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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: notes on notes

Scriptnotes, Episode 728: Beats to Scenes with Drew Goddard, Transcript

March 18, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 728 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

What is the basic unit of story? In the outline and treatment phase, it’s probably the beat, whereas in the script is the scene. As film and TV writers, how do we move from beats to scenes? I’d argue it’s perhaps the fundamental skill in our craft.

Today on the show, we welcome back a guest to help us to discuss this transformational process. Drew Goddard is a writer whose credits include Cloverfield, Cabin in the Woods, The Martian, Bad Times at the El Royale, Daredevil, High Potential, and a new film, Project Hail Mary, which is absolutely fantastic, Drew, and I got to say this last week. This is coming out, presumably, in a period of time where the embargo is off, so we can say how good it is. Congratulations. Welcome back, Drew.

Drew Goddard: I’m so happy to be back. Thank you for having me, John.

John: It will not be confusing at all that you are both named Drews, Drew Goddard and Drew Marquardt.

Drew Goddard: We’re interchangeable. All of the Drews, we’re like the board. We can just move one Drew into another Drew.

Drew Marquardt: Were you ever an Andy?

Drew Goddard: I never was an Andy.

Drew Marquardt: All right. Good.

Drew Goddard: That’s right. An Andy, of course, wrote The Martian.

John: Andy Weir, yes.

Drew Goddard: Are you an Andrew or did you start Drew?

Drew Marquardt: I started Drew. I’m full Andrew, but always Drew.

Drew Goddard: Great.

John: It’s always confusing when our business manager will say, “Well, Andrew does a thing.” Like, “Who is Andrew? Who is this person?” There are other times where I’ll be talking to my husband about Drew, and it’s like, “Is that Drew Barrymore? Is that Drew Marquardt? Which Drew is that?” It’s the list of Drews.

Drew Goddard: Again, all interchangeable.

John: All the same. On this podcast, Drew Goddard, I want to talk about this movie, obviously, but writing, your career in general, and we have some listener questions that I think are going to be perfect for you.

Drew Goddard: Let’s do it.

John: In our bonus segment for premium members, I’d love to talk about TV because you grew up in TV. You still do TV. You have one of the recent hit broadcast shows, so I want to talk about the future of television with you.

Drew Goddard: Let’s do it.

John: We’ll solve it. For listeners who have been longtime subscribers to the podcast, you were on the show in 2015, but it was a bonus episode. It wasn’t part of the main feed. I think we referenced it before. Did we ever rerun the whole episode?

Drew Marquardt: I don’t think we have.

John: Maybe we should do that at some point when we need to.

Drew Goddard: Please don’t. Let’s go with this one.

John: Let’s briefly recap because you grew up in Los Alamos. You had a transformational experience with Olympia Dukakis upon arriving in Los Angeles.

Drew Goddard: That was actually in Santa Fe.

John: Santa Fe, all right.

Drew Goddard: I was a PA on a movie called Scattering Dad With Andy Griffith and Olympia Dukakis, and I almost bled to death on her porch. We don’t have to get into that. We can just breeze past that detail.

John: People should listen to the other episode where we go into further depth on that. Upon arriving in Los Angeles, I remember that you were working on Buffy in a period of creative crisis, and were able to contribute at a meaningful time, which is an experience which is true for myself and a lot of other people. It’s like when things are going great, sometimes it’s hard to get your way in, but you were able to help out in a pinch.

Drew Goddard: I think that’s the case. I think that in TV in particular, there’s a lot of crises. There’s a lot of crises constantly happening. I think I dropped in at a time where it was like I was young. You’re like, “Oh, I’ll stay and work 24 hours a day. This doesn’t seem strange to me. This is what I want to be doing.” I think that that has opened doors for me to learn there’s just no better experience than just doing it.

John: Absolutely. Let’s talk about the just doing it because our main topic I want to get into is beats versus scenes. Let’s talk about, what do you think about with a beat? Because there’s the outlining kind of beat, that sort of unit of story, but there’s also beats within scenes. You’re planning a story. You’re planning an adaptation of The Martian or Project Hail Mary. What is a beat when you’re talking about that level of granularity?

Drew Goddard: By the way, I’m so glad we’re talking about this because this is, not to just jump into Drew’s speeches in the writers room, but you’re going to hear what I talk about a lot because I do believe our job is to make scenes. At the end of the day, the thing that differentiates us as screenwriters are scenes. I see it a lot with young writers is they will come into writers room, and they’ll have beautiful grand ideas about what this needs to be about, what the themes are, all these wonderful things that you want from writers. At some point it will get very quiet, and one of the upper level people go, “Yes, but what’s the scene? What is the scene?”

That’s what we’re here to do, is figure out, how do we shape this scene? Jumping in, I think beats to me are just moments. My process is very much, whether it’s an adaptation or not, I tend to just start with moments that I respond to. It could be big or it could be small. It could be just, “Oh, I like when he said that thing to her.” It could be, “Oh my God, this giant story turn. I’ll put them on a board,” and I’ll just start noting them. Then at a certain point, I’ll go, “I have enough beats,” or just things that I like just to make it simple and go, “Okay, let’s start trying to put scenes together.” Then that takes a while.

Then at a certain point, I’ll go, “I have enough scenes to start thinking about structure.” It builds out. That could take, in the case of something like bad times, years. We’re describing years of my life as I would just put, “Oh, here’s a moment. All right. I don’t have no idea how these things will stitch together, but I like this.” I find myself drawn to this moment over and over.

John: When you’re talking about these moments, they could actually be pretty big. They could be set pieces. They could be sequences rather than scenes. They’re pretty big ideas. These are the big note cards on the board. To achieve the goals of that big note card, it’s a bunch of smaller moments that actually get there. Something that Sorkin talks about is that when there’s an obstacle that forces a new tactic, that’s a beat. Basically, when you see a character make a choice, make a change, do a thing, the story has changed because of this incident, that is a beat.

That’s the granular, smaller version of that. Starting from this big picture of these are the giant tentpole moments, you’re getting the smaller moments that are building up to those bigger things.

Drew Goddard: I love that. He sounds smart.

John: He does sound smart.

Drew Goddard: Sorkin or something?

John: Yes, Aaron Sorkin.

Drew Goddard: Let me jot that down.

John: With two As.

Drew Goddard: Oh, got it.

John: Seems smart. Let’s go back to the writer’s room, though, because this is where you’ll often find beats being discussed. We’re talking about beat sheets also, which is basically the very rough bullet point outline of what’s going to happen in the course of an act or a movie or a script. What are you looking for in a beat? What’s going up on the board? How much are you breaking that? How granular are you trying to get?

Drew Goddard: There’s no right answer. There’s no wrong answer. It’s like you just start shaping. Let me think. There was a Daredevil episode. Here’s a good example of how this starts. The second episode of Daredevil, which is one of the scripts I’m most proud of that I’ve done, on the board, we were just brainstorming ideas. I wrote Matt in dumpster. That’s it. That was the beat. Matt in dumpster. We go, “What is that?” I’m like, “I don’t know, but I like the idea of starting an episode early with our main character nearly beaten to death in a dumpster, and let’s just see.” That beat goes on the board. It’s not a scene yet. We don’t even know what we’re doing here. It’s just, “This sounds interesting.”

You put it on the board, and you think about it. It does start to beg the questions like, “How did he get there? What happens next? Who’s going to find him?” Now we’re starting to shape it. Now we’re starting to start asking questions that connect. “Oh, if somebody finds him, that is going to suggest the scene.” On its core level, this is how we’re building story. Really, when I’m saying, “Yes, but what’s the scene?” What I’m really saying is, “What are the actors going to do?” Because I know, having done this a long time, that’s really what this is about.
We need to figure out what are the actors going to do. You are going to be called to the carpet over and over and over about, “What are the actors going to do here?” You start to just start to build and build things around that very question.

John: It’s, what are the actors going to do? Also, where is the camera? What are we looking at? What is the sequence of events in it? We’re talking about adapting books, but I’ve written many books myself, and those books have beats in them. They don’t have scenes, per se. There’s sections where you’re in one continuous moment of time, and there’s beats that happen within them, but it’s not the same as what a screenwriter does in the sense of there being an actual scene that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, which I guess we have to define what a scene is. A scene does have a start and an end.

While it’s something that could change in the editing, it has a point of view on, “This is where we’re coming into it. This is what happens during the middle of it. This is how it exits. It should exit with a different energy than it started.” That’s the crucial fundamental thing. Your writer’s room could come up with a list of, “These are the beats,” but then you still have to transform those beats into actual scenes.

Drew Goddard: Yes. Part of it, and then to make it even more difficult, you need to make the scenes have a relation to each other. Each scene has to inform the next scene. It doesn’t have to, but it’s helpful if it does. I’m glad you brought up the visual part of it, because one of the most important things that happened to me, this was at Buffy and Angel, I turned in an early script. I think my scripts early on were very sparse description. I remember reading things like, “Don’t know, leave that to the director, leave that to the director.” I turn in the script, and Jeff Bell, who was a wonderful writer and very important to my growth, said, “Okay, but where’s the camera in this scene?”

He made me talk about where the camera is. It wasn’t in a way of direct this because we have directors, but it’s like you as the writer, I want you to think about how this is actually happening. Is it important to you in this scene what we’re focusing on? If it is, we’ve got to figure out a way to put that on the page. If it’s not, that’s okay, too. You don’t want to force it. There are places where you want to let the directors play, but if you know, “No, this is a living, breathing organism. We are making a document for 300 people to figure out how to make this show,” and your job is to direct their attention to what matters for you so that they can go be the best versions of themselves as artists. It took me a while to understand that, but I think they all tie together with what you’re talking about.

John: Going from Buffy to Angel and other early TV experiences to working on Daredevil, working on High Potential, how detailed do you like the beat planning to be? Is it a several-page beat sheet? Is it a detailed outline? What do you like before you start writing scripts?

Drew Goddard: Part of this is just my own, what works for me. Part of this is, it started on Buffy, where we would spend, if you have a pie chart of how much time a script takes, you would spend 90% working on the story and getting it, not even the outline, just getting the board to a place where you can defend every moment, and you can tell production, “Here’s what we’re doing.” What it did was it allowed you, when you started writing, to actually be more free, if that makes sense. I think there was this thought, and part of this is TV. Part of this is the grind of every 8 days you need 60 pages.

In order to do that and do that in a way that you can keep that train moving, you have to be very clear about what you’re shooting early. That got deeply instilled. There’s no better training than having to do that 22 times each year, 22 times each year, and then in Lost, you get to Lost, it’s 24 times each year. That’s an insane amount of pages, an insane amount of beats that have to become scenes. That, really, I’ve internalized that almost to a depressing degree, whereas I will work on beat sheets or outlines for years. I will do 50 because the goal for me, I don’t like to do lots of drafts. I think it’s much easier to be ruthless when it’s in beat sheet form.

John: When you don’t have sharp characters saying [crosstalk]–

Drew Goddard: You don’t have characters and you don’t have things that you fall in love, you don’t have these moments that have taken this become living and breathing. I fall in love with these things, and it’s harder for me, but when in beat sheet form, it’s like, “We’re great, we’re done. Let’s cut it, let’s try it. Let’s try this other thing.” I can be much more free creatively, and so I will do, and I force, there’s an amount of time, especially in the feature world, where they’re like, “Just do a draft, just do a draft, and let’s just start this.” I’m like, “Absolutely not.”

To me, the hardest part is we need to get to a place where we all agree what we’re doing so that then I can go be playful. If I try to be too playful too early, we’re going to end up not making something.

John: I absolutely hear that and want to protect that as an idea. I will say, to give the other side of this argument, is that sometimes you do, it’s actually writing scenes that you discover what your story is, and who the characters are. You actually hear all of it together. We had Katie Silverman on the podcast, and she was talking about how before she starts writing something, she will write a bunch of scenes with these characters that don’t have to actually fit into the movie so she knows what they are.

Drew Goddard: I do that too. I love doing that. I used to. Part of that came from TV where the job nobody wanted was, “Oh, you got to write sides. You got to write sides for the actor.”

John: Tell me about side scene for that, for casting.

Drew Goddard: For casting. If we know, and usually you have to start that process before you have a script in TV. What happens is whoever’s writing the script is not going to do the sides. They’ll say it usually gets dumped to a lower-level writer. Like, “Will you go write a three-page scene that will showcase this character in three pages?”

John: “Make sure that we’re getting the tone that we want, what it feels like.”

Drew Goddard: Exactly. Make it hard. Make it really difficult so that you can see it. In the case of almost everything I work on, make it funny and make it break your heart in three pages. Make it over and over. I got dumped on a lot as a lower-level. I grumbled about it at first, and then I started to really love it.

John: Of course. I would love that too.

Drew Goddard: Oh my God.

John: The stakes are weirdly high and low at the same time.

Drew Goddard: Once you start having fun, you can throw crazy shit in there. You’re just like, “Oh my God, a tentacle comes out of nowhere and eats the person,” because you’re never going to shoot it. It’s fun when you’re in the room. All of the bad times in the casting process for that, all of those scenes are delightful because you’re free in a way you’re never free, because you’re like, “We’re never going to shoot this. Let’s just make it fun for the room.”

John: Then the actors are always weirdly disappointed when they get the actual script. They’re like, “Wait, I think I did. I wasn’t even there.”

Drew Goddard: That was Cabin in the Woods, by the way. Cabin in the Woods. If you can imagine how crazy we went in that movie, the sides were 100 times crazier. Then they would come up, Hemsworth would be like, “What about that?” The scenes I was doing, I was so excited for that. Like, “I know we can’t do that part.”

John: It was never going to be part of. It was all, it was bait-and-switch.

Drew Goddard: That’s part of it. No, I preface this by saying there’s no right answer here. I know friends who will do 30 drafts. They will constantly be doing draft after draft and they find it that way.

John: Scott Frank overwrites, and then has to cut back down, and overwrites.

Drew Goddard: To be fair, when I’m doing the beat sheets, outlining, I’m doing a version of that. On Lost, Our outlines ran longer than the scripts, which is really hard to do.

John: That’s crazy. That’s really hard to do.

Drew Goddard: It’s really hard to do because we were still in screenplay format, but without dialogue.

John: They’re scripting?

Drew Goddard: Yes, but to go longer than the script without dialogue is insane.

John: That’s crazy. That’s wild.

Drew Goddard: That’s not something we’re proud of. You would learn be detailed is the point. When I say outline, they’re functioning as drafts.

John: You have this incredibly detailed beat sheet or outline, but there’s still a fundamental skill of going from that to, “This is really what it’s going to feel like.” I guess you’re capturing some of what it feels like in that outline, but it’s the specifics of what the characters are saying, how they’re interacting with stuff, which line comes first. Are your outlines that detailed that it’s essentially a script but in a prosy form?

Drew Goddard: Sometimes or some scenes are. If I know a scene’s really hard or very technical, I don’t want to be doing anything other than having fun when I’m writing. I will do the hard parts. If I’m like, “Oh boy, I don’t understand,” like with Project Hail Mary, the scientific concept, I don’t want to be sitting there trying to write the scene because I hand write everything. I don’t want to be sitting there trying to figure out the science part. Knowing that I’m making outlines for myself, I’m doing the work so that I don’t have to worry about that part. Like, “Oh, I better detail out the beats of this part.”

If I know the emotional point of the scene, that’s enough. Then I’ll get real simple. Like, “Oh, this is what he’s going through, this is what–” Because I know that will be fun to write, and I don’t have to worry about it. It’s really for me. By the way, we should talk, part of this is an outline for me to write as the writer. Then there’s also the part that you need to do to convince everyone to let you do this. Those are two separate things. I’m looking at it both ways. In that case, what I just described, I probably wouldn’t put all the scientific stuff in there.

If I’m doing this to get people to sign off, whether it’s our directors, whether it’s the studio, whether it’s our producers, in that case, I’m just saying, “Here’s what the story is. Let’s just walk you through the basics of the story. Here’s the point of the scene,” if that makes sense.

John: It does. It’s helping me understand something I’ve never really gotten about TV writing, and TV writing with rooms for especially network is, you do all this work to create these incredibly-detailed outlines and sheets, and then you get approvals on those, and then someone goes off to draft. It seems like going off to draft, it’s a short process and surprisingly simple. I always think, “Oh, well, to often write a draft, I must take three weeks.” It’s like, no, actually, if it was a really detailed outline, it could be incredibly quick because you know exactly what’s in there.

Drew Goddard: I wish that was true.

John: You wish that were true. Okay, yes.

Drew Goddard: Every writer that’s gone through this is mad at you for saying that right now, because, invariably, you then get it off the board, you get the outline, and then you’re sitting with that blank screen or page in front of you, and you’re like, “Oh, God, none of this works. None of this works? What was I thinking?”

John: When none of it works, is it the stuff within the scenes that’s not working or is it the flow from scene to scene to scene, or both?

Drew Goddard: Or both, or just like you start to question your own existential reason for writing this script. That happens a lot where you’re like, “Why did we think this was a good idea as a group?” Sometimes you need just the emotional support. That’s the other reason writer’s rooms are helpful of like, “No, no, no, no. We all know what it feels like to panic,” because that’s the other problem. I would get anything for reads. I think the average, Buffy was four days. Same with Lost, four days. Again, not a good way to do this. I’m not suggesting this.

One of the nice things about how we’ve moved the model from 24 episodes to 8 or 10 is you do have more time. It is the grind of being so far behind, but there’s benefits of that part, too, because you also go, “Oh, I can’t second guess it. Let’s just go.” The beats are not so much dialogue-based. As you know, dialogue’s also really hard in which you want to do it well. Then if you get into that stuff, you’re trying to shape it. No stage is easy. There’s never an easy part of the process.

John: Now, as a showrunner, you’ve had situations where you’ve figured out a whole episode on the board, you’ve transferred that down into a written document, you’ve assigned it off to a writer, and then that writer is struggling, or that writer’s having a hard time doing it. What is the conversation with that writer who’s having a hard time going from, “This works as an outline,” to, “This is working as a script,” what do you do?

Drew Goddard: I start from a place of compassion because I’ve been in that writer’s shoes. I just have the amount of times I was having a nervous breakdown. I remember early some of my showrunners saying things like, “It’s okay. You might wipe out. It’s okay. That’s why we do it this way. We do it this way so if you wipe out, we are all clear on the story, too.” Whoever’s the show writer is, “I’m clear on this too.” It takes the pressure off of, this doesn’t have to be perfect. In fact, it’s not going to be perfect. In fact, there’s things that we thought we wanted that you are going to write, and by you writing them, we’re going to realize, “Oh, that’s wrong.”

John: It wasn’t necessarily their bad execution, it wasn’t a good one.

Drew Goddard: It was like, “Oh, this is what it is.” I think it’s important for writers to hear that. I do think that the fear of failure is one of the great things that stops us in our tracks and can really paralyze us as writers. By the way, as artists, with actors, too, with any of the artists, is why when I’m directing, I want to take fear of failure off the board. In fact, say, “Failure is actually a wonderful part of the process. If we’re not screwing something up, it means we’re not pushing the boundaries hard enough, we’re not trying to.” I think especially when you’re early and you haven’t worked with people before, it’s really important to let them know, “It’s okay. It’s not going to be perfect. This is really hard, what we’re doing, and we are going to get there. We’re all safety nets for each other.”

John: Advice to a staff writer who, for the first time, is taking this document and turning it into the script, how faithful should you try to be to what that was? Is it your own discovery process? When do you need to check in with the show runner if it’s something that maybe it’s not working? Or do you just try it and deliver it? What’s the best way to do it?

Drew Goddard: I think the important thing is before you go to draft, start developing the skill of trying to figure out what’s important to the show runner. Every show runner’s different, and it’s not always clear, because you also have passionate people in a writer’s room who have their own points of view of what’s important. The show runner’s the person that’s going to have to arbitrate all of this. You really want to get a sense of, “Oh, this scene is really important to the showrunner. The show runner, she’s pitched this exact line of dialogue every single time we’ve talked about this. “That line, I better put in.” “This place, she’s adrift. Let me play around here.”

That’s what you’re looking for, you’re listening in. If you’re unclear, talk to the show runner. Say, “I’m not sure about this.” Hopefully, your show runner will be able to talk through this a little bit.

John: All of this is built around the classic broadcast model where the writers were employed in a room during this entire time, and therefore have a lot more exposure to the show runner now that we’re getting onto shows that will have a 10-week development room, and then maybe another 10 weeks to actually do the thing. There’s less time around that writer to get that stuff. That must be a real challenge for getting a sense of what the showrunner wants, and needs, and how the whole thing is going to fit together and work.

Drew Goddard: It’s not ideal. It’s not. It falls upon showrunners to carve it out and do what best they can to get as much time with the writers as possible. It’s a struggle we’re all going through, but it’s crucial. It’s crucial.

John: How do you as a showrunner decide which of the writers in the room is the right person to do a given episode? Is it the one that you see that they spark most closely to, that they do it, or is it just, it’s now we’re rotating through, and it’s now this person’s turn?

Drew Goddard: It’s a little of all of the above and every show’s a little different. Part of the reason I got so much experience so quickly at Buffy is they went in the order of seniority. There’s a reason for that, is that then the seniority leaves to do an episode so that they can come back when it’s time for the younger writers in the room to be there. It cycles. What happened at Buffy was suddenly everyone either had to go off on script or had babies. Suddenly, it was just me by myself. It was like, “Oh, come to set, work with the showrunners on set, and just learn how to do this because there’s nobody else. Everyone’s gone.” I don’t know that that was ideal.

Part of it is weirdly the math of, “Well, if that person’s off on script, who’s in breaking the story? Who’s figuring that part out?” Which is in the back of your head as a showrunner, because you know as a showrunner, you’re going to get pulled 100 directions, and you need to know who’s in the room because some people are really good. It just comes with experience, frankly, at breaking story. You don’t want to abandon the younger writers in there. You can find what makes the most sense, and there’s no right or wrong answer.

John: There are, classically, some shows that they have writers on staff and they are never in a room together. They work on everything separately. There’s different ways that different shows work, and you have to understand what your show is. We’ve been talking a lot about TV, but I want to talk about features. Beats and features are just as crucial, and yet there’s not a room. It’s just you. Can we talk about The Martian, because we actually have pages from The Martian. Just available for us here. We’re looking at pages 12 through 14 of The Martian.

What’s happened in this section is the rocket has taken off without our hero, without Matt Damon. He’s announced that Mark Watney is dead. The Earth has announced that Mark Watney is dead. Then we’re back on Mars and we find that, oh, Mark Watney is not dead. He was just passed out, and is needed to go back to the base. He realizes he’s alone on Mars. Can you talk to me about your experience of reading this sequence in Andy Weir’s book? Let’s talk about what the beats were in the book. Then we can look at specifically how you’re implementing this, where the camera is in trying to tell the story.

In the book, I read Project Hail Mary, but I did not read The Martian. Is it a third person? Is it as a neutral POV on the thing, or is it all from his point of view?

Drew Goddard: All from his point of view.

John: This is very different. Even though it’s a very close third person to the movie, it’s a different experience. Tell me about reading it in the book, and then how we got here.

Drew Goddard: At least I should say, this part is all from the first part, because then it does shift as we start getting back to Earth. When I look at it, it’s funny because this was the original opening to the movie. If you look at it, what I’m trying to do is start, and this is the way the book starts, which is a guy wakes up, injured on Mars, which I always thought was delightful.

I was like, “Oh, this is a wonderful way to begin a movie,” right? If you look at this, what I’m trying to do here is find the moments, okay, he’s going to wake up, and slowly but surely, you’re trying to look at the beats of the scene. He looks down, he sees a jagged length of antenna in his abdomen, right? We’re telling a story, we’re building the mystery of what the hell happened to this guy, right? At a certain point, I realized I need some context for this, which made the previous scene necessary. I was like, “Oh, it’s too much, I’m throwing too much.”

What I need to know, the sentence that I need to, which is the end of the first scene is, “But Mark Watney is dead,” I need the audience to know that the man they’re about to meet, the world thinks is dead. I think that’s really important to this next part, because then you’re building this sort of mystery of what the hell happened, but also, I try to be emotion first and foremost, right?

I want the audience to understand just how lonely this man’s about to become, because, it’s one thing to survive on the planet, it’s another thing that the world doesn’t know you’re alive yet. I feel like that was a crucial part of this movie.

John: You had to backfill and to get up to like, well, how do you actually get to that press conference? They actually need to see the sequence, so we need to spend tens of millions of dollars for this whole sequence of the escape from Mars and why he’s left.

Drew Goddard: What we did, that sequence was in the middle of the movie. That sequence was in the middle.

John: You’re saying that this sequence was originally in the middle of the movie in your early drafts or in early things you handed into people?

Drew Goddard: No, all the way through shooting.

John: Oh, wow, crazy.

Drew Goddard: All the way through shooting, including the first couple cuts. This sequence was in the middle of the movie. The sequence that showed what happened to Mark before was in the middle of the movie, and it was delightful. There was a building of like, “Oh, I want to see what happened.” “Oh, we’re finally going to show you what happened,” and it worked. Then Ridley at some point calls me and he says, “You’re going to hate this.” Because we had talked about this a lot. He’s like, “Can I just show you a cut of the movie where we moved that before?”

He was really nice because he wasn’t sure himself. It wasn’t like he was demanding. He was like, “Well, you just watch. Let’s just watch and see.” I was grumbling thinking this is not going to work for all these reasons. It’s going to ruin all this beautiful tension I have created. Then we watched it and I was like, “Oh, it’s better. It’s just better.” You just felt it. You’re like, “Oh, I like this.”

John: By the way, the reveal of things later on, of course, the movies, is what you end up doing in Project Hail Mary so successfully. The whole movie is built around that, which is not the mystery engine of this. The mystery engine of Hail Mary is, why is he there by himself in space? Getting to that point is built up throughout the whole course of the movie. This was a one-off.

Drew Goddard: It’s a good lesson of nothing ever really dies. If I can’t do something in one place, it’ll work its way back in. If I really want to try something like that, and we definitely found our places in Hail Mary.

John: Yes. The writing and the sequence is great. The reason why I picked this is because there’s essentially no dialogue. It’s a great way to show like, “Oh, scenes are not just dialogue. Scenes are what characters are doing, the obstacles, the challenges, and how they move past, the choices that they make.” We are seeing him wake up on the surface of Mars, realize that this piece of antenna is piercing his spacesuit, getting back to the airlock into the base, trying to treat his wound, and realizing, “Oh, crap, I am alone,” and then we smash cut to the title, The Martian.

Drew Goddard: It means a lot. You say that it’s fun looking at this, because I do take scenes seriously when there’s no dialogue in them. I really feel like that’s one of the things that separates good from great in screenplays because nobody wants to read blocks of texts. There’s something in your brain, especially in a screenplay form, that you’re used to how quickly it moves. I work, even just looking at this now, which I haven’t looked at in 10 years.

John: It’s well done. There’s a reason why you should have gotten an Oscar nomination for it, and you did.

Drew Goddard: Bless you, John. If people are trying to learn, without even reading the words, you can sit back and look at the page and see, “Oh, there’s dense words in certain parts, we’re taking space,” and those words are, “Here’s the character’s name, here’s the thing the person’s going through.” I’m using italics sparsely.

John: You’re using italics, though, just to show what the internal mental state is. The thing that we could see as an audience, we could register that on his face, but you need to stick it there on the page that as a reader, we get it.

Drew Goddard: If you look, what I’m trying to do is actually make the reader complicit in this. I’m trying to make the reader the main character. These are the main character’s thoughts when I’m going into italics that are, in some cases, that are putting you in his place, which I find is very effective, especially if you’re trying to get people on board doing this. Something that, long sequences without dialogue, it really helps to have a point of view.

