all the movies I’ve worked on. Some of them would, some of them would not. And you always have to, when you look back, be thinking about, OK, yes, but I was making that movie in 2003 and this is 2020. So I would be making different choices regardless.

So a movie like Big Fish it doesn’t meet some of the requirements in terms of onscreen representation, but I think probably would make different choices that would hit some of those things. Behind the scenes you had me, a gay screenwriter, and a bunch of gay producers. And that would help achieve some of those behind the scenes things. But it also would have come out of Columbia Pictures which would have by its nature had had better representation within those category three and category four requirements.

So I feel like it’s easy to think, oh, well a bunch of those old movies would not qualify. Yes, but if those movies were made today you would be making different choices anyway, so therefore they’re more likely to be qualifying.

**Ryan:** It’s interesting, too, you know, in terms of my TV experience going back to one of the first writer’s rooms I was in I learned later that even though I’m disabled I didn’t qualify as a diversity hire within that room. So it’s interesting to think like even between TV and film sort of the definitions of diversity are quite different.

**John:** Yeah. That feels like a big oversight. I hope that is something that everyone is looking at correcting. And we should stipulate that in terms of TV writer’s rooms the studio might have standards for diversity, the Writers Guild might have standards for diversity. There’s not sort of one governing body the way that the Academy is trying to look at diversity in terms of this Best Picture requirement.

So that TV writer’s room you were talking about was for In the Dark, the CW show, right?

**Ryan:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So tell me about that. That was the first TV show writer’s room you were in and we’ll put a link in the show notes to the episode where you talk about your experience being in that room. And you just went through that room again, right? Because you just finished writing a new season.

**Ryan:** We just finished season – I just stepped off season three. Yeah. We did one week in the room and then we went remote to Zoom. And I completed my time in the room off Zoom, which was kind of fascinating.

**John:** Because I know you were in town briefly and then you departed, so I had hoped to see you while you were here in Los Angeles. But what was your experience finishing that season on Zoom? And as a blind writer are there additional challenges being on Zoom, or in a weird way are you used to just sort of being in audio format and just talking it out? What was the experience like for you writing the rest of that season on Zoom?

**Ryan:** You just hit the nail on the head. You must be a good writer. You immediately imagined my point of view. Yes, it was a lot like my life experience insofar as siting in the room I might as well be on a conference call because I don’t see anything anyway. So, Zoom was sort of – I’ve talked to other people who have done Zoom rooms so far and one of the things I found most people say is they were surprised by the efficiency of it. That it seemed to get rid of a lot of the – you know, nobody wants to stay on Zoom for very long. So, there’s a kind of push to get the work done and there’s a kind of push to be decisive. And I found that part of it kind of fascinating how it really leaned out the way people creatively work together.

And we started back at the beginning of March and to sort of see the tools evolve of finding like, you know, we went for the first while without any sort of shared idea of a whiteboard working in the Zoom environment. And then eventually they came on, I think it was with Miro. We tried Google Docs for a while but it didn’t quite work efficiently with people being on the call.

But I found it was fascinating because my ability to work was not changed very much by it. I still had sort of a shifting sandcastle in my head of what would have been on the board. And I was still just listening to voices in an environment. I’ve heard other people say they find it visually exhausting to be on Zoom when the cameras are on. And I sort of question whether or not you actually need the cameras on in a writer’s room.

By the end I know other writers were telling me from other rooms that they were turning off their cameras. That they were actually turning it into more of a conference call. And they found that that was less exhausting. I don’t know. Not being a sighted person, I don’t know what the experience of that is like. Have you found that?

**John:** Yeah. Craig and I actually had a discussion about getting notes on Zoom and that we felt like weirdly it was better than being in a room or better than a conference call because it split the difference in terms of being able to be present and make clear that you’re paying attention and also to read people’s reactions and see what else is happening. Because on a conference call it’s never clear whose time it is to speak. It’s just challenging that way. And so having the visual information was helpful for us.

But I also suspect that for you having navigated as a non-sighted person for so many years you have a better sense of these cues. You can keep people’s voices straight a little better than other people could. And so that may be an advantage you have when it’s just an audio environment.

**Ryan:** Well, one thing I did notice is that the shift away from the central power of the whiteboard for a while was kind of fascinating. Because everybody was working more in a verbal environment. We still would have things like Google Docs and stuff to refer to, but I found when everybody had to move into sort of storytelling mode basically you couldn’t just look at the board and be comforted by all the writing on the board telling you that you’ve done lots of work and there was an episode in there somewhere. Because we had to keep telling acts or beats I found that the diagnostic of whether story was working was a lot different. Because when it comes out of your mouths you can tell when a story flags in a way that you don’t necessarily feel by just looking at a whiteboard and seeing a list of beats.

So, I think the empowerment of just verbal storytelling by the Zoom environment has been kind of an interesting change in the way a room is calibrated and sort of how we process the story that we’re working on.

**John:** Now in a previous episode where we talked about your experience in the room you said how important it was to be able to read the notes of the room, to read what the writers’ assistants were typing up so you could keep up to speed with stuff. And so sometimes during breaks you’d have them send you the document so you could read it on your phone and catch up on where stuff was at. How did that change and how did your experience of working with the text change when it became a Zoom situation?

**Ryan:** It pretty much stayed the same. We still had assistants on there taking notes. And at the end of the day we’d get the notes and you could read them at night and be prepared for what you were going to pitch the next day. So I didn’t find it changed very much.

I think the one thing I found really missing was there’s sort of less of a sense in a room, I don’t know if you know what I mean, but if you have 12 people in a room not everybody is looking at you at the same time. And so that sense that you could look away and sort of disappear into your mind for a while was a little different because in the Zoom environment there’d be a sense of like is that person even paying attention. Are they here? Because you’re looking at all 12 faces apparently and not everybody looks as engaged in that moment.

So there’s something about a peculiar anonymity in a room that gets lost once and a while by being in a gallery view. And I found that kind of fascinating.

**John:** In a writer’s room classically you are – attention is focused on the board at the front of the room and that is the source of everything. So without having a single source of focus and sort of a source of truth it is just that conversation. And it is just about you’re only looking at faces. And in real life you can’t look at 12 people’s faces all at the same time. That’s just not possible. And in the gallery view you can. So, it does – yeah, it definitely changes things.

You wrote this season, has any of it started shooting yet?

**Ryan:** No. I believe right now it looks like production will begin in October in Toronto. You know, all things hopefully going forward. But, you know, the west is on fire. So, who knows what’s going to happen in the interim.

**John:** Yeah. I realize we haven’t actually described to the listeners where you are right now. So tell us where do we find you as we record this episode?

**Ryan:** I am up in a place called Ucluelet which is a small fishing village on the west coast of Vancouver Island. So we’ve been here for the last six months and we decided to stay here. So my daughter just enrolled at the high school here for her first day of grade eight. And we are just on a little cedar forest on the edge of the ocean here. There’s only about 1,500 people in the village.

It’s funny because right now looking at the world, I mean there’s smoke up here coming up from the coast, too. I kind of feel like we hid up in the corner and there’s nowhere left to move everybody. We’ve retreated as far as there is left without stepping into the ocean and swimming to Japan. So that’s where it finds me right now. We’re out of the city.

**John:** So my perception of it is that it’s romantic and isolated. How accurate is that? And to what degree do you feel like this is the zombie pandemic that you have found the place of safety or that you are trapped up there and vulnerable?

**Ryan:** A place of safety. Ucluelet actually translates into a place of safe harbor. That’s what it means.

**John:** Oh wow.

**Ryan:** So, it definitely feels that way. And I’m very fortunate that way. But I think like other pp – I don’t know if you’ve heard this from others, but I know a lot of people now that are rethinking the necessity of living in the urban centers right now because everything has gone remote and proving to be done remote. And that change of cost is a huge factor for people. The expense of living in a city. When a city is a technology for me insofar as a city is what allows me to be a very functional, independent blind person. It’s a soft technology.

And everything is built at the school of a human foot. I can walk around. Public transit. All those things. And it’s fascinating right now how the pandemic has basically shutdown what a city is for me. I can’t safely move around it. I can’t socially distance from anybody without them doing it for me. I don’t know you’re coming. And so even just taking out the trash in my city place, I walk to the alley and bumped into two people. And I’m like did I get COVID? No.

So it just didn’t feel like a viable place for me to live right now. But I think other writers I know are kind of rethinking the city right now because it’s not on tap what it normally is. And I do find being away there is an anxiety that you feel the industry is carrying on without you. There isn’t that sense of where everybody is and everybody moving around and seeing each other and going to those general meetings and going to the studio lots. All that has really stopped and there’s a sense like is there even work going on out there? Have I just dropped off the radar? I think that anxiety is prevalent.

**John:** I think that anxiety is understandable and real. I will tell you that you’re not missing anything. The work is still happening. And the meetings are still happening, but they’re all happening on Zoom. And so many of the meetings that I’ve had over the last six months people would have no idea where I am. I could have been anywhere and it really wouldn’t matter.

And some of the projects I’m working on have teams that are in Argentina and France and other places because you might as well. Some things have become possible that would have been much more challenging in a pre-pandemic world. So that is definitely a thing.

**Ryan:** Do you think Zoom will persist after this historical moment as a really substantial part of our job?

**John:** Yes. I do think it will. I think there’s kind of no going back on some of it. I think there will still be in person meetings. I think writer’s rooms will split their time probably between Zoom and being in person. I hear enough from other TV writers who miss the experience of being together that they want some together time. There’s some things that are easier to do. But other stuff which was always done in person people are recognizing oh you know what I didn’t actually have to drive across town to do it.

I was talking with a friend who is producing a movie and she’s going through the edit right now. And you have to have fast Internet but she’s basically sitting “next” to her editor and supervising these cuts but she’s doing it from her house. And so that kind of stuff which was almost possible became possible during the pandemic and people realized like oh maybe we didn’t actually physically need to be there for certain things.

The inevitable question though which actually is a pretty good segue into our main topic is to what degree do you need to be going to somebody to pitch them an idea, or is it all going to happen on Zoom? What is the nature of work in the sense of like this is a thing that I need to write entirely by myself and then send to somebody, or can I just get on Zoom and pitch them the idea and convince them that this is the thing that they should hire me to do?

**Ryan:** Yeah. Or is there a sense that everything is really on a pause button, so spec your brains out? You might as well.

**John:** That’s an absolutely 100 percent valid way of thinking about it as well. As writers it doesn’t feel like we’re quite on a pause yet. But that may be coming. And there’s I think a natural question about all this writing happened while production was shut down. Once production starts again will we still do all the writing, or will we just pause the writing and shoot everything that we’ve written?

If this was ten years ago before streamers, before there was such a demand for so many shows, definitely writing would stop. Now I’m not so sure it’s going to stop. I think there’s a good chance it just keeps going at this rate because there’s so much stuff that these streamers want and need.

We used to think about time needed to be filled, but there’s vast servers that have to be filled with content. And I wonder if we’re just going to need to keep writing that stuff.

**Ryan:** And having said that, though, are the studios and the networks and the streamers, both feature and TV, are they spending money on writing like they were before? Even though there is that need. Or are they looking around and saying, “You know what? We don’t need to do as much development as we did before.”

**John:** What I sense is that they’re doing less development in the sense of like the classic thing where we’re going to shoot 30 pilots and pick five things up for series. I think they’re just making the choice about, OK, we’re going to hire someone to write a pilot. Off that pilot we’re going to write eight episodes and shoot eight episodes. I feel like there’s a lot more direct to series kind of orders happening than the classic shoot the pilots. But we’ll see if that’s the right choice or if that really holds up.

All right, let’s get to our main topic here. So this was your initial dilemma and question about pitching versus speccing. We should start by even defining our terms. So, Ryan Knighton, help us understand the difference between pitching a project and speccing it, or writing it yourself. What do you mean?

**Ryan:** Well, by pitching I mean the idea that you develop a take on something and you set up those meetings maybe through your team and you go out and you try and persuade either a studio or a network, depending if it’s TV or features, to pay you to write that idea out. So, pitching for me has always been the idea of you’re investing time in trying to persuade someone to pay you for writing what you would like to do. And there’s advantages to doing that, both financially and for the business side. And creatively there’s some advantages, too.

And then as far as speccing, speccing is the reverse order where you put in the time and you do the writing yourself. You write the project, then you take it out and try and persuade a studio or a network to pay you for the work you have done already. And there’s advantages to that, too. But the difference, you take on more risk, but then you might get rewarded more for the risk that you’ve taken on.

So, they are two different approaches really to the business of selling the work that you do. But also to how you creatively actually do the work. They’re quite different.

**John:** Now, when I was first entering the film industry in the ‘90s there were spec sales. And so people would write these spec scripts, these spec feature scripts, and sell them for $1 million. Friends of mine sold a script while they were in film school with me for a big chunk of change and it was really exciting. And that stuff did happen. It felt like sort of lottery tickets. People would write spec scripts with the intention of selling them. And that was very much a feature thing for a while, but then people started writing spec TV scripts which is confusing. So we need to separate our terms here.

There’s what’s called a spec where you’re writing an episode of an existing show just as a writing sample. But there’s also writing something that you intend to sell. You’ve written the finished script and you’re intending to sell that. So when we say speccing we’re really talking now about writing a script all by yourself that you then intend to take out and show people and they say, “This is phenomenal. We want to buy that.”

Every writer is making a choice of do I write the whole thing myself and see what happens, or do I develop the idea and then go and take a bunch of meetings with people and try and convince them to pay me to write this project.

**Ryan:** Exactly.

**John:** So, let’s talk about the advantages of speccing a project. What are some things you see as an advantage to you have this idea. It’s like, you know what, I’m just going to write it myself. What would make you decide to do that?

**Ryan:** Well I think there’s a few reasons that I can imagine. And I’m sure you can fill out more. But I mean the first one is creative control. There’s sort of an idea here that it’s difficult in words in a meeting to get them to see the picture that’s in your head. And sometimes a pitch lives or dies on your ability to do that. And sometimes it feels like, you know what, the best way to do this is for me to just write it so you can see for yourself what this thing is. The tone of it, for example, is often a hard thing to communicate in a pitch.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ryan:** And so if you just do it it does a lot of that heavy lifting for you. The other thing being that you get that first run at a story without any interference. It’s you alone sitting beside the washing machine in your house writing this thing out with nobody else telling you, “I don’t know if we can cast that, or I don’t know those locations would work.” You just get the pure experience of getting this story out nose to tail.

And there’s a lot to be said for breaking the back of a story that way. So that’s speccing for me. What about you?

**John:** I would say the other big advantage you have is that you end up – at the end of the process you have a script. You actually have a thing. You’ve written this thing and it’s a thing you can use as a writing sample even if you don’t sell it. People can read this and say, “Oh, this is a really good writer.” So you end up with a finished product. And there’s a lot to be said for that. And there’s a reason why as writers are starting they’re just going to write specs because they actually have to prove that they can write. You’re not going to be able to sort of be a person who has never written anything and sell an idea. That’s just not going to happen. So you get to show what you can do. And so speccing is a chance to do that.

It’s 100 percent you yourself working through this thing and it’s completely your vision and you end up with a finished product when you’re done with this that you can actually take out in the world or decide not to take out in the world. You have total control over everything.

**Ryan:** Correct. You know, and I think what’s interesting in that, too, is you’re pointing out that your relationship to speccing may change over your career. You know, in many respects to start a career in this industry you have to spec. You have to show you can do this work before anybody will pay you to make the next thing necessarily. So, it might be more incumbent on you at the beginning, but as you develop your career you might do less and less of that. Unless what you try to take back is more control over your material by having that time beside your washing machine, right.

**John:** So, let’s talk through the advantages of pitching a project rather than writing it yourself.

**Ryan:** Well, for me one of the advantages of it, and I’ll be honest, I specced my first script and that was 10 years ago and I have never specced anything since. I’ve only ever pitched. And in part that’s just been a choice I’ve made in terms of what I feel is the best way to earn a living for me. And, you know, sometimes for pitching the advantages are particularly if you feel you’ve got the skillset to persuade people in a room to see something with you and to get excited about it and want to buy into it at the ground floor. And that’s one thing. I mean, it’s a different skillset to pitch something than to spec something in many respects because you are trying to bring people onboard to something you haven’t done yet.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ryan:** And one of the things I find is an advantage of it though is that if people do get excited with you they bought it very early at the DNA and it helps see it through, I think, further. Because everybody was there from the green light. What do you think?

**John:** One of the other big advantages is potentially it’s a lot less time. So, the 12, 20 weeks you would spend writing that script is compressed down to the three or four weeks it took to figure out the take and actually go out and pitch the project. And so if you don’t find a buyer for it you’ve not wasted half your year writing this script. And so if no one wants this idea it becomes clear like, OK, you writing that script probably would not have been a good choice. And so you can come out with multiple pitches at the same time, too.

So, there’s good reasons to consider pitching. A lot of what I would say, you talk about buy in, and it’s also just the fact that they are paying you money. It’s much more sustainable. Like you, I’ve not written a ton of specs over the years and we’ll get into which of my projects have been specs versus pitches, but mostly if I have a good idea I will pitch it to someone who I feel is the right person to become a partner on this project and we’ll move forward, rather than writing a whole thing myself.

**Ryan:** One of the things I’ve thought about, too, is just that when you spec something, and this is one of the reasons I’ve shied from it, you’re also giving people more reasons to say no ironically. That is you’ve cut this thing from whole cloth. They read it. They either love it or hate it because they don’t want to spend a lot of time making a choice about something they didn’t ask for.

And so the danger is you can have somebody read and say, “No, just not for me.” But maybe if they’d heard it as a pitch and helped develop the idea with you and felt some ownership of what’s in it they would have a different relationship to the material. So, whereas on the other hand you can spec something and just knock people’s socks off and then you get rewarded handsomely like they did in the ‘90s and it put you in a time machine and you get to go back to the Sundance heyday.

**John:** Yeah. Back then. So, I want to talk through projects I’ve worked on, which have been specs and which ones have been pitches. And I think the decision of what I chose to spec versus pitching may be informative as we get to some listener questions. So the first specs I wrote, my very first script was called Here and Now. It was a romantic tragedy in Boulder, Colorado. It was just the first thing I ever wrote. And so it became a writing sample. It was not a pitchable idea. It really wasn’t a very good story in many ways. But it showed that I could actually write scenes and dialogue and characters.

**Ryan:** Can I ask what do you mean it’s not a pitchable idea?

**John:** It was very low concept. I think we should actually focus on this for a second. It’s like which ideas are pitchable and which are not pitchable. A pitchable idea has a concept that you can grasp that you can see like I can understand what that movie is even if it weren’t executed perfectly. And so we talk about something being execution-dependent, like OK it has to be done exactly right for it to make any sense. You really have to read it to understand how it’s going to work. Versus an idea that you can sort of quickly summarize.

The things I sold as pitches, DC was a pitch, and so it was the first TV show I ever did. It was seven young people living in a house in DC, sort of their first year after college. It’s kind of a post-Felicity show. That was pretty easy for me to sell as a pitch because people understand it’s like Felicity but after college. It’s about Washington, DC. People could read my samples and know that he can write those kind of characters. That’s a thing I sell as a pitch.

Something like Go would have been impossible to pitch because there’s not a clear – I had to write that as a spec because it wasn’t clear how this was all going to work, or that I could even do it. And so the same reason why it was hard to write a log line for Go, it would be very hard to pitch Go as a movie.

**Ryan:** I think that’s key to this. I mean, pitching you know you’ve got pitchable material when part of what persuades people is just the potential that they can see in it. A lot of it is about the gesture. As soon as you say it’s a kind of Felicity version of DC, the post-college grads in Washington, immediately I can feel 20 stories brewing in my head around that sandbox. And that’s part of what makes something very pitchable is that part of the persuasion is just the potential that the people across the table from you immediately see in what you’re saying.

**John:** Now, so I’ve mostly been working on assignments which are kind of like pitches but you’re pitching to get the job, but the things I have written as specs were because they were so execution-dependent that it would have been very difficult to convince somebody like, oh, this is something you should take a flier on and pay me to write. So the way that you and I met was my script for The Shadows which I wrote as a spec has a blind teenage protagonist and is very challenging in lots of ways. That needed to be a spec. I don’t think it would have made sense as a pitch. Would you agree with that?

**Ryan:** I agree. Because again the high concept element of it is just not there. And you’re right, I can feel as soon as you pitch it there’s a blind protagonist who goes through the – I don’t want to give away your story – but what she goes through is not necessarily going to compress into a logline that easily.

And I think the other challenge you can hit with something that doesn’t necessarily – or the other challenge you hit with something that feels pitchable is sometimes the challenge is that you are pitching something that there are other things in the marketplace right now or that just came out onscreen in the last few years that didn’t do well but they immediately see as a comparison.

So you might have a really high concept pitchable thing, but they will say things like, “Oh, nobody wants a western right now.” And it kills it right there on the spot.

And then that becomes now an execution-dependent high concept pitch, right?

**John:** All right, so in order to talk through what ideas are good for pitching and what ideas are better for speccing, we wanted some actual real examples, so I emailed out to all of our Premium listeners to say, hey, if you have a project you’re thinking about writing and you’re trying to decide whether to spec it or to pitch it send in a description of it and we will talk through and try to give you our advice for whether that’s an idea you should pitch or an idea you should spec.

Now, one thing to stipulate at the top of this is that in many cases our listeners are aspiring writers who don’t have credits or don’t have other things that they can sort of show how good their work is. And so in many of these cases you have to spec it just because there’s no one for you to pitch to. But we’ll also take a look at these ideas if Ryan or Craig or I were trying to write them what our decision process would be with that kind of idea.

**Ryan:** By the way, if any network is listening to this and they hear a game show in this, Pitch or Spec, we’ve got it. We’ve got this thing down now.

**John:** All right. Let’s take a listen to our first person who is Heidi.

**Heidi Lauren:** This is Heidi Lauren from Vermont. I’m working on a limited series adaptation of an historical fiction novel that was a book club darling back in 2006. I’ve already optioned it with the author and written the outline and treatment. Should I keep writing or try and find it a home first?

**John:** All right, so Ryan, historical fiction and it’s a book that she now has the option on. In her situation it sounds like she doesn’t have other credits, what do you think her next step is?

**Ryan:** That’s a hard one for me because the key word in there for me was that it was a book club success book. Like it actually has some heft to its audience already built into it. That makes me feel like it’s pitchable right there. However, as soon as you say historical fiction blah-blah-blah I am like, oh, that feels speccy to me. So I’m on the fence. Because there’s sort of two elements that are in contradiction there for me.

