• 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 530: The One with Jack Thorne, Transcript

January 19, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/the-one-with-jack-thorne).

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

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

**John August:**
This is episode 530 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’ll look at making TV in the U.S. versus the UK, and what writers on either continent need to know. Then we’ll discuss disability on screen and behind screen. As we get ready to move into 2022, we’ll focus on some goals you can control. Now, Craig, since you and I are not well versed on several of these topics, could you suggest someone who could talk to us more eloquently about these issues?

**Craig Mazin:**
When you’re looking for somebody who is eloquent and you can’t find that person, you immediately to turn to Jack Thorne. One of my past One Cool Things, one of my favorite writers and one of my favorite people in the world, Jack is, among other things, very tall. He is wonderfully British and a spectacularly good and almost as importantly, spectacularly prolific writer. Among his as many brilliant credits are the The Aeronauts, National Treasure, not the looking for treasure in the U.S., but National Treasure, the sexual abuse scandal film that was done in the UK, Wonder, Enola Holmes, The Secret Garden. Television credits include His Dark Materials, Skins, Shameless, and the play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, along with the miniseries This is Britain. Basically Jack is kind of the cornerstone, as far as I’m concerned, of modern English screenwriting for feature and television, and again, one of my favorite people in the world. If he weren’t already wonderful enough, he’s gone and kind of out-sainted you, John, which is really hard to do, by giving voice to an issue that has gotten a bit of a short shrift as our industry, global industry, has attempted to rectify sins of the past and do better for everyone working within. That is advocacy for disabilities and the representation of disabilities and disabled folks on screen. Welcome Jack Thorne.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you for having me. You’re very nice.

**Craig Mazin:**
I agree.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne manages to be incredibly humble. Even in emails, you could hear his voice. This is the first time I’m really meeting him, but you could hear his humility in an email like, “Oh, I shouldn’t even be on the show.” It’s like, of course you should be on the show. Thank you very much for agreeing to join us here.

**Jack Thorne:**
You’re very kind. I feel like I sort of thrust myself upon you, but yes, all good.

**John August:**
Now we’re going to talk about these things, but I also want to, for a bonus topic, get into the differences between American English and British English and sort of how you reveal which side of the pond you’re on in your screenwriting and whether you should basically put the U’s in the words when you’re writing a British thing. We’ll get the official answer from you about writing American versus writing British.

**Craig Mazin:**
Just spoiler alert. Don’t use the phrase fanny pack when you’re writing in England.

**John August:**
Now, as I was watching your MacTaggart lecture, which we’re going to put a link in the show notes to, it was one of Craig’s previous One Cool Things, we have questions about it from our listeners, but as I started listening to it, I recognized that this is a famous lecture given every year at the Edinburgh Film Festival, Edinburgh TV Festival I guess, about television. Can you just give us a sense of what the MacTaggart lecture is? Your being chosen for it was an honor, of course, but also probably a huge responsibility. Then we can maybe transition into really talking about British television, because I kind of only barely understand it.

**Jack Thorne:**
The MacTaggart is a big thing. It’s had all sorts of different stages in its existence. More recently it’s had quite a lot of makers talk. Michaela Coel famously gave a speech which laid the groundwork for what became I May Destroy You. Before that there was a period when it just basically took the most powerful people in television and gave them a microphone, which included at one point an excruciating lecture from James Murdoch. It’s had lots of different iterations. Everyone from Dennis Potter to Troy Kennedy has done it at different points, and it was a ridiculous honor to be given it, and as you say, a huge responsibility, because coming out of COVID in particular, it was clear what I needed to talk about, but whether I had the necessary means to talk about those things, whether I had the moral power to talk about those things, were questions I really wrestled with.

**Craig Mazin:**
Let’s talk about your moral qualifications. By the way, I should apologize. The shows you work on were called This Is England, not This Is Britain, but I’m a donkey, so this’ll happen every now and again. Why were you wondering if you were morally qualified to deliver this talk? In what ways do you have any kind of personal insight into this, or why this? Why connect it to this topic for you?

**Jack Thorne:**
I walk a really weird line where disability is concerned in that I was a disabled person. I had a physical breakdown when I was 21. I got this condition called cholinergic urticaria, which left me unable to move. I became allergic to heats in all its forms. I became allergic to sunlight. I became allergic to radiators. I became allergic to my body movement. Every time I moved, I provoked an allergic reaction. I spent six months flat on my back, and then slowly but surely I worked out how to get better. I got on the right medication and I got the right doc support. It was about 12 to 15 years of my life, I was very limited in terms of what I could do, but I got better.

**Jack Thorne:**
Now during that time, there’s this theater company in the UK called Graeae. Graeae are this wonderful company, disabled-led, that’s trying tell stories about the disabled experience with disabled performers and disabled writers and disabled makers. They have this open day. I went along to this open day, unsure whether I belonged or not. I talked to a woman there called Alex Baumer, and she said, “Of course you belong here. You are a disabled person.” It felt like something just kind of … My back straightened. It was like, “Oh right, this is where my pain makes sense,” because the thing is, if you are battling pain every day as I was, you don’t really know who to talk to about it. There comes a point where people get a bit bored of hearing you talk about it, and so you sort of stop talking about it. That thing of being part of a community of people for whom pain was an everyday occurrence and who navigated these things, and it didn’t mean that I had someone to moan to, it just meant that I felt like I belong somewhere.

**Jack Thorne:**
The way I talk about myself now is I was a disabled person, I am now a member of the disabled community. Whether that’s legitimate or not, I don’t know, but it’s what I cling to because I think that that experience and what happened to me is a history that’s still very current in my body, and it’s a history that’s still very current in my head. I’m trying to, as much as I can, do disabled work and have disabled performers and disabled makers within my shows. I am in no way an angel where that is concerned. I have got it wrong a huge number of times. As I talk in the lecture, I have been a coward a huge number of times. That question as to can I talk about this, is it legitimate for me to talk about this, and how will people feel about me holding the microphone when I talk about these issues, when I’m not someone who has the stigma and the attacks, who isn’t coping currently with a disability, how will people feel about me being the one that’s holding that microphone?

**Craig Mazin:**
They seem to feel pretty good about it, from what I can tell. The response was dramatic and it was extremely well received, and for good reason. You have chosen an excellent cri de coeur, and you have delivered it beautifully. One of the things you talk about are the notion of invisible disabilities. Disability is something that affects everyone sooner or later. This is a universal condition at some point for everyone. Chronic pain is something that an enormous amount of people live with silently. I myself have lived with chronic pain now for about four years. I don’t talk about it much, or ever. Here I am. I’m okay. We carry on. I’m very British this way I suppose. I should start saying English. I’m very English this way. It is something that everybody deals with to some level or another.

**Craig Mazin:**
One of the things that I really admire about you is that while you have talked a little bit about how and why you came to be inside of this movement, you also don’t make it about yourself. You recognize that there are tiers of disability and that there are people who have been more egregiously treated and more egregiously left out. That is something that is happening on both sides of the camera, behind and in front, in terms of how people, when we create characters who are disabled, how we treat and portray them, who we hire to cast them, who is writing those characters. All these questions are now coming to the forefront in a way that I think had not happened until people like you, not only you, but people like you really started banging the gong over the last few years.

**Jack Thorne:**
The way I see it is that I’m temporarily in a spotlight for a moment. I was given that spotlight by the MacTaggart, and my job is to get out of that spotlight as fast as possible, which would be nice, personally would be nice, in order to let more legitimate people come to the front. I’m trying to do that in my working practice too, in terms of co-writing and producing and trying to change the dial so that the spotlight is filled with those people that it should be.

**John August:**
Great. Before we get to some of the recommendations about improving portrayals of disability on screen and the work behind screen, can we talk a little bit about the environment in which you’re giving this lecture? Because I don’t think we have anything equivalent to this in the United States. We have upfronts, which is the annual meeting of big advertisers where they pitch their big new shows. In the film industry we have the big exhibitor screenings where we’re talking about things. We don’t have a situation where there is one point of focus saying this is the state of the industry, this is an important thing we must focus on, whether it be you talking about this, Michaela Coel or Rupert Murdoch. We don’t have anybody talking about this and what needs to change, why it needs to change. I think you also bring up in the lecture is that television actually does have a moral responsibility because it is in everyone’s home. Can you talk to us about how television functions in the UK and if you feel like that might be different than how it functions in the U.S? I feel as an outsider, I think there is a central authority to television in the UK that does not exist in the U.S.

**Jack Thorne:**
That’s really interesting. It’s not something I’ve especially thought about in terms of comparing the two, but we do, I suppose, wrestle a bit more in this country, maybe with the general state of the industry rather than specific programs. The MacTaggart is supposed to be that conversation, what should TV be, because yeah, I think that TV is hugely important. I think it’s the stimulation of a conversation. If you look at the trajectory of where we are, I think TV, sometimes it’s reflecting society and sometimes it’s pushing society on. The movement between the West Wing to Succession is quite a stark point. What it means that we want society reflected that way, or is the reflection provoking the society that is, is I think a really, really fascinating question and something I think about an awful lot.

**Craig Mazin:**
You’ve got a situation in the UK where there seems to be a lot more state involvement in practically everything, and television is no exception. BBC, I don’t know if it is technically the most viewed channel on television, but it’s certainly-

**Jack Thorne:**
I would suspect so. I would suspect so.

**Craig Mazin:**
In the United States, PBS gets about 12 people a week watching it. I apologize, PBS. I know it’s more than that, but it’s very small. As John says, all of our gatherings, whether it’s the Television Critics Association or the upfronts as you mentioned, it’s all commerce. It’s all about selling. That’s partly because it is entirely a question of corporations and not at all a question of the state, and therefore there is no governmental interest or point of view in the United States. Television is an industry and it is not necessarily ever promoted as some kind of potential lever for good. I think that is a cultural difference between the United States and the UK that is stark. It makes a lot of sense that in the UK television and culture in general would be spoken about both in terms of commerce, but also in terms of how to promote the public good. I’m interested in how you feel things have gone practically. I know that at least in the public space of discussion, your lecture, as I mentioned before, was incredibly well received. It was reprinted and revideoed everywhere. I think it’s the kind of thing that makes people feel really good to talk about. My question is are they just talking about it or are things changing? Because ultimately I feel like the only prayer we have over here is in this instance seeing some leadership from your side of the pond.

**Jack Thorne:**
As part of what has happened in the last year, I’ve been part of this pressure group. We call ourselves a pressure group called Underlying Health Condition. We call ourselves Underlying Health Condition because we are angry at the appropriation of that phrase to describe essentially disabled people and disabled deaths. Certainly in the first half of the pandemic, the idea of dividing deaths in two seemed to go everywhere, where it was like, okay, there’s one set of deaths that we worry about and then there’s one set of deaths that we really don’t. We had our first Omicron death in this country recently. you saw the question being asked everywhere, which is, did he have an underlying health condition, in that should we be concerned or is it just happening to disabled people? We formed this pressure group, and we formed this pressure group to look at TV. My lecture came out of that pressure group, and now we’ve launched a report on the back of our findings. A number of different things have happened in the last six months, that straight after the lecture that the BBC and Netflix and Channel Four made commitments to disabled programming. There were certainly mooted commitments from Sky and Channel Five too.

**Jack Thorne:**
What we are focused on, I mean Underlying Health Condition, which isn’t just me, it’s me, Katie Player and Holly Lubran, who are two people that work behind the scenes, and Genevieve Barr, who is an actress and a co-writer of mine, we’ve done three things together, and a writer in her own right too, and what our focus has been on is accessibility, because TV is incredibly inaccessible. I’ve been sitting on panels with disabled actors and makers for the last 15 years, and at the start of every discussion, the first question that basically comes up is how do we make TV accessible to us, because we can’t use the toilet.

**Jack Thorne:**
Underlying Health Condition did a survey of facilities companies and of studio spaces. Facilities companies, one of the starkest findings was there is one accessible honey wagon. The honey wagon is our name for toilets. I don’t know whether you call the toilets-

**Craig Mazin:**
We call it that too.

**John August:**
Honey wagon, right.

**Jack Thorne:**
There’s one accessible honey wagon in the whole of the UK. For 20% of the population, there’s one toilet that they can use. I hear stories all the time from friends who are wheelchair users about trying to restrict how much they use the toilet, because using the toilet costs the production time, and they do not want to be responsible for costing the production time, because this is the reality for disabled people all the time, which is we do not want to cause trouble. If we cause trouble, we might not get hired again. On panels, every single time that would come up. From friends, every single time that would come up. We set out, trying to work out how our industry could break down the barriers, how we could reform the way that the industry functions so that if you are a disabled person, you are not excluded by the space you work in. The response to that has also been very good. We are at the start of that process. It’s going to require a big injection of time and money. Who knows what practical things will come out? Certainly at the moment I’m talking to very senior people in the BCC and Channel Four and ITV and in Sky and Amazon and Netflix, and going to find ways to address our recommendations. There is stuff happening. It’s just it’s going to take a while. It’s going to be hard.

**Jack Thorne:**
In terms of what you say about the U.S, that’s really interesting. We work closely with the One In Four Coalition, which was set up by a wonderful talent manager called Eryn Brown. What she’s done is amazing. One of our key recommendations is for an accessibility officer on every set.

**John August:**
That’s interesting.

**Jack Thorne:**
That comes from One In Four. They have been at the forefront of that. They say the same as you, which is maybe, if Britain, which is a smaller community with more government, maybe if Britain sets about answering some of these questions, then the ripples can be felt in the U.S.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s really interesting.

**John August:**
We’re going to put links in the show notes to both the Underlying Health report and the One In Four Coalition to see the recommendations. There’s overlap between the two of them, but I want to focus on the four key recommendations that you have in your report, which they seem very practical, which really speaks to the fact that you are a person who makes television and understands that you need to actually be able to do things and achieve things and make things happen. The first recommendation is a line in every budget for needed adjustments. Talk to us about adjustments that might need to come up in a budget to make a show accessible to a disabled person.

**Jack Thorne:**
That was about making the production responsible for those adjustments. By the way, you say in terms of practicality, I am useless. I am one of the least practical people alive. Katie Player, who’s one of my co-writers on this, is a production manager. She understood behind the scenes a lot better than us. When it was coming up with these recommendations, she has been an invaluable part of that. The idea is that there is small fund, and by small we’re talking 5,000 pounds adjustable down if you’re a smaller production, which is available for interpreters, is available for ramps, is available for a stool, is available for anything that the accessibility officer or coordinator suggests that just might make the experience better. It’s not a radical sort of like, “Yeah, we’re going to have to build something specifically for a purpose.” It’s about adjusting what we’ve got.

**Jack Thorne:**
Katie worked on a show of mine a few years ago and managed to get a hold of a ramp that she now takes with her wherever she goes. She was working on another production where the ramp didn’t quite go down to the floor because the trailers were a bit higher, so someone built her a little wooden extension to the ramp. Those sorts of things, it’s not a huge amount of money, but it can make a huge difference that the production is prepared and ready and considering the adjustments that might be required for a disabled person.

**Craig Mazin:**
It doesn’t seem like that an enormous amount of resources are required. What’s required is a minimum of care. When we all started in the business and somebody was walking around, let’s say on some sort of elevated space in a scene, they would walk around and the stunt people would say, “Don’t get too close to the edge,” and you wouldn’t get too close to the edge. Now we tether people and we paint it out digitally because we have safety standards that are stricter. Yet as we have advanced the cause of safety where we can, we don’t have disabled accessible toilets or a trailer that has something other than steps on it. I watch even people who aren’t disabled but merely old struggle on sets. I struggle on sets at times just to get around and over things. It is not the most hospitable place. Changing things would not require a lot of money. It seems to me that it just needs attention, a small amount of attention, which is why I’m desperately hopeful that this kind of attention that you’re bringing to this is going to work.

**Craig Mazin:**
Normally what you hear is, “Yes, no, of course, and we’re absolutely looking into these things, but it’s a large budget item,” and rah rah blah blah blah, of course. They’re discussing this while they’re having dinner and charging it back to the production. Something for instance, you mentioned the idea of a disability coordinator I think. Is that what you called it, a disability coordinator?

**Jack Thorne:**
Accessibility.

**Craig Mazin:**
Accessibility coordinator. Even better. We have intimacy coordinators now. We never did before. In the old days there would be sex scenes, there would be scenes with nudity, and some of those sex scenes were violent and criminal in nature, and people would just do it. A lot of weird stuff happened. A lot of bad stuff happened. There was certainly an enormous amount of pressure on people and confusion about boundaries. Now we have an entire professional class of people who appear to help mitigate those problems. We’ve had somebody like that on our set, not for a sex scene, but just because there was something that involved some nudity. It was amazing having her there. She made everything really clear and simple. It was a relief. I would think that productions would want this, because it’s a relief to have somebody help you navigate through it, especially if you are running the production and you aren’t disabled and you don’t have a lot of personal experience with people with disabilities. Then let’s just hire the people who do and let’s make everybody comfortable and welcome, physically comfortable and physically welcome.

**Jack Thorne:**
Absolutely. Disability is a spectrum. It could be that there are people who identify as disabled and for whom the accessibility coordinator will make a huge, huge difference immediately. There are others on the set who won’t necessarily know how to talk about what’s going on with them. To have someone that they can talk to privately about what needs they might have that the production isn’t automatically addressing will make a huge difference to the comfort of their lives and their ability to do the job. It’s such a small thing, but it could just create an unbelievable change in how people feel going to work. It stops things happening like, a friend of mine’s a producer, the production was on the fourth floor, the lift stopped working, so they put her in the canteen. She wasn’t part of the production from then on. She was just excluded on the outside of it. That happens all the time. If you have someone that’s just there to go, “This doesn’t work. We need to address it in a different way. We need to radically think about things or just moderately think about things,” the difference could be profound.

**Craig Mazin:**
We’ll get to lift versus elevator later.

**John August:**
Our premium members can hear about the lift versus elevator debate. Now you were talking about the needs on a set or the physical needs of a place, but one of your recommendations seems more targeting who gets to actually be able to write on programs. This is freelancer funds coming out of the high-end TV pool, which is where I recognize that I don’t know how British TV works, because what is a-

**Craig Mazin:**
What is that?

**John August:**
… high-end TV pool? Your MacTaggart lecture also mentions different tiers of budgets. Can you talk us through what those are? Because it’s really confusing to me.

**Jack Thorne:**
I don’t know it all. High-end TV is everything I believe above 750,000 pounds an hour. That’s about a million dollars would it be?

**Craig Mazin:**
Yep.

**John August:**
About a million.

**Jack Thorne:**
The high-end TV pool was formed a little while ago. It was a commitment by broadcasters that if your show was above that tariff, if your show budgeted above that tariff, then you would pay not .5% of your budget into a pool, which was for training purposes for people coming into the industry. It’s run by an amazing group called Screen Skills. Screen Skills have been talking to us about whether they could be part of this freelancers fund. It would be amazing if they can. The idea is that it’s not .1% on top of that, which would just allow for disabled people who have needs to have those needs cared for.

**Jack Thorne:**
I was working on a show. Someone’s call was at 6:00 a.m. Now if their call is at 6:00 a.m. that requires a carer to be with them at 3:00 a.m. They don’t have the money in their budget, their personal budget, to have a carer with them at 3:00 a.m. If they had access to this freelancers fund, that would allow for it. Similarly, deaf people and having an interpreter around both on set and off set so that they are not excluded from the processes that are happening off set as well as on set. All these things require someone to make life work more easily for those who have impairments. A freelancers fund would allow for that.

**Jack Thorne:**
Now we have something in the UK called Access to Work, which is for disabled people to access, which is supposedly for that, for the adjustments that they need that go beyond what an industry would pay for them, so that the industry wasn’t paying for them so that the government pays that bit so that the industry still pays their wage and so people aren’t excluded from work. It’s a very, very brilliant scheme. Unfortunately, it doesn’t operate very well in the TV sector because our jobs are very transitory, can happen very quickly, and also Access To Work has had quite a few cuts to it in the last 15 years under the Tory government, which has meant that it operates a little less well than it used to, well a lot less well than it used to.

**Jack Thorne:**
We think that this fund, which the rich in the TV industry will pay for, you know that everyone that makes high-end TV is rich in comparison to the rest of the country, our industry is doing very well compared to the rest of the country, would allow for a world in which disabled creatives would have power over their own agency.

**John August:**
The point to bring up here is that it’s one thing, with it probably equivalent thing American with Disabilities Act, which requires that place of employment, place you need to go into are accessible. It’s one thing if you have an office worker who’s making sure that getting into the office building and the use of the office building is accessible, but a freelancer going from show to show to show, in television or in film, they cannot count on the fact that things are going to be accessible for them. Some sort of funds that let them bring their accessibility with them feels crucial. I think that gives me some hope that some of these changes can be implemented. As we saw with the advent of COVID that studios really wanted to be back in production as they found ways to, “Okay, we’re going to set up COVID funds. We’re going to figure out how to do this thing.” It was really difficult, but you know what? We made a lot of good film and television during the pandemic once we figured out how to do this stuff. They can spend money when it’s in their interest to spend money.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh yes. Think about this, John. Every day our production is providing health support and services to every single member of our crew in the form of COVID testing and making sure that everybody has PPE and all of that stuff. We do it. There’s an entire job now, and an entire team of people working for the guy who’s in charge of COVID compliance. We have cleaners that we didn’t used to have before. We were able to mobilize an entire new department, new division of people that cost new amounts of money so that otherwise healthy people wouldn’t get sick. We seem to struggle with anything that would help people who live with a disability. That’s just shocking. It’s the sort of thing, and Jack, don’t beat yourself up, you’re doing amazing work, I know you’ve mentioned your cowardice, I don’t note any of it. I think the sin out here in the world of not being Jack Thorne is a general obliviousness. It’s very easy to be oblivious about this sort of thing, until it gets you, and then harder, a lot harder to be oblivious.

**John August:**
Let’s talk about differences between the U.S. system and the UK system. The UK system has this sense of moral authority in television and in industry grappling with a thing. We don’t have that, but we do have unions. We do have, in ways that the UK doesn’t have, we have bodies that set standards for things. It does feel like in terms of performers being able to do their job on sets, that feels like a thing that SAG wrestles with, to a degree to which writers have the ability to participate in a writers room, to have interpreters be available for them if they need them. That feels like a WGA thing, the same with DGA. We have groups that can mobilize tremendous pressure to get some of these things done, and I would not be surprised if as we push forward here, we’ll see these unions step up to demand some of these changes happen. It won’t happen the same way. It may not happen as quickly. I think some of these things can and should happen.

**John August:**
I’m also reminded that when we added the parental leave benefit to the WGA, which is a new thing we won, one of the artist rule to make is that, listen, everybody who works for Netflix right now gets paternity leave, gets parental leave when they have a kid. It just seems right that the writer who’s creating that show should have the same benefits as the executive who’s running that thing. I can imagine a situation where people who are working for the studios right now have expectations that their workplaces can be wheelchair accessible for people who need to use wheelchairs. The same should apply to our sets. I think that logic sometimes can help and help people think about why they need to be thinking about this and why they need to be ready to spend some money to make that happen.

**Jack Thorne:**
I love that. I’d not considered that the unions could be a huge, huge role. You’re right, the power of your unions is so much bigger than the power of the unions in this country. The idea that they could provoke this change, it’s really warming, it’s really huge, really exciting to hear actually.

**Craig Mazin:**
All they have to do is work together, which they’ve never done before [inaudible 00:30:51].

**John August:**
Even working under their own self-interest though, some things can change. It tends to build upon each other, so things do happen. We have two listener questions that came in which were very specifically designed for you to come on the show, not even knowing that you’d come on the show. Megana, can you help us out with some of these questions that we’ve gotten?

**Megana Rao:**
Great. Scared of Umbrage but Desperate for Insight asks, “Craig-”

**Craig Mazin:**
Here we go.

**Megana Rao:**
“Your cool thing has broken me. Jack Thorne’s MacTaggart lecture was extremely impactful. I feel broken because I’m concerned I’m taking the wrong lessons or that I’m being selfish. Originally I was writing a story with a main character who had been disfigured in military service. Later I decided to pare it down to a mental health issue like PTSD, because I just didn’t think that I should write it, as I have no experience with physically disabled people, but I can’t help reference the embarrassingly large number of stories put to screen that have clearly been written by people who don’t have the slightest clue how their character should sound or how those events should play out.

**Megana Rao:**
“Mr. Thorne’s speech has made me think about a lot of things that I don’t have answers for. I want to write for female characters, because in my life the women around me have been so valuable and interesting that I’m inspired to write with them in mind. I listen to the voices of marginalized people speak on how they feel. They just want a place at the table, starting with their faces in popular culture. I fall immediately into self-doubt and concern for what my place is in producing that culture. I am a near radioactive level of white bread American. Should I even participate?

**Megana Rao:**
“Jack Thorne spoke passionately and with great vulnerability about a group of people that just wants dignity and a fair shake. How do I participate in the business of storytelling that doesn’t perpetuate the endless narrative of the singular white male voice telling the world what culture is?”

**Craig Mazin:**
Jack, that’s a simple question and I’m sure you can answer that in, I’ll give you seven words.

**Jack Thorne:**
I think authorship is something we’re all wrestling with right now. I write a lot of female characters. I write a lot of female character-led dramas. I always have. It’s something that I’m asking about myself why I do that and whether I have right to do that.

**Jack Thorne:**
When it comes to disability, one of the groups that spoke at our event, we had this launch event, and we didn’t want it just to be about Underlying Health Condition, we wanted it to be about all the major disability groups in British television. We had lots of different people speak. One of the people that spoke was this man called Laurence Clark who outlined how a writers room should be run for disabled people and what consideration should be given when having disabled people in the room. It’s really complicated because you’re talking about a group that have been historically excluded. It’s a very, very small group. It’s a group where being given authorship is not something that historically has happened. I don’t quite know whether no one should be writing disabled people except for disabled writers. I certainly think disabled writers need to be part of a discussion when it comes to writing disabled characters, and they need to be a senior part of that discussion, and they need to be armed so that future authorship is exclusively disabled, because as the caller says, there has been historically a huge amount of ignorance, and quite dangerous ignorance put on the screen by people who didn’t know better but should’ve known better and have perpetuated myths about the disabled experience, which has been incredibly damaging to disabled people everywhere.

**Craig Mazin:**
Well said. I think Scared of Umbrage but Desperate for Insight, don’t fear my umbrage, I have no umbrage for you. I feel for you. I would suggest that somewhere along the line in our bourgeoning and justifiable desire to include people who have been traditionally excluded and to have better, fuller, clearer, and truer representations of all sorts of people on screen, we have lost sight of what the word fiction means. Particularly when we’re talking about fiction in drama, everybody is writing something they’re not. There is only one story you can write that is perfectly true to yourself, and that is your autobiography, and even that will probably be garbage. We are professional liars, who like actors, occupy the minds of people we are not. That is literally the job. What’s happening I think is that some people are having an existential crisis about what it means to actually be a fiction writer.

**Craig Mazin:**
What I do think is critical, and we’ve said this on the show many times, is that you have to approach material with respect. You have to approach the lives of other human beings with respect. Here’s the deal. Doesn’t matter how good your intentions are. If you are a bad writer, your writing will be bad. If you are a good writer but a callous writer, your writing will be probably put off in that pile of what they call lazy or tropey or oblivious. You have to be both good and you have to have your ears open, you have to have your eyes open, and you have to have some humility. You have to talk to people. When you are writing a character, and if that character’s disabled in a way that you don’t have personal experience with, find people who do, who are already willing to discuss these things, not people that you know who that you can then burden your questions upon, but rather there are groups, advocacy groups. The Writers Guild is very good about putting you together with people who want to talk about these things, who are interested in helping. If you do get into a position, a privileged position where you can hire people, hire them. That’s important.

**Craig Mazin:**
When you are writing characters who are a different race than you are or a different gender and then you cast those people, talk to the actors and ask them, “How did we do? What did we get wrong? What did we get right? Let’s have that discussion.” What we should not do is box ourselves off into a place where we can only write who we are. If anything, that would mean fewer representations of disabled people on screen. What I like about what Jack is doing is that he’s advancing in a rising tide manner everybody’s opportunity. If you write something great that provides opportunity for better representation and employment of different people than you, then that’s a victory for everybody.

**John August:**
One moment of the current discourse I’m following closely is West Side Story. West Side Story is an iconic musical that is problematic when you look back at the original incarnation of it. You look at this new incarnation and Tony Kushner’s work on it, and you can see that like a Jack Thorne, he was very concerned about his role in telling the story and making sure to find the information about the communities he’s writing about and what the communities were like at that time and how this could all fit together. It’s a difference between letting that concern guide you to do more and harder work and letting that concern stop you from ever trying to do that work. That’s I think what Scared is wrestling with. I think you may be looking at it as a blockade, a wall preventing you from actually doing the work, when in fact it is a challenging path for you to go down, but really it’s an invitation to really explore what’s out there.

**Craig Mazin:**
Megana, what’s your take on this question?

**Megana Rao:**
I agree with all of the things that you guys have said. One other thing that came to mind is I watched an interview with Ariana DeBose, who plays Anita in West Side Story. She is a Black Latin woman. She talked about going to the interview with Steven Spielberg and saying, “I’m not going to take this role unless you honor what it means for Anita to be played by a Black Latin woman.” They were really receptive to that and made the changes in the script and worked with her on doing those things. I think that speaks to what you were saying, being open to the experiences that your actors or actresses who are representing these characters bring to that material as well, even in the later stage of the process.

**John August:**
Megana, you have one more question that feels very much on topic here.

**Megana Rao:**
Great. Mike from London asks, “I got COVID in May of 2020 and subsequently developed long COVID. Most of my symptoms have improved since then, but I’m still suffering extreme fatigue and post-exertional malaise. In short, getting COVID seems to have triggered chronic fatigue syndrome. Before this I was a healthy 27-year-old with dreams of writing for Hollywood. I improved as a writer each year and was starting to see a small amount of success. I was a semifinalist in the Nicholl last year and was getting some reads from managers and production companies, but unfortunately, getting long COVID has made everything much more difficult. I now have to be careful not to use too much energy in a single day. Even a small amount of activities, like going on a short walk and writing two or three pages, can be enough to completely exhaust me for a few days. Just writing this email feels like a huge mental drain, and because of this, I know I won’t have energy to write this evening. All of this on top of having to somehow keep my job has left me worried that I’ll never reach my goal of being a working writer. I’m wondering if you know or are aware of any working writers with similar chronic diseases. How has their disability informed the content of their writing and their process?”

**Craig Mazin:**
Rough situation there, Mike. First of all, we are still learning a lot about long-term COVID, long COVID, long-haul COVID as it’s sometimes called. We don’t know if it’s permanent. It is very tempting when you are in the middle of something difficult as, Jack, you are in the middle of your disability. I’m sure it seemed to you at the time like it would be permanent, which is terrifying, I assume. I’ve certainly felt that way about my situation.

**Jack Thorne:**
I was told by a doctor, “You won’t get better.”

**Craig Mazin:**
Even if you’re not told by a doctor, you’re told by your own fear center in your brain that you’re not going to get better. That is really terrifying. First things first, it seems to me, Mike, you just have to honor the reality that you’re in. The reality that you’re in is you can only do what you can do. You can’t do more than you can do. If I told you that the only way to be a working writer would be to climb 100,000 steps a day, no matter what your situation would be, you wouldn’t be able to do it. That’s not a failure. That’s just reality. Accept the reality that you have.

**Craig Mazin:**
Perhaps as a relatively young person, in fact rather young, half my age, sir, or ma’am, give yourself a little bit of time here. Maybe what you could do is concentrate on what you might be able to do to get a little bit better, if there is that ability, and if there’s not, then take the time to readjust your life. If you write, I think it says writing two or three pages in a day is enough to completely exhaust you for a few days. Then that’s what you can do. You can write two or three pages for every few days. By the way, I know a lot of great writers that have zero problems who do exactly that. If they’re two or three great pages a day or two or three great pages a week, that’s two or three more great pages than almost everyone else can write in the world.

