• 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, Ep 410: Wikipedia Movies, Transcript

August 15, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/17914).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 410 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast it’s a variation on How Would This Be a Movie. Instead of looking at three stories in the news we’re taking three articles off Wikipedia and looking at what you get by using just those facts versus using a more detailed article.

Then we’ll be taking listener questions about real life subjects, showing your work, and applying the Mazin Method to television.

**Craig:** The Mazin Method. Yeah. The original Mazin Method was just helping couples conceive children. Which works great by the way. But this is a new one. So I just don’t want people to confuse them.

**John:** Absolutely. Because they have similar things, because there’s that thesis and antithesis in both situations.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** You’re trying to arrive at a middle place. But they are different.

**Craig:** Yeah. And one of them you do have to take your temperature each morning.

**John:** Yeah. The answer will surprise you.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** But first some follow up.

**Craig:** I like this. I like the show already. I’m pleased with it.

**John:** We are hosting a panel on addiction and mental health that’s organized by Hollywood, Health & Society. It’s already sold out, but the good news is there will be a Facebook live stream for it. So this happens Wednesday July 31st, 2019. The live stream starts at 7:15pm Los Angeles time. There’s a link in the show notes for how you get there, but if you don’t follow the link just look up Hollywood, Health & Society on Facebook and you will join us there. I’m very excited about this.

**Craig:** Yeah. And this is a SAG-AFTRA production, correct?

**John:** This is actually Hollywood, Health & Society which is a WGA partnership with Norman Leer’s foundation and USC. So we’re doing this at SAG but these events would usually be at the WGA.

**Craig:** I see. I’m just really glad that we’re doing this. Obviously it’s a huge topic. You and I have both talked about this a lot on our show, but I also have talked about this in other venues as it relates to creative professionals, writers in particular, and then also our families, and our children. We are going to keep chipping away at the taboo and the shame that surrounds this stuff until people finally just relax and begin talking about it freely.

**John:** Yep. So our producer, Megana Rao, has been on the phone doing sort of pre-interviews with the people who are our guests so we have specialists in both mental health and addiction. We have a showrunner tackling these topics and a journalist. So we will be able to discuss not only the things that they wish they could see portrayed more and better in our film and television, but what things we could stop doing which would be helpful for everyone out there. So.

**Craig:** Love that. I think that’s great.

**John:** So we’ll get into that.

**Craig:** Terrific.

**John:** Further follow up, last week my One Cool Thing was versing, that sort of newish word called versing, which led to a discussion of words like heigth, but Bob wrote in with his experience with this. Do you want to share that?

**Craig:** Sure. Bob writes, “I teach screen and TV writing at Chapman and so I’m in daily contact with scores of fairly literate people.” That’s the best review of your own student body I’ve ever heard. Fairly literate people, 18 to 22 years old. “And I’ve noticed that they are slowly rewriting our language and they have no idea it’s happening. In addition to ‘on accident,’ which you’ve observed, I’ve found two others. Like on accident, they both have to do with changing prepositions. So, arrive at the building has become arrive to the building and bored with it has become bored of it.

“I think bored of it comes from tired of it and on accident comes just as you said from on purpose. And while Craig’s story about heigth is probably right on the money, these other cases might well have started by people who learn English as a second language. Although I’ve been fascinated by words my whole life, I’ve only recently learned that unwieldy isn’t unwieldly. The latter seems to me to make sense since it’s an adverb so it should end with LY. But it just doesn’t.”

Well, unwieldy isn’t an adverb. It’s an adjective.

**John:** Yeah. I’m trying to find ways you can force it into an adverbial role.

**Craig:** I’m struggling.

**John:** I’m trying to make it modify an adjective in a way that an adverb would.

**Craig:** Like I lifted this unwieldly?

**John:** Yeah, I mean, you could–

**Craig:** I mean, that’s wrong. Obviously it’s not a word.

**John:** It’s wrong, but yeah.

**Craig:** But, yeah, unwieldy in and of itself is an adjective.

**John:** Is a true adjective. But I agree with his basic points that younger people are going to start using words in different ways and you could try to fight that or you just accept that they’re going to be using language in different ways. And that’s actually one of the reasons why so often when you translate things from another language you have to have a native speaker doing that work because they’re going to recognize the small little subtle things that people say in real spoken language versus “proper” English.

And some of these things that you’re bringing up here would make so much sense in character dialogue but you wouldn’t necessarily do them in scene description. It’s that subtle distinction between how people speak versus how they might write.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. And, look, there is a huge part of me that is orthodox about this stuff. And I think that the instinct to want to preserve the let’s just call it the correct way of speaking or writing is that it’s not necessarily to punish the kids, but rather to honor your love of the language you were given. So I come from it from a sort of positive place of wanting to preserve.

That said, of course the language that I was given, that I received, and that I call correct in and of itself was inflected and modified by people that spoke and chopped things up and messed them up. So, you strike a balance.

**John:** You do. And I’ll just close up by saying to ignore that language changes by pattern matching is the heigth of stupidity.

**Craig:** Please don’t. It’s so awful.

**John:** It’s just the worst.

**Craig:** Heigth.

**John:** I don’t like heigth, but we all understand how heigth comes to be because width, length, and heigth. Of course you want things to match.

**Craig:** It’s pattern matching. It’s just that pattern – let’s just not do it.

**John:** Yeah. I get it. I get it.

**Craig:** Let’s fight back.

**John:** We will fight back. And we will still try to preserve beg the question, because beg the question has a useful meaning and so when we see it used improperly I will still always note that it’s being used improperly.

**Craig:** That’s not even a question of usage. That’s just being right or wrong.

**John:** It is being right or wrong. Let’s take a look at How Would This Be a Movie. So, to give some setup here because we do this segment fairly often. And usually what happens is people will write into us with a link to an article, or people will tweet at us with How Would This Be a Movie and some great article there in the news. And sometimes I’ll agree, sometimes I won’t agree, but if there’s something that I do that find fascinating or I find on my own that feels like it’s right for the segment I will bookmark it. And I bookmark it in a place called Pinboard. And maybe I’m mentioned this before on the show but Pinboard is a really useful bookmark storage service. So it just shows up on all your devices.

I pay for it. It’s cheap. It’s really barebones but it works really, really well. And I go through Pinboard and I tag those things How Would This Be a Movie. So HWTBAM. And as a little tag so then I can look through and see, OK, here are some articles that I flagged for this. And I noticed that in some cases I was flagging Wikipedia articles which didn’t seem like quite enough to be basing a movie around. But really in real life sometimes that is my entry point for a movie, or at least for some aspect of the movie.

And so I thought we’d talk about Wikipedia as the starting place for ideas. Because you’ve encountered this, too, haven’t you Craig?

**Craig:** Sure. And this is strangely an extension of the discussion we were just having about language. Because I think for orthodox researchers Wikipedia is still something that sets their teeth on edge. But the fact is that for the great majority of people who are suddenly interested in learning about something the very first stop they are going to make is Wikipedia. That’s it. That’s the first stop. It’s not the last stop, but it’s the first one.

And such was the case for me and Chernobyl. I read an article in the New York Times about the construction of this new cover over Chernobyl. I got sort of vaguely curious. So I went to Wikipedia and I started reading the Wikipedia article. That is, again, it is a decent place to start. With all the caveats, it is a user-edited encyclopedia. They actually do a pretty good job of keeping everybody accurate and honest. Sometimes the most valuable parts of Wikipedia are really the citations, where you can go down to the bottom and see where they’ve drawn information from.

But mostly if it does capture you it sends you on a journey where you start to really learn about something rather than reading a kind of Cliff Notes summary. So we should acknowledge that that’s where a lot of people are going to start if they’re considering writing something based on history or real events or real people.

**John:** Yeah. And so the three things I’m going to single out here, in each case I was able to find an article that went into greater detail than what was in the Wikipedia summary. But the Wikipedia summary was a useful place to be thinking about what are the possible stories you could tell here. And then the articles helped frame a more interesting story within that. So, let’s start with 8chan. And so I kind of knew what 4chan was. I didn’t really know what 8chan was. I saw a reference to it so I looked it up.

So 8chan is an online site, a website, a community in a very loose sense. 8chan can be thought of as a discussion place for topics. 8chan is particularly freewheeling and has very few sort of controls over it. And so the Wikipedia goes through its history, about the guy who created it, but mostly about its controversy. So it was heavily involved in Gamergate, swatting, child pornography, the Trump campaign QAnon, the Christ Church mosque shootings where they were singled out and called out for that. Another synagogue shooting. So it’s–

**Craig:** What a resume.

**John:** It’s notorious. I mean, I think it’s not thought of as a good part of the Internet. But it’s not the dark web. It’s not something that is strictly behind sort of proxy servers and hidden away from the rest of the world. It’s something that anybody could go to. And so Craig what did you know about 8chan going into this?

**Craig:** I know quite a bit. I mean, I don’t go – I’m not a member, like a community member, an active person that participates on 4chan or 8chan or anything like that. But, you know, I’m a nerd and I’m a history nerd, a computer history nerd. I love the Internet and the history of the Internet and how it evolves.

The other day I was telling somebody, they had totally forgotten, do you remember Excite? Do you remember that search engine Excite?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** For a while Excite was the thing.

**John:** Yeah. Excite. Alta Vista.

**Craig:** Where people would be like, yeah, I use Alta Vista or I use Yahoo, and I’m like, no man, you’ve got to use Excite. It’s way better. And then Google came along and that was the end of Excite. But, no, 4chan has been around for a long time. 4chan in and of itself is an adaption of a Japanese style of – it’s essentially an image board. That’s all it is. It’s very low tech. And remarkably these chans, and there are a lot of them, there’s like probably 50 different chans, all something-chan-dot-something. They’re all basically the same very basic software that has not changed since whenever they first appeared on the Internet. And people post an image and then there’s commenting.

The thing about them is, they almost everybody is anonymous on it. And at least in the case of 4chan it became this fascinating double edged sword. So when we talk about 4chan and then 8chan, there’s a fascinating story where this guy named Fredrick Brennan founds it and he in and of himself is a fascinating character. A lot of it was about kind of for the lulz as the kids would say. I think it began with a certain kind of goofy anarchy, like a comedic anarchy. The sort of like teenagers, younger people are going to just have some fun. And sometimes their fun is at the expense of other people, but it’s mostly in the form of pranks and things. They would do raids where they would show up in some very nice forum for people that, I don’t know, enjoy macramé and they would ruin it. And then leave.

So it was kind of like that. And then it began to become much darker. But along the way the chans are where a lot of meme culture comes from, which is our culture now. Even pre-dating Reddit. So, it is an interesting place where there’s actually fascinating things that come out of those chans and funny things, brilliantly funny things.

And then unfortunately some terribly ugly things. And Fredrick Brennan, well, tell us about Fredrick Brennan because he really is a fascinating person.

**John:** Absolutely. So the Wikipedia article has a brief mention of him and they call him Hotwheels, and sort of a little bit about sort of why he set it up. But there’s an article called Destroyer of Worlds by Nicky Woolf, I’ll put a link in the show notes to that, which really goes into the history of 8chan from his point of view, from Fredrick Brennan’s point of view. And so this is a kid who is born with a profound disability, what’s often called brittle bone syndrome. So he’s confined to a wheelchair. Has very little access to the outside world except through computers. And so he starts going on 4chan. Is active in the videogame sites there. And sees sort of what’s there and what’s possible and ultimately decides to build his own version of it. And so his own version of it becomes 8chan and it was largely at the height of Gamergate, as Gamergate folks were getting kicked off of 4chan he’s like, “Hey, come here guys. You can do all that stuff on my place,” and it blew up and became a big thing because of Gamergate.

He ultimately then sold 8chan to somebody else and has largely disavowed it. But he’s a fascinating character because just his origin story is fascinating. And him grappling with what he’s done is fascinating.

**Craig:** Yeah. It seemed as if – or at least from the article that I read here – that he was lonely.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And his initial encounter with 4chan actually was that he had created a group for people that appreciated a certain videogame and then 4chan came and did what they did, which was raid it “for the lulz.” It worked. And instead of him being angry and miserable about it he thought, ooh, that looks like fun. I would have rather been on the other side of that. And so he joined up with 4chan and then I guess as moot, the founder of 4chan, started to push back a little bit against the total freewheeling anarchy which as you said was leading to a lot of illegal pornographic content and discussions of things that were starting to edge towards violent acts in real life, and doxing of people. A lot of bad stuff. He said, “OK, well, if you’re going to push back against that I’m just going to start my own thing where it’s really up to the users.” Even more freedom than 4chan offered.

And it sounds like he got what he wanted. He just didn’t expect that it would maybe go the way it went.

**John:** Yeah. So the stories that this is suggesting is about the questions about freedom of speech and the boundaries between freedom of speech and radicalism and hate speech and sort of what is law versus anarchy. Those tensions are natural there. So you think of movies like The People vs. Larry Flynt where it’s one guy standing up against a government, but in this case there really isn’t a government that you’re really up against. These chans are so formless because the Internet is sort of formless and you don’t really know who is behind things. It’s all anonymous. All those things are fascinating.

But you need to be able to aim the camera at something. And so that something could be Fredrick Brennan. It could be other users. But you’re going to have to find a central focus for a story that’s going to be about 8chan or any of these aspects of some of the controversies that have happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. And you run a terrible risk of misunderstanding certain things because there are some aspects of these places that are just as bad as they appear. I mean, talking about a community where somebody comes on and says, “I’m about to shoot some people in a mosque,” and other people say, “Well, aim for the high score,” that’s just horrible.

And there’s no way to look at that except terrible. You know, and then in another corner of that same chan on a different board there are people who are discussing their sexuality with other people safely because they can’t at home. Even look at a guy like Brennan who is severely disabled and didn’t have friends and was reaching out and making connections with people that accepted him. What’s fascinating – anyway, the point being you can be reductive about it and that in and of itself then what happens is people go, oh, well they just did a hit piece on it.

It’s tricky. It’s a tricky thing because I don’t know if I could define at all what 4chan or 8chan even is. I don’t think I could – because it’s too many things.

**John:** Yeah. Where I think Brennan’s story is potentially useful as a framing around it is that it sort of mirrors the central question that you’re going to have about something like 8chan which is to what degree can you think about teenage boys doing teenage boy things versus the actual consequences in the real world. And so to what degree is it important to create a place where people can blow off steam versus a place where they can plan or at least celebrate mass shootings.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That aspect is really tough. And so Brennan himself who has this condition which has confined him to a wheelchair and made his life very, very difficult starts all this because he’s really – part of the reason he starts it, he’s really interested in eugenics which seems like a weird thing for a person with a debilitating disease to be focused on, but that inherent paradox is very much at the root of – we need absolute freedom of speech, nothing can contain us. They are all part of the parcel.

**Craig:** Correct. And I will say that when you are reading a Wikipedia article about something and you’re wondering is this something that I can write a movie about or a series, what you’re hoping to find without trying to find it but just honestly letting it happen is something that grabs you. Some strange thing you snag on. And in this story it is without question the fact that this man who does have a severe disability has written really offensive and disturbing essays in favor of a kind of eugenics that would have eliminated him. And he’s saying that purposefully. He’s said he wished for some kind of Nazi movement to come and get rid of people like him.

And when you dig into that, I mean, you snag on that for sure. And when you dig into that you find, you know, well know he’s sort of letting that go. And it brought to mind this quote that Adam McKay posted on Twitter today that I saw that I just thought was amazing. It’s a James Baldwin quote. So James Baldwin, one of the smartest writers that ever walked the face of the earth. And the quote is this: “I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense once hate is gone they will be forced to deal with pain.”

And I just thought well right there is Fredrick Brennan. If he turns the anger off then he’s got to deal with accepting something that is incredibly painful for him. And I get that. I understand that. And I have a feeling that that syndrome is powering a lot of what is going on in these places because a lot of the people who come there are young. I suspect a lot of them have some kind of mental health issue, or a learning disability, or a social disorder where they are alone, they’re bullied, they’re outcast. They feel unloved or uncared for and they’re hurt.

And so as it turns out these places are probably the worst kind of areas to get therapy. But I can also see why people are attracted to them in the first place.

**John:** Yeah. It also ties into like the YouTube algorithms that will keep sending people down a darker and darker spiral. So they’ll start watching one thing and it will push them to more and more extreme things because the algorithm just is looking for ways to keep them engaged with YouTube longer.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s the–

**John:** The way that cycles perpetuate.

**Craig:** It’s that syndrome where they say if you’re kind of addicted to pornography you keep going further and further, like crazier and crazier porn. Because you just get used to the regular porn I guess. And it’s the same here. And I think that that’s a very trap like thing for people – particular people who are a neuro-atypical, when you’re on the spectrum. All that stuff is going to hit your buttons. And I guess you can get addicted. And at that point you go deeper down the rabbit hole.

**John:** Let’s go back to that James Baldwin quote because it is so fantastic. And there would be a temptation to use that as the dedication page, so your title page and then you put that quote and the script begins. You could do that. You can make a compelling case for that. But I think if you can find a way through your script to embody that quote you’re much better served.

So saying the quote is a nice thing on page zero. Actually manifesting that quote in your script, like no one says that quote but that idea comes across is much better use of that idea.

**Craig:** Correct. And going back to the Mazin Method, not the one for conception but the one for writing, so you can see a central dramatic argument that you can craft out of this which is it’s better to deal with your pain than to mask it with hate. Or you can turn it around and say you will never stop hating until you face your pain. Whatever it is. But it does feel like there is – that’s a very interesting way of creating a kind of synthesis/antithesis point of view about a complicated thing.

**John:** Sarah Silverman this last year engaged with somebody who was being a dick to her on Twitter and said like, “Oh, it sounds like you’re really hurting.” And that conversation really changed his mind.

**Craig:** I saw that. It’s amazing.

**John:** So we’ll put a link in the show notes to that, too. Sarah is a person I very much want to have on the show at some point because she’s so smart.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** And she sings Slaughter Race from one of my favorite movies of the last year, so.

**Craig:** So many reasons to have her on.

**John:** All right. Next Wikipedia article that I dove into. In this case I was cheating a bit. I read an article first and then I went back and looked at the Wikipedia to see what else there was about this. But so often in our fiction we talk about mirror universes, parallel universes, multiverses, the thing that shows up again and again especially in our popular culture, in our comic book culture even more so. But in the real world there’s an article here by Corey S. Powell. “Scientists are searching for a mirror universe. It could be sitting right in front of you.”

It tells the story of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Eastern Tennessee and a physicist named Leah Broussard who is trying to open a portal to a parallel universe. That makes it sound like, you know, uh-uh, the catastrophic thing she’s going to try to do. In fact, her experiment is really straightforward and smart and simple. She’s shooting a big beam of neutrons at a brick wall and if some of them get through that brick wall it is because they’ve popped out of the universe and popped back in.

**Craig:** Yeah. What could go wrong? That doesn’t sound like Stranger Things at all.

**John:** No. In fact the actual opening scene of the third season of Stranger Things. Yeah.

**Craig:** Right. Bingo. There it is. Except she’s not Russian. That’s terrifying. I mean, I know I shouldn’t be terrified. I know that in television that’s what happens. You shoot a beam at a wall and creatures come out and infest your body and take over and kill rats. In science what happens is the beam is shot at a wall and some incredibly imperceptible thing is finally picked up and someone says in theory based on this math. But there are no creatures.

**John:** Three weeks later they’ll actually have studied all the data and they’ll say, “Yes, this had a 90% chance that this actually happened.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yeah. Looking at this, looking at the general Wikipedia articles about multiverses, about mirror universes, about this sense that given what we understand of the Big Bang and cosmology there’s a compelling case to be made that the circumstances that created our universe could have created other universes at the same time, or that there may be more to our universe that we’re not actually able to see at this moment. That it’s sort of like right next door.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And scientifically that all makes sense. But on a personal level, on a spiritual level, I think we have an innate belief that there must be something just right beyond this that explains more. We always have been searching for some mysterious force that’s just beyond our reach, be it ether that is holding everything up and together. We’re looking for explanations behind the things that we can observe that don’t quite make sense. The biggest scientifically right now we have dark matter and dark energy to help explain why the universe has a mass that doesn’t match up with our expectation.

So this is right now searching for an explanation for that phenomenon.

**Craig:** But I think when we’re adapting these things, again, for film and television there’s a certain narcissism involved because we always seem to want to find another universe to help reflect back who we are. That other universe is going to teach us something. It’s either going to be a warning about what we’re going to become. Or it’s going to teach us how wonderful we could be. Or it’s going to make us confront our failures. It’s, you know, it’s always about us.

**John:** It’s about us. And it’s about the what-ifs. Like what if we were to change this one variable? So what if the Star Trek Enterprise in a mirror universe was evil? Like what if everything was flipped around? And that’s a convention that we have but I think it’s also fun to imagine ourselves in a slightly different version of our universe.

**Craig:** Well Spock would have a beard, for instance.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** There’d be more vests.

**Craig:** [laughs] Did you read Flatland?

**John:** Of course. You have to read Flatland.

**Craig:** It’s a great book. Flatland was written like early 1900s maybe?

**John:** Sounds right.

**Craig:** Essentially it’s a book about math, but it’s a very sweet book and it helps explain geometry and things like that. But there’s one moment that always stuck with me. So our character is in Flatland which is two-dimensional. So he’s a two-dimensional character. And he’s visited by a sphere. Now, he has no concept of what three dimensions are. But he’s visited by a sphere. And the sphere appears to him as this tiny dot that then gets wider as a line until it’s really wide and then it goes back again to a dot, because it’s a sphere moving up and down through a plane.

And I just thought, wow, that’s a great example of how blind someone can be if they’re missing a certain aspect. And then the sphere tells a story about how he was visited by a creature from the fourth dimension. And as I recall it’s something like the fourth dimensional creature appeared as sort of links, but the links could come apart without breaking. Because it was going through a fourth dimension that we don’t understand.

And I thought that was really cool. That part is cool. I like the idea of the promise that there’s more than we see with our eyes. That there’s something greater to aspire to that maybe one day we’ll taste.

**John:** Yeah. That sense that there’s an extra dimension that you could sort of walk through that extra dimension to get around a thing. And so Arlo Finch has a lot of that in it. So the Long Woods are essentially an extra dimension so you can move things through that dimension–

**Craig:** Spoiler.

**John:** It’s early on in the book.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** But you can move through things by going there. So I can get from point A to point B by stepping through the Long Woods and coming out the other side.

**Craig:** Well, it makes hiking a lot more pleasant.

**John:** It really does. Good views. So, in looking at the Wikipedia starting place for multiverse, for parallel universes, mirror universes, it’s just too broad of a category. You could start there, but you would need to go down many, many links to get to very specific sort of implementations of that idea to get you to either a real life scientific thing that would be interesting to pursue which could be something like this physicist who seems like she’s an interesting character, especially if she’s able to prove this thing that she’s been doing the experiment on. Or some phenomenon that is a good jumping off place for a high concept/high premise science fiction story.

**Craig:** Yeah. When I think about the movie that did the best I think with just making this the deal, it’s probably Contact, which wasn’t necessarily another universe, but they did do some weird like interdimensional kind of crap. And even that movie ultimately what does it come down to? A father and a daughter. And that’s the thing about all these stories is there is no relationship inherent in the notion of a multiverse. So when Chris and Phil and Rodney make the Spider-Verse movie that is really just a delivery system for them to create new relationships. And in that movie this crucial relationship between this Miles Morales, young new Spider-Man, and this other dimensional Peter Parker, old, grumpy Spider-Man. And that’s it. Right? That’s why that exists to create and then service relationships.

So, you’re always going to be looking for that kind of thing. I think the multiverse will always be an instrument.

**John:** Yes. An instrument rather than being the actual plot or story itself. Largely because it has no characters. It has no characters that come with it for free.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you’re going to have to use it as a background for who are the characters that are having an interesting time in this world that you’ve created.

**Craig:** Spock with a beard.

**John:** Spock with a beard. All right, so the last Wikipedia article is the exact opposite of this where you have a character, you have a person, and then it’s a question of what story do you tell with this person. So, this is the story of Lisa Ben, which is an anagram of Lesbian. She is one of the first lesbian journalists. So her real name is Edythe D. Eyde. She was born in 1921. She was basically a zine writer back before there were zines. So she created the first known lesbian publication in the world, Vice Versa, and she distributed it locally around Los Angeles.

She looks to be kind of a fascinating character in a very fascinating time. I’m not even sure why I ended up bookmarking this. I think someone had said that name so I looked it up and was like, oh, well that is actually an important person in LGBT history that I did not know of, so I bookmarked it.

But, there’s something fascinating about her. And one of the things that was kind of nice about her story is it reminded me of times before I was a fulltime screenwriter where I was an assistant with not quite enough to do. And so she was working at a record company. She had a typewriter, which was a big thing to have, and so she just started writing and typing this magazine. So she put in like 12 carbon copies and that’s how she did her first zines was just like typing them and then distributing them to people she knew.

**Craig:** It is a fascinating story. First of all, I’m grabbed by her name which is nearly palindromic. It’s so close. We’ll talk about the snaggy things, right. There were two things that snagged me. One was that she for her whole life – and it was a long life up until she retired – but for many, many years she worked as a secretary. She worked as a secretary for lots of different places, lots of different people. And this is during the ‘40s, and ‘50s, and ‘60s, which were not the most socially progressive time in America. So I’m already thinking to myself that’s interesting. I wonder what that was like. I wonder who the people were that hired her. I wonder how she maneuvered that. I wonder if it was sort of something that people knew. Did they like the idea of it? Were there men who thought, oh, this is good because there won’t be a husband to steal her away or reduce her hours here?

I’m fascinated by how that functioned. So that’s interesting. And then the other thing that snagged me was that she died utterly alone and her death wasn’t even noticed. And it was only until later that people started to really understand the impact she had. Those things are very dramatizable. And so I think there’s a very cool story here, whether it’s a movie or a short series. But what we’re talking about is one of the more invisible people in 1940s America. And the fact that she was so invisible she was able to kind of be visible. You know, so she’s sitting there, and I love the way she does this, to make her zine – she’s also basically the first, like somebody who started a zine before zines were things. She’s so cool. She would do like quadruple carbon paper and so she would type up her little zine and that was four copies. And then she would do it again. And that was four more copies, which is incredible.

And then she would circulate it at the one or two lesbian bars that were around and people knew about. And then she moved on and started writing articles in sort of a more, I guess, a real lesbian publication – a real publication for lesbians, like a real magazine. And that’s where she adopted – she wanted to be I’m a Spinster. That was the name she wanted. But they were like, no, so she went with Lisa Ben. And so there she was kind of just living her life. She had a relationship with a woman for a while until that woman spent all their money gambling.

Oh, I love that, too. You know, there’s a tendency sometimes when we’re telling stories of marginalized groups to sanctify everyone. But people are not saints.

**John:** No, not a bit.

**Craig:** Like that’s why I love – one of the great cable movies of the last ten years I think was the one that Richie LaGravenese wrote, Behind the Candelabra, about Liberace. Because he’s not a saint. In any way, shape, or form. He’s not. He’s actually a jerk. You know, I mean, he’s not a murderer, but he’s a cad. And in part, right. And I love that because that’s human.

And so here her partner spends all their money because she’s a degenerate gambler. So she ends that relationship. And just continues on living her life in the open and yet somehow not noticed. And I think that’s really interesting. I’ve never seen something like that before.

**John:** I think the setting of 1940s California, 1940s Los Angeles, is terrific. Just because it’s familiar but it’s also different. We’ve never seen it from this character’s point of view. Something about her reminded me a bit of Selina Kyle from Tim Burton’s Batman movie. Where it’s like she just is overlooked and she’s just kind of invisible. And she’s actually probably the most fascinating person in the room. And that is a great line to walk.

She doesn’t arc in this giant way where she’s like, you know, she created this thing and then she becomes a huge success. So it’s not joy where she becomes this huge entrepreneur who is self-made. It’s a small thing. And so the challenge of this movie would be to find how do you – what path do you actually show? What years do you show? What does victory or at least a conclusion look like for this two-hour story or four-hour story, however long you want this if it’s a short series to be? What are you trying to chart? And so even having a fascinating character like this at the start, you still have to do the work of figuring out where do you want to take her.

**Craig:** 100%. You would need to dig much deeper and ideally uncover one thing that’s a real event that you can work towards. That is essentially the climactic moment of your story. Because right now there isn’t one.

But if you had one, you might have something there.

**John:** So an interesting situation to talk about the Wikipedia of this all is that the Wikipedia article on this is actually really good. And really detailed. And kind of more detailed than most of the articles that it links out to. So whoever put together most of this Wikipedia page deserves a lot of props because it’s actually really well done.