**John:** Yeah. The other contradiction for me is that she has an option on it. So, let’s say she writes this spec script and she’s not able to sell it right away, she kind of loses control over things. At some point the underlying rights are going to go away, so she’ll have this script that she can’t sell. And then there’s the book which someone else could buy. So she could have this orphaned script that she can’t do anything with. Still, a writing sample, but it’s frustrating on that level.

If Heidi were to pitch it to somebody I would say she would need to approach producers and financiers who are the right kind of people to make this movie who have made things like this who might be interested in doing this. And try to set it up that way where they’re basically buying both your option and they’re hiring you to write the script. Because that’s going to be the right home for it.

Whether it makes sense to spend months chasing down those people or just writing the script that’s ultimately going to be your choice. It sounds like you really want to write this thing, so I don’t want to stop you from writing this thing by scaring you that at some point you could lose control over the underlying source material.

**Ryan:** I guess now that I’m thinking about it and hearing you I would say if Heidi has a really good sample and then she has the option on this and she’s got – it sounds like she’s got the material to pitch it ready to go. I would lean towards pitching then. But I think the key element for me would be whether or not the sample that she has could really push it over the line for other people and say, oh yeah, this is the right writer for this material.

**John:** Yeah. All right, let’s listen to – here’s Niko.

**Niko:** Hi John and Craig. My name is Niko. And I’m a beginning writer who just moved out to Los Angeles about a month and a half ago. You’ve inspired me to take a big risk and take a jump in my life. And so far it’s been paying off. I got a question in particular about this idea I’ve had in my head about a Weezer miniseries. The story revolves around singer-songwriter Rivers Cuomo who already achieved international fame but returned to college at Harvard after he wanted to finish his education. I thought he premise would be interesting where you’d have the two worlds of being a rock star and still being confined to a 100-square-foot dorm room. Just wondering if that would work better as a pitch or a spec script. Thank you very much.

**John:** Ryan, so what’s the right choice for a Weezer miniseries?

**Ryan:** Spec.

**John:** I think it’s totally a spec. Spec, spec, spec, spec, spec. So, a couple things for Niko here. As Craig has made clear on the show you are allowed to write about real life and real life is up for grabs, but Rivers Cuomo is going to have some control over his life story. There’s going to be complications in making this thing. And so you might say like, oh, then you should pitch it so you don’t run into that. No, you should spec this because I think it’s actually a really interesting idea. It’s the kind of thing that if it gets traction, it gets on the Black List, people dig it. If it’s a fun idea it’s a sample.

I think you have to approach this as you are writing this as a sample that will get you hired onto work on a TV show or do other things. I think it’s a good idea, but I think it’s essentially a spec. You’re writing this as a writing sample with the minimal hope that it could become a real series if it catches fire.

**Ryan:** Correct. I totally agree. And also because really the selling point of this in a pitch is the name Weezer. It’s the band. It’s Rivers Cuomo. And that like you say is going to become complicated with life rights and other things.

If you take that element out of it and you made it a fictional story it actually becomes less compelling because it’s a rock star goes back to school, which could work. But you see sort of the sharp edge of the sell there has been blunted.

**John:** So, let’s imagine that Niko has some good samples, maybe even something that’s – maybe he’s been hired to do some stuff. And he actually has a relationship with Rivers Cuomo. That’s a situation which I think you could actually pitch. And so I can see you going into Seth Rogan’s production company saying like, hey, I have this idea for a thing and Rivers is signed off on it. Isn’t this a cool idea? Then, yeah, that’s a totally pitchable idea. But without those elements I think it is a much better thing for you to be speccing.

**Ryan:** Exactly. And if he had Rivers Cuomo sitting beside him I would say do not spec this. I would say pitch, pitch, pitch.

**John:** Yeah. 100 percent. Next up.

**Adam Kanter:** Hey John and Craig. My name is Adam S. Kanter. I’m a new screenwriter originally from Eastern Massachusetts and have lived in Los Angeles for about 2.5 years now. I would love to get your pitch it vs. write it take on a drama feature I’ve been developing that is a modern take on the idiom “don’t meet your heroes.” The movie is about a troubled teen whose longtime childhood idol is publically outed as a complete monster for to be determined reasons. The main plot of the film would show this teen’s struggle to fill their role model void at a critical moment in their pre-adult development while they themselves inadvertently begin filling that very role for the at risk youth that they work with. Really excited to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you both so, so much.

**John:** All right, so Adam, you introduce yourself as Adam S. Kanter. You’re going to need that S throughout your whole career because there’s already an agent named Adam Kanter. So that’s challenging. There’s also an actor named Adam Kantor, so that S is going to be part of your life.

To me this feels like it has to be a spec because it’s incredibly execution-dependent. Based on what you described and like, oh OK, so he works with troubled at risk youth. There’s this teen idol. There’s so many very specific things that have to work just right. I don’t envision this being a good pitch. Ryan, what are you hearing?

**Ryan:** I agree. I agree. I mean, even when you heard Adam describing the story the logline extended and extended which is an indication that it’s execution-dependent right there. And also some of the details were still a little fudgy. And it doesn’t feel like it’s in a state where Adam actually knows the story well enough to pitch it yet in any case. And sometimes speccing is a way to actually do that thinking for yourself and figure it out with some trial and error.

But I agree. I agree. It feels very execution-dependent even in the way it was described.

**John:** Great. Next up.

**Tiffany:** Hi John and Craig. My name is Tiffany and my idea is a series called The Unknowables. It’s graduation day at a tiny liberal arts college. And five kids who no one has ever seen before show up in their caps and gowns. This is the story of their college experience. As for me, I’m just starting out. I live in the suburbs about a half an hour out of LA, but I have no credits and I know pretty much nobody. Looking forward to your advice. Thanks.

**Ryan:** Ooh.

**John:** What you thinking?

**Ryan:** I’m thinking it’s close to a pitch.

**John:** Yeah. I’m not clear on the tone. So from that title The Unknowables is there a magical thing happening here? Is there some sort of sci-fi twist to this? Or are they just people who flew under the radar? So if it’s just they flew under the radar and that it’s kind of like a Freaks and Geeks situation it’s tough. I feel like that’s really execution-dependent. Unless you had samples that I read that people were breaking down the door to work with you, I think that that’s tough.

But there’s a high enough concept, like that first line of people show up and no one at graduation has any idea who are they or who they were. That’s compelling. That’s a good hook. And that’s the kind of thing that feels like you could pitch a story that gets us there.

**Ryan:** I totally agree. And I think it just depends on what the next sentence is. Which is because they are – who are they? Why were they unknown? How did they fly under the radar and just show up? The answer to that question is going to decide if this is pitchable or specable. Because it almost feels like it has, like you say, like tonally it feels like it’s leaning towards something that has the J.J. Abrams black box.

If it goes that way I would say it’s pitchable. If it’s more just, you know, I teach at a university. And if these are the five students that show up on the last day and they just never showed up during the semester and it’s about these sort of, you know, the Freaks and Geeks like you say, then yeah, it’s probably a spec.

**John:** All right. Next up.

**John from London:** Hey John and Craig. John here from London. So I have a book. I don’t own the rights. A freelance producer brought it to me and introduced me to the author. She was trying to set the project up with production companies here in the UK. She left the project as another show of hers took off. The rights are still available and I kept in touch with the author. It’s a limited series, black dramedy set in an urban UK city about a central character, an artist, on the brink of madness who meets his dead hero on the streets of said city. It’s a story about mental illness, but I guess that’s it.

It’s a difficult one to pitch, especially as a new writer. I’ve got work in development with various UK production companies. I’ve worked in a room on the fifth season of a big UK-US show this year, my first room. But that’s it so far.

I love this book. It would make an amazing limited series. Do I spec it at risk? My inclination is yes [unintelligible] a sale on it. I don’t think anyone else is [pinching] the rights any time soon. It’s not a well-known book. Anyways, thanks. Love, love the podcast. It’s been so much help over the years. Oh, PS, no, I’m not telling you guys the name of the book. Obviously I’m worried you’ll pinch it for yourselves.

**John:** Oh well, John, come on. I mean, Ryan Knighton might steal. He’s a notorious larcenist.

**Ryan:** I have to say right away though, you know, outside my window apparently are a bunch of cedar trees that my wife looks at. I would like John to be outside the other window for me. And I would just like him to narrate my life as I’m doing it. Ryan is currently making coffee. He just chilled me right out. John, keep talking.

**John:** My advice for John from London is to not write this or pitch this. I think he needs to find a different project. Because I just see this ending in tears, to me. And I can’t even quite articulate why I feel this way. But I just remember having projects that were kind of like this early in my career where I kept trying to sort of set up this un-setup-able book, or work on this thing that I didn’t really own. And I should have been focused on writing my own stuff.

Ryan, I’m curious what your instincts are.

**Ryan:** That’s fascinating you say that. My take is just slightly different. I know what you mean. I’m a little worried because even in telling us about the book you could feel John sort of just crumple at the end like I just – I love this book so much and I know it would be so great. And already feeling like he’s having trouble telling me why. And in that case that means it’s not really pitchable. The hook there was not necessarily a high concept one. The book clearly means a lot to him and I think that’s worth something. And maybe that is something you want to put your time into to spec because you love it so much. And it might be the kind of project where you just have to write it out to show somebody why you love it so much. That would be the perfect of speccing it. I’m going to write this out and you will see why I love it so much when you read my pages.

Having said that I agree with you. To be honest my worry is that speccing in TV also just feels like a different risk than speccing in feature. Because when you write a spec script in TV it’s a very simple choice. Are we going to make this pilot or not? There’s not a lot of appetite I think to go in and redevelop a specced TV pilot. Do you agree John?

**John:** I do. And so one of my previous spec examples, which I didn’t get to, was I wrote a project for Legendary TV. And it was sort of a semi-original idea and they wanted me to write it. So I wrote it and I wrote it for them kind of as a spec, and then we were going to – so they were paying me, but we didn’t have a network or a studio for it. And that was a giant mistake because we talk about buy-in on TV and they want to be part of the process right from the very start. And so since they weren’t part of the process everyone looked at this thing like, “Uh, yeah, we like it but we don’t necessarily really want to make it. It’s not ours.” And it didn’t have their fingerprints all over it. And so classically that’s the reason why you don’t see a lot of spec TV because the development executives and the culture of the home that this project is going to end up at becomes so important.

So, that would be my worry for him speccing this thing. He could come out of this with a terrific sample. And it could be great writing that gets him other work. So that’s definitely a possibility if he were to pursue this. But there’s no guarantees.

**Ryan:** I think, you know, another thing to remember is that when a producer brings you a book like that you also have to wonder like, OK, so why is this coming to me. Is it because they’ve tried bringing this to a bunch of other places and nobody has cracked it yet? Did anybody sort of look at this and say, “You know, there’s just something here. Hopefully somebody can figure it out for us.” The momentum may not actually be behind the book, even though you feel somebody brought it to you and that feels like momentum.

Sometimes it’s a bit of fishing. We think there’s something here. Do you know what it is? So, I get a little hesitant around that, too.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ryan:** But what you were saying John about pitching versus speccing with television really cuts to the heart of it for me right now. Which is I keep wondering right now if there is going to be more speccing for TV because there’s less development money being spent at the moment. And are we going to change that TV practice a little bit?

**John:** I think we might. And the way that features and TV are kind of converging because of streamers I think some of the practices we see of these writers going off and writing their own things will become more common. And people will set up limited series that are based on the spec pilot they wrote and that will become the basis of someone doing something.

So I can envision over these next few years a lot more sales happening along that line. Where there is a real crunch, which is worth talking about maybe on a future episode, is if you are a new writer who has written that thing that the sells they’re going to want to marry you with an experienced showrunner who can actually make sure the thing gets shot properly and that the whole thing can come together. There’s a real shortage of those experienced showrunners who people want to hire. And that relationship is difficult. The resource constraints there are real. And in a weird way it’s only exacerbated by the fact that we keep making these short series where no one has enough time to actually learn how to do the job of showrunning. So that’s a real sort of crisis we’re running into.

**Ryan:** Duly noted.

**John:** Duly noted. Let’s take a listen to Brendan here.

Branden: Hey Riddler and Robot. I have written for the game industry for nine years and for the past two years have started writing features and TV pilots. The advice I keep getting is flip-flopping on whether to write a spec or not because I’m told I won’t get the chance to pitch ever because I’m “new” to the business. I’ve written three features and three comedy pilots this year and have been told unless I know someone I can’t get a job as a screenwriter. Here are my pitches.

So the feature is a king who falls in love with a male baker during a time of war in this fairy tale romance. And the pilot is two inept local DJs shoot for the stars while bringing everything else down around them.

Since I was told I won’t get the chance to pitch I have written them out completely. Now what? Thank you. I love you guys.

**John:** All right. So Brendan is hitting the nail on the head here as we said at the start which is that as a new writer who has sort of no connection to anybody it’s tough to find a person you would even pitch to. So you are going to just write these things yourself. But to me both of those concepts are pretty much execution-dependent. The feature idea, which was the king falls in love with a baker, is pretty execution-dependent. It’s high concept enough, but you’re going to want to show that you actually can write this thing. The DJ idea to me, if you had good samples that sort of backed you up and had the right place for it I could see you being able to pitch that as a pilot.

What’s your instinct there?

**Ryan:** Mine are the same. And I feel for him. I mean, there is that hard thing at the beginning of your career. And I remember going through this where getting in those rooms felt like the difference between the choice in speccing and pitching because it is the difference. And without a team that can get you into a meeting to even try pitching something for the first time. I mean, that’s the other thing. You can pitch something and then it gets shot down. You still have the choice to spec it on the other side.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Ryan:** You can still do that. And you can learn a lot from pitching something and have it shot down. It can convince you there’s something there that they’re just not seeing.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ryan:** But without that team putting you in those rooms it’s going to be speccing. And I agree that neither of those quite had the juice for a pitch I think.

**John:** I want to hear from a college student. So let’s hear from Steffi.

**Steffi:** Dear John and Craig. Hello. This is Steffi from Houston. I’m a senior in college and only recently distilled my love for screenwriting over the elongated summer. I wrote my first full length. Again, a huge thank you for all of your guidance. And I’m on to my second one which happens to be my senior honors thesis. So, in other words, A, I’m not in a position to be pitching to producers. And, B, I’m writing this thing regardless for a grade, even though in my mind it’s definitely not just for the grade.

So here it is. It’s a feature following the career of an award-winning Panamanian dermatologist and her fraught relationship with her daughter up until the revolution of 1989. Would love to hear your input. Also, feel free to cut out all the above blurb. I wasn’t entirely sure how you were going to use it in the exercise. But regardless thank you and goodbye.

**John:** All right. I’m excited for Steffi to be writing her script. So obviously she’s going to write it herself because she’s in college. She doesn’t know anybody. There’s no one for her to pitch to. But let’s imagine that you are Aline Brosh McKenna and this is the idea that you have. So Aline could pitch to anybody. Let’s imagine what Aline might do in this situation. Would she spec this or would she pitch it? Ryan, help me figure out what are the deciding factors for an established writer with this idea.

**Ryan:** Wow. I’m still stuck on the phrase award-winning Panamanian dermatologist.

**John:** It’s so good.

**Ryan:** That was the most specific character I think I’ve encountered in a while. I mean, I guess again it depends on the tone. If it’s Aline doing this I would assume it is going to be that amazing Aline tone. And when you paint that over that concept, boy, I’m pretty intrigued. I don’t know. What do you think, John?

**John:** If this were based on something I feel like the concept is fun enough – I’m assuming this is a comedy. The world is bright enough that I think it’s pitchable, but I think it’s much more pitchable if there were some source material. If there was like a short story or a real life story. Something you could point to underneath that sort of lies underneath this. But as just a pure pitch I think it’s actually pretty challenging even for an Aline to go out and set up. You want to have something – weirdly some base underneath that is why I think writing it as a spec would probably make the most sense.

**Ryan:** Yeah. I mean, there is something to be said for when you have some kind of IP, even if it’s an article or whatever, it provides a lot of comfort in the room when you’re pitching. Because it’s based on something. It’s already out in the world and people wanted to read about some way. And it sort of gestures to something that’s a little bit more robust than just something that’s inside your head and has been lingering around for a few months.

I can’t stress it enough. It provides a lot of comfort in a room when you’re pitching. Even if it’s a very small piece of IP.

**John:** Yeah. All right, let’s wrap up with the last one and this is a guy who actually has some credits and is in a little bit different situation than some of our other listeners.

**Ryan Roope:** Hello John and Craig. So my idea that I’ve toyed with for a couple years now is where an asteroid was set to destroy the earth. Many people quit their jobs. Spend their life savings. Basically get ready for the end of days. But at the last minute the world is saved and now everyone must somehow find a way to get to a sense of normalcy. My current idea has it sent through the perspective of a 20-something couple who got together when the world was supposed to end and must now figure out what continuing on with life not only means for their relationship but what it means in terms of their place in this now rebuilding world.

My credits include the Tom and Jerry Show, the revamp of the classic cartoon. And I’m currently working on a television Christmas feature set to air in France, which happened as randomly as it sounds. Lastly I want to thank you both for the work you do on this podcast. It has helped me immensely. And I only wish there was some way I could return the favor. All the best and many thanks. Ryan.

**John:** All right. Ryan, what is your advice to Ryan?

**Ryan:** So we had a John pitching to you. And we’ve had a Ryan pitch to me now. I am sold. I’m sold on it right away. And I think it is a great hook. There was a film in the mid-90s that a friend of mine named Don McKellar had made that was called Last Night. And it was an apocalyptic premise. It’s the end of the world but everybody has known it has been coming for years and years and there’s nothing you can do about it. So it’s just how is everybody going to spend that last night on earth when it’s not new news.

And it opens with this amazing sequence of a family having the last Christmas dinner even though it’s not Christmas and still having the same family fights they always do, even though it’s the last night on earth. And there’s something in that shift of the apocalyptic story to that kind of dark comedy tone that just worked so well. It was such a clean premise. And I hear that in this as well. I love the idea that the world is about to end and then it nimbly pivots. That would be my name if I was a Harry Potter character. I’d be Nimbly Pivots. It nimbly pivots to suddenly it’s not over and then how do we recover when we’ve made all these choices thinking we were in the middle of an ending. I think it’s a great hook. It’s a very high concept hook and I can see the comedy in it.

It’s pitchable because I can feel the potential in it right away and I want to write it.

**John:** Absolutely. 100 percent a pitchable idea. You have reps apparently because of the work you’ve been doing. They get you in rooms where you pitch this. I think it also feels like an idea that you pitch to an actor’s production company because you can imagine this selling with comedy actor production company – someone who is on board with this from the start.

A thing I should stress is, like you’ve referenced – what was it called Last Night, the Don McKellar movie – but there’s 50 at least scripts out there that have essentially the same basic premise in terms of like the apocalypse didn’t happen and then sort of what happens next. That’s not an original idea. But your ability to pitch the specifics about it are what sets it apart. And that is a thing that makes it sellable. And so your ability to go into a room and sell the characters, sell the world, sell what’s going to happen in the course of yours. It’s not even clear from your thing whether you see this as a feature or an ongoing series about what happens after that. Both work. And so this is a very pitchable idea.

Yes, you could spec it but I don’t think there’s necessarily a reason to spec it. In some ways I think getting it out there as a pitch so that people can have buy-in and have their fingerprints on it from the start makes it more likely to get made. So I think this is a pitch.

**Ryan:** I think the other thing that’s worth noting, just listening to Ryan pitch that little snippet of what he’s working on and what he’s thinking about, he delivered with a kind of confidence and a control that he knew exactly what this thing was about and what makes it work.

**John:** Yeah.

**Ryan:** And that’s part of what makes it pitchable. And when you compare that to some of the other pitches that we heard, people are still sort of working out what their relationship is to the material and how it might be executed and where it might go. You can still feel that sense that there’s some work to be done in there. But Ryan’s confidence there tells me it’s also pitchable. He knows exactly what this thing is.

**John:** Totally.

**Ryan:** Would you go TV or feature with it? Which would you go?

**John:** You can definitely do either. I think if it’s a TV show then it’s a Netflix eight-episode season after season thing. Sort of like a more Dear White People kind of scenario. If it is a feature then it’s just a high concept feature and I think you can do it low fi and sort of low budget-ish, or you can sort of do it slightly bigger, sort of a, again, sort of a Seth Rogan model kind of budget of this and do it as a romantic comedy or a relationship comedy of what happens after that thing. Or a Judd Apatow for that matter.

So, there’s many ways you could do. I think you’d probably try to sell it as a feature first. I think you go feature first. If you can’t find a home for it then you look at a streamer.

**Ryan:** Oh, see, I’m still your student because I’ve been leaning TV on it. I think there’s a great TV series in it. Because it’s particularly about these ongoing relationships on the other side of this new piece of information and how these relationships evolve and change and have to rethink themselves and so on and so forth. And that feels like the world of television. It’s not building towards a hard ending necessarily like a feature wants.

**John:** Yeah. The other possibility is that you’re intercutting between post-apocalypse and post-post-apocalypse and the lead up to it, so you sort of contrast expectation and how bad things were going to get and then what the actual reality is. And that is a TV way of doing it. You have the flashbacks to where everyone assumed things were going to get to.

**Ryan:** This feels like what you and I are doing right now is the feeling you want in a room when you pitch something.

**John:** That’s exactly right. That’s why it’s a pitchable idea rather than just a spec idea.

**Ryan:** Yeah.

**John:** We in talking through all this stuff we burned through all our time where we would talk about the other questions that came in, which is fine. It’s me and Ryan Knighton talking through pitching and speccing. Let’s wrap this up. What are your takeaways from this and was this illuminating to you at all in terms of your central dilemma about pitching and speccing in this time?

**Ryan:** It was because it puts me back in touch with the fundamentals. I’ve said over the years that one of the reasons I continue to teach at a university is I like to go in once a year and just teach writing and sort of revisit the things that I think I know. And just to see if they’re still true. And I feel like that’s kind of what I got from this. The principles of pitching and speccing, even in the pandemic, haven’t really changed because it’s still about how to persuade people to get on board with you and what is the right approach for the material in hand.

It might change a little bit I think like we raised that pitching with TV might not become so sacrosanct down the road. Like we might see more speccing in television coming out which is I’m sort of feeling is happening, too.

I think the feature landscape is still pretty consistent in its attitude towards what is pitchable and what is specable.

**John:** One thing we didn’t bring up in terms of like a decision to spec even if you have credits is that sometimes if you want to really change your perception, how people perceive you, the kinds of things people consider you for, writing a spec is a great way to do that. And so I have friends who have written on procedurals for years and they can hop from another procedural to another procedural, but they will deliberately write an original that is a different tone that gets them considered for different kinds of shows. And the same thing can work for features. So, if you are a person who is only known for writing certain things that can be useful.

