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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: outline

Scriptnotes, Episode 587: Toldja! The Nikki Finke Movie, Transcript

March 16, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/toldja-the-nikki-finke-movie).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 587 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Often on this program, we’re answering questions, but today we’re going to be asking perhaps the most fundamental question of them all. How Would This Be a Movie? That’s right, we’ll be looking at stories in the news and trying to fit them into a three-act structure, or more likely, an eight-part limited series structure. We’ve got doppelgangers, Craig, family drama, romance, and more.

**Craig:** My goodness.

**John:** Craig, you sounded sad in your hello. Do you want to explain to listeners why you’re sad?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m in a new office, and everything’s wrong. Nothing’s in the right place. All my wires are messed up. My seat feels weird. The room is weird. My monitor’s funny, and it’s not in the right spot. I don’t do well with change. I really do not do well with change. I struggle.

**John:** Therefore you’ve chosen an industry in which day by day, week by week, you’re going to be doing new things. Maybe fundamentally, 50 years ago, you made some choices that brought you here. The first thing is acknowledging that you’re uncomfortable and then being able to move past that, learning to live with some of the discomfort, and rather than raging against the dying of the light, just accept that this is where you’re at.

**Craig:** I want to throw a tantrum.

**John:** Tantrums are great.

**Craig:** I don’t throw tantrums like angry tantrums. In Hollywood when you hear about people throwing tantrums, you immediately think of Scott Rudin stapling his assistant’s forehead to a desk or something.

**John:** Throwing a phone.

**Craig:** Or throwing a phone at someone’s mouth. All I want to do is just cry. I just want to get on the floor and cry.

**John:** Craig’s over-tired.

**Craig:** I kind of am. Honestly, it’s been a lot. We do this podcast. Then I also do a podcast for the show. Then I’m on other people’s podcasts. I feel like every day I’m podcasting.

**John:** That’s what the 2020s are is podcasting.

**Craig:** You know what? That’s all right, because this is the OG podcast.

**John:** Indeed it is.

**Craig:** You guys are my happy place.

**Megana Rao:** Aw.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana. See, John had no emotional response to that whatsoever, and you were immediately like, “Aw.” That’s why we love Megana.

**Megana:** Aw.

**John:** [inaudible 00:02:27]. We’ll talk through all these things on our podcast, but also, in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I want to discuss the frustrations surrounding and solutions for overpowered characters, both the characters we write but also obviously the DND characters that we’re playing, because I now have a 15th level warlock who has an 8th level spell. It’s so powerful, and yet limited in a certain way. With that power doesn’t come just great responsibility, comes really great challenges. We’ll talk about overpowered characters.

**Craig:** Which Level 8 spell have you chosen?

**John:** I chose Feeblemind. I’m questioning my decision.

**Craig:** That’s a great one.

**John:** It’s a great one. It’s a great one for a DM to pick against players, but I’m not sure it’s such a good spell for a player to pick against a DM.

**Craig:** That’s an interesting-

**John:** I’m dependent on you.

**Craig:** You are. We have only seen Feeblemind in action once, and it was you guys that got Feebleminded, weirdly enough.

**John:** It is brutal.

**Craig:** One of you did. When it works, oof. That’s all I have to say about that. Oof.

**John:** Let’s do some follow-up. Back in Episode 579, we had Rian Johnson facing off against ChatGPT. Megana, Bobby wrote in with a question.

**Megana:** Bobby wrote, “At this current moment, can a studio use a bot like ChatGPT to create stories, a basic outline, and then hire a WGA writer to write the teleplay? That is, instead of hiring writers to pitch on a story, they do that internally, they figure out the story they want to tell, and then they hire a writer to write it. They’re not paying a human being for the story by credit, the outline phase, or the pitch. Not like they were paying for pitches anyway. Am I right, folks?”

**Craig:** First of all, you don’t want them paying for pitches.

**John:** You really don’t.

**Craig:** I’m just going to keep saying this over and over. They don’t pay for things the way that we think that they pay for things. What they’re doing is buying things. Never say pay for pitches. Always say buy pitches. If they buy your pitch, they own it. They don’t do anything if they don’t own it. Please, for the love of god, no paying for pitches.

**John:** That actually speaks to one of the issues surrounding this. They don’t want to pay for things that they don’t own. They want to own things. It’s really unclear at this point whether something they generated through ChatGPT, a work of literary material they’ve created through ChatGPT, whether that’s even copyrightable. That’s still unsettled law at this point. That’s going to be one of the first things.

Backing up a little bit, I would say, Bobby, you have to keep in mind that a studio executive producer, anybody could say, “Hey, I want to do a movie about a guy who loves paperclips.” They could write up a thing and then give you the thing. If they’re writing up something that’s big enough, long enough themselves, they are a writer. They are creating literary material, in theory. The ChatGPT is a new wrinkle in this, but studio executives always could make up some stuff themselves if they wanted to.

**Craig:** I think that there’s probably some copyright law that’s going to need to be written. Many people don’t know this, that it’s enshrined in our Constitution itself. The founders, I think it’s fair to say, did not foresee artificial intelligence or guns that could shoot rapidly, side note. I think we’re going to need to write some law to make it clear that copyright is something that is afforded to humans and not AI.

Here’s what I think. I think that if a studio does this, then a lot of writers may be less inclined to actually come in and work on it. Even if they were, they would still have to rewrite the story no matter what. A story would have to be assigned to them. No, I don’t think this would work this way.

**John:** A thing to also keep in mind is that the MBA, the basic agreement that the WGA has for all writing work being done for the studios, already does have language in there that says a writer is a person, that the writer shall not be deemed to be any corporate or impersonal purveyor of literary material or the rights therein. There’s a lot of stuff in it that already says we’re talking about human beings there.

Is there space for clarification about how and when these tools can be used? Absolutely. I think it’s an open question about how we best do that. I don’t think at this moment as we’re recording this in 2023 it’s an imminent crisis. I do know that there are some projects out there where there’s folks who are saying, “We’re having a computer write this script. It’s going to be written by a computer.” Okay, but I don’t think that is the crisis next coming down the pike.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Another bit of follow-up, Yusef was writing about other people’s voices, Megana.

**Megana:** Yusef writes, “This is mainly for Craig. I recently got Apple Plus, and I’ve been catching up with Mythic Quest. I noticed you wrote a couple episodes for the series.”

**Craig:** One episode.

**Megana:** “In Scriptnotes podcast 585, you said you can’t imagine writing in other people’s voices.”

**Craig:** Correct.

**Megana:** Since Mythic Quest isn’t a show that you’re running, in typical TV fashion, the writers would write in the showrunner’s voice or the showrunner would rewrite the episode themselves. I’m curious if Ganz, Day, and McElhenney allowed you to do all the writing yourself, or did they still give you an outline and you wrote it in your own voice? Did they ever rewrite your episodes themselves?”

**Craig:** Okay, episode. Just want to be really clear. One, Yusef. I wrote the episode called Backstory! I have been in some episodes as an actor, but I’ve only written one episode of Mythic Quest. It was the episode called Backstory. It was in Season 2. Mythic Quest each season does a standalone episode. That was that season’s standalone episode.

I still continued to not write in the showrunner’s voice, because Backstory! did not take place in the same timeline as Mythic Quest. It took place decades earlier, in the ‘70s. There was one character in it that was from the main cast of Mythic Quest. We are portraying that character at a much younger age. It was consistent with that character’s voice but in a much different way. It’s a difference between a man who’s 80 and a man who’s 25.

The way that worked is I was in a room. I’ve never done this before. There are a lot of writers at Mythic Quest. You can break off into a little smaller group of writers. I’m going to apologize if I forget anybody who was on Team Idiot. That’s what we called ourselves. Team Idiot was myself, Katie McElhenney, Ashly Burch, Humphrey Ker. I think that may have been it. I apologize again if I’m missing anyone.

We just talked through how the story could function. We had the basic idea of it. We talked through what it could be. We outlined it on the wipey board. Then we brought in everybody, Rob and Megan and David and everyone, and we just pitched it out, told the story. They were all happy. They made some suggestions. We incorporated some of those suggestions into the story on the board.

Then I went away and wrote it by myself, because that’s how I write, like a weirdo alone in a small, dark room with the windows closed. I wrote a draft, and I sent it in, and they shot it. That was it. That’s how that worked. It wasn’t the normal way of doing things, I must admit.

For instance, I think Katie McElhenney, who did Dark Quiet Death in Season 1, which was that standalone episode, and stand-above, I’m pretty sure she did that Mazin style, in a dark room by herself, with the windows closed.

**John:** Circling back to Yusef’s assumptions is that if you were writing a traditional episode that had a bunch of the standing characters, you were on the normal sets, it was a normal episode, the expectation might be that you would need to match a little bit more of the style of how the scripts are normally working, just because stuff could be changing around, and everywhere else is doing the same. If you, Craig, had a really strange style on the page, it would be weird for everyone to have to grapple with a script that felt so different. That was not the case here.

**Craig:** This one was designed to be different. I don’t think I would ever dare to write a standard episode of Mythic Quest, because I think I would blow it, for this very reason. I think I can do one that’s carved out and has its own thing, with an ending, by the way, a real, solid kachunk ending.

I am amazed by the things that those guys can do in that style and also their ability to work with each other so well. It’s pretty great. A ton of credit to the showrunners there and everybody, honestly. They do a great job.

**John:** Last bit of follow-up, I just want to point out that on our podcast, we’ve had four of the Celebrity Jeopardy contestants on. We’ve talked to Ike Barinholtz and Joel Kim Booster at our live show. We knew they were both on it. Also, B.J. Novak and Matt Rogers.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Out of 20-some people, 4 of them are Scriptnotes guests.

**Craig:** Maybe the rest of them should show the hell up.

**John:** I think so.

**Craig:** How have we not had Patton Oswalt on this show?

**John:** That I think is the greatest oversight of all.

**Craig:** Can I just say… Maybe this will help get Patton Oswalt on the show. Maybe he’s reluctant. Maybe he doesn’t like coming on podcasts. I don’t know. I will say this. He’s my favorite stand-up comedian. I think I’ve listened to everything he’s done, all of it. I think he’s brilliant, absolutely brilliant, just special. Maybe that’s why he hasn’t come on the show. Maybe he knows that and he doesn’t want to listen to me talk about it.

**John:** I think it would also be fascinating if the folks who were putting together the next round of Celebrity Jeopardy, if they are just going through our Scriptnotes guest list and figuring out-

**Craig:** Probably.

**John:** … “Who are we going to get on the show? They clearly will do very well and be incredibly popular on our program.”

**Craig:** I bet you that’s true.

**John:** The Venn diagram overlap is so exciting.

**Craig:** Venn.

**John:** How excited is Venn that, whoever Venn was or is, that their name is just always going to be there?

**Craig:** I think Venn is dead. I gotta be honest with you. There’s no way Venn’s alive. Megana, can you do a quick Google search for us to see if Senor Venn is still alive?

**Megana:** “Popularized by John Venn in the 1880s.”

**Craig:** There we go. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say we’ve heard enough.

**John:** I think Venn and Overton of Overtown window, they’re just up there in Heaven looking down at what they’ve created. It’s pretty great.

**Craig:** Yes, indeed.

**John:** Let’s get on to the question of the day. How Would This Be a Movie? We got a couple really good ones here from our listeners. I added one late to the podcast here, Craig, and I apologize. Just moments before you signed on, I added this here.

I want to talk you through this first one. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s simple but juicy and compelling. This is from NBC News, Andy Eckardt and Aina Khan writing this up. It happens in Germany. This 23-year-old woman, with the help of a friend, killed a stranger to stage her death and, quote, “start a new life due to family problems,” police and prosecutors in Germany said.

Basically, what happened in this story is you have this 23-year-old woman who starts setting up dummy accounts on Instagram, looking for another one who looks a lot like her, with the plan that she and her friend are going to track down this person, lure them under false pretenses, kill them, and make it seem that she’s the one who’s died, basically faking her own death by killing a stranger.

**Craig:** What a bummer. All you ever did was nothing. You just happened to look like an asshole. That asshole finds you and kills you. Oh, man.

**John:** Man. A couple of ranges of thoughts here. First off, I could picture the A-level movie version of this, like sort of Gone Girl, that kind of thing, where it’s actually more from the perspective of these people trying to commit this murder. It’s almost like Hitchcock’s Rope, where you’re there with the killers and you’re trying to do this thing or cover up this thing. That’s a total possibility for the A-list version of it. Also, this feels like this could be the A-plot of any given CBS procedural. It’s shocking, but it’s a way to do it, or a Law and Order.

**Craig:** In the old days there would be a movie, I think. These movies don’t get made as much anymore. There was a time where we were getting some really good neo noir films, Body Heat. I think you could make an interesting neo noir out of this. I’d love to see what Scott Frank would do with this. Do you want to know what my twist twist is?

**John:** Tell me, tell me.

**Craig:** Imagine this story. You’ve got a woman, and she’s murdered, and you’re trying to figure out why. Then you realize, oh, wait, the woman that we thought was murdered isn’t even the woman. It’s somebody else who looks like the woman, who’s gone missing. Somehow, if there could be triplets or twins… If there’s twins and they both are like, “One of you needs to die or seem to die. Let’s find somebody that looks like the two of us.” I don’t know, there’s gotta be some sort of twin thing that we could do.

**John:** Another thing that we’re discussing goes back to the actual, real people in Germany. Interestingly, the story that we are basing this off of, the names are all suppressed, because Germany has these very strict privacy laws. We don’t even know the names of the people who are involved here, which is just wild. For our purposes, I don’t think we’d need to know the names. I think we’re just taking this as a premise and applying it to something completely different.

**Craig:** I think so.

**John:** We’re saying this could be a movie. It can really scale. It can go all the way from A-plot of a given episode of a procedural to an actual, full movie.

**Craig:** I think it’s more likely that just by you bringing this onto the show, we will be seeing this on a procedural within a year.

**John:** I agree, because the ChatGPTs will have looked through the transcripts, found it, and therefore [inaudible 00:16:22]. That’s a possibility.

**Craig:** The ChatGPTs. I like that there’s an army of them now. I like it.

**John:** There’s a whole army.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** Let’s get to our next story. The headline for this is The Godfather, Saudi-Style. It’s Anuj Chopra writing for The Guardian. Craig, you did have a chance to read through this. This is a long one. I’m sorry for the long read there. I thought it was really compelling. Do you want to talk us through what you remember of it/

**Craig:** Sure. This is the story of Mohammed bin Salman, who we tend to refer to as MBS, came to power. I did not know any of this.

**John:** Nor did I.

**Craig:** He was not supposed to be the guy. There’s this interesting thing going on in Saudi Arabia that I was also not aware of, where the same family, which I guess they’re the Sauds, the House of Saud, has been running Saudi Arabia as a monarchy for quite some time. The way they’ve done it is by alternating I think between cousins or uncles.

**John:** It says in the family, but never direct, same family line. It always goes laterally, which honestly, I have to say, feels really smart.

**Craig:** The point of it was to avoid what just happened. The point is, no one little family line is the only one. This way, the family as a large entity doesn’t fall prey to what a lot of palace intrigue ends up with. It’s just families breaking apart and then one person just dominating the others. Yet that is what’s happened here.

**John:** Yeah, it is. There was a plan in place for who would be the next in line. You can think of this as Succession to some degree. It’s who is the next person who’s supposed to be there, who’s Nayef, who’s the king’s nephew.

**Craig:** Nayef, the king’s nephew.

**John:** Basically, he gets tipped off that there’s potential problems. It’s clear that he’s going to be… Basically, him and his guards get pulled out [inaudible 00:18:22] sign these documents saying that they are not seeing a succession and that MBS should be the next real person that should be doing this. It’s a palace coup. It’s not violent. This isn’t guns and such. Basically, by locking somebody down and not letting them leave the country, you’re forcing them to sign over their succession.

**Craig:** It was as close to violent as you can get without being violent. In fact, it did turn violent. Initially, it was just we’re going to lock you in a room and tell you that you’re going to resign and you’re going to pledge allegiance to MBS. If you do not, as the article states, your female family members will be raped. That’s an interesting way to just immediately go to 100 as part of your patriarchal monarchy. Just fascinating.

It also mentions in the article, I’m sorry to laugh, but I find this darkly amusing that they said, “First, your female family members will be raped. Second, we are going to withhold your medication for hypertension.” I think I’m stuck on number one. I gotta be honest with you. I gotta be honest. Number one is worse than me not having my hypertension meds, but fine.

I think at some point he was in fact re-detained, so he was, “Okay, you can just live here for a while.” Then at some point, as is often the case with these situations, the paranoid dictator does what paranoid dictators do and decide, “You know what? Actually, I think you are still a huge problem. I think what I’m going to do is lock you in a room and beat you.” There’s an implication that that also occurred.

While this is all going on, we also note that they had killed Khashoggi, the Washington Post journalist. These guys are terrible. The extent that our country continues to do business with them, it’s just startling. Just startling.

**John:** The other main character involved here is a man named Saad Al Jabri, who is Nayef’s advisor and intelligence chief. He’s the man who was trying to give advice to him and help sort through the situation. He was out of the country as this all happened and was able to get most of his family out, except for two family members who were still there. Those two family members were not allowed to leave. MBS is basically saying, “No, no, come back, come back, and everything will be fine.” When Al Jabri doesn’t come back, MBS starts to trump up charges about corruption and other things, and so Al Jabri has to flee first to Canada and then to other places and ultimately is now in the process of filing a lawsuit against MBS.

**Craig:** Now that a lawsuit has been filed, I’m sure everything will be fine.

**John:** It’s a question of at what point do you speak up, because in keeping your silence, you might be trying to keep your imprisoned family members alive, but at a certain point, you have to speak up.

**Craig:** From the point of view of what we are doing, there are a lot of elements here that would suggest that this could be a movie. There are main characters. Al Jabri is a potentially great protagonist, because he’s very smart. He’s very capable. We love watching movies where protagonists are smart and capable and are attempting to out-maneuver very powerful people with entire states behind them. Al Jabri has done it. He could smell that trouble was coming and just went, “I think I’m going to go to Turkey real fast.” I think days later, it was clear that he had made a very smart decision. The challenge in bringing this story to film is that I don’t know if it’s over yet.

**John:** It’s not.

**Craig:** That’s the biggest issue for me.

**John:** You’re right in the middle of it. I feel like with some time, with some closure, you can really tell the whole story, but right now it just feels like a dot dot dot. There’s not a way out of this. I think there’s useful things you could take from this in terms of the dynamics and apply them to another story, but I don’t think you can directly take what’s happening in the House of Saud right now as the meat of either a movie or an eight-part limited series. There’s exciting moments that are happening, but it doesn’t feel like there’s a resolution here.

**Craig:** I do think this is also tricky territory given that access to information is difficult here. Also, to be fair to writers, the Saudis apparently have no problem committing violence against innocent people who do nothing other than report the truth. You have to be aware if you’re going to be digging deep into the situation that you’re going to be drawing some unwanted attention.

**John:** Scrutiny that’s not only applied to you but applied to the production, applied to anybody who’s involved with the production. That makes it much less likely that you’re going to see something, this exact story being told. That’s just the reality.

**Craig:** Until there is a resolution, yeah, I agree with you.

**John:** Let’s talk about Nikki Finke.

**Craig:** I swore I never would, but okay.

**John:** You never would, but here we are.

**Craig:** Here we are.

**John:** This is actual context for it.

**Craig:** It’s a great, great piece that was written here.

**John:** It really is a great piece. This is Jacob Bernstein writing for the New York Times. For folks who are outside the industry and don’t know who Nikki Finke was, Nikki Finke created Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Daily if you want to call it that. It was a website, a blog that rivaled Variety and Hollywood Reporter, ended up supplanting them and becoming more important in the daily workings of the town. It was always about breaking the news in a very bombastic way, a lot of opinion mixed with facts, a lot of bullying on behalf of Nikki Finke, who was this larger-than-life character. She was feared and loathed, but also sometimes admired.

What I like about this piece is that I think it was fair in the sense of talking about she was not a good journalist in any sort of good journalist sense, but she was just a smasher and destroyer of things in sometimes ways that needed to happen.

**Craig:** I don’t know if she was good enough to quality as a double-edged sword. She certainly broke stuff around her. It reminds me of, you’ve seen Glass Onion, the wonderful speech that Rian Johnson wrote about what disrupting is. It’s mostly just breaking shit. She broke a lot of shit.

She was journalistically irresponsible. I don’t think that that’s any kind of slanderous thing to anyone. This is a woman who would report things. They were wrong. People would tell her they were wrong. She would then edit the article to change them but would not indicate that any correction had been made, which is fundamental standard of journalism. She was a bully. She did scream at people. She was mean. She would threaten.

The only thing that was really fascinating about me to Nikki Finke was that she was not doing it for the reason everybody else does stuff for in Hollywood, which is money. She didn’t seem particularly concerned about money. She lived alone in an apartment. She was angry. You could just tell that she was really angry at Hollywood. She liked to put on the mantle on angry companies on behalf of the working people. I don’t think that’s true either, because she was super buddy-buddy with a lot of these people that ran Hollywood. I think she just liked breaking stuff. I really do.

**John:** I think you’re right. I think you could say inadvertently she had maybe shined a spotlight on some real problems in entertainment journalism in the sense that because of advertising and other things, they are so uniquely linked and tied. They’re never objectively reporting about the things that are happening in the town. Because she wasn’t beholden to those things, she could report on things that no one else would report on and say things other people weren’t saying in print, but they weren’t always accurate or truthful. That’s why she developed this terrifying reputation.

What was interesting about this stuff that was brand new that I’d never seen before was really her relationship with Jay Penske, who was the very rich person who bought out Deadline and Hollywood Daily and ultimately I think Variety as well, plus a lot of other magazines and journalism places. Her relationship with him was really fascinating, the ups and the downs and how she hated him and yet how he was the one who actually showed up in her last days in Florida.

**Craig:** You get the feeling that Nikki, for people who knew her, because we sure didn’t. I only had one brief exchange with Nikki Finke, and it was terrible. I think that was true for a lot of people. For the people who knew her, you can get this thread of care-taking, that they were worried about her a lot. The article talks about what appears to be, if not a suicide attempt, a legitimate threat to do self-harm. She was sick. She was physically sick. She had diabetes. This sums it up. I’ll read from the article.

“One year, Miss Finke lamented to Mr. Penske that she wasn’t looking forward to Thanksgiving. She didn’t cook and planned to spend the holiday alone in her apartment on a day when restaurants were closed.” That’s rather sad. “Mr. Penske stopped in at the Beverly Hills Hotel, ordered a three-course meal, and took it to her building,” himself, by the way. He’s a billionaire. “Soon after leaving it with the doorman, he heard from her by phone. The meal included a sweet dessert, which enraged the diabetic Miss Finke.” Quote, “’She said I was trying to kill her,’ Mr. Penske recalled.”

Now we can laugh about this, but I have to say, so much of what I read in this article implies that Nikki Finke was struggling with mental illness. Her mood swings, which apparently were quite extreme, her, what would you call it, shut-in-ness?

**John:** Reclusivity or agoraphobia.

**Craig:** Yeah, her life as a recluse. Also, you could tell from her work there was something compulsive about it. She would be there, sometimes reporting things within seconds of them happening. Then a lot of times, if her reporting was late or somebody else got the scoop, she would make these bizarre excuses, which I guess goes way back to when she was working for other people. She would just constantly be calling in with strange and bizarre excuses for why she was late. That’s why she got fired from everywhere. She just would not make her deadlines, amusingly enough, for a woman that created a site called Deadline.

It seems like there was a lot of mental illness going on here. To the extent that she was suffering, I feel bad for her. To the extent that her suffering led her to inflict that pain on other people, I am not sorry for her. She was a fascinating person. I think you could make a very interesting story about her. It would need to be rather small, because I think this is about as inside baseball as it gets.

**John:** I was looking for comps and thinking about what kind of movie this is. Can You Ever Forgive Me might be one, in that you have a character who is abrasive and really off-putting, and yet ultimately because the lens is on her, you can actually understand why she feels she needs to do the things she needs to do is an option.

**Craig:** It is, but that story I think is better because it’s not about Hollywood.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** That’s the part about this that… Remember The Late Shift, the movie, the Betty Thomas film about the late-night wars?

**John:** The late-night wars.

**Craig:** That was well done, but it’s a confection, because ultimately, the stakes are as low as they can be. Who will get to host The Tonight Show? It’s not that important. It was well done. I think you could do something like that. It would need to be in its own way funny. I don’t think you can do a super heavy version of this. I just think it would be too much.

**John:** I do remember that too. I think it’s also a question of where you start and where you stop. Do you start the story when she’s dismissed by the trades or basically unable to get the job that she wants and creates this site for herself, which is inspiring rise, and then the crash and the sale and all that? Maybe. It’s a question of is that the course of a movie or are you doing that as a limited series. I don’t know that there’s probably enough stuff to make it more than two hours worth of entertainment.

**Craig:** I think that there is the potential for a camp classic. You’re talking about this emotionally wild human being who is a shut-in in her apartment and yelling at people on the phone. This could be Mommy Dearest. If it is, I’m there.

**John:** I think it’s a good point. I think to take this as a jumping off place to get to something bigger and funnier, great. Movies about Hollywood sometimes get awards, but they’re not generally huge hits is the other thing to be thinking about.

**Craig:** They are not generally huge hits. Generally speaking, I don’t like them. There is something inherently narcissistic about movies about movies, which is why I’m still so impressed by The Fabelmans, because I just loved it so much. It was about Hollywood. Generally speaking, I just don’t like movies about Hollywood.

**John:** We have two more here. The first one comes from a listener, Josie. She writes about the nun and the monk who fell in love and married. This tells the story of Sister Mary Elizabeth and Robert, who’s a Carmelite monk. They’re both in their 50s when they meet. What struck me so much as so interesting about this is they barely spoke. It was like he touched her elbow or something, and that was the spark that sat the whole thing up and going.

**Craig:** So hot.

**John:** Craig, you’re saying so hot. Do you think there’s a story here to be told?

**Craig:** No. It’s adorable. I think it’s very sweet. It shows you that love can flourish, even in the strangest ways. It was such a sweet thing to read the way that the two of them were like, “Wait, what did we just do?” and then all the things they have to go through, and then somehow yet on the other end of it, there they are in love with each other and it’s working is beautiful.

I think there’s been another article at some point before about arranged marriages. This isn’t an arranged marriage but it almost is, in the sense that if all you know of each other is that one time, my elbow hit your elbow, you arranged your own marriage. The fact that it lasted… There’s something fascinating about this. I wonder what’s going to happen.

We’ve gone so far down the road. Megana, you knew I was going to turn to you at this point. We’ve gone so far down the road of, everybody just pick who you want and it’s entirely up to you and choose what you want. Everyone’s just drowning in choice to the extent that people really are struggling to make choices.

Here’s my proposal. You do a Tinder, except instead of hookup culture or even just dating, it’s like, we’re going to give you a choice of 20 people. You can meet five of them and you’re going to marry one of them. Now you’re married. Do you think that app catches on in the future?

**Megana:** I think what’s so fascinating about this story is that it was an accident, and she only met him once after, what, 24 years in this convent?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Megana:** How do we simulate that?

**Craig:** Basically, then what you’re saying is you can use this app, but when you register for it, you are sworn to celibacy for 24 years. At that point, I have to say everyone’s going to start looking real good. Great point. Not sure we have a way to monetize this. Concerned about the business plan. I don’t know. I thought there was something very inherently encouraging about this, but I don’t know how I would make it a movie. Can you figure this out?

**John:** We should say that the article we’re reading about is from Aleem Maqbool for the BBC, and there’s probably other versions of this that may go into more depth on certain things. I wouldn’t be surprised if they write their own book at some point.

Here’s the thing that sparked for me, is that we always think about this love at first sight happening to teenagers, because that’s when this should happen, but the fact that these two characters who should not have been looking for love at all, suddenly it happens, it’s just overwhelming when it happens, is nice and is inspiring.

I wondered if it was a play, and then I decided, no, it couldn’t be a play, because I think I need those close-ups. I need those moments. I need to see those elbows touching that make that happen. I don’t think it’s a play. I think it’s an Emma Thompson and some other British actor in it. Maybe it’s great and it wins a bunch of awards.