John: Things like, on page 13, in parentheses, this is not exactly going to be easy to watch. Yes, and that’s true. Again, you’re complicit, you’re saying, “We’re going to get through this together,” and there’s a point of view and a purpose. Drew Goddard, are you still a double-spacer?

Drew Goddard: Oh, yes.

John: Oh, yes, you haven’t changed.

Drew Goddard: Oh, I will, until the day I die. How much do you want to hear my rant?

John: Tell me your rant, because I was a double-spacer, I switched back, but tell me your argument for maintaining double-spaces. In the light of all rationality.

Drew Goddard: Great. I will be happy to go down as well.

John: Let’s start with the screenplay form. The screenplay form is ridiculous. Take a moment and realize that the screenplay form is something that was designed because of typewriters, and how quickly that we could use typewriters, and how quickly you do revision pages. One of the nice benefits of the form that came to be is that, in general, one page equals about a minute of screen time.

John: Yes, the roughest approximation, but useful.

Drew Goddard: It’s crazy how close it comes. In most scripts, you’re not that far off. Now, each page might be way off, but in the aggregate–

John: Most scripts are about 120 pages or about 2 hours long.

Drew Goddard: Yes, and I’ve found that shocking, because I’ve written wildly different forms of scripts, whether it’s straight comedy, or hardcore action, or whatever it is, end up at the same place, which I find incredibly useful. I find it incredibly useful to understand when you’re getting into the budgeting phase, when you’re getting into the directing phase, when you’re getting into time management phase, it’s really helpful to know how long this scene is going to be. For me, why are we changing this? It’s arbitrarily because people don’t text that way. Yes, people don’t write in Courier.

Also, I’m a believer that the negative space on a page is almost as important as the positive space on a page. I believe that if the goal is to be helping your reader through an artistic experience, the negative space on a page is a wonderful weapon at your disposal. Why would you want to crush that weapon? Why would you? Let it flow. I understand we’ll all knife fight. I also understand I’m probably the last person on the hill. If you want to see Drew lose his mind, there was points that we could talk about Hail Mary. There was parts when Chris and Phil would write, our directors would write scenes, and single-spacer, and you would look at it, and they would put the single spaces in the middle, which is the worst defense. At the very least, if you’re going to force it–

John: If you’re going to rewrite me, you should at least double-space it.

Drew Goddard: Or make it all single-spaced, and I will be ashamed. To jump back and forth is the most egregious in a script. To read a script that you’re doing both, we should all be shot.

John: There have been cases where I’ve come in to do cabinetry work in a script where basically I’m not changing, but I’m just doing some certain scenes, and I will try to match the style of whatever was there, including double-spacing or just the difference between double dash and dot, dot, dot. I will do what the thing is just so it actually reads like the thing. That said, if I’m doing a page one rewrite on thing, I’m searching for double spaces and breaking them down to one space because that’s just where I’m at now.

Drew Goddard: I respect that. I do the same, by the way. You and I do a lot of script doctoring. I want to be respectful, but I will start by talking to the writer and saying, “Are you sure? Because if you don’t feel strongly, let’s try it this other way. If you feel strongly, we will go with your version.”

John: That’s great. Let’s talk about Project Hail Mary because it’s just fantastic. Andy Weir has written a new novel. At what point does it cross your transom? When do you start having the conversation like, “Hey, maybe Drew Goddard should adopt this movie since he did such a great job the last time?”

Drew Goddard: Andy and I have stayed in contact just in life since The Martian, but that’s 10 years ago now, right? I actually remember the date because it was so clear. It was April Fool’s Day, so April 1st, 2020. Two weeks after the pandemic shut everything down, world sky is falling. We are in full.

John: It’s not clear that civilization will survive.

Drew Goddard: It really feels that way. Andy texts me and goes, “I don’t know how you’re doing, but I did just finish a new novel. Do you want to read it?” I’m like, “Andy, I’m trying to find groceries right now. No.” He’s like, “Come on.” I’m like, “Of course, I do want to read it.” I also was like, “Are you messing with me on April Fool’s Day because that’s not–”

John: Yes, not cool.

Drew Goddard: He was like, “No, it’s lovely. I’m really proud of it. Would you read it?”

John: Had he told you anything about it before?

Drew Goddard: No. He probably would have if I’d pressed, but I tend to not press writers when they’re in the middle of writing unless they want to open up. I’d love to, but I also know give it space to be nurtured. I didn’t know anything. I prefer that, especially if it’s something that I may want to work on. It’s better so I can have a clean experience. Then he said, “Ryan Gosling is already attached.”

John: Oh. How that happened?

Drew Goddard: Andy’s at CAA. I think CAA sort of put it together. Those are the two pieces I knew.

John: He’s ideal casting. Also, it’s a weird situation to come in with just that piece.

Drew Goddard: Luckily, yes. If it’s in the list of weird situations, that’s a weird situation you want, right? Great. I was also insanely busy with other things. I thought, “There’s no way I’m going to be able to just life-wise, I’m not going to be able to do this,” which I gently tried to tell him because I knew, I’m like, “If you’ve got Ryan Gosling, you guys are going to go. You’re going to be shooting soon, and I’m not the person to be shooting soon right now just because of life.” He said, “We’re going to wait. If you do it, we’ll wait.” He was very sweet about that.

I said, “Well, don’t do that. I’m not going to let you do that.” He said, “Well, will you just read it?” Then I read it. When I’m reading something that I might do, I don’t know if you’re this way, John, I’m constantly looking for ways out.

John: 100%. Absolutely. Oh, this is there, yes.

Drew Goddard: I’m looking all the reasons to not do this, because I know, especially if it’s people I’ve worked with that I don’t want to let down. I’m like, “I want to do a good job for you,” so I’m looking for all the ways I’m about to do a bad job for them. I’m reading it and talking myself out of it, trying to be like, because quite honestly, this book is a screenwriter’s nightmare. It’s a screenwriter’s nightmare, and we’re going to get to that in a second.

John: I read the book well before I saw your movie. I was reading and thinking like, “Oh, Drew easily has this.” Yes, it’s challenging, but it’s not impossible. The reason why I want to talk about beats versus scenes is because the beats of the book are the beats of the movie. It’s just like the challenge is how do you actually implement them, and the fundamental decisions you’re making in terms of how close you’re sticking to his POV, and how to get out of his head. I’m sure as you were reading that, you were thinking like, “This is all inside his mind.”

Drew Goddard: It’s all inside his mind. Then when you finally– All right, let me tell you, I disagree with you passionately that it’s going to be easy.

John: All right. Great.

Drew Goddard: I also knew everyone else that this to me all the time. “It’s going to be so easy for you it’s like The Martian.” I’m like, “It’s not. The Martian–” It’s surfacely like The Martian, but where it becomes wildly different, you have a disaster movie where the threat, the disaster is microbial, so I have to get into microbiology to help an audience.

John: You have a lot of good text from the book that can be incorporated into his drylands figuring out what’s going on.

Drew Goddard: Yes, but you try to make it visually interesting.

John: I’m sorry.

Drew Goddard: Try to do that part. Yes, try to shape it. Okay, that’s step one. Step two, most of it takes place in a narrator’s head who does not know what’s going on. Not only do you not have someone to talk to, he actually doesn’t know what’s going on, which is challenging.

John: Yes, but fundamentally, there’s a second character.

Drew Goddard: Great. I’m glad you brought up that second character. That second character is a rock who speaks in whale songs. He speaks only in whale songs, and he’s a rock, and he’s delightful. Don’t get me wrong. You realize these are challenges when going back to scenes. You’re like, I have an actor.

John: Every crisis is an opportunity. I’m sorry. I’m going to sell you on adapting this book.

Drew Goddard: It’s true. I said yes for the reasons that you’re saying, but I also knew this is going to be way harder than everyone realizes, because when you read it, it moves, but once you sit and go, “Wait, what’s the scene? What is the scene?”

John: “What is the scene?” That is the challenge.

Drew Goddard: That’s where you go, “Oh my God, I’m screwed.”

John: Yes. You had to make fundamental decisions. Reading the book and then watching the movie, a lot of the choices he made were the choices that I also saw in my head, but the actual nature of the ship itself is much different because you needed to create physical spaces that would enable you to have individual scenes and moments in development, and to get out of just his head so he can have physical challenges to get through to demonstrate what the emotional, intellectual puzzle he’s trying to face is.

Drew Goddard: Yes, exactly. Part of this is also your job is not just, I got to make a scene that Ryan Gosling wants to act in. I need to make a scene that my directors are going to want to direct. I need to make a scene that the production designer is going to want to design. [crosstalk] That’s in a good way. That forces you to go, “Okay, let’s think about the room. Let’s think about the space that we’re in. Let’s actually be in this.”

John: Yes, the spaces are bigger than I would have expected them to be, which is completely appropriate.

Drew Goddard: To be fair, that’s the directors, also like, that’s Chris and Phil, because what you’re describing is expensive. I’m like, “I’m not handing you something that’s going to drive the budget through the roof.” They’re like, “We got that covered. We’re going to drive the budget through the roof.”

John: They can handle it all by themselves.

Drew Goddard: Then, to their credit, I watched the movie, and I’m like, “I have no idea how human beings made this.” It is a stunning [unintelligible 00:40:34] production design. It is unbelievable. It was scary. What we’re really describing is my own fear of myself failing. Going back to fear of failure, I didn’t want to fail for Andy. I didn’t want to fail for Andy above all else.

John: You read the book, you have all your excuses for why you’re not going to do it, and then how did the yes come–

Drew Goddard: No. Two-thirds of the way through the book, something happens that made me sit up. I don’t want to spoil it for people, but you will know it. You will know because it will be the thing that you have not seen done yet. At least, we can compare notes later. I don’t remember it happening. I sat up and went, “Oh my God.” There’s four or five of those things in the movie. There’s one in particular that made me go, “Oh, all of the hardships that we are describing actually is set up for the thing that happens.” All of the reasons that I’m complaining as I’m reading this book, I go, “Oh my God, this is what’s going to make this movie transcend,” from my point of view.

A couple of things I do when I finish the book like that, that I’m actually thinking of doing, I quickly write down the 5 or 10 beats that I think that I love more than anything, that are the things. I write them down. I put them in giant font on my wall before I speak to anyone because I know at some point, all of these things are going to come under siege, all of them. Also, not just the outside world, not just people working on the film, not just executives, not just– also by me because you do start to second-guess everything in the course of making a movie. I kept looking at that.

One of those things that I describe is on that wall, which we don’t have to get into that part, but there’s a lot of fights about that. There’s a lot of fights. Anything that’s bold and different, I promise you somebody wanted to cut along the way. You have to remember, “Oh, but when I first read it, that’s why I wanted to do it.”

John: Watching the movie, you can say it’s long, but it’s really this full length. It does the whole thing, and it’s an entire experience. Luckily, I think we’ve become more appreciative of long movies that work really well. They don’t feel long because it’s always exciting and always invigorating. The Marvel movies, to some degree, are probably part of the reason why we’ve been trained to take longer movies, which is great.

You get all of the book in there. As I was watching through it, it’s like, “Oh, what did they actually cut?” The cuts are so smart and so surgical. They’re generally things that a reader of a book who has all the time in the world and all the pages in the world can sort of like, “Oh, that’s an interesting thing about how we paved the deserts of the Sahara.” It doesn’t affect the stakes of the movie that we’re watching. That was good, and it was crucial. There’s reasons to go back to Earth, and there’s reasons not to go back to Earth. You basically chose not to go back to Earth when we didn’t need to anymore.

Drew Goddard: Having done this a lot, the thing that every time I’m working with a new novelist, I have to gently say, “Page count-wise, I have room for about 5% of your novel.” We all have to make peace with that and figure out what are we going to use? You know going in that you’re going to have to do some brutal cuts that are going to hurt. If you love the book like I love the book, it’s going to hurt me more than anyone.

One of the things on that list of 10, at one point—and we’ll just talk about it because it’s not in the movie—was they make a decision to nuke the polar ice caps. It’s wonderful. I loved it, and I thought it was the one thing on the list that’s not in the movie because we all were like, “Let’s try to–” but when you went to what is the scene for that, there’s no version of seeing that quickly. If you want to do it correctly, you have to set up what is the problem, what are we trying to solve, why is this the correct solution. You can’t just say, “And then we nuke the polar ice caps.”

John: In a 10-episode series, it absolutely makes sense. In a three-hour movie, it does not make sense at all.

Drew Goddard: It’s an [unintelligible 00:44:26] end sell. It was a late cut. Even after we had shot it, we were still trying to be like, “Can we try? Let’s try. Let’s mock it up.”

John: Yes, “Let’s nuke the ice caps.”

Drew Goddard: This is a credit to Chris and Phil, our directors. They are not afraid of anything. They were like, “Oh, we’ve already shot a full movie. Great. We can still nuke–” They’ve been right. It’s been wonderful working with them because they come from animation.

John: They’re used to it.

Drew Goddard: They’re like, “If the idea is good, we’re going to figure it out.” There’s something thrilling about that. We tried, but part of it, it’s the scene. You couldn’t figure out what the scene was that could do efficiently.

John: Who’s POV are you in? Ryland doesn’t really make sense for it.

Drew Goddard: No.

John: Sandra Hüller’s-

Drew Goddard: Character could do it, but–

John: -could do it, but what I like about what you do in the movie is that her character exists for how she interacts with Ryan Gosling’s character. That’s the relationship.

Drew Goddard: When you’re setting out to adapt something, you’re going to make a ton of cuts. You need a defining principle. I, very quickly, not that this is deep, but it’s important to say it. You’re like, this movie is about Grace and Rocky. That’s what this movie is about. Every scene needs to be in service, even if neither of those characters are in it. It’s on the B side, on the space side. Then it’s about Stratt and Grace on the A side. That triangle is telling the same story. It comes together. Do you understand?

John: Trust, yes.

Drew Goddard: Yes. Sacrifice and what this means, and what the bigger purpose of life is. When you think about it like that, it’s like, “Oh, yes, every scene is on theme between that.” When you start to divert from theme, it ends up on that cutting room floor.

John: Yes. You’ve decided to say yes. What is your internal process for coming up with an outline? Are you sharing that with anybody else? Is that just yours? What was that process for you?

Drew Goddard: Before I say yes, I like to come up with a very simple beat cheat of like, “Okay, do I think there’s a movie here that I can see?” Even if I don’t have the answers, is there enough that I go, “Okay, I don’t want to disappoint anyone. I want people to know, okay, it’s going to be hard, but we’re going to figure it–” I’ll do a very rough beat cheat only for myself before I even engage. It’s very, like, “In this 30 pages, this happens. In this 30 pages, this happens. In this 30–” It sort of [unintelligible 00:46:40]. It’s not thought through. It’s more what happens every 15 quite often.

John: If it was a road trip, what it is you’re going to stop at on the way?

Drew Goddard: What’s great about Andy is he does have a wonderful sense of structure. He really does. It’s one of the things I respond to so strongly in his writing. There is an inherent structure in what he does.

John: Cliffhanger after cliffhanger after cliffhanger, which is what pulls you through the book so quickly.

Drew Goddard: Exactly. It makes all of the problems we were just talking about easier because you know, “Okay, we can build to these things.” I do that. Then at that point, Chris and Phil were on to direct. Chris and Phil, we’ve been friends for two decades now. We’ve had parallel careers. We both started in TV. They were doing Jump Street when I was doing Cabin in the Woods. We have always been fans of each other and trying to find things to do. That was thrilling, but I also knew our processes could not be more different. They are very much when we’re talking about–

John: They’re jazz. Is there–

Drew Goddard: They are. It comes from animation, and it works really well for them. Whereas it’s not measured twice, cut once; it’s measured 20 times, cut once. They’re, “Why are we measuring? Let’s just cut, cut, cut. We’ll just keep packing away and building something.” I was kind of excited because I knew it was important to try a different process. It was important for me as an artist, when I respect the other artists, to say, “Oh, let’s give this a try. Let’s see how this works.” I think they probably felt the same. I knew, “We need to talk about this now. We need to talk about what this is because we have very different process.”

What I said to them was, “I don’t want my process to stop you from your process. I think the way to do that is let me hyper-focus on structure. If I hyper-focus on structure so that we know this is when this needs to happen, this is the rough structure of the movie, and we can agree on it, you guys can go crazy. You guys can have so much fun.”

John: To paint within the lines here.

Drew Goddard: Yes, “Have fun. I want that, but let’s start with structure.” Those conversations were crucial because then, as I’m doing outline after outline, the goal is to say, “Let’s find a structure that we can be playful inside of.” That is what’s on the screen. We’ve moved scenes around here and there, but if you look at the big arcs of the things, it’s like we have not deviated that much from the initial outlines.

John: Yes. The movie is funny and funny in ways that you wouldn’t necessarily expect, given the stakes of everything that’s happening. That’s because I think you have both a very strong backbone for everything and then a lot of moments for the natural comedy that comes up that I’m sure some of it was scripted, but some of it was just finding in the moments that can absolutely play.

Drew Goddard: Without question. I’ve learned from doing comedy and drama,-

John: The intersections.

Drew Goddard: -if the scene does not have a dramatic reason to exist, it’s okay. You can sometimes have diversions that are purely comedic, but it’s really helpful if they have a reason to do both.

John: Going back to the beat and scene description, it’s like that beat that it just has a bunch of funny banter; it’s not really a beat. It’s not a thing that happens. Nothing changed over the course of it. It’s very unlikely it’s going to first survive the outline stage, but then actually survive the edit. Because it can go away, so therefore it will go away.

Drew Goddard: Especially on something like Hail Mary, where screen time is a premium. You’re constantly having to look at, “I need to do exposition in this scene, I need to do emotional growth in this scene, I need to drive the story forward, I need to explain what the hell’s happening with the science.” You can’t do each one of those scenes on their own. All of the scenes have to be doing a version of that, for the most part.

You realize what starts to happen as we got into it is Drew became the internal clock of, “Do we have the page count?” which I try not to do, but at a certain point, you’re like, “It’s going to really hurt us later in the editing room if we don’t have a structure here.”

John: Congratulations again on the movie. It’s just so, so good.

Drew Goddard: It’s a joy to talk to you, John. It really is. Thank you for having me.

John: We have a listener question here, I think might be really good from Carlos.

Drew Marquardt: “I’m currently working on a pilot. I’ve organized a schedule that requires me to write a specific number of scenes per day, two to three tops, in order to meet the deadline. However, I find it hard to give my brain a rest in between writing sit-downs. Sometimes after an hour or two of writing, I find myself too mentally drained to start the next scene, even though I know what happens in it. Do you have any advice on activities that could help disconnect and recharge the brain battery effectively?”

Drew Goddard: I do.

John: Yes, please go. Go for it.

Drew Goddard: This is a great question. When Twin Peaks: The Return came out, there’s an eighth episode that’s all in black and white, and it’s exquisite. Have you seen it?

John: I haven’t anything.

Drew Goddard: It’s exquisite. I highly recommend it. It’s so bonkers that it made me go, “Whatever David Lynch does, I want to see what he does,” and I started doing meditation. It’s the thing that made me go, “Let me try meditation. Let me see–” I’m not super new-agey, but I was like, “Let me understand how this works.” What works for me is it calms the nervous system. It does exactly the thing that you’re describing, Carlos, which is how do you turn your brain off for a second? The other thing that works is walks. I’m a big fan of walks.

John: Yes, I was going to say walk would be the right choice.

Drew Goddard: Put the pen down, stop writing, just take a walk, and build that into your process because what will happen is those things will become the reward for the writing. Both of those things really help me.

John: Great. Yes. Walks, showers, anything to get you out of your–

Drew Goddard: Showers. I mean showers, especially in the age of smartphones. They were always important. I know this Aaron Sorkin of which you speak; he also talks a lot about showers, and there’s a reason, because it’s forcing you to be bored. That’s the other thing you’re looking for, is: it’s so hard to be bored right now in our world, and you have to force yourself to find ways to do it.

John: The other thing to remember is just like Carlos says, after two hours of writing, I sort of came to the next thing. It’s like, “Yes, because you were working really, really hard. If you were digging a ditch for two hours, you would know that you had to take a break. Your muscles would tell you you have to take a break. Your brain is telling you have to take a break.” Yes, it’s the right instinct to go do something else.

Drew Goddard: It’s a thing I don’t think people who are not writers understand, that it is grueling. There is a fatigue that sets in. By the time I’m finished with any script, I do feel like I’ve run a marathon, I do. I always talk about those videos of runners whose legs stop working just as they’re getting to the finish line. That is how I feel when I get to the end of every single script.

John: Yes, for sure. Let’s try this question from James:

Drew Marquardt: “My friend Simon and I had the same idea for a movie and decided to team up and write it. Because we have jobs, it took us two years to write the first draft. After Simon went through some personal issues as well as losing some interest in the project, we agreed that I take control of the rewrite. I was happy about that, as I thought we’d struggle to have a succinct tone and voice as a pair anyway.

I’m aware that legally this script will always be written by James and Simon, and I’ve no intention of cutting him out of anything, but by the time I will have finished the rewrite, I’ll have probably rewritten 95% of the screenplay. When we start entering competitions or shopping it around, how can I position myself as the writer who has really made it what it is, even though the characters and story were a 50-50 effort?

It’s not about money; I just want to be recognized as the person who’s put the extra hours in to get the screenplay where it is.”

John: Wow. It’s a group project, and somebody did most of the work in a group project. That’s the reality of it, and that it’s probably always going to be true. There’s never a partnership that is equal 50-50. This was not a good partnership. You probably should not write another thing with this person.”

Drew Goddard: I think that’s right. To answer your question, if you really want the credit, you need to write something else on your own if that’s what you’re seeking. Even in the best of times, it’s probably not going to happen, nor should it.

John: All right. It is time for our one cool thing. My one cool thing is Kalina, K-A-L-I-N-A, which is the last name of Noah Kalina, who is a photographer in upstate New York; he mostly does landscapes. He has this series called Kalina on YouTube, which is a bunch of video wallpapers of just video from upstate New York, forests, mostly, that are so amazing and meditative and just quiet and wonderful. You should watch them on the biggest screen you can.

If you have the YouTube TV app for your Apple TV or whatever, put them on a big screen and just watch them there. They’re, I think, better than the Apple screensavers because they are, lots of times you’re in a forest, and you’re just watching him walk around taking photos, but it’s just one still shot. You hear the forest. It is great. Sometimes it’s snow, sometimes it’s rain.

Drew Goddard: Wait, say it again. That sounds fantastic.

John: Kalina, K-A-L-I-N-A. Noah also has a newsletter that’s great, also. You may have actually seen him once before because he was one of those first photographers who was taking a photo of himself every day, and it stacked up. You can see going from 20s to 50 or whatever, and just what time does to a person. His nature photography is incredible, and to have it as video is just an absolute gift. Just free on YouTube. Often, we’ll be watching a show and then when we’re done watching a show, when we’re not quite ready to go to bed, he pops that up on the TV. It’s delightful.

Drew Goddard: Sounds fantastic. Great.

John: Drew, what do you got for us?

Drew Goddard: I think teachers have been on my mind because this movie is about teachers saving the world. My mom’s a teacher. She’s been teaching for 50-plus years. I love teachers. I would not be where I am without teachers. Since we’re talking about screenwriting, the most important thing that happened to me in my career is that I arrived at the University of Colorado at the exact same time that Lucia Berlin, the author, showed up to start teaching. We found each other. She was the person who believed in me, and she was the person that said, “I’m going to spend the next three years with you. We’re going to do this together.”

She was doing it with lots of other students, too, but we really had a connection. She changed me as an artist and as a person. I think because this is on my mind, I’ve been rereading her short stories. I cannot recommend them more highly. I think especially if you like the sort of stuff I do, which is big in genre, it’s not that, and yet you will see the influence. A good place to start, her short stories got repackaged around 2015, and she finally exploded. She’s been dead for a while, so she didn’t get to see this. It would delight her. Start with any of them, quite frankly, but A Manual for Cleaning Women.

John: I’ve heard of that, yes.

Drew Goddard: It’s exquisite. I can’t recommend it more highly.

John: Lucia Berlin?

Drew Goddard: Lucia Berlin.

John: Great. Fantastic.

Drew Goddard: Great.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find the transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. We’ll give you a Scriptnotes book while you’re here. You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram: @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts, hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to our premium subscribers.

You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes, including Drew Goddard’s back episode, and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on television. Drew Goddard, an absolute pleasure chatting with you about film and TV and your incredible movie.

Drew Goddard: John, it has been an absolute pleasure. I hope we get to do it again.

John: Hooray.

[Outro – by Nick Moore]

John: All right. Drew Goddard, we’ve talked about some television over the course of this thing, but mostly about putting stuff up on boards and figuring that out. I want to talk more about TV overall, because in addition to everything else you’ve done, you adapted a French series into High Potential, which is one of the few breakout broadcast shows over the past few years. How optimistic are you about TV in general? How do you feel about TV at this moment? What’s possible? What’s good? What are you seeing?

Drew Goddard: I suppose I’m perpetually optimistic, even knowing there are dark skies above us, if that makes sense. I remember, and part of this is just coming from New Mexico, coming from a small town, not understanding the business at all. When I got here in the late ’90s, everyone was saying, “Oh, it’s a terrible time. It’s a terrible time. It’s not like it used to be.” I was like, “But I just got here. We work in Hollywood.

There’s elephants walking down this set. What are you talking about? Let’s go and enjoy this.” I think that’s always stuck with me. I do think every time period has challenges, and we are definitely in a time period of challenges, but also, what are we supposed to do? Give up? Let’s keep making stuff. Right now, they want to make it, so let’s start shooting. That tends to be my approach of, “Can we shoot something? Let’s go shoot something.”

John: High Potential was a pilot.

Drew Goddard: Yes.

John: It’s a very classical model because you think, “Oh, you just go straight to series and stuff like that,” but you wrote a pilot, they shot a pilot, and we had friends in common who worked on the show originally, so yes.

Drew Goddard: Look, I think I’m a contrarian by nature. When I first got out here, the only thing people were making was CSIs and versions of that. I was like, “No, I want to go work with Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams. J.J., he’s only doing this alias thing. Nobody really wants it because there’s serialization, and we hate serialization here in Hollywood. I was like, “Yes, but I want to write that. That sounds fun,” and that guided my career.

Then what happened was suddenly everything swung. TV became an eight-episode series that probably have been three episodes that we’ve just stretched out. I like episodes. I like beginnings, middles, and ends. Even when something is highly serialized. When I think back on the television that has moved me, I think in terms of episodes. Like, it’s Jose Chung’s From Outer Space in The X-Files. It’s every episode of The Sopranos, if we’re being honest. We could just go down the list. It’s The Body from Buffy. I love episodes.

I was like, “Wait, hang on. We’ve over-corrected here.” There’s something about this art form that I like. I do like broadcast. I don’t like the part of broadcast that makes it impossible to see your family.

John: Yes, the meat grinder of it all.

Drew Goddard: I thought, “Oh, I can create this as a concept.” The French version—I’m always looking to say no. We talked about this—when I saw it, I was like, “Oh, this feels special. This feels like a voice that is needed right now. A single mom speaking truth to power feels like something that we need right now. Maybe I can help Trojan horse it.”

John: Well, it’s also a very clear engine, which is basically, every week, it is a case of the week kind of thing with a different protagonist at the center of it. It feels very doable. Also, let’s talk about the sustainability of it. You wrote it, and there was a star attached who was like, “I need to stay in Los Angeles.” It’s designed for a star who’s going to stay in Los Angeles, a show that would shoot in Los Angeles. Those feel like fundamentally good choices.

Drew Goddard: I realized this before our studio and network, which is the main character’s a mom. That suggests a certain age range. They want somebody who’s a known quantity. In that age range, asking somebody to then go drop everything and move to Budapest or wherever the tax break is right now, it’s not going to happen when you’re trying to do this many episodes. Our only hope of finding a name is to say, “I can get you home to your kids. I can make your life good.”