**Craig Mazin:**
Count the blessings, but also accept the reality. Make your peace with it. Mourn what you’ve lost. Do anything you can that’s available to you. In terms of resources, yes, I think Google is your friend. There’s got to be some groups of writers living with disability and working with disability and chronic disease. John, does the Writers Guild have a resource or a group for something like this?

**John August:**
I don’t know that they do. I know that there are committees that have writers with disabilities, but I don’t know. This is actually I think a great question for Jack to answer, because this feels like this is not an accessibility kind of issue, this is not even a representation issue, this is like it’s hard for me to do the thing that I want to be doing situation. Do you have experience with this?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yeah. I would say try and find a community, because that’s what gave me the most solace. In terms of the UK there’s two groups I would say to go to straight away as you’re a Londoner. The first is a group called DANC, which is D-A-N-C, or also called Triple C, which is confusing, but I think it’s www.triplec.org.uk. Then there’s another group called DTPTV, deaf and disabled people in television, who are also amazing. They are on Facebook and Twitter. Both those organizations have a community of people that you can talk to about this stuff. Reach out to them. Make yourself part of it. Become a member of the community. I think you’ll find that there’s lots of other people going through similar things. My experience of that was feeling like I had a home. Once you feel like you have a home, I think everything gets a bit easier. I’m so sorry you’re struggling. I really hope it doesn’t stay with you, but if it does, there are lots of people who are going through chronic fatigue and who do produce beautiful work, behind and in front of the screen, very good friends of mine who do find ways to manage their condition, and as a result of finding ways to manage their condition, find a way to have a fruitful career in our industry.

**Craig Mazin:**
Great.

**John August:**
Great. Our last little bit is hopefully inspiring. Actually I think does fit in well with this last question, which is basically do the things you can do and control the things you can control. This comes off of a TikTok by Franchesca Ramsey, but it’s Ashley Nicole Black, friend of the show, who had retweeted it, put it on my timeline here. Let’s take a listen to what Franchesca says.

Franchesca Ramsey:
If you’re a writer, winning an Oscar or selling a $100,000 movie, those are huge goals, those are awesome, but you can’t control those right now. So many things have to happen in order for those doors to open and those opportunities to come to you. Instead, shifting your goal to something you can control, like write 10 pages a day or take a writing class, start a writing group, finish my feature, try a pilot new genre, those are things that you can control, and then you can actually cross them off your list and feel like you are accomplishing things that are helping you get to the place that you want to get in your life.

**John August:**
That’s Franchesca Ramsey. Ashley Nicole Black also had said if your goal was to be cast on Saturday Night Live, you’re giving all of your power to Lorne Michaels to cast you on Saturday Night Life, but if your goal is to learn how to write great sketches, that’s a thing you can learn how to do. Jack, as a incredibly prolific writer here, what can you tell us about the work you control versus the work that makes it out in the world ratio in your life?

**Jack Thorne:**
It’s so interesting, isn’t it, that I’m still wrestling with now, to be honest, in terms of, “Oh, but if I do this, then I can get this. Then if I get this, then maybe people will like me.” I don’t think that goes, that feeling.

**Craig Mazin:**
I already like you.

**Jack Thorne:**
You’re weird.

**Craig Mazin:**
So true.

**Jack Thorne:**
It’s strange in terms of thinking about my career. I remember ringing my parents so excited because I had a lunchtime reading at the Young Vic, and my parents being completely nonplussed by a lunchtime reading at the Young Vic and me realizing that it was a huge achievement for me, but no one else quite being able to see it. I think that thing of just constantly seeing rungs of a ladder and then going, “Oh right, if I do this and if I do that.” I suppose what she’s saying is try to avoid the ladder entirely and just celebrate what you do every day. To be honest, I’m nowhere near able to do that yet. It’s a good goal for me for 2022.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s funny, the word goal maybe is part of the problem, because I think sometimes people, what they outline as a goal is really a symptom. Winning an award is a symptom of something. So is being cast on Saturday Night Live. You have a goal, and the goal should be something that only can be things you can control. It’s not just focus on goals you can control. If you can’t control it, it’s not a goal, as far as I’m concerned, because the only purpose of the word is some target that you can hit. You try and be the funniest you can be, and then you show up for an audition and let’s see what the symptom is. You try and write the best you can write, and then you hand it out in the world, let’s see what the symptom is. Let’s see what the reaction is. Everything goal-oriented is probably a bit of a trap. The only way to get there is to immerse yourself in the process. If goal has an antonym, I suppose it’s process. Process is everything.

**Craig Mazin:**
The work is unromantic. We talk about this on the show all the time, how unromantic writing is and how angry I get when I see portrayals of writing on screen. You want to talk about bad portrayals on screen, writers getting some sort of mystical burst of energy and typing a novel all night and then it’s celebrated and the next thing they’re at a book signing. I hate this crap. I just want to fire it into the sun.

**Craig Mazin:**
Maybe, maybe if you want to get to the next third eye in the forehead level of achievement here, don’t have any goals at all. Just try and write. How about that? Just create stuff. Try and access what feels honest and good to you and enjoy it for what it is. I will tell you the thing that I’ve done that was received the best was not a goal-oriented thing. There was absolutely no expectation that it would even get made. The goal concept sometimes is a liar that whispers stuff in our ear and turns our head from the path.

**John August:**
I think it’s so important to distinguish goals that can actually be achieved under your own efforts versus goals that you just rely on the universe working out a certain way, which I think Saturday Night Life is a universe working out a certain way. The goals that are under your own control to some degree, like wanting to run a marathon, “I want to finish a marathon,” okay, if that’s your goal, great, but what are the actual things you need to do in order to get yourself up to being able to run a marathon. Completing a marathon is a lagging indicator. If you got to that point, it’s only because all the leading indicators, which were how many short runs were you able to do, how far could you go. All the work that it would take to get up there, that’s what you could actually focus and do, which is basically putting on your shoes and starting to run. You’re not going to put on your shoes and start to run a marathon. You’re going to put on your shoes and start to run a mile and then two miles and eventually you’ll get up there. Frustratingly, writing is just that hard work of page after page, mile after mile. To be more inspiring going into this, maybe go into 2022 thinking about forget your goal, let’s focus on what you’re actually trying to do each day and make that work rewarding.

**Craig Mazin:**
What if we take the goal away, meaning let’s take the reward away. Doctors make a the bin Laden mistake. Megana and I are both unlicensed medical doctors, so I think we both understand this. Doctors put an enormous emphasis on the scale, on your weight. This is automatically a very goal-oriented thing. “You’re 240 pounds. You need to be 160 pounds.” That’s a goal. No one’s pretty much going to get there. What’s sad is for a lot of people, that goal isn’t even revenant to their well-being.

**Craig Mazin:**
If they simply just made certain changes in their life for the sake of bettering their health, with the promise of no reward, if I say to you, “Look, I’ve looked into your future. If you do the following things, you will not lose any weight at all, but you will live another 10 years,” and so we’ve taken away all the reward. You’re not going to wear the skinny pants. You’re not going to look like the person on the cover of the magazine. All that’s garbage. What you are is going to be happier and healthier. Would you take that deal or not?

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s hard for people, because what you’re saying is it’s just process. Goals that are distant and far off like that and intangible are really hard, whereas when someone says, “Okay, I’ve got a goal. I’m going to be 150 pounds. I’m going to do the thing. I’m going to be on the cover of Men’s Health,” that’s when they fail, inevitably. You’ve set yourself up for failure by turning the goal into the goal.

**Megana Rao:**
Something Ashley said in her tweet was that she added what she wants the work to feel like as part of her goals. She says, “I wanted to work in a calm, fun environment, which makes decisions easier to make.” I also think shifting from thinking about goals, how you want the experience of the process to be, I don’t know, that’s not a concept that I’d heard before, but definitely something I want to use in 2022.

**Craig Mazin:**
I like that too. Look, in the U.S. the goal always has a dollar sign in front of it. We’re trained this way from birth. The whole thing is basically fame and fortune, fame and fortune, fame and fortune. When you look among the class of the famous unfortunate, you find a lot of misery and bad behavior, because humans are human, as it turns out.

**John August:**
We should also call out Ashley Nicole Black for her new deal at Warner Brothers. She’s joining Craig over there in HBO Max land.

**Craig Mazin:**
See, that was a goal that just happened. I doubt that was her goal. It’s a symptom of her good work.

**John August:**
Indeed.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s a process symptom. Well done.

**John August:**
Any last thoughts on goals, Mr. Jack Thorne?

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m interested in the notion that, because the show that you’re referring to, which I know you probably get bored of talking about, but the show that you’re referring to happened despite setting a goal with Chernobyl, and yet that was you taking a fork in the road, wasn’t it? That was you going, “I don’t want to write the sort of shows I’ve done before, so I’m going to take a fork in the road.” That is you setting yourself a goal of working in a new genre, working in a new way, and challenging yourself in a way that you hadn’t challenged yourself before to do a certain type of work. By doing that, and I think that you’re probably the starkest example of someone that’s done that, of writers that I can think of, you changed the whole trajectory of your working life. Is that not a goal? Is that not a, “I am going to put my head down on a stone and rub it until I get to a different place for myself.”

**John August:**
What a metaphor that was.

**Craig Mazin:**
I don’t know if it was a rubbing stone. I think I wanted to do it because I felt like it was worth doing. When I did it, there was no promise of anything. Really the only promise was that it would likely just be ignored. Nor did I know if I could do it. I just wanted to. It to me very much was there was no real money involved, there was no guarantee of anything, nor was I doing it with any expectation that you would need to be watched. I honestly thought that it would mostly end up being a thing that substitute teachers would show the social studies class on a rainy day in high school. It really was not goal-oriented. A lot of what I do, I’m very haphazard about a lot of things, I have to admit. When I find that I start thinking about how to create outcomes, that’s actually where I get into trouble, because artificial things start to seep their way in. Maybe I’m a bad person to ask this question to, because my career has been weird and meandering and confusing. There’s not a lot of shape to it. I have a lot of notes on the narrative of my own life and career. It’s not a well told story. Weird fits and starts. You have a much better narrative, Jack Thorne. That’s a story. I like that story. That’s a good one.

**Jack Thorne:**
The distinction between going, “If I do this, I’m going to win an Emmy,” and, “If I do this, then I might find a tad more professional well-being in my soul,” I found your example very motivating and very interesting in terms of the choices we make for ourselves. That is a goal, is it not? I suppose it’s just that that interests me.

**Craig Mazin:**
I think that sometimes people underestimate the joy I had in prior work to all that, because I really did enjoy them.

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m not saying you didn’t. If your character was singing the I want song, you used the word I want, there would be a moment where you were making a film that you were enjoying and you said, “I want to write about the Soviet Union, and I feel like I’ve got a way of singing about the Soviet Union,” and then the audience would be on their feet.

**Craig Mazin:**
See, that’s the thing about writing. I love that this is something that was specifically targeted by Franchesca Ramsey to creatives, is that there’s nothing in between you and the doing of a creative thing, unless it requires a lot of money, but writing doesn’t. You don’t even need to get to goal step. If you want, and I did want to write something, write it. That’s the best part. It’s not even a goal. It’s there. You can do it. You can paint whatever you want. You can write whatever you want. You can sing whatever you want. All that’s there. Now are people going to watch it? Is it going to get made? Will it be popular? Are you going to get money? Will you get a big deal? All that stuff happens after.

**John August:**
It’s completely out of your control, which is of course-

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s completely out of your control, exactly. In a weird way, if your goal is to write something amazing, you can take that write out of the goal column and put it right into the I’m doing it today. You don’t have to wait. A goal to me isn’t the future. Maybe I just am confused about the concept. There’s nothing stopping you right now today from writing anything you want. It’s free, which is wonderful.

**John August:**
Now in our discussions of goals, Megana has in our little workflow here a year in review. Our goal with Scriptnotes was not to have 500 episodes in 10 years in Scriptnotes, but-

**Craig Mazin:**
Jesus.

**John August:**
We hit that-

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank god that wasn’t a goal-

**John August:**
… this last year.

**Craig Mazin:**
… because I wouldn’t have done it.

**John August:**
Lord no. We were listened to in 198 different countries.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh god.

**John August:**
We had 2.15 million downloads so far this year in 2021.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh my god. Now wait, with that 2.15 million downloads, I presume that’s just three people that just keep redownloading it over and over.

**John August:**
It’s all bots. It’s bots all the way down.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s bots. Just bots.

**John August:**
A bit of housekeeping, we’re hoping to do another random advice episode. That’s this episode where we just answer random listener questions that don’t have anything to do with writing at all. It could be about relationships. It could be about real estate. It could be about the proper fork to use for a certain meal. If you have random advice questions, send those into Megana, ask@johnaugust.com, and we’ll get a special list of those together and we’ll answer random things that are not about writing.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’ll be fun. We should have Jack on for that as well. I think Jack should be the new … Let’s just have him all the time.

**John August:**
Absolutely. It’s time for our one cool things. Craig, do you have a one cool thing?

**Craig Mazin:**
No, I don’t.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne, you got the memo. Did you find a one cool thing to bring in?

**Jack Thorne:**
I’ve got two.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank god.

**Jack Thorne:**
One of which is slightly embarrassing.

**Craig Mazin:**
Good. I’ll take that one. That one’s mine.

**Jack Thorne:**
Craig chose me for One Cool Thing six, seven years ago. I don’t know how long ago it was.

**Craig Mazin:**
I would call that early Thorne period. America still didn’t know.

**Jack Thorne:**
It was a highlight of my life and a really beautiful thing and it made me spill my water. Sounds like I wet myself. I almost said made me spill my tea, and then I was like, I don’t drink tea. I don’t drink any caffeine. One of my one cool things is Craig Mazin, who appears like he is a misanthrope and seems to present like a misanthrope, and yet is incredibly kind. I once went to lunch with him wearing Ray Bans and he laughed at me for about an hour, but it was still … His ability to give time to things that he shouldn’t give time to is a very, very kind thing, and so he is one of my one cool things.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack Thorne.

**Jack Thorne:**
If that’s all right.

**Craig Mazin:**
Jack, I think you had another less Craig-oriented one cool thing.

**Jack Thorne:**
Which is authentic and celebratory portrayals of Father Christmas, because I find it very annoying that Father Christmas, I have a five-year-old, is frequently portrayed in our modern world as a dark, despairing figure or someone with a take on it. We’ve watched Santa Claus the movie, the Dudley Moore film from 1985 twice this week, and we’re probably going to watch it a third time, purely because Elliott, my son, finds the Father Christmas in it so authentic to his impression of what Father Christmas should be. I don’t know whether Father Christmas should be white or any of those things, but a jolly person who is having a good time is a good thing, and we need more of him I think.

**Craig Mazin:**
Can I ask, this might seem like an odd question, but who’s Father Christmas? We don’t have him here. Who’s that?

**John August:**
That’s Santa Claus.

**Jack Thorne:**
Santa Claus.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh, Santa Claus. Oh, Santa Claus.

**Jack Thorne:**
You don’t call him Father Christmas?

**John August:**
No, we call him Santa Claus. There is more of this in the bonus segments. Trust me.

**Craig Mazin:**
Megana, have you ever heard of Father Christmas?

**Megana Rao:**
I have.

**John August:**
I’ve heard of it.

**Megana Rao:**
I have.

**Craig Mazin:**
Wait, hold on. Now I know. It’s from the Kinks song, (singing).

**John August:**
It’s not from the Kinks song. It’s a thing that exists and the Kinks mentioned it.

**Craig Mazin:**
I thought the Kinks invented it. All right. So much for that.

**John August:**
My one cool thing is also Christmas-related. This last week I fell down a rabbit hole of the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions, which if you have not read it, you should just spend an hour of your life looking through the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions. Mine is that the Bible does not explicitly say that three magi came to visit baby Jesus, does not mention a Father Christmas or Santa Claus either, nor does it mention that there were kings or rode on camels, that their names were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The three magi are inferred because there were three gifts. Basically the three kings who come to visit baby Jesus in the Christmas story, that was just made up sometime in the third century. We don’t really know where came from, but not part of the original Christmas story. My one cool thing. That is our show for this week. Jack Thorne, thank you so much for joining us.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you for having me. I’m very sorry for talking quite a lot.

**Craig Mazin:**
No, that’s why you’re here.

**John August:**
Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Nico Mansy, if you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes there at @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust. Jack Thorne, are you on Twitter?

**Jack Thorne:**
Not really, no. No. It sent my brain mad.

**John August:**
That’s fine.

**Craig Mazin:**
Me too.

**John August:**
You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and sweatshirts, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. The sweatshirts just came and they are actually genuinely the softest things I have experienced in a sweatshirt. Craig, your sweatshirt should be there, if you ordered that first batch. Mine came yesterday. Check your mail. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. We’ll learn from Jack Thorne what a British person would call a bonus segment and other words that don’t make sense on either side of the pond. Thank you all very much.

New Speaker:
BONUS SEGMENT

**John August:**
We’re back. Jack Thorne, as you were talking, I was writing out some of the things you said that were-

**Craig Mazin:**
Ridiculous.

**John August:**
… distinctly British. You said Graeae are this wonderful company. You used are because the company is plural, but we would say Graeae is this wonderful company. Pluralism is a thing that is different between American English and British English is you would say are and we would say is.

**Jack Thorne:**
I wouldn’t assume that I speak good English. I’m not a very educated person, so I wouldn’t assume that [crosstalk 01:04:06].

**Craig Mazin:**
This is outrageous.

**John August:**
This humility.

**Craig Mazin:**
This is outrageous.

**John August:**
You said, “I remember ringing my parents.” We never ring our parents at all here.

**Craig Mazin:**
We call them.

**John August:**
We call them. We don’t ring them.

**Craig Mazin:**
Then oddly, when people are describing names in England, they will typically say, “Oh, I met a guy, he’s called Jack,” and here we would say, “He’s named Jack.”

**John August:**
British English still does that thing like [inaudible 01:04:29] you’re calling somebody. You call somebody the same way you phone them, which is strange. Are you ringing your parents if you’re ringing them on their mobile phones?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, yes, still ringing my parents. I would still say that, yes.

**John August:**
Now you’ve written for both the UK and for American audiences. Do you change anything in your actual writing if you know it’s going to Warner Brothers rather than to the BBC?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, and will use U.S. spellings. Now I say I do that. I have an assistant called Mariella who is rather brilliant and does that and makes sure that I make sense in another country.

**Craig Mazin:**
I had the opposite experience. Jane Featherstone, who is a very small person, and yet a giant person in-

**Jack Thorne:**
She is.

**Craig Mazin:**
… British person, she was rather insistent, and I think reasonably so, that as we were a European production on Chernobyl that I ought to use English things like torch instead of flashlight. You wouldn’t go into the hospital. You would be in hospital. I was trying to think. Color and even spelling, which doesn’t show up on screen, but color and favor with a U.

**Jack Thorne:**
Honor.

**Craig Mazin:**
Honor, which is actually fun to do. Then there were certain things too like firemen. We have firemen, and you guys have fire brigade.

**John August:**
[crosstalk 01:05:55].

**Jack Thorne:**
We have firemen, but if they’re a collective then they’re a fire brigade.

**Craig Mazin:**
You call the fire brigade. There’s a line in Chernobyl where he’s like, “There’s a fire,” and he goes, “Call the fire brigade,” but originally he said, “Call the fire department,” because that’s what we call it, the fire department. She’s like, “No one calls that here.” That was it. When Jane tells you to do something, you do it.

**Jack Thorne:**
Jane is always right.

**Craig Mazin:**
Yep.

**John August:**
Growing up, sometime in about fourth grade or something I recognized that British people put the U’s in the words, and I was just obsessed with putting the U’s in the words. I’d put U’s in words that they couldn’t possibly exist. I would try to do it. All my school essays I would do it. Sometimes I’d get flagged for it, sometimes I wouldn’t. I’m wondering if it was just an early case of cultural appropriation. I just desperately wanted to not be this Colorado kid. I wanted to be this international student. Craig, did you ever do the U’s in your words?

**Craig Mazin:**
No, but I think that the cultural appropriation was taking the language and bringing it here. That’s cultural reappropriation. I never did that. That would probably get you beaten up on Staten Island, John. I got to be honest with you. That, by the way, the other thing that sometimes, we mentioned fanny pack earlier, so in America fanny is your butt, and a fanny pack is that silly pouch that travelers wear with the belt that goes around their butt and they put their money in it. In England fanny is cruel slang for vulva, I think would be fair to say. There are certain differences like that.

**John August:**
There’s a word for cigarette that we don’t use here.

**Jack Thorne:**
Do you know what we call a fanny pack?

**Craig Mazin:**
You call it a bum bag.

**Jack Thorne:**
A bum bag, yeah.

**Craig Mazin:**
Now if you say bum bag in the U.S., people will assume that that’s something that involves a hobo. It is entirely different. Also I’ve noticed in England the C word, which is quite a verboten term here, is tossed around like it’s nothing over there.

**John August:**
It becomes really challenging, because you’re not sure whether that person, a British person’s using it in a sexually offensive way, in a way that it’s going to cause a lawsuit, or if they’re just speaking their language.

**Craig Mazin:**
I think they’re speaking their language.

**Jack Thorne:**
Try being in a rehearsal full of 50 people and just using it as part of your sentences, because that’s who you are, and then just looking at their faces as they stare back at you in literal sheer horror.

**Craig Mazin:**
I actually had the reverse experience where spending so much time in Europe with Brits and then coming back to the U.S. and people like, “I’m sorry, what?” I’m like, “Oh, right, sorry. I’m not [crosstalk 01:08:33]-”

**John August:**
“You can’t say that.”

**Craig Mazin:**
“… anymore. It doesn’t work that way anymore.” We do speak a common language, but there are these fascinating. Really it’s the structural differences that get me, the things like called and named and in hospital. He’s in hospital.

**John August:**
I would say as a screenwriter, when I’m working on a production that’s going to be shooting in the UK, I’m not sticking U’s in my words where they don’t need to be there, but I am mindful if there’s a thing that’s going to translate wrong or feel different in the other place or if I can just get away from that problem. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an example of we wanted the movie to feel like it didn’t exist either in the U.S. or the UK. The cars drive down the middle of the road. The bill he picks up out of the street is not a British pound or American dollar. We’re deliberately in no place. That’s great, but then everyone speaks with a British accent, so I guess we are still in the UK.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s how that works.

**Jack Thorne:**
I love that film, and it felt very British to me. Even if it wasn’t intended to be, it felt like that to me.

**Craig Mazin:**
One of the other challenges that screenwriters face, and I think we maybe talked about this on the show before, is in the U.S. we use eight and a half by 11 paper. In the UK we use A4. They’re so close to being the same, but they’re not the same.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s outrageous.

**John August:**
A4 paper always looks wrong to me. Mathematically it makes so much more sense.

**Craig Mazin:**
Of course.

**John August:**
It’s such a smarter design for paper.

**Craig Mazin:**
As is the metric system.

**John August:**
100%.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s the nice thing about England is you guys straddle the metric system and the imperial system, which I like. You haven’t quite let it go, which is good.

**Jack Thorne:**
I think we firmly believe in the imperial system.

**Craig Mazin:**
You believe in the imperial system unless it comes down to things like liters of petrol, litres of petrol.

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, we do, but you can also see gallons. There’s a separate measure for gallons.

**Craig Mazin:**
Very good. Wow. This plus the blue passports, England is back.

**John August:**
Now on a practical matter, if you were working on something like you’re working on His Dark Materials, which was a complicated production. There were American companies involved. There were probably British companies involved as well. Were your scripts done on A4? Were they done on eight and a half by eleven? Did you just make a choice early on and just live with it?

**Jack Thorne:**
I didn’t even think about it. I just opened final draft and just used whatever format. I guess other people might’ve changed it, but I don’t think so. Those sorts of questions, I think our industry’s a lot more haphazard than yours. We don’t really ever deal with them. No one complains. I guess I just kept doing it the same way that I was doing it.

**John August:**
I ran into it on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We were using A4 paper, and the Warner Brothers script department, which is a whole notorious thing, we could talk about a whole rant about the Warner Brothers script department, would send it back to us in not A4 paper, and so the scripts would be longer and we’d get all these concerns about budget. It’s because you put it on different paper. It’s the exact same script.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh wow.

**John August:**
Drives me crazy.

**Craig Mazin:**
A4.

**John August:**
A4.

**Craig Mazin:**
A4.

**John August:**
[crosstalk 01:11:24].

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m so sorry.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne-

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s Britain.

**John August:**
Again, don’t apologize for everything. Far too much.

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m afraid my country, the imperial system and everything else that comes out of my country, gets away with the fact that we are probably responsible for more evil than any other country in the world.

**Craig Mazin:**
Certainly A4 is just maybe the worst thing that Britain ever did, A4, top of the heap, followed by the slavery and colonization.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne, thanks so much.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you so much.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack.

Links:

* [Jack Thorne’s MacTaggart Lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxUZPMBRIPU)
* [Jack Thorne Launches Underlying Health Conditions Pressure Group, Publishes Major Report Into Disabled Representation in TV Industry](https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/jack-thorne-underlying-health-conditions-1235125435/)
* [1 in 4 Coalition](https://www.1in4coalition.org/)
* [Ashley Nicole Black and Francesca Ramsey Twitter Thread](https://twitter.com/ashleyn1cole/status/1460703224285908993?s=20)
* [Santa Claus: The Movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089961/) a celebratory portrayal of Father Christmas
* [Wikipedia List of Misconceptions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions?wprov=wppw1)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Jack Thorne](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2113666/) on IMDb
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nico Mansy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/530standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 528: M is for Minimum, Transcript

January 5, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/m-is-for-minimum).

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

**Craig:**
My name Craig Mazin.

**John:**
And this is episode 528 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show with animation writers fighting to get paid what live action writers get, we’ll look at what minimums and backend really mean, but it’s also a craft episode. We’ll talk about the kind of movie, where the hero is actively trying to find themselves and is the waste paper basket the writer’s most important tool? Plus, in our bonus segment for premium members, is movie dialogue actually harder to understand these days? Craig has opinions.

**Craig:**
Amazing. Absolutely [inaudible 00:00:36].

**John:**
A taste of what’s to come for our premium members. Craig, it’s nice to be back recording with you. It’s been a minute here.

**Craig:**
Yeah. A little bit up and down over here, as we make our way through this insanely large production, still here in Canada, although we’re catching a little bit of a break now, as we head into the holidays. I get to come home for a little bit, looking outside at beautiful Calgary, it is a lovely dusting of snow. Apparently La Nina and El Nino have joined hands to make Il Nino and something enormous is coming apparently. Apparently it’s going to be snowpocalypse up here, which is okay for us. We’ve got an episode, where we need a little bit of snow.

**John:**
Oh, it’ll be great.

**Craig:**
Yeah.

**John:**
Yeah, little bit of snow’s also good for skiing. I would love some more snow for that.

**Craig:**
Yeah. I’m not going to do that.

**John:**
Yeah. I’m going to do that, but while you were gone, we replayed the Die Hard episode. This was a special episode we’d done for premium members. We put it in the main feed and I added in a bonus segment for our premium members, where we talked with Steven E. de Souza about the writing of Die Hard, which is so exciting. We did some follow up on that. Megana, can you help us out with a follow up?

**Megana:**
Great. Jeb writes, “You did a great job in the Die Hard episode, highlighting the various Reagan era elements of the film, bumbling experts, idiotic feds, awful Europeans, et cetera, but one of the key elements in the story, is the fact that Holly works for a Japanese firm. As you of course remember, the 80s featured a fascination with Japanese culture, highlighted perhaps best in Karate Kid, but also fear related to the perceived decline of the US, in relation to Japan. Japanese companies excelling in the auto industry, electronics, and even US real estate. Movies like Gung Ho, highlighted those tensions for comedic gain, but that anxiety was real. Anti-Asian hate crimes were rampant in the era and the fact that Holly is working for a Japanese company, building its own towering foothold on American soil, is just one more thorn in all American John McClane’s side. The fact that he prevails and saves the American employees, is a not too subtle message.”

**John:**
That’s a good point. Let’s talk about that [crosstalk 00:02:45].

**Craig:**
[crosstalk 00:02:45] Jeb.

**John:**
Okay. I would say that a person looking at the movie now, who didn’t grow up in the 80s might not realize the degree to which there was this sense that, “Oh, Japan’s going to take over the world,” because they didn’t. Spoiler and it is interesting, because I do sense that at the start of the movie, the fact that this Japanese company is made a little bit more of a thing, but I like that the movie doesn’t feel racist towards the Japanese owners and the Japanese owners are good people and solid.

**Craig:**
Yeah. That’s where I’ll push back a little bit on Jeb. I do agree that of course his pretext is correct. There was a very famous memo written by the head of Sony, that was circulated around American businesses in the 80s, as a warning that they were going to beat us, but also why aren’t we like this? It wasn’t simply a Japan-a-phobia, it was also Japan-a-phelia. There was an admiration and a desire to raise our standards to theirs. They were doing it better than we were. The Nakatomi building is in a not-80s-way, It’s not played for racism jokes. Nobody makes fun of the Japanese culture. The boss is portrayed as an honorable, decent man, whereas the American employee is the cokehead snake. The fact that John McClane saves the day, that’s not I don’t think, a particularly trenchant point about America versus Japan as just, he’s the movie star, he’s the action hero that came to save the day. If anything to me, the fact that it was a Japanese company, which by the way, disappears in terms of importance almost immediately. It’s just not really a thing, I would say reflects nothing more than what was in vogue at the time, which was, yeah and we should make it a Japanese company, because that feels like an 80s thing right now.

**John:**
I would say that the Japanese company helps set up McClane’s initial fear of losing his wife, because not only has his wife moved to the other side of the country, but she’s really working for a Japanese company and will probably end up moving to Japan at some point. I think I remember that. It said that she may actually need to move to Tokyo at some point and the sense of losing all of the stuff that he’s had, to this company is real and yet that’s not the meat of the film at all. It’s misdirected.

**Craig:**
No. There is a really interesting episode, that I think we could do and we’d want to bring in some friends to discuss I would imagine, about the movie Gung Ho, which Jeb cites here, which is a fascinating 80s attempt, I would call it, an 80s attempt by white people, to make an anti-racism movie and spoiler alert, it doesn’t go great, but it also weirdly wears its goofy heart on its sleeve.

**John:**
I’m trying to remember the premise. Is this Michael Keaton or is this Tom Hanks?

**Craig:**
It’s Michael Keaton, although it could have been Tom Hanks and more importantly, it’s Ron Howard. It’s this kind of very… Ron Howard to me, always represents the sweetest, most innocent American point of view, which doesn’t always mean it’s enlightened, it just means it’s not coming at something out of anger or disgust or contempt, but yeah, Ron Howard directed this movie. Starred Michael Keaton and it was about a Japanese company purchasing an American company and it was a car company, changing the way the auto factory worked and how it suddenly became a culture clash and it was Gedde Watanabe and George Wendt and Michael Keaton and very much white savior stuff, but also weirdly at times, beautifully human. You could see, it was actually a little bit ahead of its time. The problem was the time was really behind where we are now. It was ahead of its time and yet behind where we are now, it’s a fascinating thing to look at and I think maybe one day we can dive in. It won’t necessarily be the most comfortable, deep dive we do, but worth examining.

**John:**
Yeah. Now if we were to make Die Hard today, that Die Hard never existed, but it was just being made today. It would not be a Japanese company. It’d be a Korean company, who inevitably was building that building, which brings us to squid game, not squid games, but we have some follow up on that. Megana can talk to us about what Eliza sent.