**Craig:** Isn’t that Howards End anyway?

**John:** It is Howards End to some degree.

**Craig:** I think when it comes to restrained romances, Age of Innocence comes to mind, with the little touch of the hand, or even in a very sick way, Silence of the Lambs, is the moment where their fingers touch, and it’s like that’s the extent of our weird romance. There is room for that. I just don’t know if this is the story that’s going to get you there.

**John:** I’ll say unlike Silence of the Lambs, I think there’s a gold circle movie to be made here. You know what I’m talking about, which is that classy British but also very cheery, or a working title.

**Craig:** A working title sounds like a better fit.

**John:** You can see how this whole package came together and why Universal is releasing this now. I think there’s something that can be charming about this. Also the fact that everyone else around them should be like, “You’re not supposed to be falling in love.” It’s just like, but why? They know it’s love. That could be inspiring.

**Craig:** Don’t you want to write this scene though? I’m quoting from the woman here, Lisa, who was Sister Mary Elizabeth, when she told her prioress how she was feeling. “The prioress was a little bit snappy with me, so I put my pants and a toothbrush in a bag and I walked out, and I never went back to Sister Mary Elizabeth.” I’m like, wait, okay, toothbrush I get, sure, but then also “my pants?” Socks, shirt, underwear?

**John:** Nope, don’t need none of those, just pants.

**Craig:** Deodorant, scissors, hairbrush? Just toothbrush and pants. I guess when you’re a nun, that’s what you got.

**John:** Got what you got.

**Craig:** You got what you got.

**John:** We also have a history of… Looking back to The Sound of Music, the decision to leave the nunnery is a big, momentous decision. Any movie that we make about this is going to echo back to that, just because that’s one of our favorite references, which is great too.

Our takeaway from the story of the nun and the monk, I think there’s maybe a movie here. This is a case where you might actually want to use their life rights, so you could say it’s based on a true story. You would have to get their official version.

**Craig:** My feeling is, as we often conclude with these stories, that this may be good fodder for side characters in a movie. If you’re doing a romantic comedy and your neighbors are a former nun and former monk who fell in love and married, that might be a very interesting side amusement. I don’t know if I would want to watch a whole story just about the two of them.

**John:** Let’s wrap up on a story that Rosario sent in. This is about 13 stranded strangers who go on a road trip. We’ll link to a version by Francesca Street for CNN. Essentially, it’s a bunch of folks. Their flight landed in Orlando, but they needed to get to Nashville. There was no way for them to get to Nashville because of plans getting canceled. A bunch of them had to get to Nashville by a certain time. They decided let’s just rent a van all together and drive from Orlando to Nashville, Tennessee. Craig, what do you think of this as a premise?

**Craig:** It’s a fine premise. There’s a wonderful musical called Come From Away, which is very similar in its own way. It’s about a plane that was diverted on 9/11. The only place it could land was I think in Newfoundland. It’s about this tiny, tiny little town with all these folks who are there stranded, because the airspace is shut down, and people coming together and meeting each other and all that. Yes. It’s just it’s very small is my concern.

**John:** It’s really small.

**Craig:** It’s just people in a van.

**John:** It’s people in a van. It’s a road trip story. You’ve made some road trip stories. They’re not easy, because you don’t have a place to come back to. It’s not quite clear. You have a destination, I guess, but you just have a physical destination. You don’t have an emotional destination for where you’re trying to get these characters to. The fact they start out strangers can help to a degree, but you’d probably want to build some relationships already within those characters so you can really see what it is that’s happening, so you can see progress and growth. Think Little Miss Sunshine. It’s not about the journey. It’s about the people in the van that are important.

**Craig:** I think part of the problem is there are too many people in the van. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles basically is this. That’s what happens. Their flight is canceled, and there’s only one car to share, and so these two strangers have to share a car and drive. It’s been done. I think if you can concentrate on two people or three, that’s fine too, but 13, eh.

**John:** That’s going to be too many people. I think Breakfast Club rules kick in at a certain point. You would have five. More than that, it’s too much.

**Craig:** Have you ever seen Spike Lee’s Get On the Bus?

**John:** Never have.

**Craig:** It’s fascinating. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a very simple plot. It was back when they did the Million Man March. Spike basically gets more than 13. It was probably 20 guys on this bus. The entire thing is the trip. It’s just the bus ride, with little breaks here and there. While there are a few moments of some small, what I would call plot action, mostly it’s these men talking and arguing and laughing and fighting. It’s really interesting as an experiment, because you are stuck on the bus with so many people.

What holds it together is the fact that it’s about a social issue, clearly. The point is they’re going to the Million Man March, and they are debating their own lives and their own history and their own future. There’s something to discuss. I don’t know what they talk about on this.

**John:** You’re not going to be obsessed with Nashville. Getting to Nashville is important to the individual characters, but it’s not important for the movie.

**Craig:** Exactly. There isn’t anything that connects them other than the fact that they were all supposed to be flying to the same place. It wasn’t like they were joined together by social issues or anything like that. I don’t think this is a movie.

**John:** I don’t think it’s a movie either. Let us talk through now our candidates here and see which ones are going to be movies and which ones are not going to be movies. Doppelganger murder?

**Craig:** Television show episode. Episode of a TV show.

**John:** The Godfather, Saudi-Style?

**Craig:** One day. Not today.

**John:** One day. Not today. Last days of Nikki Finke?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** The nun and the monk who fell in love and married?

**Craig:** Side characters.

**John:** Side characters. Thirteen strangers we think is probably not it. I’m going to say doppelganger murder is probably most likely to be the movie. I think it might be a Sundancey movie that could potentially break out.

**Craig:** That’s our best bet.

**John:** Thank you to everybody who sent in these suggestions. Sometimes they come in to ask@johnaugust.com. A lot of times, people are just tweeting them at me or stuff, and they’re good. We love it when you find those and send them in our direction. I propose we answer one listener question, seems timely, from Embarrassed. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Embarrassed asks, “What do you do when the movie you wrote gets terrible reviews and you agree with them? I had a movie get made at a big level, and I’m so grateful that it got made, but I don’t love what the director did with the script. I don’t want to seem bitter or burn bridges with anyone or seem ungrateful. How would you recommend handling this in meetings and even just with your own family? How do you talk about a project that didn’t turn out like you dreamed it would?”

**John:** Craig and I, we’ve both been there.

**Craig:** I don’t know what you’re talking about.

**John:** First off, Embarrassed, it’s amazing that you had a movie get made at a big level. That’s fantastic. You’re better for having gone through the experience of it all. I’ve been there. What I will say in meetings is like, “Oh wow, yeah, thank you. It was a real challenge. It wasn’t quite the movie I wanted it to be, but I’m glad it worked. I’m glad it had success.” You can say things like, “It was weird to agree with the critics on it.” I would say you don’t need to volunteer about the bad experiences you had unless you think they’re relevant for the discussion you’re about to have, like why you never want to work for that director again.

**Craig:** There’s really no great advice here, Embarrassed. When it doesn’t come out the way you want, the only thing you can say is, if someone mentions it, you can say, “Ultimately, it was not the movie I wrote. The director took it in a different direction.” That’s I think fair to say. That’s all you need to say. I think everybody will get it.

**John:** There may also be a way to put it in a positive direction, say, “It’s a really interesting situation, because here’s a story that I actually wrote,” and basically talk about what the plan was. Then you don’t have to get into… They saw the movie. They know what the result was. They can see, oh, you’re that kind of writer. You’re the kind of writer who wrote that script that would’ve been a different movie. That can be useful.

**Craig:** There’s another thing, Embarrassed, that I think is worth mentioning. That is that these days, everybody is absorbing and soaking in review culture. When John and I were starting out, there weren’t even that many reviewers. Reviewers worked for newspapers. There are only so many newspapers. There’s four billion outlets right now online that write reviews. Everyone writes reviews. The old joke “everyone’s a critic” is now a fact. Everyone is a critic. There are so many reviews. They all get slurried into the Rotten Tomatoes score or a Metacritic score, and so now there’s metrics attached to reviews. Then on top of that, even people that aren’t writing reviews professionally are writing reviews on Twitter. Everyone’s reviewing everything constantly. It’s just what people do.

You may therefore feel a little worse about this than perhaps you should, because in the old days, you’d get your ass kicked in a bunch of newspapers. You’d feel bad. Very few people are even reading those things. Most people are just like, “Oh cool, you got a movie made. That’s awesome.” That’s it. Nobody would really dig any deeper. It just wouldn’t matter.

Just keep that perspective in mind that you may be feeling this intensely just because you’re swimming in the waters of reviews. It might be worth taking a break and turning some of that stuff off, because here’s what has happened. You got a movie made, and that this the beginning, my friend. Somewhere down the line, something great is going to happen for you. You will be happy. You will feel terrific. People will come up to you and tell you it’s wonderful. You don’t get there until you do the first thing.

The other thing is let time do its job, because 20 years from now, people are going to have a very different opinion of that movie. I don’t care what it is. They just do. That’s how it works.

**John:** I think we can also offer some very specific advice for Embarrassed, because we’re not going to say this on the air, but Megana has a note in the Workflowy about what the actual movie was that came out.

**Craig:** (singing) Megana has a note.

**John:** I’m looking at the title. I know that’s a movie. I know it’s a movie that came out. I have no idea what the critical reception was. I didn’t see it. I don’t know what people are saying about it. I would say that was a big movie. That’s what a lot of people are going to know about that movie. It’s a movie that came out, and that’s awesome. I honestly think that credit is not going to hurt you. Your feeling that it’s not a great movie is not important. It’s not going to weigh on anything.

**Craig:** You’re in the business. You’re writing movies that get made. In features, directors get all the credit. We know that. They also get all the blame. Your job is to write a movie that people agree to make. You didn’t cast it. You didn’t shoot it. You didn’t edit it. You probably weren’t on set. If you were, you were visiting, because that’s how features work, unfortunately. You did your job.

Of course you’re going to want it to turn out better. Of course you’re going to want the director to have done better and all of that. I completely get it. This is a great beginning for you. Don’t apologize for this. You can just say, “That really wasn’t the movie I wrote, but the movie I wrote got everybody to agree to make a movie,” and that’s of value.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is Nothing Forever on Twitch. Craig and Megana, if you’re not seeing it, Nothing Forever is an animated, pixelly animation of a Seinfeld episode.

**Craig:** I’ve seen it. It’s cool.

**John:** It’s the Larry stand-up bits, which are Jerry Seinfeld’s monologue things. Then you’re in this apartment. These characters are moving around in really awkward ways and sitting on couches and on their heads. It’s all crazy and goofy. It’s all generated basically by AI and algorithms and a bunch of prebuilt assets that are just doing this thing. Basically, it’s constantly creating a new episode of a Seinfeld-like show in real time. It’s really unusual and unnerving to watch. It’s not good, but it’s fascinating.

I think the degree to which we talk about AI coming for our jobs, I don’t think they’re going to be writing the kind of stuff that we’re writing. I think they’re going to be making stuff like this that’s actually compelling and strange, that no human would ever actually try to do. I think that’s in many ways the real danger, like what is it that I’m watching, and why can’t I stop watching it? I think it’s really interesting.

If you’re clicking through the links right now, you may find it’s not available, because just this morning as we’re recording this, the account was suspended for transphobic content because of things that the algorithms itself had generated. It had characters saying bad things that the creators had not intended, and so the creators are apologizing and trying to fix it, which is again another exciting challenge to this kind of thing. Nobody wrote it, but it created a thing that actually got itself banned.

**Craig:** It’s canceled. We have canceled AI. Listen, it’s important for artificial intelligence to learn. These are learning machines. Maybe it needs to learn from what it’s done and do better.

**John:** Indeed. It’s taking some time to listen and really reach out and reflect.

**Craig:** I’m looking at what it was suspended for. It’s very strange. In a weird way, it’s almost anti-bad. There’s actually a weirdly subtle thing of it’s making a comment on the thing that’s not good, but still. Let’s put it this way. There is a line in the thing where it’s suspended, where the AI comedian, the Seinfeld literally says, “No one is laughing, so I’m going to stop.” I think that’s incredible. Wow.

**John:** Craig, did you have something for us?

**Craig:** I do. I purchased an item called the Manta Sleep Mask. This is available wherever you shop online, I’m sure. It is not expensive, like the last thing that I thought was not expensive but turned out to be expensive. This one’s $35.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** You may say, “$35 for an eye mask?” Here’s why I love this one. I don’t wear eye masks normally at night, but if I’m on a plane and I need to sleep, I absolutely wear one. One of the things that we have been learning over time about light and sleep is how important it is to keep it out of your eyes. We talk a lot about some of the fancier, newfangled things, like not as much blue light. You probably have the night shift thing set on your tablets and so forth. I certainly do. That’s nice, but it seems like blue light, not blue light, the most important thing for sleeping is no light.

The thing with eye masks is they’re super annoying. I hate them. They come off my face. They squeeze my head. They pinch my eyes. I don’t like the way they feel. This thing is great, because they’ve designed it so that there are these eye cups. It floats away from your face, but it really does a good job of sealing out the light. It doesn’t mush around to the left or the right when you turn your head and sleep on your side. The eye cups themselves are Velcroed to the straps. You can move them to fit, because the distance between our eyes is different for everybody. For me, I’ve found this to be an excellent travel solution. Big recommend for the Manta. What a nice name for it too, the Manta Sleep Mask.

**John:** I think I’ve recommended sleep masks before, because I’ve slept with a mask for 10 years or so. I sleep every night with a mask on.

**Craig:** Really? In your own bed at home?

**John:** At my own house, absolutely.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** I want absolute darkness. I think they’re great. Yes, they take a little getting used to. So often, I think people’s only experience with masks are when they’re on a plane and they’re using those cheap ones that come in little kits.

**Craig:** Those are bad.

**John:** Those are really bad. That’s not what we’re talking about. These are going to need to be soft. Definitely they don’t touch your eyeballs, which is crucial. You should be able to open your eyes with a mask on, without your eyelashes touching. That’s what this will allow you to do.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** It’s great. I really recommend, if you’ve not tried sleeping with a mask, get one of these, because it really is just a better night of sleep, and you’re out.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Pachoo.

**John:** It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Chow.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Timothy Lenko. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. For short questions, I’m sometimes around on Twitter @johnaugust, but not consistently, so send it in to ask@johnaugust.com.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find those at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on overpowered characters. Craig and Megana, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, so this past week at DnD, we leveled up. We went down a level in the dungeon. We went up a level of our characters. I got to pick a new spell for my warlock named Klaus. Here are the choices I had. I had Demiplane, which was not going to be situationally very useful, Dominate Monster.

**Craig:** In the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, no. Dominate Monster, excellent spell.

**John:** Excellent spell. It basically lets you not just charm but really control a creature.

**Craig:** Control a creature.

**John:** Feeblemind, which was done against us shortly before, which basically just knocks somebody down to a Level 1 intelligence. They can’t do anything meaningful.

**Craig:** And charisma.

**John:** And charisma, yes. It really keeps them from casting spells and things. Glibness, which is a skill I don’t have, which is the ability to speak extemporaneously and [inaudible 00:54:13] charisma checks. Maddening Darkness, which is a powerful darkness that does damage on the people who are inside it, and Power Word Stun, which stuns people.

I picked Feeblemind because there’s a recency bias. It had just been done against us, and it felt great. It also felt like a good way to knock out a spell-caster, except I’m also thinking a lot of spell-casters could counter-spell that, and then I’ve just burned an incredibly expensive spell on them.

**Craig:** Hard to counter-spell that one though. It is a higher level spell. As they go up, trickier to counter. I think Mind Blank probably-

**John:** Protects against that?

**Craig:** … protects against Feeblemind. Yeah, it does. Mind Blank is a pretty awesome spell. It’s is also an 8th level spell. That’s 8th level wizard spell, pretty sure. Oh, and bards apparently can do it as well. Feeblemind is a great spell against casters for sure. You don’t want to cast it against a dum-dum monster, because it’ll just still punch you. Really good spell against anybody that’s using charisma in particular, so warlocks. If you’re going up against another big warlock, Feeblemind would be a really good one.

**John:** This got me thinking about overpowered characters, because now Klaus is at a level where he can do some really impressive things. I can lock somebody in a force cage and basically take them out of a fight, which is great.

It got me thinking about overpowered characters in DnD but also overpowered characters as they relate to the stories we’re trying to tell. I think we talked about the challenge of Superman on previous episodes, where you have a character who can do so much, who’s so powerful, that you end up having to look for his small weakness. You have to find the kryptonite so you have some ability to stop him. It makes it very hard to fit him in with other groups of characters, because he’s just so overpowered.

**Craig:** Overpowering leads to power inflation. The more powerful a hero is, the more powerful the villain has to be, so that we care. What ends up happening is this blunting of ability, where you get very excited that somebody is such a badass. Then you’re like, oh no, a mega badass has appeared. At some point, isn’t it just all the same then? If Superman is trading punches with-

**John:** Darkseid?

**Craig:** Yeah, Darkseid. He’s going up against Darkseid. Now it’s just these gods punching each other in the face, which is fun, but it does turn into the whole Thor is fighting with Hela, and you’re like, they’re the same.

**John:** They’re gods.

**Craig:** Now it’s just fistfight again. You get that weird inflation of power, all the way to Thanos can wipe out half of the universe and that we can do these things. For me, as a DM, the challenge of running a campaign with… There are seven of you guys, who are all Level 16. You’re a Level 15 warlock, but you’re also a Level 1… What’d you dip into?

**John:** Artificer.

**Craig:** Artificer. Seven Level 16 characters are demigods. The danger now is that every encounter will either be trivial or you’ll all die. The ability to craft close battles is becoming much, much harder because you guys can beat almost anyone. It’s tricky.

**John:** What you’re describing in terms of the DM’s challenge is really the screenwriter’s challenge or the TV writer’s challenge in terms of figuring out ways, when you have characters who can do all these things, how do you create scenarios in which they are challenged, and yet it still feels like they are recognizably human, it still feels like they’re relating to things at a normal human level. That becomes just really, really tricky thinking about the Superman problem, like Doctor Strange and Wanda Maximoff, which again, super incredibly, incredibly powerful characters.

In the case of Wanda, you’re looking for what is she really trying to do, how do we set up the things that she’s actually focusing on, which is basically to get back to her sons. How can that be a driving factor? Yet we as an audience have very little ability to understand what are the limits to her power, what is it that she cannot do. You end up having to have other characters describe someone that’s putting other guardrails around where the edges of her power is. It’s really tough. I think we sometimes under-appreciate how tough it is to write incredibly powerful characters versus people with more normal levels of ability.

**Craig:** You begin to get stupid. I don’t know how else to put it. There was a video game I played years ago called Turok, the Dinosaur Hunter. It’s a cool game. You were running around. I think you were on another planet. You must’ve been on another planet where there were a lot of dinosaurs but also bad guys. As you go, no surprise, the monsters get tougher, bad guys get harder.

Like a lot of first-person shooters back then, it was about weapon fetishization. You start with a gun, but then you get a shotgun, but then you get a big shotgun, but then you get a rocket launcher. Where it ended up was you have a gun that fires small nukes. That’s where you ended up. You were literally firing nuclear weapons out of your gun, which of course should theoretically kill you as well. It just got stupid. That is stupid. It was fun. Oh my god was it fun, but it was stupid fun.

The one time in Predator, way way back when, in the end, spoiler for the movie from the ‘80s, the Predator explodes himself and it’s a nuclear explosion, which Arnold Schwarzenegger runs from, jumps, does the whole something behind me is exploding jump, lands and takes cover behind a log or something, and he’s fine.

**John:** He’s fine.

**Craig:** He was at Ground Zero of a nuclear blast. He’s all right. They don’t show his character going through intensive cancer treatments years later. That was hysterical but also stupid. I know I’m going to get angry fan mail about that. That’s part of the fun of overpower is like, oh my god, what a badass, but then what it costs you is…

Another case of overpower, Highlander. There can be only one. He’s the one. Now let’s make more Highlanders. They’re overpowered. They’re eternal. They can kill everybody with their swords. This guy killed all those people with his sword.

**John:** I want to point out though, going back to your Predator example, because the most recent Predator I thought was a really, really good version of Predator. I loved it.

**Craig:** Grounded.

**John:** Grounded. I think one of the reasons it was grounded is that the Predator character could seem overpowered and yet it has put limits on what it’s willing to do, in terms of it could fly off in its ship. It’s not going to fly off in its ship. It’s going to do some stuff. Therefore you can use the overpowered character’s abilities against itself. That’s ultimately how they are defeated, which is true to the Predator ethos. An overpowered villain is not nearly as much of a problem for the screenwriter as an overpowered hero is.

**Craig:** Yes, although the overpowered hero will lead to overpowered villains. I see in the notes here you reference The Matrix. That’s what happened in The Matrix. What a great movie.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** I love The Matrix. It is just gorgeous from beginning to end. It has a wonderful end. Then the demands of sequel made it so like, okay, he’s definitely God in The Matrix, so what do we do? Let’s bring back the bad guy, but let’s bring back a thousand of him.

There are so many interesting things that are happening in The Matrix sequels that I really enjoy, that are fascinating. That was the part that was the least interesting to me, because you could feel it getting silly. You were losing a sense of reality to anybody getting really hurt or really dying. It was getting so mythological as to disconnect me from a relationship with it. That’s one of the costs of overpower.

**John:** I’ve been thinking recently about why there are not more movies being made about the Greek gods. I think it really does come down to that. It’s very hard to have any sort of grounded things happening to them, because they are just literally gods. Their powers are so vast, it’s hard to find a challenge for them.

**Craig:** The great Greek dramas were about humans that were being toyed with by the gods or encouraged by the gods. The stories of the gods in their internecine warfare feels more like reading bible stories, where you’re like, “I don’t really think that that happened like that. I don’t believe that Jesus is fighting Satan in Hell.” I don’t really believe that, I don’t know, Chronos ate his children. I don’t know where any of this stuff comes from. It’s all rather silly. What is interesting is Persius.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** He’s interesting. That story is fun. Jonah and the Whale, Jonah is interesting. People are interesting. One of the problems with the proliferation of the superhero genre is that we’re just disconnecting with people. The more superheros are like people to me, the more interested I generally am in them. I love Spider-Man. I love Batman, because Batman’s a person. Spider-Man’s a kid. I love that.

**John:** Craig, Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you!

Links:

* [‘Doppelganger murder’: Woman accused of killing Instagram lookalike in plot to fake her own death](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/doppelganger-murder-woman-killed-instagram-lookalike-fake-death-rcna68318?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma) By Andy Eckardt and Aina J. Khan for NBC
* [The Godfather, Saudi-Style](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/mbs-v-mbn-the-bitter-power-struggle-between-rival-saudi-princes) by Anuj Chopra for the Guardian
* [The Last Days of Nikki Finke](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/style/nikki-finke-hollywood-journalist.html) by Jacob Bernstein for the NYT
* [The Nun and the Monk who fell in Love and Married](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64125531) by Aleem Maqbool for BBC
* [13 stranded strangers went on a road trip. Here’s what happened](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/chance-encounters-canceled-flight-van-road-trip-13-strangers/index.html) by Francesca Street for CNN
* [‘Nothing, Forever’ Is An Endless ‘Seinfeld’ Episode Generated by AI](https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkyxp/whats-the-deal-with-nothing-forever-a-21st-century-seinfeld-that-is-ai-generated) by Chloe Xiang for Vice
* [Manta Sleep Mask](https://mantasleep.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Timothy Lenko ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/587standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 585: Do Muppets Bleed?, Transcript

February 28, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/do-muppets-bleed).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 585 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, what are the unique characteristics that allow you to distinguish one writer’s writing from another’s. We’ll talk about writer fingerprints, voice, and situations where you may need to mimic someone else’s style. Plus, we have a lot of listener follow-up.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, we often answer writer questions about producers, but here we have one from a producer asking about how to best handle a writer who can’t seem to finish or deliver on a script. If you want to know what advice Craig, Megana, and I have for this producer, you can find out as a Premium Member in about one hour when we get to that segment.

**Craig:** That’s worth the five bucks right there.

**John:** Right there. Right there.

**Craig:** Right there.

**John:** You know what’s worth more than $5?

**Craig:** What, Segue Man?

**John:** A spot on Scriptnotes if you are a writer, because we are the number one podcast for getting Oscar nominees to happen. That’s what I’ve decided.

**Craig:** I think you might be right about this.

**John:** Our track record this year, pretty darn good. Sarah Polley, Oscar nominee. Rian Johnson, Oscar nominee, Daniels, Oscar nominees. You count them as one or two people?

**Craig:** I count them as one bi-person duology.

**John:** Absolutely. Although she wasn’t on the podcast this year, she’s a previous guest, Pamela Ribon, and she was a One Cool Thing, so I think that counts for her animation nomination for My Year of Dicks.

**Craig:** Absolutely. It’s so funny, Year of Dicks triggered something in me.

**John:** The title or the film itself?

**Craig:** The title. I’m so glad I got to say that and it’s preserved eternally. Have you watched Poker Face yet?

**John:** I haven’t watched it yet. I’m excited too.

**Craig:** I saw the first episode of Poker Face last night, which is the new show from Rian Johnson and the great Natasha Lyonne, who by the way, have we had Natasha on the show?

**John:** No, she was never on the show.

**Craig:** We’re going to change that momentarily. It was a delight. There was a line that was said not once, but twice, possibly thrice. “Cloud of dicks.” It made me happy. I think we have entered the dicks phase of language.

**John:** Yeah, 100%. Now, I worry though that the success of these writers who came on the Scriptnotes podcast is only going to make it worse for Megana. I don’t know if you know this, Craig, but publicists are flooding her inbox.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** We need to stop that.

**Craig:** There’s nothing we can do about that really. They’re going to find whoever they can find, and I don’t blame them. I honestly don’t. The thing about these awards seasons is… You’ve been involved in one. I’ve been involved in one. The publicists are constantly looking for these angles. The ones that they love the most are the inside baseball ones, where they know you can go and talk to people for an hour, it’s actually a fun conversation, it’s not brutal, and it’s going to be over-sampled by the people voting in the Guild Awards and for the Academies.

I get it, but also, dear publicists, we’re not a talk show really. This is my favorite kind of show, me and you alone with Megana. Alone with Megana. That’s a great song title. Didn’t Air Supply do that one?

**John:** I do want to acknowledge that most of the people we’ve had on the show who are writers who get awards were people we just knew independently of publicists. There have been a couple cases where the only place that we could find these people were because of publicists, and some of those have turned out great too. The Greta Gerwig episode is a fantastic episode. I don’t know Greta Gerwig from anybody, but because of publicists, we were able to be connected together. I’m not digging publicists. They serve a great function. I just want to make sure that we are true to our goals of not becoming just a talk show.

**Craig:** I think we really do try and limit it, even among our friends. We have friends that still bug me, like, “Why haven’t I been on your show?” Because that’s not what we do. It’s not our thing. Then every time we do have a guest, I’m like, “I’m going to hear from people.” It’s honestly not our focus. We are not a come on and plug your thing. The reason that we talk to people almost always, not always, but almost always, is because there is a personal connection. Even the Daniels was just down to, I’d had a nice chat with one of the Daniels on Twitter. There was some connection there.

**John:** I met them up on the mountain at Sundance.

**Craig:** There you go. There you go.

**John:** There was some connection. The person we’ve not been able to get on the show, and we’ve kind of tried, we haven’t tried that hard, but James Cameron is a get that we’d love to get, because not only his most recent work, but how incredibly influential his writing style for films like Terminator and Aliens. Action writing is different because of him. It would be great to have him on the show.

**Craig:** I am a huge, huge fan of the script for Titanic. I just love it. I love it. It would be great to talk to him for my own interest. I’m that selfish. If other people want to listen, fine, but I want to talk to him.

**John:** We’ve been trying to make that happen. At some point, maybe we can make that happen. In the meantime, if you want to read any of these scripts that are nominated, you can now, thanks to Megana Rao, read them on the Weekend Read beta. Weekend Read is the app my company makes for reading scripts on your iPhone. We have a beta for the new version. It’s really good. It’s really fun. We now have all the For Your Consideration scripts up in there if you want to read them. The new version has notes. It has a read aloud feature, which is fun.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** If you would like to try the beta on that, we’ll put a link in the show notes to that. It’s just a simple test flight. There’s still kinks that we’re working out, so if you want to try it out and tell us what’s working and what’s not working, that would help us out a lot.