I said, “We’re looking for two places, New York and Los Angeles. You guys need to come to peace with that because you’re going to hope we can find some actress that will be like, ‘Sure, I’ll move to Toronto.’ It’s not going to happen. It’s just not.” That’s what we said to Kaitlin Olson. She was like, “I don’t want to do this.” I’m like, “I understand. I get why you don’t want to do this, but let’s talk about how we can do this in a way that actually will be delightful to your life,” because that’s how it used to be.

That was Buffy. We shot here. We shot [unintelligible 01:03:29] here. We shot all of my first shows until Lost, which you couldn’t shoot here. There is a joy and an efficiency to being here that I don’t think the studios fully understand. I was like, “This is a show that lends itself to the processes of the days of old. I actually want to shoot a pilot because you learn a lot from shooting a pilot. I actually want to do these things.” There was a reason we did these things. It wasn’t arbitrary. It gave you opportunity to make the best product possible. Not everything needs it, but this one did.

I’m glad to hear you talk about story engine because I think that is the single biggest mistake young writers make. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read pilots that are very good pilots that I read, and I go, “There’s no story engine here. What you’re really writing is a longer feature.” That’s fine. I know there’s lots of wonderful six-episode shows that have been wonderful. If that’s what you want to do, fantastic. I’m always like, “Don’t tell me what Episode 1 is. I need to know what Episode 50 is.” Not in the plot of Episode 50, but where are we? I’ve been a person that’s had to sit in those rooms and go, “How are we ever going to get to this?” You realize the importance of where is the story coming from.

John: There’s a project I’m working on where I wrote, it’s a very premise-y pilot. It’s starting up the things, but then when you actually have the conversations with buyers, you have to say, “This is Episode 2,” because you have to explain, “This is what you expect to happen over the course of a normal episode.” That’s fine. Lost is a premise pilot. You have to explain, “Episode 2 is crucial for this is the kind of thing that happens in a normal episode of Lost.”

Drew Goddard: I believe that Episode twos are the hardest episodes. You can look at most shows. I’m in awe when people do Episode twos well. If you can look at Breaking Bad as a phenomenal Episode 2, they’re really hard to do for the exact reason that you’re talking about. They usually derail everything, if we’re being honest, for a while. In most shows, you learn, “We got to spend extra time on Episode 2.”

John: Yes. It’s always so fun to see, like, the set completely changed from Episode 1 to Episode 2, because I didn’t actually figure out–

Drew Goddard: Yes.

John: That happened to you, too. Yes.

Drew Goddard: We shot in Vancouver, and then we’re here, and so it changed.

John: Tell me about High Potential. You wanted to do this adaptation of this French show. You wrote the pilot, but you didn’t direct it, and you weren’t going to be a showrunner there. How do you make the decision to, like, “Okay, I want this to exist, but I don’t want this to become my life”? Is that really what–

Drew Goddard: That factors into it. That’s part of the equation, but it’s not the only equation. I also really like collaboration. You can look at my career. I am not a person that’s just secretly always wanted to direct, and bitter about it. There’s times I really want to direct. There’s stories that I feel like I’m the best person to direct, and then there’s times where I’m like, “I am not the best person,” and it’s delightful to work with other people. I enjoy that tremendously. I think that’s hard for people to understand, where I go, “No, no, I enjoy being this screenwriter. Right now, I enjoy that part and let you be the director, and I can support you.”

In the case of High Potential, I was like, “Oh, no, Alethea should direct this.” Alethea directed our pilot. She’s better than me at this. For this project, she is better at this. The same goes with showrunner, I knew very quickly, “This show, I’m going to try to start deconstructing the show.” I will start to get bored.

John: You’ll get bored, yes.

Drew Goddard: On a plot level, on a character level, I will start to be like, “And all of these characters by episode 18, they’re going to end up dead, and that’s not what we should do here. I don’t think that’s–“

John: Because you have meta-exploration of what it means to be a procedural showrunner.

Drew Goddard: I don’t want that. I actually think that it’s going to require a resolve of a different time, and part of that resolve is saying, “Drew shouldn’t be the person doing this.” I can be helpful with all of the other parts, but I don’t need to be. It’s fun. It’s fun to not be the showrunner. I’ve done that too, and I enjoy that, too. Every project has its own; it’s like you’re building a combination of what’s the best thing, and I’m lucky that I get to choose.

John: There are more pilot shooting this year than last year, and there’s also longer episode orders coming through, which seems like a promising development. I don’t know that we’re going to get more series to happen, but if we can get more episodes, it’s not just more work, but it’s also just more sustainable.

Drew Goddard: I hope, and this is going to sound cynical. I don’t mean it as cynical, but what I hope is studios are going to remember that this is wildly profitable. I think part of the problem with four/six-episode seasons is it was hard for studios to make profit on that. I don’t care. Studios meant to be clear, I don’t care. I care in the sense that if it’s profitable, they’re going to let us keep making more stuff, and they’re going to let me hire more people, and we’re going to get to do this. These things build on each other. I think we over-corrected as an industry as we were trying to get people to sign up for Screamers. That’s stopped, and now you’re remembering, “Oh, no, the longer this goes, the more profit there is,” and I think that’s helpful for all of us.

John: What recent series have gotten you most excited? What series are you watching that you didn’t create that you’re like, “Oh, wow, that’s a show”?

Drew Goddard: Again, I’m not saying anything that we don’t know, but Succession, I thought, is the show that I go back to. I’ve been rereading the scripts and looking what Jesse and his writing staff did, and I’m in awe of the writing. If you really want to study writing, study Jesse’s scripts. Jesse is really operating at a level right now that I find very profound. Even though obviously showered with Emmys, I still don’t know that people realize how much he’s writing about at the time, and seeing that move forward. It’s good when I’m looking at the scripts and wanting to reread the scripts. That’s the one.

John: Over the weekend, I was having a conversation with somebody who knew a lot of stuff behind the scenes at HBO and was saying that for years, HBO was looking like, “What is our next Six Feet Under? What is our family drama that actually has an engine to it, so it’s a family, but stuff,” and that was Succession. It took a long time for them to find their new Six Feet Under, which became Succession, which was, again, an even bigger hit.

Drew Goddard: It’s one of those, “Not try this at home.” I don’t know how you would ever pitch it. I don’t know how you would ever figure out what Episode 2 is of that show. All of the rules went out the window, and yet, in hindsight, it all makes sense, right? When you look at it episode by episode, I’m like, how did human beings pull this off?

John: They did. Thanks, Drew.

Drew Goddard: Thank you.

Links:

  • Project Hail Mary | Trailer
  • Drew Goddard on IMDb
  • The Martian screenplay
  • Twin Peaks: The Return – Part 8
  • Noah Kalina on YouTube and Substack
  • A Manual for Cleaning Women by Lucia Berlin
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 727: Free Work, Transcript

March 16, 2026 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: You are listening to episode 727 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, what is work? What is free? Putting those terms together, what is free work? How should writers think about the time and effort they’re putting in before getting paid or after handing in a draft? We will offer some guidelines for both writers and those seeking work out of writers. We’ll also answer a bunch of listener questions. In our bonus segment for Premium Members, Craig, let’s discuss how writers should think about portraying law enforcement in this era, where previous assumptions do not seem to hold.

Craig: All right. I’ll follow your lead.

John: Yes. We’ll talk about cops and FBI, and everything else.

Craig: Nice.

John: First, some news. Birdigo, which is a game I made with Corey Martin, is now on the App Store. You can put it on your iPhone or your iPad, your Macintosh. It turned out great. It feels very native to these devices. We got featured by Apple as one of the Apple games we love.

Craig: Nice.

John: If you’re curious about it, it is free. Just put it on your phone and play it.

Craig: It’s free.

John: It’s free.

Craig: It’s free.

John: It’s a free game.

Craig: Is there any in-app?

John: You can do one migration per day. If you want to do multiple migrations per day, it’s a one-time purchase, four bucks, and everything else is in there forever.

Craig: I like it when there’s an option. I like when there’s an option to kick a little money somebody’s way.

John: There are no ads.

Craig: Oh, thank you for that.

John: Yes, it’s just cute, pudgy birds.

Craig: You may understand this because you create apps. I’ll play a lot of escape games.

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: There’s a lot of junky ones that are made, and they’re just ad-supported. They don’t even give you an option to get rid of the ads. The ads are almost always for some other dumb game.

John: Yes, it’s a whole ecosystem.

Craig: It’s a specific dumb game where you either are mowing down waves of zombies, or you’re like that.

John: Or you have to save the king from being–

Craig: Save the King, some crap about the king.

John: I don’t care about the monarchy.

Craig: Right. Why are we so into that?

John: I don’t know.

Craig: Like, “Oh, my God, I got to save the king.” No. Why don’t we form a Democratic Republic?

John: I like that as a choice. If you are playing Birdigo and want to send through a screenshot of your highest score, your highest playing word, I would love to see those. Those are always really fun. If you are playing it, please give us five stars. Leave us a review in the App Store because that helps people find the game. Another app is Weekend Read. Drew, you have the award season scripts up in there, right?

Drew Marquardt: Yes, I’m not doing Weekend Read as much anymore.

John: That’s right. Of course, Chris is doing it now.

Drew: Chris is doing it.

John: Tell us about the award season.

Drew: We’ve got all of the four-year consideration scripts from 2025 in the 2026 award season. Now on Weekend Read, for the features.

John: All the features.

Drew: All the features.

John: Yes, so it’s good. You saw the movie in the theaters, you loved it. Now see what it actually looked like on the page and see what is the same, what changed. I love that. You can start to see-

Craig: Useful.

John: -what it was like before it became the future that you loved. Very important follow-up. Craig, you have solved your email crisis.

Craig: Well, somebody solved it for me. We had a listener write in to give us some advice, and it turned out that I needed to align DMAC and DKIM, and SPF, and a whole bunch of other things that I don’t understand. But I followed the instructions, and I have to say, the instructions were not written well. There were multiple steps where you tried to do something. It’s like, you can’t do that until you do this. I had to go into the domain system and add a bunch of CNote and blah.

There was so much crap to do. At some point, I thought, I’m probably going to just screw up all my email with this. This seems dangerous. I’m like, “Sometimes you do something where someone will say, ‘Oh, if you want to fix something, let’s say, in macOS, go into the terminal and enter this command.'” You’re like, “I hope this doesn’t blow my computer up.” It was a lot of that, and I thought, “It’s never going to work,” and it worked. It fixed it. It was just one of those things where Google’s very fussy about the domain name needs to match where it’s coming from, and so I needed to do a little bit of alignment. It was fixed.

John: I was so excited when I got your email, and it actually came through properly. It was joy.

Craig: Fantastic news for me. I installed Outlook, like everybody who works. I have 12 different emails based on which company and for what. HBO me email and a me email and a Gmail, but my main one, it was nice that you were able to finally receive it. Now you can receive numerous sternly worded emails.

John: Exactly. That’s what I need daily. In episode 723, we were talking about comps, and Craig, I got some real-time in-person follow-up because you had brought up the idea of, quote, “Jumanji in Space.” Raphael Bob-Waksberg, who was the creator of Bojack Horseman, came up to me and said, “You need to tell Craig that Jumanji in Space already exists. It’s called Zathura, and it was directed by Jon Favreau in 2005.”

Craig: Nice.

John: Yes.

Craig: I’ll tell you something. I know this. Whenever I said Jumanji in Space, the part of me that understood that Zathura existed, it just was turned off. That part of my brain was just switched off. It’s not even like I can say, “Oh, my God, you know what? That’s what I wasn’t.” No, that part of my brain was switched off. It has now switched back on. Thank you, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, for a number of things like A, BoJack Horseman, B, turning my brain back on Zathura because, yes, that is, in fact, exactly Jumanji in Space.

John: Here’s the long line for Zathura. Two young brothers are drawn into an intergalactic adventure when their house is hurled through the depths of space by the magical board game they are playing.

Craig: It’s Jumanji in Space.

John: It’s just straight up.

Craig: You know, he must have been so concerned about me, like, “Is he an idiot?”

John: “Did he have a stroke?”

Craig: Yes. “Did he have a stroke? Does he just not pay attention to anything ever?” Me saying Jumanji in Space should be something is as stupid as me saying, I don’t know, there should be a movie that’s not about pulp fiction, but it is in the style of pulp fiction, and it could be called Pulp Fiction.

John: Yes, or a movie about caddies and a gopher.

Craig: And feature a shack. It’s that stupid. I was that stupid. I like that. You know what? I like that he didn’t lead with, “Hey, Craig’s stupid.” That was really nice of him.

John: Yes, and he kept that in the subtext, which is important.

Craig: Since he listens, I hope he can feel my gratitude pouring through.

John: But, Craig, I could have also pointed out that Zathura existed, and I also forgot. I think it’s just one of those movies that people don’t talk about Zathura.

Craig: No one talks about–

John: They don’t.

Craig: That’s the first rule.

John: That’s the problem.

Craig: Yes, no one does talk about Zathura.

John: It’s this movie star, Josh Hutcherson, who became famous off–

Craig: The Hunger Games.

John: Hunger Games movies and Kristen Stewart.

Craig: Also famous.

John: Yes, Twilight.

Craig: Also famous. Yes. It is fun when you go back, and you see sometimes these movies where there’s a lineup of all these people, and everybody’s the third through seventh character. Each one of those is a huge star 20 years later. It occasionally comes up from time to time.

John: Or Pedro Pascal being in a random episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Love it.

Craig: Which happened.

John: Happened.

Craig: It happened.

John: It happened for real.

Craig: He knows it. He hasn’t forgotten that. Like I forgot Zathura.

John: Absolutely. That paid his bills for a while.

Craig: Hell, yes. Those jobs will pay.

John: We have some follow-up on AI coverage.

Drew: Michael in Palo Alto wrote us to say, “The depictions of LLMs on the show, especially from Craig, is not keeping up with the rapid advances in these models. The image of LLMs regurgitating and recombining text from their training data set is a fair descriptor of the prior generation of AI. But the current generation was built using fancier techniques like reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards.

For tasks like coding and math, where you can reliably verify whether the answer is correct, this lets the model try lots of different reasoning chains and gradually gets better at thinking by picking the ones that work the best. So my question for you is, do you think similar techniques could be applied to screenwriting or other creative filmmaking tasks in the future? What would be needed to make this happen?”

Craig: Wow, Michael, that’s a really good observation. I feel like you’ve made a pretty good point. I guess I should reconsider. You’re absolutely right. Things are getting better, and I hope they continue on this path, AI. AI talk, AI vibe, AI like, ah, great. I don’t know what to make of this because I don’t know what it means.

John: I recognize a lot of what Michael is saying, and so I do feel that we have this sense that, well, AI is just a text prediction engine, which was really very true to the first versions that were coming out. If you just use the free versions of ChatGPT right now, it still feels like that, but much more sycophantic.

Craig: Exactly. That’s a great point, John.

John: Once you actually pay for can do much more impressive things in terms of synthesizing a whole bunch of stuff and coming up with a meaningful answer on a thing. That’s what I think he’s talking about in terms of when there’s a verifiable ground truth to come out of it, like code that will actually run; it is much better at that now because it can actually work towards an end goal and test to see if it actually worked. It all falls apart when it comes to creative writing for obvious reasons.

Craig: Yes, there is no right answer. There’s no answer. There is no way. In fact, if you look at how what we do is “verified,” I guess you’d have to go to either box office, or ratings, or critical thinking from critics, or from audience scores, none of which ultimately matter either, because it’s all a complicated dance, and some movies which were very popular disappeared from our minds, and other movies, which were bombs in theaters, some became huge hits later, and people discovered them. Nobody can use this method. There is no way to reliably verify anything. Ask any executive in town, “Boy, do they wish there were.”

John: Oh, God.

Craig: Their jobs wouldn’t be constantly on the line. I think that while Michael is in Palo Alto, so, okay, I’m not surprised he’s a little bit bullish. I will give you, Michael, that you’re clearly keeping up with the rapid advances more than I am. No, I don’t think what you’ve described would have application to creating something. What it has is application to getting an answer correct, an answer that we could have also gotten to ourselves. In this sense, we’re still in calculator territory, even though it is quite more complicated and linguistic.

John: Yes. We’ve talked before about one of the– This was a link that I included in an earlier conversation about this. It feels like there’s something about writing and creative writing that actually does involve having a physical body, and actually having a sense of what it feels like to be in a place to actually encounter things, to experience things, to be in a moment that it’s not synthesizable. It is actually the experience of being in a thing, feeling shame, like wondering whether you should interrupt somebody or not interrupt something. The inner talk.

All of these experiences that humans recognize as being like, “This is part of the human experience that inform every choice we’re making, whether we know it or not.” Will systems like LLMs get to something that is a process that makes it so closely that we can’t tell the difference? I don’t know, but I doubt it. I do think there’s something fundamental about the human experience that these things aren’t going to do in a way that will obviate the need for actual people doing this work.

Craig: Another thing that came to mind, I was rehearsing a sequence the other day with the actors, and we were in full costume, and we were going through things. It struck me how even if I hadn’t written it, even if someone else had written it, everyone understands that they are working with and to some extent somewhat accountable to the creative work of someone. Therefore, there is a certain level of respect hopefully built in.

When you say to somebody, or if you were to say to somebody, “Here are the pages, these were generated by AI.” No one has any respect for that inherently. We are quite free, in fact, to say “I don’t care.” Would computer thought this is a good idea? I don’t. Someone else will say, “Yes, this doesn’t– I don’t like this for–” Everybody can tear it apart, because writing can always be torn apart. The veil that protects it sometimes is the fact that a human being wrote it, and we have a connection with each other, and we can dig in and ask that person questions and debate, and consider. I just don’t think anybody would respect the writing.

John: Now, you’re talking about intentionality and accountability, and these ideas that are specific to the social experience of making a thing, and then watching a thing, and the process is really part of it. These AI systems that are just, ‘boom,’ generating these fight scenes on rooftops between Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt. Well, I guess the intention was the prompt, but that’s not actually how you would get to anything in the real world.

Craig: No, nor would Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise want to do that if they got pages telling them to do that. Also, that is an incredibly derivative thing anyway. How do we get to Tom Cruise? We get to Tom Cruise through Risky Business. Good luck, AI. Good luck writing that.

John: Yes, that’s why whenever there’s AI actress signing a deal, well, that’s absurd.

Craig: That’s just a stunt.

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: It’s like, how many times can I see the robots from Boston Dynamics jumping on top of something and then jumping off? I get it. You guys can jump on tables.

John: I get it. I still love it.

Craig: I love it. I get it, but it’s enough already. The stunt is adorable. The stunt of the “AI actress is just internet Ouroboros.” Is what it is.

John: Well, let’s go from new technologies to older new technologies. In 725, we were talking about what should I do with my DVDs? We had a couple of suggestions. Drew, help us out.

Drew: Trent in Seattle writes, “I wanted to flag an option that might not be on your radar. Scarecrow Video in Seattle. They’re a nonprofit that houses over 150,000 titles, and they gladly accept DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, and even Laserdisc donations. It’s the coolest video store on the planet, and it’s one that’s really changed how my family watches movies. Case in point, my four-year-old is obsessed with Godzilla.”

Craig: Nice.

Drew: “Most of the Godzilla catalog isn’t available on any streaming service, but Scarecrow has all of it. Watching him tear up and down the aisles, picking out movies, gives me that same blockbuster on a Friday night feeling I had as a kid, and that’s not something I expected to be able to share with him. Scarecrow even rents nationwide by mail.”

Craig: Whoa, that’s a cool idea for a business, renting DVDs by mail.

John: I know. I love it. I love it. Watch them circle and become another internet thing.

Craig: In like 20 years, Scarecrow owns Warner Bros., Disney. Yes, this sounds great.

John: This is actually like two-level follow-up because, Drew, you said in 662, we actually mentioned them?

Drew: Yes, we mentioned that they were doing, Scarecrow Video had a fundraiser to save the store. I mean, it sounds like it worked.

Craig: Oh, great. Wow, maybe it worked too well. These guys are out there, they’re crushing it.

John: Yes, if I can find a place to take these, I will gladly put them in someone else’s hands because I think about these the same way I think about books in my library. As we’re sorting through stuff, it’s like, “Is the best place for this book my shelf, or somebody else’s shelf?” If I’m never going to read this book again, it should be on somebody else’s shelf.

That’s why I always donate books to a library, because they have the library sales. Some stuff would go into the collection, but most stuff is just generating money for the library. Good. If someone else wants to read this book, that’s awesome. If nobody wants to read this book, at least they probably have a good way to recycle a bunch of books and chop them up to make new books.

Craig: Chopping them up, new books.

John: Yes. Unfortunately, you can’t chop up DVDs very well to make new DVDs.

Craig: No. All right. Well, thanks for that, Trent.

John: Teresa writes about why physical media is important.

Drew: “When stuff is on streaming, or even if you buy a digital copy of something, it can be taken away from you at any time. There’s things that are not only taken off of streaming, but now aren’t even offered on DVD or Blu-ray anymore. Shows by marginalized creators that were made during the streaming boom, like the Gordita Chronicles or Minx, are just gone now. You could say that people weren’t watching anyway, so who cares?

A big part of why people weren’t watching was because these shows were created in a glut of shows, and they flew under the radar, and they weren’t supported properly. Many of those that did find the shows or films, they loved them, but they can’t recommend them anymore because they’re hard to find or purchase or buy or whatever. Remember, Ellie in The Last of Us didn’t learn Take On Me from finding the song on Spotify. She learned it from a cassette tape or a CD that someone preserved.”

Craig: She actually did learn it on Spotify. No, she didn’t.

John: The whole world went away, but then somehow Spotify was formed early in your universe.

Craig: Yes. No, we do think about that all the time, that if the world ends in 2003, physical media is still king. People do watch movies in the apocalypse because they have cassette tapes. In fact, we’re going to feature one of those movies soon in season three, in fact. She did learn it from Take on Me. You’re right, Teresa. They have been sending stuff away, and they can take it away. Even though technically you are only licensing something to watch when you purchase a DVD, there’s really no effective way for them to revoke that license.

What it comes down to, actually, I think, is the viability of the playing devices. Those are the things that actually we got to think about because they don’t make them. If they stop making Blu-ray players and they stop making, just like they stopped making Walkmans and so forth, it can get tricky. If we have ways to preserve some of the methods to play these things, I think Teresa’s right. Physical media is important, especially if you have something that you suspect would be the thing they might stop providing.

John: Yes. The idea of you cannot see the thing that you created anymore is incredibly frustrating. Also, I remember that showrunners throughout time have made things that they couldn’t show to people anymore, also. In a pre-streaming era, anything that was not on the TV was just not available.

Craig: It’s gone. If it didn’t get syndicated. You could do four seasons of a show, and it wasn’t enough to get syndicated, and no one would ever see that show again in any form whatsoever. The thing is, you and I are used to this, actually.

John: True.

Craig: In fact, when we were kids, if you missed a movie in theaters, you didn’t see it because there was no video for a while, until what, were you maybe nine or something?

John: Well, people will bring up H.R. Pufnstuf, people of my generation, and I have just no idea what it was because it didn’t broadcast in Colorado, where I grew up. I’ll talk to my Boulder friends. It’s like, “Have you been haunted by H.R. Pufnstuf?” It’s like, “Yes.” It’s a thing that other people know that we just don’t know because it just never aired in Denver.

Craig: Yes, well, in New York, we got H.R. Pufnstuff.

John: Yes, see?

Craig: They were awesome. Witchiepoo. Man, they were high. Wow, those guys are– For people who don’t know what this was, it was a children’s show, and it was like kids in a
special island with a bunch of big puppets, and the people who made it were just so clearly high in the best, most lovely way.

John: All good points. I think as I go through and sort through these DVDs and things, maybe I will hold on to the movies I just genuinely love, that I would actually be heartbroken if I could not watch them when I wanted to watch them, but that’s going to be a small subset of these movies. Most of them should go to Scarecrow Video or someplace like that, so other people can use them.

Let’s get to our main topic this week, which is free work. Craig, free work is a comparatively new name for something that we’ve encountered our entire life as feature writers because we just [crosstalk] from every angle. As feature writers, we are constantly going in to pitch on projects and doing a lot of stuff to figure out how to win this movie, win this job, and before we got paid anything to write it, and then a bunch of free work for after we hand in a script, people are always asking for more and more stuff before they pay us again. As feature writers, we’ve always encountered this.

In conversations with TV folks, they’re encountering a lot more of it now, too. Not just in the development process, trying to get that pilot to happen, but sometimes writing scripts after the room has closed because the scripts are just not done. Let’s just talk through the kinds of free work that writers are apt to encounter, what to do with different stages, and try to hopefully find some framework for thinking about, “Is this a thing I should consider doing, or is this an absolute red line, don’t cross this line?”

Craig: Let’s start with what the law is. The law, per the WGA, is you can’t do it. The WGA has, I think, it’s a Working Rule 8, that says, “You cannot write without an employment agreement under the WGA contract for anyone.” The end. Also, that is an impossible standard to hit in a sense. Part of the problem is even defining what writing is. What if I’m just sitting with you and we’re coming up with some ideas for something, but we don’t write it down, or just you write it down, we’re just thinking about it? What if we’re emailing each other?

Again, technically, everything that’s written down is writing, but it is probably an untenable position to say, “It’s never going to be the case that you’re going to write something down without an agreement.

John: Let’s wind it back to, obviously, writers have the luxury. We can just write anything at any time. We can write spec scripts. We just write our own things. That’s how we all get started, is writing our own things. That is the great luxury of being a writer. A director has to have a piece of material to go off and direct, an actor has to have a piece of material to audition with, to stand in front of the camera and say. Writers can just do these things. What often happens is it can be a vague line between this is the thing I’m writing for myself or this is the thing I’m writing for somebody else.

I describe this idea to a producer. The producers like, “Man, I really love that. You should write that.” Are you writing it for that producer, or you’re writing this for you, and that producer may become involved at some point? Those are the blurry lines that feature writers have always been experiencing, but TV writers increasingly are experiencing too.

Craig: You have some things that help balance it out. The biggest one is if you’re writing something and it’s “free,” maybe a better, even though no one will ever call this a better term, would be unhired writing. If it’s unhired, that means they can’t use it.

John: Exactly.

Craig: Now, a lot of times you can’t use it either because it’s based on something existing. They may come to you and say, “Here’s a book, The Chronicles of Narnia,” even though Greta Gerwig’s doing that movie, but let’s just pretend in there, “Here’s The Chronicles of Narnia. Can you give us a sense of how this might go?” Then they just keep– “Can you write it as a summary? Can you write it as this? Can you write us the first 10 pages?” By the way, they’re not allowed to do any of that either, but they can’t use it if they don’t pay you, if they don’t hire you for it. It is not usable by them.

That is something that they’re aware of. Sometimes I feel like they’re not, but it seems to me like the biggest areas where I would have red flags on so-called free work or unhired writing, or whatever you want to call it, [chuckles] is when you are feeling coerced, when you are being told it is a quid pro quo, “Do this in order to get that,” which should not happen, or when you feel like you actually have been paid. You have been hired. They’re just trying to get more steps out of you without paying you for steps. Those are the three danger zones to me. The problem, just as is the problem with all areas of human behavior, is power dynamics. “Am I being coerced?” Hard to say sometimes.

John: Are you being coerced, or are they meaningfully trying to get this thing to exist and to happen? “Listen, I think your script is good. I think if you were to do this, then we can take it out on the town to do a thing.” If it’s a producer saying, “Ah.” If it’s a manager saying that, you’re like, ” Now look.” If it’s your agent, who is in theory your fiduciary person who’s there because they’re going to make money only when you make money, that’s a cleaner attachment, but it’s still always tricky and challenging to figure out what this is like. I do want to acknowledge that we’re talking about writing here.