Earlier in my career just based on what I had sold, what I’d been hired to write, I was only being offered projects that involved gnomes, elves, dwarves, and Christmas. Family movies were the things people would send me. And so I wrote Go as sort of a, oh by the way, I can also write other things. And so Go was incredibly useful for me to have written as a spec even though it didn’t initially sell because people could see whatever they wanted to see in it. And it got me into rooms where I could pitch on other things. And so one of the reasons why Ryan Knighton might choose to write a spec in this time is if there’s things that he’s not being considered for that he wants to be considered for. It’s a chance to write that different thing that is outside of what is considered his normal wheelhouse.

**Ryan:** I think that’s a really good point. That even though speccing might be something you do more at the beginning of your career, there’s still a really important function for it in a developing career over the years that you work in the industry. A spec allows you to present yourself differently to people who’ve made a certain opinion of you or out of efficiency think of you a certain way and think of you for certain projects.

I tend to be the person that people think of – if they ever think of me – but they might think of me like I have sort of a disease story, can you make it a bit funnier. You know, the disabled story. That kind of stuff.

But to be honest, the majority of my career over the last ten years has not been that material ironically. But it did take a little bit of convincing that I could write about things other than disability and so on and so forth.

**John:** I did not give you warning about One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing that you can share with our listeners?

**Ryan:** I do. Because I was looking back and the first time I was on the show I recommended Lovage which is an herb basically. I think it’s an herb. And then the second time I recommended an app. So this time I thought well I’m on a podcast. I’m going to recommend a podcast. And the podcast I want to recommend is a podcast called Crackdown. And it is created by Garth Mullins. I know Garth. He lives around the corner from me in Vancouver.

I think it is one of the bravest podcasts I’ve listened to. And I say that with all bias on the table that I admire Garth very much. But it is a podcast about the opioid crisis as told by the frontline drug users in the drug war. So it’s told from the point of view who are being affected. The point of view of people who are being affected by policy decisions. It is told at the street level with people, activists, who are trying to set up safe injection sites for harm reduction. The fights they’re facing with the pharmaceutical industry around the shift from Methadone to Methadose which is a fascinating episode.

The politics. The science. And the just human compassion that is in this podcast is incredible. And it exposes a subculture. I don’t think we should think of it even as a subculture. But it exposes the culture of the lives of people that I just don’t think we’ve heard them tell in their own words before. And it’s just so powerful.

**John:** That’s awesome. That’s great. So Crackdown is the podcast. Fantastic. My One Cool Thing is an evergreen One Cool Thing. I think every year I’ve used it as one, which is to get your Flu Shot. So the flu shot is now widely available in the US and presumably Canada as well. The flu shot is the vaccine we already have for a disease that is unlikely to kill most of us, but can definitely suck if you get it. Craig got it last year and it was bad. Luckily Tamiflu worked for that, but you know, getting your flu shot is a better choice than having to take Tamiflu.

So, the flu shot. It’s out there. It’s cheap. I got mine at CVS a couple weeks ago. So just get your flu shot. It’s not clear what’s going to happen with the flu this year. And so in Australia which would have had the flu season earlier they basically had no flu, but they were in really tight lockdowns. With us wearing masks and stuff like that it could be a mild flu season anyway, but a flu shot is just an extra little bit of insurance that don’t get the flu which just is terrible to get in any normal year. So, get your flu shot everyone.

**Ryan:** Yeah. I mean, it’s particularly helpful right now I think because it helps the entire healthcare system not get overloaded by people wondering if they have COVID but they have the flu.

**John:** Exactly.

**Ryan:** So it’s sort of like allowing people to spot COVID in the wild much more clearly if we’re all getting the flu shot.

**John:** Cool. That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Lachlan Marks. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Remind me, Ryan, what your Twitter handle is.

**Ryan:** I’m @ryanknighton.com. Oh, not dot.com. That’s so ‘90s. I’m @ryanknighton.

**John:** So @ryanknighton. 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.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. And advance warning on things like this segment we did today which we talked through things that our Premium listeners had sent in.

Ryan Knighton, thank you so very much for joining us on the show. Thank you for filling in for Craig who is unexpectedly detained. You are going to stick around and you’re going to tell us about surfing, because I want to know about surfing.

**Ryan:** I was so happy to do it. I’m sad Sexy Craig wasn’t here. I wanted to have a rivalry with my character, Curiously Appealing Ryan.

**John:** Yes.

**Ryan:** But that was a very pitchable idea just to hear Craig Mazin was detained. I want to watch that show.

**John:** That’s what it is. All right. Thanks Ryan.

**Ryan:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Ryan Knighton, so you are going to be spending this year apparently training to become an amazing surfer. Tell us how this starts. Tell us about surfing. Tell us about this whole idea.

**Ryan:** It’s a ludicrous idea. I know it’s a ludicrous idea. The story is I ended up out here on the coast in this little fishing village, Ucluelet, where my wife and I built a house, and the reason I’m out here is COVID pushed me out here. The city became too dangerous for me to be around. I couldn’t get around without – I don’t want to use public transit right now. I can’t take Ubers and taxis safely. I’m bumping into people.

So we pulled up stakes and moved out here by the ocean. And this place, I discovered it 10 years ago though a friend of mine who is deft surfer. And this is the surfing spot in Canada out here. And we’d gone to university together. His name is Colin Ruloff. He was a pro skateboarder. And we were in university together sharing notes in a philosophy class because I couldn’t see what was on the board and he couldn’t hear what the guy was saying.

So, we shared a brain. We got accused of plagiarism because we were making equal mistakes because were half [unintelligible]. But he kept saying to me you’ve got to try surfing. You’ve got to come out and try surfing. And I kept thinking I can never do that.

Then 10 years ago I decided to do it. I decided to try it with him. And so the deaf guy taught the blind guy how to surf for a day and it worked about as well as you would imagine. It was a lot of me saying where are you and him saying what and me saying where are you.

**John:** Marco Polo basically.

**Ryan:** Yeah, Marco Polo. I got it for a couple seconds. And I remember in that few seconds I stood up having this feeling that this was going to be a problem. That it was just going to be a problem. That I felt something I haven’t felt in years which was I was moving quickly without a cane and without anybody guiding me. And it was safe. I mean, when I wipe out I hit water.

So, I started surfing 10 years ago sort of loosely. And then my daughter and I would come out here in the summers and it was like a week a summer, and then it was two weeks, and then it was three weeks. And then I would be pacing in November because it’s going to be a long time until I get to go again. And then this year we ended up here on the coast. I decided I’m going to be here for a year. So I’m just going to throw myself into this completely. And I started doing research. And there is an open adaptive surfing competition every year in San Diego. So I’m going to train for the next year to go into it at the age of 48. And I’m really thinking about middle age and COVID and disability and I’m trying to understand my relationship to all of these things through the lens of surfing over the next year.

And I’m going to write an article about it. I’m talking to an editor friend of mine who used to be at Esquire. I think I’m going to go back to doing that as a feature article for them. If not for Esquire for another magazine. Because again it’s like I want to find something to write right now that’s a little more about self-care. This is about self-care.

So, unless I get killed in a wave. Then it won’t be about self-care. [laughs]

**John:** So, Ryan, one of the things I like so much about this is that it feels like you’re treating yourself as the protagonist in your own life story. There’s a way in which you are both being internal and external in terms of you’re thinking about Ryan Knighton. And the challenges that you’re encountering in terms of like how your world has changed. So basically the COVID pushing you to the coast, but giving you an opportunity to do this thing that you haven’t done before and really looking at being deliberate in your choices the way we hope that our heroes in our stories are being deliberate in their choices. And recognizing that there are some sacrifices you’re making for that.

And so leaving your home in Vancouver, but also recognizing that your work is going to change. And that it’s going to change some of your family dynamics. And that that’s all OK. But I’m just saying you made a very compelling pitch for this idea. And I think it’s a pitchable idea. I don’t think you necessarily – well, you are essentially speccing it because you are speccing your own life. But I would also buy it as a pitch.

**Ryan:** You know, it is one of the most generous things that anybody has said to me, the way you just framed that.

**John:** Well thank you.

**Ryan:** You know, coming out – like I wrote memoirs and my other career is as a travel writer and as you can imagine that has stopped right now for the past six months. I usually am on a plane every two or three weeks and I haven’t gone anywhere for six months. And it’s put me in a very interesting disorientation.

And I still think about how years ago an editor that I was working with, because I would do all these sort of first person travel stories, and starting to do them of like going around the world. Like if I had to go just smell something what I would go smell. That was sort of my travel angle. Trying to educate my other senses by going and finding those sensory experiences.

And this editor had said to me, “You know, one of the things that’s really important is to live an anecdotally rich life.” And I’ve always used that as the measure for a lot of the projects I do. Like is this going to be anecdotally rich? Am I going to come out of this with a lot of stories? And so treating yourself as a protagonist is a way of doing that. What is the uncomfortable thing to do right now? What is the thing that’s most surprising? What’s the thing I’m afraid of?

Coming out here I am so into the surfing thing right now, but I am so terrified about trying to just get around. I’m living somewhere I’ve never lived before and I haven’t done that in a long, long time.

**John:** Well I remember as we were first talking about The Shadows you described how important cities were for you and the ability to sort of find edges of things. And so being out in the forest by yourself is incredibly – it’s a scary thing for a blind person because you have no bearings. You have no way to orient yourself. And so that’s why I was surprised to find that you are in the middle of nowhere right now where you kind of can’t help but be more dependent upon other people to do some things that you could have done – you had self-reliance in the city just because you had routines and habits and the way of finding your own way around.

**Ryan:** Yeah. I mean, you know very well because there’s actually a sequence in your script that very much describes the experience of a blind person in the woods. It’s a very accurate experience. You know, I will be honest I took a page from your playbook. You and Mike and Amy moved to Paris for a year. You uprooted your lives and changed everything for a year. And that was really inspiring to me. Sometimes these moments come and you realize you can, again, it’s my Harry Potter name, you can Nimbly Pivot. And I tried to nimbly pivot because I want stories. And if I find I’m living a life that fills me with stories to tell I find it makes me a better writer.

I find it doesn’t make me as complacent in my thinking about things. And it’s good to be upset in that sense and feeling disoriented. So, I don’t do it lightly. I’m still afraid of the ocean. It’s not a forgiving thing. But I know I’m going to have an interesting year and I know I’m going to walk out of it with a difference sense of myself. And I think that’s important to me right now at this age.

And to be honest I think a lot of people are going through something like this right now. I don’t think I’m alone in looking at the moment historically and saying maybe we could just sort of check in and question the assumptions I’ve made about the way I live and where I live and what I’m doing. Because it can all change so quickly.

**John:** There’s obviously a big third act set piece here which is the actual competition itself. So you said that’s in San Diego?

**Ryan:** It is. And I’ve been doing my research and it’s fascinating. There’s a couple guys I read about who were in this competition that are blind. One of them he uses a crash helmet, I believe from like a motorcycle, because it’s got an ear piece. His coach walkie-talkies him from the beach while he’s out on the board. But he’s got a rash guard like mine, completely made separately, that says Caution Blind Surfer. And he’s got bumps on his board which I also have on mine now which help me feel like braille where I am on the board when I’m paddling, so I can position myself.

There’s another guy who actually uses an iPhone. He straps it to his bicep and has the VoiceOver on load. And his coach texts him from the beach so he can hear where to position himself. It’s been fascinating just this, you know, I’m going to do this. I’m going to figure out a way to do this. And then independently people are coming at their own sort of makeshift solutions to adapt. And that’s what this is. It’s called Open Adaptive Surfing. I find it fascinating.

**John:** I can’t wait to see you do it and to read the article that you write at the end of this, because it’s going to be great. I’m excited for you.

**Ryan:** I’m excited to do it. And I hope I’m still around in a year to tell you how it went. [laughs]

**John:** We’ll have you back on the podcast to pitch it.

**Ryan:** OK, great. Great.

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

**Ryan:** Thanks. Thanks for having me.

 

Links:

* [Academy Awards Inclusions Standards for Best Picture](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-09-08/academy-oscars-inclusion-standards-best-picture)
* [Film Academy Inclusion Standards Diversity](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-09-09/film-academy-inclusion-standards-diversity)
* [Ryan Knighton](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3716988/)
* [Crackdown Podcast](https://crackdownpod.com/)
* [Get a Flu Shot!](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/freeresources/flu-finder-widget.html)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Ryan Knighton](https://twitter.com/ryanknighton?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) on Twitter
* [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 Lachlan Marks ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/468standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 397: The Sound Episode, Transcript

May 6, 2019 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 397 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to fulfill a promise that we made last week on the podcast where we said that we would talk about sound and how it’s used on the page, on the stage, and in the mixing room. After nearly 400 episodes I cannot believe it has taken this long to talk about sound. To help us out we’re joined by a guest from 250 episodes back.

Craig: Wow.

John: Andrea Berloff is a writer whose credits include World Trade Center, Straight Outta Compton. She wrote and directed this summer’s 1970s gangster movie The Kitchen. She just came back yesterday from New York where she finished her sound mix. Andrea Berloff, welcome home.

Andrea Berloff: Thank you. It’s so good to be home. And really if I’m going to return to Los Angeles is there any better place than to have my first stop be here?

Craig: No.

Andrea: With the two of you.

Craig: We are the definition of Los Angeles.

Andrea: My family doesn’t need to see me. Nobody.

Craig: No.

John: No, no.

Andrea: No.

Craig: Why would they?

Andrea: They’re fine without me.

Craig: They know you and they’re bored of you.

Andrea: That’s absolutely true.

Craig: We still appreciate everything you say and do.

Andrea: I don’t know about that. But we’ll see. [laughs]

Craig: You’re fresh to us.

John: Andrea Berloff brought Matzo for Passover which is fantastic.

Andrea: I did. I brought Matzo for Passover, but also just because I knew it would be a great opening conversation with Craig.

Craig: We got to talk about the Matzo for a second. And just come along with us gentiles. You need to hear this story. So a little quick refresher course on Passover. Passover is the reason that the most of you have your Easter, because The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. Interesting trivia: Jesus was Jewish.

Andrea: Ooh. Really?

Craig: I still feel like a lot of people miss that one. So Passover is the story from the Bible and one of the deals is that the Jews are running away. They’re leaving, they’re fleeing. It’s an exodus of sort from Egypt after all their travails. And they don’t have time to leaven the bread. Right? They have to make bread. It doesn’t have time to rise. So instead they just leave that out and end up with this terrible bad bread. The point is the bread has been damaged. OK? It’s damaged, because they’re fleeing.

And I’m sure everybody when they first saw Matzo come out of the oven said, “Oh no, what happened? There’s been a terrible mistake.” And the bread-maker said, “It’s not a mistake. It’s just that we didn’t have time to do it right. So this is wrong bread. It’s bad. But it’s all we have.” Right?

Andrea: Right. I’m with you. Go on.

Craig: So in a very Jewish way Jews are like let us now impose this terrible, broken food upon every generation of Jews to follow. And so during Passover Jews are not supposed to eat any leaven bread, or any leavened anything, but only things that are no bread-like at all. Or this horrible, broken, misshapen food that is in defiance of all that is good.

Andrea: Now here’s what I have to say about that. I will grant you that perhaps Jews have extrapolated out a little far. That perhaps just because the Matzo screwed up why take that against pasta?

Craig: Right.

Andrea: What did pasta factor into this? Nothing. Pasta is fine. Had nothing to do with this story. So I will say to you that I’m with you in there. But I will take issue with the idea that Matzo is inherently a terrible thing. Because the Matzo for example that I brought you today–

John: Was delicious.

Andrea: Thank you, John. Covered in caramel and chocolate, a little bit of sea salt. Delicious.

Craig: Sure. That’s how they tell you that crickets are good. They’re like, look, we took this bug and we covered it in chocolate and sea salt and caramel.

Andrea: I feel like that’s your cultural bias. Some people do find it delicious, crickets.

Craig: No. Everybody finds chocolate, caramel, and sea salt delicious. And then it is literally masking – when you purchase Matzo, John…

John: Yes, tell me.

Craig: Have you ever bought a box of Matzo?

John: Never once in my life. I never had the occasion to.

Craig: How strange.

Andrea: Well the real conspiracy at this point is that you can no longer buy a box of Matzo. If you go to the grocery store they only sell them in six-packs. And nobody wants six boxes of Matzo.

Craig: No, exactly.

Andrea: But that’s the only way they sell them now.

Craig: The reason they have to do that is because Matzo actually probably costs less – because it’s such a terrible product it costs less the more you sell. It defies physics and nature as I pointed out. Also, true fact, Matzo is packaged in Matzo. I don’t know if you knew this. Yeah, you can eat right through the – there is no box.

Andrea: Oh, I didn’t know.

Craig: The box tastes slightly better than the contents.

Andrea: With a little butter and salt.

John: Well because the ink, the printing on the box.

Craig: The ink adds a little zest.

Andrea: Sure.

Craig: So my birthday is in early April.

Andrea: Happy Birthday.

Craig: Thank you. And the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, like the Muslim calendar. And because it is a lunar calendar that’s why for instance Christians have you ever wondered why Easter keeps shifting around on you all the time? This is why. Because it’s based on Passover.

Andrea: It’s funny that they never settled that down on the Christian calendar. Because you know what they settled down Christmas. They settled down other things. I wonder why they didn’t do that.

Craig: They shifted the Sabbath one day. Why not? They could do anything.

Andrea: I don’t know. Just declare April 15 Easter.

Craig: They should.

Andrea: Right. I don’t know.

Craig: Anywho, a lot of times my birthday would fall during Passover.

Andrea: That’s the worst. My dad’s, too.

John: Oh, so what would your birthday cake be?

Craig: That’s a great question.

Andrea: The worst. The worst.

Craig: So what they would do is they would take something called Matzo Meal.

Andrea: Ugh.

Craig: What is Matzo Meal? So Matzo is horrible. But if you take it and smash it up and grind it into a quasi-ersatz powder flour type substance it gets even worse. Then, you add eggs and you whip it up and it turns into a kind of a thick dense cement. Then…

Andrea: Like papier-mâché. What you would make papier-mâché out of.

Craig: Yes. It’s a glue. It’s essentially a glue. A mucilage if you will. And then you add a little bit of sugar. Not too much, because we don’t want anyone to enjoy this. Then we put it in the oven and we bake it until all pathogens are dead, so I think we’ll put it in the oven at 7,000 degrees for 100 days. Then when it comes out you cover it in – OK, and this is another, this Passover chocolate always has the same disgusting taste to it. Why can’t chocolate be right? Is there leavening in chocolate?

Andrea: It’s the corn syrup, isn’t it? I don’t know. I’m saying that like I know what I’m talking about.

Craig: You can’t use corn syrup? It’s so horrible. It’s like sickly-sweet. At that point it’s like a diabetes prune juice that they pour all over the whole thing. Then they put it in front of you, they stick a candle in it, and they sing Happy Birthday. But even as they sing Happy Birthday to you, John, there’s a slight sneer. A little bit of a sneer.

Andrea: We know it’s not that happy.

Craig: No, this is bad.

Andrea: See, I really think that the moral of this is that it’s not really your issue with Matzo and Passover. It’s because it screwed with your birthday.

Craig: Correct.

Andrea: [laughs] And you’re still really angry about this and about all the trauma.

Craig: Yeah, that’s actually the headline. There’s no secret there. The absolute headline is that I was traumatized repeatedly.

Andrea: Matzo is not the issue.

Craig: No. That said, I have taken this with me very far.

Andrea: I see.

Craig: Somebody posted a picture on Twitter of a Matzo cake covered in that glistening, brown, weird, shimmery fake chocolate.

Andrea: Awful.

Craig: And I got the shivers. I got the spinal shivers.

Andrea: I’m sorry. What else happened to you as a child?

Craig: That was actually the worst of it. Weirdly–

John: It was the root of all Craig’s anger was the Matzo cake.

Andrea: Clearly.

Craig: Just a brutal insult year after year.

Andrea: Terrible.

Craig: Yeah. So anyway, Happy Passover.

Andrea: Do you want to hear the worst? My birthday is on Christmas Day. As a Jew. Think about that.

Craig: Yeah. I have another friend who has that, too. I mean, I guess as a Jew it’s not super bad because you weren’t going to get Christmas anyway.

John: But you couldn’t have like a normal birthday party with friends.

Craig: That’s the problem.

Andrea: I got a cake, but there was no party.

Craig: Oh yeah you got a cake.

John: My husband’s birthday is on Halloween.

Andrea: Oh, that’s fun.

John: Well, it’s kind of fun, but also–

Craig: That’s a rough one, too.

John: Everyone wants to trick or treat rather than, you know.

Andrea: Yeah, than celebrate him.

Craig: And the theme of his birthday is blood. Bleh. All right, well anyway, that’s my – so don’t eat Matzo. That’s my basic—

Andrea: Well then I’m sorry I brought you my delicious treat. John liked it.

John: It is delicious. It is genuinely delicious.

Craig: We can keep continuing to argue about that.

John: Andrea Berloff is not only a Matzo expert. She is also a WGA board member. So we’ll start today by talking about some WGA stuff because that’s what we basically do. Stuff happens and we recap it. But we recap it sort of on a Saturday and then everything changes by the time the episode comes out.

Craig: Let’s see how completely obsolete our information will be.

John: Let’s see what happened this week. So on Wednesday the WGA filed a lawsuit seeking to establish that talent agency packaging fees are illegal under both California and federal law. So the defendants in the lawsuit are WME, CAA, UTA, ICM, the big four talent agencies which represent 80% of the packaging fees paid by Hollywood studios and networks. The plaintiffs in the suit in the WGA East and West include Patty Carr, Ashley Gable, Barbara Hall, Deric Hughes, Chip Johannessen, Deirdre Mangan, David Simon and Meredith Stiehm.

Andrea, we know a lot of those folks.

Andrea: I think we need to take a moment to really honor that group of incredibly brave people because they – it’s not even so much that they specifically, you know, I don’t want to speak to individuals, but we needed plaintiffs who just simply have been on shows that were packaged for whom we could fight on all of our behalves. And the fact that that group stepped up and put their names on the lawsuit is really brave. And people don’t typically stick their necks out like that for others. So I really want to commend them and thank them.

John: Yeah. I got to see three of them yesterday and just pulled them aside and thanked them so much for what they’re doing because it is just putting yourself in the spotlight in that way.

Craig: David Simon kind of prior to the lawsuit had already extended his neck, torso, limbs, and yeah, he’s been pretty outspoken.

Andrea He’s been vocal.

John: So Meredith Stiehm is from the show Cold Case. And she spoke about sort of how the agency was making $0.94 on the dollar of everything she made in the backend. And Deirdre Mangan I didn’t know before, but she did Madame Secretary which is another big hit show. And so these are great plaintiffs. And as we sort of said in the speeches and the lead up to all this stuff, this lawsuit we always said we were going to file it, we also said it was going to take a really long time. And you sort of don’t know what the ups and the downs are, but the lawsuit is now filed. And we’ll check in with it.