**Craig:** Don’t kink-shame.

**John:** No. Kinks are good. Kink-celebrate.

**Craig:** I’m giddy today. I’m clearly giddy.

**John:** You are giddy. Let’s talk about why you’re giddy, because you had a rough start to your day. Do you want to tell us what happened this morning?

**Craig:** It was an up and down sort of day.

**John:** Literally.

**Craig:** Exactly. Upside, The Last of Us has been renewed for another season.

**John:** Hooray!

**Megana Rao:** Congratulations.

**Craig:** Thank you. I was very happy about that. Then on the downside, there’s some businessy, contracty nonsense. Every now and then, you just get a call from your lawyer where you’re like, “Wait, what? What?! What?!” I just got grouchy about that. It’ll all be resolved. Nobody freak out. Then I went and took a shower, and I was moving quickly, because I didn’t want to be late for this show.

**John:** You don’t want to break your perfect streak of being on time.

**Craig:** Exactly, because I’m always so punctual, and I really felt like it’s important to not blow it. That’s obviously really important to me, and so I raced. Coming out of the shower, I slipped and I fell in the bathroom. As I was falling, I did a pretty good job of… Time slows down, and you basically get spidey senses. Your body knows somehow, something terrible is about to happen, so your brain goes into a mega state. Everything got slower. I was able to get my hand out to slow things down. I was also able to turn. I took all of the brunt of the fall on my hip, which as you know, is something that old people break all the time. Now I know why. I did not break my hip. I was on the floor, and for a second I was like, “Did I just… No, I think I’m okay.”

There’s a comedian, Alonzo Bodden, who does this bit about how when you’re in your 20s and you fall, you just pop back up and your only concern is, “Did anybody see me? Because I looked really stupid.” When you’re in your 50s and you fall, people tell you, “Whoa, don’t get up. Stay down.” Then he said when you’re in your 80s and you fall, people fly in from out of state. I decided to stay down for a bit, and then I was like, “Everything’s fine.” Then I got back up, and I was just like, “Oh, for God’s sakes, what a start to the day.”

**John:** I’m so sorry, Craig. I had a fall at the end of last year. We were skiing. Skiing is inherently kind of dangerous. You’re going to fall while you’re skiing.

**Craig:** At least you fall on snow.

**John:** I was going in to change my gloves or something. I’m walking in ski boots, which are perilous anyway. I hit some wet concrete, slip, and start to fall. Yes, again, time starts to go more slowly. In fact, they think what’s actually happening is that time isn’t moving more slowly but your memory of it is moving more slowly. It takes more slices. That’s why it seems like-

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** That’s why you remember it happening slowly.

**Craig:** I like that.

**John:** I start to fall. I end up falling and hitting my ribs against this row of seats. I bruise my ribs. They’re still now recovering.

**Craig:** Are you sure you just bruised them?

**John:** If I’d broken them, it would’ve been harder to breathe.

**Craig:** It’s probably true.

**John:** Also, there’s not a lot they can do for broken ribs [crosstalk 00:09:12].

**Craig:** There really isn’t. You can’t cast them. You just basically tell people don’t take deep breaths.

**John:** The rib I bruised the most is one of the ribs in back that’s not actually connected to anything. It free floats, which is kind of great, but also they could just remove it like they removed Cher’s ribs. I was thinking, “Maybe they can just remove the rib.”

**Craig:** Did they really remove Cher’s ribs?

**John:** I think that is not just a Snopesy thing. We’re going to look it up right now, because I don’t want to put false information out. Snopes Cher rib.

**Craig:** I’m doing it too, Snopes Cher rib. “Did Cher have ribs removed to make her waist smaller?” False.

**John:** False.

**Craig:** False. The claim was Cher had her lowest pair of ribs surgically removed to achieve an ultra-small waist. That is apparently false. In fact, it doesn’t seem that really anyone has done that.

**John:** I’m looking up Marilyn Manson too, the other thing I’ve heard.

**Craig:** For a totally different purpose. We could say auto-fellatio on the show. I don’t think that that violates any… Marilyn Manson, who apparently is a horrible person, from everything I’ve read… Am I allowed to say that on the show?

**John:** Yeah. I think we avoid libel by saying you’ve heard people say that he’s not a good person.

**Craig:** I don’t mean to slander anybody. I’m just saying I’ve read things online. It sounds like he’s a horrible person. Some terrible claims have been made against him by people that I have no reason to doubt. The rumor that had been out there is that he had ribs removed so that he could perform auto-fellatio, which it can’t possibly be true.

**John:** No, it doesn’t seem like it’s true. People apparently are asking him, and he’s giving vague non-answers, probably because he wants the story to continue. Anyway, circling back to-

**Craig:** Boy, have we gone off… Wow.

**John:** Craig and I both fell down and hurt ourselves, and we’re older, but we’re okay.

****Megana:**** Aw.

**Craig:** I like that Megana’s like, “Oh, you guys are so cute, falling down.” Megana, you’re the one that’s going to have to take care of us.

**John:** Megana has a sore throat.

**Craig:** Oh, you have a sore throat?

****Megana:**** I have a sore throat, yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, dear. Oh boy.

****Megana:**** It’s normal. It’s a cool thing to have.

**Craig:** Is it?

**John:** It’s a very useful sore throat.

**Craig:** Megana, I gotta push back on that. I don’t think it’s cool at all.

****Megana:**** It’s not cool, but I got it from being social and fun, not from the two stories we just heard.

**John:** At a party.

****Megana:**** I got it at a party.

**Craig:** Not from some pathetic old man lost his balance thing. Cool. Cool cool.

**John:** We actually have a PSA, not really a question or a follow-up, but from James, which is also about medical-related things. Megana, would you help us out with that?

****Megana:**** James says, “This isn’t a question. It’s a reminder for all writers to look after their tools. For the last couple of years, I’ve been struggling to write. I would feel mentally drained whenever I started writing. Depression and writing became synonymous in my mind. I wasn’t looking at things clearly, literally. I got my eyes checked a few weeks ago, and it turns out that I needed reading glasses. That’s all. The effort required to read was causing me stress and fatigue. These glasses have given me a new surge of creativity, and it’s a joy to write again. If we’re sighted, our eyes are a key tool for our job. Please look after them.”

**Craig:** That’s fantastic, James.

**John:** That’s fantastic. I feel very seen by James, because a thing I’ve noticed over the past last few months is some days I wake up and my eyes are just not working quite right. It’s not that I need my reading glasses on or need them off. Just my monitor is hard to read. I actually have an eye appointment to go in and see if I need some sort of medium distance glasses. Right now, as we’re recording, eyes are crystal clear, everything is so sharp, but there’s times where it’s hard just to read, and writing’s tougher.

**Craig:** You don’t wear reading glasses?

**John:** I wear reading glasses only for very close distance things.

**Craig:** I see. John, alas, that is changing. John, your body is going through changes. Have a seat. Let’s talk about what’s happening with your body. Your eye muscles are dying, and so are mine. I will say the more you use reading glasses, the-

**John:** More you depend on them.

**Craig:** Oh my god, because your eye muscles are like, “Thank you. We’re done. Everybody go home. We retire.” I think it’s fun actually. I am enjoying this part of being old. I feel like this is the best old time. What follows this is not good old time. This is fun old time, like, “Oh, I need glasses. Oh, I slipped and fell, but really nothing happened, lol.” The 20-something that I work with on my show laughs about it, and that’s funny. In 10 years it’s going to be sad.

****Megana:**** Also, just because most people on the podcast don’t get to see this, you do have quite a flourish when you put your reading glasses on.

**Craig:** I do?

****Megana:**** Yeah.

**Craig:** I like to snap them open and slap them on. Everybody knows when the reading glasses go on-

****Megana:**** It’s business time.

**Craig:** It’s business time. Decisions are about to be made.

**John:** A trick for people is that if you are starting to use reading glasses, like I am, get on Amazon. You can get packs of 10 that are basically all the same. You just leave them around places in your house, so you don’t have to worry about, “Where are my reading glasses?” Your reading glasses are everywhere, and that’s a really helpful thing you can do, just like pens. Just have a pen everywhere you need a pen.

**Craig:** Try and make as many friends as you can in their 50s and 60s, because they’ll always have reading glasses with them also. I used to look at people 10 years ago in a restaurant with their glasses and their phones with the lights on, looking at menus. I’m like, “What is wrong with these people?” It me.

**John:** You’re the problem.

**Craig:** I’m the problem.

**John:** We have another question that I think we can actually maybe answer, about Apple Podcasts and Siri. Megana, help us out.

****Megana:**** Anthony writes, “I had a weird change in my normal listening habit when I upgraded to a new OS on my phone. I’m using an iPhone 12 Mini and I just upgraded to iOS 16.2. I’m subscribed to the show via Apple Podcasts, and when driving, I used to be able to press a talk button and say, ‘Play Scriptnotes podcast,’ and it just started playing the latest episode or wherever I left off. Now after this update, if I say, ‘Play Scriptnotes podcast,’ it says you have to blah blah blah Apple Music to do that. I tried changing it to say, ‘Play Apple Podcast Scriptnotes,’ and it didn’t work, starts playing Apple Podcasts but other shows. Without boring you to tears, I’ve managed to verbally get it to play a couple of times, but I can’t remember the exact phrasing that worked.”

**John:** This is a form of prompt engineering. It’s almost like what ChatGPT is, like what am I going to say to this device to get them to do what I want. We have the same kind of problem occasionally. In the morning, we ask Siri to play us the news. We say, “Play the news from NPR,” or just, “Tell us the news.” Sometimes it works like that, and sometimes it doesn’t.

What I think Anthony needs to do is be a little bit more specific. I think the real trick here is that the podcast we’re listening to is not Scriptnotes, it is Scriptnotes Podcast. For whatever reason, when we first set it up, we called it Scriptnotes Podcast. If he says, “Play Scriptnotes Podcast in Podcasts,” it should work. I listen to Overcast, and I’d test it, that, “Play Scriptnotes Podcast in Overcast,” will pull up Overcast and it’ll play in there.

**Craig:** Is there a way to change that, so that just saying Scriptnotes would work? Is there somebody we could talk to?

**John:** I think we would probably break… It’s too risky. There’s too many things that could break because of it.

**Craig:** What if I talk to Tim Apple? Would that help?

**John:** Tim Apple could fix all of it.

**Craig:** I’m telling you, this is going to… John, hang on. Just hang on, because this is going to be a show. It’s going to be a show, buddy. It’s going to be a show. We’re going to have a great time.

**John:** Also, what’s important for people to understand is that we think about Apple controlling podcasts, but they really don’t. It’s just an RSS feed, like your old website, Craig. That RSS feed has really nothing to do with Apple. It’s just people tend to use their iPhones to listen to podcasts.

**Craig:** I just wanted to say Tim Apple.

**John:** Tim Apple. Craig, we have talked before about IP-based movies. I think one of the things we got to was there was going to be a Pet Rock movie at some ponit. The moment has come. I was talking with a writer who’s going to pitch on the Pet Rock movie. We had a great conversation about what the Pet Rock movie should be.

**Craig:** I don’t hate it. Did you have a Pet Rock by the way?

**John:** I didn’t have an official Pet Rock bought at the store. I got a rock out of the garden and drew some eyes on it.

**Craig:** Oh my god, that’s the saddest thing in the world.

**John:** I don’t know what to tell you.

**Craig:** You were too poor to have the $4 Pet Rock?

**John:** Yeah, it’s true.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** Basically, my parents said no.

**Craig:** That is the most Eagle Scout thing I’ve ever heard from you, and you have quite a bit of Eagle Scoutness as an Eagle Scout. I had the actual branded Pet Rock, and I’ve got to tell you, it’s superior to your homemade faux rock.

**John:** Tell me why it was better.

**Craig:** No, it wasn’t.

**John:** What are the characteristics of a real Pet Rock? Are their googly eyes glued to it?

**Craig:** Yes, there are googly eyes glued to it. That is essentially what it was. Megana, have you even heard of Pet Rock?

****Megana:**** I’ve heard of Pet Rock. I’ve never actually seen one. I haven’t held one.

**Craig:** There’s probably a few out there still in the wild. The joke of it was I think it was invented as a novelty to make fun of consumerism. It was like, “Look how stupid everyone is.” People would buy a Pet Rock. It’s a gag gift you’d give to somebody on their birthday, “Ha ha ha, I bought you a Pet Rock.” Then it just became a fad, a real fad. In the ‘70s, fads happened in the weirdest ways. We watch fads happening now live on Twitter or Instagram.

These things would just emerge in these crazy, organic ways until eventually they filtered down to people on Staten Island. Then it subverted the whole point. The whole point was look how ridiculous it is. Then actually people were like, “We want Pet Rocks.”

What we have now are a lot of people running Hollywood who are in their 50s and 60s who are remembering Pet Rock. This to me is the epitome of pointless in that nobody who’s going to… They’re not making the Pet Rock movie for people in their 50s and 60s. They’re making it for kids. Kids don’t know about Pet Rocks. Zero cache for them. It could be good though. It could be.

**John:** It could be good. It could be good, just because there’s literally a blank slate, as the writer said. There’s many rock puns you can get to.

**Craig:** I get it. Slate.

**John:** Here’s what I’ll say. I think the idea of this thing that should be completely inanimate being the central character of a story is interesting in the wake of Marcel the Shell with Shoes On and the moments in Everything Everywhere All At Once which are about two rocks just sitting and watching the end of time. I kind of get it, but they’re going to want it to be a big, four-quadrant movie. They’re going to want it to be Minions, and that’s going to be challenging, but somebody’s up for it.

**Craig:** If you made a movie called Rocks and it was about animated rocks, that would be perfectly… We know that you can make a wonderful animated movie based on almost anything. It’s just the fact that they think Pet Rock has some kind of value.

**John:** I’m curious whether Pet Rock is a trademark, whether they held onto a trademark for that or if it’s just [inaudible 00:20:40].

**Craig:** That’s a great question. I don’t know, although now I’m seeing that apparently there is a Pet Rock that is introduced in Minions: The Rise of Gru. Perhaps this is why. It may be that the Pet Rock has been revived via Minions.

**John:** The other revival of the Pet Rock of course is Elmo’s longstanding beef with Zoe on Sesame Street about her pet rock. Zoe wants to save a piece of pie or a piece of pizza for her pet rock. Elmo’s like, “It’s just a stupid rock.”

****Megana:**** His name’s Rocco.

**John:** His name’s Rocco, the pet rock.

**Craig:** Does Elmo physically fight Zoe? Do they fight? Is there blood? Do muppets bleed?

**John:** Do muppets bleed? We’ve got a title for the episode.

**Craig:** Hey, Siri, do muppets bleed? I just triggered a lot of phones out there.

**John:** We will follow the development of the Pet Rock movie. The other thing, which I don’t know if we talked about on the show before, is I was curious why is there not a General Mills cereal movie. Why is there not a Franken Berry movie? Why is there not a Count Chocula?

**Craig:** Why isn’t there?

**John:** I looked it up, and there was a whole plan to make them, and it all fell apart.

**Craig:** Things do tend to fall apart a lot in Hollywood.

**John:** Things fall apart.

**Craig:** That is true. Hold on a second. I just had a cool idea for a movie.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** It’s an animated movie. It’s basically a battle royale between all of the cereal mascots.

**John:** The mascots, yeah.

**Craig:** All of them. There’s so many. Right off the top of my head, there’s Cap’n Crunch, there’s the Trix are for kids rabbit, there is the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** Snap, Crackle, and Pop. There’s the Honey Smacks Dig ‘Em Frog. Was it Honey Smacks?

**John:** Dig ‘Em Frog, yeah.

**Craig:** There’s the Dig ‘Em Frog. There’s the wizard from Cookie Crunch or Cookie Crisp. It was a wizard.

**John:** Cookie Crisp wizard. We obviously have Boo Berry.

**Craig:** Franken Berry, Boo Berry, Count Chocula, the bee from Honey Nut Cheerios. What else do we need to say?

**John:** It’s IP-alooza. It feels like it could be Laff-A-Lympics, which is great.

**Craig:** Or Space Jam.

**John:** Space Jam is really the comp for it, although those were all within one studio. Getting them all together would be a little bit tough, but completely doable.

**Craig:** You just have to settle the great Kellogg’s/Post war. That’d be fun. Somebody get to work on that.

**John:** Easy done. Craig, we’ve talked before about the preface page or whatever we want to call that page after the title page, before the script itself starts. Thanks for Adrianne Cespedes who wrote in with this preface page Tár. Craig, would you mind reading the preface page from Tár?

**Craig:** Sure. Here’s what it says. “Based on this script’s page count, it would be reasonable to assume that the total running time for Tár will be well under two hours. However, this will not be a reasonable film. There will be tempo changes and soundscapes that require more time than is represented on the page, and of course a great deal of music performed on screen. All this to say, if you are mad enough to greenlight this film, be prepared for one whose necessary length represents these practical accommodations.” That’s great.

**John:** I really like this. I like it because here we have Todd Field warning the studio distributor that the film is going to be long, but also it feels very Tár-like. It feels like it’s in keeping with the spirit of the film, which is going to be like, “I am going to set impossible standards that are going to make you a little uncomfortable. Let’s get started.”

**Craig:** You can feel the intelligence radiating off of this. The formality of the language is setting you up for Tár. It’s wonderful and I think probably wasn’t necessary, but additive. If Todd hadn’t put this there, the people would’ve read it and said, “Wow, this movie’s great.” Then you would’ve said, “Terrific. Now, if you want to make it, I gotta tell you, blah blah blah blah blah.” I like that he put it in anyway, because it sets the table.

**John:** That’s what a preface page does is gets you ready for the read. We have a question from Lorenz in Vienna here.

**Craig:** Should I read it?

**John:** Megana, do you want to read this?

**Craig:** I don’t want to take Megana’s job.

****Megana:**** I appreciate that, Craig.

**Craig:** You’re welcome.

****Megana:**** Lorenz from Vienna writes, “In Episode 582, Craig briefly mentioned paid script consultants and what he thought about them. I then went back to the transcript of Episode 71 and was surprised to read that essentially you seemed to consider them a waste of money at best and dangerous quacks at worst. I’m an early career writer-director in Europe, and over here, script consultants are an integral part of the industry, with dedicated state funding for them during script development.

“My own experience with consultants has been very positive, and judging from what I’ve learned about writers’ rooms on your show, the relationship feels a bit like a mini room, with the consultant acting as a conversation partner and providing outsider’s perspective on the script. Most of the consultants I know are screenwriters themselves, but the relationship between the quality of their feedback and the measurable success of what they have written is not necessarily linear, similar to how someone might be a successful artist but a terrible arts teacher and vice versa. I’d be curious to hear if this is a completely different kind of consultancy to what you were talking about, what you think about it, and if this kind of relationship exists at all within the Hollywood system.”

**John:** This ties in actually really well to the Bonus Segment we’re going to be talking about, because that is a British writer and producer, and they have a whole thing called a script editor, which is not a thing we have at all here. Craig, let’s open our minds and think about, what if there were a person who came in to sit down with a writer to help them get their script better? What do we think about that person?

**Craig:** It sounds like things work quite a bit differently there. I’m trying to dig under the hood of this comment from Lorenz, because it almost feels like script consultants with state funding are operating the way our development executives operate over here. It’s quite a different thing. We’re talking about people that other people pay, like the government, to help develop screenplay and art in Europe.

Lorenz, here in the United States, these people that I’m talking about, writers pay them directly. They are out there saying, “Hey, hire me on a private basis. You pay me this much per hour or this much per read, and I will give you notes,” and things like that. Writers are essentially paying for the thing that in your country the government is funding. To that extent, there’s the problem. You end up with a lot of… When you drive down a city street and you see, I don’t know, store fronts for psychics, you can go in there and pay them if you want. It’s probably not going to work.

**John:** I agree with you that I think the real corollary here is probably development executives, which is a little bit different than producers, so we should talk about what the difference there is. A producer is a person who’s trying to get your film made.

Craig has talked a lot about working with Lindsay Doran, who is a great producer and has also worked as a development executive in times. She is a person who you can really have very in-depth conversations about your script and what you’re trying to do and how this scene’s working and how that ties into the next. She’s not a writer. She’s a person who works really well with writers. If that is what the script consultant is for someone like Lorenz, that’s great.

Really though, we’re getting back to what is the paid relationship, and is the person really any good. I think so often we’ve just encountered terrible, terrible people who are billing themselves as script consultants, who really have no business doing that at all. That’s I think the reason why we’re so gun-shy about recommending any script consultant is because we’ve had so many bad experiences or people coming in to us with terrible advice, terrible notes. People are just taking their money.

**Craig:** People are just taking their money. Our operating principle here is that there are perfectly good positions in Hollywood where people are paid, and often quite handsomely, to do the job of helping writers develop a screenplay. The executives who work at the studio are paid by the studio to obviously help the studio, but in doing so, try and give the writer advice and feedback. Then there are producers who are more entrepreneurial, but they too are being paid by someone else, certainly not the writer. That’s fine.

If your goal is to give writers notes and shepherd and develop, then you should be trying to be a studio executive or a producer. If you can’t, because say you’re not good enough, then perhaps you decide instead, “Oh, I know what I’ll do. I’ll just go out there on my own and just start making writers pay me for this. In order to convince them, I will talk about how brilliant I am and what wonderful insight I have.” Eugh.

**John:** Thinking back to my time up at the mount in Sundance, the Sundance Institute works a lot like this. The consultants, the advisors they’re called for Sundance, they’re not paid. They’re volunteering their time to come up there to sit and work with these writers about their projects. It is not a governmental thing, but it has an organizational integrity quality to it. People are doing it for the best possible reasons and trying to make the best possible films.

Hopefully, that’s what you’re finding there in Austria, Lorenz, is someone who’s doing that. I want to make sure that when we are talking about script consultants negatively, we’re really talking about our experience of Hollywood hucksters who are taking writers’ money and making things worse.

**Craig:** Hollywood hucksters, that’s a great way of describing them.

**John:** Great. One last bit of follow-up here. Megana, we have Jake from Dallas.

****Megana:**** “I was listening to John and Craig talk to Sarah Polley, and it reminded me of how supportive and nice the three of you are.”

**Craig:** Aw.

****Megana:**** “Each of you are very smart and insightful people, which probably means you could be the ‘actually’ person to always correct others, who always tries to one-up those around you or the one who’s just waiting for their next opportunity to shower the conversation with their magnificent oration instead of listening to the people we’re sharing our time with. The Sarah Polley conversation was another example of you behaving in a supportive, constructive, and nice manner. Have you learned this anti-‘actually’ trait over your careers or do you think you always had the capacity to listen and contribute?”

**John:** It was very nice of Jake to write in with that. I thought it was a great episode too. A lot of people [inaudible 00:31:18] how much they enjoyed the Sarah Polley episode. Craig, what do you think? Actually, what’s going on here?

**Craig:** Actually…

**John:** It’s all Matthew cutting out all of our actuallys. That’s really what it is.

**Craig:** He has a filter now that just automatically strips everything of actually. I think that you and I learned this as we were starting out, because in a way, I think we were forced to, because of the way we were doing the podcast. This was obviously well before Zoom. We generally don’t look at each other when we’re having these things anyway. It’s all audio and certainly was at the start. When you are having a phone conversation with someone, which is what this essentially is, you need to give that person space. Also, I have to say I have occasionally sampled podcasts. I admit it. One of the reasons I struggle with podcasts is because people are constantly talking over each other, and it makes me crazy. What about you?

**John:** There are podcasts where that’s just the nature of how they work. It’s a tacit agreement between the host that that’s how it all works. It’s oneupmanship and who’s louder. That’s just never been us. My One Cool Thing actually ties into this.

**Craig:** Actually.

**John:** Actually. It’s basically how you set affordances so that people can say what they need to say or what they want to say, how do you ask questions that lead to interesting answers and continuing discussion. There’s some prep work there, but it’s also just mostly listening to what the person wants to tell you.

**Craig:** I think being interested in the people you have on your show is probably a good idea. I will also say that in a personal growth sort of way, it’s been made clear over the last few years by a lot of women that men in particular talk over them. You and I, I don’t think we ever talked over anybody when we had them on the air. I am certainly aware of just the general concept of not mowing people down when they’re talking. I like a nice, slow discussion.

The first scene of this season of The Last of Us is basically a Dick Cavett talk show. I am obsessed with Dick Cavett. I watch these videos of old Dick Cavett interviews, and it’s almost like from another planet of people talking and listening. They’re talking at length. It’s not about constantly entertaining the crowd. You can tell that the discussions haven’t been pre-organized and curated the way they are on talk shows now. I miss that, and to the extent that we can contribute to that sort of culture, I think that’s great.

**John:** I think also our guest selection is crucial. Sarah was a great example of that. Taffy Brodesser-Akner could take over Craig’s spot tomorrow.

**Craig:** Good. Please.

**John:** She definitely has that ability to just keep it all going. There have been times where a publicist has been insistent and gotten somebody onto the show, have been more of the frustrating times, where it’s like, I don’t have a thing to get to next. There have been a couple interviews, actually not that have been on Scriptnotes, but some live things, where the person was not interested in hitting the ball back. Man, it’s just tough.

**Craig:** It’s brutal. It is almost worse when people aren’t listening to each other. Turn on any news channel now. It’s just people yelling at each other constantly. Aren’t you amused when… It’s always two guys. Two guys are talking, and they’re angry at each other and they’re arguing, and neither one of them is willing to stop talking to let the other one talk, so they just keep going, like a game of chicken where the cars keep smashing into each other over and over. It’s remarkable.

**John:** They’re encouraged to do it because it generates conflict and it seems exciting. I hate it. A podcast I’ll recommend to everybody, and I think I talked about this on the show before, the Attitudes podcast with Erin Gibson and Bryan Safi is terrific and a great example of people who can talk over each other and yet they’re clearly listening at the same time, because their brains are synced in a way, and they’re improv people, so they can just keep building and building and building in ways that are delightful. I love it when I see people who are doing that really well. Cool.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Craig, our main topic here, this came from a recent issue of Inneresting. It was a recap of an old post of mine where I was talking about the things you do that make your writing unique, that you aren’t even aware that makes your writing unique. I also include a quote from Dara Resnick, where she was talking about how sometimes on a writing staff, one of your real goals is to lose your style and just mimic the showrunner style.

I thought I would talk for a few minutes about the kinds of things that are unique to one writer, where if a script dropped on your desk, Craig, and it didn’t have a title page on it, you could sometimes tell, “Oh, this was written by this person.”

**Craig:** Some of that stuff is magic and hard to parse out. Sometimes it’s almost scary to parse it out. I certainly don’t want to do that to my own stuff. Have you ever seen the Aaron Sorkin supercut?

**John:** I think I know what you’re talking about, which is basically just the dialog thing that does always happen in Sorkin dialog.

**Craig:** Exactly. There’s this collection that they’ve pulled from, all the years of West Wing and whatever the SNL show was and Sports Night and A Few Good Men and all the movies. There are these phrases and comments and styles and things that just keep coming up over and over and over. It’s not really self-plagiarism as much as it is just the fingerprint. It’s the style. Now, he’s a very stylistic writer. Part of knowing that it’s Aaron Sorkin is the hyper-literacy and the speed and all the rest of it. Everybody I think who’s good has a signature to them. Figuring out what comprises that is really interesting.

**John:** With Sorkin, there are words that you can cut together in a supercut. In other cases, it’s actually a little bit hard to parse. I’ll put a link in the show notes to this story about how they figured out how that Robert Galbraith, the writer, was actually JK Rowling. It was just basically forensic linguistics.

**Craig:** That was her nom de plume.

**John:** Nom de plume, her pen name. It was a secret that she was Robert Galbraith. There had been some rumors that it could be her. What they did is they went through and they compared the texts and they looked for sequences of adjacent words, sequences of characters, and a third test was on the most common words, and a fourth was about the author’s preference for long or short words. Basically, that’s what builds up that fingerprint. It’s like, “Oh, we are 90% certain that this is actually the same person writing these two things.” These were not deliberate choices that Rowling was making. It’s just that that’s just what happens. It’s just like you do things just because that’s how your brain works.

**Craig:** We can hear each other in our rhythm. Sometimes people will do an impression of me. When they do, I go, “Oh yeah, that does sound familiar,” but I’m not sure that if somebody had done that and not told me ahead of time that it was me, that I would’ve known it was me. Can you do an impression of me?