**Craig:** Nice work.

**John:** So it’s linking out to books on queer history and stuff. So you will find her in other people’s books but it doesn’t seem like there’s one definitive book out there to option or buy to be like this is the Lisa Ben book.

But, Craig, let’s talk about this for a moment because let’s say you wanted to write the Lisa Ben movie or maybe many people out there will now want to write this, it’s a real question of like what would you buy to cordon off a certain point of view or entry into her story? I’m not sure there is going to be one thing.

**Craig:** I would buy nothing. There’s no reason to buy anything. If she were alive then life rights would be interesting because you could then sit with her and she could give you unique information. But she is not alive, nor has she left behind relatives as far as we know. She had no children. So at that point you’re dealing with just basically reportorial material that is available to everybody. They’re facts.

You could find people that she used to work for. You could talk to people at the magazine. You know, I assume the magazine is no longer functioning. But you could find people that were there. I think you would probably want to do quite a bit of research about what lesbian Hollywood in 1940-something looked like. Because that’s probably fascinating. For instance, there’s a bar that they call out. And you’d want to find out, OK, where was that bar. Who owned it? Is anyone still alive that remembers it? That’s interesting.

You would have to become a little bit of a detective, but no, I don’t think there’s anything to buy.

**John:** So, I had a good conversation with Guinevere Turner about Charlie Says which is her story of the women involved in the Manson murders. And in that case there was a book they ended up buying which was sort of to cordon off some rights. And yet she felt like it wasn’t really the right book to be using. So it’s a situation where she was given a piece of material that she didn’t necessarily really want and had to sort of find her own research to do the way into it.

And that can be a situation where with the Manson murders there’s so much out there that you wouldn’t necessarily need to buy any specific thing, but this producer came in with a book and so no matter what Guinevere is going to do that book is part of the chain-of-title to the project.

**Craig:** Right. And that’s something that happens a lot in these situations. Producers want to do something. They want to feel like they own something. And so they will buy a book. I cannot tell you in the wake of Chernobyl how many people have called me up and said, “We have the exclusive rights to a book that details the history of such and such.” And I think you have the exclusive rights to that book but I can read that book and use everything in it. Because it’s facts. I don’t know what to say to these people. I don’t know why you’re buying these things. I really don’t.

**John:** The only reason to buy a book about history if you are running a company or something like that is to have access to more of what the author has and also to get the book before it gets published. That I get. Because then you get a head start on all those facts that the author has found that aren’t necessarily going to be accessible to other people. But if the book has been around for seven years, the rights don’t matter. As far as I can tell it’s just facts.

So I suspect there are going to be cases where it’s not just the facts but it is a framing, there’s a storytelling aspect to how the book is put together that brings it beyond just the facts. I think of some of those books on famous murders which are very much told from a specific point of view. And in those cases I can see why adapting that book is different than adapting some other set of rights to things.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** But what Craig says is really the crucial takeaway is that facts you can find anywhere else. They’re free to go. So to make the Lisa Ben movie or to make a movie about 8chan you do not need to go after some specific book.

Now, if you were trying to make the 8chan movie and you’re trying to use this specific article or you’re trying use Fredrick Brennan’s story as the centerpiece, he’s a living person.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so you can do it without his permission and his involvement, but it’s going to be challenging. And so there can be reasons why you want to get his cooperation.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that’s a circumstance where you’d want life rights because you can then sort of say, listen, I want to know how this really happened. Just walk me through it and tell me things that you haven’t said in an article.

**John:** Another reason why you want to get some life rights is as part of the discussion you will have some language that makes it clear that they will not come after you for libel. And so libel is when you are deliberately falsely misrepresenting something about that person. Basically when you’re lying about that person–

**Craig:** It’s going to be defamation is probably what it would amount to. And that’s the thing that they’re all concerned about and they should be. You don’t want to defame people. And so when you do write things that are touchy you need to support them. And, man, I’ll tell you the lawyers on Chernobyl sometimes – I got some winners, man. I got some winners. Like someone said I was using the name of an actual KGB person and I eventually decided I would not, I’ll just sort of create a stand-in for the KBG. That’s fine.

The lawyer said do you have evidence to support your suggestion that this high ranking KGB official would have ordered false imprisonments of people. [laughs] I just thought, because he was in the KBG? Isn’t that enough? Right? We all agree KGB falsely imprisoned a lot? No, anyone?

So, sometimes in the burden of caution you make changes to protect yourself. And I get that. I understand that.

**John:** Yeah. So, some takeaway from our Wikipedia discussion. It seems like Wikipedia, we should just acknowledge, it’s a very useful place just thinking through the broad strokes of an idea as a jumping off place for exploring topics in the real world and people in the real world. It should not be your ultimate destination for the crucial facts you need.

**Craig:** Agreed. It’s a great entry hall. It’s a primer as they say. But it is not – you’re going to want to get down to the bottom of those Wikipedia pages, look at some of those sources, and then do your own work as well.

**John:** We always make predictions about which of these ideas will become movies. Craig, which of these will become a movie?

**Craig:** Well, the multiverse doesn’t count, right? Because it’s in 70% of the movies they make right now. So, I’m going to say that there will – somebody is going to tackle a chan movie, a 4chan, 8chan movie. Someone is going to do it.

**John:** I think so. I think it feels like a made-for-HBO the same way that Brexit was. Someone is going to do it.

**Craig:** Yeah. It seems–

**John:** That would be a smart person.

**Craig:** It wouldn’t be me. I don’t – it’s too big. I don’t know how to wrap my arms around the multitudes that those places contain. You know, it’s very strange. They’re very strange places.

**John:** So the Deadline article is “Chernobyl writer scared of 8chan.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Well, yes, by the way, I am. Everyone should be terrified of them. They can do stuff. No, from a creative point of view I just don’t know how to – I don’t know how to tackle it. Yeah. I’m saying don’t choose me for the job.

**John:** No. All right, let’s get to some listener questions. And this first one is related to what we’ve been talking about. Gregory writes to ask, “Can you explain the legal process on a movie like the 2016 Black List script Blonde Ambition. Madonna has said on her own Twitter page that she does not agree with the movie and that she will disown it if it comes out. Does this mean you can write a script about a famous person/celebrity even without their consent?”

**Craig:** Well you can.

**John:** You can.

**Craig:** You can. She said disown it. She didn’t say sue it.

**John:** Disown it/disavow it.

**Craig:** Disavow it.

**John:** She’s anti.

**Craig:** She’s going to crap on it in the press is what she’s going to do. And that’s fine. That’s their right. They can say that it’s a bunch of crap and I don’t like it. Your challenge when you’re making an unauthorized biopic is to not get into a place where you are defaming the subject of your story. And if they can prove defamation meaning they can show that you said something for which there is no basis then they’ll get you.

My suspicion is that if someone is going to make an unauthorized biography of Madonna that she finds offensive that a thousand lawyers will have picked through it very carefully first.

**John:** Yeah. So I’ve not read Blonde Ambition. People liked the script, so obviously it scored well on the Black List and people are enjoying it. So if that movie gets made the same kinds of people who are going to be going through Craig’s Chernobyl scripts will be going through that script to make sure that they are documenting all the stuff that has to be documented. Music rights are going to be really complicated because obviously Madonna doesn’t own everything she ever sang, but there could be situations where that is problematic.

And, of course, it’s not – in any biopic it’s not just Madonna. It’s all the other people who are in her life. They can have rights, too. And so it’s making sure that the movie is protected against all the forces that could come after it. So it’s a challenge.

**Craig:** The point you raise about the music is a really good one actually because whatever the songwriting credits are you have to go the artist for the right to reproduce the mechanical recording itself. And she’s not going to do that, of course.

So what you would have to do in that instance is only take Madonna songs where she did not have any writing credit and then re-perform and re-record them with a sound-a-like. Which is, you know, not ideal.

**John:** Doable but not ideal. Do you want to take the next question?

**Craig:** Sure. Michael asks, “Craig’s recent solo podcast How to Write a Movie was super insightful. Thank you. And his methodology is obviously applicable to narratives beyond just features, but I’m curious what kind of specific differences you might both employ when applying the Mazin Method to either the conception of a child or an episodic series? In particular how might you apply his method to breaking a pilot, season, or entire series? What would be different?”

John, do you know how to do that?

**John:** So, I’m going to take the easiest case. And so let’s say you are doing a six-episode series. I think you can do largely what Craig is describing in his sort of two-hour Pixar thing. Those same kind of lessons could apply to six hours. Where you really are – it’ll take a character from point A to point B and see them wrestling with all of those challenges, those thematic challenges along the path.

And so you’ll figure out what your stopping places are along the way, but you can look at a six-hour television project as being a long movie. And so some of the same logic can apply.

Where it’s tougher is when you’re trying to do a series where you don’t know where the end is, where you don’t know how many seasons this is going to go. You don’t know where it stops. Because what Craig is describing really does need to end because if you’re just stuck in this middle place the whole time it is not going to be satisfactory.

**Craig:** I agree. And even in a short form series like the one I just did, it’s not as applicable as it is in a movie. Because a movie you really do have to just have this very clear, crisp story from beginning, middle, and end if you’re making that sort of movie. Whereas over the course of five episodes you are in a much more elliptical narrative path. And so, yes, in the beginning, in the end you want to see some sort of closed loop and you want to feel like people grew and changed and you want to feel like there’s something that they’re all pushing against.

And I think that is something that I did to an extent. But it’s not quite as helpful. The truth is I – look, I’ve done one thing in television. I can’t formula-ize it yet.

**John:** But Craig we’ve gotten this far in the podcast, I haven’t congratulated you on your 19 nominations for Chernobyl. Congratulations Craig.

**Craig:** Oh boy. [laughs]

**John:** What got me thinking about it though was another show that got a bunch of nominations which is Russian Doll which I think probably much more so than your own show showed the kind of Mazin Method to it.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Because that is a show that she makes some progress every episode but there’s clearly – Natasha Lyonne’s character is clearly on a very deliberate arc. And it felt like there was real closure at the end of that story. The character who arrives at the end of that series is not the same character who begins the show.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. In fact, I’ll take back what I said. Because I think in part I’m a little skewed by the nature of the thing that I wrote which was based in history. But when you are dealing with something that is purely fictional like Russian Doll and you’re telling that story over five or six episodes, or I think in the case of Russian Doll it was seven, and you have to create something out of whole cloth it is useful.

And I think you can see that she is doing something like that very clearly. There’s a very clear character problem that she has that she has to overcome. So, yes. And congratulations to Natasha Lyonne who, by the way, we’ve not had on the show?

**John:** No, she’s never been on the show.

**Craig:** That’s crazy.

**John:** We’ve shared stages with her, but she’s never been on the show.

**Craig:** I feel like she’s got to be on the show.

**John:** She and that whole team are remarkable.

**Craig:** Can we get them all on the show?

**John:** Let’s get them all on the show at some point.

**Craig:** Let’s get them all on the show, because I’m obsessed.

**John:** Yeah. Nice.

**Craig:** Oh, and thank you for saying that nice thing about me.

**John:** Oh, of course.

**Craig:** I just get – because, you know, I’m definitely not used to this!

**John:** Do you want to take the question from Paul?

**Craig:** OK, why not? Paul from the UK asks, “I’m a first-time screenwriter based in the UK. Through a random discussion with a friend in LA who has a production company with a released film I’ve had a request to send my script across. I keep thinking of your No Work Left Behind episode. And whilst this person is a friend I’m naturally cautious about sending a script 5,437 miles where I then have no control.

“Registering the script with the WGA is impossible if you’re not physically based in the USA. And the script vault in the UK seems to act as equivalent but doesn’t answer the geography problem. I am very aware that this is an opening, but I need to be sure that my derriere is suitably covered in the very possible event the content ripped off. Can you please help?”

John, we can definitely help.

**John:** We can definitely help. So, Paul from the UK, send your script. Send your script to this person. To anyone listening, stop worrying about someone stealing your script and stop worrying about theft. So the very possible event the content is ripped off, it won’t be. That doesn’t happen.

You need to be like whoever wrote Blonde Ambition and actually share your script with people so that people can read it. Because it is doing you no good sitting in England where no one is reading it. What will also not do really any good is registering it with the WGA office or with Script Vault or any of those services. Those are kind of proxies for – they’re not copyright protection in a real meaningful way. I don’t even know what the laws are in the UK, but you basically have copyright when you wrote the thing. If there’s a real copyright office you can send it off to in the UK, fine, do that, whatever. But real people don’t do that very often. What they do is they send scripts to people who want to read them and so those people who read the scripts say, “You’re a good writer. I want to make this thing or hire you to write something else.” That is why you wrote that script and that’s why you need to send it.

**Craig:** Yeah. And let’s also draw a little bit of a line in the sand between your circumstance and what No Work Left Behind covers. Because No Work Left Behind is when producers or executives are soliciting writers to come and write something for them. And then ask those writers perhaps to be prepared to talk about a first act or second act or the whole story. And you may come and you may be reading off of a document you’ve written to help you get that job. Don’t leave that document behind because they haven’t paid you for it. That’s a different situation. That’s a solicitation of work.

Or if, for instance, someone says I would love to hire you to write such and such part three, but can you write the first ten pages so I could see how you would approach it? No. You can’t do that either. So that’s called writing on spec and all of that is unacceptable. You cannot write at an employer’s request something new that is derived from their stuff without getting paid.

In your circumstance, you’ve written a script. You own it. They have no rights to it in any way, shape, or form. Absolutely send it. Send it freely. Send it without concern. And hope that they love it enough to either buy it from you or perhaps hire you to do something else.

**John:** Absolutely right. I understand why people get confused by No Work Left Behind in a sense of like, oh, then it means I can’t ever give people documents. No, no, no, that’s not true. It’s only if they are asking you to write up something for them, work that should be paid work that they’re asking you to do for free. Don’t do that. That’s not a good thing to do. And that hurts everyone when you do that.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is an Instagram account by Sam Marshall called Breezeblockhead. And so I came across this from Austin Kleon. Craig, if I say Breezeblock do you know what that is off the top of your head?

**Craig:** I do not.

**John:** So click on the link and you’ll see like, oh, it’s that thing I didn’t know what the word for that is.

**Craig:** Oh, cinderblocks.

**John:** Yeah, the cinderblocks that are designed with patterns so that when they’re stacked up neatly they form walls but that air passes through. We associate them largely with midcentury modern design. I think about them a lot in Palm Springs. But they’re actually global and you see them in a lot of places. And they’re just really cool. So they’re probably one of those things that you kind of like but never really knew what they were called or why you liked them.

So this Instagram account is a good collection of what you might see there. And it will probably inspire you to just notice them more when you see them out in the world.

**Craig:** Breezeblocks.

**John:** Breezeblocks.

**Craig:** This reminds me, I believe in the second season of Westworld when we see the real world house. I think there’s a Breezeblock wall.

**John:** Uh-huh. Yeah. I mean, anything that is sort of cast concrete sort of gets you into that sort of Frank Gehry kind of space.

**Craig:** Cool. Excellent. My One Cool Thing comes from the puzzle world. You know I’m a puzzler. And there’s a great guy named Eric Berlin. I’ve had the joy and pleasure of puzzling with him on some of the more advanced puzzle hunt things that happen, like the MIT puzzle hunt. Or, no, it’s the Galactic Puzzle Hunt. I can’t remember the name. Honestly, I’m the dumbest person on the team. That’s the important thing for you to know. And Eric is not one of the dumbest people on the team. He’s one of the smartest. And he also creates daily puzzles on Twitter.

And he has a book called Puzzle Snacks which is great which is available. And he has a whole site for Puzzle Snacks which is at puzzlesnacks.com. And what I like about them is that they are a great variety of word puzzles, different kinds of puzzles, mostly centering on words. But they’re not too hard. They’re not too easy. They’re not too hard. And he also has specific ones for kids which I think is great. And he even breaks them out by age, so for instance your daughter/my daughter are both 14. So, they can kind of do the adult ones with as he puts it the occasional nudge. But if you have a kid who is 12 or 10 or eight then you can kind of gauge for that as well.

So, anyway, very cool. And he’s a great guy. Eric Berlin. So check it out. And you can subscribe at like $3 a month and you get bonus puzzles and things. So, yeah, if you’re a nerd like me, and I hope you are, check out Eric Berlin’s Puzzle Snacks.

**John:** Great. I have follow up on two of your previous One Cool Things. And so you had recommended Dig It, a puzzler for iOS. I ploughed through all the levels. I got the additional levels. I am waiting for the next level pack. It has become my go to sort of time-waster game. So thank you for that.

**Craig:** Love that. I’m still not done with it. Good job.

**John:** Also thank you/curse you for that. Also a previous one of your One Cool Thing recommendations was Lab Rat, a terrific escape room that we did yesterday.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** And it is genuinely great. And so I like that it uses the mechanics of escape rooms and pushes the form in a slightly new direction. And it was just very, very well done. So, good recommendation. And I actually got to meet one of the writer-founders-creators of that thing at a WGA event. He’s a new WGA member which is exciting.

**Craig:** Great. And how many people just out of curiosity did you take into Lab Rat?

**John:** We took in seven people to Lab Rat which was a good number.

**Craig:** Good number.

**John:** Including Scriptnotes producer Megana Rao was there. So we had a good team.

**Craig:** Fantastic. It’s wonderful. I actually went with another group and just watched them.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Occasionally if they needed a hint I’d give them a little mini hint. But it was just so much fun to watch them do it. It was great. Loved it.

**John:** So I don’t think this is a spoiler in any meaningful way but in terms of the form of escape rooms evolving in talking with the person who was running the room I said what’s the escape percentage. And he’s like, “Oh, we don’t actually think about that anymore.” We want people to experience the whole story. So we will provide hints if we need to provide hints so they can actually find their way out. And so we didn’t end up needing that many hints, but I thought that was an interesting way of approaching it is not approaching it as a pass/fail but sort of how you get through the experience.

**Craig:** Yes. It is – I’m seeing it more and more. Because there are rooms where it really is, look, you need to be smart and power through these things or you’re going to run out of time. And that’s fine. Because there’s not a huge narrative to them per se. But in some of the rooms where they’ve really invested in the narrative elements, they want you to see the ending. So, they’ll definitely kind of nudge you along. And they’re really good about it. Especially not like nudging you too soon.

**John:** Yeah. Great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alex Winder. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. That’s also a place where you can send links to How Would This Be a Movie.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. Or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And congratulations again, sir.

**Craig:** Thank you so much.

Links:

* Addiction & Mental Health Panel organized by [Hollywood, Health & Society](https://hollywoodhealthandsociety.org/about-us/overview) Wed, July 31, 2019. Follow along with the live-stream [here](https://www.facebook.com/events/801699256892361/) at 7:15pm PDT.
* [Pinboard for bookmarks](pinboard.in)
* [Wikipedia 8chan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan)
* [Destroyer of Worlds](https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/06/29/8chan/content.html) by Nicky Woolf
* [Multiverse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), [Mirror Universe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_Universe) on Wikipedia
* [Scientists are searching for a mirror universe. It could be sitting right in front of you.](https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/scientists-are-searching-mirror-universe-it-could-be-sitting-right-ncna1023206) by Corey S. Powell
* [Lisa Ben](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Ben) on Wikipedia
* [The First Lesbian Magazine](http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/queer-youth-campus-media/media/vice-versa-the-first-lesbian-m) by Erica Davies
* [Breezelblockhead](https://www.instagram.com/breezeblockhead/) on Instagram by Sam Marshall
* Eric Berlin’s [Puzzle Snacks](https://puzzlesnacks.com)
* [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 Alex Winder ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_410_wikipedia.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 411: Setting it Up with Katie Silberman, Transcript

August 13, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/setting-it-up-with-katie-silberman).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 411 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now in the past few weeks we’ve been talking a lot about the journey of a single hero. Today on the program we’re going to be focusing on two-handers, movies with two central characters. To do so we’re joined by writer Katie Silberman whose credits include Set it Up, Isn’t It Romantic, Booksmart.

Katie Silberman, welcome to the show.

**Katie Silberman:** You guys, I’m so excited to be here. This is a real thrill for me. This is like the Universal Theme Park of me. [laughs]

**Craig:** So we can get in a tram and experience what you’re experiencing right now?

**Katie:** I’m going to spend at least $250. I’m going to take a lot of photos.

**Craig:** This is so great. I’m always mystified by why people – because it’s just us. I mean–

**John:** It’s just us talking.

**Katie:** I still feel that way about scripts. Like if someone tells me that they liked a script my first instinct is how did you get it? Where did I leave my computer?

**Craig:** Why would you read a script?

**Katie:** Yeah, exactly. [laughs]

**John:** Now, you’ve also just sold a pitch to a new movie, so I want to talk to you about that whole process of selling a pitch in 2019. Because that’s a thing that used to happen a lot.

**Craig:** Daily.

**Katie:** Yeah.

**John:** Daily. And it doesn’t happen so much anymore. So you are the person we can ask about sort of what that’s all like.

**Katie:** It was so much fun. And I feel really lucky. I have experienced pitching when it’s just an idea, you know, to producers when it’s a script you want to write. I’ve been able to pitch with a bigger package. I find them both so fun. When it’s just you in a room trying to sell a story that to me is the greatest challenge of trying to convince someone to like something as much as you like it. It’s fun, too, because you get to present ideally what your job will be in the context of all these other people.

This was particularly fun because it was an idea that Olivia and I came up with on the set of Booksmart. We enjoyed working together so much that we wanted to do something else together. And so it’s been a very collaborative process getting it to the place where we were ready to take it out into the world. And then it was really fun to be able to do that.

**John:** Great. So we’ll get into concrete details about sort of how you figure that out, so that will be our third segment probably of the show. But first we always have some follow up. And so first bit of news, next week we are doing our first live show on the Internet. We are going to be doing this special panel on mental health and addiction organized by Hollywood Health and Society. We are excited to do this. This is next Wednesday at 7:15pm. You can see it streaming on Facebook. Ultimately this will be an episode that we will air in the feed, but if you want to see it happening live–

**Craig:** Live.

**John:** Live.

**Craig:** There’s video.

**John:** There’s video, too. You can see what Craig looks like, and what I look like. Which is always jarring for people.

**Craig:** What you look like or what I look like?

**John:** Just that we actually have faces.

**Craig:** Oh yeah, that we have faces. Well I remember when I was a kid I would listen to Dr. Ruth. That’s how I learned about sex. And I would listen to Imus in the Morning. This was before Howard Stern.

**Katie:** Yes.

**Craig:** And I had ideas of what they looked like. And then I saw pictures and I’m like what? What? That’s not what they look like. But they do. And this is what we look like.

**John:** This is what we look like.

**Craig:** I know. People have these weird feelings. Well, they get to see us doing it.

**Katie:** You could hire someone.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**Katie:** To be on the video.

**Craig:** Oh.

**Katie:** Whomever you wanted.

**Craig:** Oh?

**John:** Yeah, I have a voice double, so maybe he could be my voice double.

**Craig:** You have a voice double?

**John:** Yeah. It was a One Cool Thing earlier. Maybe an episode you weren’t around for. But I heard a guy on the radio I was like that’s actually my voice.

**Craig:** And a lot of people said that Charlie Booker sounded like a British me. And I listened to it because I wasn’t there for that one and he does.

**John:** Yes. He sounds like a British you.

**Craig:** Or I sound like an American him.

**John:** People thought that it was just Craig doing a British accent pretending to be Charlie Booker.

**Craig:** Some people legitimately thought it was just a long con of an episode. My British accent, not great.

**John:** We have some more follow up. So, in a previous episode I talked about Midsommar and Rodrigo wrote in. Craig, can you read us what Rodrigo wrote in about?

**Craig:** Yes. Rodrigo writes, “This may sound petty, but in your last episode John referenced Midsommar and may have done damage to an industry we are all trying to keep relevant. I planned on seeing this film but after hearing you say that you ‘liked it but didn’t love it’ I became less enthusiastic to purchase a ticket. We all want audiences to buy tickets to movies showcasing new and original content and so many from this audience listen to your show and are influenced by what you say, myself included. I only ask that you guys keep aware of your power to elevate or dilute a frenzy for audiences to go watch and support films.

“Your point you made about the film was spot on and super productive. But I think the brief one-thumb- up review may have done more harm than good. And for the record I have absolutely no affiliation with Midsommar. I just know how fickle influence can be when getting people motivated to go see movies in the theater.”

John, Rodrigo has got a bone to pick with you.

**John:** He does have a bone to pick with me and I think, he’s actually right. So, even as I said it I remember hearing myself say that I liked it and didn’t love it, and why did I add that ‘didn’t love it’? And I hear myself doing this in real life when I’m not being recorded. I’m going to stop doing it. I want people to call me out when I do it next time because it’s such a weird hedging. I don’t want to fully commit to loving something so I’m going to say I liked it/didn’t love it. I could have just said I liked it. And it’s fine to have reservations about a thing or things not working fully, but that liked it but didn’t love it is such a 2019 sort of like I’m not going to be fully invested in a thing.

Katie, do you find yourself doing that like it but not love it, or hearing it and being frustrated?

**Katie:** Yes, I mean, I’m someone who on average uses about seven exclamation points in every text message, so in general if I say I like it if people know me well enough they’re like she hated it. Because I speak in such hyperbole. I would give a slight counterpoint to Rodrigo who I respect that opinion totally, but I also – this is such a collaborative business. I really like when someone says I didn’t love it. That makes me want to see it more to see if I think they’re right. Or if I can come back at them and say I did love it and here’s why.

**Craig:** That’s interesting. I’m such a Pollyanna about this honestly on Twitter and all that stuff, anything that’s public, on this show. I just never say anything bad about – and not because of what Rodrigo is saying, interestingly. So Rodrigo is making a point like, look – and I think he may be overstating our influence, honestly. But regardless he’s saying you can actually drive people away from a movie. That’s not why – I’m less worried about that. My emotional connection to people who make things and who are suffering is so intense, and it’s so empathetic, that I never want to be an additional cause of problems.

It’s so hard to make things. It’s so hard to make things. And I am often struck how intensely we feel our own pain and then miss that other people are feeling it, too. So, you know, I try and avoid that. I think Rodrigo makes, at least it’s a good idea to avoid that. And I will say John that saying that you love something actually is an act of vulnerability.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** Because, yeah, if you say you hate something then you’re cool. And if you say you love something you’re admitting that you were touched, you were impacted or affected. And a critic, I can’t remember who it was, it was a critic writing basically saying it’s so much harder to write a good review than a bad review because you’re vulnerable.

**Katie:** Yeah. Especially in comedy I feel.

**Craig:** Oh man. Can we talk?

**John:** Well, especially, with any comedy it’s your immediate reaction to that time that you saw it, but also hedged by saying like will this hold up five years from now, or is it too timely of its moment. You kind of can’t do any of that. It’s just what is your reaction in the moment? And I think in the case of Midsommar it’s a movie that stuck with me for a long time so whether it’s a 10 out of 10 for me is less relevant to it actually had an impact on me which is kind of rare sometimes.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, you know what? Thank you Rodrigo. You’ve inspired a good self-examination.

**John:** Now, for these next two segments I need your help Katie because we’re going to talk about some WGA stuff and we could go on for an hour. And we should not go on for an hour.

**Craig:** God no.

**John:** So if you can help us out by limiting us to one-minute per topic. And then we will plow through this and not speak of it more in this podcast.

**Katie:** Yes sir. Do you want like a 15-second warning to wrap up?

**Craig:** I think it would be fun to be just surprised.

**Katie:** OK. Mid-word.

**Craig:** Literally mid-word. Just slap the word right out of our mouths.

**Katie:** OK.

**John:** And go. Now on a previous episode we talked about the upcoming WGA West elections and the news that Craig will be running for the board. That is now incorrect. Craig is running for Vice President. And it’s a change. It’s a different.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s different. I wish I weren’t running for Vice President, but I am. And so I guess the big deal is I actually agree with everything that the union is doing in terms of its fight with the agencies. I support that fight. I just don’t love the way they’re going about prosecuting the fight. And I want more of a voice to see if we can get it resolved quicker. That’s basically what I’m going after.

But there’s less daylight between me and those folks than people might think.

**John:** Now, Craig is no longer running for the board, but 21 other people are running for the board, for those eight seats that are available. So we will figure out some way to talk about this on the podcast coming up. But there will be a candidate’s night August 28 at the Writers Guild Theater. So that’s a chance for people to ask questions of all these people running for the board.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s good to see a contest back at the Writers Guild again.

**John:** I agree. Having multiple people running for things is a good thing.

**Katie:** And that’s time.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** We did a good job there.

**Craig:** Boom.

**John:** Boom. Fist bump.

**Craig:** Fist bump. It turns out actually there’s not that much to say.

**John:** All right, and go. On Monday of last week Kaplan-Stahler Agency became the first midsize lit agency to break ranks with the ATA and sign a new agreement with the WGA. Then on Wednesday three lit agents broke off from Abrams to form a new signatory agency called Ultra Creative. Those are some changes on the smaller side of the WGA.