Andrea: And it will take years. We can be checking in on this conversation for years and years and years. My mother just had a lawsuit settled this week that took 10 years. 10 years. So it will take some time.

Craig: Well, I thought that I had a pretty good case against her and I was willing to fight. And I was. I was ready to take it the whole way.

Andrea: You know.

Craig: If you guys weren’t on the board, if other people were on the board and we were hearing about this information then I would say a certain kind of thing. And so I think I should just keep saying that certain kind of thing. And you don’t have to react to any of this. But my general analysis in a situation like this is that the lawsuit is part of a strategy to try and get a deal. I believe – my theory is that in fact this lawsuit will not last years. It will not go to court. It won’t do any of that.

My great hope, I’ll just keep saying this, my great hope is that we resolve this quickly. I know that there’s been a suggestion from some people – some people have come back from meetings and things and said that people at the guild were saying, “Look, this is going to take a really long time and we really think maybe we should be looking at forgetting about the big four and looking at midsize and smaller agencies.” And my feeling is that that’s never going to happen, ever. That’s just my personal opinion. And that we do have to make a deal with the big four agencies. And so I’m very, very hopeful that that happens.

This is a nerve-wracking time because – it’s an interesting time because unlike our labor actions with studios, which must come to end. I mean, you can’t strike forever. They can’t lock you out forever. Nor can a deal last forever, right. So these things are constantly churning and then resolving. This could last forever. And that’s frightening because I do think that there’s great value in the way we work with these people. And also we’re talking about these relationships that have gone on for a very, very long time.

You know, I’ve been talking to people on both sides and it’s fascinating how there’s a lot of similar feelings on both sides of hurt and confusion. But there’s also I think a weird wistfulness like on both sides what you hear people saying is that this personally is really distressing and upsetting because we have relationships. You know, the businesses that are the umbrella of a place like WME for instance or CAA, that’s that. And like the Writers Guild is an institution and that’s that. These are the umbrellas under which people exist.

Then you have individual people who are just like this feels terrible. And I’m hopeful – hopeful, hopeful, hopeful – that all of this stuff, saber-rattling and fire and all that, leads to some sort of resolution. The resolution has to be better for writers than the status quo. And I think that there is a resolution to be had.

So I just continue to urge – I urge you guys, I urge them to get into a room that both sides recognize as productive and then produce and get a deal so that we can just sort of get back to our lives. Because I like the life that I had.

Andrea: I like the life I had, too. But I will say this. I picked up on a word that you just said which was this wistfulness. And I think nobody when they’re a kid wants to – everybody wants to grow up and go to Hollywood and make movies. And you have an agent and you think that sounds so cool. And all of that kind of no longer exists in a sense. Nobody dreams of growing up and creating content for a multinational conglomerate that is then going to be streamed and you’ll never see it again and you don’t know how many people watch it. Like that is not your childhood dream.

Your childhood dream is not working for an agent that is no longer an agent. I mean, our individual agents may function as that, but the agencies no longer function in the way that we perceived it as being. So I think part of this is also a wistfulness for the way things used to be. And the way things are evolving is frightening to everybody. And I don’t think it’s just endemic to our relationship with our agents and the conversation we’re having regarding that. I think it’s also regarding what will be writer’s place in the future of this world, because I think that is very much in flux and I think that this fight is a symptom of the larger thing going on right now.

John: I had a conversation with a reporter this week. We were talking about – he’s not a person who covers Hollywood at all. He covers labor. And so he’s asking these questions about how is this reflected in the division of labor versus capital, or labor versus management. And it was a really fascinating lens to look at it through because obviously we only see this as Hollywood, our own little unique thing. But as writers we are labor and agents are sort of the people representing our labor. But it feels in a strange way that this influx of money has made us like we are assets and the split of labor and capital is – it’s just a different mix.

If I were not in this business at all I’d be looking at this and be really fascinated to see sort of the questions that it brings up in terms of what does it mean to be an employer versus an agent, a manager. So it’s a fascinating thing even if you weren’t part of this mess and trying to figure out the way through it.

Craig: And we are weird labor. I mean, we’re labor, but we also – there was a New York Times article that misunderstood the relationship and said agents play a massive role in matching writers to the room. And I’m like, no, no, no, writers do that. And then you realize very quickly we’re employers. That’s the weird part is that we’re labor but we’re not labor. We’re also employers. When the agents are – people say, look the packaging fees has disrupted what I call the you make more when I make more relationship, which is crucial, when we say packaging fees has disrupted that and thus pushed down the salaries of lower level writers towards our minimums it’s also important to remember that there’s a writer in charge of that who is signing off on that.

Andrea: That’s right.

Craig: And whose budget is being improved because of that. There is an inter-relationship here. It is not as clean and clear as the big guy versus the little guy. This is a strange relationship that has gotten twisted but can be untwisted I believe.

And, of course, for those of us who mostly have done feature work our agents have operated in a traditional sense. I mean, until I did Chernobyl I had never had any relationship with an agency other than you get 10% of what I make. So there’s still I think a lot of room for this to be fixed and worked out.

You know, and I do think that when I think about life where there’s a kind of forced separation I immediately start thinking about unintended consequences. And essentially what I start to ask is who now will benefit from our not being there with those people? And some individuals and institutions come to mind. So, you know, I’ll just keep urging a peaceful resolution. But that doesn’t capitulation and it doesn’t – for either side. Neither side wants to just go like, oh OK, whatever you want.

Andrea: Never mind.

Craig: Yeah. If there’s any way to fix this. That would be great if you guys could do that.

Andrea: We’re trying. We’re working on it.

John: You know, and that was only Wednesday.

Andrea: There’s more.

John: And so on Thursday night a bunch of members led by screenwriter Daniel Zucker put together a big mixer with the #WGAmix. And I’ve never been sort of prouder of a party that I wasn’t at. It was this huge event, two stories of a bunch of people together in a room.

So it reminded me Craig that during the strike we would have events. This is sort of pre-social media, but you had your blog and I had my blog. And Jane Espenson had her blog. And so we’d put on our blogs like everybody meet at Warner Bros and we’ll all picket together. And it reminded me of how important it was during times of unrest to sort of gather people together. And so I just love that these members self-organized and did this thing.

Andrea: I will agree with you. I would say to you that some of my most significant relationships with writers were formed during the strike. People who are still genuine friends today were people who I met during the strike.

John: 100%.

Andrea: Because we’re screenwriters and we sit alone all day long. I didn’t know anybody.

Craig: Can’t we have parties without–

Andrea: You’re welcome to invite me any time.

Craig: Throwing grenades around. I mean, strikes are very expensive ways to meet people.

Andrea: They are. They are.

Craig: I mean, I think it’s great, obviously. And, look, a large part of this is a sense of solidarity, but I will also, as always, because I am disagreeable and I am that guy, I want to also say to people in the guild don’t be so quick to scream and yell and be abusive at people that disagree or dissent. Because I think that makes us weaker.

Andrea: I agree.

Craig: Look, I did not like the essay editorial that – what’s the writer’s name?

Andrea: Jon Robin Baitz.

Craig: Jon Robin Baitz.

Andrea: Yeah. I thought that was a big mistake.

Craig: Right. So he wrote this long piece about why he wasn’t going to leave his agent and how much he loved his agent and how agents were great and how this made no sense and all the rest of it. And I just thought, well, this is a massive miscalculation. What do you think? People are going to read this and because of your grandiloquence everyone is going to go oh my god he’s right and the scales will fall from our eyes. That’s not how it works.

Also, I just didn’t think it was a very well argued piece. And it was super long. That aside, I’m sure he’s listening to this going, oh thank you very much Scary Movie 4 guy. Regardless, people went crazy and they started yelling at him and making fun of him and mocking him. And say what you will, the guy is a very well-regarded writer. But that aside, even if he weren’t when do that it makes us look weak. It’s implying that we are one defection away from collapse and we’re not. Ever.

Andrea: No. I couldn’t agree more. And I think one of our big flaws, not just with this action but with almost every action we take, is that we do not create enough safe space for dissent. Dissent is not particularly welcomed. And I don’t think that we can ever–

John: Dissent is democratic. And we are a democratic organization so we have to make sure that we are listening to those things. And a lot of my job this last week was listening to people who were freaked out and unhappy. And Monday was a really tough day because I was hearing a bunch of that stuff. And then Tuesday was a much better day because I was hearing better things.

Craig: I think in part the attitude of fearing dissent is engendered by the natural guild position that the more of you that support this the stronger we are. Which implies the fewer of you who support it the weaker we are. Which implies if you don’t support this you are weakening us. Which makes you a kind of enemy for disagreeing. And if there’s anything I wish I could kill in the guild body politic it’s this whole you have to vote yes or else you’re weakening us. So your yes isn’t really a yes. It’s sort of a yes, but it’s mostly kind of a – you know what I mean? It’s an act of patriotism to vote yes. We have to stop doing that.

And I know it’s hard to stop doing that because it’s helpful. It is. I get it. It’s useful. But the more we keep saying you have to vote yes to be patriotic and effective the more we’re essentially defining people who dissent as internal termites gnawing at the foundation of our union.

Andrea: Or just anti-guild. People are out to, I mean, same way you just said, out to destroy us. And loving something also means sometimes seeing its flaws and being able to speak to that as well. Doesn’t mean that you’re trying to tear it down.

John: 100%.

Craig: That’s the song I have sung for so many years.

Andrea: Yes. I know.

John: That was Thursday. Then on Friday—

Andrea: What happened on Friday, John?

John: On Friday there was small happy news. So the guild announced the Weekly Feature Memo.

Andrea: I think that’s great.

John: And it’s sort of inspired by the CAA Book Memo. It’s a newsletter that goes out every Friday to producers, to studios, listing available specs and pitches. It’s available to current, post-current, associate members. You can make up to two submissions a month. And you get those in by Wednesday. We’ll put the link in the show notes. But essentially it’s just a simple straightforward newsletter that goes out of like these are the things that are out there. All the agencies always sort of had their own version of this. This is just a system-wide thing that people can (crosstalk).

Andrea: I think that’s really great. And I hope that this continues after this action is settled. Because to give writers who may not have number one agent or something like that the ability to have a list out there. I guarantee you every assistant in town is going to read that list. And just say that’s a really cool idea. Yeah, I’ve never heard that kind of idea before. I would take a look at that script.

I really think that this could be tremendously helpful for screenwriters.

Craig: Isn’t there at one of the theaters they will do a little live creation of an unproduced pilot?

John: Yeah.

Craig: There’s an interesting idea of this bin of forgotten toys. And inside of them are these gems. And people won’t read them because they’re old. There’s this sense of like, oh, that’s been around. It’s old. That doesn’t mean a damn thing. It could have been around for 30 years. Who cares?

If you love it, and you see the potential, and you know how to do it, and then you find somebody else that really loves it, well then that’s a thing. It counts. So it makes total sense to have some mechanism by which we can kind of reintroduce things that have fallen by the wayside. I’m not even thinking about writers at this point. I’m actually thinking about audiences at this point because there are a lot of – you know, somebody said that literally if all you did – oh, you know what it was? So escape room. I did an escape room and it was – you know, escape rooms are always located in like weird parts of town and stuff because they just need cheap real estate. And one of them apparently was either in the same building or near the building where the Writers Guild keeps all of its printed scripts from their screenplay registration service.

John: Yeah. That’s a whole thing.

Craig: And we were talking about kind of a storage wars where you buy a pallet and go through and try and find a script that’s great.

Andrea: Think about the gold that’s in there.

Craig: But someone said, you know what, if I could what I would do is just go through all the scripts written by women. Because they were all ignored for decades. So go in there. There’s probably like a hundred amazing scripts that just got ignored.

Think about like that alone. Right? So I think it’s a great idea.

Andrea: Someday we’ll have an archivist. Right? How about that? We pay for an archivist for a year to do that.

Craig: Just go through and sort. Great idea.

John: Craig, it occurs to me that with this weekly feature memo people will be looking at loglines and you and I are always so dismissive of loglines.

Craig: Correct.

John: And now people are going to have to write loglines.

Craig: Well they’re the worst and my logline would just be like “Seriously, just…”

Andrea: “Just read the script.”

Craig: “Just read the script.” Just read five pages and if you don’t like them throw it out. There’s the logline. There is no logline. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Read five pages.

Andrea: But it does. It does matter. People say what is your movie about.

Craig: I know. They should stop it.

Andrea: Well.

Craig: And you should just keep saying to them read five pages. If you don’t like them it’s not going to be for you. And if you do you’ll keep reading. And eventually you might get to a point where you go oh here’s where I realize I don’t like this. But the logline will never – because I can tell you, I can give you terrible…

Here’s a logline. The son of a mobster struggles with the legacy of his family and the direction of his own life. Well that’s The Godfather. That’s terrible.

Andrea: I know.

Craig: Yeah, so anyway, read five pages.

Andrea: OK. I’ll tell them.

John: Now we finally get to the marquee topic.

Andrea: Let’s do it.

John: Which is sound. I’m so excited to talk about sound.

Andrea: Me too.

John: So we’re going to start with talking about sound on the page. So as a screenwriter you are responsible for everything that an audience sees and hears in a movie. But really if you look at a script you’re really mostly describing what people see. There’s dialogue which of course you hear, but I’ve been thinking back sort of like how often I reference the sound in a script and it’s probably not even every page.

So I want to talk about sort of when you make the decisions to call out the sound and when you don’t. I remember looking at my first – as I was first starting to read screenplays, like the old screenplays, like every sound effect was capitalized. It was like an old radio play. So that the person with the coconuts could make the horse galloping. And now I think there’s an expectation that unless you’re saying something is weird we assume that everything that we see onscreen is going to make the sound we expect it to make, unless we’re calling it out differently.

But, Andrea, as you’re writing how often are you calling out on the page special sound things?

Andrea: I tend to do a lot, and probably too much. I probably write too many stage directions as is. I’m very verbose on the page. I feel like when you’re writing a screenplay you are trying to entertain people enough that they want more. They want to see what actor would you put in. They want to make that movie. And so I tend to overwrite a bit in the screenplay. I always say – I mean, not me just saying this, everybody says this – there’s a reading draft and a shooting draft. And my reading drafts tend to be pretty heavy on all of that stuff. I love sound. I love music. And I put a lot of it in.

So I will often say, you know, the sounds of the city, the screech of the tires, the clap of lightning. I do it a lot.

John: You’re trying to create that feel of what it would be like if you were in that theater experiencing this. Craig what’s your sound take on the page?

Craig: I’m probably not as heavy as it sounds like you are in terms of visual description. I will describe visuals in a very kind of reportorial war correspondence style. But sound I’m obsessed with. Because I realize, especially now having just gone through all these sound mixes, how much more in tune with sound I am than with the granular aspects of stuff.

Visual information is important to me, but sound texture and I think all the emotion comes from sound. So a lot of times when I’m writing a scene and I want you to feel scared, or I want you to feel confused I’ll think in terms of sound. Things will go whistling by, or falling or going kerplunk. But really the sounds are lying because then you realize it’s something else. But I love to bring the reader into a space with sound because I don’t know, for me at least that’s where all of the emotion lives in the environment.

That said, when you actually arrive at the moment of production sounds have to reorient and change to what you see. But then you get to write again. Because sound is yours to control and it’s the best part of production to me because, look, what you shot is what you shot. Yeah, VFX can help and all that, but sound you can do anything.

Andrea: Right.

Craig: Oh joy.

Andrea: It’s fun.

John: Let’s talk about, this is very esoteric, but on the page what you capitalize in sound and what you don’t capitalize in sound. Because sometimes do you capitalize that Whistling By or do you capitalize the thing that’s whistling by? Or are you capitalizing any of that stuff? What are the things–?

Andrea: Well, it’s funny. I think it’s really individual and I think, you know, I think there are some writers who just love the all caps. And I’ve looked at some screenplays and it’s almost impossible to read because apparently every single page is so exciting that we scream about every word. I tend to not do that and really reserve my all caps for when it’s worth it.

John: Holy cow – pay attention to this.

Andrea: Holy cow. Like probably not more than 10 to 15 a script. Because there shouldn’t be many, in my opinion, many more than 10 or 15 like holy cow sound moments. On the page that is. So, most of them you just – it’s in there for feeling, for texture. And when it’s a big moment that you’ve got to really make a statement with it then I hit the all caps.

Craig: I’m with on that one. I’ll all caps things that are sort of introductory weird items that aren’t meant to be like oh my god but just more like, you know, he lifts up a mechanical BLINKING DEVICE. That’s an important thing. So I’ll just say prop guy, blinking device. But for sounds, unless it’s an explosion mostly I’m not capping them. Sometimes I will, if it’s meant to be kind of evocative or emotional I’ll put all of that line into a kind of italicized position.

As I get older I find myself stylizing things more like Stephen King does, you know. We’ve all read these Stephen King books where suddenly there would be a paragraph in italics that was sort of an internal process. And I find myself doing this more and more now where I just start – in my action descriptions I spend less time describing what the room looks like and more time describing the inner dialogue that we will never hear, but I find it actually helps, you know.

John: If it’s shootable.

Andrea: If it’s shootable. Well, you know, even if it’s not shootable. In my mind it creates that emotional moment when again the screenplay is getting somebody to make your project.

Craig: It’s inform-able. Right.

Andrea: It creates that emotional buy-in that if it’s just dialogue and just description you don’t get. Like you need to understand the core of why this character cares about what they’re doing. Why they’re in a panic about what they’re doing. And it does inform the actor’s performance ultimately. You know, it sort of makes the actor realize like the three sentences you have to say here might be that interesting, but let me explain why they’re interesting.

Craig: That’s exactly right. And see that’s how actually we get to direct on the page. Because I’m not a big fan of like “we meet Jane, smarter than everybody realizes, and hiding her brutal past.” I don’t know any of that and I can’t see it. And also that’s just a writer reading off of a card to me. But we meet Jane. She’s standing there. She sees a car dive by. And then in italics: I don’t know why I do this every time.

Oh, I’m in a character’s mind. I’m feeling something. That’s actually really exciting. And I’ll do that a lot around sound because I think the experience of sound is something again that just feels more emotional and less intellectual. It’s more of an I Feel than an I Think.

John: Great. And before we move on let’s define the categories of sound we’re talking about. So obviously almost literally the tracks you’re going to see on your nonlinear editor. You have your dialogue, so everything the characters are saying. You have your ambience, which is the sound within a space. It’s the diegetic – it’s what the space itself sounds like. You have your music, obviously. And then you have your sound effects, like those big pops. Those things that are classically the things that would get uppercased on a page. Those are the things we’re talking about with sound.

And so all those things show up in the script, but then when you actually get to production, let’s transition to production, that changes. And when you’re in production a lot of what you’re recording is the dialogue and it’s weird – I remember the first time I showed up on a set and you’re watching the scene happening and they hand out these things called Comtek which are so you can hear the microphones and you can hear what’s being recorded. And you realize like, oh, it sounds so thin because all you’re hearing is the actor’s dialogue.

You’re not hearing the space around them because it doesn’t sound right. Because you’re only recording for that dialogue.

Andrea: When done properly. And that’s kind of all you want is to hear the dialogue.

John: Yes. Completely clean.

Andrea: And the worst case scenario is if you’re not, if you’re hearing anything else. I had an incredible sound recorder on set, Danny Michael, and we were in our tech scout. And there was a location that I really liked because I thought it looked cool. And Danny said, “Yeah this looks really great. Are you interested in hearing the scene?” That sort of thing. Because he was absolutely right. We were standing on top of subway tracks basically. There was a subway underneath it. So we were never going to get through the scene. So we had to move our location.

The worst is when you finish production and you get back to the stage and you realize I can’t use this dialogue because it’s too messy. You want the cleanest dialogue you can get.

Craig: And that’s actually something you can protect against slightly as a writer. I mean, most of the time it’s bad choices being made by a director that puts somebody in a place where like I need to be in this place therefore we’ll just go ahead and loop or do an automatic dialogue replacement later. That’s when actors go into a studio and just lip-sync to their lines so you get this – but it’s never – and we’ll get to ADR, because it can be both life-saving and it can also be the devil. So it’s one of those things, like all tools.

But if you are writing a scene and you are hell bent on putting it somewhere that you know is inexorably loud and noisy, just be aware if it’s a heavy dialogue scene you’ve probably screwed up. That you need to reduce the dialogue as much as possible because on set not only is the job of the sound recordist to get the cleanest possible dialogue, usually in combination of a little lavalier mic, which is right on them, and also a boom microphone. If you can get both at the same time it’s great. But also even in terms of what they call overlapping – you know, if I can only see one character I can’t hear another character step on the character’s line that I see because then I can’t edit that dialogue cleanly. So they’re really obsessed with–

John: But as a writing choice you might choose to set it in a loud place, but if you’re choosing to set it in a loud place you’re going to make different choices about what the characters are going to say because they’re going to have shout over that noise and it’s going to completely change the nature of the scene.

Craig: And they have to be together in the shot because you can’t edit it because the background sound will get all chopped up.

John: But there may be good choices to do that but it’s different content of that scene and different context—

Andrea: You have to be creative about how to achieve that. If you want to have it in a big club, that’s great, but everybody has to be dancing silently. And then you can get their lines out.

Craig: That’s the best.

Andrea: Which is the best. Which I might have done.

Craig: Everybody does it. Everybody does that.

Andrea: But it’s very awkward.

Craig: It’s the weirdest thing to see shot. Like if you’re in a big – like that scene, like The Social Network when they’re in that club and they’re like yelling over the – there’s no music playing on the day and people are just shuffling like zombies, so it’s this quiet thing. And then two people are just yelling pointlessly in a silent room where people are shifting around to lights and no sound. It’s creepy.

John: So classically what you do is the music plays, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then it stops, and then everyone has to keep dancing, like basically it’s still there.

Craig: It’s so weird.

John: We have no videos to show.

Andrea: I will say this, because I feel like this is (unintelligible) statement on sound overall, you know, I shot a dance scene and I was adamant that we had to play a song that people could dance to, because music affects people in a very different way than a click track would affect people. And really feeling that sound and that music in your bones really changes the performance.

Craig: Yeah. You get your moment where you actually play it for people so they can dance and have a great time. And then when you need them in the background of the shot of two people talking, like in singles, then you are going to have to get some stuff where they’re just shuffling–

Andrea: Shut up back there.

Craig: Like weird zombies. So creepy.

Andrea: Right.

John: What other lessons did you learn shooting your film about sound?

Andrea: In production?