Obviously, any artist, any person who creates creative output, this resonates a bit with you too because so often, “Oh, could you design this brochure for me? I can’t really pay you, but it’d be an exposure, or this could lead to something else?”

Craig: There’s wonderful examples online of people posting their graphic artists, and people are saying, “I want a logo. I’m not going to pay you, but I will give you exposure.” Then they’re like, “Sorry, no, I get paid to do work,” and then people throw fits, which is hysterical. I think for us, we just always have to be aware that people are trying to take advantage of us. I don’t even want to villainize the people that are trying to take advantage of us. I think they’re taught to. I think that’s part of their job. I think that the idea of getting something for nothing is extremely attractive to people who work in business.

We don’t work in business. We write inside of a business. They’re trying to take advantage of that, and they will try to convince you. Sometimes, as you say, they’re right. Sometimes you’ll want to do it. You will want to do more because you feel like it’s in your best interest, but figuring out which is when–

John: Let’s give a concrete example here. There is a book that a company owns. They’re talking to writers about adapting this book, and they’re meeting with writers about adapting this book. For me, that was How to Eat Fried Worms. The very first project I ever landed was one of these open writing assignments. They were meeting with me and several other writers about this.

We were doing a lot of work and a lot of writing that we were not handing in, but a lot of writing on our side to convince the production entity that we are the people who should be adapting this book. Weeks of my life, a lot of my writing time, doing this to try to land this job. It was the right choice for me because I landed the job, and it got me started. If the situation had been set up, if there were a rule that you had to be paid to pitch, basically, anybody going on this project had to be paid for it, I wouldn’t have had a chance to pitch on it. That’s–

Craig: Worse than that. Pay to pitch is such a bad idea because for some pittance, A, it’ll weed out a lot of people that would have gotten a chance and now suddenly don’t, and B, they just bought everything you said for five grand. You know what I mean? It’s such a bad idea, but I did the exact same thing you did. That was quite a common thing, I think, in the ’90s, and the way that the feature business ran was, it’s funny, I think it’s changed.

Back then, it seemed to me what would happen is there’s something out there like How to Eat Fried Worms or I think Stretch Armstrong was one that was across my desk and many, many others. You would sit, and the expectation was that you would come in and you wouldn’t pitch a take or have a conversation about, you would describe a movie beginning to end. You weren’t handing them anything on paper, and they would often ask.

John: They would ask.

Craig: [chuckles] I would say, “Hmm, now the thing is actually don’t have a written on paper in a way that would make any sense to anybody. It’s all scribbles,” which is not true. That was part of how you got the job, but the real important thing is you didn’t give them writing. You spoke it. Technically, you’re skirting around the thing.

John: There was no literary material being exchanged.

Craig: That’s right. They don’t have it. They can’t hand it to anybody, and they will have to pay you for all the words that happen on paper, but to me, of course, that’s writing. It’s mind writing. It counts.

John: It’s mind writing. Оbviously, there could have been a person in that room writing down everything you said. Now, of course, with AI, they can just pull the transcript of exactly what you said. It’s a little bit moot whether you’re handed in the thing, but it’s also important you didn’t hand it in the thing because there’s no implied that you were giving them this thing, which they couldn’t own anyway because it’s still your work.

Craig: Exactly. That is correct. It is still your work. You did not sell it. They can’t own it, but that was a free writing.

John: What we’re describing here is pre-writing. This is before you got the job. This is actually– it’s a challenge for the guild, any guild, to enforce rules about this, because you’re not an employee of this company yet. You’re trying to land a job. We can talk about why no writing left behind, why you’re not doing these things, but the guild can’t, and sure shouldn’t stop you from going in and pitching on things, because that’s how you get jobs. That is the thing. The other kind of free work is you are an actual employee. You’ve delivered something, and they’re still asking for free work after that.

Craig: That’s a rough one.

John: Which is bad, but really common.

Craig: Very.

John: That is a situation where it’s about you recognizing your own self-worth and saying no, having reps to say no, and honestly, having the guild to say no at a certain point, or even go after and get payment that you should have gotten for work that you really were doing that they weren’t paying you.

Craig: Yes. I will say that we’ve been in the WGA for about 30 years now, you and me?

John: Yes.

Craig: They’ve been talking about this for 30 years. They have not fixed it in 30 years. There have been some great ideas and so many different kinds of ideas. Ultimately, the problem is the guild is not in the room. If the studio executive, or let’s say more commonly, the producer and the writer agree to do a thing, they’re doing it, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Yes, writers will say, “I don’t want to agree,” but you did. We’ll say, “Well, okay, call the guild.” “Well, I don’t want to do that because I don’t want to get in trouble.”

My favorite proposed solution, there is a guy in the 2000s. His solution was, every meeting that happens between every member of the WGA and any producer or student executive has to be recorded and transcribed, and all transcriptions sent to a clearinghouse that looked through to see if there’s– I was like, that also wouldn’t work, but it would cost a billion dollars.

John: It would cost a billion dollars less now with AI, but yes.

Craig: Also, people would just be like, “Hey, we need to meet.” [crosstalk]

John: Absolutely. Whisper, whisper.

Craig: Yes. Of course, you can get around everything. When there’s a will, there’s a way. When people are twisting someone’s arm, and that person is new, as you and I once were, it is difficult. Of course, I was in situations early on in my career where I–

John: Well, and there’s also going to be moments where the producer says, “Hey, listen, this is great.” These are two things. These are two red flags before we hand it into studio,” because I know this is a situation. You can’t fight back against that, because that’s actually good advice at times.

Craig: No one’s upset about that.

John: Let’s talk about some actual remedies here. Things that have worked for us. Giving us a producer before the deadline. If it’s eight weeks, and you give it to the producer at seven weeks, and you can say, “Hey, I’m turning this in next week,” and make it clear, “This is going in, whether you like it or not. This is what’s going on.” That has worked for me.

Craig: It can be taken as a declaration of war by a number of producers, because you can say, “Hey, well, it says in my contract, I got turn it in.” A typical writing period, I think, is 12 weeks. “It’s been 12 weeks. I got to turn it in.” They’ll be like, “No, you don’t.”

John: No.

Craig: They don’t care. They just want it to be good. They’re right in that the studio is like, “Please, keep writing. We paid them for 12 weeks. We’re not paying them more. Keep writing.” That is the silent conspiracy that’s going on behind the scenes to get you to write more when there are perfectly described steps in your contract for writing more.

John: In terms of perfectly described steps, on one project, the producer/director came to me and said, “Hey, I’m about to turn this in.” They came with a whole ton of notes. I said, “This is too much for me to do,” and we actually did negotiate that we took a step out of sequence, so I did my polished up before my rewrite, and that was a solution.

Craig: They’re well defined. This has worked for me, where I will give something to the producer. Generally speaking, if I agree with their feedback or requests, it’s probably not that hard to do them. I want to do them because I think it’s going to make it better. There’s no value in me turning something in and saying, “By the way, I know how to make this better. I just didn’t yet.”

John: [laughs]

Craig: When it’s not great, which is honestly more often than not, then at some point you say, I want the benefit of everybody’s point of view on this, because I want to make sure, especially as you get later on in your career, I’m getting paid this much money. It seems like the person who runs the studio should get a vote, too. What the producer can’t say is they already did. If they did, they broke the rules, and it got submitted. Now they got to pay me, so they can’t say that, so it jams them up. That’s worked a few times for me. Early on, unfortunately, what it comes down to is your agent has to say enough is enough to them, because the agent has other clients that have more power than you do.

John: Agents classically have so many other relationships with that producer that they don’t want to rock the boat too much. It’s-

Craig: It’s tough. The thing is, I feel like you get to a point as a representative where you can call somebody and say, “We have a lot of business together. I’m asking you, please, this one went too far. We will continue to have lots of business together, but we have to do our jobs, and this is part of my job.” Those conversations happen all the time. At that point, that is when the person who’s been trained to get as much as possible for as little as possible says, “Okay, you got me.”

John: Other things that have worked for me in the past, is making sure you have a relationship with the studio executive independent from the producer. If I can talk to the studio executive and say, “Hey, I finish, and the producer wants all this stuff. Do you want me to do all this stuff?” Like, no, they honestly, generally, probably just want the script in their hands.

Craig: Of course. We did help things along in our last negotiation, because we won this thing that I’ve been crying about for so long, which is two steps for writers who are earning under a certain number. It doesn’t apply to because the studios make a point. If I pay Scott Frank $3 million to write a script, I really don’t want to get nickel-and-dimed on drafts. We’re paying somebody $250,000 for a draft; you can get 12 drafts out of them if you’re going to be a jerk about it.

Now, because we built that second step in, that’s guaranteed, the producer feels like we can get it in. It’s not over. It’s not like if everybody reads it and hates it, it’s not over. We have another draft.

John: Other things that can work. It’s recognizing that the opportunity cost of pitching on things that don’t go anyplace. That’s why I always ask, how real does this feel, or is this a fishing expedition? Are they just like they kind of have an idea, they have a book, but it’s not clear that they actually want to make this a movie. It’s not clear that anyone up the food chain even knows this thing really exists. Asking, do they actually own the IP? When you go in and pitch on a thing, and then you realize-

Craig: Incredible.

John: -wait, they don’t even own it yet. They’re just thinking about getting it.

Craig: They spring it on you real late. It’s happened to me a few times.

John: They’ve been trying to make my deal, and it was, “Oh no, we need to get the underlying rights first.” Come on

Craig: Wait. What? That is Hollywood flim flam for you.

John: My friend, Michelle, has a three-meeting rule, which I really respect, she and her writing partner will take three meetings on a project, but if there’s not a decision after three meetings, they’re done.

Craig: Oh God, yes.

John: Love it, great. They’ve done that since the start of their career.

Craig: It’s a great rule, because at some point, put up or shut up. It’s pretty obvious, like, are we dating or not?

John: We got a listener question that is on this topic. Drew help us out with what Nick wrote.

Drew: “In Steven Soderbergh’s recent interview in Variety about his canceled Star Wars movie, he says, “That was two and a half years of free work for me and Adam and writer Rebecca Blunt. What is happening here?”

Craig: [laughs]

Drew: “Has it become common practice for guild members to write years’ worth of drafts on spec for major IPS held by signatories? John and Craig have been tremendous advocates for writers getting paid. My understanding of the MBA is that unpaid writing like this shouldn’t be happening. Is Lucasfilm leveraging creatives’ desire to contribute to their franchise to eliminate development costs, or did Soderbergh convince a writer to engage in fan fiction on the hope that it would lead to a future payday? I’m hoping you might shed some light on what might be going on here and what the WGA’s role would be in such a situation.

John: I looked back at the original Variety article. Nick is inferring some stuff here that I don’t think is actually in the Variety article. I don’t know whether anybody was paid for anything at any point. The overall frustration that Soderbergh is expressing absolutely resonates for me. I want to talk about it because directors also have a ton of unpaid work that they’re going through. It’s all this trying to land the movie, trying to get the movie greenlit. A lot of that stuff is not paid, and they are doing months and months of work, in some cases, for things that don’t happen at all.

Craig: I don’t know the specific details, but I’m going off of Soderbergh’s quote here. Is this kosher per the MBA? Nick says, “My understanding is that unpaid writing like this shouldn’t be happening.” Correct. Unpaid writing like this shouldn’t be happening. As I said earlier, it is a nearly impossible standard to hit in the world, and sometimes it does bend to a writer’s benefit to bend that a little bit.

In this case, what does sometimes happen is there’s going to be a movie. There’s a big machine like Marvel or Star Wars or DC, who knows, and they say there’s going to be a movie, and the movie is going to be based on this thing. You come in as somebody like Soderbergh, and you’ve got a producer, and you’ve got a writer, and you guys pitch, and they’re like, “You guys even do the thing, but the higher-ups aren’t going to let us do the thing unless we know what the thing is, and that it fits in with these other things so da, da, da,” and so suddenly, you become– Maybe they’re even like, “It’s happening, we’ve just got to work out the rights,” something like that. Then one day, someone gets fired, or someone changes their mind, and that thing is not a thing anymore, and it’s gone.

It’s like you were trying to get this job, really, really assiduously, and then they just eliminated that office, and there is no job. That can be incredibly frustrating. I don’t know the specifics of what happens here. What I would say is, did Soderbergh convince a writer to engage in fan fiction on the hope it would lead to a future payday? No, I don’t think somebody like Steven Soderbergh just blindly engages in something like that. There must have been an understanding that then became undone. I don’t know the specifics, all I can say is that the person that I feel the most for is Rebecca Blunt because she’s identified as the writer.

John: For sure. Let’s answer some listener questions. We have one from Nicholas.

Drew: “I’m writing on behalf of a French Screenwriters Association. Each year, we award a trophy to a person who has significantly contributed to supporting and fostering emerging screenwriters. The name of this trophy is a schmuck.”

Craig: [laughs]

Drew: “A reference to the oft-quoted anecdote that Harry Warner referred to screenwriters as ‘Schmucks with Underwoods’.
Recently, one of our American members, who is Jewish, raised a concern that the use of the term schmuck in this context may carry anti-semitic implications. According to this concern, Warner may have used this term specifically toward Jewish writers, and therefore the expression, and by extension our trophy’s name, could be rooted in an anti-semitic attitude.

We’ve tried to research the historical background of the anecdote, but have not been able to find reliable sources clarifying whether the phrase was directed specifically at Jewish writers, or was instead a more general, if dismissive, remark about screenwriters.

Given both of your deep knowledge on Hollywood history and culture, we’re hoping you might have insight into the historical accuracy and context of this expression. Our intention has always been affectionate and ironic, and to highlight the often underappreciated position of writers in the industry. However, we want to ensure that we’re not perpetuating something potentially harmful or insensitive. Any guidance or perspective you could share would be greatly appreciated.”

Craig: As the Jew. [chuckles] It’s always a weird thing when you’re asked to make some sort of decision on behalf of your people because [laughs] I’m not the king of what is or is not anti-semitic. Schmuck, specifically, as a Yiddish term, means penis. It’s like saying dick.

John: Generally, it implies, in the sense of an idiot or a dummy.

Craig: A jerk, a nobody. My dad called me a schmuck many, many times. [laughs] Anybody on the road that wasn’t driving the way he wanted would be called a schmuck. Harry Warner was Jewish. I don’t think Harry Warner was saying ‘Schmucks with Underwoods’ because he was being anti-semitic, I think he was saying ‘Schmucks with Underwoods’ because that’s what a guy like that would have said. [laughter] I personally don’t agree that this term has anti-semitic implications. Anyone can be a schmuck.

More often than not, my parents would call non-Jewish people schmucks. I personally don’t see it. I think they’re using it as it should be used. It’s a tricky thing. It’s very kind that people are concerned and doing their diligence. I cannot render a final decision; all I can say is, I’m fine with it.

John: Related, and a little off to the side, it feels kind of improbable. I don’t use the word schmuck. I sort of know the word schmuck, but I’ve never used the word schmuck because I associated that as a– It’s not a word of my culture for me to use. For a French Screenwriter Association to use it feels a little bit weird to me. That’s the only vibe I get off of this.

Craig: If there weren’t the expression ‘Schmucks with Underwoods’, what I feel is that in a very sweet sort of way, they just didn’t really necessarily know how Jewish that term was. [laughs] They’re like, “This is a fun self-deprecating term that Harry Warner used to describe screenwriters, why don’t we?” I think it’s innocent, and I think it’s fine. If that phrase didn’t exist, that might be a little odd to just suddenly say that, but if you called somebody a schmuck, I would be pretty amused, actually. It’s fine. I’ll give you a pass. [laughs]

John: Give me a pass. Look at that. “Each year, we award a trophy to a person who has significantly contributed to the supporting and fostering of emerging screenwriters.” Actually, it’s more of a mensch, though.

Craig: Yes, that’s the thing. The one real problem I have is that schmucks are assholes, [laughs] so why would you– They’re misusing it. I would be okay if–

John: That’s my bit where I’m very concerned. I just feel like they could find a better term for it, honestly, like a French term for it. There’s got to be something that is specific to what they’re doing.

Craig: If they want to give it a little bit of an American Hollywood spin, mensch would be-

John: Mensch is a better word for it.

Craig: -a perfectly great word.

John: It describes what they’re trying to get to.

Craig: It’s also a Yiddish term. It’s a German word as well. Yes, a good guy. A schmuck is not really– You don’t want to win a schmuck.

John: It’s a weird thing. Just like I have no problem using the word mensch. I’ve actually used the word mensch because I know what it means, but it’s also a positive thing. Appropriating a positive word for a thing feels different than appropriating a negative word for something.

Craig: I think so. Yiddish as a language is dying anyway, so I’m all in favor of people– From my point of view, I wouldn’t even call it appropriation, just keep it alive. Let’s keep the spirit of that. It’s such an expressive language. My parents spoke it with my grandparents, and so I was raised listening to it. I don’t have it; it’s gone for me, it’s gone by pretty fast. To that extent, let’s keep the words going, but it’s just not– I don’t think it’s anti-semitic personally, I just think that it’s–

John: It’s a little off target.

Craig: It’s just off target in this case. Save it for the person that failed the screenwriting [laughs] should get the schmuck award.

Drew: Jane wrote in. “I am currently a development intern at a production company headed by a very successful A-list actor, and I hope to be a working screenwriter in the future. I’m happy to report I love my internship. I get paid, it’s in person, so I’m connecting with members of the company. I even get to pitch IP and ideas to the company’s president on a regular basis, and will be pitching to the actor at the end of the internship. I have an idea I think would really work for this company.

I floated the basic premise, and was met with a good amount of interest. However, some people have told me I shouldn’t just give this idea away, and I should write it myself. I love this idea. I’m invested in it, and I want to be as involved as humanly possible in it. I’m conflicted. If I go forward with this myself, I feel like most likely it becomes a sample for me. If I pitch it to the company, and let’s pretend, best-case scenario, it moves into development, would I likely get cut off there, or would I? What should I do? Should I write it? Pitch it? Both?”

John: Jane’s in a real dilemma there. I can feel what she’s at. The fact that she does want to be a screenwriter is important because she could theoretically write this herself, but she’s working as an intern at the company. It’s a good experience to learn how to pitch to the movie star, that feels good as well. I was talking to a colleague who works for an A-list actress, and had an idea, and he got it. He said, “Should we do this?” Like, “Yes.” They partnered up with another movie star, and they sold the idea, and it was great, and he’s now working.

It can work, and that would be a good experience for you to see how stuff happens. I doubt they’re going to just steal your idea, but it’s a question of what would your actual involvement be with the project if it were to move forward. What’s your instinct for Jane?

Craig: I’m always wondering who these people are. “Some people have told me that I shouldn’t just give this idea away.” No one’s giving anything away. There’s no giving away. I would say to Jane, it sounds like you’re so invested in this that you should write it. If you write it as an original screenplay, the next thing you can do is give it to this company to say, “Are you interested in this original screenplay I’ve written?” Now, if the deal that you’re under as an intern, you’ve got to check the fine print here is that they own the contents of your brain from wake up to go to sleep, then you’ve got an issue.

If you have it carved out so the things you work on during the day belong to them, and the things you work on at night belong to you, then I think you would say, “Hey, company President, I wrote a script. Read it.” If they like it, then they have a real decision to make. If they don’t, you have a script that you can sell to somebody else. Either way, no one’s giving anything away. I do worry a little bit about a pitch in the sense that they could– If it’s a pitch and nothing else, then they need a writer, and they may then say, “We’re not going to hire you to write this.”

John: I don’t think she should expect that she’s going to pitch it to the company and they’re going to say, “Oh, you should write it.” They’ll just say, like, “Great. Come up with a list of writers-

Craig: Exactly.

John: -to do this idea.” That is a reality there. The only other thing I would remind Jane is you have this good idea, which probably came into being because you were working with this actor, but you also have a lot of other really good ideas, too. This isn’t the only good idea. This idea is percolating at the top because you have an opportunity there with this actor. My instinct would probably be to pitch it and just to see how high up it goes, and see what happens with it, and just maybe let this one go a little bit, and just see what happens with it, because you’ll write many other things.

Craig: Feel so bad, she was like, “Should I write it, pitch it?” I’m like, “Write it,” and you’re like, “Pitch it.”

John: Yes, I think they’re both good choices, honestly.

Craig: They are. I think the most important thing, Jane, is to not worry about this notion of giving it away.

John: Yes.

Craig: I don’t know, people get real tight about this stuff early on. Everyone thinks they know stuff. Nobody knows.

John: Yes.

Craig: Somebody once said,-

John: Somebody once said.

Craig: -“Nobody knows anything.”

John: Yes, whoever that person was.

Craig: That was a gold man.

John: That was a gold man who said that. It’s time for one cool thing.

Craig: Woo-hoo.

John: Mine is a physical thing. It is a running belt. I’m about to run another half-marathon.

Craig: Congrats.

John: Usually, when I run, I keep my phone in my pocket, and it’s fine, it swings around a little bit, but it’s fine, I’m used to it, but on longer races, I also have to have gel packs for calories along the way, and there’s other stuff to hold on to. I got this running belt, which is a 4-inch wide piece of fabric that has slots in it that you can slide your phone in and slide the gel packs in. It actually is much better than keeping my phone in my pocket. I’ve really enjoyed running with it. It just keeps stuff centred on your body and stuff from moving around so much.

Craig: Good.

John: I liked it. It’s like a $30 little belt. It’s made my running life better. The FlipBelt Classic running belt, if you are a runner. There’s no adjustment to it. You have to actually measure it to see what’s the right sizes. It’s worked out really well for me.

Craig: Awesome. My one cool thing is, it’s fairly localized. It’s for those folks who are up here with me in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. You know I love an escape room.

John: Oh, yes.

Craig: I also love a puzzle hunt, and we don’t get many of those around. There’s a group up here called Secret City, and they run a number of events. It’s a little bit of an improv theatre. In this one that I went to, it’s called The Wedding Party. You go to a wedding, and they serve you dinner at a restaurant, and you meet characters, and they interact with you, move around, and then there are puzzles.

John: Great.

Craig: I had such a great time. They were really good, fun, and engaging. The group that I was with, I don’t think they were used to professional puzzle hunt people.
[laughter]

John: They were destroying them.

Craig: The woman who ran it walked out at one point, [laughs] because she was like, “I just want to be clear, there’s another hour left,” and we’re like, “Yes.” She goes, “But an hour,” because we were basically done. We were like, “No, it’s cool. It’s totally cool. We’re having a great time.” We would talk to the actors, have fun, and interact. It was just a fun evening.
They have a number of events. I think the one that I went to, which was The Wedding Party, has been extended now through into possibly May. They have, I guess, another one that they run up here that I’m going to go to. If you’re up here in BC, check them out.

John: Drew, was I remembering correctly that you’re headed to a murder mystery tonight?

Drew: Tonight.

Craig: Oh, nice.

Drew: We all get roles. I forget my guy’s name, but yes.

Craig: Oh, you’ve already forgotten your guy’s name?

John: Well, he’s internalized it so much that it’s actually just a part of him now.

Drew: Yes.

Craig: Or what if it was like a memento, murder mystery party?

Drew: [unintelligible 00:53:24]

Craig: You have no idea who you are-

John: You have to figure out who you are.

Craig: -or if you killed somebody.

Drew: Yes, who am I?

John: Why am I even here?

Craig: Is there a company that runs it, or is it just your friends?

Drew: My friends have gone through a company. It’s in the Partiful, which is always just such a nightmare to–

Craig: Partiful suddenly is part of my life now. There was no Partiful, and now there’s all Partiful. Where did Partiful come from?

Drew: It costs money, too, doesn’t it? Partiful? To send out an invite on it?

Craig: I think it doesn’t. I think they’re just mining your data. I think it’s actually controversial because it’s like the Palantir people.

John: Oh, [unintelligible 00:53:57] [crosstalk]

Craig: What’s the other service?

John: Well, there’s Evite, which I’m used to.

Craig: Yes, [unintelligible 00:54:01]. Yes.

John: So then the other is Partiful. I’m like, “Where did this even come from? Was Evite falling down on the job?”

Craig: No. Apple has invites as well, but no one uses them.

John: No one uses them. Well, now we live in the Partiful era.

Craig: Tell us what you found, Drew.

Drew: It’s Eclipse 54, and I am playing Reggie Rich, the mysterious businessman. Reggie’s presence adds a touch of roughness to the venue.

John: All right.

Craig: I’m not sure about this casting. I got to be honest.

John: Drew is a coarse businessman, yes, it’s well cast.

Craig: I don’t like this casting, to be honest with you. [laughs] It’s the rough part. You’re going to have to work there.

Drew: You don’t think I can be rough?

John: This man went to Scottish– wait, what academy did you go to?

Drew: Yes, Royal Scottish Academy.

John: Royal Scottish Academy.

Drew: I’ve been jumped.

Craig: Right, exactly.

Drew: I haven’t been in fights. I’ve been jumped.

Craig: I’ve been beaten up. I’m rough.

Drew: I’ve been beaten up.

Craig: No, you’re a victim.
[laughter]

Drew: Yes.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt–

Craig: Victim.

John: -and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Hero.

John: Our outro this week is by Eric Pearson. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You will find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. This Scriptnotes book is out and available wherever you buy books. Thank you for keeping and buying the books.

Craig: Oh, how’s that going?

John: Our numbers are still trucking along.

Craig: Okay.

John: That is really nice.

Craig: I think we wrote something that will stand the test of time.

John: I certainly hope so.

Craig: At least from a color point of view.

John: Yes, it’s bright. I hope it doesn’t fade in the sunlight. We’ll see.

Craig: I think the sun fades in the light of the book.

John: Yes, that’s what it is.

Craig: Yes.

John: You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You can find us on Instagram @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts, hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find all those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you again to our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week.

Craig: Yay.

John: You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on law enforcement and depictions on screen. Craig and Drew, thank you for a great episode.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, Drew, help us out. We’ve got an email from Cooper setting us up.

Drew: Yes, Cooper writes, “I’m currently writing a script that features an FBI agent. Generally, I wouldn’t have an issue with writing a character who is competent and is somewhat respectable. My problem is that our current FBI is neither of those things due to a number of circumstances in the past year. My question is, how does one go about writing a job that isn’t just what it used to be, or a job that is perceived differently? Do I just write whatever best fits my story, or should I factor in reality a bit?”

John: This is a real thing.

Craig: Yes.

John: It reminds me a bit of the panic among screenwriters when cell phones became prevalent. [laughs] What do we do about this? At what point do we just all agree that everyone’s walking around with a cell phone? At what point do we all agree that federal law enforcement has become compromised and is a laughingstock, which must be incredibly upsetting to what I imagine are a lot of very respectable, very good, competent, thoughtful, caring law enforcement officers.

My gut is that you can absolutely write anybody to be competent and good and decent, but it probably makes sense to acknowledge that the agency they’re working for has changed, and it isn’t the same, and that there are problems if that is the way you want to go. It just feels like, for me at least, I would struggle to write a story now about an FBI agent without acknowledging that it is no longer Eliot Ness & Co.

Craig: Yes. Really, I think what Cooper is touching at is like you’re always trying to establish the reality of the world that you’re putting up on screen, and so you can absolutely write a story with FBI agents who are doing detailed, thoughtful, neutral work that is not politically motivated, who are not corrupt, but you’re going to have to establish the very setting of the movie. We’re going to have to meet these characters and understand how they’re working and what they’re working in and what the universe of the FBI is like in your specific world.

I’m thinking about a show I really love, The Diplomat on Netflix, which is just terrific. In that world, the people are conflicted, but they are all hyper-competent and they’re really good at their jobs in a way that it does not match up with the current federal administration. Yes, the show started before this administration was in office.

John: That helps.

Craig: It helps.

John: It helps.

Craig: It helps.

John: Yes.