**John:** Not at all. I can’t do impressions of anything. That’s actually one of my biggest frustrations. You’re actually quite good at hearing and being able to do impressions or do accents. It’s just not a thing I’m good at. I can do it in my head. Can you do an impression of me?

**Craig:** Yeah, I can do an impression of you.

**John:** Let’s do it.

**Craig:** There’s a lot of stuff that comes out quickly, but yeah. Okay, moving on. It’s a rhythm thing. My impression of you, it’s not a great impression, because most of what makes you idiosyncratic is the speed of your speech and the rhythm of it. What people always do when they do an impression of me is they’re like, “So. Everything’s huge. Then when you talk you’re big.” I’m like, I guess. Maybe. I don’t know. Megana, can you do an impression of me?

****Megana:**** I think an impression of you would be difficult to do, because you do take these pauses, but then in order to do the impression of you, I’d have to also replicate the eloquence that comes after the pause, and that would be very difficult to do.

**Craig:** You know what? You’ve won my heart.

**John:** Just that was a very Craig, like da da, da da da da. You also pitch up. I think you have a much more tonal range than I do or that a lot of speakers do.

**Craig:** I’m a singer.

**John:** You’re a singer.

**Craig:** I like to sing.

**John:** You’re a natural singer.

**Craig:** I guess my point bringing all this up and having fun with it is I don’t make those choices and you don’t make those choices and Megana doesn’t make those choices, why we talk the way we talk and why we have the patterns we have. All of that then I think is translatable or at least analogous to the weirdness of the way we write, but I don’t think I necessarily write the way I talk. I don’t think you write the way you talk. It’s this whole other thing.

**John:** Honestly, we write more similar than you would guess, because as we were working on the Scriptnotes book, one of the big jobs is to take the Scriptnotes transcripts, as we’re having a conversation about scene length or something, and so you and I are having a back-and-forth conversation. When we try to just turn it into a chapter with just prose, literally our sentences do fit together pretty well. We don’t read that different on the page, which is useful.

**Craig:** We’re like an old married couple that starts looking like each other.

**John:** Let’s talk about things that are different between-

**Craig:** I just want to keep upsetting Megana, like, “Aw. Aw.”

**John:** Let’s talk about some of the things that are different that you can notice on a screenplay page about one writer versus another writer. This is a list I had in my blog post, but we may add to this. How you handle unfinished end-of-line punctuation. Are you two dashes? Are you an ellipses? What are the situations where you’d use an ellipsis versus two dashes. It’s personal style. There’s not one precise right answer.

**Craig:** You want to try and be consistent within your screenplay. What do you do, by the way?

**John:** I have two dashes if it’s literally cut off and ellipsis if it’s trailing off.

**Craig:** Same. I probably use ellipses more than most writers. I know I do. I’m a big fan.

**John:** I use ellipses less than I used to. I used to use ellipses for everything, but I now do a lot of two dashes.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** How much uppercase do you use within scene description? Some people just will uppercase a lot more for emphasis. Some people are really spare with the uppercase.

**Craig:** One of the things I’ve found over time is that my uppercasing tends to increase when I’m writing either… Usually when I’m writing action or something that maybe you wouldn’t define as action but is very physical, like physical humor or something like that.t

**John:** Absolutely. It’s sometimes that uppercasing can be a way to indicate, this is a shot, this is a shot, this is a shot, or there’s other reasons why you’re using it there. Parentheticals. Are you using parentheticals as say to mean a beat, for clarity, like joking, or how to play this in quotes, “Please die in a fire.” Basically, are you using it for all line things? Those are all valid choices, just different ways to use the parenthetical.

**Craig:** Some people never use them.

**John:** Never. Commas and comma usage, very distinctive. You can use them sensibly. You can use them in an Oxford way. You can use them in any way that makes sense.

**Craig:** The Oxford way is sensible.

**John:** Often using commas and whether you use them to break off any kind of phrase. If I’m going through and editing someone else’s script, I will move commas all the time and realize that’s just pointless, because they’re just using commas the way they use commas.

**Craig:** We aren’t writing articles for the New Yorker where there’s a style guide, although I will say that Mrs. Gilligan’s comma lessons in high school have stayed with me. I think about the proper, correct, and orthodox use of commas all the time.

**John:** Profanity. Is it a spaceship or a giant effing spaceship? Just how often are you using the F word and other words in your script is very distinctive. In the JJ Abrams universe, all those Lost scripts, they will use a lot of that. They’re very punchy and loud and take you by the shoulders and shake you. That’s just the style. If you’re writing in one of those shows, you should write in that style, because otherwise, it’s going to feel wrong for the show.

**Craig:** That must be really difficult to do. I’ve never had to do that to write in someone else’s actual on-the-page style. I can see how that would be very tricky to do. Then it also implies one reason why showrunners have to then run everything through their own typewriter, even if it’s minimally about let’s say improving things. Sometimes you just need to conform it.

**John:** That was the point that Dara was making there and what I’ll link to, is that especially that first script you turn in as a staff writer on a show needs to look as much like the showrunner’s script as possible, so they read this and they can actually read it without having to just immediately go, “This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong.” They can actually read it like it’s their own script. That’s tough, but you gotta do it.

**Craig:** I’m imagining me reading a script for my show that wasn’t at all like my scripts, and I’m starting to sweat. It’s bad.

**John:** How characters see events within a scene. Do they clock them, spot them, notice them, spy them? There’s various choices you can make. Nothing’s wrong.

**Craig:** It’s okay to be repetitive or, I don’t know, self-copying there, because that stuff’s not going to be on screen literally. If it helps you to fall back on some phrases that work for you and help define for the reader what you see, that’s great. Try and avoid repeating them within the same script, but if you have some go-tos, there’s nothing wrong with that.

**John:** Transitions, is it a cut-to for every new scene or do cut-tos mostly go away? Just style. Also, I think cut-tos tend to vanish because we want to get pages shorter, but it’s really whatever you need to do.

Paragraph length. What is the upper limit in terms of numbers of lines? On this podcast, often in our Three Page Challenges, we’re urging people to keep those paragraphs short. Three lines or less is great for a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean they all have to be that way. David Koepp writes giant blocks of text.

**Craig:** He does.

**John:** It happens. It works.

**Craig:** He’s great. He’s great. I think we’ve probably said it so many times that it is maybe finally sinking in, although I doubt it, among all the people out there. All these things, there are I wouldn’t call best practices as much as better practices. Nothing that we do can make bad good, and nothing that we do can make good bad. That’s the deal. If it’s good, it’s okay to have that long paragraph if that’s the way you vibe.

Going back to the paragraph that Todd Field puts on the preface page of Tár, that is how many… It is a brick of text. One, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Ten-line paragraph. That’s not three lines or fewer. I loved reading that paragraph, because it was good.

**John:** Good paragraph. Finally, and this is probably I think a thing I can definitely notice from one writer to another, is how to handle simultaneous or overlapping dialog. Are they doing side-by-sides a lot, or are they doing a parenthetical for overlapping? Are they just making it clear that stuff is overlapping in the scene description around it?

There’s not one precise, right way to do it. Writers can get incredibly granular. When Greta Gerwig was on, she puts a slash in the first character’s dialog where the next character is going to be overlapping them. It’s incredibly precise. A lot of times, I’ll just say “overlapping” and I won’t worry about doing side-by-sides. It’s going to work in the moment.

**Craig:** I use the side-by-side, but I rarely, very rarely do simultaneous dialog. That’s not because I think it’s wrong. It’s basically stylistically, and perhaps this reflects the way you and I have these discussions, I like when people aren’t talking over each other, and other writers love when people are talking over each other. That’s okay. It’s a tonal thing. Similarly, how many words per sentence do characters say?

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Some people really love having characters talk at length. Tarantino will have characters talk at length at times. Other people listen quietly. They do not interrupt. Go to Samuel Beckett and read Waiting for Godot. There are just strips of pages where Vladimir and Estragon are saying two lines two words each, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. That’s part of the fingerprint.

**John:** We had Taffy Brodesser-Akner on the show. The dialog for Fleishman Is in Trouble, those are long lines. It’s not just that people have a lot of lines together. One of their lines could be much, much, much longer of a sentence than I would ever feel comfortable doing. It works because it works and because she has really good actors who can pull it off. There’s no right or wrong. You could recognize Taffy’s writing from someone else’s writing. It’d be hard to write in Taffy’s style.

**Craig:** It should be. That’s part of the sign that your style is unique, and therefore you are expressing your voice, is that other people… You can maybe do a goof version of it, a satire, but you can’t do it. If anyone could do it, then anyone would do it.

**John:** Let’s talk about situations where we have had to rewrite somebody or choose not to rewrite somebody and actually just blend in, because a lot of times, as feature writers, we would get scripts, and sometimes we are doing a massive overhaul on something. I’m like, “Okay, I see these scenes here. I’m the showrunner. Everything’s going through my typewriter. I’m going to put out a new thing that is in my voice. I’m going to clean it up and make things consistent.”

In some cases, I think that was helpful, because I wasn’t the second writer, I was the seventh writer, and there was a bunch of little pace jobs [inaudible 00:49:52] it wasn’t reading like one document. It was sometimes just me running through the whole thing. It just was a much better read for me having done that. In other cases, I’m just doing two scenes here. It’s doing no one any favors for me to try to change things or make this feel different.

I’ve had to adapt to people’s styles. I’ve done more things in caps than I would’ve put in uppercase, because that’s the rest of the script. What’s been your experience?

**Craig:** All over the place.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Honestly, all over the place. Sometimes, more often than not, when I’m doing the kind of work you’re describing, there’s also some preexisting work. A lot of these things, most movies that come out have either a preexisting film because they’re a sequel or they’re based on something, and so there’s other work that you can look back on and investigate.

I don’t really get too worked up over how I do the things that aren’t spoken or aren’t on screen. The things that are spoken and are on screen, I try and stay consistent within the character. Sometimes, the reason that you’re there is because people aren’t happy with the voice, or you can also come and say…

As you’re saying, there’s this patchwork quilt, and someone has to make it all seem like it was from one mind. That is a challenge. It’s a challenge to do something like that without… The phrase I use is, sometimes you have to pull permits, it’s that kind of work, and sometimes you don’t. When you have to pull permits, that means we’re going to be doing quite a bit here. Then you have to undo a lot. It depends on the situation. The spectrum is rather broad for those jobs.

**John:** I’m thinking of once doing a job where the first half of the script was really great. I really did not want to touch any of it. There were some real significant things that needed to change in the second half. I had to make a choice, like am I going to go back and rewrite all this first half so it’s going to match what I’m doing for the second half, or am I just going to write this new stuff in the style of the first one?

It was a challenge to do, but it actually made sense. Hopefully, the characters’ voices I was able to be consistent, which is great, because we didn’t want to touch those. Even just the scene description making it just feel like it was one thing, that there wasn’t a sudden change in how the whole thing read and felt. Even examples of keeping whatever, their INT period versus INT not period style, sure, I’ll do that. I wanted it to feel like it was the same writer the whole way through.

**Craig:** If there’s a very idiosyncratic, clear style going on, I’m not going to be a jerk and just start doing… I’m not going to go through and be like, “Okay, first things first, all these two spaces after the period have to turn into one space.” That’s just evil, so I try not to do those things.

**John:** Obviously, the last thing is if you’re in a situation where you’re generating changed pages with stars in the margins, you’re going to be much more conservative about making that kind of stuff, because you’re not going to release a new page just because you’ve changed two dashes into a long hyphen. No one wants that.

**Craig:** No one.

**John:** No one wants that. What people do want are One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Segue Man.

**John:** It’s time for that. I referenced this earlier. This is an article by Adam Mastroianni on his Substack, called Good Conversations Have Lots of Doorknobs. He’s really talking about how in a conversation, you tend to have givers and takers. Givers are people who put a lot of stuff out. Takers are people who are just receiving stuff in.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** There’s an improv quality to a conversation, where you’re yes, and-ing and you’re keeping the ball up in the air. When you have two givers, that can be sometimes a little bit frustrating, because it can feel like no one’s actually receiving. If you have two takers, no one is actually throwing a ball out there to get things going.

What I liked about his discussion is, it’s not just diagnosing the problem but offering some solutions, which is basically affordances, which are the big, easily graspable doorknobs of the conversation. His example of an affordance, if you ask the question, “Why do you think you and your brother turned out so differently?” There’s a lot of possible answers to that. You would have to see how it goes on.

No affordance would be, “How many of your grandparents are still alive?” That’s a number. It doesn’t invite a further discussion. You can take that, “How many of your grandparents are still alive?” and do some judo on it to send it back through, to say, “Both my grandparents are still alive, which has really been remarkable because of this, because I can do these things, and I have these insights,” but it’s tougher.

Just always be thinking in a conversation, next time you’re at a party or whatever, Megana, as you’re getting another virus, think about how do you say things in a way that invites the person to build upon that, rather than just letting it drop there.

**Craig:** I love just this drive-by shooting of Megana, like that’s her problem.

**John:** All the parties she goes to.

**Craig:** I really like this a lot. What it’s prompting for me is how useful this concept is for people who are on the autism spectrum, because this is exactly the kind of… We lump these things into so-called social skills. Social skills is such a broad term it’s almost useless. There’s also this weird judgey-ness to that phrase that I don’t love. What I love about this is, if somebody has a hyper-analytical mind, this is a way for them to understand why certain things are more engaging and more interesting for other people, because that’s something that sometimes people on the spectrum have trouble with. I’m definitely giving this to my kid. I think she’ll be really interested in this. I think she’ll like this.

**John:** The other thing I would say is that everything that applies to real-life dialog applies to movie dialog as well. As you’re writing dialog scenes, be thinking about naturally you are doing this as a writer anyway. It may be helpful to think about how you are letting this character get to the next thing out of that character, the next thing out of this character, and by the same token, are they deliberately not doing that, and is that part of the frustration and conflict of the scene.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. This is really useful for thinking about characters, because we don’t want our characters to be fully actualized. All the foibles are what make them interesting. If somebody is trying to chat up a girl at the bar and he asks a dead-end question or as Adam calls it, no affordance, then it’s interesting. You can see the other person struggling with that. I love this. It’s very insightful.

**John:** Craig, in the second episode of your show, there’s a moment early on where Joel is having a conversation. They’re in that-

**Craig:** Salon.

**John:** … salon, and they’re having a conversation. He gives up on the conversation. I really liked that moment, because it felt true to conversations that I don’t see very often, where a person just buries their last line, like, “I guess I’m done talking, but nothing’s really resolved for me.” That felt like a situation that I just hadn’t seen so often on film.

**Craig:** I’m glad you liked it. Joel is a really interesting character to write, because how much he decides to say… He mostly doesn’t talk. It’ll be interesting for people I think if the season goes on, if they’re watching. He’s not going to always not talk. Let’s put it that way. It’s impactful when he does. When he starts talking, it’s impactful.

**John:** What do you have for us?

**Craig:** My One Cool Thing is The Case of the Golden Idol. Now this is a game that normally I wouldn’t be playing, because it’s not on iOS. It is currently on Steam. Neil Druckmann, my partner in crime over at The Last of Us, urged me to get the Steam Deck. Are you familiar with the Steam Deck?

**John:** Tell me what the Steam Deck is.

**Craig:** Steam Deck is a handheld game console, not dissimilar from say the handheld Switch, that is designed to tie into your Steam account and play Steam games. You can play them handheld. It’s got a touchscreen. The touchscreen isn’t iPad quality. It doesn’t need to be. It’s got multiple joysticks and buttons and other buttons and trigger buttons. It can basically cover the control system of any game. It’s very portable.

I bought it and played this game that Neil loves, called The Case of the Golden Idol, and now I love it. It’s fascinating. It’s one of those retro style games that’s very much about the pixel art, which generally I hate, because I’m like, I grew up with that crap.

**John:** We’ve moved on.

**Craig:** I want good graphics. It’s this very strange concept. Each chapter, there are 12 of them, is a murder has taken place. They’re all loosely connected by the story of this golden idol, which is cursed, clearly. Typically, each murder situation has two or three screens of stuff. On each one of them, there are clickable areas where you can just start collecting information. What you have to do is piece together what happened based on all the clues and bits of information that are there. You have to figure out who is this person, what’s his name, what’s her name, and what have they done and what is this and blah blah blah.

It gets increasingly challenging, to the point where sometimes I’m just sitting there just staring at this thing for 40 minutes, going, “What am I missing?” Then when you finally get it, you’re like, “Ah!” It’s a lot of fun. If you have Steam, check out The Case of the Golden Idol. If you have a Steam Deck, certainly do. I think it plays very nicely on that device.

**John:** Cool. Nice. Exciting.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Don’t know him.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Luke Yoquinto, who discovered this in the score to Coming to America by Nile Rodgers. What we’re playing is actually a clip from the score to Coming to America, but it actually has the Scriptnotes theme in it. We have time-traveled back to put it into existing movie scores.

**Craig:** Well done.

**John:** If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on advice to a producer. Craig, Megana, thank you so much for a fun show.

****Megana:**** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, here’s what I have. A friend of a friend is a producer in the UK and has a project for which he’s brought on a writer. The project is based on a true story. It’s required a lot of research. This is a relatively new writer but a really good writer who’s from the region, been doing the research, and everything’s very promising. The problem is the producer’s just not getting a draft out of this writer. He’s waiting. There’s whole machineries that it really looks like this movie could happen, but he needs a script.

The producer emailed me just to say, “Hey, do you have any advice for how I should not be an asshole but get the writer to deliver this script? The writer has had a lot of personal issues and things going on in their life that’s made it incredibly difficult. How do we do this?” I wrote back with some of my advice. I’m curious what your advice might be for this producer on how to get this draft out of this writer and what you think might be going on.

**Craig:** There could be all sorts of things going on. At the end of the day, is the writer being paid?

**John:** The writer’s being paid.

**Craig:** No matter what’s going on in our lives, if we are being paid, we are professional by definition, which means we have to behave professionally, which means we either hit our deadlines or we sit down with the employer and we say, “Here’s what’s going on in my life. Here’s why I can’t go through that deadline. I’m giving you the choice now of what to do. I would like to continue. I would like extra time so I can do my job. I need to let you know that this is what’s going on, because it changes the arrangement.” That’s how a professional handles things. It doesn’t sound like this writer is necessarily handling these things professionally. That doesn’t mean that I’m not incredibly sympathetic to whatever problems they’re having. I am, but it’s a job.

The question that I would ask the producer is, do you think that this writer is changeable or not, because there are some writers that it doesn’t matter what you do, they have a rhythm and a process that is unaffectable by you, the moon, anything. Nothing will ever change it. They are as they are. The only question that you have to ask yourself as a producer is, is it worth it or not, because that’s nothing I can do about this. It’s like I’m yelling at clouds.

If it seems like they are the kind of writer that would respond to change, then I think it’s fair to say, “Okay, because this is a professional relationship, I have to create boundaries. The boundary is I need a script by this date, which is already beyond the date that we agreed on. If it doesn’t come in by that date, I’m going to have to talk to another writer.”

**John:** I think ultimately you need to get to that ultimatum and to that point where it makes it clear. I think there are some steps before you get to that point that could be useful. That’s what I urged the producer to start at.

First off, to understand from the writer’s perspective, the writer feels shitty. I think the writer is aware that they’re late and that they’re holding things up, and they feel bad about it. Feeling bad about it is not helping them write the scripts. They’re not a writer who it seems that that bad feeling is motivating. It seems maybe it’s the opposite. Being late is not helping them get it written.

I think they may also be having a problem that they’re not willing to tell you about, which is that they may be struggling with a script with a story in ways that they are embarrassed about. They just cannot figure it out. They could probably use someone, either you or somebody else, to just talk to about what’s going on, because they may have lost hope or faith or any joy in writing it. That may be really the issue here.

Going back earlier in the episode, we talked about script consultants or that kind of thing. I think you may need to find some other writer who can sit down with them to talk to them about what it is that they’re writing, what’s exciting about it to them, where the problems are, and see if you can get a little of that shaken out.

There could also just be some actual… You’re saying this writer has some struggles in their life. You may need to help provide some structure for their writing time, which basically is like, “Would it help if I got you an office for a month? That way you could just come in on a daily basis and sit down and do your work, because maybe something’s going on at home that is making it really tough for you to write in your normal space.”

Just be aware that there could be some other way you’re going to be able to get them to do the thing. I would try those things first before bringing out the stick of, “If I don’t have it by this date, I’m going to have to cut you off.”

**Craig:** Certainly, it’s nothing anybody wants, but there are people that just need the structure of consequence. It’s not evil consequence. It’s not unjustified consequence. They just need to know that this is there. There are situations, again, where you may say to yourself, “I have a madman genius on my hands, and I need to just let him go through this insanity, and what’s going to happen on the other end is something great.”

One of the things that I’ve always tried to stress to people I worked with is, if I say I need eight weeks, and you’re telling me you really want it in six weeks, what you’re saying is two weeks of time is more important than you getting it right.

My response is always, those two weeks are going to cost you so much more time than two weeks, because if you get something that’s unworkable, unsellable, unproducable, unshootable, guess what? You’re back to square one. You’re going to have to start all over again anyway. First, you’re going to have to find another writer. That takes time. Then they’re going to have to do it. Then they’re going to run into trouble. You have to do the math in your head. One of the most frustrating parts of being a producer is how you are accountable to the outcome, but you are not in control of the outcome.

**John:** For sure.

**Craig:** That’s tricky.

**John:** Craig, you’re talking about estimating the time it’s going to take you to do a thing. You’re an experienced screenwriter who’s been through this. You’ve written 50 scripts. This writer probably hasn’t and probably has a very limited ability to estimate how long it’s going to take them to do that work. That may be a situation too.

It looks like the producer has actually been able to read some stuff that the writer has done on the project, which is why the producer’s so excited to have the writer finish it, because it’s apparently really good.

I think one of the things that may be important in this conversation is to really stress to the writer how much you love what they’ve delivered so far, because sometimes writing feels hopeless. Just putting that hope back in there can really do it.

I definitely can remember meetings where I’ve been really bummed about a project, I go into it, and then in that discussion something comes up that’s like, “Oh yeah, now I’m actually genuinely excited to write this thing that I was dreading this morning.” That does turn around.

**Craig:** One bit of practical advice that I would suggest is to maybe, since currently most days I suspect the writer is writing zero pages, say to the writer, “Okay, here’s the plan we’re putting you on, and you must do it. Every day, Monday through Friday, you must write one page. That’s it.” You’ve now reduced the burden and the expectation, which can be crushing sometimes, down to something that seems very achievable. One page. One.

What will happen, almost always, is that once the writer starts writing their one page, they will end up three or four pages later. It’s how our minds work. It’s the starting that is so hard. If you can just give them this, because even if they write one page a day, five pages a week, in a couple of months, you’re going to be doing just fine, and certainly better than you’re doing now anyway. Maybe just smallifying things might help.

**John:** Megana, what perspectives are we missing here? Anything that is striking you as you listen to this?

**Craig:** Actually…

****Megana:**** No. I think you’re right. I love the advice that you gave about encouraging this writer, because I just remember when I was in college, I had a roommate who was a real perfectionist and was not sending their thesis advisor the chapters or whatever that they needed to be doing and was just getting herself into such a hole of perfection and misery and doubt. I was like, “You’re smart. I’m sure that the work is fine and good enough.” I think sometimes with a screenplay, it’s this big thing to figure out. I worry that this person is just in a shame spiral. I love the tactics that you offer this producer to help them out of that.

**John:** On the second Arlo Finch book, I fell behind. I was running late to deliver my first draft. Again, as a professional, I did reach out to my editor and say, “Hey, I’m running behind. Let me talk to you about what the problem is.” She’s like, “Okay, I get this. Let’s make a plan for how you’re going to finish it. Basically, why don’t you take two or three days to just outline the rest of this, figure out what those problems are going to be, and how you’re going to be able to deliver this on time. We’ll reset all the rest of the deadlines to make this work.” Starting that conversation was incredibly stressful, but at the end of it, I just felt such a relief, because I didn’t feel so trapped.

It’s possible this screenwriter feels trapped and stuck. They worry they’re not going to be able to deliver anything that’s going to nearly good enough or to do the job whatsoever. Having that conversation, being that editor in that situation, could be the way out.

**Craig:** That’s good advice.

**John:** Cool. Thanks, guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

****Megana:**** Thank you.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Scriptnotes episodes with 2023 Oscar Nominees [Sarah Polley](https://johnaugust.com/2023/the-one-with-sarah-polley), [Rian Johnson](https://johnaugust.com/2022/rian-johnson-returns), [Daniels](https://johnaugust.com/2022/the-daniels), [Pamela Ribon](https://johnaugust.com/2018/holiday-live-show-2018)
* [Weekend Read Beta](https://testflight.apple.com/join/zDf4Fw9c) Try it out — now updated with all FYC scripts!
* [Writing in another writer’s style](https://johnaugust.com/2014/writing-in-another-writers-style) on John’s blog with advice from [Dara Resnick Creasey](https://twitter.com/BadassMomWriter)
* [Algorithms were able to figure out that Robert Galbraith was JK Rowling](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-computers-uncover-jk-rowlings-pseudonym-180949824/)
* [Good Conversations Have Lots of Doorknobs](https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/good-conversations-have-lots-of-doorknobs) by Adam Mastroianni
* [The Case of The Golden Idol](https://www.thegoldenidol.com) game
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Luke Yoquinto, who discovered it in the score to Coming to America by Nile Rodgers ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/585standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 577: The One with Daniels, Transcript

February 24, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: Whoa, whoa, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 577 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’re sitting down the writing/directing team of Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, collectively known as Daniels, to discuss their film Everything Everywhere All At Once and all the stuff that led up to it. Welcome, Daniels.

Craig: Daniels!

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, thank you guys.

John: Oh my god, hello.

Daniel Kwan: As a longtime listener-

Daniel Scheinert: Congrats, 577.

Craig: Woo!

Daniel Kwan: Wow. I know, it’s crazy. I’ve listened to every episode. That’s not true, but I’ve listened to a decent chunk, so this is very exciting. Thank you for having us.

Craig: A decent chunk is a lot, so thank you.

John: We’ll happily take it. We want to talk to you about Everything-

Craig: Everywhere.

John: … and how you got started, how it all came together. If you could stick around for our Bonus Segment, we would love to talk to you about music videos and other things you guys shoot that are not movies, because somehow, we’ve made it through 576 episodes, and we’ve never talked about music videos and commercials and all the other stuff that writer-directors get to make, which is I’m sure a crucial part of your learning process.

Craig: (singing)

Daniel Kwan: That’s exciting.

Craig: God, I love that music video so much.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god.

Craig: That is a music video that occasionally, if I’m feeling down… If you don’t know what we’re talking about, Turn Down for What. If I’m feeling a bit down, sometimes I’ll just turn it on. It’s instant mood lift.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god.

Craig: I’m sure for the two of you it’s nothing but traumatic memories, but for me it’s instant mood lift.

Daniel Kwan: You have no idea. I’ve gone to so many weddings since that video has come out. Any time I’m at a wedding, someone tells the DJ, “You have to play Turn Down for What.”

Daniel Scheinert: “He loves it.”

Daniel Kwan: Truly, it’s now a traumatic experience hearing that song. Even you jokingly saying that is making me want to leave.

Craig: Good. That’s my job on the podcast is to try and shorten the length of each episode by driving people away.

Daniel Scheinert: I like this.

John: Let’s talk about it. Let’s get into how you guys got started, because I first met you guys up on the mountain at Sundance Labs. You guys were great. You had a crazy script. I don’t think I worked with you guys directly on it, but I hear all these stories about, “It’s a farting corpse movie.” I’m like, “These guys are geniuses somehow.” That’s when I first saw your shorts, but I don’t know how you guys got started. Can you give us the recap of the origin story for you as a team?

Daniel Scheinert: Totally. We met in college, didn’t get along. We were taking an animation class. I participated too much. He thought I was an asshole. He didn’t participate enough. I thought he was wasting his money at film school.

Daniel Kwan: Classic rom-com.

Craig: I love it so far.

Daniel Scheinert: Our Harry Met Sally didn’t take as long. It didn’t take a decade. It was a year before we had a summer job as camp counselors for the New York Film Academy, which I don’t necessarily recommend, but I do recommend as a job. It’s a great job.

Craig: Get paid by them but don’t pay them is what you’re saying.

Daniel Scheinert: Exactly. Most film schools are [crosstalk 00:03:08] as far as how much they cost.

Craig: I love you.