**Megana:**
Eliza says, “As an avid Korean-American listener, I want to clarify why the show’s English title is Squid Game singular and not Squid Games, as in the Olympic Games or Hunger Games. The last game in the series of childhood games, is The Squid Game. If the last game had been hopscotch, then perhaps the title would’ve been Hopscotch. If one is unfamiliar with the Squid Game as are most English speakers, there’s a desire to encapsulate the entire experience with an umbrella term. However, you can see it wouldn’t make sense to title it Hopscotches, had the last game been different. Squid Game sounds awkward to a Korean speaker and only sounds right to an English speaker. Furthermore, Korean doesn’t have a plural indicator like the S in English. A single rock is Dol, just as a fist of rocks is Dol. The rest of the sentence communicates the nature of the rock, as it relates to its surroundings and condition.”

**Craig:**
Well, Eliza, thank you for that. We love language here, obviously. I think the thing that I was perhaps primarily ignorant of, wasn’t the fact that plurals work differently in Korean, as much as that, apparently there are more than one game that occurs in Squid Game and Squid Game was the last of those games. I just thought the whole thing was just all Squid Game, because I still haven’t seen it. That said, this interested me. What really grabbed me on this single rock is Dol, a fist full of rocks is Dol and I checked with our intrepid Bo Shim over here, because what I was curious about was the Olympic Games, because Eliza mentions the Olympic Games and Korea has hosted the Olympic Games and I asked her in Korean, what do people call the Olympic Games? And she said, that in Korean people simply call them Olympic like, “We’re hosting the Olympic,” and of course this confirms what Eliza’s saying, but now what I want to do, is not say Squid Games or a Squid Game. I just want to call the show, Squid.

**John:**
Reduce everything down to it’s single elemental route, that the fundamental thing that everything ventures out from. Yes.

**Craig:**
I have not yet seen Squid.

**John:**
Not a bit of it. More follow up on our Thanksgiving movies. Lars from Cologne writes, “I finally got around listening to episode 522 and would like to suggest that another reason Thanksgiving movies are not as common as Christmas movies, could be, that Thanksgiving is an American tradition, which would make it tough overseas. That’s also why they’re often sold as road movies, as John pointed out. The event is really just an excuse to get some people who don’t see each other often, but have a lot of history and unresolved issues, to sit down at a table and fight them out. Yes, I think the universality of Thanksgiving is not in it’s favor for a movie.”

**Craig:**
A little bit of editorializing there from Lars, from Cologne. Sometimes Lars, I know this is hard to believe, people just sit down and have a good time. Typically that’s what we do on Thanksgiving, but yes, it’s true, Thanksgiving is solely American, although Christmas is not particularly universal. I think more people than not, in fact, I know that more people do not celebrate Christmas than do, but also a Thanksgiving movie could be very cheap proposition to make. Yeah. I think honestly we figured it out last time, but thank you Lars for the help. Just there’s no narrative built into it. It’s a meal, that’s it. It’s a meal.

**John:**
Yeah. Now back to Christmas though, two years ago, I celebrated Christmas in Korea. This is going to be the Korean episode. It’s really what I’m getting back to you. It’s all going to be about Korea, this whole entire episode and it was delightful to celebrate Christmas in Korea and they really did a number there. They really celebrated it big.

**Craig:**
Yes. Christianity is very big in Korea. Although, I would imagine it is not at this point, quite as big as Squid.

**John:**
Nothing is as big as Squid.

**Craig:**
I do love there’s a… It’s not Squid, it’s Cuttlefish, but there’s this dried Cuttlefish, Korean snack called Ojingeochae. It’s like-

**John:**
It’s [crosstalk 00:11:04] get that for you and then you actually mark in the bag, how much of the Cuttlefish each of you has eaten?

**Craig:**
No, that would be insane.

**John:**
Yeah. No, nothing like the ketchup doritos?

**Craig:**
No, no, no, no. Here’s the deal. The ketchup Doritos and I’m going to say it again. Something happened and I don’t even want to get into it, but something went wrong there and it’s-

**John:**
And now you don’t like them?

**Craig:**
No, I love them, but it’s driven a wedge between me and Bo. No, I started eating that all the way back in 1992, because I was living with my friend, who’s a Korean American named Chin and he introduced it to me. It’s almost squid jerky, is what it is, but it’s actually, you would think, “Oh squid jerky, this right off the bat didn’t sound great.” It’s delicious. Delicious.

**John:**
Yeah. All right. Another piece. This could be umberage inducing, but let’s see how this goes here. Our podcast that you’re listening to right now, is called Scriptnotes. There’s a feature in final draft called Scriptnotes, which is how you leave little notes for things and several people pointed out this week that they’ve started putting a TM after Scriptnotes. A trademark symbol. I did what a person does and I looked at the trademark registry. They used to have a trademark on it, but they let the trademark lapse in 2018.

**Craig:**
Well, why don’t we trademark it?

**John:**
We could try to trademark it.

**Craig:**
I think we should. Let’s trademark it and then let’s sue them.

**John:**
Here’s what I know about trademarks, because I actually had to get a trademark on this other game that we were doing at one point and trademarks exist in certain spaces. It’s entirely possible they could get their trademark for this feature in a software program, called Scriptnotes and we could get our trademark in the podcast called Scriptnotes, but honestly let’s just stop fighting over a trademark and just not-

**Craig:**
Well, the good news is we haven’t started fighting over the trademark. I think we can just stay right here where we are. Obviously they could have said something about it, prior to the abandonment in 2018, but they didn’t, probably because the thing that you’re worried about when you get a trademark, I have a trademark for instance, for my production company Word Games, is that what I don’t want, is another company that does what I do, calling themselves Word Games and then the question is, “Oh, well who made this?” And without question Final Draft the company, could have said there is a marketplace confusion, if we have Scriptnotes as part of our script running software and these other guys are doing a podcast about screenwriting, people might be confused and think that they represent us, but I have a suspicion that they were happy about that.

**John:**
Yeah. One of the challenges when you have a trademark, is you have to protect and defend your trademarks. You have to look for people who are infringing on it and you have to send them letters saying, “Hey, don’t infringe on our trademark.” I sent actually, a very nice email to Final Draft, reminding them that they don’t actually have the trademark on Scriptnotes. We’ll see if they take the little TMs off their videos and such.

**Craig:**
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Look Final Draft, we keep it on a simmer with you guys. Don’t wake the dragon.

**John:**
All right. Back to Korea news. When the agency campaigned, the WGA agency brujaja was settled, one of the points in that, was that the companies who own production entities had to sell down to a 20% stake, basically were limited to a 20% stake. This past week it was announced that Endeavor is selling its content side to CJ Entertainment, which is a Korean firm. I think I may have even predicted that on the show, that that’d be who would buy out this entity, because it makes a lot of sense, because this is a Korean company who wants to do more American production, who has a lot of experience, has a lot of money. It seems like the right outcome for both sides.

**Craig:**
Yeah and yeah, the company’s worth quite a bit of money there. You never know with these things. It’s a little bit like when they make sports deals and then you find out later, “Oh, well it’s not really that much money and the other team paid for half of the money, that they said that they got,” in any case who knows, but it’s impressive regardless either way and yeah, CJ Entertainment’s a real deal.

**John:**
They did Parasite, they did Big Fish in Korea. They’ve done lots of… There’s just two examples of high quality things they’ve done. They are the equivalent of Sony Entertainment for Korea. They are a big production house.

**Craig:**
This is an interesting development. I’m watching it and yeah listen, every time a new company comes into Hollywood, I think there is a reasonable, people get a little bit excited, because they think new buyer-ish person or somebody that will perhaps get and sometimes that’s true. More often than not, the new companies are worse than the old companies and I don’t know exactly what the relationship is with CJ Entertainment and say unions and you always have to wonder, how this is going to go, but as far as I’m concerned, it can’t be worse than Silicon Valley and their attitude towards unions. Let’s see how it goes.

**John:**
All right. Megana, do you want to talk to us more about some bullshitting?

**Craig:**
Ooh.

**Megana:**
Great. Brandon wrote in and said, “The discussion on bullshitting for writers was quite illuminating for me. I feel like there’s this proverbial wisdom out there, that you should fake it till you make it, but the saying has always felt a little toxic to me. Is it really okay to say I’m a writer, if I’m not making a living as a writer or should I be honest and tell people my day job, when they ask me what I do? When meeting someone new in the industry, the question of what do you do, is almost inevitable. Any guidance on how to navigate or bullshit a response to this question, would be greatly appreciated.

**John:**
Craig. I think it is fine to identify yourself as a writer, who is not making a living as a writer. What do you do? “I’m a writer, in the meantime I’m working a day job at someplace,” is absolutely fine and valid to say. I think, especially when you’re newly moved here, speaking aspirationally is good and normal and appropriate, but how are you feeling about that?

**Craig:**
How will I put it? I understand Brandon’s squirminess about this. I would say Brandon, that the saying fake it till you make it, isn’t really, at least for me, it’s never about just straight up lying about stuff that you wish were true, because that’s delusional and that’s dishonest and misleading. I think fake it till you make it is more about, “Hey, I believe I have the capability of doing something intellectually. Right now, I’m terrified. Let me just behave like I’m not terrified and then I won’t be scared, once I get into it.” In terms of describing yourself, if you’re not making a living as a writer, it’s a little weird to stick the word aspiring on, because that sounds weird. What I would say, is I’m working on a screenplay. I think this is perfectly fine. Say, I’m working on a screenplay. I have a day job, but I’m working on a screenplay. It’s going really well. I’ve got some interest from X, Y, or Z. If you have no interest from X, Y, or Z and it’s just, you’re writing a screenplay at night while you’re working during the day, then no, I wouldn’t say I’m a writer, because that’s not really true. I am a writer, does implies certain things and the reason I’m saying don’t say that, is not because I’m feeling like there should be forced humility, it’s more that I’m just concerned about the follow up questions you’re going to get. What are you working on? Who do you work with? And then you’re stuck. I’ll tell you the question I always get. If somebody doesn’t know who I am and they say, what do you do? And I say, I’m a writer. I work in television and movies and the next immediate question, is: what have I seen? Every single god damned time. Have I seen anything of yours? Since all those questions are going to be forthcoming, you might want to just make it more about the process itself. I’m working on a blank.

**John:**
Yeah. I think the “ing” forms are really helpful here. To say that you’re writing is great. When you say that you are a writer, then you’re going to get the follow up question, “Oh, what have you gotten made?” Or if you say, I’m a novelist, it’s like, “Okay, well, where’s your book?” But if you say, I’m writing a book for this or I’m working on stuff. That is true and honest and also basically where you’re at in the process.

**Craig:**
Correct. Totally.

**John:**
Yeah. A bit of news and follow up here. Last year, as we came through the contract negotiations, we added paid parental leave to the deal for writers. For the first time, writers who have new kids have, I think it’s eight weeks of paid parental leave. Effective January 1st, 2022, the health fund will offer coverage for infertility treatment, for those who have a medical diagnosis of infertility, available to all participants with active coverage for them and their spousal dependence, with a lifetime cap of $30,000 with no deductibles or copays.

**Craig:**
No deductibles or copays. Lifetime cap of $30,000. Oftentimes it does cost more than $30,000 and of course, if you want to have more than one child, then you’re going to need that infertility treatment coverage later, you then will have to probably dip into your pocket, but let’s not underplay the fact that, that’s a big amount of money that you used to have to pay for entirely by yourself and while my wife and I, very luckily did not have any infertility issues. I think we’re the exception of so many.

**John:**
My husband and I had infertility issues.

**Craig:**
Well yes. Right there is a big one. John, you guys aren’t having another kid, I would imagine?

**John:**
You know what, with this $30,000 bonus, maybe so. I’m just saying-

**Craig:**
Maybe you and I should have a kid, because if you think about it, who’s going to inherit this podcast one day?

**John:**
Yeah. We’re experienced parents at this point. We really know what we’re doing. Yeah. I have a kid who’s going to be heading off to college in 16 months. The thought of having a brand new child, while I love babies, I think we’ve established on this podcast, I absolutely love babies.

**Craig:**
Love them.

**John:**
Love them.

**Craig:**
Love babies.

**John:**
But I don’t want to have another four year old, for example, or another 10 year old.

**Craig:**
No, no, no. At all. This is great news and I think I always, in these moments, want to tip my hat obviously, to the Writers Guild for, we represent half of the trustees on the health fund and they’re the ones who make these decisions. We don’t actually negotiate these in contracts. This is something that has to be worked out between our trustees and their trustees, but I also tip my hat to the companies, because they have half the trustees too and this doesn’t happen unless the companies agree and there are certain areas where I think everybody starts to find their collective humanity and their shared experiences and there are people on both sides, management and labor, who know the pain of wanting to have a child and struggling and this is a fantastic thing and I tip my hat both to the Writer’s Guild and the companies.

**John:**
Yeah and it’s also important to note the distinction between, there was no more money added to the pot for this. Basically, it’s reprioritizing how you’re spending the money that’s in the pot and that you’re going to start covering fertility treatment, as opposed to paid parental leave, which was part of the contract, because it’s additional money being put in there, to actually pay for that fund. That’s the difference there. That’s why that was a contract thing and this was just a decision made by the folks who run the fund.

**Craig:**
What they cover and what they don’t cover medically, is always going to be part of their decision and they do run the numbers and they generally do have to balance the budget. I hope that they did that by removing nonsense alternative treatments, that don’t do a goddamned thing.

**John:**
Yeah, I imagine so. That’d be great. All right. I was going to lead us into this Netflix topic by talking about Netflix numbers, but I feel like I’ve talked about Netflix numbers so, so much, that I’m just tired of talking about Netflix numbers.

**Craig:**
John, your discussion of Netflix numbers is the most listened to discussion, ever in Scriptnotes history.

**John:**
I would like to congratulate my friends, Rawson Thurber and Ryan Reynolds for the number one movie of all time on Netflix. It’s fantastic. It’s great. Wonderful. I’m so happy that it’s happened. I hope that you guys get the equivalent of backend off that. I hope for every time they send out a press release about how much money or how many viewers it’s had, you get a ca-ching. That would be fantastic. They won’t, but let’s get into how money works and how backends work, because this past week, a bunch of things showed up on my feed and a lot of questions showed up in my feed, about writers getting paid and backends and residuals. I think it’s because animation writers right now are going through negotiations about increasing their pay, because animation writers are generally not covered by the WGA, covered by the Animation Guild and people had natural questions about backends and profits and scales and minimums. I wanted to have a little segment here to talk about the difference between minimums, which is something that’s being handled by the Guild contract and what writers actually bring in, which is handled by their own contracts. We have a lot of terms to define here, but hopefully we can make sense of where money comes from and how it gets to writers.

**Craig:**
Yeah, totally normal thing to happen when you’re looking at one group of writers, like animation writers, who aren’t doing as well as Writers Guild writers and what will happen is, people will point towards Writers Guild writers and say, “Here’s what their experience is. Here’s how they’re treated. Here’s what they get,” and some of the things that they’re pointing to, are things that the Writers Guild has not gotten them at all and more interestingly then by implication, they don’t need the Animation Guild to get them either because we are, the term is an overscale employment base, at least certainly in features and in television, where the overscale occurs most notably, is in the double job description, writer/producer. A lot of things happen under the heading of producer and the Writer’s Guild doesn’t touch or affect any of those.

**John:**
Yeah and it’s especially complicated in TV, because the number of weeks that count against gets wild, but let’s start with some really basic things we can talk through. I want to discuss the difference between the contract, which is the big contract that’s being negotiated every three years, versus individual writer contracts. I want to talk about when writers get scale and when they don’t, profit participation and residuals and the idea of CPI and increases. Basically, how much things ramp up over the years, because that also gets confusing. Craig, can you talk to me about the difference between the contract and what’s in the contract, versus what’s in an individual writer’s contract?

**Craig:**
Sure. For the Writer’s Guild and this holds true as well for Animation Guild, the collective bargaining agreement is also known as a Minimum Basic Agreement. Minimum Basic Agreement, simply means nobody that is in our union can do worse than this. That’s what it is. They could also call it the worst case scenario document.

**John:**
It’s the floor.

**Craig:**
It’s the floor. Now our individual contracts by design, already incorporate everything that’s in that contract. There’s a clause in our individual contracts that say, under no circumstances can anything in this contract be construed as doing something worse than, the terms of the Minimum Basic Agreement. However, obviously in our individual contracts then, there are lots of things that our lawyers, managers, or agents, well, not managers legally, but our lawyers or agents can get us, that are better. A lot of those things are almost boiler plate at this point, because everybody gets them. Some of them have to do with you and your individual status and work history and perceived value to the company, but most contracts I would argue, have at least some aspects that are better than the Minimum Basic Agreement that the Writer’s Guild or the Animation Guild provides.

**John:**
Back in episode 407, we talked through understanding your writing contract and it was you and me at the Guild, along with some Guild lawyers and we literally walked through what an individual writer’s contract looks like and some of the things that are in there, are essential about this is how much you’re getting paid for your first draft, for your rewrite. These are the optional steps, the guaranteed steps, but also carried in there is, this is your net profit definition and this is what your backend looks like and you laugh now, but we laugh every time, because movies are designed to never actually achieve net profits. Only a handful of movies each year, each decade, could be considered net profits. Something like a Blair Witch Project is so successful, that there’s just no way to hide the money that’s coming in there, but they achieve this process for never actually becoming profitable, by continually siphening out for the money that’s coming in and charging fees against things. You could never actually hit those profits. Those things are still in your contract, but they’re not actually meaningful. The confusion I saw from people on Twitter is, “Oh, that means they writers don’t get anything for the movies, they make,” and it’s, “No, we get residuals and residuals don’t have anything to do with profitability,” and I think that’s an important thing to distinguish. Craig, can you talk to us about residuals and how residuals get calculated in a broad sense?

**Craig:**
Residuals are calculated on a gross basis and a number of people in this discussion on Twitter, were saying that residuals needed to happen for the Animation Guild, so that they could participate in the profit of things and then some people said, “Well, the problem with the Writer’s Guild, is the residuals are only there for profits and nothing ever shows profits and they should really be based on the gross,” and the answer is, they are. That’s exactly what they are. Residuals have nothing to do with the profitability of a movie. They have everything to do with how much the movie grosses and by grosses, we mean the amount of money that comes into the studio, regardless of expenses. Now, the residuals are defined in such a way, that the only part of the money coming in that matters, is for movies, not the ticket sales and not exhibition on airplanes, but all the other stuff afterwards. The now dead videotape and DVD market, but online rentals, online sales, the sale of the movie to streamers and cable outlets and networks overseas, all that gross comes in and then there is a formula that is applied to it. Is it a great formula? No, but it’s formula and it generates money.

**John:**
And it’s important to stress that, that formula and the recalculation of that formula, happens every three years in the contract, the MBA and that, that is where the residuals are calculated. Your individual contract might have something like hand waving towards residuals, but that’s not where your residuals are coming from. Your residuals are coming from this Minimum Basic Agreement, that applies to all film and all television that’s done underneath a WGA contract, which is good, which is how you want it and it also means that there can be consistent accounting for it and the WGA can actually collect that money on your behalf.

**Craig:**
Which is why your agents, managers, or lawyers, should never commission that money and if they are, ask them to please stop, because they didn’t negotiate that term, the Writer’s Guild did and while it is true that, I guess I would characterize it as every three years, we have the opportunity to adjust those formulae, when in reality they’re adjusted almost never. Once they’re there, they’re there for a long time.

**John:**
They largely get baked in and the things that, when you get news about what changed in the contract, it could be the thresholds for certain things may have changed a bit, but the actual percentages rarely change or what counts rarely changes. Only when there’s a brand new thing that you have to figure out, how are we going to treat this new thing that’s existing, do you sign a brand new residual and as we said many times on the show, figuring out how we’re going to handle residuals for movies that are made for a streamer and only show on a streamer, a movie like Red Notice is complicated, because if that movie was made by a studio and then sold to a Netflix, the residual will be based on what that sale price was to Netflix, but because there’s no sale price, it’s tougher to figure out what the residual is and it’s going to be a big focus in negotiations.

**Craig:**
It will always be lower. Until something changes, the way that Netflix does things in general, works very much in their favor, surprise, because there isn’t much of an independent and this does tie back to Netflix. You have an article here that you linked to, we’ll throw it into the show notes, from Variety about Netflix’s data expansion being a flex, which is a very nice way of saying the thing that you and I have been saying for a long time.

**Craig:**
Which is, that Netflix just continually manipulates data to make it sound like everyone is watching Netflix every minute of the day and every new thing that comes out, is the biggest thing that Netflix has ever done, because just the data is a big, huge hailing storm of hot air and what’s bizarre is, a lot of people do watch Netflix. It’s incredibly popular. I don’t know why they need to do that, other than to say that they have a total black box control over who watches what and when they report it, meaning how many people have seen this and similarly therefore, how they deal with residuals, which usually is some large buyout, works in their favor, almost always.

**John:**
Yeah. Now, here we’re talking about the back end of what’s happened and everything. The movies come out, but let’s talk about initial compensation, which is also crucial here and one of the things I’ve noticed with the animation writers talking about, is their initial compensation is just dramatically lower than equivalent conversation would be for a live action writer, a WGA writer. They’re trying to raise that initial compensation. This is something that we’re really talking about scale. We’re talking about, this is the minimum that you could be paid to do this job, to write this script, to be working on this show and that’s where we’re trying to increase here. Now again, we’ve got to stress, that is the minimum they can pay you, but certainly for future writers, you want to be working above scale and your goal is to get above scale as quickly and as thoroughly as you can, so you’re not being stuck at the absolute minimum they can pay you for things.

**Craig:**
There are two limits that impact how people are paid in general. One is the floor, which is obviously as you mentioned, something the union sets and the other is whatever the perceived ceiling is. That may be the biggest difference, because there is a difference between the floor, but it is not a massive difference. The massive Delta is in the ceiling, where the most highly paid writers in live action are paid vastly more than the most highly paid writers in animation and I’m talking about with the exception of maybe some Pixar features and things like that, but when we talk about television, when we talk about animation writers for television animation, not WGA television animation, the ceiling is just nowhere near what the ceiling is on the live action side. That is where you can start pulling people up a bit.

**John:**
Also, we should make sure the ceiling is not defined. You’re not going to find some contract that says, this is the most we’ll ever pay. They just have this internal thing. The company will say, “We never pay more than this,” and I’ve been through this in my own experiences. You probably have been too. It’s, this is the most we’ve ever paid for this. This is the most we’re willing to pay. We don’t go above this line.” [crosstalk 00:34:24]

**Craig:**
It’s the market price and that line, they will go over that line. It’s just not today, but that line is a market line and every now and then something seismic occurs and that line changes, because somebody gets paid a whole crazy amount, because somebody really, really wanted that person. That part can change. The issue with more than anything in animation writing, non WGA animation writing, is that they haven’t yet zeroed in on those people, that are worth an enormous amount. That starts to change, because at that point, instead of a factory floor, you have a factory ladder. For animation writers, they have a double problem. The Animation Guild does have low minimums. They don’t have residuals, they don’t have credit protections and in the marketplace, that group of animation writers doesn’t have a cadre of extremely high paid people, that are setting a progression for everybody else.

**John:**
Now, there have been notable animation showrunners who have made fantastic deals at places and that’s awesome for them and they can hopefully use some of that power to get writers paid more, but that’s the exception rather than rule. There are very few big animation showrunners, who could pull that off and it’s not like live action TV showrunners, who do get those 10 figure deals.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Pretty much everyone that’s running a show on television, is getting paid pretty darn well, when I talk about live action. Some people are being paid numbers that require extra digits. You have deals that are approaching a billion dollars at this point. It’s insane, but certainly a number of people being paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars and I don’t think that is happening at all in non WGA televised animation and in the cases sometimes where it is, I think you are dealing largely with the production entity. It’s just a different culture and what it comes down to is and this is where I feel for the people who run the Animation Guild, because they are trying. I have talked to a couple of them over the years and I know, they know and they’re not delusional. They’re not sitting there going, “No, our numbers are great.” They know and what they’re dealing with is a cultural problem that the industry does not value the animation writers, the way that the industry values the Writers Guild writers and that is a cultural problem that also needs to be attacked and in that circumstance, the partners they need unfortunately at the Animation Guild, are the agencies because agencies do this too. They look and see, “Well okay, those people are being paid that, so let’s not really concentrate on that, because 10% of that isn’t that much,” but they can drive that up too. They’re the ones who push the market around.

**John:**
Now, you hit on this early in the discussion, but it’s important to note that in television, someone who’s staffed on a TV show, they’re going to get paid a certain amount for their writing services, but also as a producer. As a staff writer, as a story editor, as a consulting producer, they’re getting a separate paycheck, that’s covering their producing services for a show and their writing services will tend to be listed at scale, but everything else about their producing services, is a part of their individual contract negotiation. It’s important to notice that if you’re a newly staffed writer, you might see in your contract that, “Oh, it looks like I’m being paid scale,” but you also are being paid separately as a producer and that’s just the weird way that we decided to do television, which is frustrating for folks who come from the feature world.

**Craig:**
Yeah. In one aspect, when you do come from the feature world as I did, you look at it and go, “Well, man, I’ve been paying a lot in dues, that these producers and television haven’t been paying at all.” In features, I paid a 1.5% of every dollar I ever made and television, I pay 1.5% of basically minimum, because the companies have used the producer valve, as a way to essentially pay out more, that doesn’t get applied against, for instance, healthcare and pension and the writers who take this money including myself, recognize that there’s less in dues to pay as well and you get more perceived power, because you’re a producer. For the animation writers, I’m not sure that this relief valve is there. I think basically they’re saying, this is scale. That’s what you get and there is nothing else, but there is and part of it is just figuring out how to push that marketplace forward. For me, if I were running the Animation Guild, I’ve got to be honest, I wouldn’t start right today since it’s… Look, they’ve lost over and over and over, okay? It’s quite a losing streak. How do you turn around a losing streak? Maybe you start with something that doesn’t cost money at all, but is about dignity and that would be credits and if you begin to open that door with credits and dignity, then you start to push ahead on how to make something out of those credits, because right now everything seems to be decided by the companies with a reactive position from the Animation Guild, because they don’t have the strength or backing really to get something done. It’s possible that now with the new leadership in IA, which did threaten a strike for the… We almost had an IA strike for the first time in Hollywood history. Maybe they could throw a little muscle behind the Animation Guild, which is part of IATSE. It’s complicated.

**John:**
One of the other challenges with the Animation Guild, is that Writers Guild represents just writers, Animation Guild represents not just animation writers, but also everyone else who works in animation and their interests are similar, because they’re all trying to make great animated projects, but it’s not quite analogous to the WGA, where everyone’s doing the same job.

**Craig:**
Correct and there is a conflict that can occur, because you have story artists who, if you’ve worked in animation you know, they are writing with pictures and they often throw a lot of dialogue in as they’re pitching and there is a blending of how writing functions in animation, that our terms in the Writers Guild don’t really artfully cover and those people have to be taken care of too. I think sometimes part of the problem is, that people who’d have a title and function that is very similar to what we do in the Writers Guild will say, “Wait, they got that and I’m getting this and it’s not fair and also I should be covered by the Writers Guild.” Can we just, once again John, point out that that cannot happen.

**John:**
It cannot happen. Here’s the challenge, is the folks who are represented currently by the Animation Guild, they are represented by a union and the WGA cannot come in and say, “No, no. We are taking these writers out of your unit and putting them into the WGA.” That just cannot happen. That’s just not federal law. That’s just not going to happen. What can happen is on new projects that are not covered by the Animation Guild, they can be covered by the Writers Guild and there’s a push to get more new projects covered by the Writers Guild and I have a show that’s going to be an animated Writer’s Guild project. It is doable. It’s hard to do, but that is the way you are going to get animation writers covered by WGA contract, is by setting up new projects and new places, that do not have already coverage by the Animation Guild. That’s just how it’s going to have to happen.

**Craig:**
New employers is a huge part of it. The problem, is that new employers generally aren’t stupid. They can look and see which one’s going to cost them more and it’s the Writers Guild. That’s definitely going to cost them more.

**John:**
And that’s why there’s a push to get a bunch of animation showrunners to say, “Hey, we will only do new projects at places that can offer WGA contracts,” because there are some folks who are worth it, they’re willing to do a WGA deal at certain places. That’s how I was able to get the one I just did.

**Craig:**
Yeah, years and years and years ago I was hired by Bob Weinstein, to write an animated movie and I said, “I won’t do it if it’s not WGA,” and what they did was, they just made a company.

**John:**
Yeah. They [crosstalk 00:42:39].

**Craig:**
They made a new company and that new company became signatory to the Writers Guild and that new company existed solely to employ me to write this movie and that’s fine, it’s a bunch of paperwork and as you say, it can be done, but if it’s done on an ad hoc basis, because they really want you to write something and they really want me to write something, that is not going to ever really move the needle, because the vast bulk of stuff that’s done, is done at places that are fully married into doing things through the Animation Guild.

**John:**
Yeah, but you get the point of the wedge in there and you can start to make some changes and that’s-

**Craig:**
Tip of the spear.

**John:**
Tip of the Spear. We’ll do it. Around the office this week, we started talking about the kinds of movies where you have the hero, who is undergoing transformation, which is true to all movies hopefully, but where the point of the story, is that the hero is changing and transforming. They’re not going on a quest for something else, but they’re actually struggling to find themselves from the start of the movie and the two things that were making me think about this, this past week, the Kendall Roy character on Succession, especially this season, you see that he’s desperately trying to figure out who he is and he’s trying to organize this publicity and to promote this image of himself. But really, he’s trying to figure out who he actually is. He wants the world to tell him who he is. He wants the press to reflect back what he wants to see and the answer is, you’re an asshole and that’s not a great answer for him to get, but I was also thinking about this article, it’s a letter sent to Blair Braverman, who writes the column for Outside Magazine and it’s about a writer who moved to a cabin off the grid and she figured like, “Oh, here I’ll be able to write every day and it’s going to be great. I have this fantasy version of what my life is like and it was just miserable,” and I wanted to talk about this as a movie construct and also maybe a TV construct as well, but this idea of characters who enter into the story, looking to transform rather than going on a quest, where the transformation happens along the way.

**Craig:**
Yeah. It’s really… Partly what this wonderful essay is talking about, is the over romanticization of writing, which will have another little thing we want to mention about that, but what’s fascinating to me about these movies, is that they aren’t necessarily doing something that any other movie isn’t. In fact, they are necessarily doing something every other movie also necessarily does. Somebody changes, but what I like about movies like this or stories like this on television, is that the character is aware of it. Whereas when they’re not aware, which is probably the majority of the time, we might be aware, but we understand at the end, she is different than she was when she started and in these kinds of stories, the character says, I don’t know who I am or I don’t like who I am. I want to figure out who I’m supposed to be and then they are somebody different at the end and that is simply about a self-awareness. There’s a meta aspect to this character who understands that they need to figure out the nature of themselves, as a protagonist in their own story.

**John:**
Yeah and as we looked at examples of things, The Graduate comes up, where we have a kid at the end of college, who starts trying to figure out who he is and what he wants in life. In Good Company feels like the same kind of movie. There’s a heavily gendered component to this, where you have a lot of women who are going through this transformation. Under the Tuscan Sun, How Stella Got Her Groove Back. Eat Pray love, but even recent examples, like Tick Tick Boom, is that you have a guy who’s trying to stage his show, but really he’s trying to figure out his existential angst, is over turning 30 and this sense of doom. I don’t know who I am. I don’t know what I want.

**Craig:**
Am I successful? Am I not successful?

**John:**
Yeah. Exactly. Should I take this advertising job? And it’s really about figuring out who he is and being a musical, he can sing through his frustrations there and I think its so important to stress, that every movie’s going to have some hero transformation ideally, but it does feel so different when the character starts wanting to transform.