Craig: We still have a memory of what that would be like. We still know what competence looks like, and that can absolutely still work. Some choices you can make is you could set this a few years back in time. You could make sure that the world feels enough different that it actually makes sense, but anybody who’s working with local law enforcement always had to deal with this because the idea of corrupt local police or misdeeds, that’s always been there and you’ve always had to make choices about how you’re going to portray this and how you’re going to establish that these are good cops versus the bad cops who we also know are out there and often it see on screen.

John: It provides you also a vector for conflict, which is a good thing for drama.

Craig: People that approach these things from, let’s call it charitably, the conservative side of things– I don’t know, Cooper, if you’ve ever watched any of the Dirty Harry films, the idea of the Dirty Harry films was these soft, liberal judges and bureaucrat chiefs of police were thwarting real cops from cleaning up the streets and kicking ass. That tension creates a situation where you have a hero who’s in direct conflict with his superiors and goes out and does the right thing and shoots people. That’s their point of view of what good is.

They never had a problem saying the mayor is a weak, lefty, and the judges are bad. I’m not sure why there wouldn’t be an opportunity here to say, “I’m an FBI agent who was trained under this guy in this manner. The person who’s running the FBI now is this guy.” That’s a problem. That’s an opportunity, I think, for drama.

John: Absolutely. Even if your story is not focused directly on that, like it’s FBI doing an investigation of something, that as a subtext and a threat could be really good. You actually don’t trust that the higher-ups are doing things for the right reasons. That’s great. Or that they’re undermining you. In our deep dive on Die Hard, when the FBI shows up, they are a problem more than they are a help. That is useful. That’s interesting.

Craig: Yes. There’s also an opportunity for a story that is specifically about somebody who comes from a tradition, and they are partnered with somebody new. Generally speaking, when that happens, we get an interesting story. The movie I’m thinking of now is Colors. Just recently died, Robert Duvall. And Sean Penn. Robert Duvall is the old guy, and Sean Penn’s the young guy. Sean Penn is a hothead. Sean Penn also can chase guys down on foot, and Robert Duvall has one more day to retirement, so you know what’s going to happen to him. There was interesting exchanges of wisdom, and then Training Day flipped that entirely around.

John: Of course, we have to talk about Training Day.

Craig: So great.

John: The idea of mismatched costs, but also that taken to the extreme in Training Day.

Craig: Well, so normally, you’ve got the old guy who is wise and he teaches the young, crazy rook to calm down, and this one, the old guy’s corrupt. The young guy is the Eagle Scout. You can play around with these things, but to me, the one thing I don’t think you can do right now is just pretend that everything is fine. [laughs] I mean, if you establish a fake administration, then the fake president in a fake world, and maybe it’s even set after the era of the madness that we’re currently in, maybe then, but I think probably you’d want to recognize it.

John: Yes, it’s also important to recognize that when we’re watching a movie or watching a TV show, we already know that we’re in a cinematic universe of things. Our assumptions about how things work in fictionalized crime things is different than how they work in the real world, when we have legal experts on. We had Ken White come on, talking through like, we have TV law versus actual law, and they are just different. I think audiences have different expectations about that, and so whatever you want to bring in from the real world to this is going to add great texture and flavor, but the Dick Wolf crime shows aren’t going to suddenly dismiss the whole FBI industry is corrupt because that’s the franchise that’s been established.

Craig: Yes, but it is a challenged one at this point.

John: It is a challenged one.

Craig: I think there’s legacy shows, but it’s harder to start a new one, I think.

John: Oh, I guess that’s fair.

Craig: Yes, it’s just until there’s a reckoning– A reckoning is a coming.

John: I agree with you.

Craig: Then maybe we’ll see some interesting things. It is, in its own way, fodder for drama.

John: Yes.

Craig: Just have to figure out how.

John: Yes. All right, thanks, guys.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Thanks.

Links:

  • Birdigo is now on iOS!
  • Weekend Read 2
  • Zathura
  • Scarecrow Video donations
  • H.R. Pufnstuf
  • Disney Axed ‘Star Wars’ Sequel ‘The Hunt for Ben Solo’ Without Ever Asking About the Budget or Other Details by Zack Sharf for Variety
  • FlipBelt Classic Running Belt
  • The Wedding Party by Secret City Vancouver
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Eric Pearson (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 726: So you’ve been nominated for an Oscar, Transcript

March 5, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Today on the show, so you’ve been nominated for an Oscar, what do you do next, how do you translate this attention and heat into that next project, and hopefully into a career? To help us answer this question, we are joined today by a writer-director pair facing this exact dilemma. Natalie Musteata and Alexandre Singh are a writer-director pair whose short film Two People Exchanging Saliva has racked up a bunch of awards, including an Oscar nomination. Welcome and congratulations.

Natalie Musteata: Thank you so much.

Alexandre Singh: Thank you so much, John.

Natalie: Thank you.

John: We should say you actually are Scriptnotes listeners, so this is not a strange place for you to show up.

Natalie: Not at all. This is actually the first podcast for screenwriting that we ever listened to. It was 10 years ago. Alex and I, we come from the visual arts, and all we ever did was talk about film. Alex suggested, “Rather than talking about film or writing about film, why don’t we try and make films?” which I thought was audacious, as two people that had never been to film school and knew absolutely no one in the film industry.

Alexandre: This is a full-circle moment for us because, quite often in the podcast, we’re talking about emerging filmmakers, emerging screenwriters, regardless of how old they are, were coming from careers in visual arts, and then everybody dreaming of making films. Coming up in an age when you don’t have to go to film school, there’s so much that you can learn from podcasts, from YouTube videos, and of course by putting word to the page and making scripts that are not so great to begin with, and hopefully, get better as you learn the craft.

Natalie: We certainly wrote a few scripts with passive protagonists, [laughter] like everyone does at the beginning.

Alexandre: I would say there’s so many things that you learn over the 10 years of going from zero to wherever we are as writers. The thing I would tattoo on my arm is beware of reactive protagonists. That’s just the biggest lesson I would say. Then everything else is all details.

John: I want to talk about those 10 years behind you, but also the 10 years ahead of you, because I really want to focus on what do you do now. In many ways, you’ve achieved the dream, you got this Oscar nomination, you have heat, you have all these meetings, you’ve signed with an agency, all these things, but there’s lessons to learn, and there’s also decisions to make. I want to talk this through while there are live, active questions for you guys. I want to talk to you about your decision to make this film, but also how anyone listening to this, whether or not they are nominated for an Oscar, they’re going to have moments of heat. Some producer read their thing and liked their thing, and it’s getting passed around. How do you capitalize on that?

What I think you guys have done so well is capitalize on the heat that happens before everything happens, and coming in with a plan for what’s next, and also some flexibility. I want to talk through all that, but also for a bonus segment for premium members, I’d love to talk about black and white, [laughter] because you made the decision to shoot this in black and white, and it was such a smart choice. I just want to talk about making a black and white film in 2025/2026, because it helps, and it was the right choice.

Natalie: Yes. I think that in general, we really leaned into bold decision-making. Making the film black and white was a really easy, early decision that we made. We love black and white films. For us, black and white feels like an X-ray. It’s the essential of the image, and it reduces all the noise.

Alexandre: Color distracts. We’re on the radio, but here we’re surrounded by colorful wires, a colorful table.

John: Trust me, we considered making this podcast in black and white [laughter] for just those reasons. In the bonus segment, we’ll get deep into the black and white. I want to talk about now your short film.

Let’s talk about maybe not the last 10 years, but at least the decision to go in and make this specific film. Before this point, you’ve written some things, you did a short film, which got some attention and got some awards. The decision to make this specific film, what was the ambition, what was the goal? You want to tell a great story, you want to make a great film, but I think you also want to make a film that would attract attention and showcase things you’re really good at.

Natalie: Ironically, yes.

Alexandre: This is something we’ve been thinking a lot about. When we made our first film, we had never been on a set before. The very first moment when we had the first short, which was inspired by the opening shot of Rear Window, needless to say, overly ambitious, using a gimbal, we learned, for example, that changing lenses on a film camera takes much longer than on a photo camera. When your DP says, our DP on our first short, Antonio Paladino says, “Yes, we’ll shoot on vintage glass,” vintage glass is wonderful, but the gears for the follow focus are not in the same places. We were learning on the fly. Our ambition at that point was just to make our film. Would it cut together? Would it be a story? Would it be engaging? Would we–

Natalie: That being said, whenever you’re making anything, especially when you’re finally achieving a dream of making a film, the ambition is great. You’re like, “We’re going to go to Cannes. We’re going to travel far with this film.” We did not see the pandemic coming, which is right around the time that first short came out. That being said, with this short, we had learned a big lesson from the first to the second. One was that while we did make a film that cut together and was really fun and playful and visually sumptuous, it did not do the one thing that we care about most in cinema, which is the element of catharsis and telling an emotional story that’s very character-led. That was something that was really important for us to have in this short.

With this short, we had no ulterior motive. We didn’t know whether we were making it for a museum or for film festivals. We certainly were not projecting far into the future at all.

Alexandre: We weren’t thinking about the short as a stepping stone. We weren’t thinking about the short as a proof of concept. Otherwise, we would not have made it 36 minutes long.

John: Yes, it’s a long short. [laughter] I’m going to put a link in the show notes to The New Yorker is hosting it now, which is great, because when I saw it, I saw it as a Vimeo link, but now everyone can see it through The New Yorker. The very short description, I’ll say, is that it’s a film that takes place in Paris in a society where kissing is forbidden. People pay for things with slaps to the face, a very high concept. We meet this unhappy housewife who becomes fascinated by this salesgirl, and it raises the suspicions of a jealous colleague. That’s to set up what it feels like.

It’s in black and white. It is gorgeous and sumptuous. This department store is incredible. The fashion, the costumes, everything is really elaborate and beyond what you would expect to see in a short film. How early in the process of thinking about doing this piece, instead of it might even be a museum piece, which is so fascinating, I would never even consider that– Of course, that short film is made from museum pieces. How early in the conception of it did you know what you wanted it to look like, feel like, what the experience of the film should be like?

Natalie: We knew very early on because we wrote it very quickly. It’s the fastest thing we’ve ever written. We wrote it in two to three weeks. We shared the first draft, and immediately it was greenlit, which was a huge surprise.

Alexandre: A surprise to us.

John: Greenlit by whom? Who was putting this money?

Natalie: Our producers. The film actually originated out of a constraint, which is that we were asked by these producers, whose company is called MISIA FILMS in Paris, whether we had any ideas set in a luxury department store.

John: Oh my God. Great.

Natalie: We would have never written a film that was set in such a luxurious and impossible-to-access space. We had this unusual playing field. We were like, “Okay, if we’re going to set a film in this very loaded environment where you have the intersection of beauty and commerce and power and social status, how do we subvert this space?” It was in–

Alexandre: How do we put a stamp on it? It was during the Zoom meeting when we were asked, “Go away and think about this.” During the Zoom meeting, we were spitballing ideas. This image came into my mind of someone being slapped in the face and someone counting it out, and that being the form of transaction. Even if that was something that we couldn’t verbally articulate at that time, we knew that there was some thematic juice there. They very kindly didn’t shut this down immediately and asked us to go away and think about this world. It was–

Natalie: Then we started exploring what that would mean. There were a lot of news stories at the time, like today, that were influencing our creative– I don’t know.

Alexandre: Whether we were responding to either laughing or fuming at whilst reading the news, at the time, it was the nascent MAGA days of Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, there was the protest movement in Iran, Woman, Life, Freedom.

Natalie: All of which is still happening today.

Alexandre: That has been dialed up to 11 today.

Natalie: Part of it for me was also that when you open up your phone today, if you are opening up Instagram, for instance, side by side, you’re being confronted with images of civil unrest and then an advertisement for a luxury handbag. There’s this normalization of violence side by side with commerce that just, I don’t know, felt like it was related to this idea that had come about almost subconsciously. We started developing the film. Very quickly, this yin and yang idea came about, if violence is normalized, then intimacy is not. The love story within this absurdist world started to come about.

Alexandre: We started to become very attached to these characters. Actually, all three of them. Malaise, who’s the young woman who decides to play a game with Angine, an older shopper, pretends that she knows her already. Their antagonist is Petulante, who is a saleswoman who’s been at the store for a long time and feels not just professional jealousy, but perhaps romantic jealousy or just the desire to be touched.

Natalie: It’s a story of three different women from three different generations who are responding to the repressive rules of the society in very different ways, and their differences that lead to the drama of the film.

John: I want to leave it to listeners to watch the film. Then, if you want to read the scripts, you can read the script in English and in French. The French one does not very closely match the English one because things changed along the way.

Natalie: We were rewriting the script as we were shooting. Then, even in the edit, obviously, scenes shifted around. Then some things were cut.

Alexandre: As Victor was saying recently on the podcast, you go into at best, hopefully, the script is 90% there. As much as we want to really labor over the script and have it be perfect because it is the foundation of the house that you’re going to build, sometimes you’re building that car as you are driving it. This was very much the case with this film because we knew we had to shoot in a window before the Christmas sales in the department store. It was the only time where we could shoot four or five nights in a row.

John: Which actual store is it?

Alexandre: The name is Galeries Lafayette. It’s an iconic.

John: I’ve heard of Galeries Lafayette, but I didn’t recognize it.

Natalie: There are two locations. We shot on the one on the Champs-Élysées. We shot in both. We mix and match. The majority of it is the smaller of the two stores, which is on the Champs-Élysées. As you can imagine, it’s open every day of the week. We’re shooting in the middle of the night.

Alexandre: In the same way that sometimes when you write a text, and you need to see it afresh, you print it out or you change font, with all these tricks, imagine that you write in English, and then you rewrite the dialogue in French. That’s a real seeing it afresh.

Natalie: Alex was born in France. My family’s from Armenia. They went to France in exile. I grew up with the two languages. That being said, we live in America. Our French is very, very good, but-

Alexandre: It’s different.

Natalie: -it’s different.

Alexandre: It’s not the natural thing to write in.

Natalie: There was a moment where we wrote something, and it turned out to be not–

Alexandre: It’s a sexual innuendo that we did not know.

Natalie: Did not mean what we thought it meant.

John: Didn’t [inaudible 00:11:56]

Alexandre: Yes.

[laughter]

John: You won’t have heard the episode yet, but Joachim Trier came on the podcast-

Natalie: Oh, amazing.

Alexandre: Oh, wow.

John: -to talk about Sentimental Value. His script was written in Norwegian, but with a lot of English in it. Then, of course, there’s also an English script, which is an important part of the process along the way. For your script, you’re writing this in English. Then, were your French producers reading the English version or reading your French version, or both? How did that work?

Natalie: Oh, that’s a good question.

Alexandre: We were translating it with every draft. People complain sometimes about making documents. Well, imagine that you have to make all your pictures, all your treatments, all your scripts, and then each time update them in each language.

Natalie: At a certain point, we stopped writing in English, and we were just writing in French.

Alexandre: Once we locked pages, we were in French, and we just concentrated on that script. Then, as Natalie says, we were rewriting during rehearsal, we would rewrite on set, we would rewrite the voiceover.

Natalie: Some of this, you can see on our Instagram page. We did a video where we compared one of our main actresses’ audition with the actual film. You can see the dialogue has changed. We’re not tied to the words. It’s the sentiment that counts.

Alexandre: I would say, for example, probably the best thing we did in this entire process was choosing the title of our film, because choosing the title of a film costs you zero, nothing. Having a distinctive title– Our first film was titled The Appointment.

Natalie: Too general.

John: Too general.

Natalie: Too general.

Alexandre: Too general.

Natalie: We realized almost immediately. It was too late. We thought of the right title very quickly, but yes, it was already out in the world.

Alexandre: When we came up with this title, there was a lot of pushback, not just from our producers who thought, “Oh, it sounds good in English, but it’s ugly in French.”

Natalie: Then our American friends were like, “It sounds great in French, but it’s really ugly in English.”

John: It’s distinctive. I remember when it crossed my email inbox, I was like, “Oh,” I recognized it’s stuck in my head.

Natalie: It’s also just, for us, tonally appropriate. It describes a romantic act, but in a very clinical, absurdist way. That is the tone of the film. It is at once romantic and absurd. For us, it just made so much sense. In general, my biggest piece of advice for anyone making anything is, “Do not dull the edges.”

Alexandre: Be a bit spikey.

Natalie: Yes. Also, make those bold decisions. It’s important to really stick to your gut and do the thing that you want to make and not constantly pander to everyone’s opinion.

Alexandre: You can’t make everybody happy. In this day and age, you need to make a subsection of your audience just effing love your film, and some people are not going to like it, and that’s how things are.

John: All right. The short exists. It’s wonderful. Congratulations on it. I really want to focus on you have a short, what do you do with the short? You say you have these French producers, you have a way to make this thing, but you’re going to have this short film. When did you know what the plan was, what festivals to go to, how to launch this into the world?

Alexandre: This is the paradoxical thing I wanted to say. With our first short, we had perhaps the naive ambition that this would be our ticket to the professional world. It came out in March 2020 on the festival circuit. We met zero people. It did nothing for our careers whatsoever. In some ways, we had a– what’s the expression, the Irish expression, a lonergan?

John: A mulligan, yes.

Alexandre: A mulligan. A Kenneth Lonergan.

[laughter]

John: A Kenneth Lonergan to mulligan, yes.

Alexandre: We made this film with no ulterior motive whatsoever. I think, paradoxically, that is its strength. It’s a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It switches perspectives between not just two characters, but actually briefly three characters, something that’s not even advisable to do in a feature film. In that sense, there was no plan whatsoever. We just poured our sincere artistic and creative ideas into the film. Then, after having made it, thought, “Oh bleep, what are we going to do?” because no sales agent would take it. There were very few festivals that we could apply to.

Natalie: Especially in Europe. It’s a European film. The duration limits for shorts on the festival circuit are determined by the awards. In the US, it’s 40 minutes because that is what the Academy Awards deems a short film. In Europe, it’s 30 minutes because that’s what the European Awards deems a short film. As a 36-minute film, we were not eligible for 90% of film festivals. We didn’t even know shorts distributors were a thing.

John: Tell me, to what degree are they a thing? I don’t have a good sense of what the distribution mechanism really is. I know The New Yorker because The New Yorker has good ones, but tell me what you found.

Alexandre: There is a wonderful, rich world of short filmmaking that is centered around mostly more international festivals. The number one festival for international short films is called Clermont-Ferrand. It is happening right now in Clermont-Ferrand in France. It’s described as the Cannes of short films.

Natalie: Honestly, we had heard of it, and we knew its reputation, but until you experience it, you can’t imagine the quality and the care that is put into this film festival. For instance, it’s the only film festival in the world where, between shorts, they bring up the lights. It’s like a palate cleanser. They tell you, this is a moment of respite, and then–

Alexandre: They change the Dolby level for each film. It’s very, very carefully thought out.

Natalie: The cinemas are enormous. The smallest is 300 seats, and the largest is 1500. You’re playing every day for 10 days in amphitheaters, and every screening is sold out. We played on a Monday at 9:00 AM once. I was like, “Alex, prepare yourself. The weekend screenings were full, but who is going to come to this 700-person cinema at 9:00 AM on a Monday? It was full.

Alexandre: This is the Sundance and Cannes of short films. There are short film distributors there who distribute the films for French and German television channels. They are trying to sell on all different kinds of platforms.

Natalie: Yes, including Criterion, MUBI, Netflix. They’re pitching these things to everyone, but it is primarily a European market, I would say.

Alexandre: It is rare for a short film to get enormous visibility. The Oscar shortlist and Oscar nomination is a type of visibility that is incomparable to the amount of eyeballs at these kind of events.

John: Was Clermont your first festival you debuted in?

Natalie: No. We debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in August 2024, which was, again, something that had been recommended to us. It felt like a pipe dream because they only take five to seven shorts.

Alexandre: Seven. Seven shorts.

John: Wow.

Natalie: Seven shorts. They’re one of the few film festivals that’ll take a short up to 60 minutes. In that sense, we were like, “Well, we have to try.”

Alexandre: If any of your listeners are wondering, did we have an in? Yes, there are ways to get into these festivals, but that is very much the exception. We applied on the website. We sent in our little fee, as we did for all of the festivals, and we got in blind.

Natalie: Yes. We really didn’t expect to get in, so much so that we went on vacation, not having finished the film, because we were so sure that it was an impossibility. Day 1 of our vacation, we find out that we’re in, and the festival’s in four weeks, and we had to cancel our vacation, fly back to New York, finish the film in a rush with our sound designer because we had just started the sound design.

Alexandre: Then at the second festival, we showed out here in Los Angeles, AFI FEST, we won the Grand Jury Prize, which meant that we qualified, too, for the Oscar longlist. We knew almost a year in advance that this was a possibility, and we had a discussion about it, and we felt–

Natalie: We knew it was a possibility, and we prepared over the last year for this journey, were it to happen. That being said, it all felt really like a magical idea, not something that was a reality. No matter how many people told us, “Your film is very good. It could get shortlisted. It could get nominated,” it didn’t feel like a reality until it happened.

John: Telluride, Los Angeles, then you know you’re on the longlist. Then I imagine it becomes easier to get into other festivals because they know what you are.

Alexandre: You would hope so.

John: You would hope so, but [inaudible 00:20:15]

Alexandre: Actually, no. Ironically, the festivals that you think you’re going to get into, you don’t. It’s very hard to predict.

Natalie: Yes, but I would say that our first three festivals were so strong. At Clermont-Ferrand, we won the Audience Prize and the Canal+ Prize, which meant that we had distribution in France and Switzerland and French territories. It was already, for me, such a Cinderella dream-like situation.

Alexandre: That was the beginning of, to get back to your very original question, that was when those conversations that we had even stopped thinking about started to happen. We were approached by international producers asking, “Would you be interested in making this into a feature film?” Those conversations started happening quicker and quicker. More people approached us. We participated in the Square Peg event in October before even making shortlist. Something that we had been listening to for many years on the show about managers and generals and agents that we had always thought, “Oh, we’re just thinking about the craft stuff. That doesn’t really apply to us,” we entered into that world.

Started having meetings in Europe, the UK, and also in Los Angeles and New York with production companies that represent actors, financiers, now also with some of the studios, and learning as we were going along what those meetings were. I think it was a few meetings in before we realized, “Oh, this is a general meeting.”

Natalie: Because we didn’t make this short with any intention of making it into a feature, we did a scriptwriter’s lab in France that’s a little bit like the Sundance of France, called Groupe Ouest. There, we gave ourselves a few weeks or a couple of months to really discover, “Is there a feature in this short? What would it mean to do that? What form does it take?” We gave ourselves the freedom to play again. It was in that process that we found the emotional throughline of what the feature would be.

Alexandre: We also started to develop some of the other ideas that we’d been thinking about, often ideas that had been generated in the last 18 months that were similar to the short and similar to the feature ideas that, on their surface, are absolutely ridiculous, but that we treat quite seriously because, for the characters in these worlds, this is very serious for them. We started to get a sense of what our “voice” is, what it is that we bring to the table, and feeling quite confident about the kind of films that we want to write, the kind of films that we want to make.

To harken back to a previous recent episode, the short at 36 minutes, when we go into meetings, people say to us, “We feel confident that you guys can pull off a feature film.” That’s not always the case with a short, and that is not something we had strategically decided to do. We had done it very sincerely, rather naively, but the end product was that that’s how these meetings have been going.

John: All right. Let’s talk about past success stories, people who’ve transitioned from, “Oh, you got a lot of attention,” and then that short film got them started on a career, and then we can talk about sometimes it doesn’t work, and the decisions that you guys are making that everyone has to make about how to prioritize what to do next and where to put your efforts and energy.

Taika Waititi, Two Cars, One Night, nominated for the Academy Award for Best Live Action Short, 2005. 20 years ago, Taika Waititi got started, went from that to Eagle vs Shark, and lots of other things. Andrea Arnold with Wasp, also 2005. Martin McDonagh, the short film Six Shooter in 2006. Shane Acker had his animated short 9, which became a feature film 9.

Damien Chazelle had Whiplash, the short version of it, which was a proof of concept, which became the film. It’s a short film, but it got attention. Jim Cummings with Thunder Road from Sundance, the Grand Jury Prize. David Sandberg, Lights Out, which started as a short. I always send people to Lights Out because it is just such a great, small, little short concept, and they were able to make the feature version of that.

Those are all great success stories. What’s tougher to find, it’s un-Googleable, is the silent evidence of the people who had really great short films that got attention, they got an Academy Award, then you can look up and say, “What have they been doing since then?” unless you call them up and ask, “What went wrong, or what happened?”

It’s because they were all at this moment that you’re at right now, which is they have the heat, they have the attention, and what do they do next? A little spoiler, you are thinking about a feature version of the short as one of the things?

Natalie: We are, yes. I think that we have the advantage of being slightly older, and having had careers in a different field, and coming to the film industry with our first short, it was quite naively, and now less naively. I think that’s an advantage for us. At the same time, I think one of the reasons that people are very interested in the short, but also in other projects that we’re pitching, is because in this moment, when it’s very difficult to get people, the high concept or more absurdist-leaning films are the ones that are working. That is what comes naturally to us. A lot of our ideas are–

Alexandre: The A24 and Neon things, which they’re a little bit bigger swings.

John: Bigger swings–

Natalie: Also, one of the reasons that we did this shift in our careers was because what we love about cinema is the relationship to the public and to the audience, which is very different than it is in the visual arts. Really, you make an artwork, and you hope that people will have a response to it, but really, there’s no relationship between a painting and an audience in the way that there is in a movie theater.

John: You have very different audiences. You have the random museum goer, but you also have the curation aspect of that, and who are the tastemakers, decision makers? That’s all a very different thing.

Natalie: Yes. The tastemakers in the visual art world are the key to everything, whereas in the film world, the audience is everything. When you’re making a film, you’re entering a contract with the public, and you’re saying, “Over this period of time, whether it’s 36 minutes or 2 hours or 3 1/2 hours, I will take you on a journey, and it will be worth your time and the money that you spend to come here.”

Alexandre: “We will challenge you, we will push you away, we will bring you in, we’ll make you laugh, we’ll make you cry.”

Natalie: We came to it with an incredible amount of generosity towards the audience. “We’re making a weird film, but we’ve made it with a lot of heart.” I think that comes through. It was those things that have made the film very attractive to people, and the fact that we do want to make things that are– Joachim Trier is a perfect example. Recently, he said, “Tenderness is the new punk,” and we could not agree more. For us, a film cannot just be high-concept. It needs to have that emotional heart. It’s those two things in concert with one another that we try to achieve with the short, and that we hope every single feature that hopefully we make in the future will have as well.

John: I want to talk about the feature version of the short, which there’s lots of challenges to do that because the engines are going to be different for that kind of situation. You could approach this as, like Damien Chazelle did with Whiplash, “I have a vision for a feature film, and here’s the short that is a proof of concept that lets me expand into that.” I see so many people who try to do short films that are just shorter versions of their feature film, and they are almost always terrible because they don’t have the engine for a successful short film. They don’t have the setup development payoff, the joke structure that you’d actually need for a short film to work.

In your case, I can’t imagine you actually would have written the feature version of this first. It was just because the short film exists and you actually know the world, and you can think about, “Where does it want to go?” that it makes sense to try to do a feature version of it, knowing that it’s going to be different and it’s not the same thing as it’s going to work in the feature version.

Alexandre: In some ways, we’re adapting a short film that we have seen and loved, and that really spoke to us, and we have ideas about how we would expand that world and what we believe to be the emotional throughline of the story, the vertebra that we would hang the story on, and what the larger engine would be.

John: That’s proof of concept. There’s also, I would say, a proof of execution. You talk, Alexandre, about you realize you have a voice and you have taste. Basically, you have a way of presenting the world. You were saying that tenderness is the new punk. That vision could be applied to a different movie. As you’re having conversations with people or pitching other things that you want to do, if it fits in the same space that they’re seeing from this first film, that’s really helpful. If you were to show up with this short film and say, “I really want to do an animated story about gnomes,” I’m just like, “I’m not so sure.” “I want to do a dark and grungy thing that is completely different than this,” everyone’s like, “That’s not helpful for me. I can’t help you there.”