John: In production. Let’s talk about whose responsibility it is to do sound in production. So obviously you have your sound recordist. The sound recordist, did that person go out on location scouts with you?

Andrea: Yes. Absolutely. It’s imperative because he had to go into each set, like I gave that previous example, but also even things like, OK, you’re going to shoot in this diner, except that industrial refrigerator is humming the entire time. So we have to make arrangements with the establishment, the owners of this diner, to unplug that refrigerator. And if that’s a deal-breaker then we can’t use this location. That sort of thing.

So, there’s a fan whizzing overhead that nobody else can hear. He has hearing like a dog. Thank god. So, yes, he’s there every step of the way to make sure that you’re–

John: And in production can we talk about “Hold for Sound.” So sometimes you’re about to shoot something, or cameras are rolling, and then the plane goes overhead or this thing, you know, a motorcycle passes by. It can throw off performances. It can throw off your rhythm.

Andrea: I had some incredibly skilled actors in my movie and they kind of knew it the second we all knew. Everybody knows at the same time. There’s a bus going by. And so the actor would be in the moment and be like, “I’m holding,” and then we would continue.

Craig: They can find their light and they can pause for passing noises. They’re very good that way. Yeah, I mean, your sound crew is actually quite small on a movie which is always surprising to me. A movie with even enormous crews and enormous things, your sound team really boils down to the sound mixer, who is the person sitting at the cart with the mixer, driving the various inputs which is just lav mics and boom mics.

John: And also looks a lot like what we have here for this recording setup.

Craig: It’s not that different actually.

Andrea: A little cart.

Craig: Yeah, it’s a cart. And then you have your sound, I guess your sound assistant, or the second sound–

Andrea: I’m sure we’re bungling that title. Another guy runs around.

John: We’re going to butcher terms.

Craig: There’s a person whose job is to basically mic up all the actors and handle all the Comteks, the wireless things, and make sure that all the mics are in place and every actor has them on when they need them. And then there’s a boom, sometimes two boom people, but usually just one boom man or woman whose job is to put themselves in what I think is the most horrifying spinal position you can imagine.

John: Arms way over their head.

Andrea: Their shoulders are incredible.

John: The very long boom. And just out of frame and they magically know how to stay out of frame.

Craig: And I will say to like the sound mixer, “Isn’t that bad for them?” And he’s French, he goes, “No, the pole is very light.”

Andrea: It’s not light enough.

Craig: “Like a feather. It’s like a feather.” And I’m like even if it weighed nothing, just having my hands up like the Y in the YMCA for more than five minutes hurts so much.

Andrea: All day long. 14 hours a day.

Craig: All day long.

Andrea: God love them.

Craig: Amazing.

Andrea: It’s amazing.

John: So if you’re a writer on set, one of the things that I had to learn is sort of when to freak out about sound and when to not freak out about sound, especially in terms of dialogue. So if both characters are in the shot and you see them talking to each other you know you can’t cut around a mistake. But if you’re on a single, if you’re looking at one actor and not the other actor, the other actor is off camera and kind of off mic and they mess up a line, it reminded myself that, oh, that doesn’t matter. The sound that matters most is the sound that you’re seeing that is reflected in that shot. And not the other sound. And training yourself to be like, OK, did I get all of what I need of both sides of that and will I be able to – imagining yourself later on in the editing room like do I have all the pieces I need to make that scene work?

Andrea: Well there’s that part of it. And now we’re sort of dipping a toe into ADR as well, but there’s also the idea that you can also say please hold, just give me that one line again please, actor.

John: Yes.

Andrea: And let them repeat that specific line in a different way. And then also just making sure you have enough takes that you have options so that if you’re off of an actor you can get them saying it 15 different ways and you don’t know that they’re saying it 15 different ways. You might have one take that you see on screen, but you could have 15 takes that are the dialogue that’s informing that scene.

Craig: Yeah. You need to know how to edit. I mean, that’s the – writing doesn’t necessarily prepare you for how to manage that aspect of production. But editing does. So, the more you can get a little bit of editing experience before you go into a situation like that, the better off you’ll be because you can actually – and here’s the thing. If you don’t quite know how that functions what will happen is you’ll start asking for things and people start looking at each other like, oh, director is stupid. They don’t know how this works. Because they all know.

Andrea: Yes. Oh they do.

Craig: They know.

Andrea: Much more than you do.

John: And let’s transition to the edit, because a thing I also didn’t realize until I was actually in the middle of editing my first movie is how often the dialogue that we hear is not actually the dialogue that matches that take. The editors are masters at making things fit and work, and so that you can cut together a scene where they’re not quite saying what was matched with that video. And it doesn’t matter.

And so they’re remarkable. Things that I assumed like, oh, we’re going to have to ADR that and we’re going to have to fix that, like oh-no-no they’ve got that.

Andrea: They’ve got it. Right.

John: What was your experience with them?

Andrea: Well what’s amazing about this and still as a writer-director you know the emotional truth of that scene better than anybody around. So the sound editor might try something that you never thought of and you think that’s a great idea because that’s exactly, you know, that is getting at a different emotional truth than the flat performance we might have gotten in the take that we got. But if we can grab that sound take from a previous time, or get the actor back into a booth and get them to record it with a different emotional truth it really can enhance a scene.

John: And as we’re talking about this part of it, traditionally this is your main editor. So this person who is cutting picture is also cutting that first sound and there may be assistants there to help out. And that first cut is largely about performance. It’s about the storytelling.

Andrea: Picture.

John: Yeah. It’s picture. And so I’m always reminding myself that like, oh, I shouldn’t expect this to sound right. I shouldn’t expect the world to sound right. Everything is temp. We’re just trying to get the storytelling to work.

Andrea: What story are we telling here?

Craig: And that sometimes will also get lost by editors and sound people. Because we know, and this is why I love the way that things function when you’re making a feature and it’s a writer-director, or you’re making television and the writer is ultimately supervising postproduction, sometimes what will happen is I’ll watch something back and I’ll go I know there was a better version. There was a better reading.

Andrea: Where is that?

Craig: And they’re like, “Oh this one, yeah. Somebody dropped a thing and it made a noise back there.” I don’t care. Fine. Then you know what? Someone made a noise back there. This makes me feel something. Who cares? So sometimes they’ll get a little over-pristine because they don’t quite see what you see. Which is fascinating to me. But that initial process of editing, it’s interesting.

It used to be that your first pass was really raw and it was really about story, dialogue, that. As nonlinear and computerized editing has advanced and become faster and easier, the first pass you kind of now also expect a certain kind of beginning of creation of environment, atmosphere. You’re starting to zero in on an aesthetic of sound effect. So for instance when we were doing Chernobyl there were a lot of moments where we thought like, OK, what would this room – we have a lot of choices. We’re in the pump room of a nuclear reactor. And if you give that to 20 different editors and ask them to do 20 different atmospheres you’ll get 20 different atmospheres. So the question is what is our aesthetic? What are we going for?

OK, well we’re going for hyper-realistic. What does that mean? That means let’s have somebody record one. And if it sounds boring, then that’s boring. That’s fine. Then it’s a boring atmosphere in that room. We’re not there to make it like whoop-whoop-whoop.

Now, if there’s nothing there and the reality is so jarring that it makes us feel like we made a choice to not be realistic then we have to slightly fudge reality to make it seem like reality. But all those choices start to get made early on and they will all ultimately inform the people that then make the real choices in the mix.

Andrea: Right. Well, figuring out what rooms sound like and what environments sound like has been an incredibly fascinating learning process for me. And the idea of how it informs character has been fascinating. You know, I have three main characters in my movie and they’re all at slightly different economic levels. And so what would one person’s apartment sound like versus another person’s apartment? Would a wealthier person’s – and nobody is really wealthy in the movie – but would a slightly wealthier person’s apartment be quieter than somebody who is poor? And so really playing around with OK this person’s apartment has this tone, and this person’s apartment has that tone. And then when they step outside those apartments and they’re all in the city together what are basically those three tones together sound like, all three of them mixing up, and how do those inform the characters? And how does the city become–?

Craig: It’s writing.

Andrea: It’s writing.

John: That is writing. Now, we’re talking about tone in the sense of like the ambiance you’re going to build later on in the process. I think we skipped over while you’re recording there on the set or on the stage you’re also recording room tone, which is one of the most annoying moments of the day. But it’s that moment either in the middle of shooting or generally at the end of shooting where everyone has to stand still and they record 30 seconds, 60 seconds of what’s called room tone.

And the reason why you do that is because as you’re cutting dialogue you need just the base level of that so that you don’t hear the backgrounds of dialogue coming in and coming out.

Andrea: Dropping in and out. Right.

Craig: Well, also if you – I mean, the way I’ve almost only used, exclusively used room tone is if you need to expand a moment that isn’t there, like in other words you’re just like adding stuff, then where like, OK, I’m going to say something and then I’m going to cut to Andrea and she immediately starts – she hears me saying it and then she starts following it. Well I want her to absorb it first. So I want her to just sit there and then start. Which means I have to take my voice out of her side. Well, if I take it out there’s nothing. And nothing is different than nothing.

So you have to put room tone in there to make it seem like she was in that space.

Andrea: Right. Otherwise it drops to dead silence and it’s very awkward.

John: It’s incredibly jarring.

Craig: Again, our wonderful sound recordist on Chernobyl was – like sometimes I would think like, OK, I’m shooting in Europe, these are European crews. We had this pan-European crew. They do things somewhat differently there. They have different words for things. But it’s all basically the same.

The first time that we were on stage and he called to do room tone he recorded it for I think upwards of four minutes.

Andrea: Oh my god.

John: Was everybody going insane?

Craig: I mean, I personally was like what’s – is this what they always do? Maybe this is European. So at some point, like after a full minute of this I look across the room at our French first AD and he looks at me like I have no idea what he’s going to do. But it was just–

Andrea: It’s just this guy.

Craig: Our guy, Vincent, who is the best. He just really liked to get a full breadth and variety of room tone. And the work that we did get was outstanding. And the room tone was helpful. The one thing we never had to worry about was not having enough room tone.

Andrea: Right. There was plenty of it. Room tone for days. We did very little of that. I think we only did it a couple of times.

Craig: Really?

Andrea: Yeah. We really did very, very little room tone. Because it’s all so heightened and pulpy and fictionalized, the whole movie, that we were just creating environments anyway. We weren’t going for ultra-realistic.

Craig: You can always steal room tone if you have to.

Andrea: Maybe he was stealing behind my back. It was happening and I wasn’t aware. That’s possible, too.

Craig: And even in editorial you’re like, OK, we need some room tone here, well find a shot where people shut up for two seconds.

Andrea: Some other movie.

Craig: Take that and just paste it over here.

John: Let’s talk about the mix. So we’ve written the scenes, we’ve shot the scenes, we’ve edited this thing. And so once you’ve picture locked, usually, but then it’s time to actually do a mix. And so this is where you’re going from the folks who have just been editing picture and doing dialogue and stuff to a generally a whole new team—

Andrea: That’s right.

John: That does not involve your original sound recordist.

Andrea: At a new location. New facility.

John: Yeah, new facility. And they’re seeing what you’ve done and then they’re building out whole new tracks and giving you a lot of new choices about what you’re doing. So what is your first conversation with them, Andrea, with the people who are going to be doing your real post-production sound?

Andrea: First of all you sit down and you watch the whole movie together and you all think oh my god there’s so much work to do.

John: And you’re watching it on a big screen?

Andrea: A big screen. The nice thing is when you get into a sound – I mean, at least my experience in New York – you pretty much edit the movie almost on a laptop. I’m exaggerating, but you are not editing the movie on a big screen.

Craig: You usually put a little monitor to the side.

Andrea: But it’s not the same experience as seeing a movie. And then you get into the sound stage and at least they have a big screen set up. And the most killer speakers in the entire world with the most pristine setup as if we’re all going to have an incredible theater in our homes. But that gives you the full scope of what do we have once you hear it that way. And the answer is not much usually. Turns out we’ve got very little.

And so you watch it through that first time with the team and you all realize, OK, we’ve got a lot of sound effects work to do and we can talk about sound effects later. We’ve got a lot of dialogue work to do, because as pristine as you may record it what you suddenly realize is this is the writing part that I absolutely love is I wish that she had not said that. I really wish that we could use this moment to have her say something else. And that is the best part about it is to go back and get something else entirely that can really change the entire course of your movie.

And so you all sit together and think we’ve got to get that, we’ve got to get that, and then you also look at what lines like for whatever reason somebody dropped something on and you really do need to get them to record it again because it’s crucial and we just don’t have it clear enough. The audience can’t understand what they’re saying. And then like I said creating the soundscape overall. So where is this movie set? What does it feel like? What is the era? How does it sound differently in that era or that world versus this world?

And then finally, you know, you go into that first mix definitely with a lot of ideas about music, but you do not have your score recorded. You do not have all your songs locked down. And you have to then figure out what are we trying to say with music. What are we trying to say with every other sound?

Craig: You go through a sound-spotting process where you go through and sort of say, OK, scene by scene generally speaking what’s our theory on the sound effects we’re going to need here? What’s important? What can we keep from our sync track? That’s what we start to refer to the recorded sound from the day. What can we use from our sync track? What do we have to create? Are we doing a score here? Are we doing a track, like a cue from a song? Are we doing no music? Do we need – so let’s talk about looping for a second.

So looping or ADR, everybody has experienced this even from an audience point of view when suddenly appears that the character’s voice seems a little bit different because it’s been recorded. The idea of ADR is you go into a recording room and they play back a scene and the actor has a bunch of takes to kind of sync their own voice up to their own mouth to improve it. Or, if it’s an off-camera line they just record it.

The interesting thing about ADR is a lot of times it comes down to the actor’s voice. Literally the quality of their voice. I think some actors – Emily Watson I think could probably ADR an entire movie and you’d never know because my experience of her doing an ADR line is just her voice has this beautiful consistency and it just drops in. You’re like I didn’t actually – just watching you record it I didn’t realize you were saying it. You know, like I’m watching you fake it and I don’t see.

But then other actors their voices have so much variation that it just sticks out. That day they sounded like this and this day they sound like this.

Andrea: Did they get a good night’s sleep? Did they have tea for breakfast? Like all of that.

Craig: All of it. And those sometimes can take you out of moments. And that’s always tricky. So you have to kind of gauge how all that looping works. But it can be a remarkable opportunity. And for instance are you guys Game of Thrones watchers?

John: We are. Of course.

Andrea: Listen, I’ve had a busy week. I did not watch so don’t say anything about the first episode please. But yes.

Craig: OK. So I’ll use code. So annoying.

Andrea: I’m sorry.

Craig: So John, towards the end of the first episode someone makes a remark about waiting for an old friend. And you see how that turns into an interesting thing. That was not scripted and that was not shot on the day. Dan and Dave watched the episode and thought you know what would be good if he says this here and it was looped.

John: Nice.

Andrea: Wow.

Craig: So that’s the kind of thing that happens.

John: So they were able to put it over another character’s–?

Craig: They were able to put it over another character’s face. So there’s a conversation between two people, I just have that person – sometimes you can also slide things around. So it’s not ADR. It’s from production. Like I’m going to use the visual of you on take three but I’m going to use your line reading from take two and put it in your mouth.

John: Oh yeah. All the time.

Craig: And it can be a little rubbery for a second or two. But it’s OK if it sounds great and we glide by.

Andrea: You can usually get away with it.

Craig: You can usually get away with it.

John: All right. So we have now done our spotting. We have a whole new team that is building all these tracks for your movie. So you may have done little small mixes for test screenings and stuff, but this is the real final thing. This is what you just flew back from New York for.

Andrea: Yes.

John: And so how many days is that process for you and what–?

Andrea: It’s hard to pin down because the good people on the team were – you do that spotting session much earlier on. Months ago we did it. So they had been working, and working, and working, and building, and building it before I get in to the actual stage. My process on the stage is I was there about three weeks working it through with them. But it went on far longer than that for those people.

John: A thing I always fight both in mixing and in color-timing is just fatigue. Where like I can’t tell the difference between two things anymore. For me the worst moments in sound mixing are like how should this doorknob sound? Should it sound like this? Or like this? Or like this? And I can’t tell the difference.

Andrea: Well, my motto this week became “let’s move on and let’s come back to it.” Because, yes, you get absolutely fatigued. I have one shot in particular that is a bear for color – now we’re talking about color-timing. But I have a shot that has been a bear because there is VFX in a real environment and it has been so hard and I’m hoping that nobody notices. We can talk about this after August. Everybody sees it and see if they can pick up the shot.

But it was 1am Wednesday morning this week and we have nine people sitting there being like, “Bluer. Grayer.” And you know what? We’re going in circles. And so we just all to say like let’s move on.

Craig: Yeah.

Andrea: And we’ll come back to it. Because you do get fatigued. Your eyes and ears get fatigued and you’re tired.

John: But in the mix your team is helping you decide. They’re asking you for decisions about like so how big should the music be here versus how much do you want to hear your environment.

Andrea: And this is where it’s storytelling. This is where the writer, the director knows what they’re trying to create. Even this week there’s a scene where a deadbolt gets turned in a door. And I kept saying like I’m not into that deadbolt. You’ve got to get me – it’s got like a thud. I don’t care if it becomes unrealistic. It’s got to feel like it’s saying something. It’s not just about locking the door. It’s about saying something. What is the emotional moment with that deadbolt?

Craig: Yeah. And the great thing about being in the executive producer position in television is the director has to do all this really hard-hard work. And then I get to come in for review, which is wonderful.

Andrea: Right.

Craig: Because my job then is to sit there. I listen to a full playback. And while you’re watching there’s timecode running and you just write down the number and your note. Number/note. Number/note. And then you go through and you go through every single thing and what it is that you think should change and why. And for me what I find so fascinating about this process is that there are all of these specific choices that I consider writing. What should that sound like? What should the deadbolt sound like? And what line should I be hearing? And what is the score?

But then the magic is in also the relational choices you make. Who should I be hearing louder? When does the rest of the world fade away? Is this music too loud? Is it now telling me to feel something? If I pull it back will I feel more because I don’t realize? All of those mixing – those are true mixing choices – I find to be where actually the most remarkable writing can occur because what you’re doing is you’re focusing people on what has emotional value. I love that.

Andrea: I love it, too.

John: We are going to take a listen to a clip from Mad Max: Fury Road.

Andrea: Oh wow.

John: Which is an example of there’s a bunch of stuff happening simultaneously. So we’ll listen to this. There’s a moment where it gets really silent and then it gets sort of big again. But after we listen to it I want to talk about the relationship between music and sound effects. And sometimes in the mix you’re not quite sure who is driving it and sort of which of those tracks is driving it. So let’s take a listen.

[Mad Max: Fury Road clip plays]

John: I mean, that was so complicated. Just imagine how much time it took just to build that one minute of sound?

Andrea: That was a sound mixer’s dream come true.

Craig: Exactly. But there’s like 40 tracks running in there. And so one category that we should probably break out from sound effects is sound design. So sound effects are really like, OK, somebody put a glass down on a table. Somebody revved a motorcycle engine. Somebody threw a grenade. People have recorded that. Here’s what that is. Here’s 20 different versions of that.

Sound design is more of a kind of creative computerized process where you’re starting to mess around with sound. So like, OK, it’s a grenade but it’s doing this really funky thing. So we’ve taken a grenade noise and we totally warped it out and ran a comb filter on it. And then a high-pass blah-blah-blah. So that becomes a little bit more of the sound equivalent of visual effects. But in this case what I loved about what they’re doing there is they are obviously playing to emotion. So when you drop out you feel like you’re falling through the air. Or you’re in shell-shock.

And then when you come back they are very smartly making you feel a little sick and scared from all this rumbly base. And then there’s this high, gravely, tinkle-y stuff going on that makes you feel like needles are going into your eyeballs. And it’s all feeling. And it’s so smart. And I love that.

Andrea: I think there’s a very low music track in there.

Craig: Oh yeah.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Definitely. Percussive.

Andrea: But at the beginning of that track, sort of the music was louder and the vocals were underneath it. And then by the end the music was incredibly low and I don’t know if it was Russian or whatever was on top of it. It was very interesting.

John: And so some of the music is diegetic because they’re playing these big drums on the back of their cars. All that decision about sound was made in the writing stage because they’re playing these crazy guitars.

Now, I want to contrast that with a scene from Can You Ever Forgive Me? which is not as loud.

Craig: Really? Because I’ve seen Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I recall that there was a huge chase with 40 trucks and 90 motorcycles.

John: I just want to point out that one of the requirements for all of our guests is they have to have made a movie with Melissa McCarthy which you just did.

Andrea: That’s right. How funny is that?

Craig: Isn’t she the greatest?

Andrea: Yes.

Craig: So this is what we keep saying now over and over to all of our guests. Isn’t she the greatest?

[Can You Ever Forgive Me? clip plays]

John: So this is – we were just listening to this, so where was that space? As you guys listened to this where was this happening?

Craig: So it’s a bar. We also forgot to mention Foley.

Andrea: How could we forget Foley?

John: Crucial.

Craig: How could we forget? So Foley is when you hear the footsteps for instance going across this creaky wooden floor of an old bar. And that is an old bar in Manhattan. Probably almost certainly that is Foley because our microphones generally aren’t picking up feet very well. So people will walk and record themselves on things like wooden planks and – anytime you hear soldiers marching through gravel that’s Foley and all that. They’re enhancing certain things like the glass, the tinkling of ice. These things are not pickup-able on the day.

But what I thought was really interesting was the way that Mari contrasted – she included the other conversations in the bar. So those would have been faked. We’re not hearing those on the day. Those are recorded later and then seeded in. She wanted you to feel like this was not some fake bar but there were things happening.

And also there’s quite a bit of reverb on these. Which either is a function of the day, but I doubt. I think it was a choice. When you add reverb, a little bit of echo to these conversations, it makes the space feel a little lonelier. A little emptier. So it’s like there’s empty people over there, and you’re two people over here, and you’re talking in this old, creaky, verby bar. And you almost feel like it’s like ghosts are having conversations over cocktails. It’s very evocative and I like that a lot.

Andrea: It really puts the characters front and center I think because really what you’re hearing the most is the dialogue as you should be hearing in that kind of environment. And everything else is in service to the dialogue and in service to those characters.

As compared to the first track we watched which is in service to this giant action scene. It’s not necessarily about character development.

John: Absolutely. So those people talking in the background, sometimes you’re pulling clips from stuff, but more likely it was a Walla group. So it’s actors who were brought in—

Andrea: Group ADR.

Craig: Loop group.

John: Loop group.

Andrea: I have to say that was one of the most fascinating days I had.

Craig: It’s wild, right?