Daniel Scheinert: They’re pretty great as far as who you might meet. We both have camp counselor vibes. We like to make art that way. We bonded and got very jealous of the kids. After work, we started making some short films together that the internet liked.

Daniel Kwan: I think the through line is that our collaboration has just been a series of accidents. We just decided to do a short film together. It was actually just like a quick test. I wanted to teach him aftereffects. He wanted to teach me how to shoot live action stuff. We put it online.

Daniel Scheinert: He had a new camera. Then it was like, “Oh, let’s try out the new camera.”

Daniel Kwan: “Let’s test this out.” We did something stupid together. Scheinert put it on his Vimeo account, and we were put on the front page of Vimeo. We were like, “Whoa, what happened? I’ve been trying to get on the front page for the past eight months, and we just did this thing randomly.” It just kept happening.

Daniel Scheinert: He was so jealous, because it was my page.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Craig: Did you suspect that maybe Vimeo just puts white people’s videos on right away? Was there like a little bit of a, “Hm, hold on a second.”

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, I don’t want to-

Craig: “I’ve been working pretty hard at this, and this guy literally-“

Daniel Scheinert: You were here first.

Daniel Kwan: Vimeo is racist. That’s a whole other conversation, not the Vimeo is racist thing, but just the way our race actually has played into our careers is fascinating.

Craig: We’ll dig into it. We’ll dig into that.

Daniel Kwan: Long conversation for later. I will say that we accidentally started working together. Through this very strange Pavlovian response, we got some rewards, and we’re like, “Let’s do it again.” We just kept doing it. Next thing we know, he asked me if I wanted to help him on a music video. We’re like, “Sure, let’s try that out.” We did that. A month later, someone from London says, “Hey, I saw your music video that you did for free. What if we gave you $12,000 to make another one?”

Craig: Hello.

Daniel Kwan: We’re like, “Sure.” We quit our jobs. I was working at DreamWorks Animation at the time as a low-level designer, and Scheinert was working at a VFX company as a runner. We quit our jobs, went to New York, did a music video. Then another month later, someone was like, “Hey, you want to do it again?” It just became this slow-motion thing where our identities became entrenched and we had to figure out our process. We like to say that the algorithm gave us an arranged marriage. The internet accidentally put us together.

The relevant part of the story is even the leap from music videos to screenwriting, feature-length screenwriting, was an accident. We were finding success in music videos. We got a manager, Josh Rudnick, for anyone who cares. He’s incredible. They started sending us scripts, and none of them were speaking to us. None of them felt like the kind of thing that we would actually feel passionate enough to spend years on.

Even though neither of us considered ourselves writers at the time, we took a step back and we’re like, “Hey, we’ve been writing all these music video treatments for a few years now, dozens. Every couple months, we just write a new idea.” It was like a boot camp. We were like, “What if we just tried doing that ourselves? None of these scripts are going to be the thing that makes us want to direct a feature. Let’s try to write our own way.” We naively jumped into screenwriting, thinking that it would just be like a long music video. Oh boy, we were so wrong, but lots of lessons learned. That was our path.

Daniel Scheinert: One of the lessons that’s fun, it was through writing music videos that we discovered our writing process. We didn’t even think we were screenwriting when we would do this. We would listen to the song. We were usually attracted to a story, not just visuals. We would structure our little short films based on the verse, chorus, verse, chorus of whatever song and designing moments that pop, to try to set them up and create. We were very much like visual screenwriters at first, because there’s no dialog in a music video. We would have to break it down beat by beat and time it out and find the rhythm of the scene. That still informs how we write.

Craig: You’re pulling something out that’s actually quite profound, that I don’t think we’ve actually talked about in our four billion episodes, which is that the very simple structure of a classic pop song, verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, is something that provides a fundamental and essential shape to a story, even though we don’t realize it’s happening. We are all taught, and I don’t know why it works. I guess our brains are designed around verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, but it does-

Daniel Kwan: I have a theory that I’ll tell later.

Craig: Tell me.

Daniel Kwan: Continue.

Craig: Tell me now. I need to know.

Daniel Kwan: I had a roommate in college who was a musician, very heady, philosophical guy. He was telling me about this essay about the pop song and why it’s so important to the human experience. It’s because it’s meant to imitate sex, reaching towards climax. There’s the tease. There’s the lift. There’s the comedown, the teasing again. Now you bring it to the bridge. That’s when you’re getting really close. You hit that climax. It feels like this really beautiful, cathartic experience packed into five minutes, which I think is incredible and very narrative. Very narrative. It’s got three acts. You’re right. It’s a really perfect way to think about story. Even when we were just doing music videos, people would tell us that, “Your music videos sometimes squeeze more story into four minutes than some features do.” Some people might say that’s a bad thing. For us, it was an exciting challenge.

Craig: We’re going to get into that. When we start digging into, which I’m sure will happen soon, into Everything Everywhere All At Once, I definitely want to talk about the… You guys call it maximalism? What is the word that you use?

Daniel Kwan: Maximalism, yeah.

Craig: A whole lot. There’s so much. I don’t know. John, should I short circuit things by talking about it? Should I just ask my question?

John: I think there’s actually a very nice segue though between the videos you’re doing… If you looked at Turn Down For What, we’ll put a link in the show notes to Turn Down For What, a tremendous amount happens in there visually. You’re constantly adding new layers to things. You’re literally falling down through the floor, into a new layer, a new layer, a new layer of a story. I want to talk about your short film, Interesting Ball, the 2014 film, which was an ongoing series of vignettes that all tie together and feed into one big thing. What is the process for you guys developing those ideas? You talk about [inaudible 00:09:42] song and then having to figure out what is speaking to me. That’s fine if it’s one person. If it’s both of you, do you have to give veto power over what ideas are happening? What is the process like for figuring out, “Okay, this is how we want to do this thing. This is a story. We should follow on this.”

Daniel Kwan: Before I answer that, I just also want to include Foster the People, Houdini is another one that has a very dense story, and then our Simple Song by The Shins, also way too much story in five minutes, just in case people want to see what we’re talking about. It’s too much. It was great.

Craig: It’s a great song.

Daniel Kwan: The collaboration, like I said, it’s all very accidental. It’s all very organic. A lot of times, we just constantly pitch things back and forth. The things that stick are the things that we chase, which is why me as an individual director and Scheinert as an individual director, we would be making very different things on our own.

Our Venn diagram is so specific and strange that it has to excite us both in order for us to chase it. It’s not fun to drag someone along on a journey that they’re not fully committed to. That really hones and sharpens what the story can be or the potential for what it is. Oftentimes, it is the stuff that scares us the most, because on our own, I don’t think I would be quite as brave. Together, it’s like, “Are we going to bite off way too much? Are we going to chase after something that we probably shouldn’t be chasing after as storytellers? That sounds exciting.” I think that’s something that at least within our relationship, that’s the strongest part of the Venn diagram is that’s risk-taking.

Daniel Scheinert: I think I maybe get a kick out of tricking Dan into making his craziest ideas actually happen.

Daniel Kwan: There’s that too.

Daniel Scheinert: I’ll become the cheerleader for the weird ones. There’s rarely veto power. In fact, in some ways, there’s tons of it. We’re just looking for that thing that makes us both excited. Over the years, we’ve learned to not sweat it if an idea falls flat for the other person and just be like, “Huh, okay. I trust his taste. For some reason, that idea doesn’t sing to him.” Then sometimes it’ll come up again a few months later. There’s a movie idea that I’ve been pitching to Dan for years that just recently got consumed by this other idea that we’ve been working on. I’m like, “Oh, it’s actually happening now.” It took years of throwing this dumb idea against the wall for it to finally find its home.

Daniel Kwan: It’s a slow-motion passive veto. If it gets buried by time, then that’s the veto. I think this is an acting metaphor that an acting coach once told us. The reason why you don’t want to say no is because you want to allow the bush to grow in every direction it needs to grow before you start trimming. Otherwise, you won’t know what shape it can be. I think that’s a part of our process working with actors, but also a part of our writing process is just letting things grow. If it’s meant to die, it’ll die. You never know what the bush could be until you see it in its biggest, most unruly form.

Daniel Scheinert: I love that metaphor.

Craig: There’s something beautiful about the permissiveness of your process, where you do allow each other to say and come up with ideas that maybe other people would reject out of hand. One of the things that struck me when I watched Everything Everywhere All At Once, or can we abbreviate it to EEAAO, is that…

Let me back up for a second. John and I, I think, do a decent job of generally educating people about screenwriting. I think in all the time that we’ve spent looking at say the Three Page Challenges and things, I think we are good at helping people get better, but I’m not sure that we’re good at helping people be Good with a capital G. I think that there’s something innate. Obviously, there is talent that exists. Watching your movie, I felt overwhelmed in the best possible way, by quality of ideas. There were not 1 or 2 or 12 fresh ideas. Movies oftentimes give you zero fresh ideas. There were 1,000 fresh ideas.

Daniel Kwan: Wow.

Craig: By the time I got to the Everything Bagel, which I think may be the single best metaphor ever immortalized on film-

Daniel Scheinert: Oh my god.

Craig: … I was just overjoyed by the amount of original thought. I just want to dig in a little bit to ask you guys, are you aware of how original all of these thoughts are? Is it something you pursue very purposefully? Do you worry about losing connection with some of the necessary conventional things, which I think in your film you did not lose touch with? How do you manage this fire hose of brilliant thought?

Daniel Kwan: Oh my gosh, thank you. That is such an incredible compliment. Regarding the bagel metaphor, I feel like Twitter would disagree, but it’s okay.

Daniel Scheinert: [Crosstalk 00:14:40].

Craig: I quit Twitter.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Craig: Fuck Twitter. They’re wrong.

Daniel Kwan: I should quit. The first thing I’ll say is, in college I remember I heard someone say something funny and snarky about success that has always stuck with me. They said if you want to be successful, you either have to be the best or the first. From the very beginning, I was like, “I will never be the best, but I can be the first.” That was definitely a very inspiring moment. That was something that me and Daniel had a proclivity for is just surprising each other. That’s why the duoship works is because half the time, that’s all we’re doing. We’re trying to surprise each other, either with a joke or even with an emotionally resonant idea. How do we surprise each other so that we can surprise our audience?

A lot of it comes out to the fact that I’m realizing now as an adult, I’ve been recently diagnosed with ADHD, and people with ADHD are novelty seekers. I’m the truffle pig. That’s how my brain is defaulted to think about the world and look at the world. I think a lot of people look at it and they’re like, “Oh my gosh, this is way too much.” To me, I’m like, “Welcome to our brains. This is just how we think.”

I’ve been reading a lot about neuroanthropology, this idea of taking anthropology and going back to ancient traditions and the ways that brains worked back then to decode and understand how we can hack our minds for the modern world or whatever. One of the things they talk about is how important innovation is and novelty seeking is for the human condition.

A lot of people can be like, “Oh yeah, it’s just new for new’s sake,” as far as our movie goes. It’s whatever. It’s just random and fun. I do think that the newness and the freshness of our stories is very much intentional, because I think humans are so fickle. You learn a moral to a story or you learn this beautiful, life-changing idea, and two months later, you’ve already forgotten why you felt that way. I think we were constantly having to remind ourselves, as humans and as storytellers, these very simple, universal truths. Unless we wrap it in something new, it’s hard to penetrate our very hardened, logical, cold brains. Innovation to us is really fun and playful and inspiring but also feels important as a vehicle for story.

John: Innovation and novelty are amazing tools. They’re definitely going to help you find some new territory, but they’re not going to get a movie made. They’re not going to get a script written. How do you go from… You have all these great ideas. They’re great ideas you could’ve had in a dorm room, but you’re not actually getting them to a movie. You’re not getting them to a script stage. What is the process from these great ideas to, “Okay, now we’re agreeing on the words on the page to create this story.” What is that conversation? You have great abstract ideas, but you also have to agree on what is the scene.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s nonlinear. It’s still confusing. We’re still figuring it out. I do think that, back to music videos, we discovered our process on these short-form projects and discovered that we enjoy biting off something ambitious that we would have to keep trying to polish straight up until the final day. That the story wasn’t going to work until the effects were done was a fun way to make a story. I feel like that gave us the courage to write scripts, because we never look at our scripts as a final product at all.

Daniel Kwan: Great advice for a screenwriting podcast.

Craig: Nobody buys screenplays. It’s true.

John: It’s true.

Craig: They’re meant to be transformed.

Daniel Scheinert: They’re meant to be a blueprint to this other thing. That was a really freeing thought, I think, for both of us, because it meant we didn’t have to fight tooth and nail about exactly what the lines were, because we were like, “That’s just the line for now.” It gave us, I think, the courage to just write in a very iterative way, that wasn’t super OCD about the details. We did a ton of outlining, wrote a draft, went back and re-outlined it, drastically wrote a draft.

Daniel Kwan: We should send you guys… My whiteboard has an outline.

Craig: Please.

Daniel Kwan: It’s got 30 timelines across the thing.

Craig: Oh my god.

Daniel Kwan: It’s tracking everything. It’s a mess.

Craig: I would love that.

Daniel Kwan: It’s hilarious. I think that gets back to, process-wise, not only are we looking for innovation on a moment-to-moment and idea-to-idea level, but structurally I think that’s where we find the most inspiration, and that’s how we organize all of it.

With Swiss Army Man, structurally what we wanted to do is we wanted to ask, “What if we started this movie with just the worst idea ever, a man who is farting so much that he’s able to be used as a jet-ski but it’s cathartic and beautiful? What if we started with that image and we still found a way to justify this film’s existence?” It felt like a very interesting challenge to us. The classic line that Paul Dano used to use at all the Q and As was, “It was a film that started with a fart that made you laugh and ended with a fart that made you cry.” It’s a semiotic experiment. It’s very academic. Structurally, that was what we were going for, and everything else was trying to be thrown into that bucket.

With Everything Everywhere, we asked ourselves, “Okay, what if we could create a multiverse movie that went to too many multiverses? What if we took the hero’s journey and deconstructed it beyond anything recognizable, where you had way too many stories, way too many wants, way too many needs?”

Originally, we wanted the whole film to fully collapse. Basically, we wanted the main character and the audience to not care anymore, to actually believe in nihilism, like, “Nothing matters. This story doesn’t matter.” Then we were like, “Okay, but what if structurally we got there, but then we still found a way to pull everything back together and make it make sense?”

When we came up with that structure, we were like, “Holy shit, this is amazing, because this reflects the lived experience right now that everyone… ” Twitter and social media and the constant news cycle that we were experiencing. We started writing this in 2016. Everyone knows what was happening then. This film was very much… That structure was like a reflection of that moment.

To us, we’re like, “Okay, great, we have a lot little, fun, innovative ideas, but we have this very big, structural, big swing that we’re excited to use as a blueprint for us to drop those ideas into.” That structure has stayed the same. I don’t know how many drafts we did, but many, many, many drafts. That structure was always the goal throughout, even though entire characters got thrown away, scenes got rewritten. Everything changed except for that structure. I think that’s something that maybe some people miss in the innovation conversation when talking about this script in particular.

John: We’re looking at a script that you guys sent through. It’s not quite clear what the script is that we’re looking at, because it has side-by-side the Chinese dialog for characters, it has some ADR stuff and other things thrown in. What was the script that you first went out to actors with? What was the first script that you had that’s like, “Okay, this represents our intention of the thing to make.” How long was that script? The script we’re looking at is about 125 pages. It has the end at Page 83. Then it restarts at 86. All At Once begins 124. Was the script you were going out to actors with similar to the script we’re looking at?

Daniel Scheinert: It was relatively similar, yeah. It was an interesting thing when the movie was done and we were like, “What script do we release?” I always think it’s funny when you get these award [inaudible 00:22:30] with a screenplay, and you’re like, “I think they hired a kid to transcribe the finished film.”

Craig: Exactly. It’s usually not a kid, but that is exactly correct.

John: We know a guy who does that.

Craig: In fact, we know somebody who has done that quite a few times.

Daniel Scheinert: We didn’t want to do that. We kept in stuff that got cut out. We wanted to keep in the stuff that changed, like when we did pickup shoots and ADR and stuff. That cracked the movie open. That was part of the writing process. It’s like, “That is screenwriting we did, so I guess we’ll put that in there.” It’s a mix of things.

I was just going to summarize that first we went out to Michelle years and years ago. We met with her right before Crazy Rich Asians came out, which I think was 2018 or something. That was pretty different script. I don’t think that character had a grandpa in it.

Craig: You mean you were Hongless at that time?

Daniel Kwan: Yeah, we were Hongless. [Crosstalk 00:23:25].

Craig: I have a huge problem with that, because James Hong is the greatest actor of all time.

Daniel Kwan: Agreed.

Daniel Scheinert: I think in that one, it wasn’t a Chinese New Year’s party. It was a wedding. Joy, the daughter, was getting married to her partner and hadn’t invited her mom. To Dan’s point, it had the same structure, like about a family, it goes to too many universes, come back, they hug at the end. Then we refined it. Michelle helped us refine it. Going out to different actors… We’d sometimes talk to actors and go home and be like, “Oh, that conversation totally helped you crack why the wedding’s a bad idea,” for example.

Daniel Kwan: The one thing I’ll add is it changed a lot, it changed a lot, it changed a lot, but the most important thing we learned on Swiss Army Man was making sure that the script was good enough before we shot, because we were rewriting as we were shooting, and it was miserable. What we ended up doing with this script is… Even though it was constantly changing up until the shoot day, by the time we were shooting, it mostly remained blocked. It was pretty close to the final thing. The script that you guys got is pretty close to our shooting script. The only difference is we added some ADR and stuff like that. Otherwise, the structure of it, the order of it, what you guys are seeing is basically what our crew saw when we started shooting, which I’m very proud of. It was very important to us.

Craig: I don’t know how you could’ve… I’m thinking about your poor first AD. Literally, I was thinking about your poor first AD while we were watching the movie. I’m in Calgary, watching it in this lovely little theater, and my mind is blown, but at some point, I think it was maybe one of the first super-montages, where we see Michelle Yeoh a thousand different times in a thousand different places, where I was just like, “Is the first AD okay? Did they take care of him?” because the thought of doing that movie without a locked, I mean locked script gives me hives just thinking about it.

Daniel Kwan: I think we knew that, and then we also got lucky, and Rod, our first AD, was also very good at his job and very zen about it.

Craig: You would need to be, I would imagine.

Daniel Kwan: He was just like, “We got this, guys.” Sometimes I’m like a part-time AD when we’re shooting. I worry about that a lot. I’m teaming up with whoever it is, to just be like, “What was the schedule today? What do we have to get? What are the priorities? If we get behind, what are we going to cut out? Does it matter? If we have time, what’s the fun stuff we’re going to sneak in there?” trying to manage expectations.

Craig: How many days did you guys shoot?

Daniel Kwan: It was 8 weeks, 38 days.

Craig: Wow.

Daniel Kwan: Then we had several days of pickup shoots and stuff during COVID, but they were small.

Craig: If by several you don’t mean 14,000, I am amazed. It’s really amazing how much you did in the time you had. Question for you. You’re making this movie. From your point of view, I hope you felt that you had covered all these brilliant bases. You had written this really interesting story full of very specific… We always go on about specificity. I can’t think of more specific writers than the two of you. It’s not just hot dog fingers. There’s cheese inside of the hot dog fingers.

Daniel Scheinert: Oh, cheese.

Craig: Every single thing has been thought through. I hope it was cheese. Maybe it was something else. Was it mayonnaise?

Daniel Kwan: Mustard.

Daniel Scheinert: Mustard.

Craig: Oh, it was mustard. I thought it was cheese.

Daniel Scheinert: That says a lot about you, actually.

Daniel Kwan: It’s whatever you want it to be.

Craig: It had that American cheese color. Fair enough. Mustard. See, even specific enough that it was mustard. You also had these incredible costumes. Stephanie Hsu, who I became obsessed with after seeing your movie, is in like 400 costumes that are each brilliant. At any point, or perhaps at lots of points, did the two of you look at each other and say, “Either we are going to succeed fantastically or this is going to be pointed at and laughed at for all time?”

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, you’re getting at our sweet spot.

Craig: Good.

Daniel Kwan: It’s the big swing. It’s the disastrous, ambitious… I don’t want to speak ill of other movies, but I actually love these films. It’s films like Southland Tales.

Craig: It’s funny, I was thinking of Southland Tales, because we’re big Richard Kelly fans here.

Daniel Scheinert: Totally.

Craig: I really like that movie a lot, but it’s out there. That one, people didn’t quite connect with the way that they did with your film.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. I think I find that film so inspiring, more inspiring than most other films, because he just went for it and he put everything in it. It was trying to be political and funny. It was way too ambitious.

Craig: Weird.

Daniel Kwan: And weird. Films like that, they were our North Stars for this film. We were like, “We want to do what they did, but can we stick the landing? Can we stick the landing in a way in which our mothers might actually appreciate the film?”

Daniel Scheinert: A lot of times, we’ll pick something bonkers and something really broad as our two North Stars and be like, “Oh, can we land somewhere in the middle?” It was It’s A Wonderful Life and Southland Tales. Those are very different movies, but it’s fun to bounce between them.

Craig: Incredible. That’s a fun way to walk into a pitch at A24 and say, “Southland Tales.” They’re like, “Goodbye.” That’s awesome. The bravery is really just something else. When you say stuck the landing, it’s a wonderful phrase, because I do feel like the way I feel when I watch Olympians do really complicated things. If they don’t stick the landing, they’re probably just going to break their neck and die. I feel like you guys are so brave, braver than I am. That’s for sure. You’re just like, “Here we go. Might not live.” Amazing.

Daniel Scheinert: We also have a bag of tricks we’ve collected over the years that make it not as scary for us as it would be for other filmmakers.

Craig: Tell us about those.

Daniel Scheinert: You mentioned Interesting Ball. That was an experimental film that we made for almost no money. Part of the experiment with that one was the script was five short films that we thought would be fun to intercut. We didn’t actually know what would cut to where or how it would work. Even on the day, some of them were too ambitious, and we only shot some of the script. There was a whole sequence with these broformers where a bunch of dudes hug and turn into a big mech warrior made of dudes. That’s a hard thing to photograph. We ended up shooting only pieces of the script and being like, “I don’t know, let’s see if it works in the edit.” That one, we spent a long time in the edit. It was very hard finding this flow. It was wild to see just how much you can fix in the edit. It was part of the experiment of that short film.

We held onto that while making this. In this case, we designed how it would cut. It was in the script, so that we wouldn’t overshoot it or have to figure it out on the day. We did know in the back of our heads, we’re pretty good at montage, we’re pretty good at finding music to guide an audience through a scene that isn’t good. We’ve fixed our movies in the past a lot. We had some crutches that made a scary screenplay not as scary for us as it was for the producers.

John: It sounds like you guys have a good faith in Future Daniels. Writer Daniels have good faith in Director Daniels, and Director Daniels have good faith in Editor Daniels. You’re going to do your very best at that moment to give Future Daniels what they can use. You know that in the future you guys are going to be able to solve some of these problems and you’re not catastrophizing things on the day. If you can’t get that shot, if your shot list doesn’t get completed, it’ll work out. You’ll find a way through it.

Daniel Kwan: That’s such a wonderful way to put it. You’re collaborating with past, present, and future versions of yourselves. I think that that trust comes from the fact that we’ve gone through the process so many times in a very quick amount of time. I recently calculated. I think we’ve done about a dozen commercials, a dozen music videos, maybe close to a dozen short films, seven or eight TV episodes, and then of course we’ve done three features between the two of us.

Because we were able to do that so quickly, we really quickly understood what our strengths were within each other’s sections, the pre-production, the production, and the editing, in a way that… Even in the writing process, we always say that we want to start writing a movie that we have to grow up and mature to become the directors who can direct that movie. Right now we’re working on another film that is way too big, way too ambitious. We are not good enough directors to make that movie yet.

Craig: Yes, you are.

Daniel Kwan: That’s what you think.

Craig: Do it. Do it.

Daniel Kwan: That’s the fun of it.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s aspirational. We’re like, “Oh, I’m excited to become the guy that can do that.”

Daniel Kwan: Who can do that one day.

Craig: The reach is part of the process for you guys.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. Also, the other thing that we have in our back pocket is, if something doesn’t work, we can just turn it into a joke. It’s such a cheap trick. Within the context of our films, so much stuff doesn’t work at first. We have all these different ways to repurpose it or recycle it, or worst-case scenario, we just cut it out, because like what you said, Craig, we have so many ideas that if something doesn’t work, we’ll be like, “There’s plenty of other things, so get rid of it.” The first cut is this crazy monster of a film that has all these appendages that are wonderful and beautiful but so bloated and so confusing. Our process has always been throw everything at the wall. We don’t know if it’s going to work, but at least some of them will work. Some of them will work really beautifully, and that’s enough for us for now.

Daniel Scheinert: With this movie, more than ever before, like Dan said, we really wanted to like the script and have something locked before we shoot. Some of that was being better writers, and some of it was a mental exercise. You just have to tell yourself, “Turn off the writing and focus on the filmmaking.”

Swiss Army Man, Dan and I had this argument, we’ve been having it ever since, about how much of it was not a good script and how much of it was just bad process on our part. We just shouldn’t have been rewriting it as frantically as we did. It wasn’t good. Shot listing might have been a smarter move with our time. This time, in addition to liking it, the scriptwriting process was so helpful in helping us figure out the priorities. The format of a screenplay forces you to essentialize. You can’t describe every costume, or else it becomes a 200-page script. We were constantly having to make hard decisions to get the page count down. It helped us know what really mattered. It was like, “We have all these gags, like with Raccacoonie, but they’re not essential to the story,” and so we’d cut them out.

Craig: Oh, Raccacoonie. It is essential to the story.

Daniel Scheinert: We’d remember them and be like-

Craig: Raccacoonie.

Daniel Scheinert: Stuff would rise back in.

Craig: God.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s essential to us. We knew these details were why we wanted to make the movie. The screenwriting process really was about killing darlings a lot of times. It was about like, “No, we have to focus on the family. We can’t get too enamored with what Jobu’s costumes are going to be. We’ll figure that out later. For now what matters is where’s our character at.”

Craig: Tupaki. The discipline that you guys applied to what seems like an absolute chaotic wellspring of ideas is why the movie works. You just mentioned Raccacoonie, and that brings up a question that I wanted to ask you guys. My grandparents were immigrants, and they lived with us. I grew up in a house where Raccacoonie type mistakes would happen all the time. I’m just interested in… The movie is so much about existentialism and what it means to survive and love in the face of what I think is true, which is none of this means anything, but at the same time, so much of the movie’s built around the immigrant experience, in a very honest way, a very eyes-open way. I’m curious how you came about smashing these two pretty disparate themes together in such a gorgeous little blend.

Daniel Kwan: A lot of it, I like to say that me and Scheinert are very naïve writers. We do things that we don’t have a plan for sometimes, or we don’t overthink it, because we’re drawn to it. We’re like, “We’re drawn to it. Let’s put it together. Let’s see what happens.” Oftentimes, what happens is some of the things don’t work. As you live with a script, that gets thrown out.

With the immigrant experience and the multiverse, as we were working on it, we realized, oh, these two things are actually a fascinating pairing, because both the immigrant story and the multiverse are talking about multiple worlds. Our parents and our grandparents, they live in-

Craig: Interesting.

Daniel Kwan: … different existence, very different point of views. This is what the multiverse is actually in real life. It’s just having a completely different outlook on life and that collision of those things. All this intergenerational immigrant narrative stuff is about the collision of the past, the future, and everything in between, as far as traditions and whatever goes.

Then also, a lot of the multiverse and the immigrant story is a questioning of life paths and decisions and asking yourself what if. When I talk to my mother about her past, a lot of it is like, “What if this happened? What if that happens?” The only reason why she came to America is because her family got the money together to send her there, as almost like a backup plan. They’re like, “Okay, if the family business in Taiwan doesn’t work out, you’re going to go to America. You’re going to get educated.” She was almost like the test subject. Then when the family company went under in Taiwan, her whole family moved over to Pennsylvania with her.

The whole immigrant experience is about this ever-branching list of possible life paths that you could’ve taken. It’s things like that that I love, where the pairings don’t necessarily make sense or the contradictions of what you’re trying to put together don’t make sense, but the longer you live with them, things get revealed.