Natalie: I think that would be really tricky.

Alexandre: One of our strengths is, and this comes from maybe a visual or background, is that we have a lot of ideas all the time. Out of those ideas, many of those ideas are not necessarily in our lane, in our wheelhouse. Sure, we could tell a Sundance coming-of-age story. We have ideas for those kind of stories, but we have enough stories that very much echo the qualities that people have been attracted to in the short. In these meetings and conversations, I think it’s been a very natural fit because the ideas that we’re pitching really resonates with what they’ve seen us execute with the short film.

Natalie: Before, I was talking about cinema-going and how there’s been a decline, and at least studios feel like we need more films like this. It’s also the times that we’re living in. We’re living in a moment where the ridiculous and the horrific are side by side like almost never before, or at least in a while now. I think that there is something about that. There’s a tonal line that we’re constantly–

Alexandre: There’s an urgency that we feel as storytellers that I think the people we’re meeting with are feeling. Our film is not a necessarily political film in a didactic sense. It’s not a PSA at the end where there’s a little chiron that gives you facts that, “In France, many people are put into boxes because they have…” [laughter]

John: It’s absurdist in the way Terry Gilliam films are absurdist. It’s a sense of this is a crazy world, but you can see the clear parallels to Brazil.

Alexandre: As crazy as Brazil is, there are aspects of Brazil that chill us and that have resonances with today. I think often of that scene where it’s Michael Palin who is a torturer and Michael Palin comes out covered in blood, and they have a conversation about their children. That is actually a feeling that inspires our film, that dissonance between the everyday comfort of the society that we’re existing in right now, where I’m drinking some tea, having a wonderful conversation with John in this beautiful location in Los Angeles, meanwhile, we’ve just been experiencing what’s been happening in Minneapolis, in Maine, what is happening in Iran right now. All these things are happening at the same time, and how do we, as human beings, navigate that and find meaning in our lives in these very dissonant moments?

John: You said two or three months before the nominations is really when you actually felt like a change happened, and it was actually very meaningful. When did you recognize that something had shifted? Was it the amount of incoming calls and emails, and you started to have meetings with reps, and figuring out where you wanted to go next? Talk to us about that time and what decisions you had to make.

Alexandre: I would say I had an image that came into my mind around this moment that somewhere on the planet there was a switch and that someone flipped this switch. Suddenly, as in a 1960s Hanna-Barbera cartoon, we are running after the industry. Suddenly, we exit frame. Suddenly, we’re running back the other way, and they’re running after us. How that happened, what that was, we felt that suddenly there was a switch that flipped.

Natalie: In 24 hours, we met with all the agencies, and not because we had planned it that way. It just happened to be that there was a confluence of events. We were also just out there in the world in a way that we normally aren’t, because as people that come from the arts, we are a little bit more interior-facing. We’re used to being in our little cubby, writing one in front of the other. Suddenly, we were really out in the world showing the film in a very public way. All of that attention– Our trailer had just come out on Deadline, too. Suddenly, there was a flood of emails in our inbox, “We would like to see the-

John: Full short.

Natalie: -full short.” Then meetings started to happen, and everything was one after another. There was a pressure to make a decision right away, which was very stressful. At the same time, now that we have representation, it’s opened so many doors. We really were skeptical. Is this a useful thing? There were some people that were advising us, “Don’t tie yourself down. It’s great to be an independent agent.” As two people that do not come from the film industry, this has been incredibly helpful for us.

Alexandre: We’ve had the experience coming from visual art of being the little engine pushing all those carriages up the hill, raising the money, producing it ourselves, building the sets ourselves.

Natalie: Alex taught himself VFX for this film because we didn’t have the budget.

Alexandre: I did a pre-visualization of the whole film in Blender, so a 3D animation of the film. We’re used to doing everything. I think it’s good to keep having that energy, but all that representation is very additive. Suddenly, you are accelerating. It’s like in Mario Kart when you go with the lines, and suddenly you start to go faster. It increases momentum.

Natalie: There was just so many things that happened all at the same time.

Alexandre: A lot of luck. I think luck is something that we don’t appreciate. So many people are lucky the first time. They begin life, like a game of Monopoly, and they roll double six, and then they roll double six again, and they roll double six again. Suddenly, they’re sitting in, be it a creative field, or they invested in cryptocurrency, or they are the richest man in the world, and they don’t realize that so much of that was luck. We are just as creative and hardworking as so many of our friends, and we just happen to be in the right position at the right time.

That said, we’ve had full careers in the visual arts. This hasn’t happened one week coming out of film school at age 21, but still getting the cast that we got to say yes, shooting the film, and the building not burning down, or no one having a heart attack, or all the things that could go wrong on a film–

John: It’s not just all the things that went right. It’s all the things that could have gone wrong, which somehow you avoided.

Alexandre: Also, the same is true for the life of the film. You get into that festival. It just happens to be, for example, at Telluride, those shorts are selected by Barry Jenkins, who chose our short because he has an affinity for French, black, and white cinema, and then has gone on to support the film. So many of these encounters and things that have happened professionally have been a mixture of luck and our hard work.

Natalie: We find ourselves here today because of a chance encounter.

John: I want to go back because, Drew, can you take a look and figure out when did we first get contacted about this short?

Drew: Good question.

John: Because I know we got it–

Natalie: I’m sure our publicist– [laughs]

John: It was your publicist, because your publicist has been dogged, which is great. It totally makes sense. I was thinking it’s both a fire burns, but also people were scraping sparks there a lot.

Alexandre: Yes, very much so. The publicist was dogged because we said, a year ago, “Oh, wouldn’t it be amazing if we could go on Scriptnotes? It will be a dream come true.”

Natalie: Really, this is where our cinema education begins. For us, this is a dream come true in many ways.

Alexandre: A similar thing happened with Charli XCX, who wrote a review of our film on Letterboxd. Around a year ago, her Letterboxd account was made public. I was watching TikToks where she was talking about a film– I think you recently talked about her Substack on the– I was thinking, “She is really incredible. She has incredible taste. She’s very smart. I think she would really like our film.” We did what anyone would do. We asked, “Does anybody know her neighbors, gardeners, dog walkers?” We went in so many directions. Nothing happened for an entire year. Eventually, our manager said, “Let me just reach out to her agent.”

Natalie: No, it was still like one person led to another person led to another person.

Alexandre: I’m at home flicking through Letterboxd, and I follow Charli. She’s one of my “friends” on Letterboxd. Suddenly, she posts about a film, and it’s our film. I think I jumped off the couch. I was so excited.

John: Did you find the first email?

Drew: December 22nd, 2025.

John: That’s pretty recently. That’s pretty recently. My manager separately had reached out, so that’s another connection. Clearly, he probably had a meeting with you or his company had meetings with you about stuff. Also sent it to me. Then, of course, Matt Byrne, who was my former assistant, had met you randomly at a party and made these connections. We talk on the show so often about, “Do you need to live in Los Angeles? Do you need to live in New York?” No, you don’t, but the fact that you were in New York at the same time there and at a party, just being around people who are doing the thing you can do, leads to the chance of encounters. If you were just in a house in Maine, it would be less likely for that to have happened.

Natalie: For sure. I mean, it’s incredibly helpful being in New York or LA. I mean, we’ve been here quite a bit as a result of all of this. That being said, I think going on the festival journey was also really valuable. That was the first step, really. It’s just making friends in the industry. Not people above you, but that are trying-

Alexandre: Your peers.

Natalie: -to do the exact same thing, that are doing the exact same thing, and really just connecting on a creative level.

Alexandre: We’ve met filmmakers who are the equivalent of someone who lives in the woods in Maine, who then goes on the festival circuit and meets lots of people and then returns home to recharge and doesn’t have to pay New York City rents.

John: There are helpful things about living in the hub of all this stuff. From the podcast, you know that Drew went off and made a short film that he’s now submitting to festivals. He has learned a bunch of stuff. I thought we might learn from what he’s learned and get your feedback on how the experiences overlap.

Drew: It sounds like they already figured it out before. I had to go through a process to figure it out, but I wrote a bunch of stuff as I was going of, “Oh, this is–” and tell me if I’m wrong too on any of this. First one was, part of why the comedy isn’t working is because I’m shooting this like a drama. There’s a difference, and it’s not just letting things live in the wide.

Natalie: Interesting.

John: Do you consider your short a comedy or a drama?

Alexandre: It’s absurdist, but–

Natalie: It’s absurdist. I would say that we categorize it as an absurdist drama, which means that it has–

John: Is it dramedy?

Natalie: I just call it absurdist. It has elements of comedy in it.

Alexandre: Without sounding too highfalutin and egotistical, Shakespeare’s work mixes pathos and bathos, I think, of the Grave Digger scene in Hamlet. Joachim Trier’s work, within the same scene, it’s mixing comedy and serious drama together. As to the question as to whether comedy works more in the wide,– That is–

John: Well, it does, but there’s some ineffable thing that in previous shorts I’d done, it was much funnier, that tended to be the cheaper stuff that I did. Then doing this, and it looks beautiful, and we have all these beautiful lenses, and it feels so heavy. I’m trying to figure out if that’s framing or if that’s light or what it is, but I’m trying to get to the heart of it.

Alexandre: It’s hard to say because sometimes comedy really comes from editing and pacing whereas a joke is about delivery, and that involves cutting and coverage in some ways. Sometimes comedy comes from the awkward and the uncomfortable. I think, for example, of Ruben Östlund’s films where everything is happening on a wide, and this short is going on for a really long time, and I feel really uncomfortable, and the kind of Larry David idea of comedy, the uncomfortable idea of comedy. I think it’s difficult to say without having seen the film which direction something works or doesn’t work in.

John: Let’s talk about during production, you had an idea about takes.

Drew: Oh, yes. I wrote, more takes is actually better. Try letting actors do three or four takes on their own before you start redirecting.

Natalie: I think in an ideal scenario, you have more takes. In our experience, we just never get past take three because we always have to move on.

Alexandre: I have an idea that seven is the perfect amount of takes. The reason being that it takes two or three takes for everyone to just get into the flow of things, get warmed up, as it were.

John: For your DP to stop fiddling with things.

Alexandre: Yes. By four, five, and six, usually you’re going to hit your best, best takes. Then seven is your coverage, or just in case, or just so we all feel like we’ve covered it.

John: Do a weird one.

Alexandre: If you’re going to take nine, 10, 11, or 12, it’s because something isn’t working and that’s no shade on anybody. That’s because either something technically or we haven’t found it yet.

Natalie: That being said, Alex and I, we always do a complete pre-visualization of the film, especially because there are two of us and because we have very little onset experience, we need to have a plan going into the shoot. We cannot show up and just be like, let’s find it. That doesn’t mean we don’t deviate. We do deviate from time to time, but we’re always coming in knowing, okay, we do have a plan that works. There are parts of our film that are a one-to-one replica. I think that preparation is the most valuable thing for us.

John: I want to talk about the pre-visualization for a second too, because the next thing is film a popsicle stick version. What I did is I did a storyboard. That didn’t catch little things of like how long it takes for this person to walk from here to here. I really should have done, and it sounds like Alex, you used Blender, and that was so smart.

Alexandre: I’ve had the experience on our first short of doing storyboards drawn by hand in Photoshop, but it’s real drawing, and then being very reticent to change them because it took me a long time to draw them. Whereas in this pre-visualization, you are able to change shorts very quickly, change the blocking very quickly.

Natalie: It also meant that we could edit them together. First, we scanned all our environments using an app called Polycam, and then we created this 3D model. Then Alex, he would create these little marionettes, and he would put the camera in 30 different places. I would look at him and be like, [crosstalk] this is far too many options because obviously we’re not going to have 30 setups for each of these scenes. Sometimes even within those 30 setups, I’d be like, none of these are right. We would go in, and then we would find what is the most economical and also the best way to tell this particular scene.

Alexandre: One of the things about location scouting that we found quite difficult is that you’ll, on one day and one morning, go visit five locations. You have 20 minutes. Imagine we’re shooting in here, and my immediate thought is, oh, can we get a great wide if we were up there in that corner? Oh, we’re going to have to go get a ladder. There I am with the camera, not really quite comfortable. Whereas we can come in, we can scan it, not knowing whether we’re actually going to shoot in it.

Then as we’re cleaning up the model, I’ll be underneath the table because there was strange little jagged edges. Suddenly I see, oh, there’s a short where I see just John’s foot tapping. Oh, I would never have thought to do this, but this could be an interesting way to begin the scene. There was a lot of the inspiration process happened in the pre-visualization in the same way that as you’re writing, you have those moments in the shower where inspiration arrives, like a little elf suddenly appears on your shoulder. That happens over the weeks, months, days, years of the writing process.

Then also in the pre-production process, you are open to those moments of inspiration, just like as when you’re on set, you have your storyboard. Suddenly in the camera, we had a scene where our character, Angine, is dreaming about the girl she loves, Malice. She imagines herself wearing the iconic geometric black and white dress. As she is walking towards the changing booth, as we’re shooting it on the dolly, the camera suddenly started shifting down, booming by accident, like a mistake. Everybody suddenly stopped and said, that’s the short, this mistake.

That inspiration happened by accident. It’s about being open to all those moments. Maybe the drawn storyboards can, unless you’re Pixar and you’ve had 10 years to storyboard the shit out of this thing.

John: Even Pixar, they animate those things right away. Your last point I want to focus on is to this. It’s hard not to focus on what’s not happening in a take, but I need to figure out how to see what is happening. Here’s what I take from that is that if I’m looking at the monitor, my eye is drawn to everything that’s wrong. I’m trying to fix everything that’s wrong, but it’s hard for me to say, oh, that’s actually really good because you get distracted by all of the errors and it’s so hard to focus in on what’s right.

Natalie: I think the only thing that matters personally is the actor. Everyone that is watching the film is watching it for the first time most of the time. Hopefully, your film is so good that people will watch it a second and third and fourth time. Even when you’re watching it a second time, people just have a way of zeroing in on a person’s face because that is where all of the emotion. That is what they’re reading into.

Alexandre: We have 100 million years of evolution, which involves looking at people with two eyes and a nose and trying to figure out, does this person want to eat me or make love to me? Now they’re being sincere about it. Performance is what we are dialed into. Everything else can fall away. There’s a scene in the Coen brothers’ film Barton Fink where the studio boss, who has been asking him to make this boxing movie and he doesn’t know how to write it, hauls him back in.

In the previous scenes, he’d been so magnanimous and so generous and so like, oh, don’t worry about it. You’re a genius. You’re a New York author. I’m going to support you. He absolutely berates him and destroys him. During that scene, I think he has these lapels because it’s during the Second World War. His lapels are moving around like nobody’s business. It doesn’t matter. The performance is all that matters. I think Walter Murch said the same thing.

Natalie: It’s always the thing that I’m zeroing in on. It’s just like, what is happening on the actor’s face? Is it communicating what this scene is about? Because all the other stuff is noise.

Alexandre: There’s a thing that happens in filmmaking that I’ve rarely heard people talk about publicly, but I think is the most magical and beautiful part of filmmaking. We like to stand very close to the camera lens with those tiny little monitors. Whether we are really receptive to the character and the actor, whatever that thing is, that hybrid of the two, what they’re feeling at that moment. You’re watching the film on that little monitor, and suddenly you know that we have just shifted into the actual film. You just know that this is going to be projected for history.

Natalie: Hopefully.

Alexandre: Frankly, hopefully. For those 10 seconds and then it sort of like drifts away. That is one of the most almost like spiritual moments of filming that is so beautiful.

John: Yes, Drew. I think I would say is that, yes, you’re noticing all the things that aren’t working, but like Alexander is saying, there’s moments where you get that little vibe like, oh, that’s it. That’s it. Every day you’re basically chasing that. There’s times where I was like, I didn’t have that the whole time through, but I have the pieces to get me to that. Then you have to make the choice like, I guess I moved on because I’m going to have to stitch that together in editing.

Drew: I think one thing I was fighting was, so you get in the edit and then you watch a take that when you watched it, you were like, the actor’s not doing the right thing. Then you see like, oh, they’re doing something else that’s actually there’s value to that, of course. Like, oh, shit, I missed this gem that they were bringing and maybe push them away from something that could have been interesting.

John: Because you, you had a vision on your head.

Drew: I was like, yes, the character’s running in this direction. They were like, actually, if we go this path, it’s interesting.

Alexandre: Parathetically, having had not that much experience making films yet, when you’re on set and you’re doing a scene, it’s like play. It’s creative. Even though the clock is ticking and your first AD is hovering there whispering in your ear, you have to pretend like, [crosstalk] to use a cruder analogy, like making love, that you have all the time in the world and that you are completely relaxed and that you are here to play and you are here to play with one another and that your actors are creative collaborators, inspiring partners, and they’re offering ideas and you’re offering ideas back.

There are probably filmmakers who have a global totalitarian vision of what the film is and maybe like Hitchcock, they are manipulating their marionettes. I think you, Akim Trier, and all other great filmmakers have probably said it’s about this exchange and you’re playing tennis with them.

John: We have two listener questions that are surprisingly on topic here. Let’s start with this first one, who’s an Oscar-nominated filmmaker.

Drew: Unwrapped writes, “As a seasoned documentary filmmaker who earned an Oscar nomination in the mid-2010s, I’m struggling to move forward in the industry. I never secured representation after the nod because I was working comfortably in academia and assumed the nomination would keep doors open. Years later, after leaving academia, I found myself an Oscar-nominated filmmaker with a strong but limited body of work, a piece of evergreen IP, no representation, and no clear path into the current marketplace.

Is there any viable route for someone like me to secure representation in a business that now expects new heat, recent sales, or major attachments before anyone will even take a meeting, even though those require representation to achieve in the first place? I’m in a Catch-22.”

John: Here’s a person who was in your place and didn’t capitalize on the moment that things passed by. I think they need to do something new because you can’t rekindle off that older thing.

Natalie: I think you either have to create something new, like another short, unfortunately, that catches fire, or you have to write a feature that is undeniably great. I think that great scripts are hard to come by. I think that people are always searching for that next film that’s going to bring bodies into the theater.

Alexandre: I do have a theory about this topic, which is that the greatest films are made by 19-year-olds who don’t know what they’re doing and are just full of gusto and confidence and 45, 55, 65-year-olds, and I think of Milton writing Paradise Lost in his 80s when he was blind, who just at a certain point give up on trying to play the game. They’ve had enough of trying to write vampire stories because that’s fashionable. They’ve given up on trying to make a new Yellowstone.

They just write the thing that they really care about, paradoxically, that they don’t think will work in the marketplace whatsoever. Those are the kind of ideas that actually really grab people’s attention. It’s hard to say to someone to do that, but just really dig in.

Natalie: I do think it’s really important not to think about what the market wants and to make something that feels very true to yourself.

John: I would say that it feels like the doors are closed, but I think with some new thing, you have an advantage of getting those doors to open up again. If you made a short that you were submitting to things like, oh, you’re the Oscar-winning director of this other thing, they’re going to pay more attention to you, which is good, which is helpful.

Natalie: Yes, absolutely.

Drew: People love comebacks.

John: That’s also nice. Question from Leah.

Drew: Leah writes, I’m directing a short film and have a producer going out with offers to actors. Should we be attaching the script to the offer email or waiting for the agent to respond back and then sending the script to them? I’m not sure if agent emails have filters that put anything in the trash immediately, that has an attachment for someone they don’t know, or if it’s better to save time at the front end of the convo by preemptively sending the script.

John: What did you guys do for your script as you were going out after actors?

Alexandre: I think we always attached it.

Natalie: We always attached it.

Alexandre: It’s not enough time to have that back.

Natalie: The script was what attracted people. I think it’s really always important. People always ask us, how did you get this amazing cast? It’s like, we just asked. You always have to ask. You just never know.

Alexandre: In some ways, people don’t ask them and so they’re flattered. You never know. If they’re not interested, they’re not interested, and you may as well try.

John: It’s a short film also. It’s not secret information. It’s not a huge ask. If they’re curious, they’ll open up the PDF, look through it, and if it’s good, they’ll send it along. I don’t think it’s a problem.

Drew: Did you guys do cover letters to your actors?

Natalie: We did, always. I knew we do cover letters for the smallest thing. I’m like, would you like it?

[laughter]

Alexandre: No, we only wrote it to those actresses and that particular man. I think it’s always good to articulate. We’re not just going out to you because you’re well-known or because you’re a great actor. It’s because something about your work and who you are as a human being, because often, who they are as an artist, is woven into who they are as a human being. It profoundly touches us and connects with us and connects to this story. I think sincerity is a very powerful thing.

Natalie: Yes. The reasons that you want to work with someone should be very specific. We always take the time to articulate what that is and to write something that’s personal because when you’re making art, it is personal.

Alexandre: Can I ask a listener question?

Drew: Please.

[laughter]

Alexandre: I’ve always wanted to write in with a listener question, and this is much easier. Natalie and I have a four-year-old daughter. We have careers. I’m a visual artist. Natalie is an art historian. Those things have really been on the back burner whilst we were making this film, and specifically when we were making this campaign. Every week, I listen into a podcast, and I hear John and Craig talk about– I know John has Highland Software. He is making games. He’s also writing young adult fiction, and he’s also playing D&D on Sundays or-

John: Thursdays, yes.

Alexandre: On Thursdays, and also playing some video games.

John: Rarely, but occasionally, yes.

Alexandre: Then he’s also writing great feature film scripts, and then apparently also does a podcast, I’ve heard, as well. Where is this magic time machine where you are using– are your days 28, 32 hours long rather than 24?

John: No, it did– Drew, maybe you can help out.

Drew: I also have this question. I’m around John more than anyone else in my life.

John: I get a lot done, for sure. If I write two hours a day, that’s great. I get a lot done, but there’s a lot of other stuff I want to do, and I just find ways to do it. Also, I think I’m really good at recognizing the common patterns between things. The software stuff isn’t really that different than the filmmaking stuff I’m doing because I’m using Highland every day to write everything I’m doing. All the other stuff, too.

Drew: You have your to-do lists, which I think helps focus you quite a lot.

John: I’ve talked about this on the podcast before, but I have my daily list, which I print out a sheet that’s folded in fourths. It’s just what I’m going to do, things I need to do today. It’s a checklist of those things. There’s some stuff that’s pre-printed on there. My Duolingo and my other stuff that’s drastically done every day. I fill that list, and that’s my plan for the day. I get basically everything on that list done every day. That helps a lot. I try to make sure they are very– I’m writing the actual achievable thing that I can do.

That’s the next action aspect of it all. I make a list, and I get the things on the list done. That’s how it gets down to it. You have a four-year-old. Also, it’s recognizing that any plan fails against a child. It’s just like children are– they will take every bit of everything, but they’re also wonderful.

All right, it’s time for one cool thing. My one cool thing, keeping with this whole theme, is a short film. It’s a short film called Troy by Mike Donahue. It’s from two years ago, I think. It’s a comedy about this New York couple who become obsessed with their neighbor who is a sex worker. They get too involved in his life.

It’s really well done. It’s a perfect New Yorker short film. It’s exactly what you want from it. The YouTube algorithm just served it to me randomly, so thank you. It’s just really delightfully done. Troy by Mike Donahue. I’ll put a link in the show notes to that. Natalie, what do you have to share with us?

Natalie: I would like to share the New York Public Library’s picture collection, which is where we begin all of our projects. Oftentimes, even before we know what a story will be or a script will be, we’ll go in. It is a physical place in the New York Public Library on the 42nd Street, 5th Avenue.

Alexandre: The Lions Building.

Natalie: The Lions Building, the iconic building. It’s a room in which there are like-

Alexandre: 2.8 million images that have been cut out of books, newspapers, magazines over the last 50, 60 years. In an age where we are experiencing AI that is regurgitating images and art back to us, making us into Studio Ghibli characters. When visual research sometimes involves just typing in a location or an idea into Google and seeing the first-hand images that come back, which are always going to be the same images. There’s something about the serendipity of going into this place and digging through images that are not online, that are sometimes misclassified, that sometimes have a different image on the backside, and being inspired.

Natalie: Oftentimes, the story will take a turn because of something that we’ve seen in the picture collection. It’s just sort of a magical place for us, so we always come back to it.

John: A question, just because Alexander just completely took over your one cool thing. You’re married, and do you set a time of like, we’re going to stop being our creative selves at a certain point and just be a married couple?

Natalie: No, it’s impossible. Yes. No, I think that’s part of the fun, too. The triumphs we celebrate together, the disappointments we also get to weather together. I can’t really imagine it any other way. It became very obvious very early on that we would make a really good duo because we have the exact same taste and we love the exact same things, but we bring totally different things to the table. It ends up– I always get sad when duos break up because once they do start to make films independently, you can actually see what they brought. You’re like, oh, but you know, it was the combination.

John: Those brothers are so good together.

[laughter]

Alexandre: Which ones? There’s been a few.

John: That’s why I pick brothers. No, not those brothers. Yes.

Natalie: Yes. I feel really grateful that we work together and there are arguments here and there.

John: There’s creative friction.

Natalie: There’s creative friction from time to time, like in any duo. At the same time, I would say 90% of the time we agree, and when we don’t, it’s the detail that no one really cares about but us. That’s part of the fun, too.

Alexandre: Writing and directing requires so many different types of skillsets. You need to be the introverted person sitting in your bathrobe, hunched over a typewriter for months on end in a Los Angeles hotel, and you also need to be the extrovert on the can-read carpet getting your photo taken, wheeling and dealing. Whilst we can have that schizophrenic quality sometimes, it’s much easier if that can be reflected in your creative partnership, obviously the writers, the directors, the producers, all bringing complementary things to the table, but always having the same idea of what film we’re making.

Natalie: I always joke that it’s easier to write together and to work together than it is to parent together. Not because we don’t get along in that either, but just because having a child is just like the ultimate work of art. I’m like, it’s an uncontrollable one with no end. Alex really treated our child for the first three months as a pre-production.

Alexandre: Yes, I’m going to do this, it’s going to be perfect.

Natalie: Then three months in, he’s like, oh my God, this never ends. He’s like, I can’t bring this energy 24-7 forever. It’s all a pleasure, and it’s all part of the magical ride that is living.

John: Alexandra, what’s your wonderful thing?

Alexandre: I did hesitate. For a long time, I thought, maybe my remarkable tablet, which means-

John: Oh, yes, I love those. Talk to me about how you use it.

Alexandre: Actually, that was my not actually wonderful thing, if you allow me. The remarkable tablet is a E-ink display that you can write on that has a very stripped-down interface. I come from the generation of people who wrote in many notebooks with a beautiful fountain pen, and then ended up carrying around seven or eight notebooks and destroying my back. I can use it for writing ideas. For school meetings, whatever it is. It has enough satisfaction. I know Craig has complained about the glassy feel of an iPad. It’s not as beautiful as a fountain pen, but it is still very satisfying.

As someone who will take notes in every meeting, sometimes I won’t even read those notes back, but the act of writing by hand helps the information go into my brain. I’m going to cheat a little bit because actually, this being script notes, I would like to bring to you a game.

John: All right, which is?

Alexandre: I don’t know if you’re familiar with this game. In very long car rides as a child, the only games that I think we had were 20 questions and what am I seeing out the window eyes wide?

John: A hand.

Alexandre: There’s a game that my friend, the novelist Benjamin Hale told me about, which he has deemed stinky pinky, but you may know under a different name. It is a game in which you put together a adjective and a noun, and the answer is something that rhymes. For example, the name of the game is, the explanation. If I was to say to you, smelly finger, you would think about it and say stinky pinky. For example, I can give you a very easy one. Overweight feline.