**Craig:**
Yeah and there’s something that is amusing about the whole thing. When they do this and this is the part of these stories I generally don’t like, what they’re doing is looking at you in the audience and saying, “You know this feeling right? You’re scared too. You don’t know who you are or you’re unhappy with who you are or you think you’re not yet where you’re supposed to be. You’re freaking out, let me show you a fairy tale where I figure it out. It’s going to make you feel good. It’s figure-outable and the fact is, that it’s generally a simplification of how that process goes, because the real process of figuring out who you are in life, is a process that ever ends and then you die. And of course in these stories, there’s a conclusion and I think I find that the conclusion is always amusing, because the last scene is, I did it. I’m happy. I’m self-actualized, I’m pleased and then we never see the next scene, where they have to wake up and then they have diarrhea or something and the next day begins again and they’re like, “Wait, actually, I’m still just… Ah, man. I’m still me.”

**John:**
Yeah. Taking off our movie lenses, because obviously we’re looking for closure in a movie, I think two series that do a very good job of characters trying to find what they actually want, Search Party, which I love, which is ostensibly about trying to figure out what happened to this missing girl, but it’s really the central character trying to figure out who she is and what she wants and her arc in transformation, but of course, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend starts with this woman on an existential quest, I don’t know what I actually want in my life and transforming everything and transforming everyone around her as she does it and because it’s a series and doesn’t have to resolve in movie time logic, it can go through all the ups and downs and the moments of realization and moments of self doubt, that you wouldn’t necessarily be able to fit into a classic two hour movie structure.

**Craig:**
Yeah and those journeys are fascinating, because they are actually dictated or at least they used to be more like this, not necessarily by what the character’s experience was and how they were following a path and arriving in a destination, but rather more how well is the show doing, because when it’s doing really well, they can’t figure their shit out yet. They’re going to have to wait until the show is ready to conclude, at which point they will figure their shit out and that’s why one of my favorite endings for a who am I, what am I supposed to be journey, is the Sopranos, because it begins with a man going to therapy as a villain, but he’s going to therapy to try and figure out who he is and what his problems are and he never gets it. He never figures it out and then he’s murdered and that’s pretty much the way life works, except minus the villain and the murder part, occasionally there’s murder.

**John:**
Occasionally there’s murder. You put a great article in the show notes here about a writer’s advice to other writers and let’s tie this in because I think it harkens back to the article I listed, which was the woman moving to the cabin. Talk to us about what you put into-

**Craig:**
Yeah, it is a wonderful little story here. Somebody has written a… I’ll just talk about the woman that it centers on, is a Polish author name and I apologize, I’m murdering this name, Wislawa Szymborska. If you are Polish please right in and help me. I’m sorry. I’ll just call her Ms. Szymborska. She was a poet. She died in 2012, at which point it was discovered she had destroyed about 90% of her writing, which is amazing. Despite that or perhaps because of it, she won the Nobel prize in 1996 for poetry. Now here’s what I love about this and this ties into this romantic search for self and particularly as writers figuring out, am I a writer, as one of our questioners asked or how do I describe myself as a writer? Or should I go to a cabin and try and write there?

**Craig:**
She wrote an anonymous column for a Polish literary journal, called Zycie Literackie. Again, I screwed that up. I’m sorry. It means literary life. She did this from the 1960s to the 1980s and the column in literary life was called Literary Mailbox and I’m quoting now from this article, “The idea was that aspiring writers would send in their work and receive helpful advice. Mainly, the article says Szymborska advised them to stop writing at once and destroy all their work.” This is like the dark iron curtain version of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:**
“The aspiring writers,” I continue to quote, “imagine that being an author will bring them happiness, fame, and fortunes. Szymborska tells them to get a grip. Writing is a ridiculous profession, she argues persuasively. Failure is inevitable. Success is highly conditional and mostly feels like failure as well,” which I’ve got to tell you is absolutely true. What is her positive advice for poor wretches out there attempting to be writers. I quote from the article, “Her advice is monumentally sensible. Don’t be a narcissist. Work much harder. The best writing utensil is a waste paper basket. Life is short, yet each detail takes time. Don’t be a utopian, but keep away from the void for as long as you can.”

**Craig:**
I’ve got to tell you, I feel like even though Ms. Szymborska and I lived at the same time, somehow I think the two of us may have been scrambled together in the simulation, because man, she’s just putting beautiful Nobel worthy, poetic words to how I feel all the time.

**John:**
Yeah. What she’s saying, also reminds me of the Kendall Roy thing I mentioned at the start of the last segment, which was basically people write into her or they want to be writers, because they have this perception of, “Oh, if I have these things, then I will be happy,” and she’s there to tell you, no, you will not be happy, just as Kendall Roy could get the company and he will not be happy.

**John:**
He just wants someone to tell him what he wants and no one can do that except for himself and in many ways, her saying, “No, you don’t want this. You’re not good at this. Stop doing this. It’ll only going to lead to misery,” is a gift in some ways. We’ve talked on the show, different times, there have been some people who’ve come up to us at live shows over the years like, “Thank you so much for your show. You convinced me that I did not want to be a screenwriter,” and I think that it’s a huge success, because if we’ve driven some people away from it who recognize like, “Oh my time is better spent doing something else.” That’s great.

**Craig:**
Completely and I think I really just want to underscore again, success is highly conditional and mostly feels like failure as well and it must be hard to believe, but-

**John:**
You and I are pretty successful and yet we often feel like failures.

**Craig:**
Well and the success in specific, because when it happens you think, “Okay, the thing is, it’s still just me and my meat suit, moving around and thinking and worrying and all the rest of it and it’s hard to describe.” Success never feels like success. The word itself is promising a mirage that you never get. You have to be just okay with all the stuff in between, because there is no cake.

**John:**
Listen, you’re not going to enjoy every moment of sitting down and actually writing, but if you actually hate writing, if you actually hate the process of doing this, but you’re just doing it because you think it’s going to feel great when you’re successful, you should stop right now, because that’s not likely to happen. You’re not going to feel good being a famous published author, if you don’t feel reasonably good, being an unpublished author.

**Craig:**
No and the cabin won’t help you and being alone won’t help you and the herbal tea won’t help you and for God’s sake, if you ever see a movie where an author suddenly gets a burst of inspiration and then there’s a typing montage and then a novel erupts, just understand that’s the writing equivalent of watching porn. It’s not how it works. It’s fake. Never, ever, never think that, that’s what happens. It has never happened. It will never happen.

**John:**
The worst part of Misery for James Caan, was he had to write a book.

**Craig:**
Exactly.

**John:**
Ah, all right. It’s time for one cool thing. My one cool thing is, one that I know Craig is very excited about, because I tipped him off about it. This is The Game Master’s Book of Non-Player Characters and the resource for really D and D, but there’s this whole weird thing where you can’t say D and D, but you can say fifth edition and it’s designed for Fifth Edition Dungeons and Dragons. It’s not made by the official Dungeons and Dragons people. It’s written by Jeff Ashworth and what I love so much about this, is that the writing is just so good and it’s all these characters you can use for different adventures or different encounters in underground locations or big cities or small towns. Their characters are so specific and let me see if I can get just an example of one character’s description here, because I just love the little box descriptions on people. This is Boo Boo Crawford, a foppish man of middle age, with an overwhelmingly large explorers pack, strapped to his back a few pots and pans hanging from the straps of his chest, holding a guidebook like a mask. That’s your first initial taste of Boo Boo Crawford and they talk through what he’s actually trying to do, what his goals are, what his wants and needs are. It’s so useful and I kept imagining Craig finding voices for all these characters. Craig, does very good voices when we play D and D.

**Craig:**
I try my best. I’m excited to look through this, because I really do believe that fun and interesting NPCs are half of what makes the experience fun. If you don’t have them at least here and there, the conversations become incredibly utilitarian. They’re not really conversations. There’s also not conflict. Part of it’s figuring out how this other person works. In this other game I DM, there’s a council of three people that make decisions for the town and the way that the module presents it, it’s talk to the three people, see if you can convince them and I’m like, “Okay, but who are they?”

**John:**
Yeah, I would say the official adventure books, don’t do a great job describing those characters and this is what I was [crosstalk 00:56:34].

**Craig:**
Yeah, this exactly. One of the things I did, was I decided that there would always be a vote and there’s three of them. The vote would always work one way or the other, except that one of them is just incredibly indecisive. It’s really just about, we’re no longer trying to convince this woman to why your point of view is the best. You really need to help her. You need to give her therapy, so that she can figure out why she can’t make a decision about things and the characters can engage in that way and it’s more fun and what I like about this resource is, sometimes when I’ve got 30 minutes before we’re playing, I’ve got to figure out who these three people are, being able to turn to a book and finding some great ideas would be lovely. This sounds like an amazing resource. I purchased it within seconds of you texting me about it. I’m very excited.

**John:**
I want to give one more character description here, because this is actually useful for all of us as writers. This is about Fresticia and Pillow, a barefoot girl around eight or nine years old with dark skin, a missing front tooth in her innocent smile and her hair tied up in fluffy pigtails atop her head, dressed in a black dress with a scrappy red scarf tied around her neck. She is trailed by a skeletal cat. Two sentences. I got a whole picture there.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Yeah, exactly and what’s the story with the cat and all that is great. Sometimes it’s all you need, is just a little bit of a starter and then off you go. Great recommendation, if you do play Dungeons and Dragons. I know they say game master. It is obviously the dungeon master, but of course there’s Pathfinder and all these other lovely games. John, my one cool thing and this is a 10 year odyssey of trying to find the best email client for Mac. I dumped the mail app a long time ago. Fooled around a few things, landed on Air Mail and I’ve been using Air Mail for many, many years. I think I might have convinced you at some point to use Air Mail, but there’s a new one now that I’m using, that I find much, much superior to that and it is called Canary. Canary works beautifully, far fewer errors or weird buggy techies. It’s also fast, fast, fast, fast, fast and it is for Mac OS and iOS and the two sync between each other flawlessly. I find it to be an excellent email client. I recommend it highly.

**John:**
That’s great. I think I’ve told you this before, but I switched over to Superhuman at Rachel Bloom’s recommendation and.

**Craig:**
Superhuman?

**John:**
Superhuman. I think Craig, you may want to check it out. Superhuman only works with Gmail, sits on top of a Gmail.

**Craig:**
Oh, I got a problem with that.

**John:**
All right. I’m entirely in the Gmail ecosystem, but it is ridiculously fast and it does such a great job of sorting stuff out, so I can get to inbox zero super quickly. I’ve been loving Superhuman, but it’s not to everyone’s taste. Interesting with superhuman. The onboarding process, you basically apply for it and then they make an appointment and then you have a half hour Zoom with the superhuman tech who walks you through everything.

**Craig:**
I’m never going to do that. Ever, ever. I don’t want to talk to somebody.

**John:**
It’s better. It’s better.

**Craig:**
I obviously have some Gmail addresses as everybody does, but I don’t have only Gmail.

**John:**
Yeah and you and I never actually email each other. We’re only texting.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Emails… Megana just email’s for old people, right?

**Megana:**
What? I email a lot.

**Craig:**
Well, you’re old.

**John:**
It’s a sensitive subject there, Craig.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Oh, you thought I was asking you from the young person’s point of view?

**Megana:**
Oh God.

**John:**
You can reach Megana Rao. She’s our producer of Scriptnotes. you can find her at ask@johnaugust.com. Our show is edited by Matthew Chilelli after this week is by Timothy Fajda. If you need an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter. Craig is sometimes @Clmazin. I’m always @JohnAugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes@johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

**John:**
We have t-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. It’s dicey, whether you can get one of those t-shirts or hoodies by Christmas, but try. They’re really nice. They’re really soft. You can sign up to become a premium member @scriptnotes.net. You get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Like the one we’re about to record on why movie dialogue is so hard to understand. Craig and Megana, thank you so much for a fun show.

**Craig:**
Thanks guys.

**Megana:**
Thank you.

**John:**
Craig, we are talking about this article that Ben Pearson wrote for Slashfilm. I saw it passed around all over Twitter this past week, looking at whether and why movie dialogue has become harder to understand over the years. We’ll start with the first question. Is the thesis correct? Has movie dialogue become harder to understand over your lifetime?

**Craig:**
I think so. I think so. I am a sound obsessed producer and I struggle all the time, all the time, when I’m watching things. Sometimes I play things back. I struggle with the way they mix things and I wasn’t even aware of how grumpy I was about a lot of it, until I read this article and thought, ah, okay, I’m not nuts. I’m not nuts.

**John:**
Yeah. I approach it from a couple different ways. They talk about Christopher Nolan in here who seems singularly uninterested sometimes in actually, us being able to understand what his characters are saying, but also having worked on enough sets and worked with enough sound people, I know that we have tremendous technology to record sound and mix it properly and I don’t think the problem is technological on any level or that our sound professionals are not extraordinarily good. I think they all are and I want to make sure we are not throwing any of them under the bus, because it’s not their fault.

**Craig:**
No, not at all. In fact, we have more technology now than we ever have, to present excellent sound to people and I don’t mean excellent sound like everything is crisp and clear and quality, but even just beautiful. This is a problem that everybody who works on a mixing sounds stage, is well aware of. They’re fighting against this all the time. Similarly, on stage the sound recording team, which is the sound mixer there and the sound assistant, who’s wiring everybody up and the boom operator, they’re always worried about sound and they always want to make sure that we’re not picking up stuff, we shouldn’t be picking up and that the lines aren’t being muffled or squished by the movement of clothing or anything and I support that tremendously. It’s one of the first things I say early on, on a production is how important sound is to me and I let the first AD know that to me sound, it’s more important the sound is good during a take, than if I don’t know, a light gets a little wonky, but that’s me.

**John:**
Yeah and I think you’re probably also willing to say, for this shot, I don’t really care about sound. I’m not anticipating using the sound for this. You can tell people when it’s the priority. We have to understand everything here clearly or that should be the default, but if there’s some wide shot, where you’re just not going to care about the sound, you know you’re not going to use the sound, you can also tell them that, so that the sound person’s not trying to kill themselves to get sound, that you’re not going to be able to use.

**Craig:**
Which they know.

**John:**
They know.

**Craig:**
They know and the reason why we say in wide shots, the sound and dialogue isn’t particularly as important, is because we’re far enough away, that we can probably put another take in their mouth if we need to.

**John:**
Let’s talk about that, Craig, because I think most listeners probably don’t have a sense, the dialogue they see characters speaking, it may not be the actual take that they are… Editors do magic all the time.

**Craig:**
All the time. Keep in mind that obviously when we’re watching people talk, there are a few shots where we see them both at the same time, like wide shots and then once we get into coverage, meaning, okay, but now I’m over a shoulder to you and I’m over a shoulder to you or I’m clean on you and I’m close up on you, some of the dialogue is off screen. It’s off camera and we can put any take in there. We can also take a word that you might pronounce a little funny and find another take where you said the word correctly and just drop it in there with an audio edit and you’ll never know. Dialogue editors can do incredible things, but only if the dialogue has been recorded cleanly and there wasn’t the sound of a truck going under it and if the producer in the room in television, me the show runner or in features, typically the director, cares to make it sound good.

**John:**
It’s the producer or director saying, “No, no. This has to be good and we are going to either do another take, so we can get this right. We’re going to not do that noisy thing, so we can get one clean thing. We are going to get coverage. We’re going to get wild lines. We were going to spend the time to do this,” because time is probably the biggest reason why some dialogue is not recorded as cleanly as it could be.

**Craig:**
And for me, I just have an ear on it. If I’m watching a take and it’s really good, but there’s one word where, because somebody shifted in their jacket, the lab is all screwed up, then I ask the sound people, do we pick it up on the boom and also, is there another take where I could just stick that line in or is it the kind of thing where I could edit around, but the biggest impact I think the director or show runner can have on dialogue and the clarity of dialogue, is talking to the actors, because there is and this article sites something that I absolutely believe is true, a contagious mumble-core-ism, that has infected everyone and it’s bad.

**John:**
Let’s get into this, because you’re also an actor. You are on sets, where you’re having to make choices about how you were going to-

**Craig:**
I’m a great actor.

**John:**
You’re… I’m sorry, Craig, you’re a great actor., Who’s honest at making choices about how you’re going to play a line.

**Craig:**
Yes.

**John:**
And one of the choices you could make, is to bury the line or mumble the line or just not bring a lot of attention to the line, basically set it internally and you’re choosing not to do this. Talk to us about the decision about realism in delivery of things, versus the heightened thing that you might do, so people can actually understand what you’re saying.

**Craig:**
Well then once again, comedy gets it. Clarity and understanding is essential to appreciation of something, generally speaking. In drama, what can happen sometimes with actors, is in their reasonable desire to avoid indicating, emoting, overdoing, pushing, they get small, they can get really quiet. Sometimes in rehearsals, things that are just a normal conversation, like the one you and I are having, get slow and whispery. Part of it is a little bit of a fear, part of is a little bit of an insecurity. The one thing that I really don’t like doing is table reads, because I find that really good actors recognize that this is unnatural. They don’t want to be judged for their performance in that room, sitting around a table and they get mumbly. They just don’t want to be on the hook for it. Sometimes it’s about comfort. It’s about getting the actors comfortable through a few takes, so that you can start to get volume and clarity and things aren’t too whispery or mumbly.

**Craig:**
Some of the whispery/mumbly stuff is just pretense and some of it is a lack of caring. I’ve got to tell you, the thing that they cite here is Bane and I love doing my Bane impression, but I missed a bunch of Bane stuff, because I just didn’t understand why I would miss it, because it seemed like they were actually taking the audio from him, from the mask and not just re-recording it and then filtering it through the… Because, if you’re going to wear a mask, other people have to at least understand you. By the way, if in Bane, he had been, [inaudible 01:08:47] and then Batman was like, yeah and [inaudible 01:08:51] and then he’s like, “No, seriously, I do not… Say that again slowly.” [inaudible 01:08:56] and it would’ve been awesome, but they didn’t do that. Everybody understood them except for us where we were like, “What?” I do think that it’s important for the show runners and directors, to carefully and respectfully get the actors to place where you know people are going to be able to appreciate the words they’re saying.

**John:**
Yeah. I also wonder whether sometimes actors don’t have appreciation of how much editors and directors and posts and everyone else, can help them get to that quiet place. I think they may think that they have to be super, super quiet to hear, because they would be whispering in real life and don’t understand that, no, no, no, we can actually see the effect you’re trying to achieve. Let us achieve the effect, rather than you thinking you have to do it all yourself. They don’t want to feel stagey and theatrical in that way, but no, we can get you to that volume place appropriately, just give us a little bit more here, so we can record it.

**Craig:**
Yeah and a lot of times what I will do, is make a note that a word or two has been garbled a little bit. The other thing is that enunciation is a big deal for people, who’ve been trained in theater on stage. Enunciation is not necessarily something that has been strictly drilled into people, whose primary experience has been in television or film and some people struggle with enunciation and for me, rather than becoming a speech therapist, I just make notes and I think to myself, “Okay, if I really need that one clear, I’m going to go in there and say, this word got a little bit garbled,” but not, in my mind I think I’ll loop it.

**Craig:**
I can get that later and I can blend it in and it’ll be really good and looping, which is our all encompassing term for recording the line again later in a sound studio and then dropping it into the film, has become better and better and better to the point now where I’m way more comfortable believing that it will blend and that we will not notice a discontinuity in sound between naturally recorded voice and looped voice later.

**John:**
Working on a serious television show now, you’ll also get a sense of, these are actors who I know are just fantastic at ADR and looping and they are people who can say, okay, no, this is going to be fine, we’ll get that in the room, versus there might be other people like, you know what, it’s actually not their greatest skillset, is being able to hear what they did and match it and you might want to get that wild line or get another take, there on the set.

**Craig:**
Yes and one of the nice things about doing episodic television, is while we’re shooting, we’re also editing. I can go and sit down with Bella Ramsey and say, “Oh, we’ve got 20 minutes. Let’s bring our sound team over here. I just need you to say this line, because it’s off camera and it was a little funky on the mic, so let’s get it nice and clean now and then we can drop it in,” because we know it’s easy to do. We can start actually looping before we ever get even to proper post, which is advantageous.

**John:**
But, underlying all of this is you have to care and the fact that you do care, is why you’re going to get some good sound. Basically, the answer to this question about movie dialogue and how to get it better, is just it’s caring and it’s making sure that the caring comes from the very start.

**Craig:**
It’s caring and as much as I love when people have complimented a show I’ve made, about how it looks, when I get a compliment about how it sounds, that’s the thing that just warms my heart the most and I think I’ve seen this interesting look on the face of people in post, when I talk about this and it’s sad, because the look is, finally. Do you know what I mean? They’ve been neglected and it’s not right and look, maybe it’s just me, but sound to me is like smell. It’s a weird one, except that’s where all the memories come from. It’s just a faster root to my weird under brain and that’s what I find sound can do.

**John:**
Love it. Thanks Craig.

**Craig:**
Thank you John.

Links:

* [Endeavor sells its content side CJ Entertainment](https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2021/nov/29/endeavor-sells-content-studio-south-korean-media-c/)
* [WGA Health Fund](https://www.wgaplans.org/health/healthfaqs.html) now eligible for infertility treatments.
* [For tips on understanding your contract, check out episode 407](https://johnaugust.com/2019/scriptnotes-ep-407-understanding-your-feature-contract-transcript)
* [A writer who moved off the grid and hates it](https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/love-humor/remote-cabin-write/) advice by Blair Braverman
* [Have You Considered Accountancy? How to Start Writing (and When to Stop): Advice for Writers By Wisława Szymborska (Edited and translated from Polish by Clare Cavanagh)](https://literaryreview.co.uk/have-you-considered-accountancy) review by Joanna Kavenna
* [The Game Master’s Book of Non-Player Characters](https://www.amazon.com/Game-Masters-Book-Non-Player-Characters/dp/1948174804) by Jeff Ashworth
* [Canary Mail](https://canarymail.io/) email service for MacOS and iOS
* [Why Movie Dialogue is so Hard to Understand](https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-has-gotten-more-difficult-to-understand-and-three-ways-to-fix-it/?fbclid=IwAR3ClhGA3-F33lfL1MXxML90-rrSH8Tt2vARyijsSFKEsZL-3D5vrJO6i-g#) by Ben Pearson for Slashfilm
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Timothy Vajda ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/528standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 526: Just One Question, Transcript

December 15, 2021 Transcribed

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/just-one-question).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 526 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is stuck on a mountain in Canada this week, so I’ve convinced several previous Scriptnotes guests to come on the show with the promise that I’d ask each of them a single question. First I’ll be talking with Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi about moving their show from Canada to California. Then I’ll check in with Aline who is busy directing her first movie. And I’ll chat with Stephen Follows who has never actually been a guest on the show, but we’ve mentioned a bunch of times. He’s that data scientist who helped us look at the one page per minute rule of thumb and tracking down movies you can’t find anywhere. I asked Stephen to make his best pitch for going to college and film school in particular. So obviously this episode that Craig is not around to argue with him about.

Now for premium members stick around at the end where Stephen and I will discuss how to best answer the question of whether screenplay competitions are ever worth it. Stephen challenges the premise of the question but also helps apply some scientific rigor to the investigation.

Now, before we get to any of that there’s some news to get through first. So I’m joined by the master of Google sheets, baker of delicious desserts, co-founder of #PayUpHollywood, Liz Hsiao Lan Alper. Liz, welcome.

**Liz Hsiao Lan Alper:** Hi. Thanks John. Thank you so much for having me back.

**John:** Oh, thank you for being on this first and most crucial part of the news wrap up thing, because it’s so awkward when it’s just me talking through this.

**Liz:** I completely understand. I do that just by myself where I’m just talking to myself doing news wrap ups. It’s just always awkward.

**John:** It is. Now we are going to talk about some important things but nothing can be more important than what you’re baking at this moment. Because you have brought amazing desserts to my house before. What are you looking forward to baking this holiday season?

**Liz:** So honestly I’ve been perfecting – I think you saw this on Twitter – but I’ve been perfecting Arnold Palmer pie. This is my pride and joy. So it’s a lemon pie that also has an unsweetened iced tea gelee on top. So it’s a very half and half pie. And when you take a bite it’s supposed to remind you of the summertime. I’ve been perfecting this recipe for a few months now and we’re getting very, very close. I think I might have to drop something off at your house pretty soon.

**John:** I’m excited now. I can imagine this is a big pie, but I could also imagine it as sort of single serving kind of like ramekin kind of things. Like how are you doing this?

**Liz:** So before it was going to be just a single eight-inch pie and now I’m realizing it’s almost better to do the individual pies. So, if you get a muffin tin, if you use the muffin tin you fill up each muffin tin with a little bit of the graham cracker crumb, a little bit of the condensed milk/lemon mixture, and then just a little bit of the gelee. It makes it so that you actually have something that you can hold in your hand as you’re walking. And you don’t have to worry about it falling apart. So it’s an on-the-go pie.

**John:** That sounds amazing. Now, that’s the fun part of this, but let’s get to the actual work of this episode which is that you have a new survey going out and we want to hear about this. So this is a survey for support staff?

**Liz:** Yes. So this is the #PayUpHollywood third annual support staff survey. This is the third time that we’ve been putting out a survey strictly for entertainment staff, but this is the first time that we’re actually expanding the reach to not just people in New York, Albuquerque, other American cities where entertainment support staffers are based, but we’re also looking beyond American borders into Canada, into Mexico, into the UK, and specifically trying to get a sense of what it’s like in the entertainment business outside there.

And then we’re also going to be tracking how over the last three years pay has increased, how abuses may have been eradicated in the workplace, or any other loopholes that might have come out of the pandemic. We as writers, we’ve been seeing an uptick in different problems that came out of the pandemic we hadn’t experienced before. The same is going to be the same for support staff. And so we’re trying to make sure that we’re getting a good wide group of not just writer assistants and script coordinators and desk assistants, but also that we’re reaching out to the people who work in production and work in reality television and work in commercials so we can see where the trends are happening just across the board.

**John:** Now people might be listening to this wondering am I the kind of person who needs to be filling out this form for Liz and getting her the data she needs. So we’re going to put a link in the show notes that has a link to the Google form which is sort of the introductory form that really lists these are the kinds of jobs that you’re looking for. These are the kind of people in these positions. So if you have a question about whether you’re the right person to be filling this out click the link and you’ll see whether you actually are a good fit for what we need to know.

**Liz:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Cool. Now some of the world of assistants and support staff has changed a bit with the adoption of this new IATSE deal. So let’s talk a bit about that because one of the things we were always looking at when we looked at assistant pay in Hollywood was that there are some of these jobs which are union jobs. So script coordinators and writer’s room assistants can be union jobs. And they actually got a pay increase in this last round of negotiations.

**Liz:** Yeah. They actually received a massive pay increase. And I know that there were many members who were hoping for more simply because the wages for script coordinators and writer’s assistants has not kept in line with the cost of living for at least the last decade. So I think there was a lot of hope that there would be one massive leap that would bring all of the pay in alignment with what current times actually require.

What they’re going to be making nowadays is $23.50 an hour. That’s the absolute minimum. I know a lot of studios like to call that scale. It’s not scale. It’s just the absolute lowest that you can pay a union assistant to be on the show. And it absolutely should be going up after you factor in experience, responsibilities, the workload that that particular assistant is going to be carrying. But the nice thing is it does mean that anyone who is entering into an entry level position, anyone who maybe hasn’t been a writer’s assistant before, hasn’t been a script coordinator before, can now be assured that they’re going to be making something that’s much closer to a living wage than the $15/$16 an hour that they were making previously.

So, it’s a huge step. It’s a huge step. And it’s a great first step into making sure that three years from now when there’s another round of negotiations that those assistants are getting even closer to what a living wage would be considered, which I believe for a lot of them it was anywhere between $27 and $32 an hour. So $23.50 is much closer to $32 than $16 is, is the way that I look at it.

**John:** The point that you brought up earlier on the show is that the actual hourly rate is an important factor, but how many hours you’re guaranteed to work in a week is in some cases an even bigger factor. And so if some of these people were working under 60-hour guarantees, that’s great. But if they get cut back to 40 hours that’s not enough take home pay to be survivable in Los Angeles.

**Liz:** No, you’re absolutely right about that. If you are working for $16 for 60-hour weeks you would actually be making more than what you would be if you were working for 40 hours at $23.50. So the biggest thing that any of us, you, me, Craig, any writers or any employers who are really trying to make sure that writer’s assistants and script coordinators are taking home a living wage, it’s making sure that we can guarantee them 60 hours or as close to 60 hours a week as humanly possible, because I believe the studios now are going to try and cut everybody back down to 40. I’m sure that there’s going to be a freeze on any sort of overtime which is a little ridiculous only because we know how intensive those jobs are. I can’t imagine a script coordinator getting everything done in 40 hours a week.

But that is something that you can’t negotiate in the MBA. So they do need to make sure that for us, our part in it, is going to be making sure that they’re making the hours and IATSE is going to be sure that they’re making the hourly wage. So, between the two of us hopefully we can get people paid what they’re worth.

**John:** Now this pay increase was only the small part of a much bigger IATSE deal which was signed and approved this last week. So this was a membership vote. The membership vote was closer than we’re sort of ever used to on a WGA level. There’s a complicated Electoral College kind of system by which the IATSE approves its contracts because locals have to vote and there’s whole things. But the popular vote in some cases was against this deal. Overall when all the delegates are counted the deal passed. But tighter than you would expect, and especially for something that did seem to make significant progress but didn’t make as much progress as a lot of members hoped.

**Liz:** You have to figure that what happened on the set of Rust and the fact that there was a big uprising and acknowledgment that sets often become unsafe and are demanding so much of set members that it becomes almost deadly in certain situations. And because proposals to fix that weren’t actually on the table to begin with, that’s kind of one of the things that can’t get added later on. That doesn’t mean that they’re not wrong. And it doesn’t mean that they don’t need to be fixed. But I do understand why it became so close because I think there were a lot of people that were really hoping to make some change in the way that we approach work hours and set work hours and how we treat people not as though they’re disposable but as though they’re living, breathing human beings who need reasonable rest in order to function doing their jobs.

And so it’s hard. And John I’m interested to hear what you think, but I think for me one of the bright spots that I have been seeing is how many people are now actively trying to get more involved in the union because they’re realizing that this is a way to eradicate some of the abuses that they’ve been going through and they don’t need to accept it as just this is the way that it’s always been, they’re seeing that well now that we’re demonstrating the power that our union has we can actually use this power to further our betterment for all of the members.

**John:** Absolutely. I think it’s the recognition that the union is the members and the members are the union. And you looked at the #IAStories Instagram account that sort of really galvanized a lot of the support, particularly about working hours, and it’s the recognition that those people they’re not just a force you gin up every three years to get people excited and get some progress made on the contract. Once they’re revved up and riled up they’re going to be asking for accountability and some changes. And so I would not be surprised to see if we see some internal struggles within IA and some bigger developments happening because you have a bunch of suddenly engaged people who recognize that they did have power all this time.

**Liz:** Yeah. I think that’s great. I think hopefully for all of us, too, who aren’t IA members but who supported the IA efforts we’ll be back there in three years supporting them just like we did now. And so I think that’s going to be really important to remember come the next negotiations is that no matter what when it comes to worker safety that matters to everybody. That matters to everybody and we should show our support no matter how we can.

**John:** Now IATSE wasn’t the only big vote in Hollywood this last week. WGA members have voted to approve a new end credit for feature films, one that will show up in online databases like IMDb as well. Beginning in 2022 we’ll start seeing the credit additional literary material which will list all screenwriters who worked on a film who did not receive traditional writing credit like screenplay by or written by.

This was an actual referendum that had huge procedural things to go through and there were question and answer sessions. There were pro and con statements. It was a contentious debate, a contentious idea. Craig and I are completely vehemently disagreeing on every aspect of it, except that we both agreed that we thought this was probably pass and we were both correct. It passed by 72% of members voting yes on this.

Now, Liz, you are on the board so you got an early look at this. Was this surprising to you?

**Liz:** You know, it wasn’t surprising. I think for me especially being on the board I was very, very hopeful that this was going to help a lot of people that aren’t getting the credit that they need, especially because I am so involved in a lot of the diversity inclusion and equity efforts in the guild. And I have a lot of friends who are underrepresented groups, either writers of color, LGBTQ+ writers, who were all having their experience used to make certain films more authentic without ever receiving the credits or ever receiving any sort of help in their own careers as someone who writes these sorts of stories. So that if you were looking to tell a story about a Chinese American transplant here in the United States instead of going to let’s say the white male writer who had written a beautiful movie about that you go to the Chinese writer who used their own lived experience to make that movie more authentic.