I like to think of all of our scripts as these filters that we carry around with us, these fishnets. As we’re walking around through life, it’s going to catch real moments and real ideas. True emotions are going to be caught in that net. You won’t know what you catch unless you live with it. I think that’s one reason why our scripts take so long is because we want to live with them, and we want to see what we watch. People who are able to write a script in seven days I am so jealous of. Also, I feel like I wouldn’t be able to catch the things that I want to catch with it, because seven days isn’t a long enough time to live with something.

Craig: That’s a beautiful answer. Thank you.

John: Daniel, what you’re describing is a phenomenon I always felt when I’ve been working on features, but especially in the times I’ve been working on TV. I was working on a show that was supposed to be a 22-episode season. The workload was so great that I felt like my life became just about grabbing things in the air and saying, “Is this part of the show? Is this part of the show?” I was the net. I would catch anything that could possibly wrangle them into the show. We heard a song, it was like, “Oh, how does it fit into this thing?”

Daniel Kwan: Totally.

John: You make a very good point, that I don’t know that that’s healthy or a great way to make great art, because your whole existence just becomes transferred into being the person who channels reality into the show. I felt like I was living for the show rather than living my actual life, which is so frightening.

Daniel Scheinert: I feel like the worse thing is the opposite, if you’re working on art that has nothing in common with your life, and so it just becomes a reflection of maybe something you read once or you’re just mimicking a movie you made sometime, but if it can intersect with your life, then ideally it can be a really good therapeutic project, to be like, “Oh, I’m going to work through some real things. This is going to come from an honest place,” as long as you’re not a workaholic, you don’t go crazy.

Craig: These guys are healthier than we are. Don’t you feel like they’re the healthiest versions of us? They seem so put together.

Daniel Scheinert: I was just thinking what inspired this movie. You bringing up Raccacoonie made me think about our producer John’s dad. The movie’s dedicated to him, Alexander Wang. He loved movies but could never remember the names of them. Originally, it was just a joke about how Mr. Wang always got movies wrong. Also, Mr. Wang passed away right after Swiss Army Man came out. I think this movie was inspired a bit by his funeral. It was also inspired by Dan’s wedding and also inspired by Dan becoming a father and also inspired by Dan going into therapy and all these huge life events. You can trace back pieces of this movie, and it’s like, “Oh yeah, that a hundred percent affected the journey of the Wang family in the movie,” each of these real-life journeys we’re going on.

Craig: Amazing. I could talk to you guys all day. Let’s kidnap them.

Daniel Scheinert: Let’s do a four-hour podcast.

Craig: Everyone loves a four-hour podcast.

John: Daniel Kwan, I want to make sure to circle back to you, because early on in the conversation you said you wanted to talk about the experience of being Asian and working in the film industry. Is there anything more that you wanted to get into about that, or is the immigrant stuff more what you wanted to talk about?

Daniel Kwan: This is such a funny, unromantic way to look at our relationship, me and Daniel, and why I think we’ve been resilient through the fact… The industry’s constantly changing. The past 10 years, every few years, something has really shifted. Yet somehow we’ve managed to make a path through it all despite the fact that so many of our very talented friends and whatever have been having a harder time, if we’re being honest. The independent film landscape is just not a fun place right now. It never has been, but right now it’s definitely feeling… Especially now that even streaming is being turned over again. The whole thing is precarious.

They talk about in genetics, oftentimes when you take two people with very different backgrounds, it actually creates better genes. You become more resilient, because you’re actually knocking out things that… That’s why pugs look the way… They’re all inbred.

Craig: It’s why my children can drink milk. I can’t.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. Oh my god, that’s so funny.

Daniel Scheinert: Wow.

Daniel Kwan: It’s a long-winded metaphor for the fact that when we first started, I didn’t think I was going to become a director, because I was an Asian dude. I was very quiet, very reserved. I wanted to go into animation, because I thought, “Okay, I can still create things, but I don’t need to be the leader or whatever. I can make things on my own.” Scheinert was a very confident white man who had been directing things since he was like 12. He came in, saw something in-

Daniel Scheinert: I was the kind of kid who was like, “Yeah, I could see myself going to film school. I could see myself becoming a director. Those dudes look like me.”

Craig: Wow.

Daniel Scheinert: It didn’t require much imagination.

Craig: That’s awesome.

Daniel Kwan: I also think having him interfacing with the record labels and interfacing with the bands or whatever in a way that I was not ready for, I did not have the confidence for early on, all those things made it so that we… I could sneak in on his back. It’s genetic hitchhiking a little bit, where I was able to navigate this world and learn. In some ways, our duoship and his whiteness was my training wheels. I learned so much from that process.

Then suddenly, #OscarsSoWhite happened, and the whole paradigm shifted, and everything changed. I remember distinctly the moment when we started getting scripts, and they weren’t necessarily for Scheinert, they were for me, if that makes sense. People started sending us projects that were very specifically Chinese. We were being invited to events because I was Chinese. Suddenly, the whole thing switched. Suddenly, he was on my back.

We talked very frankly about this, because again, it’s very unromantic. I feel very grateful that he found me when I did, and I was able to be ready for this moment. The fact that our relationship has been going on for 12, 13 years now, and we’ve been able to make the things that we do is in part because there’s two of us. We have very different backgrounds. Honestly, our belief systems were very different. Our upbringings were very different. Our inspirations were very different. We have very different ways of looking at the world. I think that makes us more resilient, both in just the race of it all, the race conversation of it all, but also just in the types of things that we make.

Daniel Scheinert: Hopefully, 10 years from now, as the world shifts, we still have something to offer, but who knows what that’ll be. Hopefully, we find something that we-

Craig: When the world shifts to white supremacy in the next couple years, it’ll be great.

Daniel Scheinert: Oh, sick.

Craig: You’ll be back again. Don’t worry, Scheinert. It’ll be your time in the sun soon.

Daniel Scheinert: They’ll trust what I look like, and then I’ll sneak in and I’ll rip it apart from the inside.

Craig: Not to overextend the analogy, but John and I are also very different people from different backgrounds, different walks of life, different all this stuff. It is the vive la différence. It is something that makes it work. I don’t listen to podcasts, but I have noticed that a lot of them seem like they are hosted by four clones.

Daniel Kwan: Totally. I know exactly what you’re talking about.

Craig: Differenceness is good.

John: I’m the Whoopi Goldberg. He’s the Joy Behar. It’s what makes The View The View.

Daniel Kwan: That’s amazing.

Craig: That’s exactly what I was thinking.

John: It’s time for our One Cool Things.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: I’m going to start with mine.

Craig: Great.

John: First, it’s a plus one on Craig’s previous recommendation of The Past Within, which is a very cool video game. Two people play separately but together in ways that… I was not expecting it to be so smart about how it works together. Recommendation on The Past Within, the Rusty Lake game. I have two movies to recommend. The first is The Territory, which is a documentary by Alex Fritz about-

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god. Sorry. We just met Alex last night at an event, at the Gotham Awards. He was incredible.

John: I bet he’s incredibly sweet.

Daniel Kwan: He is.

John: So smart.

Daniel Kwan: He might be listening right now.

Craig: I hate him.

John: [Crosstalk 00:46:36].

Craig: No, I don’t.

Daniel Kwan: Different walks of life.

John: Alex Pritz. I said Fritz. It’s Pritz. Such a smartly done movie. It’s about indigenous peoples in Brazil fighting to save their territory, their land from encroachment. So smartly done. You can imagine the bad, eat your vegetables version of this movie a thousand different ways. It managed to navigate through all that. It’s so smartly done. You can find that on Disney Plus. Check it out, The Territory. Second is My Year of Dicks, which is written and produced by our own Pamela Ribon.

Craig: Pam Ribon.

John: Directed by Sara Gunnarsdóttir. So smart. It’s up for an Academy Award, Best short. People should watch it. It’s really, really cleverly done. Based on Pamela’s book about her teenage years and trying to lose her virginity. So great. If you like Pen15, you will definitely love this animated short. It uses animation in such a smart way to be able to show you what otherwise you could not see.

Daniel Kwan: Wow.

John: I really recommend My Year of Dicks.

Daniel Kwan: A great title too.

Craig: Best title ever.

Daniel Kwan: Incredible.

John: You guys will love My Year of Dicks. [Crosstalk 00:47:39].

Craig: “You guys will love My Year of Dicks.”

Daniel Scheinert: It’s a great sentence.

Craig: It is. Continuing the theme sort of, at least etymologically, my One Cool Thing is spatchcocking. If you’re not familiar with spatchcocking, to spatchcock a turkey, you remove the backbone, then you flip it over, and then you push down, and you flatten the whole turkey out. Now, removing the backbone of a turkey, as it turns out, is incredibly hard to do unless you have-

John: It’s brutal.

Craig: … special poultry shears, which I did not have. For about 30 minutes, I was just in this war with a dead animal, almost lost, but finally won. The whole point of spatchcocking is if you keep the turkey on one flat level and put it in the oven, it will cook together at the same time. It will all cook at the same temperature. It will cook way faster. A 15-pound turkey took 1 hour and 10 minutes to cook.

Daniel Kwan: Wow.

Craig: It was perfect.

Daniel Scheinert: Wow.

Craig: If you do like cooking and you are responsible for the turkey in your family, strongly recommend. If you have a butcher that you bring the turkey to, they will often just say, “Yes, yes, we will spatchcock it for you using our spatchcockers.”

Daniel Scheinert: It sounds disgusting. When you said spatchcocking-

Craig: Of course.

Daniel Scheinert: … the last thing I thought was that I was going to want to eat whatever you were about to describe.

Craig: Spatchcocking sounds like something you would need to do to jump to a different timeline. I’m hoping that somehow, at some point, you guys do at least include a little bit of spatchcocking. I feel like if somebody asks a typical filmmaker, “Hey, can you include something in your next film?” they’re like, “No,” but you guys…

Daniel Kwan: I like a challenge.

Craig: What’s one more thing?

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Craig: What’s one more thing? Get the spatchcocking in. That’s all I’m asking.

John: Craig, last year we did spatchcock the turkey and, like you, had the same experience. It was so hard to remove that thing.

Craig: So hard.

John: Then it ended up working out much better. This year, we decided the only way to win the game is not to play, and so we did duck confit, duck legs instead of turkey.

Daniel Kwan: Whoa.

John: So much better.

Craig: Honestly, one of my favorite things in the world is a little duck confit. It is so delicious.

Daniel Kwan: Fancy. We did something similar, except for we went really far away from the tradition. We ended up doing a Chinese hotpot. It was amazing.

Craig: That does sound pretty good.

Daniel Kwan: Also, honestly, there’s very little prep too, so you’re not spending the whole day cooking. Usually, we’re on our feet, trying to get the turkey ready with the mashed potatoes, everything. It’s literally a nightmare, but some people love it.

Craig: Everybody’s basically chasing the French in Western cooking. The French just made cooking the most arduous possible thing. You’re just like, “There’s 4,000 steps.”

Daniel Scheinert: I know.

Craig: It’s the same ambition that you guys have for making films, I have that for cooking. I’m like, “Give me the recipe that no one else will want to do.”

Daniel Kwan: That’s great.

Craig: Hotpot’s just fun.

Daniel Kwan: Literally, give me some materials. I’ll dip it in the water myself. It’s the laziest. I love it. My One Cool Thing-

John: One Cool thing, Daniel Kwan.

Daniel Kwan: There’s this podcast that I’ve been obsessed with for the past couple years called Your Undivided Attention. I don’t know if you guys are familiar with-

Craig: You know I’m not.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Daniel Scheinert: Two clones.

Daniel Kwan: Two clones talking to each other.

Daniel Scheinert: Two clones named Aza and Tristan.

Daniel Kwan: It’s Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin. They’re both ex-Silicon Valley people who were very much at the forefront of Twitter and Facebook and all those things. They realized their invention was slowly destroying our ability to communicate with each other, social media. One of them even is the guy who invented the infinite scroll. Now he’s trying to figure out what to… They have a very beautiful, clear-eyed vision of what’s wrong with social media and also what they think are some solutions to it. They bring in all these incredible guests who are thinking about the world in a completely different way, because there’s the social media level of animal conversation. It’s all about that limbic system, what makes you angry, what makes you sad, what will keep you engaged.

I think so much of the discourse about how to save the world exists in this plane of animal fury. I think this podcast tries to rise above it and think about things very much from a system standpoint, an incentive standpoint, instead of just from emotions. To me, it’s been really healing, and I’ve been learning so much. Go listen to Your Undivided Attention. I’ll say a couple of episodes. Audrey Tang is an amazing person you should listen to, Daniel Schmactenberger, Jessie Wheal. I won’t tell you what they’re talking about. These are people that I’m-

Daniel Scheinert: Isn’t it Jamie Wheal?

Daniel Kwan: I’m sorry. Jamie Wheal, yeah. I went a little too fast. A big fan of Jamie.

Daniel Scheinert: That way they can Google it.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly. If you’re someone who thinks about everything that’s wrong with the world and how we can fix it and you feel lost, for me it’s been a really good starting point for me to at least feel empowered in a world that does not want to empower us.

Craig: What about you, Scheinert?

John: Nice.

Daniel Scheinert: A bunch of my friends pitched in to buy my friend a stripper pole, because she’s been taking these pole dancing classes. It’s gotten her in touch with her body, her sexuality. It’s exercise. When we gave it to her, she taught me some of the moves. I had so much fun.

Craig: Really?

Daniel Scheinert: I’m on the hunt for some good heels. She’s going to teach me some more pole dancing.

Craig: Oh my word.

Daniel Scheinert: I just can’t wait to dress up in drag and do some more pole dancing with my friend. Just for anyone out there, just try cross-dressing. Try pole dancing. Just get in touch with another side of yourself. You can just go in the privacy of the garage. Also related is watching pole dancing. There’s a reason that’s the most popular thing at a strip club. There’s a way to do it respectfully, guys. You go and you pay well to watch someone who’s an incredible athlete. I’ve been going to one with some friends in L.A. and having a blast at Jumbo’s.

Craig: Can we ask where you go?

Daniel Scheinert: Yeah, Jumbo’s Clown Room.

Craig: Jumbo’s Clown Room, the best name for a strip club ever.

Daniel Scheinert: You’ve gotta tip well. If you go and you don’t tip, you’re a loser.

Craig: Yeah, don’t do the stupid $1 bills dumb thing.

Daniel Scheinert: Yeah, or just try it in your friend’s garage. Big cosign on the pole dancing.

Craig: You do look like you’re in excellent shape. If I tried pole dancing, I’m just sure that I would end up in the ER. I would end up in the ER with a wig on.

Daniel Kwan: That sounds great.

Daniel Scheinert: Step one is real easy. You just put your hand on the pole, and you just really slowly, confidently walk around the pole. That’s it. You just gotta work on your strut. Anyone can strut.

Craig: This is the problem is my confidence level. You know what? Something to discuss with my therapist. That’s awesome. Those were great One Cool Things. Those were Two Cool Things. Thank you for that. Incredible.

John: We like it.

Craig: Thank you, Daniels.

John: Daniels, thank you so much for being on the show.

Daniel Scheinert: Thank you for having us.

Craig: Oh my god, it was a joy.

Daniel Scheinert: It’s our pleasure. Thank you for helping us write our script. We listened. We took notes. It was helpful.

Daniel Kwan: We ignored half the advice, but it’s so-

Craig: Thank you.

John: That’s the crucial thing.

Craig: That’s almost as important. What to disagree with is very important.

Daniel Scheinert: Totally.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

Craig: Woo!

John: It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Indeed.

John: Our outro this week is by Matthew Jordan. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We’re actually running a little short on outros, so we need some more outros there, folks. You can send your longer questions to ask@johnaugust.com. Craig’s no longer on Twitter. I still am there @johnaugust for the time being. How do we reach you guys on the social medias? Are you guys there at all?

Daniel Kwan: Instagram’s good for me. Instagram, it’s @dunkwun, Dun Kwun.

John: Dun Kwun.

Daniel Kwan: Dun Kwun.

Craig: Dun Kwun.

Daniel Scheinert: My Instagram’s private, just for my friends. I’m sorry if you want to keep track of my life. Social media makes me super anxious.

Craig: I feel that.

Daniel Scheinert: Go check out our movie. I’m so proud of it.

John: You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find links to transcripts and our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments like the one we’re about to record on music videos and other things that people pay you to shoot. Daniels, thank you so much for a great show.

Craig: Thank you, Daniels.

Daniel Kwan: Thank you.

John: Congratulations on your film.

Daniel Scheinert: Pleasure.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Daniels, so in the bulk of the episode, you were talking about writing for music videos. Can you talk to us about what you were actually writing? As you were proposing to do a music video, what does that look like? What are you turning in as a document? I’ve seen some proposals, but I don’t think our listeners have ever encountered that as a written form. What are you writing up if you’re trying to get a music video?

Daniel Kwan: Normally, it starts off, and a record label or a commissioner or sometimes an artist will reach out direct, and they will send the brief over. They’ll say when they need to shoot it, when it needs to be done by, what the budget is, and a rough idea of what the band wants. Usually, it’s not enough money, not enough time, and the ideas are super vague. That’s where it starts off. Usually, the prompt is like, “Okay, the artists don’t want to play music, but they also don’t want to act, but they also want to be in it, but also they want it to look cool. Make cool stuff happen around them.” It’s the most frustrating thing to get sometimes.

Craig: Sounds easy.

Daniel Kwan: Also, it’s like, “We need a treatment in two days.”

Daniel Scheinert: Or sometimes it’ll be like, “Drake’s really into Hawaiian shirts lately. $100,000.” I’m like, “Okay, let’s run with that. Let’s see what we can come up with.”

Craig: That’s an interesting exercise.

Daniel Scheinert: It is.

Craig: Narrows down the paths.

Daniel Kwan: It was film school for us. You talk about how we have so many ideas in our movies. It’s because we were forced by this industry to pump out fully formed ideas within a day or two. They’d be like, “We need a treatment in two days. Come up with a whole idea. Pitch us… ” Usually, they want a treatment, which has reference images, execution ideas, and a rough idea of what the concept is going to do.

Daniel Scheinert: Can I talk about the Maroon 5 renaissance?

Craig: Yeah.

Daniel Kwan: Great. Do it. Do it.

Daniel Scheinert: Right when we were starting out in music videos, our first thing we pitched for money got green-lit, turned in, and turned out well, which is a miracle. It turns out we thought, “Wow, music videos are easy.” Then we proceed to get rejected for eight or nine months straight. To his credit, Paul Hunter, who runs the company that had signed us, was like, “Hey, Maroon 5 wants me to do a music video. Do you guys want to help me come up with an idea? You could maybe ghost direct some of it and get paid, because I know you guys are getting rejected all the time.”

Craig: Starving, yeah.

Daniel Kwan: Exactly.

Daniel Scheinert: Then we listened to the song. It was bad. We’d try to come up with ideas. We could not stop coming up with joke ideas that were just making fun of Adam Levine.

Craig: Oh my god. Oh my god.

Daniel Scheinert: We would laugh our asses off at these things, being like, “There’s no way we could do that, but it sure is funny.” We were really struggling to come up with something that we actually thought would be good. A lot of those ideas that we did not pitch to them, that started as just us making fun of the band and the song, became ideas that stuck in the back of our brains, that we loved, that we actually ended up making. Over the next 10 years, we’d be like, “Oh my god, we’re doing one of the Maroon 5 videos again,” because there was one where their music’s so good it gets women pregnant, and we ended up making that.

Daniel Kwan: For Chromeo.

Daniel Scheinert: There was one where their music’s so good the floor falls apart and they fall down into a bar mitzvah, and then the floor falls apart, and they fall down into a rave. That turned into Turn Down For what.

Craig: I love that that’s the weird [inaudible 01:00:04] wellspring of all Daniels work is just that three-week period where you guys were just destroying Maroon 5 in your minds.

Daniel Scheinert: You never know if this is productive or not. We were laughing. Our favorite one that I’ll pitch, that way the people who came for this 20 minutes feel really rewarded-

Craig: Oh, good.

Daniel Scheinert: We sort of made this. The idea was that there was a huge crowd. They’re all chanting, “Maroon 5. Maroon 5.” Then a stagehand comes out and says, “Hey guys, I’m so sorry, this show’s canceled. There’s been an accident. I’m so sorry. They’re dead. Their bus went off the road.” The fans are starting to cry. The stagehand’s like, “I’m sorry, what? Oh, wait. Oh, I’m sorry, apparently I’m wrong. Here they are, Maroon 1!” Then smoke starts to pour out. This weird Weta [ph] puppet comes out in smoke, and it’s all five of them smushed into one weird, mangled creature. Then out of a crevice comes Adam Levine’s face. Then Maroon 1 becomes more famous than Maroon 5 ever was. They rocket off to superstardom and stuff.

Craig: They should’ve done that.

Daniel Kwan: The bridge is they are so successful that every other band wants to recreate their magic.

Craig: Oh my god.

Daniel Kwan: Metallica gets in a car crash.

Daniel Scheinert: They start wrecking their tour buses.

Daniel Kwan: Sum 41 gets in a car crash. Everyone’s just trying to… Whatever. They’re all dying.

Craig: Oh my god.

Daniel Kwan: Also, I think it ends with Adam Levine opening up his shirt, and he has six nipples, and he starts breastfeeding [inaudible 01:01:41].

Daniel Scheinert: I think that was a different idea.

Daniel Kwan: That was a different idea.

Daniel Scheinert: I think that was a different one.

Daniel Kwan: We still haven’t made that video yet.

Daniel Scheinert: One of our Foster the People videos started with the band dying and then the record label puppets their corpses.

Craig: See, it’s all there.

Daniel Scheinert: Then that led to Swiss Army Man.

Craig: See, everything comes… If people aren’t paying the $5 a month to Scriptnotes to hear this stuff, they really should start. That alone was worth $80 as far as I’m concerned. That was awesome.

Daniel Scheinert: I feel like we never actually answered your question though about what does a treatment look like.

John: What is the document? Is it a pdf you’re setting up that has all the images embedded in it, or is it a deck? What are you sending over these days?

Daniel Scheinert: A lot of directors do different things. The process we discovered was that we would collect a lot of images. Kwan was very graphic design savvy and could mock up some really lovely pdf treatments that would set the tone. For the first few years, each page would have five or six photos, and then I would end up usually writing a persuasive essay, because Kwan was a little too long-winded. The longer you talk about a music video, the harder it gets to wrap your head around it. I would write my attempt at a concise essay, and he would collect images and put it into a thing. We would always get bored try to reinvent it after a while and try to stay interested. Sometimes we resorted to gift treatments, because we found out collecting gifts was really fun and helpful. We started making much longer documents that were 10 or 12 pages and just putting 1 or 2 photos on there, because that became a nice way to break up the different ideas.

We have one friend who shoots videos of himself and edits in clips and photos because he just finds that that’s fun for him. Also, he’s a really charming British man, and so the record label will be like, “Oh, he’s so cute.” It helps him book the music video.

It’s pretty cool that as a writer, we didn’t have to follow Final Draft screenplay format. We started off with this very experimental writing process of just write whatever document you think will get you hired. Just try to be persuasive, whatever tools you have at your disposal.

Craig: It worked.

Daniel Scheinert: The bummer is you do a lot of these that just get rejected. Then you spend a lot of time writing. We never thought of it as screenwriting, but we’re basically writing spec scripts.

Craig: Yeah, and you’re practicing.

Daniel Scheinert: Constantly.

John: You’re a writer going out for an open writing assignment. It’s the same idea. They want to make this thing. Nineteen people are going in and pitching their take on this.

Daniel Kwan: Yeah, except for we’d be doing three a week. Literally, we’d get three different projects, and we’d have to pump them out.

Craig: That’s amazing. That you could do that at all is just I think really a testament to the fertility of your minds. You guys really are special. It was such a special experience watching your film. It’s been special watching your music videos. I really am just in awe of… There’s the whole quality and quantity thing. Typically, as quantity goes up, quality goes down, and somehow, you guys manage to keep those lines in lockstep. It’s amazing.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god.

Craig: There’s more and more of it, and it’s still good. That is just so special and rare.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, thank you.

Craig: I tip the hat that I am not wearing to you.

Daniel Scheinert: Thank you. Sometimes we feel like we use quantity as a crutch, where we’re like, “If there’s enough ideas in there, they’ll like a few of them.”

Craig: If they’re good… When it’s suddenly like, “Oh my god, there comes [inaudible 01:05:26]. Oh my god, there comes this. Oh my god, there goes that.” It’s everything, everywhere, all at once!

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, you did it.

Daniel Scheinert: He went for it.

Craig: It’s really good.

John: You did it. Oh my god.

Craig: I did it, and it just works. I’m really impressed.

Daniel Kwan: Oh my god, thank you.

Craig: I hate everybody. I gotta be honest with you. I just really hate everybody.

Daniel Kwan: Oh, wow.

Craig: I love John.

Daniel Scheinert: Me too. Let’s do a podcast about that.

Craig: By the way, if you want to do a podcast about hating people, girl, I’m there. We’re gonna do it, and it’s gonna be awesome. We’re gonna be canceled literally-

Daniel Kwan: Don’t tempt Scheinert.

Craig: We will be canceled in the middle of the first episode. We won’t even make it to the end of the first episode.

Daniel Scheinert: Let’s go back and forth. Who do you hate? Who do I hate?

Daniel Kwan: This is the bonus bonus.

Craig: Bonus bonus bonus.

Daniel Scheinert: Bonus bonus.

Craig: Our first episode is 14 hours long. Amazing.

John: Gentlemen, thank you so much.

Craig: Thank you guys.

Daniel Scheinert: Thank you.

John: Pleasure talking with you guys.

Craig: [Crosstalk 01:06:19].

Daniel Kwan: Really exciting to be here.

Links:

  • Daniels on Twitter, Dan Kwan on IG
  • Turn Down For What by DJ Snake and Lil Jon, Houdini by Foster the People, and The Simple Song by the Shins music videos
  • Interesting Ball short film
  • Everything, Everywhere All at Once
  • The Territory
  • Pamela Ribon’s My Year of Dicks, directed by Sara Gunnarsdóttir
  • Spatchcocking
  • Jumbo’s Clown Room
  • Your Undivided Attention podcast
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Matthew Jordan (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 580: Finding a Way In, and Out, Transcript

February 13, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/telling-real-world-stories).

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

**Craig Mazin:** No, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** This is Episode 580 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, it’s a How Would This Be a Movie case study. I’ll be talking with screenwriter William Nicholson about his script for Thirteen Lives, following the attempted rescue of a Thai soccer team trapped in a cave. We’ll get into issues of life rights, competing projects, narrative point of view, cultural sensitivity, and what happens when you and the director don’t agree about what kind of movie you’re trying to make. Craig, it’s a really good conversation. I was sorry to not have you there, but sometimes the one-on-one things are better when it’s just one on one.

**Craig:** What I’m hearing is that it was a really good conversation because I wasn’t there.

**John:** It was a good conversation. Also, I saw the movie. I think I was vaguely aware of the actual real-life rescue. You remember that one when it was happening, right?

**Craig:** Of course. I remember when it was happening. I remember Elon Musk doing what he seems to do on a daily basis now, which is say something incredibly stupid, so there was that.

**John:** There was that.

**Craig:** They got the kids out, which was great.

**John:** Yeah, which is great. I knew that the kids got out. We did talk a little bit about knowing the ending of the movie. Before we sit down and watch it, you know the kids get out. The specifics were actually a lot different than I realized or than I heard reported in the moment. It was really a question of point of view. Do you talk about it from the family’s point of view, from the kids inside the cave’s point of view? At what point do you reveal the kids inside the cave are alive? How do you reflect the balance of worldwide attention versus the actual very small, local story on the ground? It was a good conversation about the choices he made but the other choices that could’ve been made.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** Nice. Also, in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I want to talk about our non-work goals and aspirations for 2023. We are canonically not a resolution show. We’re not going to promise to do a thing. I always like to think about stuff we’d like to do more of or less of.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Let’s be thinking about that for a Bonus. We’re going to ask Megana too.

**Craig:** As long as we’re asking Megana, then we’ll be fine.

**Megana Rao:** I have to think of something.

**Craig:** Get going, Megana.

**John:** Some follow-up from last week. We had Rian Johnson on the show. We were answering a question about variable frame rates. I said that I was going to watch Avatar right after we record it, and I would be able to tell you what I thought of the variable frame rates. They mostly worked for me. The times that you go into really high frame rate stuff, it tends to be underwater. There’s a lot of underwater. The underwater stuff is amazing and beautiful in the movie. There are other moments where I did notice things were shifting, but it’s also hard to tell, because it’s a 3D movie, so everything’s a little bit weird anyway. I don’t know, if I was watching a 2D movie, I might not have had the same experience with the high frame rate stuff.