Andrea: Because my movie takes place in Manhattan, 1978, and I really wanted that feel. One of the cool things about New York is when you’re walking down the street you can hear conversations in every language imaginable. And I really wanted that feeling of that assault of the city. You know, as you’re walking through New York you hear somebody screaming their head off for no reason over here. And somebody speaking Spanish over here. And just that kind of – that assault that is so intense.

And so we got most of that through our group ADR. And we had this one guy in group ADR who speaks 15 languages. He speaks Yiddish. Who speaks Yiddish? Nobody speaks Yiddish.

Craig: Nobody. Zero Mostel.

Andrea: He speaks Yiddish. And I was like, you know, we have a scene set in the jewelry district and he gave me a little Yiddish to stick in.

Craig: That’s where it would be.

Andrea: Right. That’s where it would be.

Craig: Borough Park, or you know.

Andrea: That’s right. And so the group ADR session I’m sure as Craig pointed out that that little conversation in the background was two incredibly talented group ADR actors having a conversation that they recorded some months after they finished shooting and Mari was able to use that in her bar scene.

Craig: Every now and then you will have to write that. Usually you don’t. Usually because it’s meant to be barely heard your loop group will just kind of come up with some cocktail chatter or bar chatter of various kinds. And then it gets seeded into the background. But every now and then, for instance I knew like, OK, we’ve got a scene with all of these firefighters. A bunch of them are going to be saying things. We could have them come up with their own things to say but do you want some specific things, and I did.

And even if you barely hear them I wanted them to be accurate and correct and relative to what was going on. So I wrote those. You will write maybe some of those things, but usually it’s just kind of improvised.

Andrea: It is. But I did quite a bit of writing, too, because it was a period piece. And so what I didn’t want was people talking about–

Craig: Cellphones.

Andrea: Current stuff. And so we pulled a bunch of articles and what was going on in city politics in 1978 and what might people of New York been talking about on that day. And I ended up just writing a bunch of sentences. Like let’s complain about the trash. And let’s complain about taxes. And let’s complain about unemployment. You know, that’s what it’s like.

Craig: ConEd. A lot of chatter about ConEd.

Andrea: ConEd. I know.

John: So when do we get to see and hear your movie, Andrea?

Andrea: August 9, theaters everywhere.

John: Very nice.

Craig: That’s coming so fast.

Andrea: It’s coming up. The trailer will be out mid-May.

John: I’m so excited to see your trailer. So I was looking for a trailer so we could hype it up.

Andrea: It’s not out yet.

John: Remind us who is in your film.

Andrea: It is starring Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, Elizabeth Moss.

Craig: Wow.

Andrea: And I got more. I got Domhnall Gleeson. Brian d’Arcy James. Bill Camp.

Craig: Brian d’Arcy James is fantastic.

Andrea: He’s fantastic.

Craig: Did he sing for you?

Andrea: James Badge Dale. He did not. Because I felt shy about asking.

Craig: Really? I would have asked him to.

Andrea: You know, we shot in New York and we had three big musical theater actors. We have Brian d’Arcy James, Will Swenson, and Brandon Uranowitz. And all I wanted was them to do Kitchen: The Musical. Like I was just like guys get together.

Craig: I think I would have gotten Brian d’Arcy James to sing for me only because I wouldn’t have said, oh, sing some Hamilton or whatever. He was the original king in Hamilton. But probably I would have asked for some Shrek. I’m obsessed with Shrek: The Musical.

Andrea: I was too shy. Brian right now is starring in The Ferryman on Broadway and he gives an incredible performance. And if you haven’t seen it you should go see him.

Craig: Yeah. It has been touted as such.

Andrea: He’s great.

Craig: That’s a fantastic cast.

Andrea: It is. I got very lucky.

Craig: Boy, if it’s not a good movie—

Andrea: It’s my fault.

Craig: I’m laying it firmly at your feet. And if it is a good movie I feel like the cast elevated it.

Andrea: It’s not my doing.

John: I’m giving all the credit to the sound team.

Andrea: That’s perfect. As we should. Because it really does sound amazing.

John: All right. It’s come time for our One Cool Things, where we talk about the things we wish people would know more about. My One Cool Thing is this article, speaking of musicals, Seth Abramovitch wrote for the Hollywood Reporter about the musical Nerds, which I was not aware of. So it’s a musical about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. And how this musical kept crashing down and sort of half made it to Broadway and went through all these workshops.

It’s just a long history of what happened there. And it gave me such triggering flashbacks to Big Fish: The Musical and how hard it is to get something up to the stage. And so I recommend you look at it. Maybe this musical will actually happen at some point. But the weird way that musicals are financed to put together it was just a great look at sort of how that all works.

Craig: Terrifying.

John: Terrifying. Andrea, what’s your One Cool Thing?

Andrea: So 14 months in New York working on this project, tried to come home for 36 hours every weekend to see my kids. Which meant that I was jet-lagged always. There was never a time where I was like on east coast or on west coast. And I have been having a very hard time sleeping. So somebody turned me on to there’s an app called Headspace. A lot of people know about Headspace.

John: Love Headspace.

Andrea: Within Headspace there’s a subcategory called Sleepscapes which is this bananas thing. It’s like a bedtime story. And you plug it in and a very soothing voice will start telling you a bedtime story. But after you listen to it for about five minutes it becomes nonsense. So it becomes, “The cats love rainbows. The cats are up on rainbows. The clouds…” So you’re listening and you’re like, wait, where are the cats? I’ve lost the cats.

John: That’s what falling asleep is like?

Andrea: And then eventually you’re like, oh never mind, and you go to sleep. And this has worked better for me than almost – I have tried Ambien. I have tried all of these things. There is something about this that triggers the perfect thing in my brain that it worked like a genius. And I had been addicted to it for the last six weeks.

Craig: Wow. Very cool. I’m going to try that. That sounds cool.

John: Craig, what’s your One Cool Thing?

Craig: My One Cool Thing are these wonderful little creatures that we call yeast, because they leaven bread. They give us alcohol.

John: They do.

Craig: But most importantly they leaven bread. Because without yeast all delicious bread would be horrifying and disgusting Matzo.

Andrea: Have you ever had too much yeast though in bread?

John: Not good.

Craig: Oh, like a yeasty bread?

Andrea: Super yeasty.

Craig: Where it tasted sort of like weird beer?

Andrea: Yeast can go awry. Calm down, yeast. Get in your lane.

Craig: Calm down. Don’t go crazy. Be happy doing all the wonderful things you do. But you’re really meant to be in the shadows.

John: You’re a supporting player.

Andrea: It’s not your moment.

Craig: Yeah. We don’t want to taste you. We want to taste bread.

John: You’re the ambience, you’re not the featured sound.

Craig: Correct.

Andrea: Exactly. You need a mixer.

John: That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by the Arbitrary Jukebox Experience. 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, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Are you on Twitter?

Andrea: I got off. I canceled the account.

John: Congratulations, Andrea Berloff.

Craig: But you may want to hop back on just to pimp out your movie.

Andrea: Instagram. Find me on Instagram. How about that?

Craig: People say like, oh, I can’t deal with Twitter, instead I’m on Instagram, the thing that gives everybody an eating disorder.

Andrea: Nope, not me.

Craig: It’s better?

Andrea: Not me. In fact, it shows me what to eat.

John: Here’s your food.

Craig: That’s great.

Andrea: I’m all about obsessing over people’s food.

Craig: OK, great. Good. Good. You’re using it in a healthy way.

Andrea: Yes.

John: You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a comment. It helps people find the show. The show notes for this episode and all episodes are at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We try to get them up in the first week after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net or seasons of 50 episodes at store.johnaugust.com.

Andrea Berloff, welcome back.

Andrea: So good to be home.

John: And thank you for talking to us about sound.

Andrea: Thank you for having me.

Craig: Thanks Andrea.

Andrea: Thanks guys. Bye.

Links:

  • WGA Lawsuit
  • #WGAMix led by screenwriter Daniel Zucker
  • Mad Max Fury Road Clip
  • Can You Ever Forgive Me? Clip
  • The story of the “Nerds” musical article by Seth Abramovitch
  • Headspace’s Meditation for Sleep
  • Accepting recommendations for updating the Listener’s Guide
  • Submit to the Pitch Session here
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Find past episodes
  • Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Outro by Thomas Johnstone (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 326: Austin 2017 Three Page Challenge — Transcript

November 29, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/austin-2017-three-page-challenge).

**John August:** Hey, this is John.

**Craig Mazin:** And this is Craig.

**John:** So we are both traveling this week, but today’s episode is one we recorded at the Austin Film Festival. It is a Three Page Challenge live with the people who actually wrote the scripts, who come up on stage and talk with us.

**Craig:** Yeah. And we had some pretty good guests as well helping us out.

**John:** We had an agent and a manager, so we’ll introduce them as the episode goes along. But we should be back next week with a normal episode which will be our Thanksgiving Week episode, so join us then.

So today’s episode of Scriptnotes has a few bad words. So if you’re driving in the car with your kids, this is the warning.

We’re also going to be doing a live show in Hollywood on December 7. So by the time this episode airs, we’ll hopefully have details up, so check the show notes for this episode and come see us live in Hollywood.

**Craig:** Enjoy.

**John:** Yes. On with the show.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** We host a podcast called Scriptnotes. What is Scriptnotes about, Craig?

**Craig:** Oh, it’s…

**Audience:** A podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** That’s really well done.

**Craig:** I don’t ever listen to that part so it’s the first time I’ve ever – I haven’t really heard that before.

**John:** So one of our favorite little segments we do on the show is called the Three Page Challenge where we take a look at three pages that our listeners send in. And we talk about what we see, what we notice, what’s fantastic, what could use some work, and try to offer some useful suggestions.

So one of the nice things about being here at the Austin Film Festival is we get to sometimes talk to those actual writers and bring them up and ask all the questions that we can’t ask when they’re just PDFs.

**Craig:** Right. Plus we get to see their faces. You know?

**John:** It’s nice to see that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** One of the other things we’ve been doing when we have these live Three Page Challenges is to invite up some special guests to read through these pages with us. And so today we’re very excited to welcome two really amazing people. Daniela Garcia Brcek – I did it – is a literally manager at Circle of Confusion. Come on up here.

**Daniela Garcia-Brcek:** Hi everyone.

**John:** Hello. Welcome Daniela. And Cullen Conly is an agent at ICM, but I actually knew him from Sundance Labs. And so he worked at Sundance Labs and was instrumental in their feature film program working with really talented filmmakers on their screenplays. He was fantastic at that. I’m sure he’s a fantastic agent. Cullen Conly, please come on up.

So we put out the call on the show for people who were going to be coming to the Austin Film Festival who had three pages for us to look at. And we got 73 entries, which was great. Of those, 38 were written by women. So that’s also great. That’s the highest percentage we’ve ever gotten. So I don’t know why it happened that way, but fantastic that it happened.

**Craig:** The world is changing.

**John:** The world is lovely.

**Craig:** I wouldn’t say that.

**John:** No, but the world could be lovelier. We’ve all read these pages, but if you out there want to read these pages with us you can. Go to johnaugust.com/aff2017 on your phone and they’re there. So you can find the PDFs, but also we made it so you can just scroll through and read along with us if you want to. So, the PDFs are always the best sort of way to read them. But that’s available to you. They’ll also be in Weekend Read, either now or by the time this show posts. And we’ll give a recap for folks who have no idea what we’re talking about so you have some sense of what this is.

But first I want to talk to you guys about what you guys – how many scripts you’re reading and sort of what you’re finding in scripts. So, tell me, how many screenplays are you reading in a week?

**Daniela:** I’d like to think that I read 15 a week, at least. That’s the goal. But it’s usually between five and ten, like full scripts.

**John:** So five and ten full scripts, and are there other scripts that you’re not finishing?

**Daniela:** Oh yeah. That’s what I mean by the – the other five to ten–

**Craig:** You gauge five to 15.

**Daniela:** Yeah. So.

**John:** And so when you say you’re reading these scripts, are they from represented writers, unrepresented writers? Are they clients?

**Daniela:** It’s all across the board. So there will be scripts people are talking about that I’m like “I need to know what these scripts are.’ Potential clients. And then actual clients. And then some projects that I’m just like, ooh, this is – I’m a fan of this writer, or I’m a fan of this genre, and I just want to know what it’s about.

**John:** Cullen, how many scripts are you reading in a week these days?

**Cullen Conly:** I would say I look at 15 to 20. And, again, for different purposes, if it’s a client’s script I will read it cover to cover. I tend to work more with writer-directors and specifically writer-directors and then some playwrights that are transitioning. So I also have to read a lot of open directing assignments. And with those, you know, I can sometimes read the first 20 and the last 20, fully get what it is, and figure out who the clients that should read it are.

**John:** Wow. So, OK, first off I want to go back to “look at,” which is such a fascinating euphemism for like not really reading, but you’re sort of like – so how much do you need to look at a script to say that you’ve looked at it? How many pages does that mean?

**Cullen:** I would say like 15 pages I can get a good sense – especially for potential clients. Like is this a voice? Is this something that’s gripping me? And do I want to read more? I can get a good sense from 15.

**John:** Daniela, do you look at scripts the same way?

**Daniela:** I do “look at” them. Yeah, I would say if I’m being generous, 15. But sometimes even first 10, depending on what it is, as an assessment of can this person write, can this person engage, and also does this not feel too familiar.

**Craig:** That’s pretty much why we started doing this. I mean, the purpose was to, I guess, hold writers accountable but also inform them that this is how the world works. I mean, the amount of screenplays that you guys have to read, or just are obligated to read, is massive. And therefore the only ones that are going to be read-read, right, are the ones that actually, I don’t know, keep you going.

I mean, there is this thing you can do where you can – do you ever do the skimmy thing? Like the skim through?

**Daniela:** No, not the skimmy. But I heard about this thing that I don’t particularly like where it’s just you read the first 15, the middle 20, and then the last 15 for features.

**Craig:** Well at that point you’re reading the damn script. Just finish it.

**Daniela:** And why would you enter a movie like halfway through and be like I know exactly what’s happening because there are some characters that are there and the conflict and all that stuff. So I don’t subscribe to that. Because if it doesn’t engage me in the first 15 then that exercise is just futile.

**Craig:** Pointless. Yeah.

**John:** Is there such a thing as coverage for what you guys are doing? Like are you reading coverage on scripts ever? So, Cullen, you’re nodding.

**Cullen:** yeah, especially at an agency, our policy is usually if it’s set up at a studio, get it covered, because agents do have a lot to read. We have the reputation for being lazy when it comes to reading. And so, yeah, I mean, I would say most scripts at the studio are covered. And it is helpful. My taste isn’t massive tent pole films, so if I’m covering that project I probably don’t want to sit and read the whole thing, so I’ll read a little bit, read the coverage, have a good sense of what the movie is, and be able to do what I need to do for it.

**John:** A question we get often on the podcast is “How important are loglines?” Do loglines matter for you guys? Does a well-written logline intrigue you and make you read the script or not read the script? Do you see loglines?

**Daniela:** I mean, loglines are helpful to be like, OK, how is this person framing their story, but I’m still going to want to read how they’re setting it up. Because loglines can be deceiving. It’s like, “Girl gets kidnapped. Father seeks out revenge.” And, you know, I’m describing Taken. And so I love Liam Neeson and I love Taken as sort of a popcorn fare thing, but the logline would be really disinteresting to me. So, I think loglines are important, but it’s really about what’s on the page. Don’t spend too much time on the logline.

**John:** Cullen?

**Cullen:** Yeah, I mean, I think just being able to describe your movie in a way that feels fresh and original is important at an agency. I think, management companies are a little bit different, but in terms of blind queries I’m not really supposed to look at them anyway, so I just hit delete for better or worse.

**Daniela:** We look at them all the time. Yes. Circle of Confusion was essentially started off of a query letter. A letter written by two house painters in Chicago to our company saying we love the name of your company and those people were the Wachowskis. So, as a company policy we accept queries and in that sense loglines are important, but it’s also about personalizing the letter to the company and personalizing the letter to the person you’re sending it to to make sure that it’s not just, “I’m just sending this to the void hoping I get discovered.” It’s like, “This is why I want to be represented by this company and by this person at that company.”

**Cullen:** Yeah. I do actually enjoy when I get a query that’s addressed to a different name. I’m like this is – I love this.

**John:** Last sort of question about framing here. So let’s say there’s a script that either came through a query or someone recommended it and it’s about maybe a client you want to represent. What are you looking for as you start to read that says like, “Oh, this is a person I want to meet. This is a person I want to continue on a discussion with.” What is it that gets you to a place where you’re excited about a script or a writer?

**Daniela:** I think it’s like oftentimes style and having fun on the page, regardless of what the genre is. There was recently a script that I was like let’s do a con-tage. And I was like, yes, this is a movie about being a con artist and we’re going to do a montage and it’s called a con-tage. And I was having a fun experience reading the script. And so I think that the voice and the style and feeling personality on the page and not being bogged down by details and just, you know, having fun with the story.

**John:** Cullen, what are you looking for as you’re starting to read for a client?

**Cullen:** I mean, as I read scripts, what I’m so craving and I think what most of us are craving is please god surprise me and please god – like god forbid – move me. Whether that’s making me laugh, making me cry. Some sort of sensory experience as I’m reading something.

You know, and then otherwise it’s just a very subjective experience. I mean, there are scripts where the whole town seems obsessed with and I read it and I’m like, uh, I don’t really respond to this. So, a lot of it is you can’t really quite put your finger on it, but you know it when you see it.

**John:** Cool. All right, let’s get into our four Three Page Challenges.

**Craig:** Let’s begin.

**John:** I’ll read the first synopsis, but maybe Craig can take another one. We’ll start with Baptiste by Jenny Deiker. Jenny, am I saying your name right?

**Jenny Deiker:** Yes sir.

**John:** Fantastic. Jenny right there. Thank you. A synopsis. A Minnesota business man, Jonathan Parks, ambles with his fishing rod to the edge of a lush Louisiana bayou. He is followed at a distance by Richard Devilliers, 50s, who speaks with the soft accent of an important Louisiana family. Richard encourages Jonathan to catch a catfish and Jonathan admires the landscape.

As Jonathan casts his line, Richard draws a circle on the dock with powder from a small pouch. When Jonathan asks about it, Richard describes that it’s a voodoo ritual for the union of predator and prey. Jonathan is impressed by the Louisiana touch. Richard’s wife, Marie, 50s, approaches and shares a knowing glance with her husband.

Richard draws a slash through the circle before kicking Jonathan into the swamp. Jonathan struggles. Marie watches dispassionately. Jonathan is promptly sucked under water, gone. Richard and Marie’s son, Kevin, 29, joins them, sweeps the powder away with his foot, and tells them they’ll be late for mass. And that’s the end of our three pages.

Daniela, will you start. So if you just read these three pages, what is your first impression? What are you taking from these?

**Daniela:** I have to say like by the very end of those three pages I was like “what is this about?” which is a great question to have. But at the same time I did feel that there were a lot of characters for the three page sequences that I was like maybe there needed to be a little bit of mystery. Like the son coming and delivering that line, while it’s a little bit of a mic drop, I felt that I wanted to breathe in the moment of this guy just got sucked into the space and let that breathe a little bit more. So, that’s how I felt.

**John:** Cullen, you’re very first impressions?

**Cullen:** Yeah, I mean, I have to say – I’m assuming – is this a pilot? given that it’s a teaser. Absolutely wanted to read more. I’m from Louisiana, too, so I loved the setting of it. My biggest question mark was about the powder and what is the significance. That was the one thing that I was like is this a total red herring. Does that actually have significance? But I loved it. I was pretty hooked.

I think my critique of it is probably in the first paragraph. It felt very adjective-heavy and, you know, I sort of circled what is a “stagnant, breathy morning.” It felt like slightly writing for writing sake.

**John:** Craig?

**Craig:** Yes. So, by and large I did enjoy this. I liked where it went and I liked what’s happening. And I think substantively we’re in a good place. But let’s talk about how this begins. Have you ever heard of purple prose? Right? So this is green purple prose. “Spanish moss melts from bald cypresses in the sweaty, sickly sweet soup of Louisiana air. Live oaks and palmettos line a wide, dead-calm river, dotted with fallen branches and blankets of algae.” That’s a lot of – just a biome. That’s a biome full of adjectives. There’s some alliteration going on in there which weirdly – the thing about alliteration is even though it’s not intentional, I know, these are the kinds of things that start to literally lull people. Which I know in a sense is not so bad, but I think you could actually get a lot of the sense quicker and easier.

I also think that it’s important, when you get to “Camera PANS to find a sturdy, wooden DOCK,” camera pans to me implies that we’re sort of static and then we move. But this all feels like it should be in motion anyway, like whatever eats Jonathan, maybe we’re that. Right? Just moving through. So there’s a sense of discovery.

Your first line is Exposition Theater. “I think you’ll find the biggest catfish in Bayou Baptiste right here off our dock.” Oh, do you? Right? So I think we don’t need that, right? I think that’s a line that can just go. I think you can start with, “It really is beautiful here. You’re a lucky man.”

And so there’s a little bit of – you can see you’re trying to get some of this information in. I wouldn’t panic about it. The thing about the opening of a pilot like this is it’s all about surprise and mood. We will find out who that dude was, where he was from. Don’t care. He’s got eaten. I assume he’s dead. Gone. So, I don’t care if he’s from Wisconsin. I really don’t.

And I think there’s a question of perspective. I want to know that the perspective here is with Richard. I would love for this to be a little bit more from his point of view because he is the one in charge here. I mean, the powder to me was good mystery. I assume the powder is either meaningful or just a side bit that he does, because the great catfish monster doesn’t need – whatever it is, I was fine with the mystery of it. It’s really just about I think writing less and creating perspective. Before anyone talks, the perspective as you move through. And then trying to root out some of the unnecessary exposition. But it was very – I like that he got eaten by an invisible fish. I assume it’s an invisible fish. It might be something else.

**John:** So, I’m going to disagree with Craig and so I think–

**Craig:** But I’m right though. I mean, you know that, right?

**John:** So, what I wrote here was that this is the upper limit of scenery setting, but I think it hadn’t crossed too far. And so it was skating right there at the very edge, but I though the alliteration helps. It helps put me into a place and to a certain mood. And so the sweaty, sickly sweet swamp of Louisiana air. Great. I had the same note about I don’t know what a breathy morning is. So it pushed a little too far. But I dug what you were going for and I could feel it, I could see it. There was a tactile quality to it which is great.

I’m also going to disagree with Craig a little bit about Jonathan. So, Jonathan, the Wisconsinite, I sort of knew he was chum from the start because I was only given the Wisconsin thing. And so some bit of specificity or something that gives Richard something to play off of, or something – a response that’s not just about “let’s push him into the lake.” There could be something more there so it’s a little bit more of a misdirect. Because I felt I was a little ahead of you because I could see what the setup is. Once there was a glance to the wife I’m like, OK, he’s going to die for some reason.