So for me what I was really hoping for and I think what we are going to see is that we’re going to see a lot of midlevel and lower level screenwriters or people who are just breaking in who really needed that extra leg up and that acknowledgment that their work is crucial to the films that we see nowadays. I think that we’re going to see that their careers are going to start to blossom. I hope that’s what it is.

I like to speak positively because I don’t think that speaking negatively and just believing in the worst case scenario is ever truly helpful. I completely understand, I’ve heard from a lot of screenwriters who have doubts and who have questions and who aren’t sure if this is the best solution, but I also think that this is so much better than waiting around and doing nothing and letting more and more people fall through the cracks and letting their work go unacknowledged. So I’m thrilled.

**John:** Yeah. So I was on the committee that put up this whole proposal and wrote the explainer documents, so I’m obviously in favor of it. But I think you bring up two really crucial points here. One is that this is the difference between a writing credit and an employment credit. And right now in features the only things we used to have were writing credits. And so a screenplay by or written by, story by, that was it. And if you didn’t get one of those credits as a writer on a film there was no record that you ever worked on that film at all.

And so those credits just sort of disappear. And you had no way to sort of prove that you had actually been employed in the Hollywood system. Unlike in a TV writer situation where you get a writing credit for the episodes of television that you write, but you also get an employment credit showing that you were a staff writer, a story editor, a co-producer. There’s a whole way that you could prove that you actually worked. I think a thing that has changed over the last 20 years is that we’ve become much more aware of the fact that if you don’t have any employment credits you can’t sort of show that you work it’s very hard to sustain a career.

And you’re bringing up the diversity inclusion aspect of it, a thing that has also changed is that it used to be that those last writers on a project, the ones who were just coming in to do certain surgical work on things were the big guns, the folks who coming in to do a comedy pass, and it was maybe kind of OK that they weren’t listed there because they were getting paid a lot of money. What’s changed over the last couple of years is that oftentimes that last writer is someone who is coming in to do some work on authenticity and cultural specificity and it seems especially weird that they are not being acknowledged at all. And they sort of structurally could not be acknowledged by the way that our credits work. Because they’re never going to achieve the thresholds that they would need to hit in order to see their name on that movie.

So, like you I’m hopeful that this will bring about a positive change for those writers and sort of for all writers. And I’m mindful that there’s going to be people who are worried that directors are going to start asking for this credit or other producers are going to start asking for it, or actors will. I think the safeguards and the guard rails are there to sort of protect that from happening, but also if people did write on the movie, the wrote on the movie, and having their name show up at the end crawl of things I don’t think is going to be the worst outcome.

**Liz:** No. And I think, I mean, honestly I was just at the movies last week for The Eternals. And there was a group there who I didn’t realize this at the time, but I think this is what happened, but one of their friends worked in special effects. And the moment that their name came up in the middle of that huge crawl towards the end, like this group just exploded into cheers. And it was me and my friend and we’re cheering for them, too. And it was just such a proud moment. And I just remember looking at that, being like man it’s going to be so nice – it’s going to be so nice for the writers that I know who have been working on certain films for less than $1,500 a day to basically use their own lived experience to make someone else’s project feel authentic and breathe authentic. And to be able to have that moment of pride where you’re in the theater and you see your name and you can kind of acknowledge to everybody that, yes, I was part of something great.

It’s a good feeling. It’s a really nice feeling. So I wanted to bring that up because it was kind of a beautiful moment that just made me remember why it’s magical sometimes to be working in this industry.

**John:** Aw. And Liz it’s always magical to get to chat with you about our industry and our films and delicious desserts.

**Liz:** Yes, thank you so much for having me.

**John:** And can you come back at the end of the show to talk through a One Cool Thing?

**Liz:** Yeah, I’ll hang around.

**John:** Cool. Back in Episode 505 Craig and I talked with Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi about the challenge of producing the first season of their show, The Mysterious Benedict Society, which filmed entirely in Vancouver while they were in pandemic lockdown here in Los Angeles. The show got a second season, no surprise, but what was surprising is that the show is moving from Canada to California. So my one question for Matt and Phil is how the hell did that happen?

Matt and Phil, why is your show moving? How did that work?

**Matt Manfredi:** Well there are a couple reasons. One of which is there’s this tax credit specifically for shows moving back to LA after a first season. Perhaps after a second season. But moving back to LA. So it’s always appealing for us to shoot in LA and the thing about the story of season one, the setting for season two is not in the same location necessarily. So it kind of fit what we wanted to do story wise – it gave us an ability to move.

**John:** So was it always part of the plan? Or when did the possibility of moving to California come up?

**Phil Hay:** It came up, it wasn’t always part of the plan. It came up as a possibility right when we got renewed officially. As often happens there was a big run up period where we were kind of renewed but we needed to get all the ducks in order and actually get that. So in that period it came up as an idea that the studio thought was possible because of this, and again because of this tax credit which is kind of doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. So we kind of did a parallel plan, one for Vancouver and one for Los Angeles.

It became financially feasible once we got that tax credit. And for many reasons we were excited to do it. I mean, we absolutely loved shooting in Vancouver and loved the crew there and everything about it. In this case the opportunity also for the cast who in many cases had to not be with part of their family to move up to Vancouver and things, there’s an opportunity – most of them are LA based – to kind of bring everybody home which I think was a really powerful lure, you know.

And then I think we also, I don’t know, personally Matt and I are – and we’ve talked about this before – we’re very kind of passionate about California film and about filming here. And in the case of our movies, you know, Destroyer and The Invitation, they’re about Los Angeles so that’s kind of natural. But The Mysterious Benedict Society is not. It’s different. And this is just a desire to shoot here for all the reasons of jobs and pouring kind of back into our local economy, our local thing.

**Matt:** And I’ll say that one thing that made it a little easier for us, because we loved our crew in Vancouver, and if they were all available and ready to go it would have made it a more difficult decision because the look of the show is specific and they pulled it off during the pandemic and it was incredible. They were so great. But because of our short order and the time it took to renew the season our crew, the stages, our line producer weren’t going to be available. So it kind of made the decision a little less emotionally fraught.

**John:** Now a question for the two of you, what did you personally have to do in order to get this California tax credit? Were you tracking up to Sacramento with a slide show and tap dancing? Were you writing anything? What were you doing?

**Phil Hay:** Matt and I have a PAC, it’s a very small, it’s like 15 lobbyists, and the rest of the staff. No, we didn’t personally have to do anything like that. I think, you know, us in conjunction with Todd and Darren our partners, and in conjunction with 20th, the studio, and Disney+ the network, everybody just got excited about that idea and then it becomes very fairly decided that what the rubric is for deciding who gets this credit is very directly tied to jobs and wages. And the more you can show that and also filming out of the zone, for example, like filming in unlikely places and bringing work there within California. These are all things that go into deciding who gets it. So, the studio is responsible for creating that whole application and looking at the budget and highlighting how we can do it in order to meet all their requirements.

**John:** Now while I was reading up about this tax credit I saw a statistic which I thought was good and interesting which is that Film LA announced that film and TV production is 22.1% above the pre-pandemic average in Los Angeles. So, filming really is happening a lot here and in town. There was always this worry that after the pandemic shut down stuff wouldn’t come back up to speed here in California. That it would all move to Atlanta, it would all move to New Mexico, and there’s still plenty of shooting happening here in town.

**Matt:** Yeah, definitely. I think there’s a tremendous amount of shooting happening everywhere. Vancouver is booked solid as well. But I think in LA I think there’s probably other factors. I mean, I think that also, you know, frankly the vaccine situation is one that people think a lot about, about traveling to places where the vaccines are not as widely distributed versus Los Angeles. I think that’s actually a factor for a lot of productions. And I think it’s exciting for us to see – like, you know, as people who came out here as you did a long time ago to do this, I think a lot about cinematographers we know and the production designers we know and the costume designers we know who are kind of vagabonds by necessity. That they put down roots and have families in Los Angeles but spend so much time traveling elsewhere to make films and television that I just think it’s a really positive thing to have people consistently hopefully be able to be home for long stretches of time doing shows and movies, one after the other, in California.

**John:** Do you have a sense of when you start shooting?

**Phil:** January 24.

**John:** Fantastic. Guys, can I get you to come back at the end of the show to share some One Cool Things?

**Matt:** Always.

**Phil:** Yeah.

**John:** Aline Brosh McKenna, how are you?

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** I’m great. Thank you.

**John:** Now you are currently in production on a movie titled Your Place or Mine. It stars Reese Witherspoon, Ashton Kutcher. It is produced by so many talented people included a Scriptnotes friend, Jason Bateman. So my one question for you is what is it like directing a feature after having produced a television show?

**Aline:** Well, it’s interesting because I have never directed before when I wasn’t running a show. And so I only really know how to direct while – I mean, in the past I’ve had to direct while I was still writing, still doing cuts, still going to mixes. And in the case of the Crazy Ex finale also pitching in on a live finale. So, you know, I’ve almost always been doing ten things that were not directing while directing.

So this has actually been kind of luxurious to focus on the one piece of material where the script was done. And I’ve been lucky in that the script was pretty done. I did a few rewrites kind of leading into it and then I did that budget rewrite that you always have to do to kind of dial in the budgetary restrictions. But I’ve really been able to focus on this one piece. And the thing about being a showrunner is you can peace out whenever you need to. So it’s like if you’re on set and they’re doing the thing, you go in and you check in and you’re like you guys are cool here, you got it, I’m going to go to crafty and get a Mounds bar.

But directing you’re there, so you’re physically there for every second. You’re physically on set in a chair. So, you have this more singular focus when you’re directing and showrunning is a lot more jobs that you’re doing at the same time but you’re able to be flexible with them. So showrunning was oddly a better mom job because even though I was working way, way more I think hours wise as a showrunner I put in way more hours, but I could do them like I would do the room, leave at 6, go home, see my kids, and then at night go over scripts, look at cuts, talk to Rachel, you know, do other tasks that I could as a showrunner – my main time commitment was the room, but the other work I could do, you know, go to post when it suited me, or look at cuts.

But directing is physically you are contiguous with your project every minute of every second. So I’ve enjoyed the singular focus. And then the other thing I will say that might be of interest to people is that when I started the directing process there were moments where I was approaching it as a showrunner in terms of like wanting to be dealing with logistics. And I was trying to kind of get into it on logistical things that there were lots of other people around who could help me. As you said we have several really great producers and a great line producer and a great AD. And so I kind of had to learn to keep my focus on the artistic stuff and not get into the logistical weeds as much as I would as a showrunner.

**John:** Can we talk about the sort of on the set, because watching you do Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, like watching you on the set of that show, you have to achieve a certain number of pages per day or the show just won’t get shot, it won’t get done. And features have pages per day as well, but the count is going to be lower. There’s not the expectation of going through so much. What was that adjustment like for you? And learning how, OK, we don’t have to move on so quickly. Was that a change for you?

**Aline:** Well the most luxurious things for me was all the time I got to spend with our DP, Florian Ballhaus, who I had been wanting to work with for 15 years since he did Devil Wears Prada. And on a TV show you barely, barely get time with the DP. I mean, our DPs were generous enough with me that I was able to do a little bit of prep with them on the TV show. But on the movie I spent weeks and weeks with Florian going through and figuring it out and figuring out how we were going to approach it visually and doing storyboards. And that is extremely luxurious.

And then as you said, you know, TV we went pretty much twice, I would say 2.5 to 3 times as fast. So, I’m sort of blown away by things like we have playback all the time and that seems like a real simple thing, but we didn’t really have the budget to have playback all the time on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. We only had playback on the days we were doing musical numbers.

**John:** So let’s describe that for our audience. So this is basically you can look at the take that you just shot and see like, oh, did we get everything we needed in that take, correct? That was a luxury for you.

**Aline:** Yeah. And so you can say like did the actor put his beer down here or there. And then if you don’t have playback you’re like well I think someone saw it. You know? But with playback you can just see and match a lot better. So, there are a lot of things about the movie schedule that feel luxurious to me and they’re mostly around being able to get more interesting, more diverse types of coverage of scenes and really being able to conceive the coverage in a bigger way. And as I said I’m not doing ten other things so we’re focusing on those two or three pages in a different way than TV is really.

I mean, there were moments on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend where we would show up like Miracle of Birth, which I directed that episode, we showed up, did that musical number, which is quite complicated with children dancing, people going through a vagina like opening, and it was pretty complicated. We did that for four hours and then we went and shot the rest of the day. And on a movie that would be your whole day, if not two days. And obviously if you’re making an indie or you’re making something where you have a very short schedule then it’s similar, but this is a studio feature where we just have more time and really the luxury of really spending time with your collaborators in a very long prep process where you prep this one specific piece of material as opposed to a TV show is sort of like a flowing river, a network TV show I shall say, a flowing river where you’re really just trying to make sure that your boat stays upright, your baling out water, and you’re getting everything going in this giant flow of all these other things that are going on.

So it’s a little bit more micro surgery and I love that. So, you know, I focus on sleeping, which is something I couldn’t really do when I was running the show. When I was running the show I was pretty much working and often people were shooting while I was working at night and I would have trouble sleeping until I got the text that said we wrapped. And then, you know, first thing in the morning you’re going. And the movie has been much more regularly structured because I’m not working on all these other ten – I’m not looking at cuts. I’m not going from set to a mix. I’m really just focused on this one thing.

So what I have been focused on is sleeping. So if I’m not on set or preparing, I’m asleep.

**John:** Or you’re answering my one question on Scriptnotes. So thank you for coming back to let us know. How much longer do you have in production?

**Aline:** Not too long. A couple more weeks. Yeah, I mean, it’s been an enormous privilege. You know, when you’re a writer you live in the hypothetical. As I’ve said on the show before like the document production business is not why you come to Hollywood. You come because you want to make things. And I feel tremendously privileged. Any time I’m in a car driving to a set, any kind of set that’s shooting stuff that I wrote, it’s an enormous privilege. And it’s the thing as a writer you work so hard to get to. So, I’m really trying to savor it and not take it for granted.

**John:** Aline, thanks so much.

**Aline:** You’re welcome.

**John:** All right. So I’m sitting across from Stephen Follows who is a British filmmaker and data scientist. Are those the right combination of things?

**Stephen Follows:** Yeah. I don’t think I have qualifications in anything. But I do a lot of film data research and I’m a filmmaker by trade.

**John:** Now I first found you on Twitter or online because we were talking about the movies you can’t find online anymore, so movies that you used to be able to find at Blockbuster and just for whatever reason you cannot get them anyplace. Can you remind listeners what you were able to discover about that?

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, I’ll be honest, I’m not going to quote numbers off the top of my head, but definitely it was really interesting when we think about the kinds of films that make it through all of the different gatekeepers to be available to the public. And, you know, there are films that are taken off the circuit I guess for political reasons. My understanding as an outsider is that Dogma was one of those films where there was a deal done to take it out of circulation.

But there are many films that just sort of fall out of circulation. They fall between whether it’s bankruptcies, or people can’t be bothered to do it, or they forget. There’s a lot of messiness in the supply chain.

**John:** Absolutely. And so in the days when we had Blockbuster or when Netflix was really shipping DVDs around DVDs still existed so you could always have a copy of that movie, but as we moved to a completely streaming world some movies you just can’t get because there could be music rights that are complicating it or just the underlying rights to who owns this film can be hard to sort out. The problem is not a supply chain thing. Really it’s a legal rights thing. Basically you need a bunch of paralegals to sort out all this stuff and it’s not profitable for anyone to do it.

**Stephen:** Well exactly. And so yeah you’ve absolutely got legal reasons. You’ve also got technical reasons in the sense that you’ve got to scan some of these films. And you’ve got to find the good master print. You’ve got to scan it. And that whether it’s profitable or not just might not be worth the effort. And then any restoration work or I mean I’ve seen a few DVDs, I won’t name any names, but you watch them and they clearly scanned from a very old print. And it’s just like this is trash. But no one is going to bother going back to the original if they can find it in the right vault. And so I think we forget that as we go through all these different formats. I think you can tell how old you are by how many formats you remember shooting on.

And I think as DVDs everyone thought well we’ll scan them at SD because that will be all we’ll need. Oh, now we need them in HD. Oh, no, we only do 4K content. And fortunately we’ve skipped the fact that we’re only in 2D. Fortunately 3D hasn’t become a requirement. But there is that. Every time we upscale and we improve we also lose a load of things that just aren’t worth taking along the journey. It’s like every time you move houses you leave a load of things you don’t really care about and then years later you look back and go where’s that award I won or whatever.

**John:** All right. I want to talk with Stephen Follows about his film education in London versus what he perceives to be film education here in Los Angeles, because you are the first I think London-educated film person we’ve had on this podcast. So talk to us about when you first started studying film.

**Stephen:** So I went to film school as a university student 20 years ago. And I did a degree in film production. To give you a sense of the timing we did some stuff on celluloid, you know, Super-16, and some stuff digitally. And I had a friend, Chris, who was on a digital film course which was called Time Based New Media. So it was that era where everyone didn’t know what film was and didn’t know what film wasn’t.

But, yeah, I did a three-year degree at an arts college. And so what it meant was that most of my friends and people who were around me in other courses were doing costume, jewelry, fine arts. It was very arts-based. Whereas I think here in the states it’s a business, isn’t it? Even if you’re an artist you’re an artist within a business. And I think being in London, being in an arts college, I mean, we didn’t have any lectures on business at all. And by design perhaps. And I may be self-selecting because I went to an arts college, so this is no criticism of them necessarily, although it wouldn’t have hurt to have a couple in three years.

**John:** What strikes me as strange at an arts college is that I think of the arts as being things that you can kind of do by yourself. Obviously there’s dramatic arts which require teamwork and everyone coming together, but things like painting is a solo art. And filmmaking though is inherently a really collaborative art. It’s about getting a big team together and sort of sharing a vision and doing all that stuff.

And so were you, the celluloid stuff you were shooting or the video stuff you were shooting, was that as teams or was it solo projects?

**Stephen:** It was a mix of it. So there would be the occasional celluloid project or essay, but the vast majority would be for a semester you were put together in a team and you’d take different roles. And you were going out and making a short film on a brief, essentially. That’s what it was. And there were other lectures around there, around editing. And you take special lessons. But fundamentally the thing you cared most about was the short that you were making each semester.

**John:** And how much of that focus on that short was on the writing versus the production of it?

**Stephen:** I mean, it’s tricky because they did care about the writing, but to be honest the production is so much more complicated. It’s bigger, it’s longer, almost so you can’t do it till you’ve done the writing. I don’t want to say they dismiss the writing, but it definitely was you need to get over that first step and you’re quite keen to get over that first step. But I mean I have been involved in other schools since then. I’m the Chairman of the Central Film School. I’ve taught a lot at the Met Film School and a few others. And what’s interesting is that they all have different approaches. But the ones that are most interesting to me, just interesting, I don’t even know if I can validate it either way, is that you have a screenwriting program and you have a filmmaking program. And sometimes they also have acting programs or sister colleges or whatever.

And that’s really interesting because it means that the writers are really spending a whole – they have a client to start with, which is a nice relationship to get used to. It’s not a nice relationship, but it’s a nice thing to get used to. But also they can actually put time into it. It’s not just the first thing you have to tick off the list of making a short. It’s their project. And so I don’t know whether that produces better films, whether it produces more arguments, whether it works. But it’s closer to the industry and probably I think as a writer doing them a better journey because they’re just writing. Writing is hard. It’s a fulltime job. It’s a full thing, as you know. You don’t need it to be one step before you then go off and shoot it. It should be its own thing.

**John:** Now Craig is notoriously anti film school. And so what is the best defense of film schools or argument for film schools for a person who is out of high school or out of the lower grades to learn about film? What is a good argument for film school?

**Stephen:** Well it’s funny. I wouldn’t even say I’m pro film school per se in the same, you know, I’m not pro Chinese food. You know, like it depends what is the right place to be, the right time, and so for some people it’s exactly the right thing to do. And for others it’s entirely the wrong thing to do.

I’d say it’s almost never the shortest path if you know where you’re going. It’s going to be more expensive. It’s going to be more time-consuming. And we all know that what you need to do is go and work in the film industry. Like that’s kind of it, right? Especially the moment we’re in right now, nobody is unemployed who wants to be employed in the production side of film. Wages are going through the roof. Streamers – I mean, I don’t know how long this will last, but certainly no one is unemployed. You know, we have the opposite problem of working too many hours or whatever.

So, if you know where you’re going the shortest path is very rarely via film school. The main argument for film school is an argument that you’ll hear a lot within general education which is that you don’t know what you want to do. It’s that magic quasi period between being an adult and a child. It’s by having a purpose but not a job. And you’ve got restrictions but you’re safe. And so discovering yourself in [postural] care. Like I learned a lot about who I am at university and who I shouldn’t be. I learned a lot about what it was to be an artist and to bumble around and have no purpose in what you’re up to but still the opportunity to do things.

The idea of jumping out of high school into being a runner sounds pretty harsh and I wouldn’t be surprised if they went very well through the industry but then got to 30 and went who am I, what do I want to do, how I have ended up in visual effects. You know, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but you end up specializing incredibly hard. Whereas at film school you hold the boom one day, you write the script the next, and then you’re doing music. There’s a lot to be said for the discovery of personhood and identity and you as an artist. I don’t know what else compares to that.

**John:** Yeah. I think my best argument for film school is that it puts you in a cohort of people who are trying to learn about the same thing you’re trying to learn about and you graduate from that film school with a bunch of people who are at your same level. And that people always assume that they need to meet people who are further up the ladder, who are going to help them out, but really it’s your peers that are your biggest resource that you get out of film school. And those are the folks who are going to be crewing on your films. You’re going to be reading their scripts. And you’re all going to kind of grow in the industry together, especially if you’re in a growth period which this feels like.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, I still remember the very first day of film school and I still have a strong emotional positive connection to it, because no one knew anyone else. Everyone was super awkward. It’s the first day. But I went from being one of two guys in my high school that were the film guys to everyone being the film guys. Everyone saw the same films as me. Everyone saw the same references. It normalized my thing. But it also then instantly said well what are you going to do with it. Because, OK, you don’t get points for saying you’ve seen that film. Are you going to go make one? Well actually we’ll come and make one with you. Oh, OK.

It bumped everything up a level like you said with peers who were in the same place as you. And those people I met, I mean, so as an anecdote when I was a kid growing up I’m really into comedy and I’d see all of these BBC comedians all working with each other and I kept thinking how do you break into that circle. And then after film school I realized you don’t break into that circle. You build your own circle. And you build a circle when no one cares. And you work hard and you see who works hard. Who steals money from you, who doesn’t? Who has got good ideas, who doesn’t? Who is a nice human being? And then as you all start to progress you’ve got a circle that’s stronger and stronger and then when you’re actually in the industry and you’re looking for someone to rely on that you understand, that you respect, of course it’s that person. It’s not someone you haven’t seen before.

So those circles are very hard to break into, but they’re very easy to form because they just take time. And you’re in the trenches before it matters. So I would say that the biggest argument for film school is about space. And time and focus. And arguably in the world today, especially now, but also generally when do you get to try something and fail? Who is going to give you the chance to be a boom operator? I’ve worked a Nagra machine. I’m never going to do it again. But I have a huge amount of respect for sound because I’ve had to do it once and I remember how bad I did it. And I’d never do that in the industry. And I think if everyone in the industry has gone down a single department track their entire life that can’t be as good as if everyone has had a go at everything else early on and failed and succeeded and found their joy.

So, yeah, I would say it’s never shortest the path but it might be the one you need to let things grow.

**John:** Great. Stephen Follows, do you have a One Cool Thing?

**Stephen:** I do. This is something I read a while ago and when I’ve subsequently looked for it I’ve had to dig around a bit because I think it was originally on the Village Voice and the original link isn’t there. But I’m absolutely certain that we can find it and link to it in the podcast. There is an article entitled No I Will Not Read Your Script. And it is fantastic. It is everything you’ve been thinking when someone says, “Oh, can you just read my script.” And then two days later they go, “I’ve rewritten it. Can you have a read of it again?” And you start to boil. And you know you want to help people but you get to a point where you’re like, no, I will not read your script. And it’s explaining the process of reading, but also about people ask quite glibly for people to read their script and actually it’s quite a big ask. And it’s OK to do and it’s OK to read scripts, but it’s sort of, I don’t know, it’s a good articulation of all of that pain and blood boiling you get if you just open yourself up to read everyone’s script.

So, let me ask you, John. How much time do you read people’s scripts when they say will you read my script?

**John:** I will read a script if it is truly of a friend who is doing it for the first time and I feel like might have a shot at it. I’ll always read a script for somebody who I think actually I suspect has a good, funny voice. And so there have been people who I see on Twitter and they seem to actually have a good sense of how words fit together in ways that work well. Or if I’ve read them in another way I will do so.

I’m not rushing out there to read my dry cleaner’s script because it’s just exhausting. And we all know why it’s exhausting because they’re generally bad. And you’re asking a huge time commitment. You’re asking for a good hour/90 minutes at a time and the painful possible discussion afterwards about sort of what you actually thought of this.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, I always ask people a couple of questions when they say can you read my script. I’m always like OK what stage are you at? What do you at need? You can ask them quite directly do they need validation or are they actually wanting notes. Mostly they want validation. But also you say, look, I tend to be quite brutal with notes. It tends to not work out well. You know, you try and put them off. And the ones that actually really say, “No, I need that. I need that. Please be honest,” you kind of go, OK, well you know.

I had a friend Ben Aston recently who is writing a film for Netflix. And he took notes so well it was so impressive that it sort of restored my faith in giving notes. Because he was just – it was painful for him because notes always are, but he was so open to them. He cherished them and he basically cherished me giving the notes to him. And I was so inspired by that I wanted to go and read four more other scripts, which I’m sure would then put me back on the loop elsewhere.

**John:** Cool. Liz Alper, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

**Liz:** I do. I am really into shrubs right now. I’ve been getting more and more into shrubs. And it’s not the shrubbery.

**John:** Not topiary?

**Liz:** Not a topiary. So shrub is a vinegar based drink that you usually mix with soda water or you can use it for the basis of a non-alcoholic cocktail. And as someone who is actually physically incapable of consuming alcohol because I don’t possess the enzyme that can break alcohol down, for me it’s been a really, really fun drink to have and feel like I’m having something special at the end of the day.

So right now I actually went to a little sale for a restaurant that I love called Phenakite. It’s the chef who does a wonderful restaurant called Porridge and Puffs. And she’s really into pickling and she’s really into vinegars. And she made a yuzu pear shrub and a hibiscus rose shrub that I’m a little obsessed with right now. And it’s a great alternative to soda because I drink Diet Coke like it’s water, like I’m in the middle of the desert and I haven’t seen an oasis for nigh two months. And so having this kind of different drink that’s a little healthier for me, it’s cleaner, it’s got those good gut bacteria that’s going to help you digest things well. It’s something that I can’t recommend highly enough. And especially if you’re a little bit more adventurous and you’re looking for something that really is very low in sugar but has so much flavor to it, try it out.

You can make your own. You can look some up. There are lots of recipes out there now. It’s a great alternative to an alcoholic beverage. It’s a great alternative to soda. It’s just a really great way to keep hydrated while also having a good time.

**John:** I also fully hear you about the need for a nighttime beverage versus a daytime beverage. Because I think your body and your brain want somebody say like, OK, the day is over and now we’re just going to watch TV and not think about things.

**Liz:** Exactly.

**John:** And so that traditionally has been a glass of wine for me, but increasingly I’ve been going to herbal teas that I wouldn’t drink during the day but I will drink at night. It creates that nice split of like, you know, this is a nighttime thing. I can start winding down.

**Liz:** You would actually really enjoy this then. IKEA of all places has an amazing pine needle lemon tea. And that is my go to right before bed, have a cup. And my brain immediately is like, OK, it’s sleepy time now. We’ve had our pine needles. It’s time to go to bed.

**John:** Liz, thank you so much for this. This is perfect. Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi, do you have One Cool Things to share with us?

**Phil:** I sure do, John. I, and this is a little bit of home cooking, but I think you’ll all figure me. There’s a television show called Yellowjackets that Karyn Kusama, my wife, and Matt and my partner in our company directed the pilot of. It’s created by Ashley and Bart Nickerson. And it’s just fantastic. I can say that freely as someone who is only a fan and did not work in any way on the show. So, check it out. It’s on Showtime. It is wild and weird and crazy and really glad that it is on television.

**John:** So Yellowjackets on Showtime. And Matt are you plus one on that? Do you have your own recommendation?

**Matt:** I’m going to plus one that hard. Because I am a big supporter of Karyn Kusama, obviously. So I’m going to plug that. But I will say I was holed up awaiting the results of a PCR test before flying home. And so I was by myself unexpectedly for a few days, just watching a lot of TV. And I will say that the first sketch of the new season of I Think You Should Leave got me laughing like nothing in a while. So I highly recommend just taking three minutes out of your life and getting a big laugh.

**John:** Now I’m trying to remember, the first sketch of this new season, is that the hot dog and the sleeve?

**Matt:** That is.

**John:** It’s just terrific. It’s brilliant.

**Matt:** The whole show is good. But that particularly was just a highlight of mine.

**Phil:** I will plus one that sight unseen. Because it sounds great.

**John:** Gentlemen, thank you both very, very much.

**Phil:** Thank you.

**Matt:** Thank you.

**John:** Aline Brosh McKenna, do you have a One Cool Thing for us?

**Aline:** I do. Do you know about Goldbelly?

**John:** I don’t. Tell me about Goldbelly.

**Aline:** Oh my god. So Goldbelly is a website and you go and you can order delicious things from all over the country. So, pizza, biscuits, pies, and cakes, and bagels. And they source it from mostly small businesses all over the country. It gets to you super-fast. It’s stored in a way – they give you really clear instructions on how to store it, freeze it, thaw it, whatever. And I started using it during the pandemic because we couldn’t travel and it just was like fun to get, you know, pizza from Chicago and biscuits from a soul food place, and whatever. So BBQ we ordered.

So I started getting stuff from all over the country just so we could feel like we were getting some adventure at home. And now for Thanksgiving I don’t have a lot of time to prepare for Thanksgiving so I hit it hard with pies, the cakes, the sides. You know, you can really order from some great places and support some small businesses. Goldbelly.com. And there’s an app also. But it’s a good service.

**John:** Excellent. Thank you.

**Aline:** Yummy.

**John:** All right. And finally my One Cool Thing is a website called Series Heat, it’s sort of web app, by Jim Vallandingham. What you can do is you enter in the title of a TV series you like, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and it shows you the IMDb ratings for each episode of that show. And what’s kind of fun about it is it organizes it into a grid so you can see like, oh, this is when people liked the show, this is when people did not like certain episodes, or there might be an arc of the show. Around the office we’ve been playing it as a game where we will do it for a show and then take a screenshot without the title of the show and have people try to figure out what show we’re talking about.

So useful to the degree that any ratings are useful. Also it shows you the shape of a show in terms of like when there were short seasons, when there were long seasons. You can tell when the writers’ strikes happened. So it’s called Series Heat and there will be a link for that in the show notes.

And that was our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, as always, and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Henry Adler. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes @clmazin. I am always @johnaugust.

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

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. And don’t forget to order your Scriptnotes sweatshirt, your hoodie, your t-shirts. Most of them can still probably ship by Christmas but there’s no guarantee at this point. But still you want something for the holidays. Thanks and I’ll talk to you soon.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** So back here with Stephen Follows. Now having you hear in 2021, a question we put out to our listeners on the podcast is are screenplay competitions ever worth it. And so there are the big name competitions like Nicholls Fellowship and Austin is a bigger one. And then there’s a bunch of scammy ones that we’ve always sort of railed against that are sort of we kind of know are worth very, very little.