**Craig:** How are the glasses these days? Feeling good?

**John:** So much better.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** The glasses are pretty lightweight. This is my first time wearing them with a mask as well. A little trick for people is that if your glasses start to fog up, just pull your glasses a little bit further away, further down the bridge of your nose, and they won’t fog up so much.

**Craig:** That’s a good tip, or get Lasik.

**John:** I’m talking about the 3D glasses.

**Craig:** Oh, the 3D glasses. You have to wear the 3D glasses. I guess that makes sense. It would fog up. Maybe in a movie like Avatar, the fog might add a little something.

**John:** No, the fog will not add. James Cameron does not want you to have fog on your glasses.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** He will come by and he will wipe off the fog on your glasses.

**Craig:** He does seem like somebody that would more likely just smack the mask off your face.

**John:** Interestingly, he was supposed to come to the Q and A after this, and all the chairs were filled and-

**Craig:** He got COVID.

**John:** He got COVID. He got COVID 20 minutes before. [inaudible 00:03:33] positive test 20 minutes before.

**Craig:** That’s very convenient COVID to get, by the way. There have been times where I’m like, “Come on, COVID.”

**John:** Craig is scratching a little line with a little thin Sharpie there like, “Oh, sorry, can’t go.”

**Craig:** Yeah, “I don’t want to do this thing. Oh, dammit.”

**John:** I really enjoyed the story in Avatar 2. It didn’t feel like three hours. I think what impressed me most is it’d been a long time since I’d seen a 3D movie, because I just didn’t really care about 3D. This was the first 3D movie I’ve seen that didn’t make me go blind at a certain point. There’s something that happens to me in 3D movies where my brain just stops being able to process what I’m seeing. In this, it didn’t happen. I felt like I could see everything [inaudible 00:04:14].

**Craig:** That’s good. There is a diminishing return. Watching 2D stuff, you begin to forget pretty quickly that it’s just a flat thing on a screen. Your mind turns it into 3D basically. Similarly, your mind turns 3D into whatever the 2D version of 3D is. It all just in my mind turns into the same experience, unless they’re doing the tricks, like something flying at your face. Otherwise, meh.

**John:** I think Cameron obviously couldn’t do whatever he wants to do, because it’s all virtually filmed and stuff, so that he could build shots after the fact to work properly to brain in 3D, which is helpful, because so much of the 3D we see these days was really shot to be 2D and then they do it in post.

**Craig:** They do a conversion.

**John:** It’s not the same. Let’s talk to smaller screens. The big news this past couple weeks has been how many shows got chopped off of HBO Max, and things that were already shot, things that were already on the system.

**Craig:** Gulp.

**John:** Old things, they’re gone.

**Craig:** My show’s still there. Yes!

**John:** Craig, are you checking Chernobyl every moment to see whether-

**Craig:** I am not checking Chernobyl every moment, but listen, who knows? I don’t understand it. I legitimately don’t understand it. We’ve talked about this before. It seems like there was some sort of tax benefit to merging companies and then offloading some assets or something like that.

**John:** That one was an example of that, where you could take a big write-off on it and just bury it. It doesn’t seem like they’re necessarily going to bury all these things. Patrick Somerville, who came on to talk about Station Eleven, he said he doesn’t know what’s going to happen. He keeps checking to see if Station Eleven is there. He promises that he will project it on a rock in the Mojave Desert if he has to. These other shows, they’re off HBO Max for right now, but it looks like they’re going to try to put them on some sort of ad-supported system that’s maybe not HBO Max. That could be someplace else. I want to talk a little bit about that, because that’s something we haven’t really gotten into a lot on the show. Megana, I think there’s a question we could frame this with.

**Megana:** Andy from Seattle asked, “Once a show gets sold from HBO Max to a free, ad-supported streaming television service, will writers and actors start getting residuals as the property starts making active money?”

**Craig:** They sure will.

**John:** They will. They’ll get some residuals. It’ll just be a different system for it.

**Craig:** Yes, but it will be a better system. We will make more money this way.

**John:** We’ll make more money depending on how it’s set up, because I can imagine two scenarios, which we’ll just set up. First off, HBO could sell it to a place like Pluto or one of the other existing services, in which case there’d be a license fee. That might be good.

**Craig:** There’s always that. That’s the only way we make money off of residuals. HBO made Chernobyl. Let’s say they put Chernobyl on CBS. The only money HBO gets is the licensing money. The ad money goes to CBS. We don’t get any of that. We just get the licensing money that goes to HBO. That’s the gross. Then the producer’s gross is 20% of that, because we lost many, many years ago. Then we get a percentage of the 20%.

What’s interesting is right now if you make something for a streamer, there is no licensing fee ancillary market. The residuals we get are these weird, imputed things that are not necessarily connected to anything real. You and I are old enough where we wrote movies, and then those movies ended up on TBS with ads in them. We would get pretty decent residual checks from the licensing of those movies to TBS. For writers and directors and actors, this could revitalize the dwindling residuals stream. Creatively, as we’ve discussed, it’s a little disconcerting that you can make a show and it just disappears from something like that. I think it’s gotten everybody a little wigged out, and for good reason. I’m curious. Is Station Eleven available on DVD?

**John:** Station Eleven does not have DVDs right now.

**Craig:** How does he have it?

**John:** I think he’s talking about whatever cut he has off of the non-linear editor. His actual tweet was, “If Station Eleven ever disappears, I promise to purchase one acre of land somewhere in the Mojave Desert and just play it on a loop projected on a rock forever.”

**Craig:** We’re going to have to download some of these things.

**John:** I’ll check into it. It’s entirely possible that DVDs were cut for that show. So many of these HBO Max shows have no DVDs. There’s no other physical way to see it. That creative fear is huge. Circling back to the issue of residuals, Chernobyl that’s on HBO Max, you’re still getting residuals, but those residuals right now are based on a declining fee per every year that it’s on the service and based on a certain fixed price. It doesn’t have anything to do with the actual success of the show. It’s just basically from the time it was made it just declines in value after that time. Chernobyl could in theory make more money being licensed someplace else and therefore create more residuals for you.

**Craig:** It would. It would. I don’t want people to watch it with ads in it, but yeah, it would. It’s really interesting, because what’s happening, this is again financially not necessarily bad news for artists, creatively potentially bad news, is that streamers are suddenly asking the question that all of the rest of us have been asking for a long time, which is, so wait, how do you make money? I know you sell a subscription, but okay, if they’re subscribing, why do you need to make anything more, or do you need to make this much more, or how much stuff do you need to have there, because where does money come from, because in the old days, if you could convert stuff to ad-supported or home video of any format, there was your reason to make more stuff. There’d be additional revenue streams. If all it is is streaming, that’s it. You’ve basically curtailed your own revenue stream as far as I can tell.

**John:** Your revenue stream is based on the monthly subscribers and the idea that having these vast libraries was going to keep them returning as monthly subscribers.

**Craig:** Sure, but that is the only revenue stream you’ll ever have, whereas in the old days studios would have ticket sales, airplane rentals, home video, and then eventually pay TV, licensing it to HBO and Showtime, and then eventually ad-supported television on TBS. Let’s just presume everything goes to TBS if it still exists.

**John:** A thing I’m always confused about when these announcements are first coming out is… Free ad-supported streaming television, or FAST is the abbreviation you’re going to see for that, it’s the same thing as AVOD, so advertising-based video on demand. The difference is that we usually talk about AVOD for things like The Office. If The Office was showing on NBC, and so you’re watching it there, but then a few weeks later it was showing on nbc.com, that was AVOD, and so where studios would show their own things on their own websites.

What’s different now is of course there are streamers that are doing that [inaudible 00:11:18] TV. There’s existing things like Pluto. There’s probably going to be new things presumably coming out of Warner’s that are going to be a service like that. I think figuring out what the appropriate licensing fee is for HBO Max to be selling it to their own service will be an issue.

**Craig:** That kind of self-dealing has been litigated many, many times before and will continue to be litigated now that it seems to be coming back. Making sweetheart deals with yourself is tricky. You need to sell it for what would be a legally supportable market price. You can’t completely jam people. It will be interesting. I feel like the wheel is turning back in time. We’re heading backwards in time. It’s funny.

Silicon Valley was so behind the explosion of streaming, if you consider Netflix. I consider Netflix to be Silicon Valley-esque. I guess the idea of just the new way of doing things, new media we called it. Meanwhile, what were those companies in Silicon Valley doing? Selling ads on everything. Google is an advertising company. YouTube, which Google owns, is an advertising company. Facebook is an advertising company and so on and so forth. Currently, the aforementioned Elon Musk is flipping out, trying to get more people to advertise on Twitter, because it’s an advertising company. They’ve always been ad-supported, and then somehow we got hoodwinked over here into being like, “No ads. No, we don’t need that. That’s old-school stuff.” I guess if you want to make money, ads.

**John:** Ads.

**Craig:** Ads.

**John:** The answer to the question is, what’s going to happen, hopefully this will be more residuals for the writers involved, but of course, those things actually have to be distributed someplace. I think it’s potentially good news assuming that they actually are putting those things someplace and not just burying them in a hole, which is I think the worry we had originally.

**Craig:** I could be wrong, but it seems like the things that are getting buried in holes are things that had very low viewership numbers. They’re pulling Westworld off of HBO Max. That’s going to land somewhere. That is be on another platform.

**John:** That was the marquee property of HBO two or three years ago.

**Craig:** There’s no question about that. It will be figured out one way or another. I think some of the things that got completely removed were probably… They had said in some article some of the… They mentioned one show. I can’t remember what it was. I think it was animated. Something like only 400 people watched it in a year or something. It was like, okay, I guess-

**John:** There were back-episodes. They had the whole catalog of Sesame Street. There were some episodes of that show that just no one had watched in-

**Craig:** No one had watched.

**John:** Yeah, because who wants to watch a 20-year-old random episode?

**Craig:** It makes me feel good sometimes to watch Sesame Street.

**John:** Nice. Let’s get to our main centerpiece of this episode, which is the conversation I had with Bill Nicholson. This is part of a Writers Guild Foundation event. We’ve done a lot of events for the Writers Guild Foundation over the years. There’s going to be a link in the show notes to the video of this whole Zoom interview we did. William Nicholson, Bill Nicholson, is great. I’ve never had a chance to talk to him before. Credits include Everest, Unbroken, Mandela, Les Mis, Elizabeth, Gladiator, going back many, many, many years, starting out as a playwright. We really got to talk about the whole process of figuring out from someone coming to him with like, “Hey, would you want to do a movie about this cave rescue?” to all the changes and drama along the way, shooting this during the pandemic, and then shooting it for Amazon, which couldn’t release it the way they wanted to release it. A really good conversation and just a really great writer. Enjoy this. Craig and I will be back afterwards for our One Cool Things.

It is my absolute pleasure to be talking to you today, Bill, about Thirteen Lives but also I’d love to talk about screenwriting in general and your career and many other things. Where are we talking to you today from? I see it’s dark there.

**Bill Nicholson:** I’m in South England, in Sussex, in the converted garage where I do all my work in the lovely English countryside.

**John:** Fantastic. Let’s start with Thirteen Lives, because I just watched it last night. I’m really curious how you came into the project, because I remember the story as it was happening in real time. It felt like, okay, obviously there’s going to be a movie coming out of this, but what was your entrance into this as a movie?

**Bill:** Like you, I remember it from when it actually happened. I wouldn’t say I followed every deet, but obviously, I did follow it. It was very moving, and then I forgot about it. Sometime later, as is the way of these things, a producer got in touch with me and said would I be interested in writing the screenplay. I was initially a little reluctant, because I thought maybe it was an oversimple story. Guys go down in a cave, get stuck. It’s all terrible. Then they get out and it’s okay. Of course, they sent me some research. They’d had a lot of research done on it. That amazed me and I realized what a rich tale it was. It moved me in a whole different way actually. I really like writing very emotionally valid and powerful pieces, so I said yes. The simple answer is I got asked.

**John:** That’s great to be asked. I’m not surprised you were asked. If you look at your credits and look at the movies you’ve written and going back to Gladiator and Shadowlands and those things, but more recently, Everest, Unbroken, other true stories, and finding the ways to tell these historical true stories in ways that are compelling. You seem like a very great fit for it. I guess my question is, when they came to approach you to write this, how much did they have? Off and on Scriptnotes podcasts, we get these questions about like, “Oh, what rights do I need to do to tell a true story?” People will see producers jockeying for rights, locking up this person’s life rights or this person’s life rights. As they came to you, what were they coming to you with? They had some original research, but what else?

**Bill:** You’re completely right. It was a writer’s nightmare. Lots of other projects were in the mix. There was another team that had the rights to the Australian doctor, Harry Harris. We did not have the rights to the Thai kids at all. The Thai government controlled that. The key rights, which are the British divers, those were the ones that my producer had obtained. That was the core of the project. The rest we had to… You know the process. We had to use material that was in the public domain. It’s worrying when you’re [inaudible 00:18:06]. It’s worrying on all sorts of levels. It’s worrying also because I’m dealing with real people’s real lives who are still there, especially the Thai people. I think we had a superb level of research, which fed me absolutely as much as possible. I just did my best to give a fair crack to all of those individuals.

**John:** You say you had research. How much of that was coming to you in written form versus your ability to talk to these divers? What was your ability to reach out and ask specific questions, or did you have to go through levels to get there? What was your connection to these characters?

**Bill:** With the two main divers, I went and visited them and talked to them and subsequently made very good relations with them, was able to check a lot of things with them as I went along. All the rest was [inaudible 00:18:58]. This was in COVID times. A superb researcher had amassed an enormous amount of material, mostly remotely, particularly on all the Thai details. I was supplied with that when I began, because the producer had also produced the documentary, which is called The Rescue. They’d done all the research for that. I was given all of that, and I was able to ask the researcher to ask the researcher to follow up whenever I wanted. I was very well supported.

**John:** One of the fundamental decisions you have to make as a writer is how you’re going to tell the story and when you’re going to start the story and what details are going to be at what point. How early in the process of the conversations with the producers about coming on to do this did you have an approach? Did you have a take for how you were going to tell the story?

**Bill:** Not immediately, but you’re completely right. People think if you have a true story, because you take down what happened. Of course, you sort of do, because you have an obligation to the truth. My job is finding the emotional through line and also the mini emotional stories within the overall one, because nobody is going to watch just to hear another fact. They watch because of what you make them feel about the characters, what the characters want, what the characters fear, and what then happens to them. It really is a kind of crafting of real events to create emotional drama. Of course, there is emotional drama once you’ve got kids threatening with death.

You’ve really got to do a lot more than that. I looked to the material. I drew up a timeline of my own, the peaks and the troughs. I looked at that very early on, because obviously, the producers, when they asked me to do it, they didn’t just say, “Go ahead and do it.” They say, “Tell us what you will do before any contract gets signed.” That’s fair enough.

I give them I suppose my pitch really. I said very early on the obvious thing which anybody tackling this story would say, which is, “We cannot afford to make this be a white savior story, so how are we going to deal with that? We’re going to look at all of the Thai stories. We’re going to look at what they did and the complexities of that and how much we can weave that in.”

I made the decision very early on that this was in a way not the story of the boys. This was partly because I did not have their rights, but it was also partly because they’re stuck. They’re in a cave. You have a choice. Are you going to keep cutting back to them inside the cave getting hungrier and hungrier or not? I said, “My way of doing this is we’re going to see them go in, and then we’re not going to see them again until they’re found.”

**John:** It’s 45 minutes into the film before we see them again. We see, oh, they are actually alive. This is a real open question. Obviously, as an audience who has some knowledge coming into it, we know that they’re alive in there, but everyone on the outside doesn’t. You set up a good expectation that maybe they are going in to find bodies ultimately. They don’t know where they are, how far.

**Bill:** It’s very interesting the way you can tell a story by being able to know the ending and still make it tense. I think it’s because as people watch, they accept that they’re within that moment. One of the reasons that I took the project on actually was because one of the things that really struck me, after the divers found the bodies, there was this ecstasy throughout this enormous camp, real cheers. The boys are there. The boys are alive. That was simultaneously experienced with the divers knowing that the boys are going to die, that there is no way to come out.

I find that sort of crunch very powerful. When I saw that, I go, “Actually, we have got a story here.” Of course, if you can communicate to the viewers sufficiently, this really is an insoluble problem, and then you proceed to find a crazy solution, which against all the odds works, and you have a story.

**John:** Now, let’s talk about decisions of classic characters and themes going through stuff. You have actors we recognize who are doing certain things. Also, what I was really impressed by with the movie, and you talk about making sure that the Thai people in their efforts are centered in this, for a lot of the start of the film and really throughout the film, we’re seeing the rest of the efforts from the Thai perspective. These are competent people who are doing their very best. It feels very documentary in a good way. It feels very matter of fact. You don’t see a lot of speechify. You don’t see people stopping to explain something about Thai culture and history and stuff. It’s very much focused on the moment.

Did you know from the start that you were going to have so many characters and that we as an audience might not even really know their names? I’m thinking about the engineer on top of the mountain who’s trying to divert the water. We recognize him, but we know very little about him. Do you know that from the start, that you’d have this wide array of characters?

**Bill:** Yes, in the sense that I had to place my heroic British divers in this much bigger context. I think the first thing that I thought when I looked into all this story was an enormous number of people volunteered. There was this great mass, like 5,000 people just gave their time or their equipment for nothing. I love that. It runs counter to the kind of story that we’re being told all the time, which is that we live in a competitive world where people will only get off their bottoms for money. I’ve wanted to celebrate that very much, which meant locating as many of these stories as possible.

There are very many stories. You simply don’t have the space. In that sense, you color code the characters so that people recognize them visually rather than knowing their names. You also give them each a little kind of trick so that you can spot how they’re likely to… You can only do that to a very small degree, because you’re juggling so many characters. You talk about it being documentary. Yes, it’s documentary in the sense that it did happen. We’re not grandstanding with it. We’re not trying to make out some sort of opportunity for people to make their own speeches.

I actually think the grand sentiments come over much more powerfully if you throw them away, if they’re not asserted, you ask the audience to find that for themselves. That’s a conscious decision, particularly with the main divers who really led me into this by their own characters. I was picking up from what they told me about themselves, which is, “We don’t do this for money. We’re amateurs. We’re not interested in publicity.” They’ve got a rather delightful… There were so many that got cut out.

When they were first asked to come, Rick, the Viggo Mortensen one, said, “How are we getting there?” John says to him, “They’re giving us business class flights.” Business class, I’ll fly anywhere. I love that. It’s very British, very undercutting heroism and grandiosity. I was working from the characters.

I also think it means that you can feed your actors with a role where they have very few words but a lot of emotional moments. Those emotional moments, they are going to act on. They’re going to be on their face. If you’ve correctly structured the emotional trajectory, the audience knows what they’re thinking and feeling, looking at their face. They don’t need words. That is what screenwriters do. It drives me nuts when people say… Somebody said to me, “Oh, you didn’t have much to do for the first 20 minutes, did you?” I say, “I wrote the damn thing. Every feat is written.”

**John:** Absolutely. What is the camera pointing at, what are we seeing, what are we living.

**Bill:** Exactly. Not just that. Ron and I talked a lot about structuring the dives, because too many dives are boring. Each dive has to have its own character, its own emotional little story. I literally listed them all with the emotions that accompanied them.

**John:** Let’s talk about the emotional trajectory of the Viggo Mortensen character, because he’s the one who I think… I would say your characters don’t protagonate a lot. They’re not going through this classic giant character’s arc where they come in as one thing and leave fully transformed. It’s small and it’s subtle but it’s there. Viggo Mortensen’s character’s probably the easiest one to see that. He’s initially reluctant to necessarily go on this dive, to even join on his trip. Then when he’s there, he’s skeptical a lot along the way. What were the beats you mapped out for yourself? Were they literally in an outlined form? How much were you thinking about how his character progressed over the course of the story? How did you chart that for yourself?

**Bill:** That’s kind of fairly simple really, because he starts out not wanting to go, doesn’t like kids, as he says. He gets there. He’s pissed off, because we then have all the beats about the local Thai divers don’t rate them, which is fun to have that. They’re old guys [inaudible 00:28:12] which gives him something to resent. Eventually, they do get allowed to dive, and it goes wrong. They pull out the pumping guy, and it all goes wrong. Then they’re stuck, and he wants to go home. I got that beat.

All the time, you’ve got John beside him, acting as the antagonist, his protagonist in a way, saying, “Yeah, but we’ve got to stay.” John, who knows, and I like this, John knows that Rick really wants to save the boys even though Rick says he doesn’t. That helps me a lot. I can write those little moments.

Of course, the big beat with Rick is that they find the kids, and he’s depressed. He goes down instead of out. Then you’ve got the interesting question of… This I had to argue out with both John and Rick, who had the idea to use anesthetics. I got it wrong the first time round, because it worked in my structure to have John suggest it. The real Rick said to me, because we’d shown them the script. This is no secret to them, of course. I always do that, by the way.

When I’m dealing with real, live people, I will say, “You can see anything I’m writing at any time.” Of course. It’s their life. I said to them originally, “You’re going to find this really peculiar, because I’m going to invent two characters, Rick and John. I have to.” They were really good about that. They got it. Then lots of stuff I just made it. They said, “That’s fine.” He did say, “That was my idea.” I restructured that beat.

Then you bring in the next group of divers. In the cut version, they come very abruptly. I wrote several scenes that introduced them, but it’s a long movie. Something has to go. You have the relationship with the incoming divers, which again reflects on Rick, because Jason is the one who thinks Rick’s a little bit [inaudible 00:30:19]. You then realize Rick is the leader. He has gone along with this idea. The failure will be his failure. We’re now emotionally engaged on his behalf, not just the boys’. That then takes you through the various beats of finding semi-failure along the way, until the moment when they’re sitting in a group and they’re just laughing. You can feel the release of the nervous tension and at the moments when he’s resisted contact with the families. I had so many moments I could track. There he is hugging families or being hugged I should say, because he doesn’t know how to do it.

It’s a gift really to just track all this. I did give him a little speech, which is not in the film, right at the end when they’re in their minibus and they’re going back to the airport. He’s saying, “You know what? This is something that should not have worked. This is like a one in a thousand chance that it worked, but it did work. You know what [inaudible 00:31:18] make a movie out of it, and everybody else think it’s easy.” I rather like that, but no, it didn’t come to pass.

**John:** The movie probably wanted to be over before they would’ve had a chance for that moment. Let’s talk about the dialog that’s in the movie and the dialog that’s not in the movie, because they both help in form. Let’s talk about the dialog that’s not in the movie, because there’s not a lot of talking. We have our characters mostly doing the work that they’re there to do.

There’s this misconception obviously that the screenwriter just writes the dialog and the director does everything else, but it sounds like if I’m reading the script, I get a very good sense of what those characters are, what’s going through those characters’ heads, even as they are silently observing, moving their way through the cave, stopping to get abreast.
I’m thinking back to Colin Farrell’s character half freaking out because his kid has woken up. There’s all those moments. Those were all scripted. I think it’s crucial that we remind people that those moments are in the script from the start.

**Bill:** That’s right. You’re right. If you were to see one of the drafts towards the end, you’d get a lot more dialog. It’s not so much more dialog, because there are several scenes, basically dialog scenes. This always happens to me. I guess I overwrite. I’m always writing dialog scenes which I think really help to get us sympathetic with the characters. They’re too long, and in the end the whole thing goes. The people along the way read them. Your point is correct. That feeds into their understanding. The director reads them.

I have no complaints about what is cut out. In fact, throughout my career, I’ve had the embarrassing experience of writing scenes that seem to me to be vital, having them cut out, and realizing they weren’t necessary. Each time, I think, “When am I going to learn? When am I going to write the 90-page script that they shoot instead of the 120-page script?” I don’t know why I don’t learn, but that’s the process. I’ve worked with some actors.

A million years ago, I wrote a film called First Knight with Sean Connery and Richard Gere. Sean Connery sat me down in his hotel room in London with a scene, and he said, “Look, I want to go through the scene with you. I’ll do my lines. You do the other person’s lines.” I did the other person’s lines. I would do the line, and Sean went, “Ah.” Then I did the next line, “Mm.” Then I did the next line, “Mm.” He never spoke a word. It all made perfectly good sense. He said, “Would you mind if we just [inaudible 00:34:01].” Maybe you have to start with more and hone it down.

You are dependent on the actors, because once you start dispensing with the words, you’ve structured it so that the audience knows what the actor is likely to be feeling, but the actor has got to deliver that without the acting. In my opinion, acting has become so sophisticated now. Actors are so extraordinary, film actors. You can see what they’re thinking. I can think of moments like the little scene where Harry Harris is being asked to use his skills [inaudible 00:34:46]. He’s saying no, and the other two, Rick and John, are disagreeing on how to deal with him. There aren’t many words, but that little trio, you can see what each one is thinking right the way through. There’s a couple of shots at the end that are just faces saying nothing. That’s also very skilled directing, of course.

**John:** It is. There’s a moment in Worst Person in the World, a film from last year, where a woman makes a fundamental life decision, and we see it completely on her face. It was the screenwriting that got us from her leaving a party to standing at that place and being able to think. The natural instinct would be for her to say something to someone to make sure we understood that, and yet the power of a camera and a really talented face, we can see all that information. It’s a great lesson to learn.

Let’s circle back to you say you overwrite and you need to learn how to write the 90-page version of a thing. Also, it’s just recognizing that the process of making stories is always going to be too much. There’s going to be a process of discovery there, so giving yourself permission to overwrite there a bit and recognizing and hopefully having good collaborators who will see, “Yes, there may be too much here, but we need all this too-much-ness in order to find the movie that we’re also going to want to make.”

**Bill:** I would definitely agree with that, yeah.

**John:** Let’s talk about your relationship with Ron Howard. At what point did he come into the process? Was he there from the start or only after you had a draft? What was his involvement in the film?

**Bill:** He was not there from the start. It was pretty much completely written. What happened was the producer, PJ, hired me. At that point, he had an arrangement with another director, a very good director. I worked on it with that director. I did I guess speed drafts. We kind of ran into a problem of how we saw the movie between me and the director. I have huge respect for the directors that I work with. I tried very hard to deliver the kind of tone that he was looking for, but it ran counter to my instincts. I argued it very strongly with him, but he was very clear what he wanted. There came a point when I said to PJ, “I have to leave the project. You must get another writer who’s in sync with your director.” They had a big think about it. The director had a big think about it. To his enormous credit, he said, “Look,” because PJ and Gabi Tana, the other producer kind of liked my take.

He said, “Look, I’ll withdraw. It’s not a problem.” He withdrew. I then proceeded with my version, which was, to put it very, very simply, more emotional. He was much more action and repression, which is a great way to go. I’m a very warmhearted person. We proceeded in my version. I did several drafts until both the producers were thinking, “This is good. We will shop it.” They then took it to their agents in LA. That is when it went to an agent, and that’s when Ron picked it up. Ron then came in, and I then worked with Ron for several more drafts.

**John:** We both had the experience of an existing draft and a director comes on board. It’s both a conversation with the director about what movie they see versus the movie that you wrote and what they need. You’re trying to explain what your intentions were with things. They’re trying to explain what they think they actually need from a movie. What guidance can you give to a writer listening to those conversations with the director? How do you approach that in a way that both sides benefit?

**Bill:** The first thing is you have to not be defensive as a writer. We writers have a very tough time, because we are not in control. That is the reality. If you want to be in control, be a writer-director, which I have also done. You are not in control. The director is going to have to make this damn movie. It’s no good, you demanding the director executes your vision. He’s going to execute his or her vision. Don’t be defensive. What you do is when the director says, “I think they need more of this or less of this,” what you’ve got to think is, why is he saying that? What’s happening here? Is there a valid point here? If there is, how can I enact it in a way that fits my vision? I’ve had some bad ones, but mostly they’ve been good. My experience has been that it improves when you do this.