**Craig:** And that’s where we’re seeing the changes and that’s to be expected. We know that in terms of the big four agencies it’s increasingly unlikely that we’re going to see any sort of spontaneous change like that without some sort of negotiated deal. And we also know that there are thousands of writers represented by those agencies that cannot be absorbed by the smaller ones. So this is nice to see. I encourage it. But it’s in no way indicative of a kind of permanent resolution.

**John:** That’s fair to say. There are going to be member meetings for all the WGA West folks August 7, 8, and 10. So two of those are at the Writers Guild. One of them is in Burbank, I believe. But that will be your next chance to sort of gather with a big group of people to ask questions of negotiating committee, the board, and everybody else about what’s going on.

**Katie:** And that’s time.

**Craig:** Nicely done. I had nothing else to say.

**John:** It’s the equivalent of our podcast ads. Like they have to be a certain length but not longer than a certain length.

**Craig:** I wish we did do podcast ads, but for fake things. Because I think it would be fun to do ads, I just don’t like prostituting myself for Squarespace which by the way did not give us money.

**John:** They have not given us money yet, so we need to follow up with them. We sent them a nice email, but I think some public shaming may be the next step.

**Craig:** Well the fact that I just described ads for Squarespace as prostituting myself may have limited us somewhat. But, yeah, I think it would be fun.

**Katie:** Make up a fake mattress name.

**John:** Ooh yeah.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**Katie:** There’s like 50 of those.

**Craig:** Every week we do an ad for a fake product that doesn’t exist. I think we should start doing it.

**Katie:** Create the fake website.

**Craig:** Yep. Do the whole thing. Maybe start selling some mattresses.

**John:** Katie, let’s get into it. So tell us a little bit about your origin story, because I first knew you through Dana Fox. So you were an assistant to Dana Fox, but I don’t know how you came to Hollywood overall.

**Katie:** I feel so lucky about my origin story. I think it’s incredibly serendipitous and I mostly feel lucky because I just came into all the greatest people and I feel like I benefited from that. After college I – I should say during college I decided I wanted to be a writer. The first script I ever read was Juno.

**John:** Holy cow.

**Katie:** By Diablo Cody. I know. Because my roommate had a connection and she put herself on tape to play Juno’s friend. So I read off-camera with her the screenplay. And it was the first time I’d ever seen anything in script format. And I fell totally in love with it.

**John:** So the first script you ever read was–?

**Craig:** Oscar Award winning Juno.

**John:** A fantastic game-changing script.

**Katie:** Quite literally. And a genre-builder in my opinion in terms of kind of stories about those kinds of young women. And I was so in love with it I came out during my off term from college and interned at 20th Century Fox Television during their pilot season. My job was to digitize their script library. They had an enormous closet full of physical scripts of writing samples of writers they might want to hire for shows. And they were in the process of trying to turn them into PDFs. And so my job was literally–

**Craig:** Scanning.

**Katie:** File it into a PDF maker which was extraordinary. I just read all day. And while I was there I wrote down the names of writers that I loved and scripts that I loved so that when I went back to college I decided I was not quite brave enough to come out to LA and just start trying to find an assistant job. So I ended up going to Columbia Film School to study for a little bit longer. But while I was there I cold emailed almost all the people I had found in that closet and two of the people I emailed were Dana Fox and Lorene Scafaria.

**Craig:** Wow, how about that?

**Katie:** The two nicest, most talented people in Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Legitimately.

**Katie:** And they wrote back. And they said that they didn’t need assistants at the time but they offered to be essentially pen pals and answer any questions I had which was so extraordinary.

**Craig:** Those two.

**Katie:** I know. They’re the greatest.

**Craig:** They make me feel bad about myself. I mean, honestly.

**Katie:** And then when I was at Columbia I wrote a script that found its way to Mason Novak and Michelle Newson, two really extraordinary managers who knew them socially because Mason represented Diablo. And when I signed with them that’s kind of when I followed up with Dana and Lorene and I was less a crazy person from the Internet and I felt a little more established.

**John:** But is it weird that – they were all friends. And so separately you’d written out to them and you had no idea that they’re all talking.

**Katie:** It was a crazy coincidence. I mean, I say it’s a coincidence. I was desperate to work with anyone associated with the writers that I loved. So I did kind of send things specifically to–

**Craig:** You sort of independently picked out members of the Fempire.

**Katie:** Yes. One by one.

**Craig:** One by one.

**Katie:** I tried to pick them off one by one.

**Craig:** I like this person, I like this person, I like this person. And then later on realized, oh, they’re part of the Fempire.

**Katie:** Yes. Well I knew that they were part of the Fempire. I mean, I had that New York Times article cut out in my binder. I was kind of excited about it.

**Craig:** Got it. You were very aware of the Fempire.

**Katie:** Yes. But so then I’m emailing with them. I met with them a few times when I came out to LA. And I graduated from Columbia in the fall of 2011. And the day that I landed was the day that Dana’s television show Ben and Kate was picked up by Fox. And so she had my old email asking if she ever needed an assistant to please call me. And she emailed me and said I need an assistant. It was literally the day I landed.

**Craig:** Wow. Oh, come on.

**Katie:** It was crazy. I know. And so I started working for her a few days later. And it was extraordinary, not only because as you guys know more than anyone Dana is the most generous and intelligent and just kind of inspiring person to be around. But also because the year of making that television show was condensed film school. It went from casting, to choosing the director, to shooting the pilot, to filling the writers’ room, to then following Dana as a fly on the wall all day from set, to the writers’ room, to the edit, and then watching them create those 13 hours of television. I mean, it was extraordinary. And I just loved spending time with her. And when you’re making a TV show you’re spending, as you know, 100 hours a day with whoever you’re with.

**Craig:** She’s amazing. I mean, ugh, I hope she listens to this.

**John:** I hope she does. And so people may not know that she is the basis for the Lucy Liu character in Set it Up, the monstrous boss.

**Katie:** It’s just so extraordinary to be able to turn those stories into art and share it with the world. It was funny though because to go – anytime talking to the press about Set it Up I was like I need everyone to write down that Dana is the greatest boss that’s ever lived. Because she’s kind of the only boss I’ve had outside of camp counselors and, you know, summer jobs at Urban Outfitters and stuff like that. I mean, I knew enough people with terrible stories but it’s kind of how they say that only really smart people can play dumb people. I feel like only if you’ve had the greatest boss in the world could you write a story–

**Craig:** Can you know what–

**John:** You recognize the tyranny.

**Craig:** The anti-Dana.

**Katie:** Exactly.

**Craig:** I mean, she is an endless ray of sunshine.

**John:** So Dana Fox works really hard and writes a ton. And so how much of your daily life was involved in writing and sort of getting – on a show like Ben and Kate she is going through and she might be rewriting scripts. She’s doing stuff. How much are you touching the words versus how much are you just getting life to work properly for Dana?

**Katie:** I felt very lucky because it felt very equal. It felt about 50/50. In any assistant job your job is to make sure that they are living their happiest and most productive life. And so a lot of that is the day to day jobs that they don’t have time to do, they can’t do, and making sure that life is running smoothly for them. But from the get Dana was so generous with allowing me into that process and the words process and sitting with her and talking things out and beating out episodes occasionally, scenes occasionally. The time that I was most grateful for was – because we would have a very long day. We would get to set at six and we would be there until about three and then we’d go to the writers’ room and then we would go to the edit when everyone else went home.

But sitting in the edit with her was probably the most I’ve learned in a condensed period of time. Because she’s not only a great writer, she’s an extraordinary producer. She’s now a wonderful director. And she has such a sense of story and such a sense of what the audience will be feeling. And not only watching her translate the episode, you know, the script to the episode, but seeing how you need to be able to give up what was on the page into what you’re creating, what you’re actually giving to the world. That was really, really invaluable for me.

**Craig:** That’s the real stuff, right? I mean, I think a lot of writers, Ted Elliott always used to say that screenwriting is one of the only jobs in the world where you can get paid for years and only do half the job.

**Katie:** Yes.

**Craig:** Because a lot of people, particularly in features, they write and they write and they write but they don’t go through the process of production which is when you learn so much kind of retroactively. And in comedy, which you write, you know that editing is kind of – that’s the music. That’s the final playing of the tune. And it all comes down to that. I’ve learned more about comedy in an editing room I think than anywhere else.

**Katie:** Absolutely. I mean, it’s like designing the most beautiful blueprint and you can frame that somewhere but you still have to build a house. And Dana actually taught me this, that when you finish a script, when you’re happy with a script, you take a beat and you celebrate it. Because the script is great. And now it’s the script. But then you’re going to make a movie. And you have to have celebrated what the script was and now be ready to turn it into something that’s a totally different medium.

**John:** You’re working really hard for Dana Fox, but how are you finding time to write for yourself and what is the process of getting your own scripts written while you’re working with Dana?

**Katie:** Yes. Well, I was lucky because Dana really did bring me into a lot of things that she was working on. Not just Ben and Kate, not in an official capacity, but it felt like stretching that muscle over and over in terms of talking out scenes and pitching dialogue and what not. And then when that show was over, you know, at the same time every night I was going home and noodling on my own ideas and sketching things on a legal pad.

But when Ben and Kate ended she had other jobs she needed to work on, to complete. Other feature jobs. And so she and I actually started writing those together as a writing team. And so then it felt like just a wonderful halfway house towards really doing it on my own in terms of splitting up the work in real ways and working together in a tangible way where I felt like I was really contributing as a partner as opposed to someone who is there who got to contribute every once and a while.

So, that led to more time to be able to work on my own stuff as well at home, so that was kind of the transition period where I would wake up early in the morning and write before I went in to work with her.

**Craig:** Ah, youth.

**Katie:** I know. [laughs]

**Craig:** Youth. Do you have children by the way?

**Katie:** No.

**Craig:** OK. John and I have talked many times on the show about how children basically suck the life out of you. I think it’s one of our common themes.

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** And, yeah–

**John:** It makes it impossible to do that sort of stuff that’s outside of work hours.

**Craig:** Yeah. But I do remember that there was that time where I could do that. And good for you to kind of capitalize on it.

**Katie:** It’s crazy. I feel really lucky. Even now I’m married and I have a dog, and I know it’s incomparable in terms of the time they suck–

**Craig:** Depends on the dog.

**Katie:** But to think that there was a time where writing was the priority, kind of before you have a partner, before you have anything to take care. It’s such a luxury. And I’m glad that – I think Dana helped me be aware of that at the time because she had other responsibilities.

**Craig:** She has 200 children.

**Katie:** Yeah. She has 789 kids. And 40 dogs.

**Craig:** [laughs] She does. I’ve seen them all.

**Katie:** Yes. But so that was another thing, I mean, among everything else that she taught me was to really take advantage of when you’re able to give it your full self because that’s when you’re kind of creating the muscle and the framework to then be able to hopefully continue it when you have the time.

**Craig:** I wish she had been my boss. First of all, I want Dana to be my mom.

**Katie:** Yes.

**Craig:** And then if I can’t have her to be my mom, then I would definitely have her be my boss. Because I mean talk about somebody that just coasts on positivity and gets it done.

**Katie:** Truly. It’s like someone asked Mike Nichols what the secret to a long marriage is and he said marry Diane Sawyer. And people say what’s the secret to working in Hollywood, I say work for Dana Fox.

**Craig:** Work for Dana Fox.

**John:** Dana Fox was my assistant before she went off–

**Katie:** Yes. So it all comes from this.

**John:** It does all come from me.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** But I will say that Dana was my assistant, and Rawson Thurber was my assistant, Megan McDonnell who just left the show is now writing. I never did that thing where I invited them so directly into the process. And so that kind of apprenticeship that you’re talking about is a thing that happens in TV all the time. Whether it’s the newest staff writer on a show or the writer’s assistant, they’re always there for part of that process and it’s really hard to get that experience in features. And so you had a unique opportunity with Dana to be able to do that stuff.

**Katie:** It really does feel very singular. Because you’re right, in a television show, even just by osmosis people are sitting in a room and watching how it happens so often. I mean, that’s why – not to kind of butter you guys up, but the website and the podcast is so invaluable. I remember how ravenous I was for any information as to how the process went. Whether it was pitching, or writing, or finding an agent, and wanting as many details as possible. And I’m so excited for young writers coming up now that there is such a wealth of information and places to access that information in terms of just trying to understand what it looks like before you show up.

**Craig:** You know what? I remember when I first came to Los Angeles I was an intern also at Fox Network. It was through the Television Academy. So this is 1991. And when I got there I realized I really didn’t understand anything. I had grown up and watched networks. I knew there were networks. But now people are talking about Fox Television, but there’s also Fox Broadcasting. And I realized I actually didn’t understand anything.

Well, what do you do at that point? There is no Internet. There’s no Wikipedia. There’s no podcast. Nothing. So, I went to a bookstore and I bought – Ken Auletta wrote a book called Three Blind Mice which was kind of a history of the three networks. And I read that mostly just to learn like, oh, OK, they weren’t allowed back then to produce their own stuff so that’s a production company. They deficit finance. I learned what syndication was. I literally didn’t know that there was a difference. I didn’t know why one channel had reruns and the other one–

**Katie:** Why does a channel get to air four and this channel only airs one?

**Craig:** Right. And I learned it all from a book because that was the only way you could learn in 1840.

**Katie:** I mean, I’ve never admitted this, but when I came out here for that internship I heard from someone that the writers from the Office, because this was 2007, right in the height of their popularity, although I guess it lasted for a decade, but that they used to hang out at Molly Malone’s on Fairfax. I don’t even know if that’s true. I just heard it. And I used to go there almost every night.

**Craig:** Aw.

**Katie:** Hoping to see them.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**Katie:** I guess assuming maybe they’d be writing at 9pm at a bar. Like maybe I’d see them in the middle of their process. But I was like just to be in the same city where all these people who are doing the thing that I wanted to do were actively at it was so exciting to me.

**Craig:** There’s a wonderful romance of the writer. Then you become one, you meet them all, and you’re like, ah.

**John:** Maybe not so much.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Let’s talk about the movies you actually got made though. So the first thing I saw that had just your credit on it was Set it Up on Netflix which was delightful. So congratulations on that. So it was a big hit for Netflix. We have no idea what that actually means in terms of numbers, because they will never tell us that.

**Craig:** Between one and everyone watched it.

**John:** Yeah. But everyone was talking about it and that’s when you define a hit on Netflix is it’s a watercooler conversation moment. It was just a delightfully well-done romantic comedy. And talk us through that script. And had you written that script trying to do it in another way and Netflix ended up being the buyer? What was the process of getting Set it Up set up?

**Katie:** First of all, that’s a really lovely thing to say. Thank you so much. Set it Up was so much fun from beginning to end. A very good friend of mine named Juliette Berman who is also a really wonderful producer, she and I met as assistants and at that time we’re working for two women and met on a film set. And then a few years later she was a lower level executive at a company. And I had just started writing with Dana. And she reached out to me and said she wanted to make a movie about assistants setting up their bosses. She had that log line.

And I said I love that idea. I think that’s great. So I went off and spent a few weeks breaking the story and went back to her and said this is how I would like to do it. I would like to make a real throwback kind of screwball romantic comedy. And to her immense credit didn’t say no one is buying those anymore so don’t do that. And she said, OK, that’s the movie I’d want to watch, too, so write that one and then we’ll take it out.

So, I just wrote the movie that I wanted to see and didn’t really worry about where it would end up. I was–

**Craig:** Let’s pause for a moment so that people can really hear what you just said. Because I think a lot of times they don’t quite get it. Because they think that they’re supposed to write what supposedly the marketplace is demanding or their agent or their manager or their lawyers or their friends are telling them nobody wants that, write this.

Don’t do that. Do what Katie did. Write the movie you want to see.

**Katie:** And also that’s fun. Because then you’re writing what you would want to be watching. And then your day is fun and you know you can lean into that strike zone. And if it’s a genre you love – I love the genre. I love the classics. And so it was a wonderful excuse to investigate why I loved it and the things that worked and the things that would have to change in a modern setting. And it was just a really fun experiment in addition to a fun job to take on.

I had wonderful support in Juliette and Justin Nappi who runs that production company, Treehouse. And when the script went out it was exciting because a lot of places said that they wanted to make movies like this again. A lot of places also said we love these movies but we can’t make them because no one will see them. But it was exciting at the time that it felt like studios wanted to try and take that risk. And we were set up at MGM and briefly Fox 2000 for a little while. And it was a great college try from both of those places in terms of trying to figure out a way to make the movie in a way that would make sense to them. And then everyone kind of amicably realized that was not going to happen.

And that is when Netflix stepped in. And they said the same thing that we said. Matt Brodlie who at the time was running that program said this is a movie I want to watch and so I want the opportunity to make it. And they were so supportive and so extraordinary. I mean, we described it a little bit like the inmates running the asylum in that we had so much creative control. We almost weren’t ready for it.

**Craig:** I’m kind of curious for older writers I think they still look at the theatrical release as this magical thing as opposed to being released over a streaming service like Netflix. But my daughter I don’t think really cares. I don’t think she notices much of a difference except that for one you have to drive a little bit and park.

Did you feel any difference yourself or were you like, yeah, no, it actually doesn’t matter?

**Katie:** I certainly didn’t feel any difference in the making of the movie. They feel the same wherever it’s going to end up I would say. And you know we tested Set it Up in theaters. We took it to the traditional kind of testing process. So I had seen it in theaters a few times before it was going. So even that process felt very similar. It was interesting, in the mix it’s different, in the sound mix, because you’re never worrying about the theatrical Dolby experience. That was the first time I realized, oh, this will only ever be watched—

And it was interesting too because at one point Matt reminded us, he was like, you know, you’re not in a comedy – you’re not spacing out for the laughs. This is usually going to be someone alone in their room or in a living room with two other people and you don’t have to wait for the person behind you to stop laughing to hear the next joke.

Little things like that were interesting. I feel extraordinarily lucky to have experienced both versions, kind of back to back in a way where it really is comparable. And there are huge benefits to both, and things you miss from both I think. I also feel lucky, I think romantic comedies are a genre that are really aligned with that kind of experience, which is where everyone wants to watch them anyway.

There is a thrill to seeing it in the theater with a lot of people. I mean, we premiered Booksmart at South by Southwest and that theatrical experience will probably be the highlight of my life. It was extraordinary. But there’s also a thrill in being able to tell people you’ve already paid for it. It’s at home this Friday.

**Craig:** It’s at home. No pressure.

**Katie:** Yeah, no pressure at all. And to watch it grow in ways like that as well. And, you know, internationally it’s fun I think for Glen and Zoey especially to feel like it has the equivalent of an international release that essentially only Mission: Impossible gets, but that they can travel globally.

**John:** Day and date worldwide, yeah.

**Katie:** Absolutely. And so the reach of it is really extraordinary. So, I feel lucky. There were things that while experiencing both I was like, oh, it’s maybe a little better over on the other side of the fence. But I think there are movies and there are experiences for both kind of at all times.

**John:** Set it Up is a romantic comedy and every romantic comedy is going to have those sort of two co-equal leads, or those two characters are going to be so central to everything. But I want to segue into Booksmart which also has two characters who are driving the story, who are at the centerpiece of the whole thing rather than a single protagonist.

And for folks who haven’t seen the movie, what is your short version of what the movie is about? How do you describe it to people?

**Katie:** I would describe it as it’s a high school comedy about two unapologetically brilliant best friends, girls who have been best friends for ten years in high school, who have prioritized school work, have prioritized their future, taken themselves seriously, and the last day of school realize that all the kids that they thought prioritized fun and didn’t take anything seriously were just as smart as them and got into schools just as great as they did.

And so they’re rocked by this knowledge that they were the only ones who chose, and everybody else got to do everything. And so they only have one night to prove that they also can do everything. And the night before graduation they try and fit in as much fun as possible to kind of prove to everybody that they’re just as multi-dimensional as they are.

**John:** Now, this was a script that was loved for a long time.

**Katie:** Yes, for a decade.

**John:** This was a Black List script. Emily Halpern, Sarah, Haskins, Susanna Fogel had been on this. And when you came on board what was it that made you want to do this movie?

**Katie:** Well, I think as you said the original draft that Emily and Sarah wrote was about two smart girls and a buddy comedy of two smart girls. And that was a dynamic that I was so excited about. Even when it came out. I remember when, because I used to be obsessed with the Black List, I still am, and when it came out in 2009 in college you had to pay to print every page. It was like ten cents to print a page at these public printers. And I printed out the script of Booksmart I was so excited about it, because I wanted to read it.

**John:** Holy cow. So this is 2009,

**Katie:** Yeah. So I was like tossing money towards the Dartmouth paper collection or whatever it was.

**Craig:** I hope it wasn’t very long.

**Katie:** It’s a comedy, so it’s OK.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s 95 pages.

**Katie:** Like 115.

**Craig:** Well, 115.

**Katie:** The librarian was like what is this?

**Craig:** That’s $11.50.

**Katie:** I know. I was committed.

**Craig:** That’s real.

**Katie:** And so I was incredibly excited about that. And Susanna Fogel, who is so talented, had done a big update a few years later and it was the same core idea but kind of a different context. But I was excited to both I think try and tell a story about smart girls that I hadn’t seen before, because I do think that in most movies if there’s a smart girl that’s 90% of her personality is that she’s intelligent. And I feel really lucky in that the women in my life are all really smart and no one would list that the first thing about them.

And I was excited about the potential to explore that. I was also excited to try – the high school movie is such an established structure and framework. And I felt like there was a really unique opportunity to take the archetypes that we’re used to and reveal all of them to be something more than that. Because I knew that, much like high school, when you start watching that movie you’re able to label everybody as a certain thing. And in so many great ways in high school movies they play either a comedic relief or a tertiary role that way, but I was excited to try and flip all the preexisting notions you have about these movies on their heads and reveal all that.

And mostly honestly I was excited to work with Olivia because she was attached at the time and had made this extraordinary deck and had such an undeniable and clear vision and tone for what she wanted the movie to be. She said she wanted it to be Training Day for high school girls.

**John:** Ha.

**Craig:** Ha.

**Katie:** And I was like that, I would work the craft table for. I’ll do anything for that movie. So I was really excited to be able to tackle that. And we talked a lot, too. We started developing this script right at the time of the Parkland students becoming so political and outward and so many young women, teenage girls of this age showing up in huge public ways so courageously and so bravely, both on the political spectrum, kind of throughout every spectrum. And we were really excited to try and tell a story to honor how brave and cool and tough girls of this age – what it’s like to be a young woman in 2019 which in the last three years had changed so astronomically.

And what it’s like to kind of be burying the burden of society as of now at that age and what it means. And so we wanted to celebrate how inspired we were by the women of that generation.

**Craig:** Here’s a writer-y question for you based on what you just said, because I think a lot of times when you are writing movies that are two-handers and you have two people you do start with this question of who are they/what do they represent/how are they connected with society of large/what’s their relevance? All the things you were just saying.

But at some point while you’re writing you realize, OK, but to each other they’re none of those things.

**Katie:** Exactly.

**Craig:** To each other they’re just people, so how do you – as you dig into the relationship do you start to feel like you’re shedding a little bit of the kind of concern over what they represent to an audience and start delving into what they mean for each other?

**Katie:** Completely. I mean, that’s the nail on the head in terms of how we wanted to structure it which is we talked a lot about how intense high school girl best friends are. And it’s an incredibly codependent borderline unhealthy relationship. It’s your first soulmate in a real way. But we were talking about how they’re the only person who sees all your dimensions. So that friendship gave us an opportunity to quite early on and kind of throughout the movie and the story show what the rest of the world saw these girls as. And most of the time it’s how they’re presenting themselves. You know, a character like Molly who is played by Beanie Feldstein so beautifully, she projects this intensity and this seriousness and this kind of no nonsense. And when she’s with her best friend she’s warm and goofy and funny and that’s the only person who sees that side of her. And so depicting a friendship like that in a buddy comedy you’ve got to show the interior and the exterior almost at the same time.

And that was such a fun opportunity to also right away establish this is who they present to the world and this is who they are when they’re gooey at home.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly. And you start to see them as people-people.

**Katie:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Which is fun.

**John:** Well let’s talk about the Amy character then. So Molly’s character is the prototypical if Amy didn’t exist you could still make a movie that was essentially the Molly movie.

**Craig:** This force of nature.

**John:** This ocean liner that’s going to be ploughing through here. And if this were Election then she would be Reese Witherspoon’s character. She’s the one who is just in charge of everything and clearly has stuff together. But to see the Amy character who is as smart and has very specific other things, came out as a lesbian in the 10th grade, and has no experience, in your writing process and figuring out how you were going to structure the story what were you thinking about the beats between the two characters and sort of the journey of their relationship? Sort of like what was that stake for the two of them over the course of that night? And decisions about how far to carry that out?

Because you describe it as codependence and it really is. It’s uncomfortable to watch at moments, sort of how deeply into each other’s lives they are. And you recognize that they have to find some space between each other, and yet you don’t want them to break out. So, as you’re plotting this out how are you trying to tie this into the actual events of the evening?

**Katie:** Yeah, well from the beginning Olivia and I decided we wanted to structure it almost like a romantic comedy knowing that it was a breakup movie. That as you’re saying what they really needed from each other was some freedom to figure out who they were. And so we went through and structured the story as if it were a romance but as you’re saying essentially at the beginning of the movie Amy knows that they need to be independent and Molly does not.

And so the structure throughout is Amy trying to make that happen in a way that doesn’t feel like an explosion, until Molly forces her to blow it up basically. You know, I’ll give maybe a slight spoiler alert because we’ll start to talk of some of the real plot.

**Craig:** Spoiler!

**Katie:** Spoiler alert! But over the course of the story Amy is trying to live her own life, even in small ways, saying I’m not going to go out, you go do it by yourself. I’ve gone out to one party. You keep going out to the other parties. It’s not until Molly really makes herself vulnerable at one point in the midpoint and admits that there’s something she hadn’t been sharing with Amy that Amy puts herself in the driver’s seat and decides that for Molly she’s going to continue this night out.

But I think what’s been fun is to listen to people talk about their own friendships in terms of the person who pushes and the person who maybe needs to be pushed. Because I think they both have a valid argument. I think Molly would say without me Amy wouldn’t do anything. She wouldn’t try things. She wouldn’t be brave. She wouldn’t experience things. And Amy would say you force me do everything and I would get there on my own if you gave me the time to do it.

So, that back and forth and making sure that structurally the arcs are lined up with each other in that one person realizes something before the other because the second can’t catch up in time, it’s going to come to blows almost.

**Craig:** Conflict.

**John:** Conflict.

**Craig:** Right? We talk about this. Conflict.

**John:** You need two characters who want different things. So let’s try to step back and generalize for movies with two central characters and the questions you need to ask yourself if you’re trying to write one of these stories. So you have two characters who need something from the other person. And they may already be getting that at the start of the movie, or they may meet over the course of the story and discover they’re getting this thing from each other, but they each have their own journey they need to be on and you need to find ways to structure your story so that each of them is challenged to grow into the next person they need to be and that it’s not just about the two of them going through a bunch of stuff.

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a great two-hander.

**Katie:** Yes.

**John:** Where those two characters, they needed to be together and they provide specific things to each other, but by going on this trip together they’ve both grown and changed. And in some ways it is just a single hero’s story with two heroes. You really have to think through each of them are kind of driving their own story and making sure that it really is meaningful. That you’re getting all the way through with this character’s – what they need at the start of the story and where they got to by the end of this, especially in a movie setting where it should be a one-time transformational event.

And that’s why being structured around this last night before graduation makes so much sense. That this is the only chance they’re going to get to do this thing while they’re still in high school.

**Katie:** Yeah. And I would even say, too, because I love Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. I love Tommy Boy, I think is structurally like an–

**Craig:** It’s the best.

**Katie:** –an ideal buddy comedy. Sometimes it’s that one person needs something from the other and the other needs to realize they don’t need something from the other. That’s kind of the Amy – Amy needs Molly to give her some space, and Molly needs to realize that she can’t have Amy around all the time in that same way. So I think as you’re saying break it so that each individual arc would live on its own. And ideally it’s a character that’s interesting enough that you would watch a whole movie about them without the other. But the secondary buddy is forcing them to become the best version of themselves.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think of it, when I was working on Identity Thief and I had to balance out Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy, it seemed to me that, well like from a classic point of view clearly they’re each missing a piece that the other one can provide. And they can each illuminate each other’s condition and all that.

But underneath all that, even when you’re saying, OK, well it’s a two-hander, it seems to me that of the two people one will be fundamentally different by the end of the movie and the other one will have learned something but generally is going to be the same again. Like if there is a sequel, you know that one of them will be quite different and one of them has learned but is still – like Melissa McCarthy’s character is never going to be like normal. You know, whereas Jason’s character learns something.