But you as a data scientist, the person who sort of would look into this question normally, how would you approach the question of whether screenplay competitions are ever worthwhile for the entrants?

**Stephen:** Well, I’d start by objecting to the question, but that’s usually just for fun. Is it ever worth it implies that, you know, there is an implication there. And it might well be the result of all these kind of areas. There are a bunch of scammers and there will be a bunch of great examples that can help people. And our job is to disentangle which are which. But also overall what’s the average. You know, these outliers skew everything in the film industry.

**John:** So let’s pretend your Nate Silver. Maybe the phrase, the question of like what value do screenplay competitions provide, if there is a value.

**Stephen:** Well let’s start by saying who we are. You know, if we’re somebody who is already established in the industry then the benefit might be quite marginal. If we’re somebody who lives very, very far, this is not for the actual competition, it’s just the concept of a competition. So if we’re someone who lives in a very far distant place geographically, or just from the center of the industry, then the theory of a competition is great, in theory, because you have a level playing field. People are only reading your text on the script. And so any disability, anything that you have that’s holding you back from barriers in the industry won’t come to the fore.

So we have to move to, OK, so in theory they could work, but in practice do they? Well, we have to think about who is picking up these films that the other end. Are the people who actually are important gatekeepers who can pick up new films or spec scripts, are they looking to these competitions? And so there is a little bit of fashion. If everyone thinks something is cool it is cool. If everyone stops thinking it’s cool it’s not cool. But it was.

And so part of the question for this if you were starting to do the data analysis you’d start saying, OK, well what’s the goal of the people entering, which is to get purchased or optioned. Who is optioning them? OK, go and talk to them and do the analysis of what do you think of competitions, what do you think of these competitions.

And if everyone thought that they’re a waste of time, well then by definition they are if they’re the only people purchasing. But I think we have to think about with all these things there are multiple benefits in theory. So for example a lottery ticket. If you only do the math on the lottery ticket apparently if a lottery draw is on the Saturday night you should buy the ticket on Saturday afternoon, because before that you’re more likely to die than to win the lottery. And so it’s utility theory.

But I’d argue that actually you should buy it Sunday first thing in the morning because then you get a whole week of believing you might win, right? The utility there is not the million dollars, it’s the dreaming of being a millionaire. So with these competitions you could argue that there’s a soft benefit in the sense that it gives you a deadline, it gives you a structure, it gives you a support base, it gives you a dream. And it might give you feedback and it might give you a journey. So those things are hold to quantify. But if we thought that they were worth it to the screenwriter’s journey we’d have to find ways of quantifying them.

But I guess all of this stuff is talking around the edges of the core question which is is it worth the money. Can they deliver on the promise? And I’d say without having run hard data on all of them, no, the vast majority of them are not delivering value for the vast, vast majority of people entering. Because they can’t possibly. You look at the numbers. That’s the thing about these. They’re not multi-level marketing. They’re not pyramid schemes. But when you look at multi-level marketing you only have to look at the math to know that they can’t deliver. And with these competitions look at the number of people entering and the number of people who could meaningfully get an outcome that would change their lives. You have to argue that – I mean, you could argue that will somebody benefit from this competition? Yes. Will I benefit in this competition? Almost certainly not.

You know, I have looked in the past. I’ve done research on quite a few scripts and quite a few competitions and I’ve never been able to directly address the benefit or not of these competitions because what you have to start from is a quite complicated place. You have to say what would the journey have otherwise been. Because in theory if these competitions are perfect they’re won by incredible writers. And the industry is actually quite good at discovering – it’s messy but it’s actually quite good at discovering talent, I think. It’s not efficient but it’s good.

So therefore the competition is just a way of getting there quicker and also you have to think about well what are they actually getting? They get the award, they get the pleasure, they get the attention. But I don’t know how many of them are doing deals.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s try to distinguish between the hard benefits and the soft benefits. So the soft benefits shouldn’t be overlooked, so I’m glad you brought them up. Because that sense of like giving you a deadline, giving you a purpose, giving you a sense of some hope, those can all be soft benefits. I’d argue they can also be sort of soft detriments where you’re putting too much faith and too much hope into this one thing which will probably not pay off. And it may be distracting you from the actual real achievable things you could do which is to write another script, to like actually find ways to put it in the hands of someone who could do something with it. And that false hope can I think be its own detriment which I think these often can sell false hopes.

**Stephen:** Oh, absolutely, and there’s no doubt that they do, even if they’re intending not to. Even if you have the best competition in the world, by definition people are going to think they have a chance when they don’t, some people.

I think what’s really tricky about this is that when you look at the, I don’t know what it is, hundreds of thousands of people coming into the industry every year. The vast majority of them will fail if your metric is purely whether they get to the end goal or not. But whether that makes you wrong to encourage them to carry on, you know, I talk a lot with drama teachers in the UK and the ethics of them telling every actor they have a chance when the odds are absolutely saying they won’t, you know, is false hope false hope or is it hope and then it turns out not to have been what you wanted but it’s still part of your journey? That’s almost philosophical.

So if it’s not a scam, as in like there is a competition. They have got industry people involved. And if the people entering know the odds, then I’m very agnostic about it. I don’t really care, as in I don’t mind. But the question is always are they actually describing what it is. Do the people entering have a clear sense of their chances and what’s going to happen?

**John:** All right. So let’s try to narrow the question down to the hard benefits of what you get out of this and the value proposition for we’ll just say the Nicholl Fellowship is the premier screenplay competition because it’s the one most people have heard of and it’s the one I can think of working writers who have won that who seem to have benefited from it, or at least they won it and now they’re still having careers.

So what would be the criteria we’re looking at here? So would we be looking at who were the winners for the past ten years, or quarterfinalists for the past ten years and then tracking to see whether they are WGA members? Whether they are continuing to work? Because you’re the person who is often finding ways to pull data out of IMDb or do some hard rigorous analysis. So what would you do to see whether somebody is successful? What are the things you would look for as markers of success?

**Stephen:** That’s a great question. And I think that it’s the first step of all research that I do. It’s usually quite a disappointing first step which is to what level am I going to give up. What level am I going to have an easy answer? Because the real answer is you need to have a different universe where the only difference is they didn’t enter the competition. And we can’t have that. And we also need to make shortcuts like WGA membership is success. And of course it is correlated, but it’s not one to one. And so you’re right. We have to decide the level to which that we can accurately get the data and that it reflects our true question.

So we have to first by saying what is our true question. Is our question about them as a writer, the act of writing and crafting? Is it about the utility of them earning money, getting an agent, getting out there in the world? What is the promise of a competition? So I guess I’d ask you, John. What do you think is the meta promise of these competitions? Is it about writing or is it about being a writer?

**John:** I think it’s about being a writer. And so I think it’s about you win one of these competitions or you place high in one of these competitions and it gets you started in the process of being a professional screenwriter who is employed and employable as a writer, not just on this one project that you sold, but on future projects. And that it should never be about sort of this one script that won the award. It should be about sort of all the work that you’re doing and hopefully decades of a career.

**Stephen:** OK. That’s good. That’s a good focus and an easier one for us to tell. It reminds me of a study that, you know, there’s long been a conversation about whether certain schools that are selective whether they actually just find good students or whether they make good students. And there was a study I remember around Stuyvesant High School in New York which is public but filtered. And they tried to work out to what degrees are they finding good students or making good students. And they looked at the students who just made it in and the ones that just didn’t. So in theory they’re a very close cohort.

And my understanding, apologies if I’m wrong from remembering it from a few years ago, was that they found that there was very little life difference between those two people, meaning the school didn’t have a meaningful difference in the things we’re measuring. There still might have been quality of life or whatever.

So, perhaps one of the things to do would be to think about how did the outcomes differ from people who make it through to the quarters, the semis, the finals. That might be interesting and see whether there’s a big drop off. We might be measuring talent, again, but I’m making up the numbers, but if you have 5,000 people entering the competition, the final 16 and the final 1 should be very, very similar in quality on a curve, right? So you’d hope that if you’re saying winning the competition is everything, then you’d hope to see those people having disproportionately large outcomes compared to the people just below them.

But I think because this industry is all about people. It’s all about the stories you tell and the stories that people believe, I think it’s not really going to come down purely to quantitative data. It will come down to qualitative data. And I think you need to find a really good subset of people who are exactly the people who would buy scripts, would try and pick up a writer. Right at that inflection point and they use competitions and then start talking to them about what they think of the competitions.

**John:** That’s definitely been one of our plans is to really talk to the people who would theoretically be using these competitions as a gatekeeping function to see whether they are actually reaching out to the winners and quarterfinalists and semifinalists and see whether that is a metric that is helpful and useful for them and as a filtering process. Because unlike a sports competition or even an academic program where you can see what the grades were and that stuff, there’s not objective quality on like this is a great script, this is a poorly written script.

And even the fact that these screenplays are going through readers who probably have some rubric for how they’re doing things, it’s not the same readers reading all of these things. I know I was a reader for a year at Tri-Star and I liked some things and I didn’t like some things. And some of that was just taste. It’s hard to figure out whether there could be any real objective measure of success in this one script and then success going down the road.

So, I do think talking to both the agents, managers, producers who would be looking at this stuff and meeting with these writers, but also talking with the folks who placed well in the Nicholls and comparing them with a sampling of the folks who didn’t place well in the Nicholls and sort of what the outcomes are.

**Stephen:** And also you can talk to people who are finalists and winners and say how did your life change. Because I think the analogy that I can connect to is when you have a short film that does very well at awards, or you have a golden year where you’re doing quite well, what’s really interesting is that that year very clearly starts at the first awards and very, very clearly ends when someone else wins that award 12 months later. And I’ve warned about it and I went through that journey with a few shorts. And it’s so interesting because it is like hot and cold. It’s just on and off. And that actually proves that there is an effect. Any writer that you speak to who has done very well in awards you kind of want to know how steep that inflection point was. How much do they suddenly get calls when they go through to a certain stage? And to what degree did it actually cool down afterwards? Because the flatter the curve, the less the competition made a difference, the steeper, the more it was like well Monday it was announced, Monday afternoon my phone kept ringing. That’s a good sign. Correlation right?

I think also there is a separate piece of work you can do where if you look at, this might be more sociology than data science, but try and look at all the promises, all of the claims that are being made by each of the competitions and then boil them down to the underlying human desire there. What is this? Is this validation? Is this improvement of your writing talent? Is this connections? And then the onus is on the competitions to prove that they do this.

I mean, it’s a free market. They don’t have to prove anything. But if they want to say that this works you should be able to say, well, it seems to me that the main sell, the main thing that you put out there and that people talk about is that you do X, Y, Z. Say you get me an agent or whatever. OK, well show me the data for that. And they don’t have to. But I would have thought they’d want to. And you’ll find very quickly some of them will be incredibly open, very happy to talk to you. They’re very proud of their record. Others won’t talk to you. And I kind of think well that’s not data-data. That’s data we use in the same way if you’re meeting someone new and you ask them about their personal life or what they’re up to and they’re incredibly closed and sketchy, you draw conclusions right?

So, I wouldn’t expect any of these guys to be pleading the fifth. And I would be worried if they were. It’s kind of on them, I think. I don’t think it’s on you to take them down or prove them. I think it’s on them to back up what they’re directly or indirectly claiming. And I think the best ones would be delighted to do that and have that for them. And I think many of them would love to be sitting in this chair talking to you about it. And the ones that won’t, I mean, maybe there’s your answer. You just release blank podcast where you just give them the questions and wait a minute or so and then carry on with the next question like in a police interview.

**John:** Let’s wrap this up by bringing it back to the first case that you made which is that for many aspiring screenwriters competitions are a means of access. A means of access to someone who doesn’t live in this town, doesn’t have any other connections to this industry or might have disability or something else in their life that prevents them from doing the traditional ways into this industry. And I get that screenplay competitions feel like a point of access. I think what we’re trying to measure in this study is really whether equity of access leads to sort of equity of outcome. And basically it’s one thing to say this provides access to all these people, but if it’s access that doesn’t actually lead anywhere then it’s actually not truly access.

**Stephen:** Yeah. I mean, certainly we all know in all sectors of the film industry it’s very easy to sell a dream. It’s very easy to go to someone who doesn’t know about film investment and say look at the Blair Witch Project. Look at Paranormal Activity. Look at how much my film is costing. You do the math. And whilst that may not be in any way a lie, it’s definitely a lie through omission, it’s definitely amoral. And that’s an extreme case that we both know happens quite a lot. But that’s an extreme case.

It’s the same thing here. It’s the stuff between the lines that we need to sort of codify. We need to say, OK, you’re saying agents will read this, but what you’re really saying is people will sign you. And what you’re really saying is when they sign you you’ll get hired. And what we’re really saying is you’ll get hired to make real things. OK, so that’s your eventual promise. Let’s take away all the interim stamps and get to the final why and then measure that. And I think that we can do that with a lot of decoding.

I mean, it might be an interesting exercise to sit there, maybe even on the podcast, and read through the press releases or the statements from these kind of thing and then just start putting them in a small number of boxes. And doing it openly and honestly. Because the claims are not wrong. You can make any claim you want. It’s only if you back it up that it becomes stupid or not. So start by just assessing the claims, putting them in to different categories, seeing how they differ. Because I think the other thing you might be doing subconsciously is grouping them all together. And I’m sure if I grouped all screenwriters together you wouldn’t come out well. We are not the average of the people we’re around.

But also I think then if you did say, look, it turns out that 95% of them just aren’t delivering, or making false promises, then it would be a much stronger credible claim. And I suspect it would be closer to that then you’d be pleasantly surprised. But, you know, and then you have to think about what harm you’re doing. Like you said, false hope is horrific. But hope is essential. And the outcome at the end can’t really – maybe – I mean, what’s the difference between hope and false hope? I don’t know.

**John:** I think what we’re both talking about, making sure people have the information about what they’re really getting into and that they’re not receiving hope for false hope. And that that’s important.

**Stephen:** They’re not being misled.

**John:** Misled.

**Stephen:** And through omission or outwardly, I don’t care. I couldn’t care less. It’s the same thing. You know what you’re doing. And if you’re doing it ethically, as in you’re saying, no, this is the competition. If you believe in yourself so much that you think you’re bound to win, well that’s OK. But if I’m telling you you’re so good that you’re going to win, whatever, then it’s a problem.

**John:** Stephen, thank you for this.

**Stephen:** My pleasure.

Links:

* [PayUpHollywood Survey](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeJwPx8-eACD3b2-GMfkue6kGKdSiudlFa3wAX4oRMTaTg-fA/viewform)
* [WGA Members Approve Change In Movie Credits To Better Reflect All Writers’ Contributions](https://deadline.com/2021/11/wga-members-approve-change-movie-credits-1234874148/)
* [Hollywood crew union narrowly ratifies its contracts with studios.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/business/media/iatse-contract-ratification.html)
* [‘Promised Land’ & ‘Mysterious Benedict Society’ Score Tax Credits For Moving To California](https://deadline.com/2021/10/promised-land-mysterious-benedict-society-california-tax-credits-move-1234861736/)
* [I Will Not Read Your F*%!ing Script](https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/09/i-will-not-read-your-fucking-script/)
* [Shrubs Drink Recipe](https://www.foodnetwork.com/videos/altons-cocktail-time-shrubs-0186744) and Liz’s favorite [Ikea Pine Needle Tea](https://www.ikea.com/es/en/p/egentid-green-tea-lemon-pine-utz-certified-organic-60415544/)
* [Yellow Jackets](https://www.sho.com/yellowjackets)
* [I Think You Should Leave](https://www.netflix.com/title/80986854)
* [Goldbelly](https://www.goldbelly.com/) Food Delivery
* [Series Heat](https://vallandingham.me/seriesheat/?utm_source=densediscovery&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-issue-164#/?color=3&id=tt0411008)
* [Liz Hsiao Lan Alper](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3225554/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/LizAlps)
* [Matt Manfredi](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0542062/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/MattRManfredi)
* [Phil Hay](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006534/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/PhilHay_)
* [Aline Brosh McKenna]() on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/alinebmckenna)
* [Stephen Follows](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1637486/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/stephenfollows) and his [website](https://stephenfollows.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Henry Adler ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/526standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 527 – Diehard, Transcript

December 15, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/die-hard-extended-edition).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin, ho-ho-ho.

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

On this very special episode we are going to be looking at the 1988 film Die Hard, how it works on a story level. We’re going to focus on what screenwriters can learn from it and some of the mistaken lessons people have tried to learn from it. This is not going to be a detailed look at the history of the film or its place in cinematic canons, because we’re not that interested in that kind of stuff, are we?

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t really care. I just want to know what about this works so well. You and I both started in the early ‘90s. And in the early ‘90s there were a few movies that you were lectured about over and over. And Die Hard was definitely one of them.

**John:** So, Craig, what is your first exposure to Die Hard? Do you remember seeing it the first time? What was it for you?

**Craig:** Yes I do. I was a perfect age for it. I was 17 years old. I saw it in the movie theaters. I don’t remember when it came out.

**John:** Summer of 1988.

**Craig:** Yeah, so it was a Christmas movie in Summer. Summer of 1988 I was 17. What a great time. And I remember thinking it was a blast. I mean, it was fun, and you got the sense that you had shown up for a dumb movie and gotten something that wasn’t dumb at all.

**John:** Yeah. So weirdly I don’t remember seeing Die Hard the first time, but I do remember the first exposure I ever had to Die Hard as a concept which was summer of 1988. I was over at my friend Ethan Diamond’s house. His older brother, Andrew, came back from seeing Die Hard in the theaters. And we were standing in Ethan’s kitchen and Andrew said like, “I saw the future of movies and it is Die Hard.”

**Craig:** That’s kind of crazy. I mean, I remember thinking that when I saw The Matrix. I don’t know if I thought that when I saw Die Hard. In fact, I remember thinking this is just a really good version of for instance I think around that time I remember going to see Commando in the theaters with Arnold Schwarzenegger who gets weirdly name-checked in Die Hard. And I thought like, oh my god, this is like the best version of Commando ever. Yeah.

**John:** So we just did a special live show and Kevin Feige actually mentioned Die Hard as being the first time he saw a “normal” movie that he really liked, so a thing that didn’t involve super heroes, or fantasy, or elves, or gnomes, or dwarves. It was just a really great action movie. And so I think it has had an influence on even things beyond the normal action movies. And I think you can’t look at a lot of modern action movies without having some sense of what Die Hard did.

**Craig:** I agree. Die Hard gave us a sense of action pacing that I don’t think we were used to. And it also had a very odd modernity. Now, when we look at it we’re going to look at it also through the lens of its time. It is one of the most Reagan era movies possible.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But the fact that it said we’re not going to be in space. We’re not going to be out in the open field. We’re not going to be doing car chases, running around. We’re going to dump all the things we normally do in a big cops and robbers movie and we’re just going to stick it inside a building and let the confined space and the weird specifics of that building work to our benefit. That was pretty revolutionary.

**John:** I would also say the comedy that’s consistent throughout the movie, and characters who show up very late but are given very specific character comedy bits, has had an influence on sort of how we think about all these kind of movies. There’s that sense that you kind of don’t make an action movie without some sense of what the comedy is going to be owes a debt to Die Hard.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you could say that all Ryan Reynolds movies should pay a little bit of money to Die Hard every time they happen, because Ryan Reynolds’ character is kind of the best evolution of the wise-cracking tough guy. So he’s in great shape, he can run, he can shoot, he can kill if he needs to. When it is time to punch and get serious he can. When he needs to be heartfelt and care about a person and a relationship he can. But a lot of the times while he’s doing it he’s just tossing out these sardonic one liners. And Bruce Willis kind of invented that.

**John:** I think so.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So today on the episode I want to talk through a couple different areas. We should talk about characters. How we set up characters. How we know who is who. The characters have arcs. They’re shallow but they’re there. And I want to talk through arcs. How you find the beats in those arcs, the motivation behind characters. And how we signal to the audience what the characters want, both in the very near term and long term. Sort of what their overall goals are. This is a great movie in talking about hero weakness and villain strength, because the relationship between hero and villain is very different in this movie than we might expect.

And it’s also a great example of something we want to show to other action stars about like this is how you can be an action star and not be perfect in every moment. And it’s his weakness that I think makes the John McClane character so endearing to the audience.

**Craig:** Absolutely. He repeatedly shows fear, which I think we generally like. Maybe some actors don’t understand that. But we in the audience really, really appreciate it.

**John:** Now, rewatching this movie for this segment I was really impressed by sort of how well-structured and plotted it is. It is a jeopardy machine. And we have come to expect that out of movies, but I was surprised that there were very few scenes where you say like, oh, you could cut that scene and it wouldn’t have any impact. Everything that is there is there and very necessary. And it is setting up and paying off stuff constantly. So as we go through the movie from top to bottom we’ll try to point out situations where they are setting this up really well and they are going to pay it off and they have a whole plan. I feel like if you were to put this movie up on the whiteboard you would see like, OK, this is a really tight film just on an outline level.

**Craig:** No question. It does a brilliant job of setting things up and paying them off. And I’d actually forgotten how some of these little tiny things – I mean, the movie begins with one of the strangest conversations ever. And that conversation actually becomes incredibly important.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It has repercussions throughout the film. You just don’t realize it then. But it kind of works. It’s pretty remarkable in that regard. They’re really good at that.

**John:** We won’t get a chance to single out every joke, but what we were saying about the comedy of the movie and the specificity of the characters is really important. These aren’t just types of characters going through roles. They are very specifically drawn, which is nice.

But, Craig, you did in your How to Write a Movie podcast, you talked about theme and central dramatic question. And my rewatching of this I didn’t feel like that was a primary unifying element behind how Die Hard holds itself together. Did you in rewatching it do you feel like there’s a central dramatic question it’s trying to ask and answer?

**Craig:** Barely.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Barely. And it turns on the relationship and it’s very simply encapsulated by the beginning and end of John McClane’s interaction with his wife, or maybe ex-wife, separated wife Holly. He comes to visit her, but they’ve been separated. And he essentially says in so many words, “I’m more important than you are.” And by the end he understands, no, actually we together are more important than just me. My needs don’t matter. I want to be a good husband to you. Very simple. Very, very, very simple.

But, essential. If you don’t have it, it really just is a guy running around a building and you don’t care.

**John:** Yep. And I think that’s a lesson that was mislearned by a bunch of people who tried to be Die Hard in a blank is that they didn’t do that work of what is the emotional journey he’s trying to go through.

**Craig:** Yeah. I remember at the time somebody made the joke that they were going in and pitching Die Hard in a building. It was really funny. So we had a spade of Die Hard – Die Hard did Die Hard on a plane, and Die Hard in an airport. There was a Die Hard in an everything. And Die Hard in a spaceship. And it got really, really frustrating.

Well, I mean, look, the gender politics are incredibly regressive. I mean, we have to talk about for a second how brilliantly this movie encapsulates the Reagan era. So very briefly you have a story about a woman who dares to have her own career. And her husband doesn’t want to follow her to Los Angeles because he’s a New York cop. And bizarrely has a backlog of cases? That’s not how policing works. He can just go ahead and be a cop in LA if he wants to. He can join that police department, I’m sure.

So this is the root of their marriage problems. She has dropped his name and is using her own. At the end, the way he saves her ultimately is by getting rid of this token of her success, which is the Rolex watch.

**John:** The Rolex watch.

**Craig:** She earned because she’s really good at her job. That has to go. And also she takes his name again because she must resume being his property, fully more. And this is really where I love Die Hard for being so Reagan era and honestly Trumpian in this regard, too. The ethos of the movie is that the people in charge of stuff like the bureaucrats in charge of law enforcement and the FBI, they don’t know anything. They’re stupid and incompetent. The media elites are terrible, unethical liars who don’t care about anything. The only people that can save you in the end – oh, and Europeans are trash.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The only people who can save you in the end are just good old American men.

**John:** Working class men.

**Craig:** Working class men who are constantly rolling their eyes at the stupidity of those pencil neck “experts.” The insanity of the way that these police go about their job, not the police man we’re rooting for, but the police in charge. So like we’re procedure junkies now. We were not in 1988. So we watch this movie and we’re like, huh, I guess that’s how the police might. So there’s a cop car that’s been riddled with bullets, and a body also riddled with bullets has fallen out of a building onto the cop car. But the deputy chief of police is like, meh, I’m sure it’s nothing. OK, I buy it. No.

**John:** No. All right, but let’s talk about the gender politics for one second before we get into this, because looking at Bruce Willis’s character arc which is shallow but it is there, McClane does say, “Tell my wife I’ve been a jerk. I should have been more supportive.” He does have that epiphany as it comes through it. So I would say that they’ve drawn that relationship in a way that is meaningful within the course of the movie as presented. And I did like that it didn’t go out of its way to punish Holly’s character for being successful and being ambitious. They try to acknowledge that she should be able to do these things. The movie as a whole, everything gets destroyed, but I didn’t feel like they were trying to single her out.

And even though she is the woman who is being rescued, it didn’t have the very classic rescue princess tropes. She didn’t feel helpless through a lot of it. She was never screaming or panicked.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** She was incredibly competent.

**Craig:** But in the end they damseled her.

**John:** They did damsel her.

**Craig:** And it’s definitely a movie about a man rescuing a woman. She’s perfect. She has no flaws.

**John:** True.

**Craig:** Except for her weird insistence on being successful. [laughs] And a good mom. The Rolex thing is sort of startling. And the fact that at the end she’s like, “I am – no, my name is Holly McClane.” Look, it was 1988. I mean, she actually was a terrific character up until the kind of inevitable damseling. But I love the scene, and we’ll get to it, where she confronts Hans Gruber just in terms of you put me in charge. It was very well done. And Bonnie Bedelia.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** A spectacular job. And this is a great place for us to stop and mention the writers that we’re talking about.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about the background of all of this. This is a 1988 movie released by Fox. Directed by John McTiernan. Screenplay by Jeb Stuart and Steven de Souza. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the PDFs we have of it. Also we’ll have it up in Weekend Read. The script that we’re going to be talking about is a pretty close approximation of what the final movie is. So as we’re talking through this today we’re going to be talking in terms of like minutes in the movie, but the screenplay actually matches up pretty closely. The script I looked at was 127 pages and that feels about right to what the movie is.

**Craig:** It’s about a two-hour, ten-minute movie or so.

**John:** It’s based on a book by Roderick Thorp called Nothing Lasts Forever. I have not read the book, but I have read up some background on the book and I was surprised to see that the book actually has a lot more of the movie Die Hard in it than I would have guessed. Some of the stuff that’s in the 1979 book, so a retired NYC police detective, Joe Leland, is visiting the 40-story office tower headquarters of the Klaxon Oil Corporation, that changed, on Christmas Eve, where his daughter, Stephani Gennaro works. While he’s waiting for his daughter’s Christmas party to end a group of German Autumn terrorists take over the skyscraper, led by the brutal Anton Gruber.

**Craig:** Their gang name is Autumn-Era? So cool.

**John:** Joe had known about Gruber through a counterterrorism he attended years before. Barefoot, Leland slips away and manages to remain undetected in the giant office complex. Aided only by Los Angeles police sergeant Al Powell and armed only with his police issue pistol Leland fights off the terrorists one-by-one in an attempt to save 74 hostages and grandchildren. So that’s a Wikipedia summary, but there’s a lot of Die Hard in that summary. And so some of the things that are apparently in the book is McClane going through the air ducts, which is also a big pet peeve of mine.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** The C-4 bomb down the elevator shaft. Jumping off the exploding roof with a fire hose attached to his waist and then shooting through a window to gain reentry, which still feels like such a movie moment, but apparently was in the book. Taping his gun to his back in the climax. The book was apparently inspired by The Towering Inferno, which is obviously a clear prior to all of this.

Interesting piece of trivia. So Frank Sinatra starred in the first book in this series called The Detective and so he was offered the role of John McClane, but he would have been 70 when this–

**Craig:** I would love to see that.

**John:** It would be amazing.

**Craig:** Hey Hans–

**John:** You can really see him going through all the physical activity.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Well, I mean, the fact that the character of John McClane is running around. He’s a smoker. Looks like he’s, you know, getting close to 40. He’s a smoker. And he has incredible cardiovascular fitness.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** By the way, this is back when you could smoke in a car, smoke in an airport, and you could bring a gun on a plane.

**John:** A gun on a plane.

**Craig:** Gun on a plane. Yeah, no big deal.

**John:** All right. Let’s talk about the movie. Let’s start at the top and we’ll be going through it. From the very start we need to setup John McClane. We need to know that he’s a cop. That he’s from NYC. That his wife works here now. We need to establish that he’s still interested in women, so we see him making eyes at another woman on a plane.

**Craig:** Classic. Yeah, so his character is family man, trying to get his wife back, but still, you know, he’s hot-blooded American. And he makes eyes with the, well, they were stewardesses then. It was 1988. But before all of that he has the weirdest exchange with this guy.

**John:** Tell me about it.

**Craig:** So like normally speaking you don’t want to start a movie with a long conversation about nonsense with a day player. But that’s exactly what Die Hard does. It begins with John McClane having a conversation on the plane with his seatmate. John McClane is clearly scared to fly. It’s a great opening shot. He’s white-knuckling, literally. And the guy next to him is like, uh, you’re not a good flyer. And he says something that literally makes no sense. It’s a non-sequitur. He goes from “You’re not a good flyer” to “I’ve figured out how to – what you do when you land.” Which doesn’t make any sense. “To get accustomed after you travel you take your shoes and your socks off and you walk around on the carpet in your bare feet and you make little fists with your feet.”

And I’m thinking what cocaine-fueled nonsense is this? But it makes sense later.

**John:** It is incredibly useful later on. And I feel like as the movie starts you’re kind of free to do anything. So you can put in that nonsense business at the very top of the movie because no one has any expectation about what’s supposed to happen.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So you can just do it. Yes, it is sort of nonsense-y, but it totally works. And of course it’s setting up that he’s going to be barefoot through a lot of the movie. And so his barefoot-ness becomes a huge crucial plot point.

**Craig:** A huge crucial plot point.

**John:** All right. So we’ve established that John McClane is arriving in Los Angeles. Now we need to setup his not quite ex-wife, Holly. We need to see her at her office. We need to establish that they have kids. The kids are with the nanny.

**Craig:** All right. Let’s talk about race in this movie for a second. Let’s get the tough stuff out of the way. This movie has some very strange racial stuff going on, not surprising for 1988. Holly has a housekeeper/nanny. She is meant to be Latin-American of some kind. She is Latina. Her accent is bizarre. I get the feeling that that actor may not actually have had that accent. Also, they did a thing that movies used to do with people like that. Characters who were from another country would insist on speaking back – they can understand English clearly. So Holly speaks to her in English. And the nanny answers back in half-English/half-Spanish pointlessly. Like for instance she’ll use the word Si instead of Yes. Just pointlessly as if to say, see, I’m from another country, but I’m nice.

It’s bizarre.

**John:** But let’s talk about why that character exists. It’s because they want to establish that they have kids, but the kids are not going to be in the movie. Until they kind of very late in the story are in the movie. But that they’re not going to be a crucial factor in this. They’re not in jeopardy.

**Craig:** Correct. And if that character and those kids never came back again it would feel a bit cheap, like fake stakes. But they do interestingly enough in kind of a key scene later. So, again, the screenwriters here are doing an excellent job of making sure that they’re setting up pins. And I like it when movies setup pins and I don’t understand that they’re pins. I just think that they’re things. And then later I go, ooh, OK. I get it. I get it now.

**John:** So once we’ve established that Holly and John McClane have kids, that they’re with the nanny, we meet Argyle, who is to me a very problematic character in this story.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** He was a good idea who has like three or four beats. None of the beats where Argyle is by himself work especially well. This initial scene where he’s sort of welcoming John McClane to Los Angeles is probably the best of his beats.