John: It’s a fat cat.

Alexandre: Exactly. Part of the pleasure is deciphering it, but part of the pleasure is coming up with them. For example, one of my favorites, which is a very hard one, I’ll give it to you, but with no expectation that you’ll get it, is dashing pirate.

John: All right a-

Alexandre: This is the hardest one I’ve ever come up with. It’s debonair corsair.

John: Debonair corsair. Very nice.

Alexandre: The clue, this involves French. False enemy.

John: Faux foe.

Alexandre: Yes. Isn’t this a fun game?

John: Yes, it’s a fun game.

Alexandre: The great thing is it’s great for car rides. It’s great for airports if you’re into puzzles. You can play with your children and set easier ones. You can come up with devilishly difficult ones.

John: It’s also very Craig, so he will enjoy it.

Alexandre: I think he might enjoy it. Stinky pinky.

John: That is our show for this week. Script Notes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask at johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. Thank you to John Pope, our DP for this episode. We’re trying this out on video. You’ll find the transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The Script Notes book is available wherever you buy books.

You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube to search for Script Notes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram at Script Notes Podcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today. In the email, you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. Are you guys premium subscribers?

Natalie: We are. Yes. Yes, I think so. All right.

John: You get the bonus segment, so you’re familiar with it. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net. We get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on black and white. Natalie and Alexandra, thank you so much. Congratulations.

Natalie: Thank you so much. This is such a pleasure.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right. Your film is released in black and white. Talk to me about when the decision was to do this in black and white. Were you black and white on the set? I assume you shoot color and then color time it down to black and white. Talk to us about all the decisions to do black and white.

Natalie: It was a really early decision. Part of it was that we just didn’t have control over the store. We’re shooting between midnight and 6:00 AM. The store had unusually long hours. It would be open at 9:00 AM and close at 9:00 PM. We would rush in the doors. We would have to have an hour-long break at 3:00 AM for lunch. All of which is to say we had very little time. In the morning, everything had to go back to normal. We were always choosing very carefully where are we placing our camera. By turning the film in black and white, we were imposing our own artistic aesthetic onto the store.

Alexandre: We knew that even before we visited the location. We’d been thinking about the Wim Wenders’s film Wings of Desire, which is mostly in black and white with some sections in color. That film has an iconic library, which I’d always been fascinated by. We’d spent a lot of time on Google checking out this library in real life. In color, I think the carpet is orange. You have all the colors of the sleeves of the books. It doesn’t have that-

John: Color’s distracting, yes.

Alexandre: It’s distracting. It doesn’t have that simplicity. We came to realize that black and white is a little bit like an x-ray. It shows you how things really are. Color distracts. That made sense in a society where the film is about observing and being observed. It’s a society in which joy and intimacy has been sucked out of the frame and where smell is actually an important component. Smell is very difficult to communicate in cinema. We thought that perhaps in the same way that when you remove one of the Senses, other sensors become heightened, that perhaps the black and white could-

Natalie: I’m not sure but it’s an idea.

Alexandre: It’s a theoretical idea.

Natalie: It also, someone commented the other day that the film is like boxes upon boxes upon boxes. By reducing the film to black and white, you really see the geometry, the lines of the store accentuated and then reverberated in the coffin, cardboard boxes.

Alexandre: Black and white is very compositional. When we draw storyboards, we draw in black and white. When I think of the end scene of our film, it involves a character of Malaise being viewed as a shadow on a wall. There’s almost a relationship to film noir there. There is something very graphical and compositional about black and white that is very attractive.

Natalie: It also allowed us to distance ourselves a little bit from our own world.

John: The time period of this. I say we’re in Paris, but it’s not our Paris. It’s not what we’re familiar with. It’s not clear exactly what era we’re in. It’s like-

Natalie: I think you said there are cell phones and iPads.

John: There are cell phones. They have technologies, but it’s clearly not the same system. The cash registers don’t work the same because it’s all about slaps. It’s a heightened world. The black and white also helps you with the sense like this is heightened. This is not realism as you’re expecting.

Alexandre: It helps with the tonal questions. Tone was very important and one of the hardest things in the writing and execution of this film. This film doesn’t take place in a world where three weeks ago there was a virus that escaped from a lab and suddenly everybody started slapping each other in the face. It’s not science fiction. It’s not what the world could become.

Tonally, it’s absurd in the sense that it’s meant to be in the sense that our world is already absurd. The things that contributed to that were, for example, the names of the characters. The characters are not named Jack and Sally. They’re called Malaise and Longy.

Natalie: This is also one of the reasons why we felt really strongly that the film should have a narrator because the narrator isn’t there to give away any information. You take out the narrator and you still understand what is happening in this world and who these characters are, but the narrator is there for the tone.

John: Make it the fable of it all.

Natalie: Yes, the fable. Exactly.

John: On set, back to the black and white, were you looking at monitors that were just black and white so you could have a sense of what that was? I feel that would be really confusing if you weren’t looking at that final.

Natalie: Yes, it was also something we were talking about with our costume designer because obviously different shades, different colors, you need that contrast and it’s not immediately obvious which colors will create that contrast.

Alexandre: To get very technical and geeky, maybe too technical and geeky, but this is a film podcast.

John: Let’s do it.

Alexandre: There is an option now to actually shoot native black and white on, say, an ARRI camera by removing the Bayer sensor colors, which gives you, I think, maybe a stop or maybe two stops of extra light and locks in your decision to shoot in black and white. However, it does make the grading a little bit more difficult and it definitely makes VFX and cleanup work more difficult because there’s less information to grab onto.

John: If you had grid screens to replace, for example, you don’t have a grid anymore.

Alexandre: Or even just tracking an object for information is very helpful.

John: You did not do that?

Natalie: No. We did shoot in color but we were always looking at a black and white. Obviously, it’s essential in the black and white dress that is at the core of the story.

Alexandre: Black and white is very much about surfaces, about textures, about reflections, about metallic. It’s about mirrors. We made a decision in the film to always have a mirror in every scene, so the camera’s either shooting into a mirror or a character’s looking at a mirror. That’s something that worked really well in black and white. It’s a very silvery kind of-.

Natalie: Then there are so many black and white films that we love. Not just older black and white films, but contemporary black and white films like the films of Pavel Pavlovsky, Ida, Cold War, and even Frances Ha, or The Lighthouse. Actually, when we made this, we didn’t realize how controversial it is to shoot in black and white. It’s one thing for a short, because obviously, the market is different, and the market barely exists for shorts. In a feature, we imagine that this film will still be in black and white, and it’s definitely something that we’re going to stick to, but it’s a hard sell because there are certain countries that will not distribute a black and white movie.

John: Frankenweenie is one of the last black and white studio films to be released, and it was a real problem. The kids, for the first time, they thought it was cool because they just had never seen black and white before.

Natalie: We like to joke because everyone always asks us, why did you make this film in black and white? We want to ask the opposite question, which is like, why did you choose color? Color is so much harder than black and white. It’s just, I don’t know, there’s something so seductive about a black and white image.

Alexandre: The rules that we’re imposing on film are kind of rules from the 70s and 80s when color film was great and black and white felt nostalgic. Anything that can make a film stand out is a plus.

John: All right. Congratulations again.

Alexandre: Thank you.

Links:

  • Two People Exchanging Saliva
  • Taika Waititi’s Two Cars One Night
  • Andrea Arnold’s Wasp
  • Martin McDonagh’s Six Shooter
  • Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash short film
  • Jim Cummings’ Thunder Road short film
  • David F. Sandberg’s Lights Out short
  • Troy by Mike Donahue
  • The New York Public Library’s Picture Collection
  • ReMarkable tablet
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our Director of Photography is Jonathan Pope.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 725: Torn from the pages of Squash Magazine, Transcript

March 5, 2026 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: This is episode 725 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, let’s play connections. What do tampons, millennials, ISIS, and collegiate squash have in common?

Craig: They all seemed obvious until you got to collegiate squash.

John: There’s always one stumper when it does throw in something that just knocks it all off. The answer is they are all topics in this week’s installment of How Would This be a Movie? Boy, howdy, do we have a range this week? We also have follow-up and listener questions. In our bonus segment for premium members, let’s talk about shiny plastic discs. I have shelves full of CDs and DVDs that I will never use again, but I’m not ready to give them up. I suspect I’m not alone. I want to talk through the decisions about our physical media and what we’re going to do with that.

First, we have another installment of This Week John Learned. Craig, this week John learned that skunk spray is yellow, thick, and incredibly sticky. That’s a thing that was different than what I expected. I had this image in my head that skunk spray was clear, and it was thin. First-hand experience, skunk spray is awful. It is a chemical weapon. It is a bear spray that comes from a small little creature.

Craig: Oh, you mean the spray that comes out of a skunk. I kept thinking about this bear spray, like the stuff you bring with you to spray to get rid of bears.

John: Yes. What I learned this week is that they’re much more similar than you would expect. My dog, Lambert, who you love, 10.30 PM on Monday night.

Craig: He got skunked.

John: Let him out in the backyard, and did not see that there was a small creature there that Lambert took out after I realized, oh my God, that’s a skunk. I didn’t know there even were skunks in LA. You don’t see skunks in LA.

Craig: We didn’t lock him out all the time.

John: Yelled at Lambert to stay away. Lambert got hit straight in the face by the skunk. It was awful. My little dog was– he obviously smelled terrible, but he was foaming at the mouth. He was in misery. We were trying to clean it off of him. We’re doing all the things. We’re doing the hydrogen peroxide and the baking soda, all these things. Rinsing his eyes. No damage to him?

Craig: No.

John: This smell is–

Craig: This smell is brutal. Cookie got skunked a few years ago. It’s like 20 baths later, you can almost not smell it anymore. It’s that powerful.

John: Yes. What was so surprising to me is that we got some of it off of him, and I just wrapped him in a towel and carried him upstairs to the bath. Just in carrying him through the house, the house smelled like skunk. He didn’t touch anything, and it still smelled like skunk.

Craig: Famously, you can smell when a skunk gets hit on the road. You can smell it from miles away.

John: It is crazy.

Craig: I believe the chemical you’re smelling is similar to the chemical that’s added to natural gas so that you can smell it if there’s a leak, but in much tinier, tinier– It is fascinating that skunks have, I think, a unique defense system. Why no other animals put that one together, just skunks?

John: Bless them for their ingenuity. Evolution did something really remarkable for them. It is crazy. I would also say that I had this image in my head that obviously I thought it was a thinner substance. What you see in terms of Pepe Le Pew, you see the stink lines. It’s not quite that. It’s more like it reminded me of the feeling after this most recent election, when there was this feeling of constant dread. It’s like a dread that is just around. It’s not like a high note, a sickly, sweet smell. It’s like melting plastic and existential dread.

Craig: To me, it’s like burning hair in hell. I also, weirdly, when I’m driving on the road, and I catch it, I like it.

John: In a distance, I like it.

Craig: Up front, God. Well, poor Lambert.

John: Poor Lambert. He’s recovering.

Craig: He’s going to go through a few baths. One day, it will end.

John: All right. We’ve got some follow-up. First off, with comps, which was one of our last episodes.

Drew Marquardt: Zach wrote, “In Episode 723, Craig said that he’d like to hear from younger listeners what newer comps they hear frequently. A recent title that I think deserves a mention is Get Out, which I hear constantly as shorthand for contained, politically smart genre.”

Craig: That makes total sense.

John: It makes absolute sense.

Craig: I’m angry about it because I hear it in my mind. I’m in the room now. They’re like, “Okay, what we’re looking for is Get Out, but with Tom Cruise action.” The problem with these things is they really just don’t belong together most of the time. The thing about Get Out is it’s not shorthand for contained, politically smart genre. It’s Get Out. It’s a very specific film with a very specific story-

John: I get it.

Craig: -but I completely see how they would use this one as a comp. Yes.

John: Absolutely. The thing about Get Out is that it’s the Blumhouse model of it. It’s basically one location contained thriller, but like most Blumhouse things, you think about as being like they’re bloody, they’re gory. The horror of Get Out is not the centerpiece of it.

Craig: No.

John: Yes. Let’s move on to Kristen wrote in about undeniable.

Drew: “As an executive, all too often, what we get is something that’s half-baked or reads like a million other scripts out there. It doesn’t have clarity or distinctive voice, or it’s a perfectly fine idea, but it’s not a great idea. It’s not insightful in some way. I think that’s what we mean when we say we want something to be undeniable. It’s shorthand for if you want to be noticed, write something noteworthy because most of what I read is forgettable.”

Craig: This makes complete sense. There are a lot of parts that go into these things. Remember that the person who’s reading your script is not going to be the person who buys your script. The person who reads your script is the person who’s going to be selling your script upstairs to someone they work for. The name of the game is, I found this script, and this is great. Everyone goes, it is great, and then they make it, undeniable.

John: Yes. I was a reader at TriStar for a year, and so I read zillions of scripts and wrote coverage on them. Very few scripts where I get a strong recommend or definite recommend because it was a risk. You had to say, “You’re going to read this and say, this is really good.” There’s no second. That’s obviously a really good script, and it’s worth your time to do it. That’s really undeniability.

Craig: Yes, exactly. I think this is really important for people to hear. I’m just going to read it again. Half-baked reads like a million other scripts out there, doesn’t have clarity or distinctive voice, perfectly fine idea, but it’s not a great idea, or it’s not insightful in some way. It’s not good, it’s not bad, it’s just nice. I’m going to Sondheim my way through this, but in short clips so we can’t get sued.

John: Follow-up from Matt about two different episodes.

Drew: We had talked about the Scott Frank School of Writing and orality recently. Matt says, “I’m teaching playwriting this semester for the second time. I’ve never taken a playwriting class despite working as a professional one for two decades now. When it came time for me to teach the STEM class, I was so anxious I just replicated the same cliche factory of unexamined conventions, and it was terrible and worthless.

Then, last fall, I heard your Scott Frank episode and was just amped. I threw everything out, and at my inner city university with students from under-resourced schools and a wide range of background, we just ran that experiment each day. Despite teaching through the crippling indifference it seems we have to fight in so many of these creative classes today, it’s been a blast. We are writing so much with a loose jazz while still learning really good scales, if that makes sense. I’m learning, they’re learning, and we’re doing it through writing, and they are amped.

This week, we used the Orality tool to test some of our dialogue sprints, and the impact was huge. Some students began to experiment on what wasn’t working and why these people sounded like they weren’t talking. They started to make the connections or grow their taste for making imaginary people sound like real people, and it was just great.”

Craig: Well, there you go.

John: It sounds like Matt’s having a good time, but his students are really lucky to have Matt as their teacher.

Craig: I think Matt’s really lucky that he has us. Because we brought Scott Frank on, and Scott was correct. Cranky Scott Franky loves to tell the truth. What I really appreciate about Matt is he’s a teacher, and we have a set of hard opinions about how, generally speaking, the way we teach what we do for a living in this country is broken. Matt had a choice and decided, yes, I’m going to go for a different method. Listen, anything where kids are suddenly engaged, where it’s not work, but they are pushing forward, that’s how you know it’s going well.

John: He’s also not talking about the theory of playwriting. He’s just like, “We’re just writing a bunch of stuff.”

Craig: Yes. Because here, you can’t teach something like August Wilson. You cannot teach August Wilson how to write a play like August Wilson. That’s the play he’s going to write anyway. You can teach August Wilson, and this would be a very young August Wilson, about how to get to where he already can go. You do that through practice. Practice. Not conventions and studying what was before, and formats and blah. I write, you read, we discuss. That’s how acting classes work. It’s great.

John: I noticed in Matt’s email to us, he wrote playwriting with W-R-I-G-H-T-I-N-G. It is a weird thing where a screenwriter doesn’t have the G-H-T and a playwright does have it. I was just looking up whether playwrighting with the G-H-T is common or less common. Officially, the G-H-T tends to go away. We’re not using that.

Craig: What?

John: Yes.

Craig: No.

John: You would do it how Matt does it.

Craig: Of course. They’re getting rid of the G-H because plays are wrought.

John: Plays are wroght.

Craig: Like iron. They are wrought. We just simply write.

John: Websters says it is more commonly without the G-H-T than with the G-H-T.

Craig: I can see how it would be playwriting without the G-H, but then when you say playwright, you’re going to want that G-H.

John: Yes. It would be weird. There’s not a word playwriter, not a thing, the way that screenwriter is a word.

Craig: I think plays are wrought.

John: Plays are wrought.

Craig: Wrought

John: Last bit of follow-up is about our email issues. Last episode, we were talking through issues that we were having with Craig’s emails not coming through. We had a suspicion that our listeners might know the answer to these questions. It seems like they did. We have three different people writing in with different things to test and try.

Drew: Jacob writes, “I manage a few dozen domains and their email configurations, and if I had to put money on it, I’d guess your domain is missing an SPF record or it’s not set up correctly. SPF is basically a way of telling the recipient server, these email servers are allowed to send email on behalf of my domain. Without it, receiving mail servers tend to get suspicious and may flag messages as spam, newsletters, or block them entirely. I’d strongly recommend adding SPF along with DKIM and DMARC so recipient emails can verify that you are who you say you are.”

Craig: I’ll have to check and see if I have boxes that do that.

John: What did Ian write for us?

Drew: “My wife has her own domain for her business, and sometimes she runs into a similar issue. It used to have to do with her hosting company because she used a shared grid service hosting package because it was not exorbitantly priced. I’m not an IT pro, but it basically means that your stuff is on a server with other people’s domains, and if those people’s domains are spamming people and they get flagged by the whitelisting services, her email could sometimes get caught up in that. Switching hosting companies was ultimately the solution.”

Craig: I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. It’s a very large company.

John: Fortunately, Zach has one last thing we can test.

Craig: Great.

John: Zach passed along a free deliverability tester that he’s used before and has gotten decent results. It’s mailtester.com. He says, the name sounds super generic, and the site looks dumb, but it works.

Craig: All right, should I do it right now?

John: Sure.

Craig: Okay. First, send your email to this. I’m going to copy it, I guess, and I’m going to send it from the address that’s causing a little bit of problems. Now, I assume there’s going to be some sort of response that’s going to give me information. All right. This is exciting or not.

John: Or not.

Craig: Then check your score. Oh, I think it already knows what’s happening.

John: Do you want to share your screen so it can see?

Craig: It’s the picture of a rowboat rowing from a lighthouse to a palm tree with coconuts. It’s very strange. My score is 7.7 out of 10. Good stuff. Your email is almost perfect. You’re not fully authenticated DMARC. Turns out to be the problem. Spam Assassin thinks you can improve. I have a minus 2.3. Now I know what to do. This is great. I think between a couple of those there, we may have gotten the answer. Oh, that’s our listeners.

John: Just the best. Again, we’re going to praise our listeners as we get into our One Cool Things. We have another person writing in about a bonus segment topic. In episode 722 bonus segment, we were talking about what a big year for the box offices is looking to be. Someone wrote in with more information.

Drew: This friend says, “If you’re not familiar with us, we’re part of the theatrical ecosystem, assisting those constituents with insights and audience analytics. At the very end of episode 722, you shared a 2026 outlook for the movie business. If you’re interested, here’s a brief 2025 summary that we shared with our friends in the media.

John: This is from Entelligence, E-N-T-elligence.

Craig: Oh, like from the Ents? The talking tree.

John: Yes. The talking trees.

Craig: This is going to be very good.

John: Well, their roots run deep.

Craig: It took them years to put this together just at the Entmoot.

John: I think it’s intertesting just because it’s a different way of looking at the same kinds of data. It looks like they are talking about attendance in movie theaters, sports, special events, everything like that. Whereas we are just looking at box office, they’re looking at total attendance, which, for 2025, they’re saying 780 million seats attended. 4.7 billion seats, 780 million people. If you look at the big titles, they were the big titles, so Minecraft, Lilo & Stitch, Zootopia, Wicked for Good, Superman. They can also talk to you about which genres ended up having the highest attendance.

Craig: Look at this, the studios, Disney at 26%, Warner Brothers, 20%. It’s getting sold.

John: It’s getting sold. Of course, Warner Brothers has the two top contenders for best picture made by great singular vision filmmakers.

Craig: Yes. Sure hope that they let it be what it is. This is fascinating to look at. Los Angeles is still the largest market, followed by New York. Dallas, of all things.

John: Oh, yes. I know Dallas is big.

Craig: How about this one? Political, blue, red. This shocks me. 56% of movie attendance are by people who consider themselves blue, or is it from blue states? 34% from red.

John: My guess is it’s based on market, but I don’t know.

Craig: That’s crazy. Pretty even spread among the ratings. Action, still the king at the box office, 40%. Animation, comedy, 5.5%. Now, I would argue that’s because there aren’t any.

John: Yes, or because a lot of things that are our comedies, we’re labeling as other things because that’s just what we choose to do. Cool. Film format, 3D, is about 6% of the earnings here. I guess we can’t really say box office, but they’re saying 6%. That’s higher than I would have guessed. 70 millimeter or 35 millimeter shown on film, each is less than 1%. Yes.

Craig: I wonder if 3D is all about Avatar.

John: Maybe.

Craig: Right, because he puts that out in 3D, right?

John: Oh, yes. First, you’re meant to see it in 3D.

Craig: Yes. I think that is entirely– Avatar had more foot traffic than any other movie, as they say, 30%.

John: Overall, male-female split, 50.1% male, 49.8% female, which is?

Craig: I love that. I don’t know what the margin of error is, but I would imagine that’s within it.

John: Yes, for sure. There are slightly more women than men in the United States. That’s also part of it.

Craig: Yes, because the men keep dying. Go to an old age home, just look around. Just that one guy. No one talks to him.

John: All right. It was our listeners who wrote in with this great follow-up. Our listeners who are premium members got an email this past week saying, “Hey, we’re going to do a new How Would This Be a Movie, and we would love your suggestions for articles for How Would This Be a Movie.” Drew, talk to us about the response you got when you sent out that email.

Drew: We very quickly got tons of responses. We got 40 in total, and a lot of them were really fantastic.

John: I went through the longer list, and someone’s like, “Wait, that sounds familiar.” Two of the honorable mentions, one of them was Paula Dakin, who was in Witness Protection. We talked about that, episode 525. It’s a really good idea, which we talked about it in episode 525.

Craig: That’s how good it was.

John: Yes. There was another one, which is about a mother who, basically, she and the kids were on a rowboat that got swept out to sea. She ended up sending her 14-year-old son in to swim to the shore for safety, which was a four-kilometer swim. He did it and saved them all.

Craig: A ton of people wrote in with that one.

John: Yes. It was just too stressful for me. I don’t want to even talk about it. I had palpitations just reading the story.

Craig: Also, what is that movie, just watching the kids swim?

John: It’s an incident. It’s a beep in a bigger movie. There wasn’t going to be anything to talk about beyond that. Of the other 40, there were some really great ones. I picked four of them that I think are going to be good topics for us to get into. Let’s start off with how an errand for a 12-year-old immigrant in Minneapolis became an underground operation. It’s written by Jasmine Gossard and Sarah Venture for NPR. It’s sent in by Christopher Boone. Drew, can you give us the description?

Drew: Sure. A 12-year-old girl in Minneapolis who we only know as E, got her first period last month in January 2026. E needed menstrual pads, but because E and her family are undocumented, she’s been in hiding in their home for the last several weeks. E calls her dad for help, but dad’s at work and doesn’t have a car with him, so that he’s not targeted by ICE. Her dad calls their pastor, who then calls a church member named Lizette, but Lizette’s also scared to go out, so she calls the neighbor, Ade, whose daughter Fanny is a US citizen. Though they’re still scared, Ade and Fanny decide to get pads to E, traveling through back alleys to avoid agents and deliver the menstrual supplies to her safely.

Craig: Two things, Minneapolis Tampon Run would have been the best sequel name to Cannonball Run. Back when, the Burt Reynolds, Dom DeLuise version of this would be outstanding. We first have to just say how horrible it is that this is a freaking thing that we aren’t even talking about at all, that this is happening is insane.

John: Last night, I was walking Lambert, and I started thinking about Minneapolis, and I started to weep. I was like, “Why am I weeping? What is actually going on?” It wasn’t ICE, specifically. It wasn’t the horrible brutality and the killings there. What I think what was actually making me weep was the recognition that a whole community had come together with whistles and phones to document and stop, and the sense of protecting people you don’t even know. I was weeping for a happy reason within all this. This story reminds me of the ways that, in crisis, people come together.

Craig: Yes, it’s still infuriating. I haven’t to be happy about the positives yet. I’m still in fury. This is an interesting idea. I don’t know if it’s a movie, if only because there’s a strange clock on it. There is an argument that there is a movie where an undocumented, and in this case, child, I think is correct because the stakes get even higher when it’s a child, an undocumented child has something that could be a problem medically, and they have to wait and see. It does get worse. They have to figure out how to get her somewhere to adopt, and this is all in America. I could see that. This would be a good episode of something.

John: Yes, I was thinking of The Pitt or some sort of show that is taking place more in real time. Craig, I would say the movie version of it, this is a plot line in, and it’s an Altman-esque Nashville situation where a bunch of stuff is happening. It’s all the same day, but this is one of the threads that’s happening through that. Feels right.

Craig: I think you’re absolutely right. Either it’s episode of something or fit into a story that normally accommodates these kinds of things, or it’s a thread line in a Magnolia-ish or Robert Altman-esque parallel storylines. I could see that. It’s disgusting that this is a problem.

John: Well, the resonance with Anne Frank is obvious here. You have a girl on the verge of womanhood, terrified, alone. She’s going through normal adolescent development in this incredibly extreme environment where she’s hidden, where everything is just turned upside down. That is compelling about this part of the story, but I think it’s a bigger tapestry around it. Right now, we’re following just this young girl and the people who come to help her, but her father is a really interesting character. It’s like the universality of a girl’s first period feels right.

Craig: An important character note, he’s a single dad. He’s a single dad, and I suspect probably either doesn’t speak English or is limited in some way. He’s not going to be able to just casually and charmingly go about getting something and not feeling like he’s targeted by the goon squad. It is a fascinating story, and with a really nice ending. Also notable in the story is that E has no idea what’s going on. There was not a conversation.

John: She has no idea what’s going on in terms of why she’s bleeding.

Craig: Correct.

John: She has a sense of the overall what’s happening outside her door, but not inside her body.

Craig: That she is. Correct. All she knows is she’s bleeding, and she doesn’t even know why, which immediately would be a terrifying thing to experience. There’s been a lack of education there. Not only does someone have to get her menstrual supplies, they also have to explain what it is and how it’s going to go.

John: Yes, which in the actual original story is the next day, a nurse calls her and talks her through all this stuff.

Craig: That’s a rough day. Shameful. Shameful. Just outrageous.

John: I think there’s something to do here. I think it’s part of a larger story, but I can absolutely see why we were sent this article. Let’s completely shift gears and go to something much lighter.

Craig: My god. Interesting.

John: This is a millennial travel group. This is based on an article by Katie Weaver for The New York Times. I recognize Katie Weaver’s byline, so I looked up and she’s done a lot of stuff that I’ve read over the years. I went on a package trip for millennials who travel alone. Help me. This was sent in by Dr. Stephanie Sandberg. Drew, give us a description here.

Drew: Katie Weaver, who’s a millennial woman, books a package vacation to Morocco through Flash Pack, a company whose stated aim is to help people in their 30s and 40s make new friends. Katie is put in a group with 13 women who are all different flavors of Type A. They go on a hyper-scheduled tour around Morocco. There’s sightseeing, cooking lessons, steam baths, goat feeding, ATV riding, glamping. It’s all calibrated to create a group dynamic, which the company takes so seriously that it’ll kick out anyone who throws the dynamic off.

The group bonds together quickly and tightly and are relentless in their stated objective of fun and friendship. One cold, wet, miserable day, the only way to have fun is to drink at a vineyard, so the group gets exceptionally drunk. When Katie eventually returns home, she finds that the demands of her normal life are a breeze compared to the intense responsibilities imposed by the trip.