**Katie:** Yeah. And that’s, I mean, it’s so fun to look at – it’s the same way. Tommy is never not going to be Tommy. But he’ll have learned something and David Spade’s character will have been transformed by–

**Craig:** Spade’s character is transformed. Like he gets it. You know what, just because the outer thing looks idiotic and stupid there is some magic in there.

**Katie:** And that there’s usually someone whose worldview has been so dependent on thinking they understand that and then realizing that it’s going to shift their entire worldview.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** Here’s a difference between a two-hander versus a classic protagonist/antagonist setup is that in a two-hander generally we have POV from both characters’ point of view. We can watch scenes from either character’s point of view and it makes sense. And a good example of this in Booksmart is literally their big fight which is staged as a single tracking shot that just angles on one and angles on the other as one long take. And it’s an example of why we are seeing this from both character’s point of views.

If this were a classic protagonist/antagonist situation we’d be focused on our protagonist learning this lesson or taking this in or winning this fight. Instead we’re focused on these two as sort of co-equals trying to find their space in this place.

**Katie:** Yeah. And fight scenes are in my opinion so fun to write because you get to – it’s like a debate. You get to fully embody both arguments. And I think Molly and Amy have equally understandable arguments. I think they both – even when they make up at the end know that they’re right and that’s the most fun fight to write in my opinion.

**Craig:** I love a good fight between characters. If we care about both characters then what’s interesting is they can both cut each other to the bone and we will not hate them for it. We will feel bad for each of them. Because they get hurt. And then we also see that the person who hurt them feels bad about hurting them. Because, in fact, in reality most arguments are between people that like each other. It’s very rare that you end up in some sort of Burr/Hamilton duel on the street, right?

It’s like you have a friend and then something goes wrong and you guys get into it. And the cost of those things are people that actually are good and care for each other hurting each other.

So, I like that kind of concept of what a two-hander can get you as opposed to when you are dealing with the protagonist/antagonist, the antagonist is hurting the protagonist and we hate them for it.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** We don’t feel bad for them. Nor do we believe that they could be hurt. They don’t have feelings.

**Katie:** You’re right, though. I think the best fights are the ones where the thing that’s most devastating is the fact that they said it. Not that you hear it, but that they said it.

**Craig:** Right. That you put it in the air. And my ears heard it. And you can’t take it back. And you can see somebody wants to take it back. I love those moments. They always work.

**John:** So let’s talk about this new project you just set up. We won’t get into details of what the actual story of it is.

**Katie:** I will say it is a buddy comedy, which is why, I mean, we’ve been talking about What About Bob and Tommy Boy and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, and even stuff like Elf. They’re the most fun movies – we talked about Identity Thief a lot.

**Craig:** I don’t think so. [laughs]

**Katie:** We did. Dana and I watched – I was there when she emailed you about it because we watched it together at their old house in the Hollywood Hills. And it might have been the hardest we’ve ever laughed in our lives. We had so much fun. So it’s a buddy comedy.

**Craig:** All right. You can stay.

**John:** So it’s a buddy comedy. Same director, Olivia Wilde, who directed Booksmart. But you did the thing where you pitched to a whole bunch of buyers and a bunch of studios over the course of a day, a few days?

**Katie:** It was three days.

**Craig:** Three crazy days.

**John:** So you’re going into the room and how long does the pitch take. Clearly you know what you’re going to say. It’s been practiced. What was the process of beating out story and the pitch and then figuring out, OK, you’re now ready to go take this to places? What was the lead up that got you into those three days of pitching?

**Katie:** It was really interesting. I have done this before where it’s just the script. And that’s just you alone pacing around in a room and getting it to the point where – I mean, in general I think you get it to the point where you would write it anyway. Like that’s when I like to pitch. Because then you’re going in with the energy of I’m going to do this either way and if you’d like to be a part of it that’s wonderful. But also if it doesn’t work out you know enough about it and you’re still excited enough about it that you’ll go right in and it’s not wasted time up until then.

So, usually it’s kind of – once I feel like I have the story broken to the point where I would be ready to go write that’s when I will feel good taking it to other places. Which was the case here as well, but because I was pitching with Olivia, with a director attached, and we were both going to be producing it, it was really about pitching the movie we were going to make as opposed to the script I was going to write.

And so that was a different, equally exciting, but a different process in terms of how we were presenting it to the room as opposed to me just getting to like snap my fingers and talk about sequences.

**Craig:** Which feels a little more modern to our time. You know, when John and I were starting out you would go around and pitch an idea. And you could talk about it without anything attached, no directors, no actors, and you’d give your 15-minute or 10-minute description of the movie. And then somebody might buy it or two people might fight over it.

But the idea of going on, well first of all, you’re not just going in with a director. You’re going with a director that is part of a team that worked. So now they know there’s a team that worked. They know what you guys are going to do. It’s a movie. Now the question for them, and this is a question I think they ask all the time, they used to ask, “Well, how much money of our development fund should we spend guessing?” Now the question they have is, “Hmm, when can we put this on our schedule?” That’s kind of the question they ask, right?

**Katie:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So they’re not really buying a pitch. They’re green-lighting a movie. And that’s the consideration that I guess you make a lot easier when you’re pitching what feels like the beginning of an actual process as opposed to sort of a big guess.

**Katie:** Yes. And that was – and Olivia being able to talk about casting, about locations. She made a gorgeous visual deck that they got to look at while we were pitching the story itself.

**John:** Pause for a second. So was the visual deck something you were showing on a screen, or you had cards that showed?

**Katie:** We did not. We were very analog. Every meeting we went into there was a person waiting to hook up our AV and we were like we don’t need it, we’re so sorry. And instead I just went to Kinko’s every morning at 7am and went to their color printer–

**Craig:** 10 cents a page.

**Katie:** Yeah. It’s much worse than Dartmouth. The color printer at Kinko’s I was like now we really have to sell this. Yes, so we handed them something that they could look at in that concept. But it was so much fun because we, you know, we love each other and we had so much fun breaking the story. And we took it out to pitch as previously when we were ready to do it. We were ready to make the movie. And so the experience was, even though it was a long experience, it was getting to go into rooms and tell them about something that we were just giddy excited about. And we knew we were going to do regardless.

And so then it also felt a little bit like figuring out what vibe felt best for us.

**Craig:** Well, right. So at that point you’re not pitching them, they’re pitching you. And I think they can smell that. I mean, look, there’s a lot of things that they, meaning studio executives, can’t do, like write scripts. But there are also things that they can do really well, like sense in the air what their position is in terms of power and potential. And I think sometimes they just know, right, so they’re coming in, this is what they just pitched. This is who is pitching it. I know they’re pitching it at other places. This is definitely going to be a thing. And now I have to convince them.

And that’s when you know you’ve got them.

**Katie:** That’s, again, very kind to say. But I do think 98% of it, too, is just how much we loved it. Because if everyone had said no thank you, here’s your valet ticket, please don’t take the water bottles, we would have gone home and just done what we’d been doing every day which is beating through scenes and making each other laugh and talking it out that way. So it’s like how you end up playing hard to get best when you actually are too busy to go on a date.

**Craig:** When you’re actually hard to get.

**Katie:** Exactly. Exactly. So it was fun. And, you know, Dana gave me some wonderful advice, too, in terms of pitching. Because the previous times I’d taken scripts around to pitch I had not made any movies. And so it really is a song and dance of you pitch everything. I would throw in lines of dialogue. There was so much tonal stuff I added to try and get them to understand the kind of comedy it would be. And I was ready to do that again this time. And Dana was the one who kind of had to remind me that you’ve established a tone and you don’t need to pitch every line of dialogue in that same way. You can just tell them what the movie is going to be in a more macro sense and they’ll be able to fill in the blanks.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Did you practice pitch to Dana or anybody else?

**Katie:** We practice pitched with each other. I think we both practice pitched to a few people maybe on the side when we had time to kill, like over the phone I practice pitched to my mom, I practice pitched to my husband. But not in any official sense I think because we knew that because we’re such good friends and because we have a conversational manner the more we practiced the more it would feel formal. And we wanted to come in and say like, OK, this is what we’re excited about, here’s the movie.

**Craig:** Totally. Even the act of feeling rehearsed will indicate to them that you’re scared. Because that meant you worked on this really carefully. And you’re right. The best way is to walk in and go, “So, anyway, check this out. Oh, did you not understand it? Did you not like it? Cool we’ve got somewhere else to go. We can go grab a coffee before we go sell this to a competitor.” That’s kind of the attitude.

**Katie:** It’s also I think – someone, I forget, I wish I could remember who said this. But someone said the best way to pitch is to act like you’re trying to convince your friend to see a movie that you saw last night.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Katie:** Maybe you guys said it actually.

**Craig:** I think we might have.

**Katie:** You can cut that out and give me full credit.

**John:** [laughs]

**Katie:** Those geniuses. What geniuses said it? And that’s how we thought about it the whole time. But to do that you have to know the movie well enough.

**Craig:** You have to have seen the movie in your head.

**Katie:** Exactly. So it has to seem casual but it can’t be casual. And I think a lot of my confidence came from knowing that it would be maybe a more broad strokes pitch, but any question that they asked I would have the answer to.

**Craig:** You’d have the answer. Right.

**Katie:** Because I think if I had only had the broad strokes and then had to in the room scramble to figure out what the answers were it would have been like an Albert Brooks flop sweat.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** And so the process of going into that room and describing the story is the same for any kind of pitch, but it is a little bit different when it’s your own original thing where there’s multiple places you could go versus coming in to pitch on a piece of property that somebody owns. Because then I’m just like, OK, here’s a thing that you already have and I need to convince you that I’m the right person to adapt that thing that you have.

It is exciting when it’s like and I’ve got another meeting in an hour so I’ve got to go. And I’ve not enjoyed my TV experience all that much, but one of the things I kind of did enjoy was going out and pitching to the three networks in a day because it’s like–

**Craig:** Those days are great. I mean, I remember going around with Lindsay Doran when we were pitching the adaptation of the book Three Bags Full which ended up at Universal. And it was just magic because it was that kind of deal where you knew like, look, we’re doing it anyway and we’ve got this. So jump onboard or don’t jump onboard. But you feel like for once you’re driving.

The thing about coming and pitching on their stuff, it’s actually just auditioning.

**John:** It is. It is.

**Craig:** You know, it’s just a totally different thing. You’re already there wanting. You know, and really when you have something terrific that you’re bringing out you’re kind of saying you’re going to be wanting.

**Katie:** Yeah. And when you’re pitching on property they own they’re the ones with three dates lined up after this.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Katie:** And you’re the girl coming out of the limo trying to impress them on the first night so you don’t go home. And this way you get to–

**Craig:** I feel like that all the time. I do.

**John:** Let’s see if we can answer some listener questions. Frederico wrote in with a question asking, “What are some of your suggestions to make a protagonist who is in a situation he or she can’t control feel more active? It’s not an uncommon note to get. Sometimes a series of unfathomable events drive the narrative forward rather than the realization of a personal arc as in 2001: A Space Odyssey.”

**Katie:** That’s such an interesting question. I would say I feel the most active sometimes when things are out of my control because I’m trying to find a way to respond to it. So, I think a character making decisions responding to something out of their control, how they respond to it, as long as they’re not letting things happening to them and then waiting for the next thing, something out of their control can instigate numerous different responses in terms of, are they fighting against it. Are they trying to find a way out? How many versions of a way out are they trying to find? So I think it’s an exciting opportunity to show what they do in those times of crisis and very rarely are people sitting around waiting for the next thing out of their control.

So I think kind of like a rat in a maze, whatever they do when they get to that end that’s blocked off and how they figure out how to back out of it can be I think as interesting as if someone is in the driver’s seat.

**Craig:** Yeah, I agree. I’m not really sure what Frederico is hung up on here, because that’s most everything. Most stories, things happen to you. I mean, nobody was controlling whether or not the Titanic was going to hit the iceberg. It’s how you deal with them. Your action is how you respond to changes in the world around you. And it’s almost necessary for some things to be out of your control, otherwise you’re not really in any kind of crisis. You’re determining everything. So–

**John:** I would say there’s going to be some macro events that are way out of the character’s control, but as a writer you’re trying to establish story drives that are within their control as well. So their interpersonal goals. What they’re trying to do on a smaller level, making sure that you’re setting those things up well enough that you can see progress and you can see them making choices that are hopefully fulfilling those smaller things.

Because Titanic, you know, boat hits an iceberg, but the actual movie is about all the characters doing the things that they’re doing and the choices they’re making in that time.

**Craig:** Making plans is always good.

**Katie:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If a character makes a plan you can screw the plan up as the writer, and you probably should screw the plan up, but it’s a sign that they have a goal. And humans are planning creatures. I always just go back to what’s normal. Like Frederico just ask yourself what would you do? When we are in trouble we immediately start planning, so yeah.

**Katie:** I mean, Titanic is a great example because you not only can’t control the iceberg but you can’t control that you’re down on the lower decks and the person you love is up with her fiancé and he’s trying to put her on a boat. All of that is out of your control. What do you do about that scenario?

**Craig:** With that guy with a gun.

**Katie:** Ugh, Billy Zane.

**Craig:** Billy Zane.

**John:** Billy Zane.

**Craig:** I make my own luck.

**John:** Let’s try one more. Craig, do you want to ask Cameron’s question?

**Craig:** Sure. Cameron asks, “I’d like to know how you go about the character prep and research? That is to say knowing who your protagonist is, their background, the people around them, and how that will play out in plot? I’m curious how much you plan and how much you like to discover on the fly?”

**John:** You’re a perfect person to ask this question of. So, let’s go back to Set it Up. And so how much did you know about each of those four central characters right at the very start of this? How much was discovered in the writing process or while you were in scenes?

**Katie:** I really like to over-plan. I like to have more information than necessary times a thousand. So I made pretty long and detailed character biographies for most of the main characters. For Harper and Charlie, the two assistants, for the two bosses. And for most of their friends. I also think tonally it’s helpful sometimes to put even little jokes for yourself in there. When they lost their virginity, what their worst breakup was, their worst vacation. Little things like that so you have in memory for when other things come up.

Then I think once it’s cast you redo all of that. Or you redo as much as you need to and you refine it to the person who is actually playing the character. So some of those background stories will occasionally pop up, whether it’s if you need an alt or dialogue or when you’re talking with the actor for me. And some are just for you.

Occasionally I use things I came up for one character in dialogue in a whole other script if it’s just a story I like or something came up. But I always like to overdo it and let it inform the tone of how they’re talking about everything else later.

**John:** So that’s helpful for you and it’s not busy work. Because I think sometimes I worry about people who do extensive character write-ups. They’re trying to stall and get themselves out of writing. And clearly that isn’t for you. For you it’s part of the process of discovering the character.

**Katie:** Yes. My busy work is like going to Staples and finding a better pen than the one I’m using now and a better notebook and which notecards will best–

**Craig:** Notecards!

**Katie:** Kind of infuse me with – that’s my version of busy work. But, yeah, I mean, I find it helpful in terms of letting it infuse everything going forward. Because I think also if you give yourself a day to say, OK, I’m just going to spend all day working on one character and their background and practice their dialogue, then maybe you will come up with something that makes you laugh unexpectedly that you’ll end up wanting to put in later. So I tend to do it – once I know I think in general what I’d like the arc to be then I go back and figure out, OK, who do I want it to be.

**John:** You just said the phrase “practice their dialogue.” More on that. What do you mean by that?

**Katie:** I love to – once I kind of feel, this sounds very writerly in a way I don’t usually identify myself with, but I feel like once you’ve written maybe five or ten pages of dialogue that’s when you know who someone is. And so before I start writing I’ll practice things, whether it’s them calling Time-Warner and trying to change their service. Them calling their grandmother on their birthday and checking in on that. Them interacting not necessarily with characters I know I want to have in the story but how they would deal with all these – with my friends who I know what they sound like and how this person would talk to my friends.

I’ll do that maybe ten, 15, 20 pages of dialogue. And once I feel like I get a sense of what makes me the happiest or what makes me laugh the most about the way they speak then I’ll feel like I know the core of who they are, the way they’ll react to everything else.

**Craig:** That’s great. You know what? I do this, too. And I think actually, Cameron, there’s two different things you’re asking about. You’re asking about character prep and research. Research is where I think people can start to hide. It depends on what you’re writing. I mean, if you’re writing something that’s historical obviously there’s a lot of research to do. But even then that research is very – it’s about facts and context. It’s term paper stuff, right?

But character prep is different. So, Katie, you write it out. And the movement of fingers on keyboard is really – you’re helping your mind write a person. You’re starting to build a human being. You can do this taking a walk around your neighborhood. You can do it daydreaming in the shower. But the practicing of dialogue, the talking like that person, you begin to become a person and you find their rhythms and what they sound like and what they would and wouldn’t say.

All of that is essential to preparing for the moment you then do it for real.

**Katie:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Otherwise, because I know, when he says how much do you like to discover on the fly? As little as possible.

**Katie:** Totally.

**Craig:** I’m open to it. Always. But I don’t want to rely on the fly revealing anything.

**Katie:** Yeah. It’s a treat if something pops up but you can’t be depending on it.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Katie:** Another trick that is really fun that I do sometimes is if there’s a movie that I love as a comp for what I’m working on or something similar I’ll practice writing by inserting a new character into that scene and the way they would react to that.

**John:** Oh wow.

**Katie:** So like for example something like What About Bob or Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, those are very specific tonally and it might not even work if you’re doing a buddy comedy because those are so kind of nailed and in the world that they’ve created, but figuring out how they would interact with other characters you really like just because anyone – that’s why I use my friends, too. I know their voices better than anyone. So I know how they’d always react to something and then it’s a matter of figuring out how someone new would.

But sometimes a character is so well-established that it can be a good litmus test. You know that voice well enough to then see how it would interact with other things.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is the Alamo Drafthouse in Downtown Los Angeles which just opened this past week. That’s where I saw your movie. It is a great place to see your movie.

**Katie:** I’m so excited.

**John:** And see other movies, too. So for folks who don’t have a Drafthouse near them, they have food in the theaters. They have beers. They have cool things that run before the shows. This one in Downtown Los Angeles also has a video store where you can check stuff out for free. There’s games you can buy. It’s just a really good space.

**Craig:** So hip.

**John:** So hip.

**Craig:** So hip.

**John:** So if you are in the mood to see a movie and you live in Los Angeles it’s worth it to take one trip down there at least see the Alamo Drafthouse. It’s really nice. And if you’re someplace else that has them, like this is old news John. Why are you bragging about this one?

**Craig:** Well, it’s good that we have one because I only knew about the one in Austin. So, great. I’ll check it out. My One Cool Thing this week is a One Cool Person. And I would like to just acknowledge Jennifer Burt. So for people who don’t know Jennifer Burt works at the Writers Guild. She has been working at the Writers Guild for, well, at least since 2004, because I remember meeting her then when I was on the board then.

And Jennifer Burt is in charge with coordinating all of the election stuff. So especially in an election like this one with how many people are running?

**John:** 21 board candidates.

**Craig:** 21 board candidates and whatever seven officer candidates. Everyone’s statements. Everyone’s photos. Everyone’s list of service. All of it has to be in on time. It all has to be prepared and go into the booklet. It is all governed by these rules. And then there’s election laws and labor laws. And she does it all.

And so I just wanted to acknowledge Jennifer Burt because she is like an unsung hero of the guild that keeps the machinery of our democracy spinning smoothly.

**Katie:** I can’t wait for one of the elections in my life to be down to single digit candidates.

**Craig:** Wouldn’t that be fun?

**John:** It would be so nice. Katie, what’s your One Cool Thing?

**Katie:** This is so exciting. My One Cool Thing is technically Two Cool Things, but it’s really One Cool Thing. There’s a restaurant that is relatively in the arts district called Lupetti which is a delicious pizza restaurant. And this place has a secret vinyl listening bar in the back that I have recently discovered. And you knock on a little secret door and you walk in and the entire place is designed for the best olfactory – is that the word I’m looking for?

**Craig:** Olfactory would be smell.

**Katie:** Yeah. Well it smells great, too.

**Craig:** I would go auditory.

**Katie:** Auditory experience. Please don’t cut that. I want everyone to know.

**Craig:** People need to know what happened here.

**Katie:** People need to know both definitions.

**John:** People need to know.

**Craig:** People need to know.

**John:** What is the cost of lies?

[They all laugh]

**Katie:** The vinyl listening bar is called In Sheep’s Clothing and during the day it’s a beautiful bright coffee shop essentially that’s terrific for writing and the entire space is designed for the best listening experience. So the walls, and the ceilings, and everything. They play great records. And it’s a wonderful place to write. And then at night it becomes a cool little bar.

Because the two things that keep going while writing are usually pizza and music.

**Craig:** Pizza music.

**Katie:** And so this is a full combination of both of them.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Love it. Katie Silberman, thank you so much for joining us on this show.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Katie:** You guys, this was so much fun. Thank you for having me. It’s going to be like Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. You’re going to come back and I’m going to be living in this studio for the next two weeks.

**Craig:** I’m OK with that because we’re at John’s house. So it’s perfectly fine.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Mackey Landy. 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 like the ones we answered today. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Are you on Twitter? Are you a Twitter person?

**Katie:** I am. I don’t use it very often. But it’s @katiesilberman.

**John:** All right. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

Folks do recaps on Reddit so you can check out the recap there. And back episodes of the show are at Scriptnotes.net or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Katie, come back any time.

**Katie:** I’m so excited. Thank you guys for having me. I’m a big fan. So this will be the only one I don’t listen to.

Links:

* We’re hosting a panel on Addiction & Mental Health organized by Hollywood, Health & Society Wed, July 31, 2019, 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM PDT. Watch the [Facebook livestream](https://www.facebook.com/events/801699256892361/) starting at 7:15pm PDT.
* [WGA West Unveils Officer Board Candidates](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/wga-west-unveils-officer-board-candidates-1226520)
* Wednesday, Aug. 28 Candidates Night at the Writers Guild Theater
* [Member meetings](https://my.wga.org) August 7th, 8th and 10th
* [Booksmart Reunion Olivia Wilde Katie Silberman New Project Universal Pictures](https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/booksmart-reunion-olivia-wilde-katie-silberman-new-project-universal-pictures-1202159802/)
* [The Alamo Drafthouse Downtown LA](https://drafthouse.com/los-angeles)
* [Lupetti Pizzeria](https://www.lupettipizzeria.com/) and [In Sheep’s Clothing Hi-Fi Record Bar and Cafew](https://www.insheepsclothinghifi.com/)
* [Katie Silberman](https://twitter.com/katiesilberman) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Mackey Landy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_411_setting_it_up_with_katie_silberman.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 409: I Know You Are But What Am I? Transcript

July 25, 2019 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Oh my god. My name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 409 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast it’s another round of the Three Page Challenge, where we take a look at three pages from scripts our listeners have written and give our honest feedback. We’ll also be discussing to what degree our characters should have self-awareness and answer some listener questions about meddling actors and producers.

**Craig:** Ooh. Meddlers. Love meddlers.

**John:** Now, Craig, just to save the people at Deadline some time is there going to be anything in this episode that they’re going to want to do a transcript of and pretend that it’s an exclusive article.

**Craig:** Well, I wish they would do a transcript of this part where I say, “Deadline what are you doing?” I mean, we literally said – so in our last episode you and I had a conversation about the WGA and the agencies and the fight that’s going on between them and we both predicted that Deadline would just life the transcript of it without permission and print a whole lot of it, reprint a whole lot of it without permission, nor would they call us to even ask for comment or follow up or insight. They would simply just copy it over and turn it into an article.

And they did. Except they did something else. They called it an exclusive.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m sorry, how is this an exclusive when we put it out there to the world already?

**John:** Yeah. So, a free episode that had dropped hours earlier is now an exclusive because you typed it up a little bit I guess.

**Craig:** And sort of pushing the boundaries of free use? Like can they go ahead and just publish the transcript of our entire show?

**John:** I don’t see what would be stopping them. So, yeah, I just don’t think it was cool.

**Craig:** No. It’s just not. It’s gross. It’s gross. Not like you and I are necessarily running to talk to trades at any given point, but you know Deadline come on. We know you listen, so like this is the second time. Can you please just cut it out? It’s weird.

Also, the characterized the entire thing as a debate. No it wasn’t.

**John:** No. It’s just us talking.

**Craig:** Which we’ve done 408 times. [laughs]

**John:** Yes. That’s what this show largely is is a dialogue between me and Craig and we don’t always agree on everything but that’s sort of the nature of why you want two people talking.

**Craig:** Weird, right?

**John:** Nuts. I mean, we did innovate the form of two people having a discussion, so.

**Craig:** Correct. Well, we may have actually innovated the form of two people talking about this topic without being dicks to each other. We may be the only ones. I don’t know. It’s nice to model good behavior, how about that?

**John:** That’s what we’ll try to do is some good modeling of good behavior today. And actually it fits very well with a lot of the things we’re talking about in today’s episode including the exclusive breaking news that we’re actually hosting something new. So, we love to do little live events and we’re doing a new panel. This is on addiction and mental health. It’s organized by Hollywood Health and Society. We are going to be talking with showrunners and mental health experts about portrayals of mental health and addiction in film and television. Really looking forward to this one. It is Wednesday July 31, 6:30 to 9:30pm. It’s going to be at SAG on Wilshire. It’s a free event but there are not a lot of tickets left. If you really want to come in person and see this thing and ask questions you can join us – the email address you email to is hhs@usc.edu. But for the first time, Craig, you and I will be streaming this live apparently on Facebook. So people who are not physically in Los Angeles can also see us have this conversation.

**Craig:** Well, I’ll trim my beard. This is wonderful. I’m so glad. And this was entirely your thrust here. You’re very smart to kind of contact these people. You and I both have enormous interest in this topic. Look, we’ve been talking about mental health issues with writers, going all the way back to our famous episode 99 I believe with Dennis Palumbo.

**John:** Correct.

**Craig:** Doing a series about mental health is something that I’m contemplating anyway doing. So, I’m fascinated by the portrayals of it in film and TV. And I’m not – you know, I’m not one of those people who gets real fussy and angry at television and movies for getting things somewhat wrong. I don’t really go on the outrage boat too often. And so it’s not that I get upset about the way that mental illness is portrayed in media as much as I’m just missing the truth. Because I’ve never really seen the truth of it. Because the truth is actually kind of hard to get across. It’s not simple.

So I’m really interested in this discussion and I’m glad that mostly we’re going to be hearing from experts rather than insisting to people that I am an expert, even though of course I am a doctor in a number of fields. Credentialed, just not by any state.

**John:** Absolutely. Credentialed in your own mind.

**Craig:** Correct. [laughs] Self-credentialed.

**John:** That is the definition of good mental health. Yeah, I’m looking forward to this conversation, too, both about how to portray things realistically, but also responsibly. And sort of what the line is for us as creators of content that the world sees, how do we do the best job we can do about portraying those things on screen? So I’m looking forward to this conversation very much.

**Craig:** Ditto.

**John:** Ditto. Now, we have our follow up on our last sort of live thing which was understand your feature contract. That was an event we did at the Writers Guild where we talked through what a screenwriter should look for in their contract. We got two pieces of follow up from that. So, Craig, do you want to start us off?

**Craig:** Sure, Alex asks, “Is there any chance that John and Craig can do a similar episode for TV, episodic contract, development, and/or overall deals? I’ve been a working TV writer for 15 years and I still have no idea what most of my contracts say. Specifically I tend to get confused about the different definitions of profit participations. Points can mean so many different things and it’s different for TV than film. And also the difference between that and residuals. How ‘locks’ work in development.

“There are a million other things that I will never understand, but I don’t actually know enough to know what’s significant.”

Well that’s a great question and there are a lot of tricky weird things in those TV contracts. I have no idea why we wouldn’t want to do something like that.

**John:** So the guild actually did the same kind of event that we did for features the week before. So they did understanding your TV contract. But I think it’s a good thing for us to do on the show at some point. So let’s make it a goal to do the same kind of thing for TV contracts because here’s a situation where I just genuinely don’t know how a lot of this works. And you don’t really either. You’ve not been through those things.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m just learning. I mean, the only experience I have is my contract I have for Chernobyl which was kind of a single author limited series thing. And I do have an overall deal at HBO. Hey, Deadline, would you like that to be an exclusive? Would you like that? It’s not exclusive. I just reported it. Everyone knows it know.

And so I understand the basic workings of that. But we do need to dig into this and study up on it because – and we don’t want to get into this on this episode but Disney and specifically Disney+ is essentially challenging the entire way that profit participation in television is going to work. And that goes directly to this question that Alex is asking about points and how they can mean so many different things. They can also mean a whole new thing that they are proposing. So lots to dig into there.