**Craig:** I mean, it’s the only one really where he gets to be kind of vaguely human. I mean, look, Argyle is a regressive racial stereotype. And that’s not any offense to the actor playing him. That guy did his job, right. He was paid to do a job. He was an actor. And this is reality. This is why Robert Townsend made Hollywood Shuffle. I mean, this was the deal back then.

But it is kind of this kind of over smiley stereotype. And in fact when John McClane realizes that Argyle, even the name alone feels regressive, when Argyle is going to be his chauffeur he looks at him like, uh, really. They sent me a black guy as a driver? You feel like he’s a racist in that moment. Like all right I’ll give you a chance, kid. I mean, it’s weird. It’s weird. Argyle’s insistence on being super friendly to John McClane is weird. It doesn’t…ugh.

**John:** Yeah. So I think of all the subplots this is a subplot you could entirely take out and the movie would survive well. Because Argyle does nothing especially important throughout the rest of it.

So John McClane could take a taxi to the building and the same conversation could have been happening with the taxi driver.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, honestly Argyle weirdly seems like he’s there to close one of the strangest plot loops ever, which is the two black guys in the movie have to like – one black guy has to knock the other one out. You can only defeat a black man with another black man. It’s the weirdest – it’s 1988. It’s, oof. Yeah. Not great in that regard.

**John:** So here’s a moment that I really enjoyed as I watched it again was that once John McClane gets to the iconic–

**Craig:** Nakatomi Building.

**John:** Nakatomi Plaza Tower. So if you are coming to Los Angeles you will see the Nakatomi Plaza Tower because it is still kind of by itself. It is at the edge of the Fox Studio lot. If you’re parking there you will often park in this parking structure where Argyle parks.

**Craig:** It is not actually the Nakatomi Building. It is the Fox Building.

**John:** It is the Fox Building. And it is nearly as empty now as it was during the time of this because everyone has moved out of Fox.

**Craig:** I have never been in that building.

**John:** Oh I’ve been there.

**Craig:** Who is in that building?

**John:** Well, different stuff is in there at different times. And it’s not entirely Fox stuff that’s in there. I think it was business affairs-y kinds of things would be in the Fox Building.

**Craig:** Business affairs-y kind of things.

**John:** Yeah. So he arrives at this building and in singing in he has to use a computer screen which felt like very impressive for sort of the time.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And it’s just there to establish that his wife is not using his last name. And that is both a character moment but it becomes a very crucial plot moment because it’s why Gruber does not recognize that Holly is McClane’s wife.

**Craig:** And this is something this movie does really well over and over and over. It’s not content with a very simple linear I’m going to show you a thing because it means one thing. They’re really good at multi-purpose use of things. And we love that as an audience. When we think we know why something is in a movie and then the audience says, oh no, no, no, no, there’s another reason why. It gets us very excited.

**John:** And so that front desk will also become a recurring set because they will be putting in their own fake person at that front desk who Al will be interfacing with. So that becomes useful later on.

**Craig:** At this point in the movie I think we’ve met Hart Bochner playing Harry Ellis.

**John:** We have met Hart Bochner. So this is another like only in the ‘80s kind of character we could find.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** So Hart Bochner as an actor, great, whatever, loving it. But like as a character I would say a smart choice to make somebody that you actually hate more than the terrorists, who you really want to see die.

**Craig:** Yeah, he was an incredibly broad comic character. I mean, someone said we want you to play – so again, 1988 politics. America was obsessed with Yuppies. So children, gather around. A Yuppie was a young, urban professional. Back in those days people were angry that there were people who were young, urban professionals. They hated them. They hated them for things like eating quiche. Quiche is delicious.

**John:** Delicious.

**Craig:** It’s eggs and cheese. If you have scrambled eggs and cheese, then you’re a perfectly fine He-Man trucker. If you eat cheese, then you’re no good. You’re Yuppie scum. And so they said to Hart Bochner we want you to play the scummiest, skeeviest Yuppie ever. And he probably showed them a version of it and they said, no, bigger. And then he’s like, OK. And then they were like, no, bigger. Snort coke. Say bubby. Be a total jerk. Bigger. Bigger!

And he did it. He hit the mark.

**John:** That’s what an actor does.

**Craig:** Listen, he followed his direction. Hat’s off. It’s not his fault.

**John:** So when he ultimately meets his fate we’re not that sad.

**Craig:** No. But I don’t remember necessarily feeling like thrilled either, because he just didn’t seem like a human being.

**John:** That is true.

**Craig:** He seemed so ridiculous. Whereas Bill Atherton, who made a wonderful career in the ‘80s of playing dickheads – “Yes, it’s true, this man has no dick” – from Ghostbusters. He’s playing the exact same character from Ghostbusters. A vicious prick. And he manages to seem real.

**John:** Yeah. A fine line. All right, so John McClane reaches the party. So to me it feels a little bit weird that you go to the party and not go to see your kids, but anyway he goes to the party.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** But I buy it. At the start of this movie where I’m just learning the rules I bought that he’s going there first. And I do like that he’s seeing his wife. And it also feels like they might be getting – things might be going OK. And then they fall into their old patterns. And I thought those scenes were well handled.

**Craig:** I mean, there really is a scene. I mean, they have a scene. So he’s in her office which is more like a hotel room than an office. It just makes no sense.

**John:** Well, an executive bathroom.

**Craig:** Right. But then she says she’s really envious of Hart Bochner’s executive bathroom, which makes no sense because she’s technically his boss. I don’t understand any of it. And also she has a bathroom. It looks really nice. By the way, this is one of those movies that is simply impossible in the age of cell phones. But let’s put that aside.

They have one scene. And in that once scene you get the sense that she still loves him, which is important for us in the audience to know. That there’s hope. And then he has to be a dick about it because of the name thing. And when she marches out of there angry – oh, and I should say he’s washing up and in doing so he has removed his shirt to have his wife beater tee underneath. Did that cause any feelings for you as a young man?

**John:** Oh yeah. I think there’s a whole conversation to be had about sort of the wardrobe, but really Bruce Willis’s body which is sort of a central thing that changes so much over the course of the movie. He keeps stripping down to less, and less, and less.

**Craig:** But I didn’t remember that – in my mind I think he just flew out to Los Angeles in his wife beater tee-shirt. I forgot that he was wearing clothes and he just happened to have taken them off when things go down. So that’s such a – as a kid watching it I must have just thought, OK, he’s running around. Now I watch it and go, oh my god, there must have been so many meetings. And Bruce Willis was like, no, this is the one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** This one makes me look great.

**John:** And also if you look at sort of the wardrobe department and also makeup, having to figure out like how dirty he is at every moment.

**Craig:** Continuity. Good lord.

**John:** The continuity of that would be so tough. Because his tee-shirt goes through at least 17 shades of brown and gray.

**Craig:** I mean, I’ll say this much at least. For a movie that costs, I think it was like $25 million which was quite a bit back then, it couldn’t have been all blown on his wardrobe. You can get 1,000 of those tee-shirts to have 1,000 different stages of distress and you’ll be fine.

**John:** Yep. He arrives at the party. A guy kisses him. He freaks out about that.

**Craig:** He goes, “California.” But what he’s really is like, “Gay.” I mean, the whole thing, it’s so clear he’s just like, “New York is straight and California is gay. Argh.” Yeah.

**John:** And then suddenly we are in plot. We’re in a heist plot. And so this is 20 minutes in. We have the first hero shot of Rickman. We’ve taken out the security guard. And we’re starting to establish this misdirect that they are some kind of idealistic terrorists and quickly we’ll learn that they are just actually thieves.

**Craig:** No in today’s era because of our – in a weird way Die Hard is one of the movies that starts to accelerate first acts. Because the first act is rather short here. If you want to call it acts. I mean, one of the nice things about watching Die Hard is you never feel an act ever. It just sort of proceeds. Today people might say to you, “We need to start with these terrorists doing something terrible so we know who they are before we meet our guy.” No. This is a much better way. And in so many ways this movie is special and works because of an actor that we were introduced to, the late, great Alan Rickman, who seems like he has parachuted in from an entirely other genre.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** He’s like a Bond villain almost. He’s brilliant. He’s so well spoken. And fascinating. And small in his behaviors. And we’d never had villains like that. Traditionally in these movies we have psychos or we have steroid freaks.

**John:** Yeah. And so if he were the Bond villain then we would have a James Bond opposite him. So to have like an ordinary guy opposite him is fascinating. The other thing I think works so well about Alan Rickman’s character is from his perspective he’s Danny Ocean and this is Ocean’s 11.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so, yes, he’s willing to kill some people to do it, but like killing people and doing evil is not his goal at all. His goal is the $640 million of bearers bonds. He has a plan for how he’s going to do that. And he is methodical. He has assembled a team. You could have a whole other movie which is just about him putting the script together and planning this heist.

**Craig:** Yeah. And what’s really interesting about his whole the villain is the hero of his own movie essence is that while we have a very simple motivation which we need, we’re certainly clear about what he wants. He makes it clear to Takagi, “Who said we were terrorists?” So that’s the first big twist. Like, oh, they’re not terrorists, they’re thieves, which was great. But later you also learn that he was a terrorist. He was part of a terrorist movement. And they kicked him out theoretically because he actually was just more interested in being a thief. That’s a fascinating guy.

I’m not as interested in zealots as I am in calculating people who are just one millimeter away from the reality of what our hero is like. A man of purpose, as it were.

**John:** So thinking about him as the Danny Ocean of this movie, he has a plan and a timeline and they lay out the timeline very clearly. So, it’s going to take two hours to break this code, then 2.5 hours to break through these different locks. So, you know, we very explicitly put out the exposition of this is what’s going to need to happen. You’re giving the audience a road map for these are the things that are going to have to happen for this to progress so we know that, OK, the movie cannot be over until all these things have happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s perfect. Of all the mechanisms to provide an audience with a sense of structure. When we talk about structure we’re saying something is holding all of this up. There’s a spine. And to say here’s this big ass vault and it has seven locks. And it’s going to take me a few hours to get through one through six. But I’ve already told you I don’t know how to get through seven. And Alan Rickman says, “Don’t worry, I’ll handle number seven.” We know that there is a countdown of locks. Literally a number. And we can watch them as they go. It’s not a ticking clock at the end. The whole thing has a clock to it and that’s gorgeous.

**John:** Yeah. Once they start shooting up the party and once things start going down, John McClane has escaped from there. He’s running through the hallways. He’s going up the stairs. And he starts to do what I think is appropriate. What is the best thing for me to do right now? And he doesn’t just charge in to try to save everybody. He’s like I need to get help and he works on trying to get help, which is a good, natural response, and not a movie hero response, but is actually what a real person would try to do. How do I get somebody to show up here?

**Craig:** Right. And there’s a line that Jeb Stuart and Steven de Souza have in here. He is present but hiding when he sees Mr. Takagi murdered by Alan Rickman. And he runs away. They hear him. They chase after him. But they don’t see him. He escapes. And when we see him next he is by himself and he is saying, “Why didn’t you do something, you idiot?” And then he goes, “Because you would have been as dead as he is.” So in his mind he’s talking it through so that we know – and this is important – you can feel the note on this. So is he a coward? No, he’s not a coward. He literally says out loud, “I’m not a coward. I’m smart.”

**John:** His plan is to contact the police and get police out there and get this handled. He tries to do it and this is the first of many classic examples of just like he has a plan and it falls apart because of this obstacle, things he couldn’t anticipate.

The police just don’t take him seriously.

**Craig:** Right. This is the beginning of incompetent police work. But before we get to the police we have another relationship that we learn about, for a very fleeting moment, but it is perfectly efficient. It is the relationship between Karl and his brother. These are two German brothers, although one of them is a Russian in real life. A ballet dancer at that. And they are both criminals, obviously as part of this gang. Karl seems to be a bit of a hot head. His brother is a bit more methodical and careful. And that’s all we know. That’s all we need to know. Because what’s going to happen is Karl’s brother will be the first terrorist that dies, not because McClane murders him, importantly because they fight. He doesn’t murder him. They fight and they fall down the stairs and Karl’s brother breaks his neck.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Smart choice. And now we know that Karl, hot head that he is, has become essentially the nemesis here, which is really smart. Hans Gruber is the brain. He’s the real villain. But Karl is like nature. And you can’t stop Karl. Wonderful. We do have gratuitous nudity as well, very classic 1980s. Classic.

**John:** Yes. Hard to fit into a modern movie than before.

**Craig:** Wouldn’t do it.

**John:** We’re fast forwarding through the movie as we look at this. One of the things I will say is that I was impressed by the photography overall in Die Hard. A thing you definitely notice about 1980 that was hard to do is big wide night shots. We just didn’t have the technology to make those look great. And so there are moments where the helicopter gunships are coming and it’s OK as long as they’re in the city space. But there’s just not enough light to sort of light the city of Los Angeles. And some of the big nighttime shots are really dark.

**Craig:** Yeah. They do a great job here. They also use so many different environments in this building. You feel like they devoured this building and used every possible piece. You have cinderblock environments. You have construction areas. And they even set up the fact that the building is not complete. Takagi says, “It’s still a work in progress.” And you can see that. So that’s explained.

You’re in elevator shafts. You’re in ducts. You’re in these beautiful offices. You’re in an atrium. They really do use everything, every part of this building. And then that great roof. I never – and I still don’t – understand exactly how a building like this is put together. It seems like it has been put together for the purposes of a movie. There’s all these cool railings and grills and fans and things. But it never crosses the line into what I would call Michael Bay-ville where everything seems art directed. It doesn’t. It actually seems real even though it’s not.

**John:** In terms of talking about the physical spaces, watching this again I noticed that there’s a pinup poster on one wall. And we come back to it a second time. He notices it the first time and he comes back to it again. And it’s a very useful way of reestablishing, OK, we’re back on that same floor. Because things would otherwise be very confusing.

**Craig:** Again, using gratuitous nudity.

**John:** But it helps you remember that you’ve seen that thing before and we’re back in that same place.

**Craig:** I remembered it.

**John:** Otherwise rooms could look the same.

**Craig:** No, exactly. And this was another way that they could answer these questions. And these are the kinds of questions that you and I get all the time. I remember when I turned the first script in for the first Chernobyl. One of the questions was, “How are we going to tell all these people apart? We don’t know the actors. We don’t know their names. And they’re all wearing the exact same thing.” And we were like I guess we’re going to have to cast carefully. But the truth is these are the things you’ve got to worry about.

**John:** You do.

**Craig:** I could see in Die Hard like how are we going to know what floor we’re on. Well, most of the times you don’t. But some of the times – there was a computer room. That was its own thing.

**John:** I had no sense of where that computer room was in the building. It does not matter at all.

**Craig:** Doesn’t matter.

**John:** I know the lobby is on the ground floor. I know the party is up high. The reason why we needed that pinup is because the fact that we’ve been there before means he has a knowledge of how to get out of that floor, which is very important.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** All right. So finally he gets up to the roof. He uses the radio. He calls the police. They don’t believe him. But ultimately they say, “OK, we’ll send a car to do a drive by.”

**Craig:** It’s insane. So in this world the Los Angeles police department their special thing that they monitor, they’re all in some kind of weird Death Star environment. It’s this dark room with blinking lights. And they don’t believe anybody who calls them about anything.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** There’s even gunshots in the radio. They don’t care. And John McClane bizarrely – oh, well, he doesn’t identify himself as a police officer in part because he knows that they’re listening. And then you get this other relationship in the movie which frankly for me as a kid was the relationship I felt, more than his relationship with Holly.

**John:** Well let’s talk about Al Powell. So Al Powell is the guy who shows up. When we first meet Al Powell he is buying Twinkies at a convenient store. It’s not an amazing scene. It establishes him as an ordinary Joe. Again, a working class man.

**Craig:** You know–

**John:** He’s not eating the fancy pastries. He’s eating Twinkies.

**Craig:** If you watch this movie one thing you will notice is that everything that happens that’s funny happens when Alan Rickman is doing it, or when Bruce Willis is doing it. If those guys aren’t in the scene and funny things are happening they are not funny.

**John:** They’re meant to be funny, but they don’t really work.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t think John McTiernan was necessarily the funniest director. So, your choice there is he’s an overweight cop and he’s buying Twinkies, but he has him buying like 12? Who can eat 12 Twinkie boxes?

**John:** They’re talking about his wife being pregnant. It didn’t make sense.

**Craig:** None of it works. None of it works. Similarly when Hart Bochner is giving his whole, “Hey, bubby, I’m going to…” Doesn’t work. It’s just not funny. Rickman is funny and Willis is funny. But, Al Powell is instantly likeable.

**John:** That’s what you needed.

**Craig:** He is a sweetheart. He lets the 7-11 guy kind of push him around even, you know. And he’s smart, clearly. And we’re immediately on his side. We feel good about this. We’re just a little worried that maybe he doesn’t fit the action hero vibe. So if this is the only friend that our action hero has, what does that mean for our story?

**John:** The other crucial thing about the Al Powell/John McClane relationship is that McClane can’t be honest with him about certain things because other people are listening in.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So it’s that challenge of how you establish a relationship with somebody you don’t know and who cannot be fully honest with you. And so that starts the whole cowboy discussion. And call me Roy. All the stuff that they’re doing, they can talk about some things, but there’s a limit to it. And that’s a great obstacle to put in front of your characters.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, Al Powell literally says to his awful boss, who was the awful teacher from Breakfast Club, “I think he’s a cop, because I basically have a hunch.” Meaning we’re talking guy talk to each other. Like we’re men. We’re having a man conversation. Again, you pencil neck twerps would never understand. But that is the bond they have. They’re two regular guys.

And that eventually will blossom into something really meaningful when they have this kind of – one of the more famous “my brother fell into a lake” stories in any movie ever. Which is the story of what happened to Al Powell.

**John:** Yeah. So when we get to one hour, one minute into the film we introduce a brand new obstacle, brand new character, which is the news reporter who wants the scoop. And so this conversation that has been happening on the radio, they get word of it. They get word that there’s an incident happening at this tower. The news reporter is obsessed with getting the scoop and getting there. It’s late to establish new characters, but one of the things I love about this movie is that this movie is not afraid to introduce new characters late and just create new problems and new obstacles. So this is a character who has a three or four beat arc and it mostly works.

**Craig:** It mostly works. Look, one of the beautiful things about casting is sometimes that solves your screenwriting problem. If you cast William Atherton in 1988 and you put him in that suit and that tie you know he’s a problem. He’s a jerk who cares only about himself. He’s going to be arrogant. And he’s going to screw things up in a way that makes the audience go, “No, you idiot!” That’s what he does. You don’t need a lot of explanation.

But all these pins have been lined up. We know that this marriage is in trouble. We know that Holly knows that John’s running around the building because only John can make people that upset.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** We know that Karl is a hot head who now has a reason to hate John McClane irrationally. We know that Hans Gruber is a cold, calculating man. We know that there’s a guy out there who understands what’s going on but he himself is limited. He seems scared and timid. All these things are all set up and the pins will fall.

**John:** Yes. And consider the studio note saying like, “Oh, can we set up the news reporter earlier?” The answer is no. Because if we set up the news reporter earlier we would expect to have an arc or more important stuff and you would need to be checking in with that character again. And we’d really have the same problem that we have with Argyle in the limo which is like there’s not enough for him to do, and so we have to sort of keep checking in and giving him BS stuff to sort of remind you that he exists.

**Craig:** Yeah. It would be cut. You don’t need – I’m sure that they looked at Ghostbusters and said, yeah, they didn’t need to set up the EPA guy either. Just being him in. Announce that he’s EPA and have him start being a dick.

**John:** That’s all you need.

**Craig:** That’s all you need.

**John:** All right. So then we get to another big action sequence. Send in the tank. Which is the first idea – send in the car which is really this tank which is going to charge up. It’s the first time we see that – this is also very 1980s. Very sort of like bring in the military, like bring in the big power stuff. And we also see that the bad guys have [unintelligible] grenades and they were prepared for this.

**Craig:** Just like John McClane warned them. But because they are elitists, probably globalists, they don’t care. They are too self-assured. And through one of the strangest exercises of chain and command ever they make one of the dumbest possible decisions that no police department – I mean, police must have been so frustrated watching these things back then. But regardless, it goes poorly for them.

And this is important because what the movie continually reinforces for us is that the only way this is going to be fixed is by one guy in that building. Not only is the cavalry not going to help. They’re going to make things worse over and over and over. And they’re going to make things worse in a beautiful way.

When the cops finally do arrive Hans Gruber says to his men, “OK, calm down, it’s a little earlier than we thought. But it was inevitable. It was going to happen no matter what. And in some ways it needed to happen.” Well that’s an interesting bit. And I definitely didn’t pick up on that as a kid as being somehow foreshadowing in any way, shape, or form. But you got the sense that that wasn’t normal. Like this guy really is in remarkable control.

One more screenwriting note that I love. John McClane makes his presence known to the terrorists by after he kills Karl’s brother he duct tapes him to a chair. He writes, “Now I have a machine gun, Ho-Ho-Ho,” on his shirt, which is the greatest thing of all time.

**John:** Writes it on a [crosstalk].

**Craig:** And he sends him down the elevator. Alan Rickman is explaining to the hostages that there’s nothing they can do. They have thought of everything. Nothing has been left to chance. And then the elevator door opens and there’s one of their guys murdered. It’s really funny. And it makes us appreciate the whole thing. That little bit of kind of counterpoint was I thought really well done. And again Alan Rickman makes it funny.

**John:** Yes. All right. So the tank did not go well. Basically we see the police fail again and again, because they are not doing what John McClane would have them do. John McClane has limited ability to influence what they can do and he doesn’t want to reveal who he actually is.

**Craig:** Obstacles.

**John:** Yes. These are obstacles. These are all good things. Now, Ellis, who is another person we know is going to be a problem, because we set him up from the start that–

**Craig:** He loves cocaine and he wants to sleep with Holly.

**John:** And he wants to intervene. He wants to prove that he’s the person who can solve the situation. He goes in to negotiate.

**Craig:** More great Alan Rickman stuff. Because Hart Bochner is like, “You know, the way I see it you guys are…” And Alan Rickman just goes, “Amazing. You figured it all out.” He’s just so great. He’s so funny. And as that’s happening you’re like, oh man, Hart Bochner. You’re going to die. I can’t even get excited about you dying. You’re so definitely going to die.

**John:** But what surprised me watching this again is I assumed that the Ellis character was going to give up Holly. And instead he tries to play this thing that they’re old friends. And for a moment you’re like, oh, you’re not as dumb as I thought you were. This could work out. And you have little moments of hope. And then it doesn’t go well and McClane says like don’t believe this guy.

**Craig:** He’s trying to save him. And this is a classic hero moment. Great thing for screenwriters to do. When your hero attempts – is such a good person, despite the many killings that they are doing, that they’re even trying to help somebody that’s trying to betray and hurt them.

**John:** Yes. Ellis does not survive this discussion.

**Craig:** Nope.

**John:** Nope. And a good escalation. After Ellis has been killed, Rickman takes the radio, holds it out to the crowd so that McClane can hear everyone screaming. Making it clear to McClane and to the police outside this has ratchet up a notch.

**Craig:** And now you get the sense that Hans Gruber is punching back. Also incredibly important. So one of the things that I talked about in How to Make a Movie is when your character is kind of doing well, you have to punish them for it. Because you need to feel that what they eventually have to do has to be really hard. You just don’t want to give them too many wins. You want to make it hurt as much as you can. So in the theory that you’re an angry god punishing your hero, Die Hard does a great job.

**John:** Absolutely. Rickman asks for some prisoner releases. He wants these terrorists released from prison. Again, it’s a misdirection. And at this point we fully know that it’s not real. But it starts things scrambling. And it’s also going to be a way to involve the FBI because it goes beyond what the local police could do. And we realize that Gruber actually wanted a certain plan to be put into place.

**Craig:** It’s a great plot twist. The FBI is even stupider than the Los Angeles Police Department, which again – note, again, when Rickman or Willis are not on screen the jokes are not great jokes. The whole like we’re two FBI agents with the same names, it just–

**John:** Actually I kind of liked that.

**Craig:** It’s fine, but it’s not ha-ha funny.

**John:** Here’s what it was. I liked that they showed up and they were given some line and some bit of business to let me know – some sense that they did exist before they walked onto that screen.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** There’s also a moment in the helicopter where they say, you know, “It reminds me of Saigon.” I was in Junior High. There is a tension there before this all happens.

**Craig:** Sure. Yeah. It’s just broad.

**John:** It’s broad.

**Craig:** It’s broad. I mean, that’s the thing. When you look at what – I mean, Alan Rickman, who I didn’t know Alan Rickman before Die Hard. He walks over and he looks at that shirt and he says in his accent, which is barely German-tinged, but mostly just Alan Rickman, “Now I have a machine gun.” And they were so smart to smush up the shirt so he has to push it down. “Ho-Ho-Ho.” It’s so great. He’s so funny. Ah, the best. I miss him.

**John:** So an hour and 28 in. We go back to the newsroom and this is a scene that no one remembers, but they have an expert on terrorism there who has written a book about terrorism. And they’re interviewing him and they say like Helsinki, and then he goes Sweden, no Finland, just to show that they’re buffoons.

**Craig:** Experts are stupid and bad. And only the average Joe on the street can solve a problem.

**John:** Looking at this I was trying to decide why it stayed in the movie and I think it’s actually just to provide a little space between some other beats. I feel like this scene could be dropped, but you look at what’s before and after they needed just a tiny breath and this little scene with this terrorism guy gives you a tiny breath. And reminds you that the news people are going to be in this movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. It does. It may also be the result of personal ax-grinding. I mean, sometimes when things stay in movies it’s because somebody goes, “Yeah.” Like maybe Joel Silver was like, “Yeah, screw you experts. I love it. It’s staying in.” You never know with these things.

**John:** Now, one hour, 31 minutes into the film a surprising moment happens which is a face-to-face meeting between Gruber and McClane, which is completely unexpected and it’s not set up. It’s suddenly just happening. Gruber is for some reason looking at the detonators that are on the ceiling. We don’t know what they’re there for. Is it a bit of a stretch that he’s doing this himself? Sure. But most of his men are dead, so OK. But it’s one of the sort of signature moments that happens in this film which is that you have the two characters together. They don’t know who each other is. And we see that Gruber is really smart in the moment and is playing himself as a hostage who escaped.

**Craig:** It is one of the best things I’ve ever seen in a movie because until it happens you don’t even realize it was possible. You’re so surprised by it. It’s not like you’re sitting around going, you know, they haven’t seen each other’s faces. He doesn’t know what Hans Gruber looks like. What if he runs into Hans Gruber? Will he know? Because they’re in a building. I mean, Nakatomi Corporation apparently is a business corporation that does business. We don’t know what they do.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** But they’re all in suits and ties. And so is Hans Gruber.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** In fact, he makes a point of saying that he’s dressed like them. That he has suits just like Mr. Takagi. Ah, it’s gorgeous. When that happens it is so shocking, it is so delightful, and it’s also terrifying. Because your hero that you root for has never been more vulnerable. The movie actually becomes a horror film at that point. And it is awesome.

**John:** So let’s talk about who has access to what information, because that becomes a crucial thing throughout all of Die Hard is that as the audience we tend to have more information than any of the characters do. We’re largely omniscient. We get to see everyone’s point of view. So, we know a lot of things that McClane doesn’t know. We know things that Gruber doesn’t know. That’s all really helpful.

In this one small tiny moment the delicious agony is that we know that McClane is in great danger and McClane does not know that he’s in great danger. And we are terrified that something bad is going to happen to him. And the movie has to make the decision about are we going to show to the audience that McClane has caught on or not. And I bet they went back and forth 100 times over that.

**Craig:** It also does this incredible service to the ending, because what you don’t want is for them to come face-to-face at the end and go, oh, that’s what you look like. And now let us have our final. This creates an additional level of relationship between the two of them. There is a formidability to this back and forth. And if you are looking at Die Hard as a celebration of the common man against the snobby thinkers of the world, the so-called smart people, this is what you would do. This is where the common man may take a step back because that smart guy is plotting and scheming the way that smart people do. They can manipulate. They can fool you. But in the end you’ll beat them with your heart and muscle.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But it’s a great moment. And I think that there’s a moment where he realizes that Hans Gruber is not–

**John:** Watching it again, it doesn’t telegraph itself too big or too loud that he really is ahead of him. It’s not until you actually hear the click-click that the gun is empty that you realize that McClane was onto him or at least was suspicious.

**Craig:** Right. There’s apparently a scene that was cut, or a moment that was cut where, a bunch of moments, where every time McClane would kill one of these guys, when he first kills Karl’s brother he–

**John:** Takes off the watch.

**Craig:** Yeah. He checks his shirt and goes, OK, they’re dressed in fancy Euro clothes. But, yes, he looks at the watch and apparently he was supposed to look, and there’s footage of him, looking at all their watches. Because they all sync their watches in a scene that was also cut. So when he notices Hans Gruber’s watch that’s when he apparently in the cut version, the cut scene, that’s when he actually put it all together on screen.

**John:** Following this moment is another iconic Shoot the Glass.

**Craig:** Shoot the Glass.

**John:** Basically there’s a lot of automatic weapon fire happening. Somehow desks are able to withstand a tremendous amount of bullets.

**Craig:** Yep. [Unintelligible] armor.

**John:** But by shooting at the glass he sees that McClane is barefoot. We’ve established that Gruber knows that McClane is barefoot and he tells them shoot at that glass because it will hurt him.

**Craig:** One of the best and strangest moments in film history. A German man says to another German man, “Shoot the glass,” in German. And the other German man just looks at him like, what?

**John:** [Speaks in German].

**Craig:** And he repeats it in English and that’s what the German guy understands. Shoot the glass. It is so odd. I have been laughing about this since 1988. But I love it. What can I say?

**John:** So if this wasn’t bad enough, at one hour and 38 minutes the news reporters have discovered John McClane’s home address. And so we know that’s a thing that’s going to happen.

**Craig:** Oh, William Atherton. So this accelerates the ending. So this is what’s pouring fuel on the ending. And now we know that there’s a real ticking clock. So we have the ticking clock of the vault being opened. But the ticking clock for John McClane isn’t enough like we’ll kill you. The real ticking clock is we know who you are, so we know who Holly is, so now she’s in jeopardy.

**John:** Yep. She’s in individual jeopardy.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** As he’s picking glass out of his feet we have this scene which I think you referred to earlier on which is the Al scene of “I shot a kid.” Talk to me about that.

**Craig:** Correct. So we sometimes talk about this about “my brother drowned” scene. A character will tell a sob story about their past. It usually involves somebody dying that they couldn’t save but wanted to. And in this case it’s a variation of that. Al Powell shot a kid and it was a mistake. It was justified. They craft the story very carefully so that you understand he wasn’t like some hot head jerk cop. He really did think his life was in danger. He just was wrong. And he’s been beating himself up over it ever since. And therefore can’t get back on the horse. He’s not suitable really to be a real cop because as we know from these movies real cops shoot people.

**John:** They do.

**Craig:** That’s what they do. They’re constantly plugging people and they don’t hesitate. So that’s his damage is that he actually feels bad about murdering someone, which is amazing. But, it is the kind of hetero male bonding that was allowable in 1988.

**John:** Absolutely. I think it’s an important moment. It gives Bruce Willis something to do other than just pick the glass out of his feet. Bruce Willis is doing a great job of acting the pain of that. And it’s a gruesome moment. But if he hadn’t had a conversation during that time you would never have been able to stay in that scene as long as you did.

**Craig:** This is the last break you get. And it’s important to give people a break. Actually it prepares them. Because what’s going to happen from this point forward is a relentless race to an explosive end, and then another explosive end. It’s going to be exciting. They need a breather. And they need some context. And they need to feel something, especially because this is going to set up the ending for Al Powell.

**John:** So once the news report happens Gruber realizes that Holly is McClane’s wife. A great line I loved here, she says that, “He’s a common thief.” “I’m an exceptional thief. And since I’m moving up to kidnapping you should be more polite.”