Daniela, often we talk about the difference between mystery and confusion. And you work for a company called Circle of Confusion. How often—

**Daniela:** It’s a cinematography term.

**John:** Yeah. Is this a thing – were you confused in these pages or were you intrigued? What was the line for you?

**Daniela:** I was intrigued more than I was confused. I think the beginning with names like Jonathan and Richard, at times I felt I had to revisit who was who. And that might be a byproduct of me not being from the States, so those names are foreign to me. And so, yeah–

**John:** Daniela, you’re from Venezuela?

**Daniela:** I’m from Venezuela. And I grew up in Southeast Asia. So, you know, names like Yosuke and Mohammed were very much my Jonathan and Richards, or Jorge and Fabian. So, yeah, and I think that creating a little bit more of distinction between the two of them and also using terminology like having an “upper class accent of someone from a very old and very important Louisiana family,” I don’t know what that sounds like.

**Craig:** I’m from the United States and I also don’t know what that sounds like.

**Cullen:** I did.

**Craig:** Well, yeah.

**John:** So Cullen, talk to us. What does that sound like?

**Cullen:** I think it’s a sort of self-important, heightened southern accent.

**Craig:** But you do acknowledge that unless we’re from Louisiana like you, we would not know that.

**Cullen:** I guess I would have replaced – you could replace the word Louisiana with southern is how I kind of read it.

**Craig:** Like a gentile, aristocratic southern accent? I would know what that is.

**Cullen:** Like I grew up in Lafayette which is a sort of Coonass/Cajun accent. There’s a different New Orleans yachty accent. So maybe you do have to be a little more specific.

**Craig:** Yeah, I don’t know what any of those things are.

**John:** I want to talk to you about on page two, so midway down the page Jonathan turns and watches Richard. Bewildered. And then Richard says, “Voodoo ritual. For the union of predator and prey.” Those were moments where I felt like it was just too leading. Like I just knew something terrible was about to happen here. And so to back off from that, or to at least keep us in a little bit of a question could really help us out there. Because by that point I sort of knew like, OK, a dark thing is about to happen. And especially because it said teaser from the very start. Like, OK, someone is going in the lake. I was a little ahead of you there.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, the other thing about Richard, because he survives this teaser and Jonathan does not. I really can’t tell you anything about Richard. It would be good if there were something intriguing about Richard beyond simply the actions of what he is doing here. If I got a sense of something. A history to him. A sadness. An excitement. Is he nuts? Is he murderous? Is this really depressing to him?

I just need something there to fascinate me with the human beyond the ritual itself.

**Daniela:** Yeah. And just to add onto that, especially since this is a pilot, like we need to be very invested in the character. And the narrative engine isn’t just plot. So having an opportunity to be really invested in this person. Is he an anti-hero or a hero? And creating that central dilemma within even the teaser itself.

**John:** Cool. Can we have you come up and so we will ask you these questions in person. So let’s all give a round of applause. Jenny, where are you from and what else have you written? Talk to us about–

**Craig:** Louisiana.

**Jenny:** Pretty sure you could have guessed that. Yeah.

**John:** And have you written the full pilot? Or just the teaser?

**Jenny:** Yes. This is written.

**John:** Tell us about Kevin who appears on page three and doesn’t do anything.

**Jenny:** Well, the funny thing about, you know, y’all were saying make sure Richard has some distinguishing things and some more character development stuff. The funny thing is on the next page that you don’t have, all those folks die.

**Craig:** You mean Richard and–?

**Jenny:** Richard and his wife and his son.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s a lot of death in four pages.

**Jenny:** All die. Yeah. It’s to set up, our hero is going to be the grown daughter of that family, who is going to come back to Louisiana to take over the family business. The family business is a very quaint, beautiful bed and breakfast, but the real family business is doing this.

**Craig:** Got it.

**Jenny:** So, yeah, it’s about the daughter. But I wanted to set up that this is a normal thing for this family. They all know about it. This happens on the somewhat regular.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** Great. And so good about the bed and breakfast, because that was one of my questions for you, too, is I thought your landscape was beautiful but I didn’t know what it was connected to.

**Jenny:** Right, OK.

**John:** And so I guess that this guy was probably a guest at something like a bed and breakfast, but it was a little too disconnected. And I think if I had felt something about something to indicate that this guy was a guest here or that there was something in the distance, the plantation house in the distance. Something there that would connect this to a place.

**Jenny:** OK, yeah, totally. I understand that.

**Cullen:** Yeah, I thought it was maybe a work conference of some kind.

**Daniela:** A film festival.

**John:** So, talk to us about this pilot. So it’s a one-hour pilot. Is it written with act breaks or as a straight-through like a cable?

**Jenny:** It has act breaks.

**John:** Great. Tell us what your first act break is.

**Jenny:** Let me think. Let me think. My first act break. Holy cow. I’m completely blanking. You guys make me nervous.

**Craig:** I know. This is the worst feeling, isn’t it?

**Jenny:** It’s so terrifying.

**Craig:** Yeah. Because your mind goes blank.

**Jenny:** My mind is blank. And it’s really good, you guys. It’s a super good act break.

**Craig:** It happens to me all the time. It’s the worst feeling. I assume that when your first act break happens there’s probably some revelation about what’s happening in the water. Or maybe the daughter kills somebody. I’m just guessing. I’m trying to help you now.

**John:** Let’s all speculate. It’s OK.

**Jenny:** Holy cow.

**Daniela:** Is it the daughter like taking on the responsibility of like this is me now entering this world, like accepting her fate?

**Jenny:** She’s the last in a very old bloodline and, because everybody else has died, this is now her responsibility.

**Craig:** But she knows what they do, right?

**Jenny:** She knows what they do but she has had the luxury of like moving away and forgetting about it.

**Craig:** She doesn’t necessarily like that they do it?

**Jenny:** No. She doesn’t like it and she doesn’t think she wants to be a part of it.

**Craig:** Can I just ask you a question? Because I’m so fascinated by the fact that she comes back to do this. It’s really, really interesting. I’m not saying do this, but from the perspective of a girl coming home and like doesn’t want to see her parents. We think it’s just this regular grown woman coming home for her parents and the whole thing. And there’s the dad out in the – where’s your father? Oh, he’s taken somebody fishing. And she’s like, “Oh, god.” And she goes out there and she walks out. And then we see him with this guy, chit-chatting. And he kicks him in the water and she’s like, “Ugh, I’ll be inside.”

You know what I mean? Like “whoaaaaaaaa.” Anyway, I just love the idea of this woman knowing this and having this creepy family and then – now I’ve just changed everything. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to do that. But that would be exciting to me because there would be a relationship that I cared about that lasted.

**Jenny:** Right. OK. I could do that.

**John:** I think you raise an interesting point though. What is the tone of this overall? And so from this, this could be a dark comedy, or it could be Breaking Bad. There’s a whole range. It could be True Blood. What does it feel like to you? Is there an analogous thing out there?

**Jenny:** It’s a southern gothic horror story. So it’s very much like Fall of the House of Usher. We’re going to go into some deep family shit.

**Craig:** Fall of the House of Usher certainly has that.

**Jenny:** And I just listened to Craig’s talk, so I’m fully prepared to talk about theme.

**Craig:** Oh, good good. Good.

**Jenny:** But it’s sort of the theme of the sins of the father visited upon the children. So this is an old Louisiana family, named after my family, who–

**Craig:** Did they do this?

**Jenny:** This is their curse. I am a swamp monster. This is their curse for the legacy of slavery in the south is having to do this.

**John:** Cool.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** Great. Jenny, thank you so much for these three pages.

**Jenny:** Thank you guys. Thank you.

**Craig:** All right. Are we moving on to the next one? All right. So our next Three Page Challenge comes from Andrew Cosdon Messer, and it is entitled Seaworthy.

A derelict sailboat floats in the open ocean. A catamaran carrying dad, 50, and the girl, 14, approaches. Dad jumps into the sailboat and when he confirms that it is safe to board he beckons the girl. Upon seeing the starved bodies of a family in there, the girl points out these people did not eat the others when dead. I guess it means didn’t eat each other when dead.

The girl removes the corpse boy’s clothes. Corpse boy.

**John:** Yeah, corpse boy. The unpopular sequel to Corpse Bride, yeah.

**Craig:** Sequels are hard. The girl removes the corpse boy’s clothes and thanks him. Dad and the girl bury him at sea. The girl, holding the family’s bible, wonders if they should say something. Dad says, no, it clearly didn’t help them. A storm is approaching and the girl asks if they can outrun it. Dad thinks not. When the girl notices a spot of blood on her seat, she reaches into her shorts to check for more. Panicked, she calls to her dad. He finds a rag, but he is not equipped for this. Probably not.

And so that is Seaworthy. So, maybe we’ll start with Cullen. What did you think about this and how did it strike you?

**Cullen:** I was intrigued. I sort of – I liked the world. I had, you know, to John’s point, I think it was slightly over the line of mystery versus confusion. On a personal level, and to be hard on you, I felt like the writing was very self-conscious. And I had some questions about, you know, for instance what is a “faded man” and what does “an extension of the boat mean.”

There’s a line, “Names will come later; they have little use for them now.” As a reader, it’s like, well tell me their names. I get that – it felt sort of effort-heavy in that regard. And yet at the end of the three pages I wanted to know are we – I guess my questions, which were good questions, are we going to be at sea the whole time? What is this sort of ritual and this world? Who are these people? That was sort of my initial reaction.

**Craig:** All right. Daniela?

**Daniela:** Yeah, just to echo that, I felt that there were a lot of interesting like movements in this, but there were too many details, or too many – I was like, OK, did this girl just get her period? And now we have this relationship with her dad. OK. And then there are corpses. And then there’s also this biblical element. And I just felt like taking a step back and being like “Let’s explore these characters within this scene, but not have these elements weigh down it.” Because I kept trying to like sift through everything to be like what am I sinking my teeth into? The fact that there are dead bodies in this boat? The fact that this girl has this relationship with her father? Or where they are?

So there were more questions, but they weren’t story questions. They were more just about the world itself.

**Craig:** John?

**John:** So, we’ve seen a version of this scene a lot, which is basically it’s scavengers in a post-apocalyptic world. So oftentimes they’re in the desert. I think I’ve seen boat versions of this before. But it’s a good version of that. And so I was happy to see these are people who are going through their ordinary life even though it’s a really hellish, something terrible has happened.

And I was curious for the natural reasons of like, well, what happened to this family out here. Something terrible has happened.

There were moments where — I don’t know that there was too much detail, but I had a hard time locking into some of the details. An example would be they find these bodies. And so the girl ducks inside to see the abandoned interior and the starved bodies, a family. But what does that look like? And I was trying to figure out whether that means are they bloated, are they mummified, are they skeletons? Where are we at? How much time has passed?

And that feels important for this kind of story. It describes the visual world we’re in and sort of what this is going to feel like. So that texture felt really important to me.

I shared Cullen’s frustration of these characters not having names. Because even if they’re going to be dead on page four, you know, like Jenny would do, I want to know their names because that makes me invested in them, even just for these three pages. And because they have enough lines of dialogue, I felt like they needed some names.

There’s also, in a slug line we have – or sort of intermediary slug line – “The girl, 14, she can drive better than that.” I like that as an idea. But then we go to, “The lanky teenager stands at the stern of the catamaran, wearing a SHELL PENDANT and a bemused smile.” I just got confused of like – we have a reaction about her before we’ve ever seen her or sort of know what she’s like. So, just the order of events and the order of descriptions I think could be optimized a little bit better here.

Craig?

**Craig:** Yeah, I think that there’s a really interesting scenario and I think you are probably – I agree with Cullen, you’re one notch a little too far on the mannered side of things. You don’t have to actually impress anybody with action. And you never need to be clever. The weirdest thing about screenplays, you never actually need to be clever. We sometimes find clever things in screenplays and that have turned into wonderful movies and we think that’s why. But I assure you by the time those pages were being handed around to grips and electricians, nobody gave a shit about the clever. It’s really what’s underneath. It’s the performances, the actions, and the intention.

So, “Faded man, steady on the deck, extension of the boat,” is clever. I’m not really sure what it means. And also I just think it’s ultimately bric-a-brac here.

I think you may have a dramatic ordering issue. There’s something fascinating about seeing a father and a daughter on a boat. I would describe maybe a little bit more about them. Have they been out there for a long time? Are they weathered, sun-beaten? Did they look hungry? Chapped lips? Like what’s going on? Right?

And then I would start with her getting – if you want to do a girl getting her period and not knowing what a period is, which is really informative about the world we’re in, I would do that first. And like deal with that weirdness. And then they bump into a boat and they’re like, oh, let’s check it out. Now that we’ve handled the trauma of the period that she didn’t know was a period, then when she goes into a boat and finds a dead family and she doesn’t really react strongly to that, we go, oh, well that’s interesting. We’re starting to get more of a sense – there’s a dramatic ordering I think that would help you there.

I have no idea what starving bodies look like. All bodies are starving. Because they can’t eat. Right? I mean, all bodies. Starved people look exactly like well-fed dead people after a week. They are all sort of the same. So I kind of got caught on that as well.

And I agree with John completely – some of the ordering – I think you have a lot of ordering issues. So when you say, “The girl, she can drive better than that,” I liked that concept.

Take a look at the way – you’re doing a lot of that kind of break up stuff. Normally I love lots of white space and everything. But, “ANGLE ON a healthy boat, bobbing alongside. THE CATAMARAN.” That’s all in caps. Then, “A faded name is engraved on the once-futuristic twin hulls.” By the way, I have no idea what once-futuristic twin hulls means at all. And then it says, “Seaworthy.” But I thought it was named the Catamaran because it was all in caps there. So I’m starting to get a little – and all those things are – so I think just weeding out some of the stuff, ordering it a little bit better.

I really did like these moments where you’re indicating attitudes in sparse ways. She sees a family of dead people and she says, “They didn’t eat him.” And he says, “No, they didn’t.” So I really like that. And I was interested in their relationship. The most important thing I think that can come out of three pages is a sense of a relationship that matters, even if it’s between one person and an environment. And here you have two people.

And so I think there’s really promising stuff here. I just think you’ve got some ordering and some reduction to work on.

**Cullen:** Their dialogue together helped sort of establish this relationship that I was very intrigued by. For me, the very end of the three pages went to a very basic thing with writing, at least for me personally. I’d be curious what you guys thought. But show don’t tell us. So, dad doesn’t know what to use. They’re not equipped for this. He’s not equipped for this. I would rather see that in his actions than be told that.

**Daniela:** Yeah, I agree. Like what is that frantic father looking for something and that realization—

**Cullen:** It’s a really interesting moment and dynamic, but you’re just telling me that as opposed to—

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree. I think in a moment like that I would probably just write, “He stares for a moment, blankly. Then turns, goes inside, rummages for a rag.” We’ll get it. You know, like we understand. There’s some things you do need to tell people because the circumstance doesn’t clearly lead to a certain kind of reaction, but in this case I think we would be able to do the math. And it’s always more fun to do the math.

**John:** I want to look at a moment on page two. So there’s a new slugline for “EXT. THE DERELICT. LATER.” Later can be anything. And so I don’t know if later if five minutes later or if it’s three hours later. So I would just call out a specific amount of time because it feels like the kind of story where the time is important.

Then it cuts to “EXT. SEAWORTHY – DAY THUNDER echoes. Dad scans the clouds.” So that’s a time cut. Like time has sort of passed. That felt like a good moment for a transition to or something else to cue us into we’ve moved on, we are no longer dealing with the abandoned derelict.

Lastly, I would like to – I actually really liked the period being the last thing we saw in these three pages.

**Craig:** I’m so right about that.

**John:** Here’s why I think it’s good and why it’s interesting. As I said at the start, we’ve seen this kind of setup a lot of other times, and usually there’s a monster. There’s going to be a zombie. There’s going to be something else terrible that’s going to happen. And so for the surprise at the bottom of these three pages to be like a normal, natural human thing was really interesting to me. So that actually made me want to read what happening next a lot.

**Daniela:** I have to be really honest though. I had to reread it several times.

**John:** Ah.

**Daniela:** Did this girl just get her period? Because I think it’s the way it’s written. You can be – kind of make people uncomfortable with the fact that here’s a girl that just bled on the seat and now how is she checking if she doesn’t know what exactly is happening. Because otherwise I was like, did she just – like there are dead bodies in the boat, so is it something else that’s causing it? And it’s the world that can cause that confusion. And it’s only until it says he’s not equipped for this I was like, “Oh, Daniela, you’re so foolish.”

So, you can make it very clear.

**John:** A question for the two of you guys. This is on your desk. You’ve read these three pages. How many more pages do you think you would have kept reading?

**Craig:** He’s right there.

**John:** I know. He’s right there.

**Daniela:** This is an honest exercise.

**John:** Just based on what you read, how intrigued were you to read page four, page five, page six?

**Cullen:** To your credit, I was. If I wasn’t gripped by their relationship and also had answers to the questions I had by 15 I would have put it down.

**Daniela:** Yeah. I would say I would want to know what’s going to be the inciting incident of like this is the world that they’re in, so what’s their call to action. I’m sure when you come up to the stage we’ll know more about it. But if I don’t get to that, even by page 10 of that, “OK, what’s the story going to be,” I’d put it down.

**John:** Cool. Andrew, come on up here. Andrew, thank you for sending this in.

**Andrew Cosdon Messer:** Thank you for helping me out.

**John:** So tell us what this is. First off, is this a feature or a pilot?

**Andrew:** It’s a feature. Feature drama.

**John:** And our dad and daughter the main characters?

**Andrew:** Yes.

**John:** Great. At what point do you give them names? Or do they never get names?

**Andrew:** She gets a name right around the first act turn. And he gets a name right in the middle of the second act.

**John:** And why that choice?

**Andrew:** I wanted to leave them as their relationship, which was dad and his daughter. And they don’t have anybody for the first act. It’s just them. And then they have to sort of rejoin civilization and society. And that’s where names come into play was how do we identify you. And I ran into trouble – the reason that line is in there is because so many readers said just give them names. Well, they don’t have the names because when he’s referring to her as her name, it sounds clunky when they’re talking to each other.

**Craig:** But he could call out to her.

**Andrew:** Which is exactly how it happens. He does call out to her.

**Craig:** But in the middle of the movie?

**Andrew:** At about 27 pages in.

**John:** He could do it on page one there when he says, “Jenny—“

**Daniela:** “Jenny, you just got your period.”

**Craig:** He could do it when he does it and you could just tell us what their names are. Because the thing is it doesn’t actually impact the movie. It only impacts the read.

**John:** Yeah, exactly.

**Andrew:** And now I understand, that’s what I’m doing. It’s impacting the reading as opposed to what’s onscreen.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** What is the nature of this world? Obviously you’re saying they’re not meeting other people, at least for this first act, what has happened? Basically you’ve answered my question. How long are the people that we see in the derelict boat, how long have they been dead? And will we know what killed them in the course of this movie?

**Andrew:** We won’t know what killed them. Just the starvation was the idea. They ran out of food. But mummified was the answer. They sort of dissected and dried out.

I like to think in my mind when I wrote it this is what happens when the world ends out of food and people have to sort of get – the land can’t support life anymore. So that’s what has driven people to survive wherever they can. Our story happens to be on a boat, which is the easiest way to survive.

**Cullen:** Which I feel like it’s going to be food wars, next, depressingly enough.

**Andrew:** And also water wars, eventually, sort of in this.

**John:** More questions?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Andrew, thank you so much. This was awesome. Thank you. All right. Our next one is called Finding Mason. It is by Amy Leland.

**Craig:** Mason.

**John:** Finding Mazin. That would be a tragic comedy.

**Craig:** You found me.

**John:** Yes. A woman in her 30s, Mary Richards, hangs up her wall phone, takes a deep breath, and goes to wake a young girl, Sam, 10, who is asleep next to her dog. She tells Sam that they will have to go pick up Mason. Sam resists saying she’ll just take the bus to school. It sounds like this happens a lot.

Mary insists that they go. At the police station, an angry Mary leads Mason, 14 and innocent-looking, out to the car. Sam and the dog scramble to catch up.

As they drive, Mary seethes. Mason takes a sip from his mom’s travel mug, but the coffee is cold. He pours it out the window, but then accidentally drops the mug. He timidly alerts his mom, who throws the car in reverse to make Mason pick it up. But he can’t, because she has run over it.

Mary and Mason reluctantly burst into laughter, but Sam remains annoyed in the backseat. And that is how far we’ve gotten at the bottom of page three.

Craig, why don’t you start us off? What was your first impression reading these pages?

**Craig:** They were very nice. You know, they were nice. These are hard to evaluate in terms of projecting out where this goes. I think this is probably a movie, right? Thank you, oh, there you are. Because there are some movies that are very much a family study and the first three pages aren’t going to have killer swamps and boats of corpses and stuff.

And so what I’m then looking for on pages like this is a sense of verisimilitude and reality and a consistent tone and that was all there. I’m just going to give you one little thought that’s sort of a general creative, and then I want to talk just about how you’re writing this stuff out, which is a little bit of a problem.

We find Mason, her son, right, and he’s 14. And we’re sort of fascinated because this kid apparently has been arrested. Again. And what happens after didn’t make me feel what I think you would want me to feel. I’m not sure what you wanted me to feel. But certainly there’s this interesting turn that you’re intending where this kid is a juvenile delinquent and a recidivist criminal and her son. And but what he does is kind of cutesy – there’s nothing really interesting about it to me. Where I kind of fell down on these was the mug bit. Because on that page what I wanted – if this mother is going to start laughing, then I want something else that’s just fascinating to happen there. And it wasn’t quite fascinating. It was just sort of mundane. And I’m OK to live with mundane for page one and page two as long as this moment of getting out of jail gives me a little bit something more. Or, there is no laughing, it’s just drive home.

The other thing to just take a look at is your formatting. I’m not a formatting Nazi by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re costing yourself a lot of page space here. There are these big gaps between the end of your scene and the beginning of a next scene. I don’t know how to count paragraph breaks here, but I like a nice double space before INT. something. But you’ve got like a triple space going on.

**Amy Leland:** I swear to god Scrivener just did that.

**Craig:** Scrivener.

**John:** Oh Scrivener.

**Craig:** Oh Scrivener.

**John:** All right. Are they sponsors or something?

**Craig:** It wouldn’t stop me, as you know. When we’re in parentheticals we don’t capitalize. It’s a little jarring to see that. And you really never want to end a dialogue break with a parenthetical under it.

**John:** Yeah. That’s a thing you do in animation but you never do in live action.

**Craig:** Correct. And again we’ve got some random capitalizations sticking up in there. So, stuff like that – you’re kind of going a little crazy on the parentheticals, which I don’t think you need. But, you know, by and large I was with you here until that third page when I wanted more. I wanted to care more.