**John:** Absolutely. And so I think whenever we do this thing we will have me and Craig there, but we’ll also have some experienced TV writers who have been through it all. Because as I have those conversations for WGA topics about this unique thing they’re facing I’m having to do so much catchup work to figure out what even is the current situation so we can anticipate what the next thing is. And so, yes, I think it’s really crucial. But the nuts and bolts of understanding what your existing contract is like is also crucial.

**Craig:** Correct. Agreed.

**John:** Cool. Also about that same episode we had a question from Sarah. She asks, “About annotations, when more than one writer works on a true life story that requires annotation who does what? Does each writer need to annotate everything relevant in their draft or only what they personally added? I’m the last writer on my current project. Being the third of three writers. And the first one who wrote in the initial draft in a foreign language was a decade ago and doesn’t even speak English.”

So, Craig, your experience with Chernobyl you were the only writer so you did all the annotations. What do you suspect is the best practice for multiple writers when coming to this situation?

**Craig:** Sure. If you’re coming onboard a project that is going to require annotation, it’s based on reality and research, and you know that you are not the first writer, and you also know that per your contract you’re responsible to turn in an annotated draft, it is fair and reasonable for you to ask that the provide you with the annotation to date. And that you are only responsible for all annotation from this point forward.

If they say well we don’t have an annotation for this draft then they have to waive that responsibility for you. It cannot be your responsibility to annotate other people’s work. They, your employer, are the legal author of that work. It’s their responsibility to have that for you when you come onboard. But in terms of everything that you write from that point forward, yes, you should be taking care of the annotation.

**John:** Absolutely. And so I think this is a situation where if you are the third writer on here you’re not going to know where everything was before this, so Craig’s suggestion that they need to provide all that stuff up to that point is crucial.

I think fundamentally there’s going to need to be some fact checker, maybe some third party who is going through this one more time to really make sure that all these things are verified because you won’t know everything that was there.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I should add I don’t know if there’s still seats available, but I am going to be doing a seminar at the Writers Guild about research. And it will cover annotation as well. For those of you that are working on projects that involve research and are wondering how I tackled that for Chernobyl or how you might tackle something like that for your project it’s going to be Wednesday July 17 at the guild in the 1A conference room on the first floor, which sounds lovely.

And it will be from 7 to 9pm. Please arrive no later than 15 minutes prior to the event. And that’s at the Writers Guild. And I will be bringing with me at the very least one of our research associates, a professional researcher named Mimi Munson who will talk about research in general. So a good thing if you are tackling that stuff.

**John:** Possibly could we send Megana Rao over there with a recorder as well so that we can have the audio for that?

**Craig:** I insist upon it.

**John:** Fantastic. Sarah also has a second question about the Start Button. She writes, “I’ve just been commenced to write a pilot based off a signed certificate of authorship, but my long form contract probably won’t be finished for months. So do I use the Start Button now and file the short form contract I have?”

That’s an easy answer. Yes. So if you’re writing a pilot hit that Start Button, send in what you have, send in the long form contract when you have the long form contract. Craig, you just this past week provided me some really great feedback on a situation you were having with the Start Button. It continues to evolve, so thank you for that.

**Craig:** No problem.

**John:** It gets better because people use it. So, the default should be like, yes, you should use it with whatever information you have. It’s helpful for you and for the guild to understand what’s going on.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I should say that – because Sarah says that signing a signed certificate of authorship is sufficient in television to get paid as opposed to features, honestly in my experience it has also been sufficient in features, although I know in some cases it’s not. The certificate of authorship is usually like a two-page document, so you might think do I need to file it. Yeah, because it’s at the very least providing the studio proof that you are writing it and they’re the legal author of it. That’s what allows them to release the money. And that is important for the guild to know at the very least so they can say, OK, so the chain of title and all that stuff begins here.

**John:** Yeah. So do it. All right, so let’s get to our marquee topic for today which is self-awareness. So this morning I was walking my dog and listening to the latest episode of Trumpcast and so Virginia Heffernan was talking with a psychiatrist named Bandy Lee about how a professional assesses somebody’s mental fitness, not just for being president of the United States, but for any situation that requires decision making. So it’s not trying to give a diagnosis of what’s going on, but basically regardless of what’s going on can this person actually do the task for which they are assigned.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So some of the characteristics that a psychiatrist would be looking for would include the ability to understand and integrate new information. To not react exclusively emotionally. To plan beyond the short term. To consider multiple scenarios. And to recognize that they might be wrong. The awareness that their assumptions could be incorrect.

**Craig:** That’s a chilling list, my friend.

**John:** Absolutely. A chilling list for someone who has–

**Craig:** Who has none of those things.

**John:** And has access to our nuclear weapons.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So that is not what we actually want to talk about, specifically him, but it got me thinking about our heroes and our characters and specifically the kind of things you were talking about in your solo episode, talk about thesis and antithesis, and to what degree our characters can be a little delusion. Delusional at the start of the story but actually some of the progress they need to make is towards achieving self-awareness. So I thought we might spend a few minutes talking about self-awareness in terms of our characters, our heroes, and also our villains, and the degree to which we want our characters to have insight or achieve insight over the course of the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, we have a traditional desire, and again in traditional narrative, for characters to develop. And certainly Hollywood movies are built around the notion of character arcs and character development. This is a big thing with them. But really what it comes down to is just sort of mirroring what we hope might happen to us in life. We are not perfect. We will never be perfect. That means every moment of every day we are less than optimal. Which means every moment of every day there’s an opportunity for us to grow or improve. That implies that we walk around with these thinking flaws. And the less we are flawed the less real we seem when we’re creating characters on film. And the more narrowly we are flawed the less we seem like real people. Because real people’s flaws are actually kind of integrated and complicated.

**John:** Yeah. I’ve decided now I’m always going to think of this classic hero, so the classic hero of a Pixar movie, but also the archetypal hero as the Joseph Campbell/Craig Mazin hero.

**Craig:** Oh, great.

**John:** And by that I’m defining the hero at the start of the story has a flawed vision of who they need to be. Sort of like they have a flawed vision of themselves in a way. So we’re going back to Marlin in Finding Nemo, he has a flawed vision of sort of what kind of father he needs to be. And that over the course of the story they are challenged and eventually learn after great difficulty to embrace this new vision for themselves. And that is a degree of self-awareness or a degree of self-actualization which feels very much in keeping with that kind of classic hero’s journey that they return to a place transformed.

And they cannot have the ability to do that transformation until they’ve left and come back.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a sense that all of us are cradling something that’s broken. We like to think of the mental aspect of ourselves as wildly different than the physical aspect because it’s how we think and imagine it feels different, but in so many ways just as the body will begin to protect a tender spot, the psyche will protect a tender spot. And through the protection of those things you have a chance to heal.

The problem is that some people just never move beyond the protection and it goes from a healing process to a semi-crippling process. I mean, if I twist my ankle they’re going to say don’t put weight on your ankle. That’s a great idea for a while. If you never get out of your chair again you have crippled yourself out of the fear of this injury being reinjured, right, or re-hurt. You don’t want to experience that pain again. You’re so frightened of that pain you don’t want to do it.

Well, that extends similarly to the psyche. And a lot of times when we meet characters we’re looking at people who have done an actually rational thing which is protect something about themselves. The problem is it’s become dysfunctional. It’s no longer actually serving a purpose other than limiting them. And that the wound is not so much the wound, it’s the fear of the wound that is holding them back.

**John:** Yep. And one of the real challenges we face as screenwriters is that unlike the novelist who can literally tell us what is happening inside of a character’s head, as screenwriters we don’t have the ability to provide that insight into the character’s head so we can only externalize what’s happening internally. And so what you’re saying in terms of like they’re keeping their weight off of their damaged ankle, the novelist can show us what emotionally they’re doing, the choices that they’re making internally and let us into that process. The screenwriter does not have that ability. We can only externalize those things by things that characters say, things characters do. We have to find ways to present that information without literally carving open the character, unless we decide that we need to have a voiceover which is an opportunity to do that.

So, that is our unique challenge.

**Craig:** And it’s also our unique opportunity. Because when we get it right, and it is portrayed onscreen in this way, I think we have a better ability to inject it into other people’s psyches than a novel does. There’s always going to be something that’s a bit abstract by taking just the words and turning into that in your head. But watching or experiencing another human being is just a different level of empathy.

I think about our friend Mari Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me? and how we’re dealing with a character in the beginning that Melissa McCarthy plays who has clearly designed her entire life to be a cast around a bone she thinks is broken. She is just terrified. Absolutely terrified. And you can tell. And so she’s created all of these maladaptive behaviors to protect herself from a pain that is simply too frightening for her to contemplate feeling.

And then as the movie goes on she is forced to confront that. And so it’s not surprising that we think of all these transformative metaphors like the caterpillar turns into the butterfly. I mean, are you a Kung Fu Hustle fan by any chance?

**John:** I love Kung Fu Hustle. It’s been years since I’ve seen it but it was terrifically well done.

**Craig:** So great. And in there in a very kind of fairy tale way Stephen Chow just goes for it. Like at the end when the character finally becomes actualized he literally shows a pupa popping open, a cocoon popping open and a butterfly emerging. It’s literally like, got it, we’ve shed all this old stuff we don’t need and out comes this actualized person. The danger of these narratives, the danger of all traditional narratives, is that they essentially are promising a kind of perfection which of course is not actually achievable.

All you can hope for at the end of your own real move, whether it’s your week, your month, or your year is that you’re hopefully a bit further along and a bit better than you were before. But you’re never going to get to perfect.

**John:** The past week I watched Midsommar which I liked, I didn’t love, but what I found so fascinating about it is it’s designed as a horror movie about kind of self-actualization or about sort of dealing with the grief that you cannot actually process. And so the central character is dealing with a horrible tragedy that’s happened and the writer-director, Ari Aster, decides to have her confront these things by putting her in the craziest Scandinavian cult you can imagine.

And what I found so fascinating about it was that as extreme as it was it was about a very human relatable thing and trying to externalize an internal process in a character who was deeply stuck in a moment and becomes unstuck only through horror, through terror, and through a completely Alien kind of encounter with a different culture and civilization.

And that brings me back to your initial description of this journey that characters are on is that the role of the screenwriter is to continually challenge those characters. You described it as sort of the evil god who is making them go through terrible things. It is not that you are necessarily trying to torture them. You are forcing them to confront the natural way that they would respond in these situations and making it impossible for them to go back to their old ways.

**Craig:** Yeah, there’s a kind of instruction manual we’re providing people in the audience. What we’re saying is – well, here’s what we don’t want to say. What we don’t want to say is, hey, you in the audience, it’s actually quite easy to get over a broken heart. You just do it. Get out there, kid.

Well, the world is full of people giving you that terrible advice. It’s not easy to get over a heartbreak. The answer isn’t just “get out there.” Something else has to happen. So what we want to show people in the audience is that it’s just as hard for the people onscreen as it is for them. In fact, it might even be harder. And that we’re using those people as sort of an inspiration. Look what they went through. Look how scared they were. And look what happened on the other side. And we’re going to give you a chance to see it from all the perspectives.

So you’re not looking just through the eyes of someone who is in pain, like you might do with yourself when you’re in pain. You’re also seeing everybody else trying. And you’re picking up on the way that the person who is like you is making fundamental errors of thought.

**John:** Yeah. What’s fascinating about a movie is that it gives you a chance to actually look at a character and see that person from a third party perspective, as a third person out there, and see that they’re going through the same kinds of things that you’re going through. And so self-awareness really is that ability to see yourself both in the first person and the third person simultaneously. To recognize that you are inside your body having these experiences but also have an awareness of what you are like to the outside world and sort of where you are fitting into this society around you.

And when characters are struggling it’s because they’re not able to integrate those two realities.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s frustrating to watch. You know, there’s that moment in a show or a movie where you get frustrated that somebody is missing it. That they don’t get it. That they’re drawing the wrong conclusion. It’s something that screenwriters use all the time to create a sense of imbalance and tension. For instance, I just started watching the new season of Stranger Things, or should it be Stranger Things? What do you say, Stranger Things or Stranger Things?

**John:** Stranger Things.

**Craig:** Stranger Things.

**John:** I guess I’m putting the emphasis on Stranger.

**Craig:** Yeah, Stranger Things. But shouldn’t it be Stranger Things?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because Stranger Things kind of implies like, oh yeah, last season was Strange Things. This season is Stranger Things.

**John:** Or they are things owned by a stranger.

**Craig:** Stranger’s Things. So I just started watching that and there’s this little plotline, I think I’m on episode three or something, where two of the kids have this lovely little teen romance but they’ve been split apart. And they’re kind of misunderstanding each other. And it’s frustrating. It’s frustrating because they don’t have the self-awareness to understand what’s going on or to ask the right questions. And if only they would it would get solved. And when we watch these things, whether they’re children or adults, it’s frustrating for us because we’re watching someone make a mistake.

And it is a weird feeling to watch people make a mistake that you know is a mistake. You know it. If you’re watching someone putting a jigsaw puzzle together and they’re looking for this one piece and they can’t find it and you know where it is, you can see it. And their hand keeps going past it, it’s enough to make you crazy.

Well, that’s kind of what we’re doing here. And the idea is that you at home would pick up a lesson here which is maybe when you yourself are absolutely sure that something is true, or you are stumped and can’t figure something out, to take a moment and imagine someone watching you. And taking comfort in the fact that there may be something here that you can learn about yourself or somebody else that might improve it.

I mean, we don’t tell stories pointlessly. There’s some instructive value.

**John:** Definitely. When I give my presentations to grade school kids for Arlo Finch I have the same presentation that I’ve given 100 times. But one of the things I try to get to is I talk about what heroes in stories do and these are the things we look for heroes to do. Then I bring it back around to you can always see yourself as the hero in your own life. And so being able to think of yourself as the fictional character who is confronting these challenges can be a very useful psychological trick to explore what are the challenges you’re facing and what would the hero version of yourself do. And recognizing that that hero is going to face real challenges and real adversity and self-doubts and all those things. But would find a way through it. And would figure out what do they actually really need to accomplish. Who are their allies, because heroes very rarely work alone? What are the real goals they’re trying to achieve there?

And so that is a form of self-awareness is being able to think of yourself not just as the person who is stuck but as the person who can get through this thing.

**Craig:** No question. And that’s exactly how I talk to writers when I do my seminar at the guild about how to make your way through development. And that is to think of yourself as the hero of this adventure. And therefore what’s holding you back and who do you need? And what kind of relationship will help and what will hurt? And what are your needs? All these things. We’re wired to do it. We might as well take advantage of it.

**John:** Absolutely. All right, so let’s segue from that into some real scripts that we can take a look at and maybe offer some insights as well.

**Craig:** No maybe about it. We’re gonna.

**John:** We’re gonna. We’re going to offer some insights.

**Craig:** We’re gonna.

**John:** So this is our Three Page Challenge. So, for folks who are new to this segment we ask listeners to submit three pages. They can go to johnaugust.com/threepage and fill out a little form. Then our producer, Megana Rao, reads through all the entries. She picks three or four of these samples that she thinks are going to be most useful to our listener base. And so she’s not necessarily picking the best ones, or the most messed up ones. She’s picking the ones she thinks are going to have really interesting things for us to talk about.

**Craig:** I like jacked up. [laughs]

**John:** Jacked up.

**Craig:** These three pages are jacked up.

**John:** So we will sort of synopsize these before we get started, but if you want to read the real pages, which you probably should, just follow the link in the show notes. We’ll have a link to the PDFs. Or just go to johnaugust.com and look for this episode and you’ll see the PDFs that you can download.

So, since we did this last time we’ve gotten 177 new submissions. 56 of these were from women, so that’s progress.

**Craig:** Barely–

**John:** Well it is progress.

**Craig:** Where were we at before percentage wise?

**John:** So I think we’ve been as low as like 10%.

**Craig:** Oh god. OK, yes, then this is better.

**John:** So we are making progress. So thank you to folks who have been sending in.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** Everyone who has been sending in entries, because it’s very generous, but especially we love that more women are sending in their entries as well.

**Craig:** Yep. We aim for – what is probably, you know, everyone always says 50/50. But I think if you go by the statistics you may actually want 51/49 in favor of women. I think there’s slightly more women being born. I don’t know why.

**John:** I think it’s probably some replacement rate kind of thing happens.

**Craig:** I’m down.

**John:** Good. All right, Craig do you want to start us off with Edith Rodriguez’s?

**Craig:** Sure. Edith Rodriguez has written The Days Ahead. We open on an engineering lab at night. Jeff, a classically handsome scientist, speaks with a female voice, meaning he is conversing with a female voice. He asks her to describe a sunrise. We learn that the female voice named Demi belongs to a computer. Demi struggles to complete the task. Frustrated, Jeff returns to his bedroom where he is greeted as Citizen by an automated voice. Jeff clicks a switch to change his bedroom settings from day to night.

We then cut to a rainforest where five massive defense machines known as Guardians patrol a building. Inside the city center we meet Alric Fischer who watches the humans, robots, and androids move about their daily routines before Ella comes to greet him with a kiss.

That’s Edith Rodriguez, The Days Ahead. John, what did you think?

**John:** What Edith does so well in these three pages, which people should definitely read through, is create the visual world of where her story is taking place. I could see it and I could feel it. And I could sense where I was in these three pages. And sort of – I think we should distinguish between world-building and sort of scene-setting, but I got a good sense of the physical space that I was in which was useful. And I got a sense of what universe I was in.

I would distinguish that between world-building in that I don’t know sort of the rules of this world at all, but I do know kind of what this looks like and it feels like a science-fiction kind of thing. Somewhat dystopian but sort of that beautiful dystopian. I got a good sense of that and so often as I read three pages of a screenplay I don’t get a sense of what I would be seeing onscreen and I feel like I’m getting this here. And her pacing on the page was also really good. I was never sort of slammed with big blocks of this stuff. I got a good sense for what this was.

Where I had some challenges was some of the stuff felt a little bit familiar. I felt like I’d seen a version of this in Westworld a little bit. And I didn’t have a great sense of what I would be looking for next. I got the general idea that these characters are trapped within this sort of utopian experiment but I didn’t know which horse to be betting on quite yet. And I would have loved to have a little bit more sense of that by the end of three pages.

Craig, what were you feeling?

**Craig:** Well, I had a very similar positive response. First of all, the pages look right. So we sometimes talk about the visual look of the pages. There’s a great balance between action and dialogue. I mean, the third page is all action and one little bit of dialogue. That’s fine by me. The fact is that there’s lovely amounts of white space. It makes me happy.

And I was really interested in this first page in particular. I’m not a huge fan of the classically handsome, somewhat weathered. It’s just – because it’s a little bit of “hot but doesn’t know it.” It’s just so shopworn. That description is somewhat weathered. And sits at a tech desk holding a thin silver tablet does feel a little bit like a generic future man at future place. We’ve seen that so many times. The thin silver tablet. And I don’t know what a tech desk does. Small grammar thing: “A dimly lit windowless lab” Those are the first words we see in action. Dimly-lit there I think should take a hyphen.

**John:** It’s debatable. I will tell you from doing Arlo Finch proofing is that adverbs that end in LY generally do not use the hyphen after them.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** Yeah. So it’s the adverbs that, so fast-moving does take it. Dimly lit generally does not.

**Craig:** I’m down with that. That’s cool. I take it back. I retract. What I will not retract is that I don’t believe in 2019 you can name your futuristic science fiction enclave Zion. I believe the Matrix did that and you can’t do it anymore. It’s just too obvious. It’s too done, right? So there just needs to be a general kind of cliché and generic patrol.

But here’s what I was really excited about. I liked this conversation. Jeff says, “What do you see?” And he’s looking at an image of a sunrise. And this voice across says, “A sunrise. A beautiful sunrise.” He says, “Can you describe it?” She says, “We are both looking at it.” And he says, “I know.” That’s really good. That’s unexpected. And with that simple exchange I understand, at least my understanding, is that he’s kind of running a test. He’s evaluating. Is this entity fully intelligent or not?

And she says, “It is a seamless outpouring of color. Unmatched by any brushstroke or artist.”

“Good, you’ve been studying your prose.” Meaning he knows where she is. “Now how does it make you feel?”

And she says, “I feel like I would like to see it.”

Jeff tries to mask his disappointment. Now here what I wanted so much was for her to have made a mistake. In other words she’s imperfect, so she’s describing it because she’s taking in some of the data but then she says, “I would like to see it” revealing that she’s actually not really looking at it at all. But what happens after is it kind of feels like – because she keeps going, “Do you think I’ll ever see one out there.” She’s almost explaining like she didn’t make a mistake and that kind of bummed me out.

I was confused in his apartment which is, again, it’s just cliché future apartment. Everyone is still drinking from near empty bottles of whiskey in their cliché future apartment.

**John:** Yeah. That was a moment I marked as cliché. The character sipping on a glass of whiskey. I just feel like, you know, it’s a challenge. But in that same paragraph she sort of saves it. “Despite the view, there is somber mood to this place. He leans his forehead on the glass…close enough to reveal that the ocean sunrise view is made up of tiny almost imperceptible pixels.” So, the idea that that’s all a screen is kind of cliché. How she’s revealing it is terrific and I’ve not seen that pixel-y thing.

**Craig:** I agree with you. And this is why I really appreciate for instance the movie Her. Because a lot of moments like this wouldn’t be kind of – there wouldn’t be extra gloss with sipping on my brown whiskey out of my glass. It rather just be I’m eating some weird piece of cheese or something while this happens. It’s a very mundane life.

What I was confused about was the automated voice says, “Good morning, Citizen.” Jeff presses a moon symbol on the wall and the morning sky slowly fades into darkness. Why? Because it was morning and so–

**John:** Maybe there’s a good reason for it and we’re going to find out. But I flagged that as well because in the moment it was confusing and we can’t have too many of those in the first couple of pages because we could check out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Even if you just acknowledge an action. “Oddly, Jeff presses, this inspires Jeff to press a moon symbol on the wall.” You know, it’s just something so that you let me know that it’s OK to be confused by this.

Then when we get to this rainforest, so now it feels – I think we’re outside of whatever this city is. And then along the rooftop are these guardians. They’re huge machines. They look like prehistoric beasts. Their technology is super advanced. I don’t have a sense of how big they are. It says behemoth machines. But then they stand guard along the roof and nearby a door panel beeps. They remain motionless. Well door panels don’t really compare to behemoth machines, or behemoth machines, however you pronounce it. So I was kind of confused by size a little bit by that comparison of the door to these prehistoric things like dinosaurs I guess.

They haven’t moved. So I don’t even know if they’re like statues or what.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about how you might get a sense of scale because it can be tough to do that. So you can literally tell us how big they are, but another way to do it would have something that we know the size of it next to it. So obviously a person standing next to it, but a bird lands on it and we get a sense of how big these are. That might be a helpful way just to – again, always thinking visually. How do you convey the size of things?

**Craig:** Yeah. And I was a little concerned that we’re just meeting these things in what I would call the normal world phase of our movie or show and then some rain goes through and already kind of looks like it maybe damages one of them. It’s just hard for something to get immediately damaged. I don’t even know what it is and you’ve damaged it.

**John:** Yeah. I wasn’t reading that as damaged. I was just reading like maybe it was cycling through our something. But I agree. It was not the right kind of confusion at the moment for an overall setup that I really liked a lot. I liked that we were in the rainforest which is not a classic place where we’re seeing this kind of science fiction story.

**Craig:** Yeah. And lastly we end in this atrium, which again I think is sort of sci-fi/high-tech city atrium. It just felt like that, you know. Alric Fischer is “handsome in a carefully manicured kind of way.” No, no, no. That’s hot-but-doesn’t-know-it. It’s the same. It’s from that category. I’m looking for something so much more interesting. You know?

**John:** So, he’s described next as a “clean-cut thoroughbred.” That’s better. And if I just got clean-cut thoroughbred that would help me.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think so. That would help. Now obviously short dark hair and crisp, tailored shirt, I’m a big fan of wardrobe, hair, and makeup. All that is great. It’s just this kind of handsome thing. It’s the same thing, it’s hot, pretty, beautiful, handsome, stunning, chiseled, weathered, manly, macho. It’s all the same. They’re actors. We get it.

And then Ella behind him is thin and tall. That’s just, no, nope. Thin and tall is not a thing. That’s not a person. That’s a shape. I don’t know if she is white, black. I don’t know if she’s a mess, if she’s fantastic, if she’s a thoroughbred, if she’s blue collar, she’s nervous, angry. I don’t know–

**John:** You know who is thin and tall? Shelly Duvall.

**Craig:** Shelly Duvall.

**John:** But I don’t think she means Shelly Duvall.

**Craig:** Shelly Duvall is thin and tall. Yeah, it’s just too reductive. You don’t want to reduce a human being down to weight and height. It just feels wrong.

**John:** Talk about the choices the character is making. And so how the character is dressed is a choice. How the character has got their hair. That can be a choice. But the jeans that they got, that’s not a choice.

**Craig:** Agreed. And Edith finally, because I really do think you’re on to something interesting here and you’ve got a really – I mean, I’m really intrigued by this AI thing and how he’s conversing with her. There’s something fresh about that. So every time you kind of muddy your freshness with something that feels like it’s off the regular shelf at Walmart it’s going to hurt you. So here’s a phrase from the Walmart screenwriting shelf. “There you are.”

Nobody needs to say that any more. Nobody needs to walk out to where someone is and then announce, “There you are.” It’s just so like blech.

**John:** Yeah. And here’s the way to think about it is like instead of saying that line they can say an actual interesting line.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so every line is precious. Make it an interesting line.

**Craig:** Or say nothing.

**John:** Here are a few little things I want to point out just as other people are reading through this. She’s starting with a fade in. You don’t need to. You sort of get a free fade in at the start of your movie, so you don’t need to have that setup there if you don’t want that fade in there. And if you are using fade in again a convention is that fade in tends to be on the left hand margin for starting. Fade-ins tend to be on the left hand side, fade-outs tend to be on the right hand side. It’s just what you most commonly see.

She’s not uppercasing her sounds. So thunder echoes and booms over the El Yunque rainforest. Usually you would still uppercase those ECHOES and BOOMS. Again, this isn’t old radio theater where we have to pull out the coconuts to do stuff, but still most times in screenplays you will see those uppercased and it’s convention and I look for it and I find it. So same thing with secure door panel BEEPS. It’s just what we’re used to seeing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And even if it’s – I mean, it’s certainly not a requirement in the sense that you’re fulfilling some sort of formal need for format. John and I obviously are dead set against that sort of rhetoric. It just helps people. I think it just makes it more interesting to read. It breaks things up a little bit. You get a little bit of an impact. When something booms and you write it down that way it passes by with the same sort of impression as something beeping. But in a movie theater a boom literally shakes your abdomen because of the base. So, you know, give it to us.

**John:** All right, let’s move onto our next one. This is Carolyn Getches and Hilary C. Gish writing Formerly Fat Housewife.

Standing on a physician’s scale, Jean, who is 38 describes her failed history of dieting to a thin, model-like nurse and a gruff physician. They take her measurements and the doctor assures her that on his plan she’ll lose 75 pounds. He offers his beautiful, skinny nurse as proof of his program’s success.

Jean leaves to collect her pills from the reception area. Jean references an ad she saw in the Yellow Pages to get a free trial of the pills. She then runs into Barbara, a portly housewife from her son’s school. Barbara swears by the pills that Jean has just picked up.

Jean then goes home where we see her add these new diet pills to her collection of diuretics, amphetamines, laxatives, and more. She pops the pills and swallows without water.

Craig, what did you think of these few pages?

**Craig:** Carolyn and Hilary, I think you guys did a great job. And I want to talk about what I loved.

**John:** They knocked it out of the park. I’m so excited.

**Craig:** So good. First of all, it’s a great idea. A lot of times we’ll read three pages and we’ll say you’ve done a great job in these three pages in service of something that no one is ever going to make. Someone will make this. Someone should make this. Maybe I’ll make it. Because, you know, my grandmother was on Weight Watchers literally for 17 years of her life. It’s just – it’s an incredible kind of thing. And it never occurred to me to tell the kind of origin story. But it’s brilliant.

And the first great decision comes before the three pages. It’s a page with a quote. Now, you’ll get a lot of yammering on Reddit and Schmeddit, and all these other pages about where to put a quote, and should you put a quote, and is a quote pretentious, and blah-blah-blah. Yeah, you know when quotes are pretentious? When they’re pretentious. When you start off with, I don’t know, Nietzsche intoning about something really, really important and then you begin your post-apocalyptic Mad Max rip-off.

But here, this is what they write, “Weight Watchers International has generated over $20 billion in revenue since its founding. It all began in 1961.” That’s it.