**Craig:** Right. And the way he says these things is just so great.

**John:** And the FBI of course is going to accelerate things in stupid, dumb ways. So first off they want to cut the power. That was always part of the plan because the electromagnetic locks–

**Craig:** He says in the beginning, their hacker safe cracker says, “The problem with the seven is it’s an electromagnetic lock. And the power cannot be turned off locally. It has to be the whole grid.”

**John:** Does that make any sense? No. But it doesn’t have to.

**Craig:** Doesn’t have to. Makes no sense. But Hans Gruber, he knows that the FBI as a matter of protocol will shut the power off on the grid. Which again, OK, fine, not sure about that either. And he says something that has been rattling around in my brain for all these many 32 years. And that is, “You ask for a miracle, I give you the F. B. I.” And now musically, there’s been little hints of Ode to Joy throughout this whole thing, and weirdly usually presented with Hans Gruber in a kind of weird creepy style. And now the full Ode to Joy begins. And, again, this is a smart again.

**John:** Yeah. Again, this is the Ocean’s 11 part of it. He’s Danny Ocean. He had a secret special plan. This is also around the time where a van backs out of this truck, or an ambulance backs out of the truck which is meant to be their getaway thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It doesn’t really pay off right. And in reading about that it looks like there was a different thing that sort of got cut and moved about that. But we’re seeing their whole plan and it does look like their plan is going to work out properly.

**Craig:** Precisely. And you want that. You want to believe that they have many more tricks up their sleeves. You want to feel like your hero is behind the eight ball here because the only way they’re going to succeed, the only way that John McClane is going to save his wife and defeat Hans Gruber and these kidnappers and save all these hostages is by doing something we can’t foresee. Something that is going to require him to do things he didn’t even know he could do.

**John:** Yep. Including defeat the giant Russian guy in a fist fight.

**Craig:** Correct. And that is something that we’ve been waiting for the whole movie. We’ve been waiting for this beast, this uncontrollable irrational beast that even Hans Gruber can’t control to face off with John McClane because, well, he feels like death is coming for you. He’s huge and he’s angry. But, you know, the good guy always wins.

**John:** The good guy is going to win.

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah. He chokes him with a chain.

**John:** With a chain. So by being smarter and more wily he’s going to beat him. Because he’s not going to beat him through–

**Craig:** You can’t punch that guy out.

**John:** So the plan was to blow up the roof when the helicopters land because it will create such chaos. It won’t be clear who lived and who died. The roof does blow up. John McClane does jump off the building with the hose. It really is an amazing–

**Craig:** It’s awesome.

**John:** Amazing idea. Amazing moment. Really well shot. It works great.

**Craig:** It’s great.

**John:** And I loved that the second beat of like shooting through the window, getting in, and getting dragged back out by the weight of things. Just remembering that gravity exists. Terrific.

**Craig:** The physics of it are great. It was beautifully directed. I mean, John McTiernan did an incredible job there. Yeah, no, love it.

**John:** Cool. Finally, we get the final showdown. So Holly is now a full damsel hostage. We have Gruber and one guy who is still left alive.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And we get to the moment of John McClane only has two bullets. There’s no way he’s going to be able to make this thing happen. We don’t know exactly what he’s going to do, but we see him looking at some wrapping people and such.

**Craig:** Because it’s a Christmas movie.

**John:** Because it’s a Christmas movie. It’s fundamentally a Christmas movie. He ends up when told to drop his weapon he drops his weapon. Of course he has the gun taped to his back.

**Craig:** His police gun.

**John:** His police gun. His real gun.

**Craig:** The only gun you really need as a cop.

**John:** Absolutely. Because only terrorists use–

**Craig:** Only terrorists. That stuff, it’s like poison. No, a man uses a gun that fits in his hand.

**John:** And then with two amazing perfect shots, because he’s apparently an amazing shot.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Even though no one tends to get hit by actual bullets in this movie, he is able to hit two people in precisely a single shot.

**Craig:** Storm Trooper rules at work.

**John:** Absolutely. Gruber goes through the window, still holding on to Holly.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** The watch has to be removed.

**Craig:** The watch needs to be removed because honestly, you know, she needs to come back home. It’s regressive. But regardless at least it was set up. And Hans Gruber falls to his death with this great look on his face of like how did this happen. Like this is not how this is supposed to end. He seemed so confused.

I also like the fact that honestly, so 1988 green screen was still kind of, you know, it had been used for about a decade or more, but it was still a little funky. And I kind of like that it’s funky. It made things special back then. Now I just feel like, oh yeah, it looks so real that it’s fake.

**John:** So the legend is that they actually dropped Rickman before they said they were going to drop him and that’s why he has that expression that he has. They said we’ll drop you on three and they dropped him on two.

**Craig:** Oh, I like that. That’s cool. I mean, he definitely looks scared.

**John:** He does look scared. Let’s do the Lindsay Doran, making sure that we’re talking about what the real victory is in the movie versus the fake victory. Because Alan Rickman’s death is not the victory of the movie. The victory of the movie is getting back with Holly. And it is walking out of the building with the wife. You’re both wearing your first responder jackets over your ruined clothes.

**Craig:** As you should in these movies. You always have to wear a blanket or a jacket because saving the world makes you cold. We know this for a fact. But in the end there are two relationships we care about. John McClane and Holly. And John McClane and Al Powell. And both of those relationships are how this movie ends. That’s how a movie should end. Karl rises from the near dead–

**John:** Classic Fatal Attraction. You have to.

**Craig:** Classic Fatal Attraction. But who kills him? Al Powell, who has regained the courage to murder people. [laughs] I assume he gets a promotion because of that.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s like a Christmas Carol in a very messed up way.

**Craig:** I can kill people. [laughs]

**John:** The miracle of Christmas.

**Craig:** Yes, Merry Christmas everyone.

**John:** Oh, and then Argyle drives them home.

**Craig:** And then Argyle.

**John:** And gets the last line of the movie.

**Craig:** What is the last line of the movie?

**John:** Last line of the movie is, “If this is their idea of Christmas, I got to be there for New Year’s.”

**Craig:** Well there you go. There’s your sequel setup. That also feels like Joel Silver.

**John:** It does. And so watching the movie I was like, oh my god, like the last line of Go is almost the same line.

**Craig:** What is it?

**John:** I had no idea. “So, what are we doing for New Year’s?”

**Craig:** It’s also the last line of Chernobyl. [laughs]

**John:** It’s a great last line. It makes sense. To me the going home with Argyle in the limo, fine, whatever.

**Craig:** It’s full circle.

**John:** It’s full circle. It is full circle.

**Craig:** They’re together. They’ve solved all their problems. And they’ll never have another problem again. Now, of course, Bruce Willis does have many more problems. There’s been a Die Hard 2, 3, 4, possibly 5?

**John:** I think there’s only four.

**Craig:** Four. One of the problems, sequels are really, really, really hard. And one of the problems is that the movie that happens in 1988 is of its time. As the years go on this guy isn’t really of his time. So, you know, it was harder and harder. I mean, I didn’t mind the sequels. Just, you know, this was special.

**John:** Well, also coincidences can happen once. And so–

**Craig:** It’s a little Murder She Wrote. Like maybe you’re the terrorist.

**John:** Yeah, maybe you’re the problem.

**Craig:** Maybe just stay home.

**John:** So let’s wrap this up by talking about what lessons we should be taking from Die Hard and which lessons we should not be taking from Die Hard. My lessons are that it is important to really be thinking about who is the central character in this story and not it’s this genre in a blank. And sort of like don’t just create the environment. You actually have to create who is the fascinating character in this environment who you want to follow through it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I would say that the big screenwriting lesson that I draw from Die Hard is if you want something to happen that solves a problem in a cool way in your script, that’s great, now go back and set it up. And don’t set it up in a way that’s obvious. Set it up in a way that will make the eventual emergence of this thing surprising and fun. Gives the audience a sense that there was an intelligence working behind the scenes that they weren’t aware of.

**John:** Yeah. The bad versions of this movie that I’ve seen since then, they do things in the setup that feel like, oh god, that’s so clearly a setup that’s going to payoff later on. And so when you can hide the setup that is so smart. So like the computer system with Holly’s name. That is a hide the setup kind of thing. And that’s what works.

**Craig:** Correct. One of the great terrible setups of all time is in a movie I love. Real Genius. I love Real Genius. William Atherton is in Real Genius.

**John:** Again.

**Craig:** Playing a dick. And early on in the movie he says to Val Kilmer, “I hate the smell of popcorn.” [laughs] Val Kilmer is eating popcorn. He goes, “What is that? I hate that smell. I hate the smell of popcorn. It’s disgusting.” Which is weird. And then at the end of the movie the big comeuppance is that they fill his house with popcorn. It’s just – when you see it you’re like there’s literally no reason for this to be here except to set something up later. So, yeah, don’t be obvious with the setups. They’re really good about this. And I also think there’s no wasted energy in this movie. Everything feels like it’s needed and necessary. And every scene propels to the next one.

**John:** Which is very crucial. Craig, thank you for this deep dive Die Hard. Merry Christmas.

**Craig:** Merry Christmas, John. And you know what?

**John:** What?

**Craig:** If this is your idea of Christmas, I can’t wait to see what you do on New Year’s.

**John:** Thanks.

**John August:** So in the episode you just listened to Craig and I deliberately only talked about the movie we see on screen and not the process to get there or the legacy of the film. But now let’s do that with our very special guest, Steven E. de Souza. He’s a writer whose credits range from The Six Million Dollar Man to 48 Hours to The Flintstones, but we of course want to talk to him about his script for Die Hard which he shares credit on with Jeb Stuart. Welcome Steven.

**Steven E. de Souza:** Thank you. I’m glad to be here.

**John:** It’s absolutely a delight to have you here. So we loved this movie and it was actually one at the top of our list of movies we wanted to do a deep dive on because it was just so influential to both me and to Craig. And I think it sort of changed the way we think about big popcorn movies and how we get into characters. It’s such a character-focused action movie. So, when you first were approached with Die Hard what was the status of the script, of the project? It already had a director on? McTiernan was already attached?

**Steven:** McTiernan was already attached. My connection to Joel and Larry was actually on a TV pilot. I did two other pilots prior to meeting them for Paramount. And then I did a pilot called The Renegades, which again was a page one rewrite which was done in a mad race against the cameras. They had a script that was in disarray but they were so hot at that time and Aaron Spelling was involved in that that ABC had bought/committed to going on the air without even reading the pilot script. They’d only seen a three page synopsis. So they said we don’t dare sent them this pilot script which makes no sense. So I started writing it literally ahead of the cameras. And the actors would say why do I hate this guy. And I’d say you’ll find out maybe next week. I don’t know yet.

So now we were in a similar situation where they had had a mad scramble to cast the movie which was very famous. I think some of your audience may know that they had offered to Sinatra first.

**John:** Yes.

**Steven:** And then every big star in Hollywood turned it down. All for the same reason. You’ve got to remember at this time the heroes were all these steroid ripped muscular giants and people read the script and there’s no action for the first 20 pages. And then the entire first act if we’re going to break it down in acts, you know, Bruce is trying to get help. And I knew we were in trouble at the premiere. This was the first movie, I had already done a couple pictures prior to this, but this was the first film that I took my kids to see because I thought they were old enough to handle an R-rated movie, right.

So when Bruce Willis looks out the door and sees them all coming in and then he looks at his sad little pistol and runs upstairs my son grabs my arm and says, “Dad, the hero is chicken shit.” And I said where’d you learn that language? Not from my movies because you haven’t seen them.

**John:** Let’s talk about John McLane’s character here because we’ll put a link in the show notes to this sort of feminist look at Die Hard which is arguing that one of the great things about Die Hard is that the character is more like Ellen Ripley in Aliens in that like he actually is just being smart and clever and he actually knows his limitations which is kind of new for this type of movie.

**Steven:** Exactly. And that is why some of the more obvious choices, Stallone and Schwarzenegger, they all turned it down because in the climate of the time it just didn’t – he seemed kind of a pussy, you know, basically. So, I read the piece, by the way, the link about the feminist approach and I don’t think that was in my mind, but the idea was that he was overmatched and he was an underdog and that the only tool he had was the weapon which we used in clever ways, you know, using it to climb and to fall and so forth.

We were very conscious at the time what was going on politically in the country which was there was this tremendous fear of foreign ownership. The Japanese were buying things up. Meanwhile the joke is of course the largest ownership of America at that time and to this day is Dutch. But, you know, people don’t get worked up about those slippery Dutch. I can hear those wooden shoes sneaking up on me right now. And there’s a reason they call it Dutch treat. For that reason we pushed the heroes’ character into a complete blue collar direction and made them all snotty Eurotrash.

In the original book the character is a sophisticated college graduate, and expert on terrorism who had in fact been an officer in WWII who had met Gruber’s father when his father was a prisoner at Spandau Prison when he was a child. So he was a much more sophisticated character than we ended up doing with Bruce.

When I came on there already was a script and Jeb had done some very important things in breaking the back of the book. Number one in the book, spoiler alert, the character is 65 years old. He’s a retired cop which means Sinatra could have played him. And he’s visiting his daughter who, spoiler alert, does fall out the window and die and is complicit in the company’s crimes. And it was completely political. They were doing some crooked thing in the third world and were wiping out villages to build a bridge or something like that.

And he also did another very important thing. When the book was written CB radio was all the rage, which is now a completely forgotten thing. And the only person that he was able to communicate with outside was a gypsy cab driver who had the dominant role in communication. At a later point the cop came in, Sargent Al Powell, but he was a minor character. So Jeb combined the Al Powell and the gypsy cab driver. As he tells the story he had a fight with – he had the assignment, he was trying to figure out what to do besides making the lead younger, and he had an argument with his wife. And almost had an accident on the road. And, see, life is so short, I could have died and it would have left my wife – so that took him in that direction.

**John:** So some of the big changes you’re describing from the Roderick Thorp novel is taking the daughter character and making up the wife character. Making their relationship and their tension be a central thematic thread. The Al Powell and the radio communication with a person he’s never met as a crucial link there. And in Jeb’s script was Hans Gruber a genuine terrorist, or was it a heist?

**Steven:** He was genuinely a terrorist. It was McTiernan who said like that’s boring. What could we do that’s different? And Jeb is a terrific writer but I would say if you compare his work to mine he doesn’t have the sense of humor that I do. I have humor and a lot of comedy. I push it as far as I can go, because you can always take it out in post but you can’t put it in. So I would say if there’s funny moments in the film they are largely from me. And also another contribution I think that makes the movie work, what happened was Jeb had turned a script in and as Jeb tells it Joel Silver called him in and said you did a great job but we’re moving really fast now and I’m bringing in a guy that works ahead of the camera and we love your script and we don’t have time for meetings. He’s going to jump right into it.

And I’m friendly with Jeb. We’ve gotten along since then. So I immediately realized it was an adventure process movie, that it’s like [unintelligible] or The Asphalt Jungle is really what it is. And I gave all my thoughts to that version of a movie. And therefore I invented the idea of the safe with the safe with the seven seals. It was not in the movie, it was not in Jeb’s script.

Jeb’s script carried over the idea from the book that they were ripping the building apart trying to find the evidence of their crimes. So, by inventing the seven locks it created kind of a pace for the audience to follow. And more importantly as ridiculous as it seems as I’m starting to think about the adventure process film the obligatory scenes, the term that people use all the time in these weekend courses which is usually nonsense. Often the obligatory scene is not in the movie. The obligatory scene in this movie happened in Germany like three months earlier when they planned the heist. But for the movie to work even though it makes no sense in hindsight he didn’t tell everybody the plan. They keep coming in, what’s going on, the FBI is here. He says, “That’s what I’m counting on.” And what kind of criminal mastermind doesn’t fill in his troops, you know?

So this created a great situation which again I take inspiration from Hitchcock in that you start to root for the bad buy because you sort of don’t want any of the authorities’ attempts to stop him to work because you’re dying to know what is he up to.

**John:** Yup.

**Steven:** So by the fact that the villains keep saying, “Well what’s happening next?” And he says, “Trust me. It’s coming along.” You’re secretly rooting for him. And that’s one of the reasons, of course, his performance is great. It was Rickman’s first movie.

**John:** Now talk to me about the set pieces and the degree to which plot needed to accommodate the desire for certain set pieces. So I think about the anti-aircraft, anti-tank guns and the helicopter explosion and they’re blowing up the tank down there. Those feel like set piece choices. And then you had to layer in like, oh, that it’s believable that these characters traveled with these things or had anticipated this problem.

**Steven:** Yes, the idea that they were like overwhelmingly armed and anticipated anything and were ready for the typical even at that time police overkill fit into that. And also, again, we say that he had been formerly a terrorist who had been thrown out for not being terroristic enough. Another thing I would say that I bring to it, and again if you look at my body of work I guess one thing I always do is whenever it’s possible, even when it’s anachronistically like in The Flintstones, I use media to provide exposition. I always say, you know, if this was happening what would really go on? Somebody would notice.

So the newscast and the television are so prominent and the reporter who was a minor character in Jeb’s script, one of the reasons that he became more important and one of the reasons the movie is very rich, as you know the famous problem of casting the movie and went on so long that Willis was cast last minute and he was not free of his television show.

**John:** Wow.

**Steven:** He was filming his television show. And he had I think almost three weeks of filming left on the television show while we were filming. So after I think the fourth day of filming McTiernan called me in and said listen we’re killing this guy, he’s filming the TV show all day, we’re filming practical nights now. I can see the wear and tear. Can you invent more stuff for the rest of the cast?

And so this is one of the reasons that we cut away to so many other things and it made the movie richer. And John McTiernan was very kind to me. There’s a coffee table book of Die Hard. In the preface John says, “Steven de Souza gave me a Fellini movie,” which is very kind. But he said expand the universe of these characters.

One of the first scenes I wrote under this new direction was the scene where Holly confronts Hans.

**John:** That was another question I had for you. At what point did you know that your POV would be so wide? Because we think of it being John McClane’s movie and that he should be the central character, but really the movie is free to cut away to almost any character at any point. And the movie has a POV that’s not limited to his perspective. The journalist is a great example of that, too.

We’re halfway through the movie and suddenly the FBI agents were introduced very, very late and we see things that only they know. Would that have happened if you’d had all of the Bruce Willis time that you would have wanted?

**Steven:** It would have happened to a degree because I’ve done a number of adaptations over time, based on books and things. And in the book you are entirely in the hero’s head. You only know what he sees and he observes. It starts several days before Christmas, in fact. So that does not work. If you eliminated all the things he’s thinking, and there’s long pages where he reminisces about he could have been a better father to his daughter. There’s a sequence where he thinks about WWII and he was a pilot and then he was in Spandau. So I said, OK, this is coming out. Now I have a 15-minute movie. What is left?

So I was doing that anyway, but John gave me the informateur to like go – there was even more material with the housekeeper where she’s reading the children a bedtime story and then she hears the television from the other room. And what was that? Did they say something about Daddy? So there were other things that went on a little more. There was much more business about cutting the power off. That they had to go through bureaucratic hoops to get the power cut for the building.

Like I said, the idea of having this god’s eye view of everything and letting the audience know things that would build suspense on both sides was a deliberate choice to make up for the problem of the book.

**John:** Now, you said you were writing ahead of production. But talk to us about what writing was like in 1987 in terms of writing ahead of stuff. Because were you literally typing pages? What was the process to make changes because we’re so used to our current system of things?

**Steven:** Well, by this time I had a working relationship with Joel and Larry that was very trustworthy. You have to remember that having come up through television and when they met me and I already had producing credits in television, I had a greater level of trust than writers often got at that time, or to this day. Writers are sometimes not even welcome on the set. God forbid they talk to the actor. The actor says, “What do you think my childhood was like?” And I said, “Oh, I think you probably were claustrophobic.” And the director goes, “Why is he crying in the elevator scene?” Could he talk to the writer?

So I know set etiquette. So I was on the set quite a bit and I was often writing and then going to the set and going back and forth. One of the first things I had was the shooting schedule. And I was literally rewriting the movie according to the shooting schedule. I was given a blueprint of the building that was color-coded for what we really had sets up and what was really the building which I had capped on my wall to keep track of the geography.

I also walked the building with the stunt team, looking for things that we could incorporate and really use. So for example the dolly that they fight and they roll across the dolly, that dolly was there. Let’s fall on that dolly. The chains in the ceiling. The chains were really there. I always feel that you should use the location. Too often the fights in the movies, the fistfights in movies are the same fight you would have had in a republic western, like 60 years ago. It’s 70 years ago. You know, hitting with chairs, crashing into mirrors. Whereas the fight in an office building, you know, someone should get their fingers sliced off with the paper cutter.

I was on the set all day and I go home and it’s like two o’clock in the morning. I walk in and the phone rings. Joel Silver, “You got to get back here right away.” What is it? He says, “The morons used real ducts. It’s taken Bruce like a month to crawl through the duct. You’ve got to come down and give me some business.” So almost all those lines in the duct–

**John:** Oh…

**Steven:** I was on the set, on location, and Bruce had a walkie-talkie, and I was just making up dialogue and we recorded probably 15 different lines and some of them were in the movie. The two most famous examples of the advantage of being on the set and being involved in the process all the way through. One of the things that bothered us all through the movie was that Bruce and Alan never met until the end of the movie. And Joel Silver, as he likes to say, he says, “These movies we make, they’re hate movies. They’re like love stories. In a love story the boy has a cute-meet with the girl, they have a couple of dates, and then they get married. In our movie, Steve, they have a cute-meet, they have a couple of dates where they almost kill each other, and one kills the other. And we’re not dating. We’ve got to have the date.”

So, the problem is that he’s got a dozen guys with him and Bruce is outnumbered. So one day on the set in the afternoon there was a break and craft services were coming around with sandwiches. And someone said to Alan Rickman, apropos of nothing, “Alan, a lot of the UK actors do an American accent. Do you do an American accent?” And Alan said, “Well, I don’t do an American accent per se, but I do like a California one.”

So everybody laughed and I said oh my god, oh my god. That’s it. And I ran and I got Joel and I came back and I said Alan do that again. He says what. What you just did. He says, “I don’t do an American accent. I do like a California one.” And I said, Joel, and Joel said, “Oh, oh my god, I get it.” And he went and got Larry Gordon. Same thing. As soon as Alan opened his mouth Larry went, “Oh yeah.”

And then we got McTiernan. And McTiernan is kind of a very dour Scot and he plans meticulously. He began as a writer in the AFI program, not as a director. So he goes, “Uh, I don’t know. No, no, we saw him kill Takagi.” So I said have you filmed that scene yet? And he turns to I guess the second AD and he says, “When do you shoot?” He says we shoot that tomorrow. I said well then can’t we shoot that scene and he doesn’t see his face?”

So now we all went over to the other sound stage where that set was built and John goes around with his hands up, you know, and he goes, “OK, if I take that big table and we move it ten feet and turn it 45 degrees it has a giant let, a solid – instead of four legs on a long table there’s like a solid wall.” The crew starts to move it, he goes, “No, no, wait, wait. I’ve got to see the scene first.”

So then they went to whatever the nearest office building was to that sound stage, whether that was like accounting or whatever. The first office they walked in, get out of here, give your desk to this guy. And I sat down and there had been a scene earlier where Theo got killed there. Theo was not the safe-cracking expert in that previous draft because that idea of the seven things came in later. So Theo who was one of the only Americans on the crew, he was able to briefly fool Bruce because he was an American.

So I needed Theo to be alive anyway, and I was going to not kill him anyway and kill somebody else. But now I said, OK, that became the scene where he meets Alan Rickman who fools him by his demeanor and changing his voice and everything. And of course I think you know the reason that Bruce – I had all these people come up to me and go, “Oh, because the gun weighs less than the bullets,” you know, an explanation of how – or his instincts are so great. And personally I prefer like Sherlock Holmes to decide rather than lucky guess. But as you know with the wrist watches this is all related to another 11th hour thing.

In the original script when they did meet we had a longer monologue from Rickman. “Ah, Mr. McClane, to meet your acquaintance.” “Ah, so you’re Hans, hey? Why’d you blow up the building Hans?” And he went into a longer explanation, escaping the chaos and stuff like that. So as we’re getting to the end of the movie and now that they’ve met, like we didn’t need this long monologue that got mocked in The Incredibles, right, and the explanation seemed thin.

So I had done a TV movie of The Spirit, Will Eisner’s The Spirit, several years before at Paramount where it was kind of cartoony and the villainess was so evil she was going to blow up a children’s hospital and escape using chaos while pretending to be first responders. So I said nobody saw that. It was before it was on home video, so let’s do that. This was literally a week before the movie wrapped. And to show you how late this idea came in, if you watch the movie again “ambulance” is misspelled on the side of the ambulance. And there was no time to correct it.

**John:** That’s great. So it does sound like throughout this whole process if you, or the writer, had not been as integral to the whole shooting process, the production process, it would not have been Die Hard. It would not have been the Die Hard movie that we’re used to. Because it was like a fresco where you’re painting on wet cement.

**Steven:** Exactly. Yes.

**John:** You’re seeing what’s there. So, again, it’s a great argument for what we always say on the show is that writers have to be involved in every step of the process. It’s not just you made a set of plans once and the plans were followed exactly. You have to respond to what you’re actually seeing in front of you.

**Steven:** Also, although it was in the script that they were having conflict, one of the very important scenes where Bruce and Bonnie argue, I went off with them and we improvised for about an hour and an half. They improvised the scene and I recorded it and then I retrofitted the improv that they had worked up into the script. And that’s why that scene is kind of like I think very authentic and heart felt. And then again that would not have happened had I not been on the set.

**John:** Great.

**Steven:** Another thing I would say in regard to this is when it came together and Bruce was signed they said he wants to meet you, but listen, he has been very upset and his people have gotten back to us that they want this script locked. It’s driving him crazy on that TV show. Pink, yellow, green pages. So if he gives you a couple things, notes, but do not tell him that you are doing – just tell him you’re just rewriting the physical production and you’re not going to change his dialogue at all unless he has a problem with a couple of lines.

Bruce is like six years younger than me. Same age as my younger brother. We grew up about 30 miles apart. So as we were feeling each other out we start talking about our childhood and all the TV shows we watched. We watched the same children shows, including Roy Rogers and stuff like that. So after a little bit he said, “You know, I think that I’d love to get more humor in this stuff. I feel comfortable with humor.” I said so you don’t mind changes? He says, “Oh, no, hell, make this as funny as you can.”

Had I taken my marching orders, don’t even mention rewriting to the actor, again I’m not recommending to all your writers to ignore the producer, but in this case it was very fortuitous that people were flexible and could punt. And were willing to roll up their sleeves and jump in. And in a way it felt very much like – it was a modest for the era. It was not a big budget movie for the time. But I found that sometimes either the pressure of time or a smaller budget gives you much more creative freedom. Because in normal circumstances there’s always mid management people who want to give you notes.

So for example back in the day before the digital era you’re showing your first cut to like the producer, but not the main producer, and the producer says, “Listen, the hooker with the heart of god is the witness of the crime. Do you have a close up of her when she talks to the cop?” And the editor says, yeah, we do. And the guy says, and you know he’s thinking, I could ask you to put the close up but now this is work print. It’s going to delay the movie for 48 hours. He doesn’t say it.

But now they know it’s digital, they can do it right away. They give you the note. But when the movie is hurtling down the railroad tracks everybody is afraid to bring up anything that might slow it down. So as I said a panicked production or a more modestly budgeted movie. I did a movie that is one of my best reviewed movies, nobody has seen, but it’s on Amazon now called Possessed which is the true story behind The Exorcist with Timothy Dalton. And the budget of that movie was so modest and I was coming to it off these big hits, they let me do whatever I want. It was fantastic.

And again the same kind of experience where we were not under pressure opened up opportunities. Timothy Dalton came to me at one point as we were wrapping the movie and said, “Listen, I want to talk to you about the last scene of the movie.” And I’m going, OK, here it comes, because I worked with too many Hollywood actors.” And so I said what is it? He says, “I was thinking this would be better if my character said nothing.” So this is not something you normally hear from Hollywood actors. But again knowing that there was enough flexibility he could hit me with something like that at the last minute.

So I recommend to your writers that if you have a choice, work on a picture that is hurtling down the railroad tracks, or a picture that has a fairly modest budget, and you’ll have more creative freedom.

**John:** Let’s wrap up by talking about the legacy of Die Hard. Because I’m curious at what point, because you said your kid thought that the hero is chicken shit, but ultimately I’m sure loved the film because people love the film. And it got a huge reaction when it first came out. At what point did you realize that this was going to be its own mini genre. That there was going to be Die Hard in a dot-dot-dot as a sort of subgenre of action film?

**Steven:** Well our original intention, of course we all knew that Roderick Thorp had been inspired by seeing The Towering Inferno. So in our mind we were going to do the three disaster movies. We were going to do The Towering Inferno, the next was Airport, and the third was going to be Poseidon Adventure.

So we did Airport the second time, which was a totally unrelated script that got reinvented as a Die Hard script. And we were going to do and had a plan even for the cruise ship version, but then Under Siege and Speed 2.

**John:** Cruise Control, yeah.

**Steven:** So that was off the table. But very quickly we realized right away that Under Siege was Die Hard on a boat. And so on. But again they made the mistake, or they decided that instead of being an ordinary guy he was a super ordinary guy. Then we had Air Force One, Die Hard on a plane. And when it became really out of hand, now this is a true story that I told a number of times to journalists, and none of them in interviews like this they always thought I was making it up. But I told Bruce the story and then Bruce did an interview in Vanity Fair on Die Hard 4 where he told my story and now people believe the story.

**John:** Of course, yes.

**Steven:** Of course, because he told it.

But I got a call from a producer who saw the Timothy Dalton movie, which is now playing on Amazon, called Possessed, and he said, “I was watching this movie, I got caught up, and I saw the credits that you wrote and directed this. And you directed a couple of Academy Award-winning actors and that’s not your wheelhouse, a horror movie. I’ve got a picture that’s right up your alley and now that I know you can direct you have carte blanche to rewrite it and you can direct the movie.”

And I said what is it? He said, “It’s Die Hard in a building.”

**John:** Ha! Yes.

**Steven:** He sent the script over and it was terrible. It was a complete beat-for-beat copy of Die Hard except with a female protagonist, otherwise like a clone. So I passed.

**John:** No. So my question for you Steven is do you have a sense of why we’re not making “Die Hard in a” very much anymore? Because Skyscraper very much is a Die Hard kind of movie. But there haven’t been a lot of those recently. I don’t see that as a genre that’s happening in the 2020s. And I’m sort of curious if you had any sense of why because it feels like it kind of should still work. That we have a clear central protagonist who has to protagonate over the course of it against overwhelming odds in a confined space.

**Steven:** I think, and it sounds crazy, but I think now they just seem too small scale. I mean, in the conversation for this movie we kept escalating how much money was in the bearer bonds.

**John:** That’s right.

**Steven:** Well that’s chump change. $100 million, that’s chump change, you know.

**John:** Because you’re not saving the world, so what’s the point?

**Steven:** Exactly. Exactly. If you’re not saving the world. And too many movies now the climax is just, you know, 20 minutes of CGI. This movie almost everything is practical. There’s no CGI in that movie at all.

**John:** This was an absolute delight. Thank you so much for coming on to talk to us about Die Hard.

**Steven:** I’m delighted to do it. I’m delighted to finally meet you. I’m a big fan.

**John:** Steven, thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

**Steven:** All right, you too. Bye-bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Read the DIE HARD script on [Weekend Read](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/) or [online here](https://www.scriptslug.com/assets/scripts/die-hard-1988.pdf).
* [Feminist Analysis of Die Hard](https://anotherangrywoman.com/2016/12/18/making-fists-with-your-toes-towards-a-feminist-analysis-of-die-hard/)
* [Movies That Made Us](https://www.netflix.com/title/80990849) on Netflix, check out the Die Hard episode on S1!
* Sign up for [premium here](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/).
* [Steven E. de Souza](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0211823/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/stevenedesouza)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Andy Roninson ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/527standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (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.