**John:** Daniela, what was your first read on these?

**Daniela:** So, I really like the intimacy of the characters and the story and sort of this mom’s struggle. But it was kind of unclear to me whose perspective I need to sympathize with until the very end of the three pages, where it’s like this is Sam’s perspective on her family dynamic. And so looking back and like is it then from her perspective whether it’s a phone call that interrupts her sleep, and then her mother waking her up. And I don’t want to put words in your mouth of just whose perspective are we following throughout the story.

I would agree that there’s a lot of heavy detail that I don’t think is necessary, because it sort of distracts me as to – I don’t really care where Cinco’s head is when they’re sleeping, or when they’re in the car. I think that that can all be condensed and made more precise. I think I wanted more from Mason coming out of jail and just, you know, like their attitude. Once his character is introduced, I felt then that every character had the same like dimension to them until Sam’s reaction to their laughter. So just adding a little bit more of a dimension I guess is the word that I’m going to use again.

**John:** Cullen, your first impressions?

**Cullen:** I will probably be a little repetitive. I think similarly I had a point of view question in terms of is this Sam’s movie. And, like Daniela, had the thought, OK, then we probably shouldn’t start on the mom and see her enter the bedroom. It should be either like the first moment is her being woken up.

I was really compelled and intrigued by that dynamic of clearly this has happened before. She’s waking her daughter up in the middle of the night to go pick up her son. The daughter is saying I need to go to school tomorrow and the mom is like, “Well, so what, you’re coming with me.” Like that to me is a really sort of fresh interesting dynamic, so I was intrigued by that. And then like Craig, it was sort of – I was really confused and baffled by that last scene. And it also felt a little clunky of like so we dropped a mug, she rolls in reverse. Like was it a paper mug? Was it a glass mug? Like it just didn’t feel real to me, whereas up until this point it had a pretty – to your point – intimate, real family dynamic. And that scene left me really confused.

**John:** Cullen, I thought of you as I was reading these pages because it reminded of some Sundance scripts that we’ve read in that sometimes their story space is small, and intimate, and sort of like stories that get overlooked. And yet sometimes when we read these Sundance scripts, these writers are newer at the craft and so I would see things – I would see craft issues that I wouldn’t see in other writers’ scripts. And so I’d have to blur my eyes to not see those things and really see what was underneath that.

And that’s kind of what I felt like here. Another example would be like you have headers on your pages and you don’t need those headers. You just need page numbers. It felt like your screenwriting software, Scrivener we can single out, was doing some things that were sort of fighting you on some stuff. And I think just through writing more and through reading a lot more scripts, you sort of get a sense of vibe of what works on the page and what you don’t need to put on the page.

There’s a lot of very specific direction for actors in terms of looking this way, you know, basically where everybody is in a space. And you find an economy where you don’t need to do so much of that. So when you do call it out we really pay attention. Because sometimes when there’s longer blocks where it’s just where everyone is looking we don’t pay as much attention.

I thought the coffee mug moment could work. What I liked is that bump where he drops the coffee mug. It’s just unexpected. And so I think there’s a version of that scene that I think could be really effective. But I wonder if it’s really going to work if we don’t know anything about Mason’s voice or know anything about Mason. It feels like if it had come after a fight or an argument, and like then it happens, then if I’m invested in him as a character that coffee mug moment could play better.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s something just missing in the purpose of that moment, I think. Because if I have a mother who is dragging her daughter out of bed to drive to jail, once again, to get the kid out. And she puts him in the car and I’m sort of marveling at her patience, and her emotional restraint. And then the kid drops this coffee mug and she flips out about the coffee mug I think, OK, I understand. The coffee mug is there really just to sort of show that she was hanging on by a thread and anything could kind of make her go. But that’s not what happens here.

And so I’m not quite sure – in the end it sort of just feels like a little bit of a contrived moment to have a family laugh in a strange situation. So I think it’s probably not the right choice there to pay off what you want to pay off. I completely agree that if we’re talking about this from Sam’s point of view we want to start on a sleeping face of a kid being jostled by a hand – like when the Peanuts teacher is sort of like into frame. Just to let us know. And then I would try and keep it all within her perspective.

Like the mom is going into the jail. She’s sitting in the car. Is she looking out the window? Or is she in the waiting room? Everything should be from her point of view. Her noticing – all of it – it will be so much more interesting I think.

**Cullen:** Yeah. To add on to what you’re saying, I think if you showed at the jail a little bit more specificity of the dynamic between Mason and the mom from her point of view, then maybe that coffee mug moment could work.

**Craig:** Right.

**Cullen:** But we don’t get anything. It’s sort of like they sort of march out all silently and you don’t know – I think you could hint at what the mother’s head space there is pretty subtly and effectively that then would allow that next moment to work more effectively.

**John:** Yeah. You can envision the scenario where you’re setting up the coffee mug as an important prop from the start. Basically they’re getting in the car and she leaves the coffee mug up on top and as an audience we’re thinking, OK, she’s going to drive off with the coffee mug up top. And she remembers and she brings it in. Then you’ve shined a spotlight on that coffee mug so we’re looking for it down the road. That may help you.

And getting back to Sam’s POV, it comes down to even sort of scene geography. So on page one, she hangs up the phone, she walks down a hallway, she opens the bedroom door. We cut to inside the children’s bedroom. Really practically that can be just inside the children’s bedroom looking out, and that tells us that it’s Sam is the important one and the mom is looking in. And so it’s a simplification on the page but also helps us focus on what’s going to be most important here.

**Daniela:** Did you guys crave description of the bedroom for the child’s bedroom? Because that was something that I was like what kind of family is this. Because then when it’s this phone call of “My kid is in jail,” I’m like “OK where are they socioeconomically.” And you can get that from description of the bedroom, or even of the car. Because otherwise I’m projecting a lot of things onto this, and I don’t think that as the writer you want that, because then you’re going to get different kinds of reads from other people.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. I completely agree. You know, like my whole obsession about hair and makeup and wardrobe. But it really does help people to see – in this case also set dec. I mean, we’re really talking about the department heads who will eventually be asking these questions if they don’t know the answers from the page. And so you’re always balancing too much versus not enough, but certainly it seems purposeful that they have a certain socioeconomic status.

This is I assume a single mom in 1981. The boy is dirty, right? He’s like physically dirty. He’s bedraggled, I believe. And he’s in jail, again. This feels lower socioeconomic. And so you do want to kind of just set it. You want to feel it, you know.

**Cullen:** Even as much like do they share a room? Is this her own room?

**Craig:** Correct.

**Cullen:** There’s a bed on the other side of the room that’s completely made up, so you know the kid snuck out. There’s just little details that I think would add so much.

**Craig:** I agree.

**Cullen:** And even I had a question for you guys, because I wrote it down “Where are we?” And then you tease out like Texas Oklahoma drives by, which was helpful, but I did have the question like should we know that sooner. And maybe the bedroom would even hint at that’s where we are.

**Craig:** A good old license plate will tell you a lot. And also because you’re a period piece, showing these little things, you know, what does a poor kid in 1981, a little girl in 1981, have on her bed stand? What is that 1981 thing? My sister, because we didn’t have money, and so my sister had like stickers. Definitely had stickers. You know, the rainbow unicorn stickers, the puffy ones. And then posters from like Scholastic Book stuff, you know, because they would give you those for free.

So there are just things that you can do to help give us a sense of time and place and make us feel – you actually, it’s so weird how you begin to feel more for a human being when you believe them and they’re not just as a prop for a moment of action. You know?

**John:** Last little sort of craft thing. On page three, we use the word seething or seethes three times. And so seethe is like a special word. Any word that sort of stands out you don’t get to use it very often. So, use – one seethe is plenty.

Also, multiple punctuation can be useful when you really, really, have to single out something as being a giant question or a giant exclamation. But it happens twice here, so I think dialing back on that will help you out as well.

But let’s bring you up here, because we want to hear the rest of this.

**Craig:** All right. Amy Leland.

**John:** Amy, thank you so much for submitting these pages.

**Amy:** Thank you.

**John:** So tell us about – is the whole script written?

**Amy:** It is a feature. The whole script is written. I actually submitted the first draft to this conference two years ago, because I use this conference as my deadline, so I submitted a first draft I knew would never go anywhere, but I made myself do it.

**Craig:** There you go.

**Amy:** And it did not get to the second round and I got some feedback that really helped me understand why. And I’ve gone through several rewrites and a reading with some wonderful actors in New York. And you all have actually also answered a huge question for me that nobody has ever had before. I now really get the three page thing. He wasn’t in jail. He was at a police station. He’s a runaway, not a criminal. And so now I’m like, “Oh, I need to make that more clear.”

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, because I was thinking about like the police station has the jail in it, like the rural police station always has the jail. Oh, he’s a runaway.

**Amy:** The first six pages of this screenplay are autobiographical and then I completely fictionalize it from there. But the coffee mug moment was actually an ashtray and in one of our first readings somebody said, “Your lead mother is letting her 14-year-old smoke and isn’t making him stop and now we hate her.” And I was like, “OK, great, it’s a coffee mug then.”

**Craig:** No, actually, that is so cool. And I would go back to it. I swear to god. It’s really interesting. Because that’s real. It’s 1981. So my first year of high school was 1984. And in New Jersey in 1984 in like shitty – well, I grew up in Bruce Springsteen’s home town, which if you’ve heard the song you know how shitty it is. And I went to the high school he went to. And we – I mean, I didn’t start smoking until I was 17 I think, which is still a dirt-baggy age to start smoking. But 14 year olds, 15 year olds would stand outside underneath this overhang and that was the smoking area.

People – kids smoked in 1981.

**Amy:** Yeah, my brother gave me my first cigarette.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s real.

**Cullen:** Also, how telling of that relationship, too.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Cullen:** The fact that she is letting him and the daughter feels like the outsider. Go back to that for sure.

**Craig:** There’s so many ways to actually make her sympathetic. If he’s like, “Can I have a cigarette?” And she’s like, “Yeah, but you got to quit, man.” And he’s like, “Well you got to quit.” Or Samantha is like, “You both got to quit,” and they’re like, “Shut up.” Whatever. There’s so many interesting ways to see they’re tortured and they’re struggling. That’s so much more interesting. And now it’s just a coffee mug. No, you find that person—

**Daniela:** Yeah, find that person. And I also think too often writers are so fixated on, “Oh, my character needs to be likeable.” Your character needs to be relatable.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Daniela:** So, a mother who is a single mom who is sort of exhausted by having the same conversation over and over again, we can all relate to that. And so having that moment, you know, that’s totally fine.

**Amy:** Thank you.

**Daniela:** And just adding—

**Amy:** No, my mother actually like reminded me of that story when I told her I was writing this. She’s like, “Oh my god, you have to put that story in. I love that story.”

**Cullen:** You guys must talk about that frequently, about the word likeable.

**Craig:** The worst note in the world.

**John:** Tell us your thoughts.

**Cullen:** I just loathe it so much, because what does that even mean? And I don’t want to like someone. I want to understand them and be interested in them. And for me, and maybe it’s a taste thing, but I would so much rather someone who is dark and twisted and deplorable because I understand where their actions are coming from than someone who is likeable. Like it drives me insane.

**Craig:** I believe that we on our show have called it the worst note in Hollywood. Because it is. It’s not only wrong, it’s damaging. And, in fact, if you take even a moment to look at movies and television that not only a lot of us individually like, but have been incredibly successful. Just factually financially successful. They have characters, they feature characters that are loathsome, and then you kind of like them and it’s fascinating to see your relationship with them.

It’s the stupidest note. So never. No, never. Never I say.

**John:** Amy, thank you so much for submitting these. Thank you so much.

**Amy:** Thank you.

**Craig:** All right. Well, we’ve got one more. So, our last Three Page Challenge comes from writer Jess Burkle. And it is entitled American Fruit.

In Costa Rica 1904, Charles Keston poses in an explorer outfit for a portrait. He insists that it look dignified and the fresh-faced photographer gives direction. Satisfied with the photos, Keston suggests that they stop there. He conspicuously name drops his girl back home. When asked about her, he quickly asks the photographer to forget he’s heard that. Heaven forbid that rumors start swirling.

The photographer points out that they should see Keston’s railroad in the photos. He’s right. Maybe Keston hasn’t been doing enough pointing. Keston spots a bunch of bananas and runs to collect it for a prop, but he doesn’t see the snake that gets shaken out of it.

While posing again, Keston spots the snake approaching the photographer but is unable to speak. He points furiously, but the photographer mistakes it for posing. The snake bites the photographer, who collapses. It seems that he is dead and that Keston is now alone in the jungle. And that is American Fruit by Jess Burkle. John, kick it off.

**John:** So, I understand that you actually have a history with Jess Burkle. So this is not a stranger to you.

**Craig:** We lived together for four years. Where is Jess Burkle? Hey! How are you doing? I was a judge, I was a judge in the final pitch contest here last year. And I remember your pitch for this. I remember you were hysterical. And you got a pretty good placement in there, right?

**Jess Burkle:** Second.

**Craig:** Second. And I remember, I may have been – anyway, you did a really, really, really good job. It was a very funny pitch and you had terrific energy. And so now here we have some evidence.

**John:** Yeah. And to be clear, Megan was the one who picked it, so you had no idea that this was–

**Craig:** Yeah. No, I did not have my–

**John:** And now everyone knows where Jess Burkle lives because his address is on the cover page. Brave choice. I thought these were delightful. Here’s what I thought was so delightful about it. It had a very clear voice. I completely heard who this character was, what this universe was, what this world was. And I was very curious to see more. I mean, it felt like The Office but sort of in a banana republic. And that is a delightful idea. And it worked really well for me.

I have a bunch of little exclamation points down my pages where it’s like, “Oh, that is a delightful line and a really nice choice.”

There were some awkward moments on page two, where the photographer tries to set up like shouldn’t we see the railroad from here. I had a hard time getting between those lines. It felt like there was kind of a time cut that you’re slicing over in the top of page two where the photographer starts packing up.

In general I felt like the photographer is just there to set up the volleyball for the other guy to spike. And I get that, but I just wanted to have a little sense of who he was. Is he a BJ Novak character who is like really smarter than all of this but is just putting up with it? Some sense of who that guy was, even though he’s going to die at the end of page three, which seems to be a recurring theme among our guests here.

But I was delighted to read them.

**Daniela:** Yeah, I mean, I thought that this was a really fun and there’s a clear juxtaposition between the photograph and the reality. And kind of getting into those thematics of projection versus reality.

I agree with the note of making the photographer like an essential character, because at the very end you end on a note of Keston is all alone and it’s only because the photographer is dead, but I was like the photographer has just been taking photos, so that feeling of doom should have always existed there because that guy didn’t really serve a purpose. So if it’s beyond that of the photographer knows more than everyone else, or the photographer is essentially the guide for Keston and now has died, then the question of now what, we’re invested in it.

So, trying to weave in those details in the teaser would make it much more stronger and then make that note land of the hilarity of like, “Oh shit.”

**Cullen:** Probably just on a personal taste thing, it didn’t give me as much glee, although I did get a very specific voice which I appreciated. I guess on a macro level, if I’m reading this and thinking, “Oh my god, I can’t wait for the rest of the pilot,” I didn’t have that gut feeling. And maybe because it’s a period piece, it did have that sort of Buster Keaton quality which I liked. And almost silly. But that also made me have more of a tonal question at the very end, because now he’s all alone in the jungle, and is this supposed to be comical or is it actually kind of dangerous?

That was my personal question. And then I also had the note what is a “rancid tire” and how does that look like when it deflates.

**Craig:** Well, we’re going to discuss tone in a second for sure. But I have a question for you. Keston is American or British?

**Jess:** American.

**Craig:** American. I’d love to know that, because unless you’ve told me here – I don’t think you have. No. Because this first page is kind of – I love the first page. I love everything about the first page. I love the way it’s laid out. I love Keston’s dialogue. I love the photographer. I love the photographer’s reaction to him. All this dialogue is fun. It’s funny. You’re intelligent. People don’t necessarily need to know what a fauteuil is to understand that this is funny. Because the photographer is like, “Like that rock.” “Ah, yes. More Antony, less Cleopatra.” What the fuck is this guy talking about?

You get it. You get that banter and that back and forth. You get that this guy is pompous and pretentious and is trying really, really hard. So page one, wonderful.

But at the bottom, he slips and falls backward with very little grace, landing as if he’s never touched soil before. So a physical gag like that I don’t want to be interrupted with a photo. It’s going to be tough to pull that off. If he’s, “Thusly?” and then he slips and falls and smashes his face on the rock, that’s funny. You know, I mean, connect it to his attitude. The interruption of it was a little—

Now, page two, he has this thing where he drops this bit about his girl on purpose and then says, “Oh, I don’t want rumors to start.” What is his intention there? You don’t have to answer it now. You can answer it when you get up. But my point is I wasn’t quite sure. I wasn’t sure if Keston knew this photographer, or if Keston was trying to – maybe there are rumors that Keston is gay and he’s trying to puncture that balloon. What is he exactly up to in that bit? I was kind of confused about what you wanted me to feel.

“Shouldn’t we see your railroad from here, Mr. Keston?” It surprised me that this goof has a railroad. I was actually kind of shocked by that. Then the snakes.

Now, here’s the thing. If you’re going to go broad, and this is suddenly very, very broad, then I think it’s funny to have Keston get bit by the snake himself. That’s funny. The photographer gets bit. I don’t know that guy, so it’s not that funny. Plus he is dying, which is super not funny. And the foaming from his mouth and the convulsions, and then the urine, is super not funny. Right?

And at that point I’m so confused about what movie I’m in. I want to be in the movie on page one. I mean, to me, I read page one, I’m like, oh, Paul Rudnick wrote a movie about a banana tycoon and I’m having such a great time.

If you want to do page three movie, then I think page one and two have to be different. So those were all the things that were running through my mind.

Now, all that said, I just want to say great job. Everything was just nice and crisp, clean. I liked the descriptions. I liked the way things were laid out. I felt safe. Except for the moments where I didn’t feel safe. It was axiomatic, wasn’t it?

**John:** I want to talk a little bit about Keston’s character and sort of the foppish, dandy kind of quality. Because on page three is the first time we say effeminate, so “Terrified and effeminate, Keston URGENTLY POINTS to the ground.” In a period piece, to single out somebody as being effeminate reads a little bit differently, but we’re also reading it in 2017. So I would just be mindful that it doesn’t come off as homophobic, which it can come off a little bit homophobic when you single the thing out.

So watch the words you’re using to describe him, because let his actions sort of do that work for you. Be careful not to put too much of a label on him, because it’s going to read a certain way reading this right now in 2017.

One other thing I wanted to single out is it alternates between what the photographer sees and sort of the black and white and the color. And so the black and white could either be the finished image or it could be literally what the photographer is seeing through the lens. If it’s what the photographer sees through the lens, that’s not black and white because it’s still color. But it might be upside down, it might be flipped in an interesting way. So, if it’s meant to be his point of view I think you’re going to need to make a different choice for what that actually looks like from his side.

Anything more before we bring him up? Come on up here. Let’s talk more.

**Craig:** All right, come on up.

**Jess:** Thank you. And I recently moved, so it’s OK. Different address.

**John:** So don’t hunt him down at the address that’s listed here, which was 104 8th Avenue.

**Jess:** 8th Avenue. Six years there. It was great.

**John:** All right. So this is a pilot. It’s a half-hour or an hour?

**Jess:** It started as a half-hour, but it ended up being an hour. Yeah.

**John:** And where are you out with it now? Have you done any readings? Have you done any stuff like that?

**Jess:** I’ve taken it around. And I’ve gotten management and an agent from it.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Cool.

**Jess:** And so now it’s starting to–

**Craig:** Is it them? Is it these two?

**Jess:** You know, open these doors, because – not yet. Nothing’s signed yet, so.

**Cullen:** Just the client we want.

**Jess:** Yeah, exactly. And so it’s getting some good feedback because people say they haven’t seen something about Oscar Wilde running the banana industry in Central America which is what it’s about.

**Craig:** Exactly. Oscar Wilde running the banana industry.

**John:** I suspect this is all really quite good. But I’m curious what else you’re writing right now based – what else are you trying to do and what are you aiming to do?

**Jess:** What I’m aiming to do is be a TV writer that I recently learned more does drama with funny moments. Like a Fargo level comedy inside of really tight stories. So I recently finished a project actually about Johnny Russo who was a recent How Would This Be a Movie. I just wrote a pilot about that and two other French women who are double agents in different time periods. That one is very serious. And now I’m writing a comedy about a lesbian couple having a known donor IVF in Park Slope.

So, I like going after kind of these human stories, but trying to make funny things happen out of them.

**Craig:** Tell me, what was going on with the name drop here?

**Jess:** So, the backstory, or what we come to learn later on is Charles is on the run after he’s been discovered as a homosexual at Harvard University. And so his family essentially says why don’t you go down to Costa Rica and run our railroad, which normally they never have anything to do with, that’s why the railroad isn’t there. And what he finds out at the end of act one is that the company was actually an elaborate Ponzi scheme. There is no money. And now he is alone in the jungle with no money. But he has to still pretend to society and to Boston that he is a winner. And he came here to start an empire and all these kind of things. So that new world hubris that we had at the top of the century.

**Craig:** Great. That works.

**John:** That works.

**Craig:** That totally works.

**John:** Jess, thank you so much for submitting your three pages.

**Craig:** Awesome. Thanks.

**Jess:** Thank you.

**John:** So, to wrap up here, I want to thank our four very brave people for not only submitting their pages but coming up and talking to us.

**Craig:** Fantastic. Thank you guys.

**John:** I also need to thank our producer, Megan McDonnell, who is over there.

**Craig:** Megan!

**John:** I want to thank the Austin Film Festival for having us, especially our room manager, Katie. Katie, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, Katie.

**John:** And a reminder that there is a live show tonight, so come to that if you want to come to that.

**Craig:** Yeah, we will be pretty lit up for that one.

**John:** Uh, Craig will be.

**Craig:** Definitely show up.

**John:** But I especially want to thank Daniela and Cullen for joining us up here. You guys were so, so helpful and generous.

**Daniela:** Thanks for having us.

**John:** Thank you guys very much.

**Craig:** Thanks everyone.

Links:

* Tickets available for the [Holiday Live Show](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/scriptnotes-holiday-live-show-john-august-craig-mazin/) now!
* 2017 Austin Live Three Page Challenge — you can check out the pages [here](http://johnaugust.com/aff2017) or on [Weekend Read](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/).
* Want to [submit](http://johnaugust.com/threepage) a Three Page Challenge?
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](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 Matt Davis ([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_326.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 (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.