**John:** Boom.

**Craig:** So good.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** So good.

**John:** This is a title I can imagine actually showing up on screen. But here’s what this does. Is it says this is going to be about Weight Watchers and it’s going to be starting in 1961. And it immediately says like, OK, take everything I assume about 1961, you get that for free because it said it on this dedication page.

**Craig:** It also says this matters. $20 billion is a lot of money. We’re already going, OK, how do you get to $20 billion from this one woman, a 38-year-old woman who is overweight. And I want to know.

Now, here’s where I just was so happy with this first page. All the things they do right. So I’m in an exam room at some place. Astoria Weight Control. It doesn’t matter necessarily – the only thing I would have loved is just to get a hint that we were hearing people with accents from Queens, because it says it’s going to be Astoria, Queens. But that’s fine.

So we meet our character. We know exactly what she’s wearing, which is wonderful. And they’re even saying that she’s wearing these earrings in hopes you won’t notice that her tailored housedress is a size 33. And by the way, I know the housedress because again my grandmother wore it. And what’s happening is she’s doing something that normal humans do. It’s very recognizable to us. But for some reason writers seem to forget people do. She’s nervous. And she’s not stuttering, and she’s not shaking or sweating, she’s rambling. This is very common. She’s rambling about all the things she’s tried to do, which in its own way is an indication that Jean Niedetch – apologize, I’m not sure how to pronounce it – but that Jean is aware that she is failing.

And so a lot of this is a kind of rattling sort of covering dialogue. The nurse and the doctor could not care less. The nurse is incredibly thin. The doctor, they point out, is not. But he doesn’t have to care because he’s a man. They don’t say that. They don’t hit you in the face with it. It’s just there for you to figure out. And you do.

And she goes on and on. We hear the weight. There’s another excuse, a wonderful excuse, “My mother thinks it’s glandular.” The nurse says, “There’s no such thing, right Doctor?” Oh, it’s so mean. But it’s great because the doctor doesn’t care at all. He’s not talking to her. He’s not asking her questions. He just says, “Do what I do, you’re going to be down 75 pounds.” She says, “You really think so?” And he says, regards to the model nurse, “Look at her. She’s my best work.” As in that’s not a person. I made a thing. And I’m going to make you a thing like the thing.

I’ve learned so much already. And most importantly I am on this woman’s side. I’m not on her side because she’s yelling at someone or angry at somebody. I’m on her side because she is agreeing with people that are demeaning her and that is so identifiable. It makes me want to hug her.

Out she goes into the reception area. She pays money, or gets some freebies, and then you realize, and another thin person handing them out, there’s no regimen here. The dude is just handing out speed. He’s just handing out pills.

She runs into a friend of hers who is in a very similar situation. She says, and this is my favorite thing, of all three pages. And Jean says, “Barbara, hi. I’ve heard such good things about these little pills, I just had to give them a try. The doctor thinks it’s glandular.” She lies.

**John:** She lies.

**Craig:** She lies. I love it. It’s so good.

**John:** But, Craig, for folks who aren’t reading this, right before that is my favorite moment in these three pages. So Barbara says, “David’s mom? Is that you? What are you doing so far from Ridgewood?” That is such a great moment where it’s like you don’t actually know her name, but you know that she must be David’s mom.

**Craig:** David’s mom? I love that. It’s so great. And it’s so true, by the way. It’s so true.

**John:** She has no identity of her own.

**Craig:** She has no identity of her own.

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** It’s so great. And then when she goes back to her apartment she sees – there’s already a ton of these pills. And there’s way too many. Now, it’s a tricky thing here because what Carolyn and Hilary are doing at the very end is essentially identifying what those pills are for us. And that’s a little bit of a cheat, because a lot of people aren’t going to necessarily know that in the 1960s the cutting edge of dieting was giving women speed, laxatives, and diuretics. So, some kind of indication of what they are per label could be helpful.

**John:** But the basic visual works even if you don’t know what they specifically are. She has a medicine cabinet full of these things and she’s just trying the next one.

**Craig:** It’s wonderful. I mean, it feels like the kind of thing that should be made. And I would continue reading this in a heartbeat. I mean, I just think this is terrific. I loved it.

**John:** Yeah. So, we didn’t say at the outset, this is written as a pilot, because it says end of teaser. It feels like a limited series that gets you started in things. It just is great.

**Craig:** I want to read it.

**John:** Send the whole thing through.

**Craig:** Yeah, I want to read it.

**John:** A couple things on the first page, because I think it’s really good and it’s only because I think it could be even better that I’m going to offer some suggestions and sort of move some stuff around.

Jean starts by her monologuing here. “I’m telling you, there’s nothing I wouldn’t try. Last year I spent two months on a carrot cleanse. I lost fifteen pounds, but my skin turned orange.” As written, we’re interrupting with a nurse motions for Jean to step on a scale. She looks more like a model in a short uniform. Jean says, “Have you seen that before?” Breaking up that dialogue actually hurt the joke a little bit.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I would propose keep all of Jean together along with Jean turns to the doctor, gruff man. So keep that all together and then put the nurse a little bit later on. So the nurse is not breaking up that really great joke and still establishes the doctor being the primary person she’s trying to talk to. Because right now it looks like she might be trying to talk to the nurse.

**Craig:** Right. Your other option in that is to pull it up a bit. So you have Jean saying, “I’m telling you, there’s nothing I wouldn’t try. Last year I spent two months on a carrot cleanse.” The nurse tells her to get on the scale. She does. While on the scale, “I lost fifteen pounds, but my skin turned orange. Have you ever seen that before?”

**John:** Absolutely. You could break it that way. Or you could put the nurse above the two things. But basically we’re just saying keep that dialogue together so it really is clear that have you seen that before goes towards the doctor, not towards the nurse.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I think there’s a good case to be made for getting rid of the model nurse’s line. “There’s no such thing, right Doctor?” By giving her lines you’re making her seem more important in the scene and she’s really not important in the scene. She should just basically be a prop.

**Craig:** I would fight for it.

**John:** OK. So I think you can do that with an eye roll.

**Craig:** Here’s why I would fight for it. Because what it tells me, she’s still a prop. In fact, she weirdly becomes more of a prop because of that line. What I like is that the model nurse is clearly a subject of the doctor. It’s like a child going, “Uh-uh, there isn’t glandular. I got told, right Doctor?” And he’s like, uh-huh. He doesn’t care about her or Jean. So it’s like women competing for the attention of this overweight man who is going to decide their worth. I kind of dug it.

**John:** So I would say as you’re shooting this try a version where she says the line and try a version where she says the lines just with her eyes and a reaction.

**Craig:** Always a good idea.

**John:** Last thing I would say is we’re using script here rather than prescription. I think just for clarity at this moment because it’s just action lines I would spell out prescription just because it potentially is confusing that people are holding scripts, like what scripts? Just take away any possible little hiccups where a person could be confused. Like are they holding a screenplay or are they holding a prescription until you’ve established that script is what we’re using for prescription.

**Craig:** 100%.

**John:** Great. Just delightful. So this is a case where please send through the whole thing if it’s all written.

**Craig:** Yeah. I want to read it. I want to.

**John:** Let’s do our third and final one. Do you want to take this one, Craig?

**Craig:** Sure. We’ve got something from Christine Hoang called Fly Girl. Linh, a 42-year-old Vietnamese-American woman lies in bed. She picks up her phone from its charger. It’s 3:21am. She scrolls through Facebook through the posts on her page. We learn that it is Linh’s birthday. She smiles at a long post from a Ruben Ramirez who calls her a queen. Linh’s eyes widen as she sees a happy birthday post from Harold Williams. Linh goes to Harold’s profile. As she swipes through Harold’s photos we see that Linh used to be in his life as his wife.

She is relieved to see his profile says he’s single. Linh sets her alarm and we cut to the next morning as Linh gets her eight-year-old daughter, Nini, ready for school. On the drive to school Linh and Nini brainstorm tardy excuses. Linh reminds Nini that her dad is picking her up after school. Nini leaves and wishes her mom a happy birthday. And that’s Christine Hoang’s Fly Girl.

**John:** So, what I really liked about these three pages is I had not seen this character before. And I had not felt like I’d seen this story quite before. Sort of her situation. And that by setting it up as her birthday I believe that we are going to be told a story that is a one-time thing so that today is not like other days, which is what movies are is days that are different than other days. So that got me excited.

I think there’s stuff on the page which is a little bit messy and it isn’t sort of providing the best shape and focus. But I like the kinds of things she was trying to illustrate which is that sort of deciding whether or not to like a post and the way you sort of find your identity through people’s reactions to you was cool and interesting. That her life felt kind of messy in ways that made me excited to see more about what she was doing.

**Craig:** Yeah. I wonder if this character of Linh, because in the script Linh Hoang Williams, 42, Vietnamese-American woman, and our author is Christine Hoang. So I’m wondering, OK, is this Christine and is this autobiographical? It’s hard to tell just because she’s used the same name. But what I do like is that we don’t typically see this character, a 42-year-old woman, I love size 12, sometimes size 14 depending on that week’s carb intake. I like that she’s got this insomnia. It feels true. And we get introduced in the second paragraph a screensaver photo of a cute biracial Asian-white girl. Now just keep that in mind. So we’re good at picking up things. That’s probably her kid is what we’re thinking.

I really like that she was checking Facebook for birthday greetings. Birthdays have become a full-time job of just dealing with Facebook greetings, and I’ve left Facebook so I’m free of that world.

I was a bit confused. Who is doing this at 3:21 in the morning unless she’s looking at yesterday’s thing, but it’s her birthday today. We know that because we’re going to hear that later. No one is doing that at that hour. It’s usually – you know what I mean? So I didn’t quite understand – it felt like she was trying to get two things in at once. I mean, you could just as easily have her wake up, have her doing this, and have that be the reason that she’s late bringing her kid to school. Because I would believe that.

There’s a post from her friend. I’m a little nervous that we’ve got gay-based best friend trope going on here. It’s hard to tell. But, you know, it’s not that you’re not allowed to have the gay best friend. It’s just one more check in the “we’ve seen it” column.

Harold Williams is a terrible name for a character. I’m sorry. Especially when you’ve got something so wonderful and specific like Linh Hoang Williams, and the Linh is L-I-N-H which is a Vietnamese spelling. I just feel like Harold Williams seems like White Whiteman or something. It just feels a bit too, I don’t know, uninteresting. If you’re going to do it, then make fun of it at least. Because there are people named Harold Williams. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a ton of them.

I don’t think we get two swipey scenes in one scene. I struggle with swipey scenes. I think you get one and then you move on.

**John:** Yeah, at the top of page two I wanted to get rid of all the profile photos of Harold, because it’s just like we’ve been staring at phones too long.

**Craig:** And it’s really just become Exposition Book, not Facebook. We know now what’s happening. You’re forcing us to learn stuff because she’s looking at things. And I’m sorry, I just don’t – I mean, yes, of course people moon at exes on Facebook and they kind of Facebook stalk them, but not like this, where you just magically get the seven pictures you need to see your entire relationship. You know, picture from one year ago, from five years ago. There’s Harold and Linh embracing a biracial Asian-white little – it’s literally the same exact language. We know. We get it. You might as well just tell us it’s her daughter in the first thing because then we don’t have to keep saying it over and over and over. Because it’s a little bit weird. Like is that kid theirs? Why is she not telling us it’s theirs, because it seems like it’s theirs. And so it just goes through all the way, you know, kind of here’s the story of my life. I kind of don’t understand why she had to do that in the middle of night and then go back to bed again and then wake up again.

And then there’s this scene with her daughter who I presume is that girl, because she calls her her biracial eight-year-old daughter. So, I’m assuming it’s the same girl.

**John:** That’s a case where usually you would say like the girl, like in parenthesis, like the girl on the phone on screensaver.

**Craig:** Right. The girl from the picture. The drive along is fine. So we’ve seen a parent drive a child to school four billion times. The park in front of the school, what’s my tardy excuse today, that’s not something you ask when you’re getting dropped off. That’s the first thing you ask when you get in the car and you realize you’re going to be late.

And I think just the rest of this exchange offers me no insight into their relationship. None.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it’s not a lot of space to have insight, so it doesn’t need to be a great insight. I just need one thing to know. That there’s a thing. Just one.

**John:** So, let’s imagine that we lost the driving scene at the top of page three. We’ve lost really nothing. Nothing super important. I do like them sort of swaying their heads to 1986 Control. But it’s not crucial. And if we just went from driveway sort of baby penguin/Nini getting into the car to elementary school, and lose Nini’s first line.

Linh says, “Tell your teacher traffic was a nightmare.”

**Craig:** Yeah, way better.

**John:** If Nini were to answer, “That’s what we said yesterday.” That is a better way to get that information out that this is a recurring thing than to have the little girl lead that exchange.

**Craig:** Such a good idea. Much better.

**John:** I agree with you on so much of where we can sort of do better. And it got me thinking back to Barack Obama Burnham’s movie Eighth Grade which I loved so much. And we’ll find a link to the PDF of that so you can take a look at sort of how he did the stuff on the phone on the page. Because it was a really good use of we know we’re going to be staring at screens a lot and how you convey that information and make it clearer, not just what you’re trying to tell the audience but how our central character is reacting to that information.

Another thing which I think you should be looking for is how you’re setting up your physical environments. Because you’re not giving us anything about her bedroom a lot. You’re not giving us anything about her car, her house. We just don’t get a good sense of where she’s at. I don’t even know if this is east coast, west coast. So, I want that vibe. Just anchor us into a place is really important.

**Craig:** So true. Outside of elementary school. Who goes there? Is it mostly white kids? Is it a mix of white kids and Asian kids? Is it black, Latino? Is it public? Is it private? Rich neighborhood/poor neighborhood? Is this a line of Mercedes and Linh is driving a Toyota? What’s going on? We just need stuff. Like all these little tiny bits are teaching us things. And someone is going to have to decide those things.

See, the most important thing I think for you to realize when you’re working on this stuff is, no, you don’t have to decide everything, but everything you don’t decide somebody else will for you. So, think about that. And then say, OK, I wouldn’t mind if I knew that this was a middle class suburb, you know, racially mixed kids. I don’t mind how they racially mix the kids on the day when the first AD goes and makes selections from extras casting. I just mind that they’re not all white. So I’ve done my job. I made my decision. So you have to make a bunch of decisions to help production or they will fill it in for you and trust me when I tell you they will get it wrong. They will not read your mind ever.

**John:** Nope. And so it’s not just production but it’s also the production happening in a reader’s mind in terms of like how they’re sort of filling in the backgrounds of things. And so do a little of that work so that you’re creating the right image in people’s heads.

I want to thank all of our entries to the Three Page Challenge and especially the three people who we talked about today.

**Craig:** Four.

**John:** You’re all very, very brave. Four actually. You’re right. Because we had a team there. You’re all very, very brave for sending stuff in. And so thank you for letting us discuss these things on the air.

If you want to send in your own Three Page Challenge you can go to johnaugust.com/threepage. All spelled out.

We have two quick questions. Let’s try to get through these today.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** Kate from London asks, “My question is about working with actors. How much freedom do you feel should be given to them when they want to change their character’s dialogue? I recently started working on a quiet and established TV show here in the UK and one of the supporting actresses would send through her amendments to every one of her scenes, changing her character’s lines to what she thought was better dialogue.

“Do you feel writers should be very open to an actor doing this?” Craig?

**Craig:** It depends. If you are – so, Kate says she recently started working on an established TV show. OK, now, in certain cases when you have an established TV show, you’re in your fifth season of a series, or as they say your fifth series in UK, and one of your actors, well, she’s been doing it for five seasons. She’s done 25 episodes. You’ve written one. In that circumstance there may be – the actor may have very valuable insight. She may know what has worked in the past and how the rhythms worked before. And because you’re new that may be worth a discussion and may be worth opening to.

However, for me, my relationship with my cast, for instance on Chernobyl, was of course. If you have a suggestion or a thought please come tell me. The final determination is mine. And that’s it.

In movies it seems that actors can sometimes hold productions hostage to these things because of a movie star kind of system, but in television, you know, look, my experience is one show but I was working with a very large cast and a lot of really excellent, well-established actors with long careers who could have been, I suppose, very obstreperous and demanding about these things. But they weren’t. And everything – for instance Jared and I spent a lot of time going through the script and any suggestion he had was put forward as a proposal with an explanation so it could be evaluated. And you know eight times out of ten I was like, you know what, that’s better. I’m changing that. That’s great.

Yes, we should always be open. We should reserve the right to be the final arbiter of what the dialogue of the show is. With the one caveat that sometimes you have to be aware that somebody else, an actor, may actually know this character than you do if you’re new and they’re not.

**John:** Yeah. So standard advice I always give is that if an actor can’t find a way through a line, there’s a problem with the line and you’re going to have to change it. Because if the actor can’t find a way to deliver it it is not going to be a line that is going to serve the story well. So you’re going to need to work with that actor to find what that situation is.

I agree with Craig that if this is an established show and the showrunner is not stepping in there to stop this from happening then that’s just the way that this show works and sorry. But I want to point out that very rarely does one character’s dialogue not impact every other character in that scene.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** And so it’s going to be very hard to let that actor rewrite all of her stuff without all the other actors feeling like well how am I supposed to respond to that. Basically are they rewriting everybody’s dialogue? That can be the problem and the challenge. And where as we’ve talked to other showrunners they try to nip that in the bud so that the seventh person on the call sheet doesn’t feel like they get to rewrite all their dialogue, too.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So that’s a thing you’re going to be mindful of throughout all of this.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. When I did my tiny little acting job and I had to memorize lines that was the first time I realized that a huge part of memorizing your lines is memorizing your scene partner’s lines. Because those lines are the trigger for you to do yours. That’s when you know you’re supposed to be jumping on top of them or reacting and then saying something. So if their stuff is all of a sudden different your preparation is kind of down the tubes.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, no, it’s a real thing. And in movies when you sometimes hear of these horror shows, this is partly what’s going on. So hopefully we’ve answered your question, Kate.

Alex from the Wilton Exit off the 101. I know it well. Writes, “I’m working on a pilot with a person I thought was my producer, but who is now turning into a cowriter.”

**John:** Oh my.

**Craig:** Ugh, here we go. “I developed and scripted his idea, and now as I rewrite and work on his notes he’s also sending me new drafts he’s worked on. I see now that he won’t OK anything I do and will slowly take my script and chop it up, rewrite the dialogue, and even change whole scenes and characters. I feel that his work is a significant and noticeable drop off in quality from mine. His changes are not only for the worse, but also confusing and contradictory. What should I do when we pitch this thing?

“He has a showrunner friend he’s talking to. How do I explain which parts are mine, what the script used to look like? I want to meet his promised connections to start making my own and hopefully jumpstart real work, but I don’t want my name attached to something I don’t like at all and doesn’t reflect my ability. What’s the point in meeting a connection if I know they’re going to read this and think, wow, this guy sucks? As someone working to break in I feel like I’m in a bind here.”

Woo-hoo.

**John:** Oh, Alex, step close. I’m going to wrap my arms around you and just give you a great big hug.

**Craig:** Yeah. Group hug, Alex.

**John:** Yeah. Sorry. And, so let’s talk what you can do now, but also hopefully try to give some advice for other people so they don’t find themselves in this situation.

This producer is not being good or fair or honest about sort of what their intentions are, sort of how they see this all working. And it was probably gradual and it got to the place where it’s at. They are now your cowriter. That’s terrible. And you’re going to have to have a sit down with them I would say in a neutral place. Say like, listen, I’m not happy with the script. I’m not happy with how this has gone down. I don’t like this. I would rather write my own script, but I don’t think this here is working. So let’s figure out a way for this to work or maybe just move on and move past. Because this doesn’t seem to be the right thing.

It’s not clear in your letter whether any money has been exchanged. I’m guessing it hasn’t, which is good. So there’s no sense of a binding sort of commitment here to anything. But this did not work out. And, Alex, I’m really sorry.

**Craig:** So am I. And I can’t blame you in any way, shape, or form. When we are starting out and we are really striving any lifeline is worth grabbing a hold of. It’s just that a lot of bad actors out there – not bad performers, but people working in bad faith – are going to throw us fake lifelines when really what they’re doing is just exploiting us. And I would say just as a blanket bit of advice: don’t develop non-writer’s ideas.

It’s just down that road is madness because really what’s happening is someone is saying I have an idea. I have imagined a movie. But I’ve imagined it without any of the confinements that come with the responsibility of creating it. So now you’re going to do that. You’re going to paint my fence for me and I’m just going to complain about it the whole time because it doesn’t match my wild unachievable imagination of what this thing is. And they will eventually haul you out and destroy you. So, this is a terrible situation.

In terms of what to do next, remember if you make sure that your name is on this and that you’re a cowriter, you actually have one bit of enormous leverage. It can’t be sold without you. You can’t sell something if you don’t want to sell it. You have to sign a paper that says I’m transferring copyright. I’m selling this literary material. Etc. Etc.

What you desperately need is your own individual counsel that is not connected in any way to this producer of yours. A manager, lawyer, agent, what have you. Because that person is going to need to represent you carefully in this.

When you ask what should I do when we pitch this thing, I don’t know if you should be pitching this thing. Because the questions you’re asking are not in any way achievable. Not remotely. How do I explain which parts are mine, what the script used to look like? There is no way to do that.

**John:** You can’t.

**Craig:** It’s just not possible. I know you don’t want your name attached to something you don’t like and all. Hopefully if this producer is as small potatoes and irrelevant as I suspect he is you’re not going to be meeting anybody that’s going to ruin you for the rest of your life. There’s no one brief moment where the window opened and if only you had subjected yourself to a little bit more humiliation you’d be famous ten years later. No. That’s not how it works.

So, I would say make sure that you stake your legal ownership claim to half this script. That you then behave the way you want in terms of who it gets sold to, if at all. But that you let go of any thoughts or imaginations that you’re going to be able to prove to people that in fact this thing that you’re asking them to buy is bad but there’s something else that’s good and that they can really buy that. That’s just not going to happen.

**John:** If there’s some comfort I can offer Alex is that any successful screenwriter you’ve met probably has some stories that are kind of like this about early on in their process in their career. Where things that didn’t work out, relationships that turned really weird, stuff that they’re sort of embarrassed has their name on it. And at a certain point you stop caring about it because it just doesn’t matter anymore. So take this as the lesson that it is. Write your own things and just try to be mindful not getting into these situations again.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re not a sucker. You’re just basically average. It’s a very average, sadly, it’s an average occurrence in this town.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is the word verse when used as a verb. So, Craig, this is a thing I’m sure you’ve heard. We’re versing the team from centennial this week. So it’s a thing you mostly hear little kids do, but increasingly teenagers and other folks using as well.

**Craig:** Oh yes. Now I understand.

**John:** Yeah. So it comes from versus. And so if we say it’s John versus Craig, kids will hear that as the third person singular of a verb, so they think there must be a verb called verse and that means to challenge somebody or to compete against somebody. And it’s an example of sort of a back formation where you’re trying to take a grammar rule and apply it to something that’s not quite right. And it creates a new word.

And so I assumed it was a new thing probably coming out of videogame culture, because I heard my daughter using it when she was little. I found a post this last week from Mark Liberman in Language Log that talks about this dating back to 2004 and earlier. So it’s a thing that’s been out there for a long time.

Some dictionaries are starting to include verse as a verb. I’m mentioning it on this podcast here so that you will now listen for it and we’ll see where we’re at ten years from now. How much verse has propagated?

**Craig:** Yeah. I had not thought about that for so long until this moment when you mentioned it. But when my son played baseball in little league kids would say we’re versing the Pirates. And it would put my teeth on edge, of course. And then I would beat them. I would physically beat them with bats.

They didn’t get better at playing baseball, but they stopped – no.

**John:** They stopped saying verse as a verb.

**Craig:** They continue to say versing. The one that is – and I wonder if some of these are regionalisms or just generationalisms. But my children’s generation when you say I’ve done something on purpose, or I’ve done something by accident, they say on accident. So they keep the preposition the same even though the word changes. So, it was on accident they’ll say. And I’m hearing adults say it now.

**John:** I think I’ve probably said it. It’s one of those things that I think is probably sliding into mutual usage. And it’s not quite the same situation as like demagoguing as a verb, where we know it’s a noun and we’re making it into a verb. That happens all the time and English is really good at that. It’s a different thing where you’re just applying a grammatical rule in a way that’s not sort of intended but just creates a new usage.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s fascinating. I remember the first time I heard it I just went, “Huh?” Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it. It’s a little bit like the first time I heard someone said heigth instead of height.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Which is now, I mean, honestly I would say 70% of people I hear who say the word height will say heigth.

**John:** Yeah. It’s because of–

**Craig:** Width.

**John:** Length, width, and height.

**Craig:** So they’re just carrying a rule through incorrectly. And if I had my way they would all be executed at dawn.

**John:** So and some of that is probably coming from non-native English speakers who are learning the words later on–

**Craig:** Not as far as I can tell.

**John:** But here’s the thing. Non-native speakers who would apply that and then online they’re using those things and because our kids are seeing that used online I think that’s how it helps propagate.

**Craig:** I’ve got to be honest with you. The first time I heard it it was from older white guys who were working like in construction gigs.

**John:** OK.

**Craig:** Yeah. They’re just like, “Well, you know, you need like this much heigth to get this thing through.” And I’m like what did you say? I mean, I didn’t say that because then I’m literally the parody of some fussy Jew.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Excuse me, sir, what did you say? Did you say heigth? I don’t know why I’m also British. Or snobby old weird Jewish/British. That’s me.

**John:** Good stuff.

**Craig:** It’s the new Craig.

**John:** It’s a new character?

**Craig:** It’s height, sir. Height.

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

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is this nifty little product that I’ve been looking for something in this category forever that would work and stay working and I think I might have found it. So, like everybody else in the world I have a problem with my smudgy screens on my phone and my iPad. And they have all sorts of like this thing rolls it and it wipes it and blah-blah-blah.

Well, I’m not a big fan of the tear a thing open, pull a thing out, wipe the thing, take another thing out, wipe that stuff off. Then they have some that are like rollers but they’re kind of like they need to stay moist sort of and then they dry out and then they’re no good.

So, I was just reading an article about, you know, little life hacky stuff. And they sent me to a product called iRoller. Ugh, revolutionary name.

**John:** That’s an eye roll.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. It is an eye roll of a name. iRoller screen cleaner reusable liquid free touchscreen cleaner for smartphones and tablets. And lo and behold and it works. It works really, really well. It’s not like a lint brush thing where there’s like an adhesive. It looks like it’s more of one of those static films that actually just does a really good job of picking stuff up. And then when it stops working you can wash it and it just sort of goes back to the way it used to be.

And it’s very portable. It’s very tiny. And it’s not, I think it’s $20 or something like that which is, I don’t know, a profit margin of $19.98. But it actually does the job. So if you’re looking for one of those things and you’re grumpy because none of them have worked, check out the iRoller.

**John:** So, and it works better than my solution which is just rubbing it on my shirt?

**Craig:** It does. The rubbing it on – listen, I’ve rubbed many a phone on my shirt. It tends to take spots, which are really just accumulation of grease and dust, and just disseminate it over the entire screen.

**John:** Equalize it.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s like a light fog over everything, as opposed to clean which is different. Oh, and it works on laptop screens, too, which is another plus.

**John:** Because it’s really embarrassing when I have to pick up my laptop screen and rub it on my shirt. It’s awkward.

**Craig:** I’ve done it. [laughs] I’ve done it. I’ve got real problems.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It was edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Mackey Landy.

If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts which go up about four days after the episode airs.

If you want to read the recap of this on Reddit, go for it. We’re R/Screenwriting.

You can find the back episodes of this show at Scriptnotes.net. Or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

That is our show for this week. Craig, thank you for helping me achieve some self-awareness.

**Craig:** I love that and we’ll do it again next week.

**John:** Thanks. Bye.

Links:

* John and Craig’s panel on Addiction & Mental Health organized by Hollywood, Health & Society Wed, July 31, 2019, 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM PDT at SAG. Limited tickets, email: hhs@usc.edu
* [Research Methods for Writers with Chernobyl’s Craig Mazin](https://www.wgfoundation.org/events/all/2019/7/17/research-methods-for-writers-chernobyl) Wednesday, July 17, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
* Trumpcast [Is Trump a Disease? A Medical Perspective](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/is-trump-a-disease-a-medical-perspective.html)
* Edith Rodriguez, [The Days Ahead](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3PageEdith.pdf)
* Carolyn Getches & Hilary C. Gish [Formerly Fat Housewife](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3PageCarolynHilary.pdf)
* Christine Hoang [Fly Girl](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3PageChristine.pdf)
* Bo Burnham’s [Eighth Grade Script](http://a24awards.com/film/eighthgrade/Eighth_Grade_Script.pdf)
* [‘Versing’ Verse as a Verb](https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4029)
* [Screen Cleaner](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BX1AOVA/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
* [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 Mackey Landy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_409_self_awareness.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 408: Rolling Dice, Transcript

July 19, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/rolling-dice).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 408 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast we have far too much to talk about.