John: I’m going to say from the start, I think there is a movie here. It doesn’t have to be specifically this article, but the idea of a bunch of Type A women who are strangers going on a trip together, could be to Morocco, could be to anywhere, is a good idea for a movie. You have the diversity of people and types. I think Katie Weaver or a Katie Weaver-type character is a character in this, in the sense that she is both a participant but also the journalist/documenter of these things. She holds herself outside of it and is then forced into it.

Weaver describes this sociological paradox. To have many friends is a desirable condition. To plainly seek to make friends is unseemly and pitiful. Millennials’ broad acceptance of the taboo around extending oneself in friendship, perhaps an aversion to participation inherited from their direct predecessors, Gen X, is particularly irrational, given that millennials report feeling lonely often or always at much higher rates than members of previous generations. Yet Weaver herself says, “I am pathologically that person who will try to make friends with people.”

Craig: I don’t understand. Millennials have a taboo about reaching out, which is insane. Also, weirdly, millennials are lonely. Yes, if that’s your taboo, then yes, you will be lonely. Also, don’t put that on Gen X. We love having friends. We don’t know taboo about making friends. Also, millennials aren’t our kids. They’re boomer kids. I defend my generation. That said, what you have here absolutely is a movie. There’s a bunch of different kinds of movies to make.

John: Yes, there are.

Craig: One version is you’ve got a woman who is Type A who had a group of friends that she has started to leave because she is on a more successful track, because she does feel pitiful, whatever her weird millennial problem is.

John: Or her friends started having kids, and she doesn’t have kids yet, and that’s a factor.

Craig: That’s a thing. She starts to feel like either I’m lonely or I need new friends. I’m going to sign up for this thing because this is a very like, “Hey, I did a test and I got a good score. I win.” She goes on this vacation. Meanwhile, her friends and their kids happen to also go on vacation at the same place, but I’m the one to bitch over or something. She’s having her new friends and this Type A maximum lifestyle.

Over there, the other character who was like her best friend is having a horrible time because her kids are sick and someone’s barfing and they’re crying, blah, blah. Yet they are each getting something valuable. They’re each also looking at parts of this going, “This is horrible.” Maybe it’s better if the friends that we have are the friends we actually made because we’re friends and not because we were in a program to make friends.

John: Intentional friendship is its own special flavor. A couple of different movies this is reminding me of. Bridesmaids, obviously, because it is about female friendship, but I was also thinking about A Real Pain. We had Jesse Eisenberg on in episodes six, seven, and two. That’s all centered around a trip to famous Jewish sites with a bunch of strangers. Well, Holocaust sites, but also the town where his family grew up.

Craig: [unintelligible 00:29:30] Famous Jewish sites. Some of them are infamous.

John: Infamous, famous, yes. A group of strangers and, of course, his cousin as well. Sideways, which is friends traveling. That idea of, okay, the whole movie is about this trip and this traveling, what you’ve learned along the way.

Craig: It’s also The Hangover.

John: The Hangover, yes.

Craig: They get drunk, and they go crazy. There’s somebody in charge of them who you can quickly see becomes the villain. There is a bonding that occurs, possibly through perfect people who have been selected because they’re perfect people behaving extremely imperfectly together, and through that, actually, friendships are created.

John: I was also thinking about David Foster Wallace’s A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, which is about him going on the cruise. What is the conversation between his perception of what his role is there as a documentarian there, and Katie Weavers, who is actively trying to make friends? They’re very different characters in similar situations.

This last year I went on a cruise with my family to Alaska. We started in Anchorage and went down to Vancouver. Because Mike and I are the people who will try to make friends, we went to one of the mixers and met a bunch of the solo travelers. There’s a whole community of people who go on cruises themselves. They will do it all the time. They make friends on the cruises, and then they all plan to go on the same cruise again and again. They love doing that.

Craig: Nightmare cruise people deserve to be loved also.

John: Yes, they do. I think there’s a lot of really good, rich space here. You could use this article as a jumping-off point. I don’t know that you need it because you’re going to probably want to just do your own thing. There aren’t a lot of great specific characters, I felt like, oh, yes, that’s somebody you want to pull through into your movie.

Craig: Yes, it’s the article somebody options so that they can feel like they have a project that they can get writers to come in on. It’s such a producer thing to do. I can see that.

John: I’ve gotten sent articles like this. Someone will do it, and I can imagine this or essentially this idea becoming a movie 100%. It could be a theatrical feature, but it could also be made for a streamer.

Craig: Totally.

John: Love it. It could even be a limited series. You could do the Mike White version of this. One might notice [crosstalk].

Craig: I guess Mike White has done the Mike White lotus of this version in a way, but I feel like this feels like movie to me.

John: Yes, I think it’s a movie too. I think it’s a comedy.

Craig: Yes, I think it’s a comedy for sure.

John: Next step, switching gears even more radically, How the US Hacked ISIS. This is an article by Dana Temple Raston for NPR. It was sent in to us by Brian Notten. Drew, help us out.

Drew: In the spring of 2016, Steve Donald, who’s a captain in the Naval Reserve and a computer whiz, is ordered to put together a team to conduct cyber operations against ISIS. At the time, ISIS is the first terrorist network to use the power of the internet to recruit and launch attacks. After tracking them for months, Neil and his team learned that ISIS has just 10 core accounts they do everything through, from file sharing to financial transactions. He presents this to his higher-ups, and they begin Operation Glowing Symphony.

They use phishing emails to gain access to the administrator accounts one by one. They map the entire network, and then in a coordinated attack, they take over the 10 accounts, lock the administrators out, and take everything down. Then after the initial take down, the task force shifts to ongoing disruption and high-tech psyops to cripple their organizing efforts, frustrate their users, and tank ISIS morale.

John: Craig Mazin, what do you see here? What’s interesting? What’s challenging to you?

Craig: All of it is interesting. None of it is a movie. It is so hard to make drama out of somebody going, “Okay, click, yep, all right, I deleted that. Click, yep, I blocked him out of his account. Click, yep.” I could see this as a scene in a movie or like a moment where we’re screwed, we don’t know what to do, and someone’s like, “I know who to call.” These tough soldiers end up in a room with a bunch of nerds who are like, “Oh, this is what we do.”

The problem with this kind of thing is it is impossible to portray on film the effort and ingenuity required. You can’t sit there and go through hours of people going, “How do we break through their firewall and da, da, and the SSI, and you [unintelligible 00:34:09].” One day they do, and they type things on a keyboard, and it happens. It is profoundly uncinematic, which is why when we do show hacking in movies, it tends to be ridiculous and overblown because we’re trying to make it cinematic, and so we have things on screen going rah, rah, rah. I think it’s a great moment, scene, possibility. I would not know how to make this a movie.

John: Yes. I’m a little bit more optimistic that there’s a movie to be made here. I’m thinking about what have I seen of hacking that truly is cinematic, and I think Mr. Robot is the best version of it I’ve seen. You have a very compelling character, and what he’s doing, when he’s click, click, click, typing, typing, typing. We quickly see what’s happening, what the actual effect is. That’s why I think this can’t just be from one side where we’re just seeing what we’re doing. I think you have to see ISIS’s side and what they’re actually able to achieve and who these people are so that when we’re doing things, we know who those people are as stuff gets frustratingly worse for them on the other side of this.

Craig: That scene is also really funny because they do it, and on the other side, someone’s like, “Oh my God, what’s going on with my password? John, my password doesn’t work.” “Restart.”

John: You need to see the same people who’ve done a bombing and who’ve done serious things and killing people, and then they can’t log into Instagram.

Craig: Yes, someone took my Insta.

John: The other thing that’s reminded me of a bit was The Imitation Game. In that movie, Alan Turing has to figure out how to crack the Nazi codes. That movie was successful in physicalizing a lot of stuff that is otherwise an intellectual process. There’s moments in just the story as written, which is like, he’s going in on the whiteboard, and he’s actually drawing all the things. Literally, he evokes the image of Charlie in, as always done in Philadelphia, with the red strings and all. Sure, that’s one little snapshot, but you have to then figure out who are the people that you need to do, to what degree is this a heist mentality?

That could be exciting, which is like, this is the plan, but these are the things that go wrong. Because they are physically separated, because there’s the whole internet in between them, the stakes don’t feel quite real enough. I recently saw A House of Dynamite, which Kathryn Bigelow directed so brilliantly. That is a bunch of people typing into things, but it ends up being quite cinematic. There may be ways to take some of that grammar into this.

Craig: A House of Dynamite, that’s a good example of a Altman-ish view of what happens over the course of one hour of real time, but divided among three different stories where there are quite a few different things, one of them is the President of the United States. The Imitation Game obviously had the great character of Alan Turing to explore, and the difficulties in his life and how that impacted him.

The other thing about The Imitation Game is that what they were trying to break, the Enigma machine. To do it, they had to build this big physical thing that was awesome to look at, and it’s accurate with these dials that go, [unintelligible 00:37:29], so cool. The stakes, of course, were World War II, and no offense to ISIS, but they haven’t World War II’d the world. They haven’t yet hit Hitler status. There’s stakes, but if there were a great character in the heart of this, if someone like Steve Donald, the captain of the Naval Reserve, was also a fascinating person with a challenging life story, then maybe you could see how this could be a thing.

John: You can’t believe it’s him, but it could only be him. That’s an aspect that we don’t know if that’s true or not. That’s why you need to do a lot more research beyond just what we see in this story. That’s three of our stories. Our fourth is completely different on another axis. Drew, help us out on this fourth one, which is based around The Best College Squash Team in History, James Zug, writing for Squash Magazine. There’s a Squash Magazine. Of course. It was sent in by Dan Zaitchus.

Drew: In 1977, the student editors of the Whitman College newspaper start writing stories about how the university squash team is having this incredible undefeated season, except the school doesn’t have a squash team. This is a joke, and the editors try to make it as obvious as possible with ridiculous scores and matches against world champions, but no one at the school figured out it was fake or bothered to fact-check them.

They continue to write about this championship squash team and are eventually invited to a real squash championship in Calgary, Alberta, which the school administration gives them money to go to. They lose their matches quickly, and they party for the rest of the trip. When they come back, they report factually about their trip and thank the administration for the money and encourage them to support the drag racing team.

John: In 1977, I loved the period setting of this story. There was a bunch of college kids pulling a prank that went on too far. Then, of course, they get recruited into doing the thing. It’s such a comedy premise and then a comedy consequence to have to go do the thing. A lot of stuff you’re going to want to bend and change. Craig, do you think there’s a space here that’s interesting for a comedy?

Craig: No, only because the problem is, you put your finger on it, actually, you have a group of people that, as a joke, make a fake squash team. As it turns out, one of the guys actually played squash, I think, but most of them did not. Then, the joke is somebody believes you and puts you in a tournament. You have to go. Now, it’s like a dodgeball, underdog situation, but anyone can play dodgeball. That’s why dodgeball worked.

Squash is a sport, and you’re just going to lose fast, and you’re obviously fake, and that’s not fun to watch. Not fun to watch it. If you go, and you’re awesome, and you end up losing, that’s interesting. If you go, and you stink, but you prevail, that’s interesting. If you go, and you’re just fake, what happens? Is flatlining lose, and then you go home? I don’t know. Also, as pranks go, this is the most milquetoast, sort of mealy-mouthed prank. You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to make a fake squash team. I know it was supposed to be like all those scamps, but mostly I was like, I need to see it.

John: I think what you’re hitting on is that it’s like a prank just for the sake of the prank doesn’t feel like enough of a driving engine. There has to be something they’re actually going for. Some of this reminds me of former Scriptnotes producer Stuart Friedel. One of the characteristics I love so much about Stuart is he will have a goal, or he’ll see an opportunity, and he will engineer things to achieve that opportunity.

For example, Stuart wanted to sing the national anthem at a major league sporting event. He engineered the way for him to get to sing the national anthem at, I think, a minor league baseball game, and he did it. He figured out this is an opportunity to do it. With Stuart Friedel-type character who is driving this for a specific goal, which is not just an inner ambition, but something he wants to achieve, you can imagine that being enough to get us to why we’re creating the fake squash team, to win the girl, to do the thing, to get the scholarship, to do something.

Craig: I could see where it’s a little adjusted, where you have a squash team that is pretty bad. They want to be good, and you get all the different reasons why. My dad was a squash player. He wants me to be a squash, whatever it is. They’re okay, but mostly, they’re in the cellar in their very tiny Division III college league. Somebody, as a joke, because they’re so bad, somebody, as a joke, just starts flipping the scores when they print them.

They get invited to a tournament because of it, and they’re like, “We’re going. We have to try. We can be better.” Every year, you play up to your competition. Then they have a chance to be a Cinderella story. Then, of course, right before they’re about to go into the championship match, somebody discovers that the records were flipped, and they’re disqualified, and everyone’s like, “Let them play, let them play.” Bad News Bears. I could see that.

John: I think we’re talking about what are the interesting edges of the sports comedy genre. We reference dodgeball, which is, of course, a parody of the sports comedy. Challengers is also a parody of what a sports comedy is. Happy Gilmore, another great example of a movie that is a comedy that is existing because of what our expectations are of sports comedies. Bad News Bears you referenced. I think there’s something smart you could do there, but this is just a very tiny little seed of an idea. You’d have to really have characters who are interesting and have a good way to introduce the audience to, what does 1977 feel like?

You and I were little then, and we have some image of what that’s like. In that pre-internet era, I can see them getting away with this because anything that was in print was true. Of all these– they’re all execution-dependent, but this one is especially execution-dependent. This either works great or it’s nothing. Once again, our listeners totally stepped up. Thank you to our premium subscribers who got this email and sent us in these great suggestions for stories. I really loved talking through all of them.

Craig: Same.

John: Let’s answer a listener question. Heidi has a question about querying reps.

Drew: A few years ago, I wrote a feature script based on a quirky and obscure historical event. I rewrote the script as a picture book manuscript and sold it to a major publisher. The book’s coming out this year. I’ve since revised the original script and now have a few more scripts under my belt. I think I might finally be ready to seek representation. My question is, should I send the picture book and the press kit with my script when I query managers? The illustrator the publisher chose is fabulous and the illustrations are quite cinematic. I’m wondering if it will serve as a sort of early pitch deck or I’ll just seem hokey.

John: I think, Heidi, yes, you have something that people can see, which is nice. Mostly, you want them to be reading your scripted material to get a sense of, “Oh, this is who they’re going to try to sell you as as a person.” The book is the thing they’re going to send out to get people interested. Yes, you should send them the book.

Craig: Of course, send them the book. If for no other reason, then it makes you legitimate. You wrote a book and a major publisher bought it and published it. Now you’re somebody that is different than the just, “Hi, I’m a 23-year-old from Kansas and I wrote a movie that’s mostly based on my life.” You go flap, into the other pile. This is different. It’ll at least get attention. Yes, I think you have to. Be crazy not to.

John: Fred sent in some rage bait. Here we go.

Drew: Should writers repeat the plot three or four times assuming that most viewers are watching while on their phones?

Craig: Oh, my God.

John: I can see the color changing in Craig’s face.

Craig: Oh, my God. I have heard about this.

John: Mostly in reference to Netflix, honestly.

Craig: Correct, Netflix. Nobody at HBO has ever brought that up. Apparently nobody at FX has ever brought that up. I think Justin probably would have complained to me by now. This is not a thing. This is just the computer spitting out too much data and their pattern recognition. It’s just pattern. This is faulty. This is faulty. People know when they’re not paying attention that they’re not paying attention. It’s not like people don’t pay attention to something, then turn back to it and go, “What’s going on? This movie makes no sense.”

They’re aware. They go back and watch the part they missed. This is silly. I hate it. I will never do it. No one should ever do it. It’s gross. Why don’t we also repeat the ending twice? Why don’t we do that? Why don’t we just repeat entire scenes? Let’s do that.

John: Let’s make soap operas.

Craig: Let’s make soap operas that also repeat within the episode of the soap opera. Everyone should always say their name when they talk to each other. John, as you know.

John: Craig, I absolutely know what you’re saying.

Craig: Right, John? Let’s rephrase it. Shall we, John?

John: This is maddening and it’s not real. It’s not true. Also, we’re saying Netflix here, but Netflix’s biggest hit, Adolescence, that was not recapping what was happening moment by moment. You actually had to watch the screen and pay attention. People don’t mind paying attention to things.

Craig: I don’t think it was developed by Netflix either.

John: Here’s where I think the reality is coming here. If you’re doing a competition show, if you’re doing a baking show, they are trained to repeat things again and again, going into a challenge, coming out of a challenge. They’re just constantly filling up with that kind of stuff, but not in a scripted dramatic stuff. Don’t do it.

Craig: No, don’t ruin your story. Don’t.

John: Just don’t do it. It is time for our One Cool Things. Mine is a paper by Cornell University and Anthropic looking at disempowerment in the age of AI. By disempowerment, it’s where people seed control or seed decision-making on certain axes. What I liked about it, and there’s a little table chart, which I thought was the most useful part of the article, is a summary and classification of ways that people disempower themselves. They talk about reality distortion, which is on a spectrum from none to severe. If you’re going to an AI, it’s like you’re going to just look something up in a book and you’re just trying to get information and context and understanding, that that’s not disempowerment.

With increasing sycophancy, the AI is telling you, “Oh, yes, you’re absolutely right,” even if you’re absolutely wrong. If it’s reinforcing negative beliefs, that can be very, very bad. There’s a person in my life who has fallen down that rabbit hole and clearly is believing things that are not true because the AI is just telling them that they’re right when they’re clearly wrong. That is troubling, and that’s a thing we need to be aware of.

They also talk about outsourcing decision-making, which is basically like when my dog got sprayed by a skunk, I was looking up online to see, what should I do? That’s an answer that I can find. There’s an expert out there. If I’m exporting more fundamental life decisions to this kind of thing, that is disempowering and it’s taking away your own agency to do a thing. I think it’s like, oh, I’m making a choice to ask something and to ask for advice, but honestly, you’re giving up the insight and the self-determination of what is best for you.

I thought this chart was really helpful. The paper is good at looking at what the issues are without providing good solutions to these issues, but we have to think about the guardrails that are beyond just like, let’s not let AI take over all of our systems, but let’s also not let it take over our internal determination of what we want to do, what we believe in, what is objective reality.

Craig: Those were some really good observations, John. I think we’re really onto something. [laughs]

John: Absolutely.

Craig: I hate that. Oh my God, do I hate that. If anyone talked to me like that in real life, I would be like, “What is wrong with you? Stop your toxic positivity.” I hear the feedback. I’m happy to make that adjustment. Oh, [unintelligible 00:50:20]. I do have one cool thing.

John: Please.

Craig: You’re familiar with song Day in the Life by the Beatles from Sgt. Pepper’s. There is a young man, he’s British. It’s like a 20-minute video where he goes through how that song was first written. It was initially written by John, because the song has two distinct parts to it. Then there was this hole where John said, “Paul, you put something in there.” Then they began to record it. While they were recording it, Paul then came up with his little bit. They literally were like, “There’s going to be 24 bars in this song where Paul’s thing is going to go.” They record the whole thing. This is the part that blew my mind. Then Paul has to go in and do his bit. Back in the day, if he goes too long, he’s going to overwrite.

John: [unintelligible 00:51:25] on tape.

Craig: There was this very tense moment where he had to, “And I went into a dream, la, la, la, la, la, la.” That part’s recorded. Went into a dream had to fit right there. If it was a little too long, it was going to mess it up. It was going to erase it. Not overlap, erase. There was all these crazy things. Then getting the final note and how they got that final note was fascinating. How they were able to get an orchestra to play the way they did because they wanted an orchestra to just play crazy. Classical musicians do not know how to play crazy. That’s not a thing they do.

It’s just really well done. It’s a fascinating history of how that song came together, literally down to the fact that– I read the news today. He blew his brains out in his car. Then 4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire. Those were two articles in one day in a newspaper that John read. He was like, “I’ll take that one, and I’ll take that one.” It’s pretty remarkable. There’s also some really good footage of them doing it all together. It’s just a great analysis of a song that deserves analysis because it’s very complex.

John: I love any sort of explainer video that really dives deep into how an artistic work was created because we just have this assumption like, “This thing is wonderful and perfect.” Until you know the actual genesis of how it got to be there, it just looks like, “Oh, well, this person was clearly just a super genius.” Then you see like, “Oh, there were actually many steps along the way, and there was collaboration, and there were decisions that were made and reversed and other things.” Song Exploder is a great podcast and video series that also talks through a lot of other songs.

Craig: It’s just fun to watch people solving problems that today are not at all problems. That final note, they’ve got six different pianos, and they’re all hitting versions of [makes sound]. The problem they had was getting everybody to hit [makes sound] exactly at the same time. If it was a little off, they wouldn’t take it. I think it took them nine tries. Now, you hit one record, hit one, just beep, beep, beep, and you would never have that problem of, “Fit your lyric in here or you erase.” It’s wild that that’s the way it worked, and it’s awesome.

John: I think it’s also worth noting, there’s really frustrating things about YouTube and the short-form video and how it’s destroyed our attention. Short-form video like this is also just an amazing opportunity to see how things are put together. The fact that somebody made this video, that wouldn’t have been possible in a normal TV documentary way. It’s like you can have very specific channels and focus on very specific interests, and that’s incredible.

Craig: Yes. It is a great feeling going into something that is documentary and knowing I’m going to get the thing I want, and then I can go away and do something else.

John: As you were able to know right from the start, how long is this video? Do I have time to watch this now?

Craig: Yes.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Gloom Canyon. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. Thank you for continuing to buy the Scriptnotes book.

You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You’ll find us on Instagram, also at Scriptnotes Podcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkwear. You’ll find us at Cotton Bureau. You can find show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to our premium subscribers-

Craig: Thank you.

John: -both for what you sent and solutions to email problems and great articles to discuss. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can become a premium member at scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on CDs and DVDs and what the hell we’re going to do with all these plastic discs in our homes. Craig, Drew, thank you for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, how many CDs or DVDs do you own?

Craig: CDs nuts. It has to be said. You can’t say CDs without saying CDs nuts.

John: 100%. I walked right into that. It’s not a problem.

Craig: It has to happen. Everyone at home listening to this should just add the nuts to tapes or CDs. [chuckles] It’s a classic. I personally am out of that business.

John: What did you do? At a certain point, you did have a bunch of CDs and you had a bunch of DVDs too.

Craig: So many. I had so many. I had, well, it goes further, video games, which were on DVDs.

John: Yes, psychical video.

Craig: Physical video games, physical DVDs, physical CDs. I held onto them for quite some time. At some point, you began to feel like you just had a victrola. I do still have a Blu-ray player. It sits in the room with the other, but it doesn’t get touched.

John: Do you have any Blu-rays to play in it?

Craig: It’s there in case. It really was about screeners, but now screeners are all accessed online. That’s gone. Thank God, because as you know, if you’re a member of multiple guilds and academies, there would be like 100 DVDs getting mailed to you every award season. It was a nightmare. Now that’s gone. They’re gone.

John: Craig, when did you get rid of them? As you were moving from your house in La Cañada Flintridge to Hancock Park, was that the big purge or what happened before then?

Craig: I had all my CDs in this big, heavy box. I think Melissa might have had them pack it up. Maybe it’s in her closet somewhere. It’s the sort of thing I could see her keeping. I have no emotional attachment to the objects. I just like the songs. I know for my daughter, CDs is not a thing. Vinyl is a thing. They enjoy the idea of vinyl. They get vinyl just to put on their wall as art. CDs are nothing. To them, songs are Spotify and Apple Music. That’s what songs are.

John: Hey, Drew, how about you? How many shiny discs do you have in your possession?

Drew: I have a few. I have a lot of Blu-rays. I probably have 50.

Craig: Wow.

Drew: I feel like, especially because I’m early career, the benefit of those is you get to learn from commentary, from the little featurettes with the DP on how they decided the color palette or something like that. That has a lot of value that you really can’t get anywhere on streaming or something like that. It does feel like a bunch of crap that I have to lug around. It used to be like a feature of a bookshelf or something to show my taste. Now I keep that in a box if I need them or if I want to–

Craig: Always hide your taste.

John: Drew, what was the last Blu-ray or disc of any kind that you bought?

Drew: I got the Pee-wee’s Big Adventure Criterion for Christmas.

John: Great.

Drew: That was the last one I got.

John: Have you watched it yet?

Drew: I have not watched it yet.

Craig: Have you ever seen it?

Drew: Oh, yes. It’s my favorite movie of all time.

Craig: Oh, thank God. It was that.

Drew: The last one I bought was Real Life by-

Craig: Albert Brooks?

Drew: Albert Brooks. Albert Brooks’ Real Life.

Craig: Oh, that’s a good one.

John: There’s that fantasy of the criterion closet, which is just like, it’s all these movies, like, “Oh my God, I have all these choices of things to watch, and there’s something nice about seeing the spines of those movies.” It’s like, “This is my curated experience of what I want to do.” In my case, all of our DVDs and CDs are in these drawers in our bookcase so we can pull it out and it’s all alphabetized. It’s easy to see all the things. It’s been years since we’ve taken any of those discs out and put them into a player.

One of our goals for this year is to just deal with them and get rid of the ones that we’re just never going to listen to again. The issue is, what would I actually do with these discs? There’s still Amoeba Records, so I, in theory, could sell them to Amoeba for no money. Who would want these discs, these movies?

Craig: No one.

John: It’s just not a thing. Because I listen to music just through Apple Music, I think my strategy is I’m going to look through the albums, see if there’s something I’m just forgetting that I actually love, and I’ll check to make sure that this is actually available on Apple Music. I might just add it to my library so I know that I will see it more often. I think I get rid of those CDs because it’s not helpful for me.

Craig: It’s that moment in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones shows the tiny new version of how they’re going to put music out, and he goes, “I have to buy the White album again.” There are so many albums I’ve bought. It’s a little bit like our D&D thing. I buy the Player Handbook, I have a physical one, I buy it on D&D Beyond, I buy it again on Roll20. So many albums that I love, I’ve bought five different times.

John: Which is fine, which is fair.

Craig: It’s fine.

John: It’s more money to the creators of those things. I will be sad to have them go, but they’re not doing me any good. It’s easier, honestly, with physical books because I can still rationalize, is the best place for this book on my bookshelf or somebody else’s bookshelf? If it’s somebody else’s bookshelf, I give it away and a library sells it and it’s good. I just don’t know that our CDs and our DVDs, if that’s even meaningful anymore because nobody wants this plastic thing anymore.

Craig: Nobody wants it. Because it doesn’t deliver an experience that’s any different than the experience they’re getting without it.

John: Right now, some of our listeners are typing a few of those emails about like, I can’t believe you would do this because you don’t realize that anything that you say like, “Oh, it’s always available on streaming, there’s no guarantee it will be.” They are correct. It is a chance that I’m taking by getting rid of some of my physical things.

Craig: Yes. I don’t believe– As long as one CD of something exists, they can quickly make 14 million of them if that’s what it came down to. I don’t think that’s where this is going.

John: Craig and Drew, thank you so much.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Drew: Thanks.

Links:

  • How an errand for a 12-year-old immigrant in Minneapolis became an underground operation by Jasmine Garsd and Sarah Ventre for NPR
  • I Went on a Package Trip for Millennials Who Travel Alone. Help Me. by Caity Weaver for The New York Times
  • How the US hacked ISIS by Dina Temple-Raston for NPR
  • Whitman College: The Best College Squash Team in History by James Zug for Squash Magazine
  • Shipping Out by David Foster Wallace
  • Email deliverability tester
  • Disempowerment patterns in real-world AI usage by Cornell University and Anthropic
  • The world’s greatest song that simply shouldn’t exist
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Gloom Canyon (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (74)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.