**Craig:** Oh no.

**John:** Eight topics, any one of which could be the centerpiece. So I thought Craig we might borrow something we do every time we play D&D which is there’s situations where arrows are shooting into a group of people and you’re not quite sure who the target is. So you as a DM, what kind of thing might you do to figure out which of those random people is the target?

**Craig:** You give them a number. You count how many there are. And you roll that many sided die.

**John:** So luckily in the world there exist eight-sided dice. So here are the topics we will let the dice decide which order they will fall into. The topics are: Aladdin. Chernobyl. John’s new agent. The WGA elections. The status of the agency stuff. Craig’s solo episode. WGA financials. And dots, dashes, and parentheticals.

**Craig:** Ding.

**John:** One small craft topic.

**Craig:** I just wanted to add the Jeopardy noise.

**John:** It’s important.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We could have Matthew do it in post but really I think that artisanal homemade feel is what this podcast goes for.

**Craig:** Ding!

**John:** Ding. But first, Craig, there was some follow up from Episode 406. Do you want to talk us through this?

**Craig:** Sure, Alice, a longtime listener, first-time commenter writes, “Dear John and Craig. I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your discussion with Rachel Bloom about how sex is portrayed on TV. You asked her to give you a wish list of the kind of scenes she wanted to see but I don’t think she did. So here is my wish list of what I would like to see more of.

“One, discussions of contraception. A humorous and embarrassingly memorable example is in the movie Shop Girl. Two, allowing men to say no to sex instead of implying that they are always ready to go at a moment’s notice. Three, discussion of menstruation as a natural part of a woman’s life and not just as a punchline. Four, verbal discussions of what kind of sex the characters are comfortable with before the act. Although it has been derided by many, one of the good things about 50 Shades of Gray is that they had such a discussion. Many shows imply that not saying no means yes and they skirt dangerously close to date rape, see for instance Blade Runner.

“Five, more laughing during sex because it can be hilarious. Thanks so much for your show. Keep up the good work”

That’s a pretty good list.

**John:** That’s a great list. Alice, thank you very much for that list. I hope that some of these topics make it on to the whiteboards of TV shows that are in the room right now to figure out their seasons because they’re all good things. And there’s ways to do all those topics even on broadcast television. So yes, more of that.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** Yep. All right, let’s get to our eight big topics because this could be a marathon episode if we don’t get to it quickly. So I could roll a physical die but I think I’m going to try to have Siri roll the die for us so that everyone can hear and so that Craig knows I’m not cheating and trying to – because we’re doing this on Skype so he can’t see what I’m doing.

**Craig:** True.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** Rolling.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Siri:** Five this time.

**Craig:** Wow. Whoa.

**John:** Siri has picked number five.

**Craig:** God, she started us off with a hot topic.

**John:** Oh, the status of the agency stuff. Oh my gosh. All right, let’s get into this.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** So much has happened since we last talked about the agency stuff, but nothing really fundamentally on the ground has changed. Let me recap some of what’s happened since we talked about it on the show last, because there are a lot of little individual things. And we are recording this on a Friday. By Tuesday when this episode comes out, who knows, things could have changed again.

So, the WGA got back into the room with the ATA. The ATA doubled their previous offer on packaging but didn’t change anything on producing. That’s a fair summary I think of what happened in that room. It didn’t go great. In a video response the president of the WGA, David Goodman, explained that revenue sharing was a non-starter and that we weren’t going to negotiate percentages on something we didn’t think addressed the fundamental issues involved.

At the same time the WGA stated they were at an impasse with the ATA and would begin negotiating with the individual agencies instead. Then, WME, CAA, and UTA sued the WGA for antitrust. They were separate lawsuits but they’re basically all saying that the writer firing that happened in April amounted to an illegal boycott. The WGA issued a cease and desist to the ATA claiming antitrust, price fixing, and unlawful collusion.

The WGA sent out a modified proposal allowing a one-year sunset clause on packaging fees. Abrams Agency let the world know that they were willing to give up packaging fees and producing since they were the first of the major ATA agencies to sort of break away from the pact there. But they didn’t want to sign the Verve agreement, so as we’re recording this it’s not clear that anything is actually going to happen with Abrams. So, that’s a summary of I think the highlights of what’s happened since we last talked about this on the show.

**Craig:** Yeah, if we want to call those highlights. So, it seems to me that the kind of missiles, the legal missiles that are firing back and forth is, well, in the short term – and when I say short term I mean probably within a year – I can’t imagine either one of those or any of these kind of cross-suits having a direct impact because it’s going to take forever to wend its way through the system. These are leverage moves.

I am so disappointed. I’m just going to come out and say it. I am so disappointed with the position that our side took which is that revenue sharing was a non-starter. I don’t know how else to get to an agreement myself. And I’m concerned that the agencies make so much money off of packaging fees that they may just look at the numbers and say we make more if we keep packaging directors and actors and never get anything from writers than we would if everybody goes to 10%. In which case this never ends. And the guild sort of unilaterally excludes its own membership from the four biggest agencies on the planet, which I’ve said before is unacceptable to me for so many reasons, not the least of which is I think it will permanently damage our status in television which is well-earned and well-deserved and hard fought for.

So, I’m really disappointed. And I think it’s something that has to change. I don’t think we’re going to get there with a lot of the same people in charge. I don’t think anything is going to happen until an election. And I just feel a little jerked around. I think that the vote that we had, the implication was give us negotiation strength so we can negotiate a deal and we haven’t negotiated anything. We’ve just said, nah, no packaging fees. So, I’m upset. I’m upset. Yeah.

**John:** I hear all that. And so last time as you vented I didn’t sort of respond back. I do want to respond back on some things because I feel like there’s some differences of opinion here that are important to voice.

So I can’t say some things that are sort of stuff that’s ongoing. I do think it’s a little disingenuous to say that, well, you can say that you gave him your vote on moving ahead to give them leverage to make a deal. But I think it’s very clear and there’s good tape to show that the request with the vote is to vote honestly, to vote your conscience, and not to vote to give them leverage. And that’s a thing that was said repeatedly in the run up to it.

So, I can totally understand why you felt you were doing that and that could have been your intention, but that wasn’t a thing that was asked for. Am I communicating that clearly?

**Craig:** Yes. I disagree.

**John:** OK. We can disagree on that point.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I share your frustration and disappointment at this process. I think I quite naturally direct most of my frustration and disappointment at the agencies for not looking at their clients, or their former clients, and a valuable thing for them to be winning back. And I don’t see them trying very hard to do it. And so I think a difference I’ve noticed with the smaller agencies and we’re going to get to Verve later on, but of the major agencies only Verve was the one who emailed out a survey to all their former clients saying like, hey, what do you actually want. And they took the results of what they heard back from their former clients and realized like, oh crap, we should probably actually take that seriously.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I don’t see the agencies, big, and some of the smaller ones, too, taking that seriously.

**Craig:** I agree with you on that.

**John:** That’s a thing I would hope to see more of in this near period.

**Craig:** You won’t. [laughs] You won’t. I don’t foresee that changing on their part. I mean, just so you know, I don’t think that their angels in any way, shape, or form. To me they’re a known quantity in a sense, so I just – I’m so pragmatic. You know, I just think like, OK, they’re not going to stop being leopards, but we need to figure out how to get them to stop taking bites out of our leg and go back to biting other people on the leg. And any kind of hope that they’re going to find their way toward some sort of more moral position is I think ultimately going to be fruitless.

**John:** Oh, no, no, I’m not arguing for a moral position. I’m arguing strictly practical. Strictly sort of like what do the numbers tell us. And what is the opinion of the folks we were trying to represent as clients? And I don’t see them actually doing that.

As I would say in the run up to it they were doing a lot of outreach meetings trying to sway that opinion but didn’t do a lot of actually listening sort of what that opinion would be or what the opinion is right now.

**Craig:** Yeah. They blew that. They blew it. No question.

**John:** I do want to talk a moment about the revenue sharing, the decision not to move ahead with the revenue sharing. And we’ll link to the video which sort of explains why that became a non-starter. You know, as the video explains it wasn’t simply that it was the moral issue of sort of we’re now trying to share this thing we don’t think should exist. It was also the practical matter of how the hell are we supposed to divvy up this pie and divvy up this pie not only necessarily among writers but other folks who would be perhaps entitled to a piece of this packaging fees. It became – it was basically like kick it all at the WGA to figure out how to disentangle this incredible mass of stuff that would be heading our direction. And it wasn’t clear how soon that money would be coming. It became clear that we were negotiating to enter into a percentage negotiation on this thing was to accept a tremendous amount of responsibility for dividing this thing that was probably indivisible.

And that there were other topics. There were other solutions that were not being seriously considered because this had been the anointed decision.

**Craig:** I think it’s our responsibility if we’re going to demand that our membership fire all their agents that they have relationships with and empower our guild to negotiate with the agencies, then yeah, it’s their responsibility to do the difficult thing. Of course it’s difficult. If it were easy, you know, this wouldn’t be a negotiation or at least the potential for a negotiation. It’s not going to be as difficult as the MBA which is 800 pages.

We have models for divvying pooled amounts of money between writers, directors, and actors – residuals for instance is an excellent model. And I do think there’s a way to do revenue sharing that restores the you-make-more-when-we-make-more. The fact that it simply wasn’t explored either somebody – either we don’t have the right people because our people are saying, “Oh golly, the math is too hard.” Or we’re using that and when I say we I mean some people inside the building are using that as an excuse. I don’t know how else to get there. I literally don’t. I’ve thought about it for a while. I don’t know how else to get there and I don’t think we will get there any other way.

And, by the way, we’re leaving money on the table which I think is really bad for writers. Again, we’ve empowered the union to make a deal for us and they’re not. Currently the plan appears to be nothing, because saying we’re going to negotiate with the individual agencies, they’re not doing that. They’re not going to do it.

**John:** Again, things I can say and things I can’t say. I think what you say from Abrams was an attempt to do that. And so we’ll see–

**Craig:** I’m sorry, they don’t count. And no offense to Abrams, and no offense to their clients, but the big four are the ones that we have to figure out how to live with. We have to. Or we’re going to be damaged.

**John:** Yeah. I understand the sense of the necessity of figuring out how we’re going to deal with the giant elephants in the room.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I totally do hear that and understand. I will say that there are the members of the negotiating committee and the board do understand that and do have – that is a subject of discussion.

**Craig:** I’m praying for all of us. And when I say I’m praying I don’t pray. I just sit and stew really is what I do.

**John:** As an atheist Craig prays. All right, are we ready to roll the die again?

**Craig:** Roll it.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** It’s four this time.

**Craig:** Four.

**John:** Four.

**Craig:** Oh, more WGA stuff.

**John:** Oh, this is a very related thing. So it’s the WGA elections. The announcement came out about the upcoming WGA elections. Every year we have an election. Every year on this podcast we talk about the elections. In certain cycles we’re electing the officers, so the president, the vice president, and the combined secretary/treasurer. In other cycles we are just electing half of the board. So there’s a total of 16 people on the WGA West board. Eight each time are up for reelection or for selection for those spots.

So if you’re looking through the list that came out recently of who those candidates are you will notice Craig Mazin is among the people who is running for the WGA board.

**Craig:** What an idiot. What an idiot.

**John:** I can say that because I’m not a person who is running for election in this cycle.

**Craig:** So smart.

**John:** So Craig and I would not be on the board at the same time if this were to happen. There are eight board seats. There are 17 board candidates. But there could be some more being added because people can also submit their names by petition. Those petitions have to be received at the guild by July 23.

There will be a candidates’ night forum which I suspect this year will actually be fascinating. Where people can ask questions of the candidates and sort of engage in a discussion there. That is happening Wednesday, August 28, at the WGA headquarters, probably in the newly refurbished room that is so much better than it used to be.

**Craig:** So much better.

**John:** So much better. Voting ends on Monday, September 16. So, the candidates’ night forum is probably the start of the election cycle, so the 28th. But all voting is done by September 16. So, we’ve still got a long runway ahead of us here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Thank god. Because I really don’t want to do any of this stuff for a while. Campaigning is inherently demeaning to everyone. I really do believe that. I wish we didn’t have to do any of it. But I understand the point of campaigning. I mean, you need to let voters know what you think.

You and I talked about how we do the podcast. When you were running our basic rule was we could talk about WGA issues the way we always do and we could endorse other people, but you couldn’t campaign for yourself. And I think that’s a perfectly good way we should approach mine.

**John:** And on this podcast I will not be promoting you either, so it will just be a discussion of the general things and the election, encouraging people to vote, but not to vote necessarily for–

**Craig:** Me.

**John:** You, a person who is on this here podcast.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, Craig, things you get to look forward which may be different from the last time you were on the board because that was 10 years ago? More. It was a long time ago.

**Craig:** Almost 15 years ago.

**John:** 15 years since you’ve been on the board. So a thing you will probably be doing, you will probably go to wix.com because everybody goes to the exact same website for the endorsement stuff. So you put up a little endorsement website with a form that fills out. People fill out their form.

**Craig:** I was the first person to use an online form.

**John:** Craig, you were a trailblazer back in the day.

**Craig:** I was just lazy. It was Wufoo was what I was using back then.

**John:** Wufoo is the other good choice. So Wufoo probably will be the one you’re using. You know what, I said Wix. I bet it was Wufoo that I used this last time. I blocked it out of my memory.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** But that will happen and you might have some events. You’ll get some people to endorse you. It will be a thing.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Craig, it’s important to have screenwriters on the board. Because here’s a general pitch I can make on behalf of sort of interests of the board and just what I’ve seen is there will be really smart, talented people running for everything which is great. I want to make sure that as I leave the board, as Andrea Berloff leaves the board, and Zak Penn leaves the board, that’s three screenwriters we’re going to be down. So please do elect some folks who are primarily feature writers, or at least do write features because some of those issues are different and we need to make sure that screenwriters are well represented on the board.

**Craig:** I feel like I have enough anger for five screenwriters.

**John:** Yes. But you’re only one person.

**Craig:** I’m only one person.

**John:** And you will also be busy doing other things. So I want to make sure that the screen subcommittee that Michelle Maroney and I started and ran these last two years can persist, because there are enough people on it to actually get that work done.

**Craig:** Nevertheless we persisted. We will persist.

**John:** Nevertheless.

**Craig:** We will persist.

**John:** And now we will roll the die again.

**Craig:** Woo-woo.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** Rolling. It’s seven.

**John:** Seven.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Oh my god, we’re so WGA focused in the start here. I apologize. This really was random. Every year the WGA has to publish its annual report, its financials. And every year on this podcast we talk about it, so let’s quickly look through the financial report. We’ll put a link to the PDF in the show notes here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, some interesting things popped out but no more interesting to me than the very first thing that the guild currently for fiscal year, for this fiscal year, ran an operating surplus of $10 million. And this practically sent me through the roof. Why?

Because, it’s not like surpluses are inherently a bad thing. In a sense you can squirrel away from stuff for a potential cold winter. My problem is that screenwriters pay 1.5% in dues. It used to be 1%. Then it went to 1.5% of every dollar they make in writing income and residuals to the union. Television writers don’t. They pay 1.5% of WGA minimum because there’s this other surplus money they make as producers that the WGA can’t touch. So essentially feature writers have been over-taxed in a way that is hard to describe. And when we’re running a deficit it’s hard to make an argument that you should be reducing one category’s dues rate. But we’re not.

So to add insult to injury we’re running a surplus of $10 million. That’s for an organization that spends about $43 million a year. So that’s like 25%. It’s a lot. So, I think dues reform has to happen. Has to.

**John:** Great. That’s a thing Craig Mazin can do if you were elected. That won’t be controversial at all, Craig. I think that will be smooth sailing, nothing to worry about. Those aren’t live wires sitting in a shallow puddle.

**Craig:** It’s all I’ve ever wanted.

**John:** No worries there. Let’s take a look at some of the little chart things because I always find that interesting. So the number of writers reporting earnings, which is basically the number of working writers really, that dropped 0.6%, but the overall amount earned grew 4.2%. That was slower growth than previous years, but sometimes those numbers in the last year adjust upwards because stuff gets reported late. So I’m not going to take that with too much – I would say it looks more flat than anything else, so we’ll see what happens.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s my guess, too. But of note we have increased our earnings every single year for five years running now. We’re doing well.

**John:** And easily you can point to the growth of streaming television as why there are more jobs. We’re making more money because there are more writers working. There were 6,057 writers working this last year earning $1.5 billion. That’s great. We cannot count on that always happening. There’s obviously disparities between features and television. What I found interesting is that there was a decline in the number of people working in TV but not in features. Actually the number of people working in features was up a tiny bit.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that’s Netflix.

**John:** That’s probably Netflix. Movies written for Netflix. I’m sure you’re right.

**Craig:** I think that’s what it is. Also, it’s good to note that even though we are essentially flat in terms of the number of writers reporting earnings, I mean, it’s just like whatever 38 fewer, we still are going up in earnings, meaning we’re earning more per writer which is great to see.

**John:** Yeah. But let’s take a look at sort of why that is is it tracks pretty closely to the increase in scale minimums that happen. Because particularly in TV, as Craig said earlier about dues, is that in television we’re only looking at the writing income and that writing income tends to be scale. It’s producing income that’s above scale. And so as we’re looking at writing income increasing that’s largely because every three years we’re negotiating for increases in those things. So, that’s largely what’s pushing those numbers up.

So, we’ve just got to keep pushing those numbers up.

**Craig:** That’s true. In screen, however, where that doesn’t apply at all, we are again doing better, which is great, because screen, you know, really got hammered for a while. So in feature I think entirely because of Netflix, I really do, we have essentially again holding flat the number of writers between 2017 and 2018, but the income goes up again, I think when everything is rounded up probably around 8% or so, or 9%, which is fantastic. It means, again, we are earning more per writer in features which is a sign of the marketplace.

**John:** Yep. Let’s take a last look at residuals. So TV residuals were up 10.6% to $307 million. That’s good. Theatrical residuals were basically flat line, it was a 1% increase to $154 million. The best part of that chart to look at is the source of where that money comes from, because the actual money coming in is about the same year to year, it’s that it used to be home video and now it’s entirely “new media,” which is streaming, it’s Netflix, once again.

The answer to most of the questions in the annual financial report is Netflix.

**Craig:** Correct. It has made a massive difference in things which is scary. You actually don’t want that to be so concentrated in one area, but while it’s happening let us celebrate it and make hay as the sun shines as they say. The only other thing I noticed, and this just sort of is a general bums me out thing, our legal department every year reports the number of open cases they have. Those are cases that they’re pursuing that have not yet been resolved. And every year roughly that number is around 500 and change.

It’s too much. Either we don’t have enough lawyers or, I don’t know.

**John:** Actually, I’m going to – so I will say that I see the settlements and I see sort of what actually happens. The amount of money that legal brings in in getting stuff done is really impressive. So, the fact that we may have 500, those aren’t the same 500 year to year.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** That’s how many they’re actively pursuing. And so you may absolutely be correct that we may need more resources there, but I don’t know that more resources would actually push that number down. It might just mean that we are bringing more cases. I think the better thing to look at is how much money are we collecting for our writers who are not able to collect it for themselves. And I think that is a meaningful statistic to look at.

**Craig:** Yeah. And for that we kind of move in a weird way between about $4.5 million and $16 million, it was a high water mark in 2014. 2017 was $5.6. This year it was $10.8. So, yeah, you know, it’s in that kind of zone. This looks to be more like an off year for us, but it may be cyclical. We may get more stuff done by the end of the year. I don’t know.

But, yeah, you know, I think more lawyers would be a good thing.

**John:** So, and here’s what I’ll stress I that whether it’s $4 million or $10 million that the guild is bringing in overall, if you are one of those writers who is not getting paid or needs that money that is a game changer. So we have to make that for every member we are able to do that work and sort of deliver the checks that they deserve.

**Craig:** Unquestionably.

**John:** So that’s a thing that if you are back on the board this next time you can look at their reports every time and see who we’re getting money for and that to me is one of the best parts of every meeting is seeing what they were actually able to do and solve.

**Craig:** Yep. I will.

**John:** Let us roll the dice again.

**Craig:** Roll it.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** OK. Seven this time.

**Craig:** We already did that one.

**John:** OK, we repeated a seven. So maybe we need to switch to a D6. Let’s renumber and go to D6. Change here. So we’re going to get rid of – number four is gone.

**Craig:** Number five.

**John:** So four will now become your solo. Four is now your solo.

**Craig:** And five is gone, too.

**John:** Roll a six-sided die.

**Siri:** It’s five.

**John:** Number five – dots, dashes, and parentheticals. So, a long time ago I would do these little videos on YouTube where I would record my screen as I was writing through a scene and talking through stuff and people found them really helpful. They were just a huge hassle for me to do and so I sort of stopped doing them. But this last week I was answering a question, I guess coming in through the mailbox through ask@johnaugust.com about when do I use three dots versus when do I use two dashes. And it felt like the kind of thing that like it’s just going to make much more sense for me to just show in a video than try to describe it.

So I’ll put a link in the show notes to it, but it’s a little six-minute video I did that sort of talks through the conventions of when to use three dots versus dashes when dialogue is interrupted or when people don’t finish their thoughts.

Craig, was it consistent with what you do? I go for three dots when someone is trailing off, when it’s like an incomplete thought. I use two dashes for someone who is cut off by either another event or someone else interrupting them. Is that what you tend to do?

**Craig:** Essentially. Yeah. I will also – I will use dashes if I’m cutting them off because I’m putting a parenthetical in or some action takes place. So it’s meant to say there is no real disruption. If I go from you’re saying something dash-dash and then you’re saying something start with two dashes, and then continue. That just means you keep rolling.

So, yeah, that’s pretty much what I do.

**John:** The last little point that I talk about in the video is that when characters are talking over each other you have a couple of choices. And a tempting choice is always to do dual dialogue and it’s rarely the right choice. So there can be cases where you have two people speechifying at the same time. And the point is that they’re not listening to each other. That’s an example where dual dialogue might make a lot of sense.

You also have situations where do you want to go to the park, one character says yes, one character says no, and they say it simultaneously. You can dual dialogue that.

But if someone is just overlapping or you want the sense that people are talking over each other, I find the parenthetical of overlapping or at the same time tends to be more helpful in communicating what I’m trying to convey on the page. Is that your experience, too?

**Craig:** It is. I almost never use it. I used it one time out of all of the five scripts for Chernobyl and it was when Akimov and Dyatlov are having an argument about what the rules state, that you can’t lower it from 50%, when we came down from 80%. And I wanted it to basically be these two guys were essentially talking over each other and not listening to each other and that worked.

But by and large I just think that forcing overlaps like that is very mannered and it’s also uncommon. People don’t really do that with each other. They might overlap each other a little bit naturally at the beginning and end of something, or interrupt each other, but it’s so rare to have people just talking at the same time and not stopping.

**John:** We were rewatching Call Me by Your Name last night and there is a section in that where this Italian couple is at the table and they’re just talking constantly. And so that was a situation where you literally would put the side-by-side dialogue because it’s 30 seconds where they’re talking at the same time and not paying attention to each other at all. So that’s an example where you might want to do that.

But this last week on Twitter, Craig, someone had tweeted at both of us asking how much do you use beat. So there’s a convention which is not maybe a great convention in screenwriting, where as a parenthetical you just say “beat” which means sort of a pause or it’s a moment. It’s an interruption and such. And I said I don’t tend to use beat all that often. That I probably use it less than I used to. But I really liked your answer to it, so talk us through what you often do in that parenthetical.

**Craig:** Well, like you I’ve reduced my usage of beat, mostly because it’s so generic. It really is just saying nothing more than a mechanical instruction to the actor, pause. Right? But a pause is there for a reason. And as I’ve kind of gone on in my career I’ve just become more and more enamored of just informing the actor and director what the subtext is through parenthetical or through action lines. And so instead of just saying beat I might say reconsiders, or questions herself, or realizes. So that the reader and the actor and the director all understand why something there is happening. And it also gives them the choice of how to time it. So you don’t have this rigid pause but rather sometimes that little flash can happen so quickly that we see it happening and they keep talking and that’s way better than a kind of overdone stop, two, three, next line.

**John:** For sure. So I really liked how you phrased that on Twitter. It was a better answer than I gave so I wanted to make sure that you said it aloud because not everybody reads the tweets.

**Craig:** Well, thank you, John.

**John:** Rolling the dice. Roll a four-sided die.

**Craig:** So cute.

**Siri:** It’s three.

**John:** It’s number three.

**Craig:** Oh, it’s your new agent.

**John:** I got a new agent. Yeah, so that was big news of this last week. So for the first time in 20 years I have a new agent, a new agency. I switched to Verve. So I decided I would tweet out that I’d done this just so that I could actually say my whole – present my whole case and not have it sort of misreported in the trades. And that mostly worked. So there was an article in the trades about it, but it actually just said what I said and I didn’t have to answer any reporter questions.

**Craig:** Isn’t it amazing? Like I honestly feel like 95% of the things that are in the sort of web journalism are simply regurgitations of other things. Like they don’t do any – did they even call you? Or did they just reprint what you said?

**John:** They just reprinted what I said. And here’s the thing. The conversation we had earlier about the agency situation, they will recap that as if they are quoting it. So I just want to call out the people who are going to do this in Deadline especially right now. You know what, at least mention the Scriptnotes podcast. Because so often they’re saying like “In a recent podcast” and it’s like what podcast. Oh, my podcast? That’s where I said it, in my own podcast.

**Craig:** Why wouldn’t you call us? If you’re doing an article you should call. I mean, all you’re doing is just, what, writing down something transcribed and it’s not – how is that a thing?

Anyway, so you have a new agent at Verve.

**John:** I have a new agent at Verve. So here are the tweets I sent out and this really is sort of a good recap, but I’ll do a little framing around it afterwards. So, I tweeted, “I’ve signed with Verve. They’re the agency that represents some of my favorite writers, including Michael Arndt, Meg LeFauve and three of my former assistants,” which is true. “I’m excited to join them.”

Tweet two, “Back in April, I tweeted that I’d happily give my UTA agent of 20+ years a kidney. The offer still stands. But my frustration with big agency practices has only grown. I don’t think they’re putting clients first.”

Tweet three, “When I toured Verve, I really liked the vibe and spirit. It felt like a good match. To be clear: I would have met with ANY agency that had signed the agreement. I know a lot of screenwriters who will do the same.”

Four, “My decision to go to Verve is entirely my own. Yes, I’m on the WGA board but that’s not why I’m making the move. I remain committed to reaching an agency agreement that serves all writers. WGA West members can help by filling out the survey coming to inboxes this weekend.”

So those are my four tweets. And it was my decision to move there and that’s not going to be applicable to a lot of other people, but you have actually changed agents more than I have. And so I kind of want to talk through what it’s like to change agents because this was kind of a new thing for me. So I could talk through sort of what I did, but I suspect there’s some useful things for anyone who is considering moving from one agent to another for whatever reason if it’s not sort of this reason.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Cool. So, in my case I reached out to see who is there and who is there that could vouch for them or just give me some experience on the ground. So I reached out to Jac Schaeffer. She’s the writer who is running the Scarlet Witch show that Megan McDonnell, our former Scriptnotes producer, is writing on. So I reached out to Jac and I said, “Hey, I know you’re at Verve. Are you happy at Verve? And if you are at Verve who is your principal agent there because I’m considering making a switch?”

She wrote back that her agent there was Bill Weinstein, he’s fantastic, and offered to make the email introduction. And that is a very common way things happen here is someone who knows both people makes the email introduction just so it’s not me blinding emailing into somebody at Verve.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think the times that I’ve done this, there was one time where I really did a big I’m going to sit down and meet with all of the major agencies and talk to all of them and then pick one. And with that I used my attorney. I basically had him kind of call and say, “OK, would you like to meet with him? And who would like to meet with him over there?” And those were decided and off we went. It was a week of awkward couches.

**John:** And so used your attorney for that, other writers might use a manager for that. That’s a very classic thing that managers set up agency meetings for a person to go in and sign with an agency.

So in this case it was this writer who had made the introduction. I emailed with Bill Weinstein. We scheduled a phone call. We had a good phone call. Set up a time for me to go in. And before I went in they read some stuff so they’d have some stuff to talk about when I actually came in.

I went in, I met – I shook so many hands. I met kind of everyone at the agency. I sat down with Bill Weinstein and two other agents to talk through specifically what my goals were and what I was looking at for the next year and couple years ahead in my career.

Then I talked to my attorney, an important person to get involved with this.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And then when the time came to make a decision I called Verve, I called UTA to let them know that I was making the change, and that was it. A thing I need to sort of clarify because the timing looks weird is that the same day I announced that I was moving over to Verve was the day that UTA announced that they were suing the UTA. That was a coincidence. That wasn’t one causing the other. So that was not the reason for why I left.

**Craig:** You know, something you said there just flicked a little switch in my head. And it was about the manager thing. One thing to think about if you are a writer that has an attorney and a manager and you’re trying to figure out which agent you should go to, maybe rely on the lawyer a little bit more. Because managers are already inherently dealing in a kind of conflicted space. I mean, all the problems that we have with agencies, managers have codified from the very beginning of their work. That’s what they do. They want to produce your stuff and then you don’t pay commission.

So similarly a manager may be funneling you to an agent that they can kind of protect each other with, because inevitably down the line if you have an issue with one or the other you’re going to go to one or the other and say what do you think. And sometimes they just protect each other. And that’s not what you want.

What you want is an independent adviser. You don’t want necessarily a sweetheart deal being made behind your back that you don’t even know about.

**John:** Yep. I think that’s really good advice. And attorneys tend to see just a wider scope of things because they’re just dealing with many different clients and many different situations. They know a little bit more about how the sausage is made sometimes. I think it’s a good recommendation to at least enlist your attorney’s opinion if they’re not actually steering the conversation around.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** But I also say, I mean, the reason why I reached out to this writer was because I wanted to make sure that she was having a good experience at this agency and with this agent. And so asking for those personal recommendations is an important part of this as well.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** So right now Verve is the only sort of mid-sized agency that has signed the agreement. So I was really happy at Verve, but that was also sort of my one choice of a place, a midsize agency, that I could sign with. But in a macro sense let’s talk a little bit about the pros and cons of big agencies versus little agencies. Because I think there’s some real things to think through.

So at what other point this all gets resolved and people have a choice of I could go to a giant or I could go to a smaller agency, some pros and cons.

Some cons. In theory a smaller agency has a smaller information network. They have fewer agents who are talking to everyone at all the studios. Their tentacles are in less things in terms of understanding all the jobs that are out there or what’s really happening. Their information network could be smaller.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They might have less access to certain IP or certain deals. So, they might have – you know, the big agencies would have a big book-lit department that would track all the books that are coming out. And might be able to steer some of those your way early.

They would have less history of making certain kinds of deals, especially big overall deals. Like the mega blockbuster deals.

**Craig:** Right. The monster deals for your J.J. Abrams and your Mike Schurs and those guys.

**John:** So interesting on the patching thing is that I sat down with a director this last week who was at Verve and his point was – it was an interesting pushback against that – is he said that being at a purely literary agency, so Verve only represents writers and directors, he finds it very easy to go after any actor because there’s not an in-house stable. You’re not competing with your own folks inside the agency. So, he’s actually been able to have good relationships with the talent agents at the different agencies when it comes time to go after an actor for a role. So that’s a thing he found coming from a big agency to a smaller agency, he found that helpful.

**Craig:** And I can see that, particularly if you’re talking about features. In television I think things are a little bit trickier. Well, why? Because the agencies are addicted to packaging fees. They are motivated to package. Yeah.

**John:** We’ll list that as a pro. I would say a pro is fewer clients means fewer internal conflicts. So basically we’re not all fighting over the same thing. And we talked about that in our conflict of interest episode a zillion years ago which is that the more folks you have who are going after the same things, there’s naturally going to be some conflicts among clients and that’s just a thing that has to be managed. And the fewer clients the fewer conflicts there are there.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And it’s probably less positioning which is that sense of they’re not actually putting you even on the list for that job because they have three other people who are clients who they need to be sending that to first.

**Craig:** That’s the danger. I mean, ultimately you are competing against everyone. But you want your advocate advocating. And they can’t really advocate for you fully if there are three people ahead of you on the list that make more money and are more important. I mean, that is an inherent issue at these agencies. And even at a small agency like Verve it could potentially be – somebody on Bill Weinstein’s list just took one step backwards. [laughs]

But you’re right. There are fewer potential conflicts to be had there. I think at a place like CAA it’s always conflicted.

**John:** Oh yeah. The last pro I’ll list is that you as an individual client probably have a bigger impact on that agency’s bottom line at a smaller agency than at a large agency.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** And part of that is just because there’s more clients, but also the bigger agencies are – as we’ve seen – are invested in a lot of other things, too. And so the financial interest in making sure that each of these clients is served to their best capability is different at a small agency than at a bigger agency.

**Craig:** Right. Absolutely true.

**John:** Let’s roll the dice again.

**Craig:** So much fun.

**John:** Roll a four-sided die.

**Siri:** It’s two.

**Craig:** It’s two.

**John:** Oh, Chernobyl!

**Craig:** Chernobyl.

**John:** Craig, so we haven’t gotten to talk about Chernobyl since it resolved and so you’re so sick of talking about Chernobyl. Can I just congratulate you again on–?

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** –On Chernobyl and on the podcast which I thought were fantastic.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** The Chernobyl podcast is the top rated TV and film podcast in the world.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** So, congratulations on that.

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**John:** Which is great. Questions I had for you, and these are not really spoilers, so if you have not seen all five episodes I don’t think I’m going to spoil anything for you in talking through this.

**Craig:** There are no spoilers. It blew up.

**John:** It did blow up. Episodes one and episodes five cover some of the time periods, particularly in the control room. My question – does anything that was originally intended to be shot for number one or number five drift back and forth in the edit?

**Craig:** Nope. It’s exactly as planned.

**John:** But I suspect you did shoot all of the control room stuff at one time.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** You didn’t like send everybody off.

**Craig:** Oh no. We shot it all in one. There was one week. One week in that control room. And, you know, we – when I look back at that week we got a lot of pages done.

**John:** Oh, I’m sure.

**Craig:** Well, that was – there were really only three sets we constructed. We really tried as much as we could to be on location or on an exterior. We built the sort of Kremlin conference room because we couldn’t find one that worked right with its little hallway attachment.

We built Lyudmilla and Vasily’s apartment just again to control this little apartment. And then we built the control room. And the control room was our biggest build. And Johan and Jakob shot the hell out of it. I mean, they found angles that I would have never even thought of and just kept it looking fresh all the time. But, yeah, it was a great week. I loved all those guys in there. They were all fantastic. Just good people. Great actors. Some people don’t know that the guy who plays Stolyarchuk is Billy Postlethwaite, Pete Postlethwaite’s son.

**John:** Oh how nice.

**Craig:** Great guy. They were all just terrific. It was a joy to work with those guys.

**John:** How early in the schedule was the control room shot? Was that quite early on in the months of shooting?

**Craig:** I would say it was sort of – I’m a little fuzzy but I’m going to say it’s maybe like a month in out of four months. April, May, June, July. Maybe a month out of five months. It was about a five-month shoot. So it wasn’t in the middle. It wasn’t right up front. Part of it was that we needed time to get it built.

**John:** I get that. In the library at johnaugust.com we have the scripts to all five episodes, but on the podcast earlier you said that you initially thought of this as six episodes. What would the extra episode have been or was it two things combined? What was the difference between the initial plan of six and what became the five episodes?

**Craig:** So, I was writing episode two, I had laid out a show bible and I had a description of how each episode would work. And the way I described episode one, episode four, and episode five, and six I guess at the time, was all correct. But when I was writing episode two I found that – I noticed, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but in the new world of limited series where you’re allowed to just set your own episode limit kind of it seems like writers sometimes are a little languid with their pacing. I don’t know if you’ve noticed this. But they sometimes – I’m like I think you might be wasting my time here with this kind of indulgent 20 minutes.

And because the second episode was taking place essentially in the day, the one or two days following the explosion of a nuclear reactor, I really wanted to people have the sensation that they were just falling through an episode, just out of control. So, I just said, you know what, I’m just going to tighten everything up. I think I can tighten this and just make it way more urgent if I combine episode two and episode three into one episode. And that’s what I did.

And so I called up HBO and said, hey, look, I’m thinking about doing this is that OK? And they were like, yeah, that’s great. And then later – because I come out of movies I found out that I get paid by the episode.

**John:** Ha!

**Craig:** So that’s why I think some of these limited series are a little long, you know. I get paid for another episode, yeah, sure.

**John:** What was the episode ender for episode two as you initially had thought about it in your show bible? Or you had not gotten to what individual scene would end an episode at that point?

**Craig:** You know what? I’ll tell you right now. So the original end of episode two happened around the point in episode two where General Pikalov drives his truck in and comes back and reports that it’s not 3.6 roentgen, it’s 15,000. And then the next thing I showed was a scene that we never had in the show, I never even wrote it. It was the moment where the Swedes determine that something was wrong at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant which was kind of the beginning of the end of the secrecy.

So that’s where that ended. And I think I made a smart choice to combine.

**John:** Yeah, I would say that the truck driving in there felt like it was a moment that could have ended the show and yet there was still 20 minutes, there was more runway left there and so it made sense. You did the right thing.

**Craig:** Thanks.

**John:** My last question for you. If you could email yourself back three years ago when you were just starting on this project some piece of advice what advice would you give to younger Craig Mazin going into this about the show?

**Craig:** Hmm. I think I would advise myself to stand by my instincts. And generally I did. But I have – this is the first thing that I’ve ever done that was truly mine. It wasn’t an assignment. It wasn’t a sequel. I didn’t have a writing partner. It was mine. There was no source material like a fictional book or something like that.

So, I went in and said this is the product of my instincts and now unlike those other situations where a lot of times I get into people-pleasing mode and want everyone to be happy, in this case I just was like the most important person to be happy is me. Which is a very weird thing for me because I’m not built that way. I just mostly want the puzzle to work.

But I allowed myself a tiny bit of preciousness, precocity.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** One of those. And I think it helped. And I don’t mean to imply that I ever threw any tantrums or anything. It was more like when I felt that out of the five people in the room, four of them thought one thing and I thought the other, I gave my point of view a full fair hearing. I didn’t always. Sometimes you do change your mind because other people are right. But I didn’t default to, OK well, it’s a vote.

**John:** Good. So you advice would be stick with that the whole time through. Because probably earlier on in the process you felt like, oh, I’m going to have to bend a bit here and you learned that bending was not the right solution.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sometimes I would, you know, I would bend and then I would come back and say, no, no, no, no, we’ve got to go back the other way. And that’s, you know, by and large that worked. But, again, I don’t mean to imply that I wasn’t open to things because all sorts of contributions came in from all directions, from our key cast and from Johan of course and from Carolyn and Jane and everybody involved.

It’s just that it’s not really that I said I’m not going to listen to other people. It’s mostly that I said while I’m listening to other people I will also consider what I want equally, which is new for me. So, I would want that to be fresher in my mind before I started.

**John:** Sounds great. All right. We’re down to two things, so I’m going to say flip a coin.

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

**Siri:** Tails.

**John:** Tails. Tails is Craig’s solo episode. So, Craig, you did a first-ever solo episode. This is back Episode 403 where you taught us how to write a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It was really good. People loved it. And so, here’s let’s read what Bob wrote. “Immediately upon hearing Hegelian dialectic I shot up from the coach and started taking notes, hitting the pause button frequently and shaking my head as I’d never heard the phrase ‘central dramatic argument’ before. It didn’t stop there. The presentation led me over to my script and allowed me to see it in a whole new way.”

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** And I’m going to paste other things in the show notes so you can see and be happy about people’s reaction to it. But I’ve got some questions.

**Craig:** Go for it.

**John:** Here are some questions I have for you. I can very easily imagine someone listening to this or reading the transcript and saying like, “Ah-ha, Craig has found a new formula.”

**Craig:** Oh god. I hope not.

**John:** And I think the reason why they might do that is because the same way that Syd Field took Casablanca and sort of made it fit this sort of paradigm someone could say like, oh, all movies are like Finding Nemo and everything should follow in that thing. So, do you have any sense of how to encourage people to use what’s helpful here but not let this be a straitjacket for them?

**Craig:** Sure. So, Pixar movies in general are formulaic. There is a Pixar formula. And the Pixar formula happens to mesh nicely with my point of view about structure. But that’s – they do it in a very pure way. And animation can do things in story that live action can’t. Animation is almost like pure story. In fact, you will see, I mean, this model of how I’ve described things isn’t just Pixar. It’s across almost every major animated film now, ever since Pixar came on the scene.

But for live action this is meant to just be inspiration for how to think about your characters and how to think about why things happen in a movie at certain times. But your choice of execution should be as unique to you as your own fingerprint. If it’s not, then, you know, you will just have made a very well-structured piece of crap.

So this is not a formula. This is meant to be a kind of philosophical musing on why narrative works the way it does. Why it appeals to us the way it does. And in that sense if I’ve inspired people to stop thinking about plot and start thinking about character first then I will have done my job.

**John:** Great. And I will say having seen Toy Story 4, which I’m guessing you have not seen yet.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** It does – it’s completely the Craig Mazin plan. It really does follow the kinds of things that you’re talking about. If you look at Woody’s journey through Toy Story 4 it is a lot of what you’re pitching in your episode.

I want to make it clear that most screenwriters that you encounter in real life are not going to use thesis and antithesis. So Craig is using philosophical terms that are meaningful for his argument, but if you start throwing those around causally people will look at you kind of cross-eyed, or they’ll know that you listened to that episode of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They’re not things that I’m casually using. Like Aline and I aren’t having mussels and talking over these things.

**Craig:** No, no, or having mussels.

**John:** Oh, Aline and I are having mussels on a regular basis.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** In Larchmont.

**Craig:** That’s your shellfish choice?

**John:** I love mussels.

**Craig:** No, absolutely true. This is not something you want to just trot out when you’re on your water bottle tour of Los Angeles and you’re sitting in a room with a studio executive or a producer. You could easily sound like a pompous jackass if you begin talking about Hegel. Yeah. This is really more of an inside baseball philosophical thing for you to think about when you’re alone quiet with your laptop or desktop.

**John:** Yes. I would caution that Craig’s philosophy if applied without subtlety and artistry could make it seem like the choices are being made by the author rather than the characters. And so just to really be mindful that your characters don’t end up becoming in a weird way plot bots responding to all the terrible things that the author is doing to them.

And so that’s always one of the trickiest things in writing narrative is you’re laying out these roads for your characters to walk down but making it feel like your characters are choosing to walk down those roads and that they actually have free will. That’s not a unique criticism of Craig’s screenwriting philosophy here, but if done poorly I think that’s what the result is going to feel like. It’s just an angry, evil god punishing these characters.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you’re doing that you’ve got it completely backwards. So the idea is that you need to understand this human being fully. And they need to be interesting. And what they feel and think needs to be interesting. And then you have to ask what would be the most fascinating thing to do to that person given what I know about them. The worst thing you could do would be to go this is the point where torture happens and then they just get tortured but it’s not interesting. It’s just torture. That’s, you know, well some people like that. But it’s not my thing.

**John:** Lastly, I think if I were to lay out sort of my philosophical argument for screenwriting and sort of how to write a movie I would approach it a lot differently. A thing that is a huge focus to me which I didn’t hear you talking a lot about is the role of the audience and the role of the audience’s expectation and the social contract you make with the audience and how they are the third party in all of this. And so you have the author intent. You have the character’s intent. But you also have the audience’s intent. And to really be mindful of what does the audience want. And that they are a character in this drama as well. And to be really thinking about their perspective on that.

And that doesn’t fit neatly into the thesis and antithesis, but they are the other party who is engaged with this whole argument to me.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I mean, the truth is I’m mostly thinking about them with this because I’m trying to get at why any of us like any story. But understanding, having an innate sense of what the audience is going to want to want is – that’s where talent is, I think. I mean–

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Yeah, there’s nothing – I can’t really – I mean, we had a clever headline for the episode, but this is not a substitute for talent. This is merely a way to help talented people organize their thoughts if they’re struggling or feeling like they’ve written something that’s plotty or they feel like they’ve run out of runway.

**John:** The last thing is I went through a list of my top movies and the top 100 movies to think of movies where this thesis/antithesis sort of dynamic doesn’t really come into play. And so there are a lot of movies where you don’t really see this. But I think as long as you’re looking at this as not a formula but a useful set of questions to be challenging yourself with as you start to write, it’s only going to benefit, even if the ultimate movie doesn’t fit into the dynamic of this character’s world view keeps getting challenged the way that Craig’s describing.

So, what I don’t want people to do is think like, well, you know, Jurassic Park doesn’t fit this at all and if you’re saying that Jurassic Park is a bad movie, no. We’re not saying that. I’m just saying that the kinds of questions that Craig is challenging you to ask would make even movies like Jurassic Park which don’t fit this overall template stronger.

**Craig:** Completely. Yeah. There’s nothing – I think I said in it, too, that this is really about a kind of movie. It’s about a very classic sort of movie-movie. But even a lot of classic movie-movies stray away from these things and that’s totally fine.

If you’re writing something and you’re loving it and you’re confident in it then you’re in a good space. If you’re writing something and you’re struggling and you’re not sure why, then maybe this will help. That’s about as much as I can–

**John:** Yeah, I would say the movies that it’s going to help most are the ones that feel like they kind of have a classic hero’s journey. A Joseph Campbell kind of thing. Because I think what you’ve done is a really smart way of addressing the stages of the hero’s journey, but what it really feels like on the character’s perspective. Or what they’re watching.

**Craig:** And it’s free. It’s free. You don’t have to pay $2,500 to go see some dude yammer on stage, or buy a book. It’s free.

**John:** Free!

**Craig:** I’m just trying to put these people out of business, obviously. [laughs]

**John:** It’s a noble goal.

**Craig:** This is just spite.

**John:** All right. Lastly, our last of our eight topics is Aladdin.

**Craig:** Aladdin!

**John:** Aladdin! So, Aladdin crossed $300 million domestic, $900 million worldwide so far. So it’s the highest grossing movie of my career, which is–

**Craig:** Congratulations.

**John:** Which is very exciting. And so I wanted to talk through sort of how much money I’ll be getting off of it. And because that’s the thing that people come to me. It’s like, “Man, you must be rolling in dough. Your movie made a ton of money.” And it’s like, no, it’s great that my movie made a ton of money. I think it’s important for people to understand that I don’t get any of that box office money. Like that ticket you bought, I don’t get any of that. But thank you for buying that ticket. It’s still meaningful and valuable that you bought that ticket.

So, screenwriters, I got paid good money to write a script that became a movie. And down the road thanks to the WGA I will also get residuals. And so residuals are for all the things that aren’t showing on a big screen or showing on an airplane, for weird reasons.

So it’s home video. It’s buying it on iTunes. It’s renting it on iTunes. We have a really good rate for renting on iTunes. So rent that movie on iTunes.

It’s for when it sells to a streaming service, when it shows up on ABC television. Those are the things where I get extra payments for it. So I don’t get any money right off the top of the box office. Sometimes some contracts will have a box office bonus. I checked through my contract. I don’t have any box office bonus, because that would have been swell.

**Craig:** That would have been swell.

**John:** I didn’t have one for Aladdin. But in lieu of that I got a credit bonus which is a common thing you’ll also see. For sharing credit I got a bonus for that.

But I was looking through, so if you’re curious about your residuals I know a lot of screenwriters who never check their residuals. And so on the guild website go to mywga.org. When you’re signed on click on the My Residuals tab. It’s actually really good.

**Craig:** Yeah, it is.

**John:** You know, and so full props and credit to the WGA for figuring out how to really show you your residuals. But by movie or by year you can check exactly how much you’ve gotten and from what categories. And so the closest comp I had for Aladdin is probably Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which didn’t do quite as well but did really well.

And so over the 15 years since Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out I’ve made $2.7 million in residuals. And I say that because it’s a big number. And I think it’s important for people to understand that like residuals really do matter. They really are an incredibly important source of income for writers. So those checks come every quarter. You get the big green envelope that has your check in it. The biggest checks are in the first year that a movie shows up on video. But then they do keep coming. And so for a family film like Aladdin I can expect those checks will keep coming.

**Craig:** Yeah. And if you want to understand the value of our union, and I like to point these things out particularly when I’m grousing about them, the original Aladdin, the animated Aladdin, came out in 1993, 1992. It came out in 1992. That’s 27 years ago. And worldwide it made $500 million. And I would venture to say that 27 years ago that’s probably akin to your $900 million now worldwide.

And Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, who wrote Aladdin, got zero dollars in residuals. And they don’t even get credit for the story, right, for the new one?

**John:** Yeah, they get an onscreen credit, but it’s not a WGA credit.

**Craig:** It’s a source material credit. So the point is the animation world doesn’t have residuals like WGA does unless you’re talking about primetime animation like The Simpsons and Family Guy. So that difference is millions of dollars.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** And we can’t work hard enough to protect that. But these are the things – and it’s really when I look over at animation I go, OK, whenever I’m feeling a little grumpy about the guild I just look at animation and I go we get to determine our own credits. We get residuals. This is really, really important. Because it’s a strange feeling to know that in massive success not one penny is going to trickle down to you. That’s bad.

**John:** It is bad.

A thing I do want to say is that I am assuming that Aladdin will come out on iTunes, it will be available on DVD and all those normal things. And I’ve seen cover art for DVDs, so I think they will exist. I think that’s a thing that’s going to happen. But another thing I know is going to happen is Disney+.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, Disney+ is Disney’s equivalent to Netflix, it’s a streaming service. Aladdin will of course show up on Disney+ and not on Netflix or someplace else. And the rate that Disney will charge Disney for the movie of Aladdin determines how much residuals I will get. And that is a weird situation. So that is the reason why I’m going to be very mindful of sort of what numbers they are reporting for how much they are licensing Aladdin to itself.

**Craig:** Sure. And we know that Disney+, which I think is going to be an enormous success for Disney, is starting out at a very reduced monthly rate to sign the world up, which I think they will. And so you’re right. That does impact your earnings.

Now, compared to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was driven largely by DVD sales, our rate for Internet rentals and streaming and sales I think is a bit better.

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** Than the DVD rate. So it may balance out. But you’re right. There’s a huge difference when someone is buying a DVD that costs $18 or someone is paying – what is the initial Disney+ rate? Like $12 or something?

**John:** It’s surprisingly low.

**Craig:** Yeah, for a month, and your one piece of it. So you carve out your biddy share of the whole thing. I mean, which in Aladdin’s case will be a pretty good share. But, yeah, I’m fascinated to see how that functions.

In the long run I think it will be good for writers. In the short term, while Disney is slowly harvesting humanity it may be slightly negatively impacted.

**John:** Yeah. So I would say all the streaming services on the short run have been good for writers. So we say Netflix, we also mean AppleTV Plus, we mean Amazon.

**Craig:** Amazon.

**John:** Hulu. The folks who are employing writers – that’s awesome. That’s good. More writers employed is really great. The challenge will come when it’s time to figure out residuals for some of these projects which are essentially just made for the services and how we are going to calculate those.

**Craig:** Well, see, it’s hard.

**John:** It’s hard.

**Craig:** It’s hard.

**John:** So somebody on the WGA board in these upcoming years will have to figure out how we’re going to do that.

**Craig:** Somebody is going to have to figure out who to hire to do that.

**John:** Ah-ha. That’s true. It’s not just an elected person’s decision.

**Craig:** Fire fast, hire slow.

**John:** We have come to the end of our eight topics. Man, that was a lot but I think we did well by at least seven of those.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So good on you and me.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is the Rodecaster Pro Sound Board. It’s a recording studio for podcasts. So it’s not what I’m using right now to record this because I’m just recording directly into my computer, but when Craig and I are live and in person, or with a guest we’re often doing it at this improvised little studio I have at my house. And it’s been a real challenge. And as we were recording the Rachel Bloom episode like the computer froze up. There were real production issues. And so I ended up buying this new board and it’s really good.

So I would say if you’re thinking about doing a kind of podcast where it’s two or three people in a room talking, this is probably the thing to get. Because you just plug in microphones, you plug in headphones. People can hear themselves in both sides of their headphones. Craig, you’ll like that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Look at this thing. It’s like a little mixing board basically. So it’s got mic pre-amps already in there. Oh yeah. And I assume it’s just USB to your laptop?

**John:** It’s USB to your laptop, but it records onto a little card itself. And it records separate channels. So you want to record separate channels. And originally this didn’t have multi-channel recording. Multi-channel recording means that each mic is being recorded separately. It is a godsend when it comes to actually cutting episodes together.

**Craig:** Yeah, no question.

**John:** So, buy this.

**Craig:** Somebody is always quieter than somebody else and all that. And so, yeah, it’s a huge help. No question.

**John:** And so next time we have you out of the studio and you’re calling in, it can also patch in, Skype through the computer. So it should work much better for these things. So, I recommend the Rodecaster Pro for folks who are considering a podcast.

**Craig:** Brilliant.

**John:** Brilliant.

**Craig:** Brilliant. Well, my One Cool Thing is a lot of people’s One Cool Thing, but you know, I struggle to keep up with television. I do. But I was traveling back and forth last week and I took the opportunity with some extra free time to watch Russian Doll from Natasha Lyonne and Leslye Headland and Amy Poehler. And I loved it. I loved it. I thought it was awesome.

And, you know, OK, one of my least favorite things about peak TV, someone comes, “Have you seen blah-blah-blah?” No, haven’t seen it. “OK, it’s amazing. You have to get through the first 4,000 episodes, but then the next 12,000 episodes are incredible. And I’m like, uh, that sounds like a lot of work man. And in this one, I’m like I enjoyed the first three episodes, clearly. You got to get to the end of episode three or you’re not going to ever get to the absolute joy and shock and dismay of the rest of the show which is at times really funny and at times really beautiful and at times terrifying.

And Natasha is a force of nature. Just remarkable on it. So, yeah, I couldn’t love it more.

**John:** So you realize sort of like your connection to Russian Doll? So we were on the Slate Culture Gabfest and Natasha Lyonne was the other guest.

**Craig:** I remember.

**John:** On the Slate Culture Gabfest. And she had recommended Black Mirror. That was her sort of equivalent of her One Cool Thing. So I feel like there is a synchronicity here because I don’t think you necessarily get to Russian Doll without Black Mirror happening first and sort of like shattering some glass around there, sort of make it possible to make such a weird, great series.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so I think it all comes together in a very great way. But I agree. Russian Doll is one of my favorite things of the year. Just geniusly done.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just beautiful work. I just loved it.

**John:** Give them money to do whatever they want to do next because we want more of it.

**Craig:** Well I think they’re doing a second season of Russian Doll. I was like, how? But yes.

**John:** But more please. Cool. And that’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Arbitrary Jukebox Experiment. And a correction, on a previous episode, Episode 397, we accidentally credited them with Thomas Johnstone’s outro. So fixing that. Sorry Thomas Johnstone. Sorry Arbitrary Jukebox Experiment. But thank you for everyone who sends in outros because they are fantastic.

You can send your outro to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. But for short questions, Craig is on Twitter @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up the week after the episode airs.

Folks do recaps of our episodes on Reddit. So go there and check out the recap if you want to see what people are talking about with the show. You can find all the back episodes of this show at Scriptnotes.net, or you can download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

And you might want to check out the Listener’s Guide there if you’re new to the show because people have recommended their favorite episodes. So if you want to catch up this will tell you what episodes to prioritize as you’re doing your catchup.

**Craig:** Brilliant. You know, we have 4,000 – you’ve got to get through the first 4,000 podcast episodes.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But the next 20,000 are great.

**John:** Yeah, I mean, because you have to listen to them all in order because as you know it builds episode by episode.

**Craig:** Builds.

**John:** And there’s no randomness. It’s not like we’re rolling dice to figure out what we’re going to talk about.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s all planned.

**Craig:** You won’t understand why Episode 378 is genius unless you hear the setup in Episode 16. So good.

**John:** It’s really, really elaborate.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, thanks.

**Craig:** Thank you John for a wonderful dice-rolling show.

**John:** Have a good week. Bye.

Links:

* [Scriptnotes Episode 406, Better Sex with Rachel Bloom](https://johnaugust.com/2019/better-sex-with-rachel-bloom)
* [Verve Talent and Literary Agency](https://www.vervetla.com/) and [John’s Tweets](https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1144754149763850241).
* Find Chernobyl scripts [here](https://johnaugust.com/library)!
* Watch [Chernobyl](https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl), listen to the podcast [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-chernobyl-podcast).
* [WGA Financials](https://www.wga.org/the-guild/about-us/annual-report)
* [Dots, Dashes, and Parentheticals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7XUNvtNSt8&feature=youtu.be)
* [Scriptnotes Episode 403, How to Write a Movie](https://johnaugust.com/2019/how-to-write-a-movie)
* [Aladdin](https://movies.disney.com/aladdin-2019)
* [Rodecaster Pro Sound Board](https://www.rode.com/rodecasterpro)
* [Russian Doll](https://www.netflix.com/watch/80211627?source=35)
* [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 the Arbitrary Jukebox Experiment ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_408_rolling_dice.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.