I always tell people, and this applies to development as well, if you get notes, don’t obey the note. If the note says, “We think the dog should jump over the cliff,” don’t say, “Okay, I will write it.” Say to yourself, “Why did they say that? Haven’t I got a better way of giving them what they want?” because you will have, because you’ll understand the whole thing. They’re probably looking just at that beat. That’s the problem you have with some directors. Some directors aren’t good at overall structure. I’m talking now about really emotional storytelling. They’re good at a scene. They know that they can make a scene work. They can make that scene work when the guy comes in and we don’t even know what he’s seeing and he’s incredibly scared.

[inaudible 00:40:23] how that impacts down the road. What you have to do is say, “Okay, they want an emotional high point, which I have not delivered. I’ve got to find a way to deliver it, and then they’ll be happy at that point.” If you have a problem, I have had this with some extremely famous directors who have said, “I think there should be a scene like this here.” I’ve said to the team, “That will make no sense. That will wreck the whole flow.” They’ve said, “The boss has asked for it. You’ve got to do it.” I then do it. In my experience, always those the projects that don’t get made, because the director hasn’t understood what the story is, but the director is too powerful. There are too many directors, unfortunately, who never get anybody telling them boo. It’s just extraordinary to me.

I’ve said to the team, “Just tell him it doesn’t work.” They said, “You don’t do that. He’s our boss, literally our boss in every way.” [inaudible 00:41:25]. Mostly, you should be able to collaborate with the director in such a way that the director feels really safe with you as a writer, that the director can say, “I want more here and less here,” and you go, “Yes, fantastic, let’s do this. We’ll find the way together.” That is really exciting.

I have to say, with Ron, he was extremely respectful. I think he had taken on a highly developed script. It had been through many processes. His attack, it was a combination. It was very process-driven. He really wanted to understand how he was going to film the process and what impact that would have. A lot of his changes related to that. Other changes were he wanted more of a particular element. For example, he wanted more of the guy called the water guy, Thanet, who is up on the mountain diverting the water. Let me think. What else was there?

We did talk quite a lot. We played around quite a lot with changing some of my structure. We talked, and I was willing to, but in the end, we stuck with it. He will say that the last time we were on a giant Zoom together to talk about this at this stage, he said that the thing about the screenplay he received was that the structure was there already. He didn’t have to really mess with that too much. He’s a very nice guy.

**John:** He’s a nice guy. I’ve worked with him on a couple projects. He’s lovely.

**Bill:** He’s just amazing. I just wanted him to be able to do what he needed to do. Then the other thing that happened was he started shooting it, and I was not present on the shoot. I was in Australia. He was on the phone to me or on the email to me quite a lot, saying basically for budget reasons, we can no longer do this scene or that scene, “Find a way to write the beat that happens there somewhere else in another way,” or, “Could you please add it in to the existing scene?” There was quite a lot of that, which I was of course completely willing to do. I think you need to be in that sense a kind of craftsman who is there. “We’re now sailing the ship and it’s leaking. Please could you plug that gap?”

**John:** Absolutely circling back to this, in the first time you’re talking with the director or really anyone else in the project, a friend always reminds me that as the screenwriter, you’re the only person who’s already seen the movie. You see the whole thing there. You have everything that’s on the page, but you also have a whole movie in your head. Sometimes those initial conversations are really just aligning what movies is the director seeing in their head and trying to find the overlaps there and fix the things that aren’t overlapping quite right.

In those conversations, it varies director to director for me, but sometimes you are spending three days talking about the color of the paint on the walls, but that’s really the process for just trying to align your visions for what things really look like and what’s important to them or what’s important to you. You never know what it’s going to be as you start the process.

**Bill:** I don’t get into those sorts of conversations. I’m happy for him to paint the walls whatever color he wants really. What I want to know… I say I want to know. I don’t have any power over this person. It doesn’t get me anywhere. I would like to know that the director sees the same movie as me, but to be honest, I never know until it’s done, until it’s actually being shot, because people do the oddest things.

**John:** bill, you’ve made your living as a playwright and as a film writer and director. Do you have any experience running television shows or doing any of the series where the writer would be more in control, the writer would be telling the director what to do? Have you had that experience?

**Bill:** Not in the modern form. I’m doing a Netflix TV series right now, writing it. You’re right, it is very, very different in power terms. Back in the day, when I was working with BBC, I did I think four TV movies. The interesting thing about the BBC and television then is my name was the name that was in the newspapers, to the rage of the directors. It was William Nicholson’s latest. I really of course liked that.

I really disliked the filmed by thing, where directors act as if they’re created the whole thing. I’ve softened over the years. I used to be quite militant about this. I’ve done two movies myself as a director/writer. That has taught me to respect directors very, very highly. I do realize I need them. I just wish that the world out there understood what screenwriters do. I don’t know why this hasn’t got through. We need a movement like Cahiers du Cinema, which elevated the directors. We need a movement.

Maybe you’re right. Actually, it’s happening. It’s happening in TV. The people who create the great TV series are the writers. Our day is coming. That’s fantastic. You get astonishing things like Succession, which I don’t know who’s the hero of that, whether it’s Jesse Armstrong, Lucy Prebble, or whoever, I don’t quite know what’s going on, but somebody is doing something completely brilliant there. They’re also superbly directed, I have to say. Again, let’s all try not to quarrel over who gets the credit and be grateful if we can together do something good, because most things don’t quite work.

**John:** Circling back to Thirteen Lives, so much of the film is in Thai. It’s in a very specific Northern Thai dialect. I’m guessing you don’t speak it. At what point in the process did you need to think about how much of the film was going to be in Thai versus how much was going to be in English and what the balance was going to be. Did you need to interact with any of those language experts or did that process come later down?

**Bill:** It came much later. I knew all along that a large part would be in Thai. That was all part of respect for the people we were filming and not turning it into an outsider attack. I write it all in English, and it goes on the page in bold italics, meaning translate this please. The team making it under Ron then bring in Thai translators, but not just Thai translators, Thai filmmakers who are also Thai, who tell me about the culture. Back comes the message. You have this scene where this Thai Navy Seal speaks to his boss, his captain, in a quite strong way. They would never do that. That does not happen. We have total respect for authority people. You’ve just [inaudible 00:48:20] I change it. I just simply rewrote. That happened quite a bit.

I had a whole lot to do with the governor here, who had actually a very interesting story. I originally made him a rather ironic, wry guy, who was constantly saying, “They’ve set me up for the fall here.” There’s a little bit of it in the movie, but I had quite a lot more. I was told he would not speak of his superiors in this way. Even though he thinks it, even though it’s true, he just wouldn’t, so out it went.

**John:** Probably both choices about how that character would respond but also what the movie wants to do. The movie is so focused on the question of will we be able to get the boys out, anything that feels like it’s not to that point is going to be on the chopping block. It’s hard for it to last in the film. You made choices about how much we’re seeing or are aware of these characters’ personal lives before they get involved. Basically, the moment anybody shows up Thailand, we’re never seeing their homelands again.

Basically, we’re only going to stay near the caves here in Thailand. Talk to us about decisions to show Colin Ferrell’s home life and what you were trying to do there, the few glimpses we had outside of Thailand. Were there more scenes? What were your decisions about showing their life before they get to Thailand?

**Bill:** No, there were not more scenes. I knew that I wanted to just tell you enough about them to give you some anchor for how they were going to make their emotional journey and then just show you enough at the end to remind you where they’re come from and what it means. They’re two different stories, obviously. With Rick, Viggo Mortensen, he lives alone in this chaotic, machine-filled space. You would kind of sense that the guy’s asocial just from the images of him. Also, there was quite a bit of dialog there when he’s talking on the phone to John.

With John, with Colin Ferrell, all I needed to do was show that he’s divorced and he’s got a kid. Obviously, he’s going to identify the kids in the cave with his cave. I don’t need to say that. You just plant that, and that’s there.

In the early versions, there was another thread. They had a kind of office, the British Cave Rescue Council. There was a woman there who fed information back all the time. We did think whether to have her in England, but I really decided no, this is one of those stories where you need to maintain the pressure cooker, get them into the pressure cooker and keep them there. That was a very conscious decision, which is why I didn’t want to go into the home life of any of any of the Thai characters once the pressure had begun. I think it’s sort of like Aristotelian unities. It’s a unity of time and place, and they’re up against the clock, and just hold it there. Don’t play games. Don’t do cutting around with time. Give us a sense of the passage of time.

**John:** [inaudible 00:51:29] your theater background, it did feel like once you created the space of the camp outside the cave, that was your main set. That’s where everything has to happen within the space and within this place and time, which I guess helps answer the question of your decisions about which of the Thai parents we were going to follow, which ones we were going to identify and have some ongoing relationship with. You pick one mother, one father who we come back to more often and we [inaudible 00:51:55] which kid is —

**Bill:** And a boy. The boy, I made him up. That didn’t happen [crosstalk 00:52:00].

**John:** The smallest boy, yeah.

**Bill:** The smallest boy did happen.

**John:** That’s right, the boy [crosstalk 00:52:05].

**Bill:** The one who doesn’t go into the cave and who was out there. I wanted one boy who represented [inaudible 00:52:11]. That didn’t actually happen. They all went into the cave. The smallest boy, that was a real thing, because I had that in the research. Obviously, the mother is a competent mother, the father is a competent father, etc. All their names are changed.

**John:** Let’s talk about structure overall, because you have a time structure, which is very natural for day one, day two, and seeing the progression. With each day, there’s a change that has happened. Sometimes it’s the weather. The way that the weather is a huge villain in the course of the stories is really interesting. You also have the decision to overlay the map and show where things were and how far deep we are into things. Was that a decision that was made on a script level or does that come later on in the filmmaking process, the literal, how deep we are into the cave system structure.

**Bill:** That was not me. That was in the cutting room, in the final stages. That was Ron and his team doing that in the final stages, looking at it and saying, “It is really important that people know how far in we are.” In the longer version of the script, I’d incorporated that information in the dialog and things like that. That didn’t survive. I thought it was really good.

**John:** I think it’s a really smart choice.

**Bill:** It was really smart. In a kind of clever way, there was more information you could take in, but it didn’t matter. You got a visual sense. That was not me.

**John:** I think it’s another thing taken probably from some of the great documentaries of the last 10 years in that sense of as you see somebody climbing a peak in Yellowstone or a peak in Yosemite, seeing how far up they are, and it was just the right choice to give us that sense of-

**Bill:** It’s a very interesting challenge. How much does the audience realize? How much have they picked up? How much do they know? What do they need turning? On the whole, you’ve got to be ahead of your audience. If they’re left saying, “We’re underwater. I have no clue where I am,” which of course is the case. How could they? What we did was, and this was in the script, I characterize stages along the journey. I said, “This will be the stalactite one. This will be Chamber 3. This will be the T-Junction.” The T-Junction was what they called it and Pattaya Beach was what they called it. I gave a description of each stage so that when they built the sets, they would look a little bit different and would give us a bit of a sense that we’re not just always in a bath. We did think about that ahead of time.

**John:** You said you’ve written the script. You’re heading into production. Obviously, casting has happened. Was there a table reading? Was there any chance for everyone to get around tables to read this together? It doesn’t seem like it would have been necessary for this, but was there some sort of [inaudible 00:55:01]?

**Bill:** I simply don’t know, because it all happened in Australia, and I wasn’t there. They all had to fly out and go into quarantine for two weeks, and then they were in their bubble. I would say about this table read, which I’ve had on every film, I absolutely hate them.

**John:** Tell me why.

**John:** There’s a couple of reasons. For some reason, the person who reads the directions is the third AD, and he can’t read. That sounds like an illiterate monotone, which is awful, and I’m dying. I learned after a bit to say, “Let me read the directions, and I’ll put some [inaudible 00:55:37].” The second reason is the actors find it very, very difficult to know whether they’re performing or not. On the whole, they don’t want to perform. They don’t want to perform, because why would they? It’s a weird set of circumstances. The confident ones don’t want to perform because, “Why should I?” The un-confident ones think that they’ll perform and be found wanting. People will say, “Why did you cast him?” The whole thing is awful for everybody. I’ve come out of every reading thinking it is a disaster.

I wasn’t present at the readthrough of Gladiator. I was involved in the project. It was such a disaster that they practically pulled the whole thing. That’s when I came on board. I think they’re terrible, these readings. They do have a function, because I almost think you should get a whole team of completely different people to do the reading. The tech people, they need to know a little bit what this thing feels like. The actors, it’s hard.

**John:** I will make a mild case for the opposing view. I’ve had table readings that have gone as badly as Gladiator’s table read, where it’s just like, wow. Everything you’re saying about an actor choosing not to perform, the risk of performing, definitely been there, seen it. My argument for them is that it makes it clear that all the actors that have at least read the whole script once, because so often, actors, they’re reading, they’re focused on their part. It’s a chance to say, “Oh, you know what? This scene actually pertains to the scene before this scene.” It’s the whole thing feeling together chronologically for once, because movies are going to be shot out of sequence and it’s going to be hard to tell what things are where. For one moment, everyone was together.

The other thing, if anyone’s listening and this is helpful, I will tend to do, if there is going to be a table reading, I will make a special version of the script that is just for the reading, that greatly cuts down the scene description so it’s just getting you right into the dialog there, and it’s all clear. If we’re going to summarize things, everyone’s looking at the same page. I hear you there.

**Bill:** That is very smart. I think you’re quite right. The table reading should be treated as a kind of performance in its own right and thought about and almost directed. Each of the actors could be told, “Don’t worry about it. Just do it clearly. That’s all. You don’t need to emote if you don’t want to.” I have been at readings. When Shadowlands was done as a reading, it was amazingly successful, and it made everybody feel this is going to work. I just wish that happened every time.

**John:** My movie Go had a great table reading, and some other ones haven’t. Of course, in theater, the idea of a reading is actually super common, and those are ways you get financing and get to the next level. Everyone understands that it is a form of a performance there, but with movies it’s a special thing. Really, you have to ask yourself, who should be in the room for that? Is it just for the filmmakers and the actors? Do producers need to be in there? Do financiers need to be in there?

**Bill:** I really like your idea of having a special text for the reading, because that’s great, because you want to maintain the pace. I’ve sat there while somebody reads through a whole page of directions in a [crosstalk 00:58:53] tone where it needs to be tightened, performed, and move on so that we can get the feeling of it. I hadn’t thought of that. If it ever happens to me again… It’s quite a lot of work though, isn’t it, doing your own-

**John:** For you or for me, maybe it’s two hours of time to take and cut it down. If it saves a lot of drama down the road, I’ll do it.

**Bill:** Do you read directions yourself?

**John:** No. We’ll find somebody who’s actually a talented actor who’s not in the production to do it.

**Bill:** Good. Good.

**John:** My friend Dan Ethridge is fantastic at that, so I will draft him whenever possible.

**Bill:** You’ve thought about this much more than me. You’re smart.

**John:** During production, obviously this is happen in Australia. At most, you’re having a phone call or Zoom with Ron, so you’re not super involved in that. At any point doing post, do you come back in? Do you take a look?

**Bill:** Yes.

**John:** Was there anything for you to do?

**Bill:** Yeah. This is entirely at Ron’s discretion. He’s a nice guy, and he’s also a smart guy. It was cut in London. He said would I please come in, see the first assembly, talk about it. We talked together. I came in and saw the shorter version, and we talked about that a lot. I wouldn’t say that I did anything tremendously significant, but I was certainly there watching it and talking about it with him.

**John:** Great.

**Bill:** I was incredibly grateful for that. A lot of directors are frightened of writers, because they know the writer knows more than them what’s supposed to be there. They don’t want the writer on set. They don’t want the writer in the cutting room. They didn’t want the writer getting too much credit. Ron is not like that.

**John:** That’s terrific. This movie came out theatrically limited but then also on streaming. Did you have a chance to see this with an audience?

**Bill:** Not really. As you know, MGM, who financed it, got bought by Amazon after we finished the movie. It didn’t get the screen life that we would’ve liked. I’m old-fashioned. I like cinemas. I like theaters. They did put on a… This was in London. There was a premier in LA, which I didn’t go to. I was obviously invited, but I chose not to make the journey. There was a good screening in London. We were in France. We got the train back for that evening, and the train was delayed three hours in the Channel Tunnel, to my fury, so I actually missed about half.

**John:** Oh, no.

**Bill:** We got into the theater. I haven’t seen it much with an audience. Now it’s seen as a streaming event, and people see it separately. I’ve got this odd feeling. I don’t really know how people have responded to it.

**John:** I watched it again. I watched it last night at home, streaming it. My instinct though is that there’s going to be some big cheers when the first kid is brought on the stretcher up through the pulley system. That was a really emotional moment for me is seeing that the kids are getting out but also that everyone is there pushing the sled out together. I feel like that’s the moment where you’re going to get some cheers in the audience. I’m frustrated that you didn’t get a chance to hear those cheers, because I feel like it’s going to be a great sound. Bill, can you talk to us about what’s next? Are there any things that you’re working on that we can discuss?

**Bill:** I’m always a little bit shy, for the simple reason that I never know they’re actually going to get made.

**John:** Same.

**Bill:** That’s the life we lead. I’m doing a cinema movie. It’s with a very good director right now. It seems to be going a bit slowly. I’m not quite sure what’s going on. I’m waiting for my next instructions on that. I mentioned I’m doing a TV series for Netflix, which is about the crypto scam. It was a podcast actually called The Missing Crypto Queen-

**John:** Great.

**Bill:** … about a Bulgarian woman who created a crypto coin. It’s a wonderful story.

**John:** I think we actually maybe discussed that on our podcast in terms of How Would This Be a Movie. I’m excited that you’re doing that, because she’s a really flamboyant character if I remember correctly.

**Bill:** Exactly. It’s wonderful. It’s all about why do people believe what they believe, which is central to our current experience everywhere, politics everywhere. I’m just doing the first two episodes of that. That doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed. I’m also doing a small British movie about a guy, which is a true story again. You see, these are all true stories. I don’t like adapting novels. I don’t do it, because somebody else has [inaudible 01:03:41] the characters and invented the story.

Real life is a complete mess, so it needs people like me to come in and turn it into craft, something out of that. That’s what I like doing. I’m doing a small movie about a person who goes mad. The fun of it is, it’s kind of implying that madness is a choice, which actually serves a purpose. He thinks he’s a secret agent saving the planet. He ends up being sent to hospital and given heavy drugs and so on. You realize that being a secret agent saving the planet beats his real life. You kind of get why a guy would do that. Essentially, it’s dealing with the fact that all of us are prone to picking up clues around us and creating a narrative of our life that enables us to feel good about ourselves.

**John:** Absolutely. You are the story you’re telling about yourself.

**Bill:** Yeah. I’m doing that. There’s a couple of other longer-term projects. Those are three that are actually on my desk right now.

**John:** That’s amazing. Bill, an absolute pleasure talking with you and meeting you here. Congratulations on the film. I’m really excited to see these next projects as well. A delight. Thank you so much.

**Bill:** It’s a great pleasure for me as well, talking to somebody who gets these things, a fellow. I love it. Thank you so much.

**John:** Thank you.

**Bill:** Bye-bye.

**John:** Have a great night. Bye.

**Bill:** Bye-bye.

**John:** Craig, we are back in this moment. It is time for our One Cool Things. I have two TV shows to recommend to you and to our listenership. First is Andor, which everyone says it’s by far the best Star Wars series. It’s just phenomenal. It’s just really, really good. Craig, I was thinking about you as I was watching it, because there was this scene, I think in the maybe second or third episode, where the Empire, or what will become the Empire, is having this board meeting, just planning meeting. It’s in this big white room. It’s just so smartly done. It’s everything you always talk about how you admire the Empire for its efficiency and for its organization. I thought of you. If I could find the clip snippet of it, I want to send it to you, because you will just love that when you get a chance to watch it.

**Craig:** Obviously, I always root for the Empire. I’m just so confused after all these movies. How do they keep losing? It just doesn’t make sense. Why is everyone so scared of them? All they do is lose.

**John:** I’ll say that the whole premise of Andor is basically how does the revolution start, how does the rebellion start. It’s really smartly done. It’s no surprise. It’s coming from Tony Gilroy, who’s a great writer and is running this show. Just so, so smart. Everyone tells you to watch Andor. I’m just the 19,000th person to tell you to watch Andor, because really, it’s worth it.

The other thing is Fleishman is in Trouble, which I don’t hear people talking as much about. So good. As I recognize the names going past, Susannah Grant, who is of course fantastic, but Taffy Brodesser-Akner wrote the book and she wrote almost all the episodes of the series. It’s so smartly done. The POV storytelling on it is really, really great. Fleishman is in Trouble, another great thing to watch. That is on Hulu in the United States.

**Craig:** Excellent. My One Cool Thing is an article. It is in Wired. I don’t know if you’re going to need a subscription or not. Maybe Wired does a couple of free articles a month. This one is called Welcome to Digital Nomadland by Susana Ferreira. It’s a really interesting story about this class of workers called digital nomads, who work entirely virtually, and so can work anywhere, but they’re alone. These are a lot of people who don’t have families, etc, so they’re stuck alone in their homes. They want to go places. They can go anywhere.

This Portuguese island basically on the southern coast of Madeira created what they call a digital nomad land. It’s basically like we built some homes and some work areas for you, communal work areas. You can come here, live here, and you’ll have a community, instead of being alone. Theoretically, this would also be great for the actual island itself and the people who live there, because it would help the economy. It doesn’t work exactly the way they were thinking, but it’s really interesting, because I never considered this is a new way of building a community. All of our legacy communities are built around decisions that were made god knows when, based on there’s a lake nearby or there’s a river or whatever.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** This is like, “Ah, it seems like a good spot to put a bunch of people with laptops,” so a new way of creating communities. Check out Welcome to Digital Nomadland by Susana Ferreira in Wired.

**John:** Fantastic. That is our show for this week and our show for this year. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Again.

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Still.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Michael Lane. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segment. Reminder to use the promo code. What is the promo code, Craig?

**Craig:** Onion.

**John:** Promo code onion to save $10 on your annual subscription, but only through January 15th, so do that.

**Craig:** Onion. Onion. Onion.

**John:** Onion. Onion. Onion. Stick around after the credits, because we’ll be discussing our non-writing aspirations for 2023. Craig and Megana, thank you for a fun year.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thanks, John.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, I sprung this on you. We didn’t have time to prepare any sort of plans for 2023, but not work, because obviously you’re going to have a very busy work 2023. Maybe I’ll start with some of mine, and you can think of what some of yours are going to be for 2023. I’m excited to be DM’ing again. It looks like we’re going to finish up the campaign that you’ve been so generously hosting for the last three years.

**Craig:** It’s a long one.

**John:** It’s a long one.

**Megana:** Wow.

**John:** When you finish up, we’ve discussed in the group, I’m going to try to run a much, much shorter, not going to go three years, kind of campaign. I’m excited to get back into that and look at who our group is. We have a large group, but not everyone can come every time, so trying to plan for things that will work will if people are just gone, so their tokens aren’t just sitting there idly, that we can actually do things every week with the people that we have on hand.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** That’s probably the thing I’m most excited about in 2023.

**Craig:** I’m excited about that. I can’t wait to just play again. I guess that’s not really an aspiration. It’s going to happen. It’s an inevitability.

**John:** It’s going to happen. We’re going to finish. We’re going to finish the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, and then we’ll do something new.

**Craig:** Yes, we will. When it comes to non-writing aspirations, I don’t really have specific ones, or at least none that are tied to a new year. I have an ongoing project, which is to catastrophize less, take deep breaths, put anxiety in its proper perspective, and remind myself… Am I allowed to curse in this Bonus Segment?

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** Everything will be fucking okay. That’s great.

**John:** [crosstalk 01:11:27].

**Craig:** That’s what I’m working on. Megana, I feel like you and I are very similar in this regard.

**Megana:** Yeah, absolutely.

**Craig:** Tell me, what do you do, or first of all, is that part of your non-writing aspiration for 2023? If it is, how do you go about it?

**Megana:** I think it is. I am also trying to stretch more in 2023 because I’m getting older.

**Craig:** That’s nice. Yeah, you are.

**Megana:** I am. I think that getting myself to a place where it’s like, “Oh, I’m stressed out,” and moving my body in some way is always incredibly helpful. That is a new tactic I’m taking for 2023.

**Craig:** I like it, stretching.

**Megana:** Instead of just panicking alone in my room.

**Craig:** Right, and tightening up in a little stress ball.

**John:** Stretching also one of the things that you can do while you’re doing something else. You can stretch while you’re watching TV. Increasingly, I will just not sit on the couch. I will sit on the floor and try to stretch while watching Andor or Fleishman is in Trouble, because I can still fully enjoy the show, but I’m also hopefully getting my hamstrings a little less messed up.

**Megana:** I have a standing desk, but if we’re being honest, I don’t stand at it very often.

**Craig:** You mean your sitting desk? That’s your sitting desk, Megana.

**Megana:** Now it’s going to be my stretching desk. It’s going to be my stretching and less panic desk.

**Craig:** I like that.

**Megana:** Do you have a standing desk?

**Craig:** I do. Like you, it’s really… Look. Here’s the deal. I know what I can do. I know what I can’t do. I know what I might do. Part of everything is also just giving myself a break.

**Megana:** You deserve it.

**Craig:** I do a lot. You know what? I don’t want to use the standing desk. Screw it. I don’t want to.

**John:** If listeners are looking for things to help them think about their year and they want to try a book, a book that actually was genuinely useful for me was James Clear’s Atomic Habits, which really talks about how the best way to change your habits and get rid of some bad habits and start some good habits is just make them unavoidable. It’s literally like putting your running shoes by the door so you’re going to be tripping over them if you don’t do it. It’s making sure you’re setting yourself up for success. If people are looking for a book or something to read over the holidays, to make them think better about what they want to do in the new year, how to get that achieved, that’d be a good bet, Atomic Habits.

**Craig:** If your New Year’s resolutions or aspirations are to read less and sit more, I just want you to know I’m your patron saint.

**John:** We’re going to support that. Craig, a thing I’m going to try to not do in 2023 is recreate Twitter. I’m not going to try to, because obviously, Twitter is going to… It’s not dead, but it’s not going to be the same thing it was. If it’s around six months from now, six years from now, it’s still not going to be as useful to me as it used to be. I’m not going to try to find the new Twitter. I just don’t think that’s going to be a goal. I’m going to find other ways to encounter the ideas in people that I used to encounter and stumble across on Twitter. I’m not quite sure what that’s going to be. I can still miss the things that were great about it. I’m not going to try to look for the next version of it.

**Craig:** Which is totally fine. I think you probably won’t have to try too hard. I think that there are people right now salivating and rubbing their hands together, going, “We sense a vacuum.” That said, Twitter never really made money. I don’t know if anybody necessarily… They’re not going to want to recreate Twitter either, but they’re going to make something. Something’s coming. You remember the fantastic opening credit sequence for Silicon Valley?

**John:** Oh yeah. Great. The constantly churning, 3D, top-down view of all these companies building up and exploding.

**Craig:** Exactly. They would change it over the seasons to reflect other implosions and new risings. We don’t know what’s going to happen. We just know change is afoot. It just doesn’t stop. The churn doesn’t stop. Something new is going to come along that’s going to take over our lives soon enough.

**John:** What it has started doing more of as Twitter’s been declining is just going back to my RSS readers, the blogs I follow and stuff like that. That was actually really good technology. RSS is what’s actually powering podcasts like Scriptnotes to let new episodes come out there. People can use that for posts as well. I’m going to try to do a little bit more blogging on johnaugust.com. The thoughts that I used to try to cut down to 280 characters to fit on Twitter, I will expend a few minutes to make a longer blog post.

**Megana:** Nice.

**Craig:** Been a lot of that going on.

**John:** Craig, thank you for a very good 2022. I’m so excited to be doing more Scriptnotes with you in 2023.

**Craig:** Oh wait, we’re still doing this? Oh my god.

**Megana:** Wait, Craig, was that your answer for your resolution?

**John:** Catastrophize less?

**Megana:** Catastrophize less?

**Craig:** Yeah. What did you think it should be?

**Megana:** No, I think that that’s great. I also think that you deserve more vacation in 2023.

**Craig:** Aw, that’s very sweet. I don’t love vacations. I know I’m supposed to.

**John:** Maybe a different definition of vacation. It doesn’t have to be sitting on a beach someplace. It could just be like, Craig, for the next week you just get to play all of the video games.

**Craig:** I do love that.

**John:** I think we both wish a little more of that for you.

**Craig:** Thank you. You guys are very sweet. I wish you guys to have a wonderful and happy new year, no matter what it brings for us, which will be fascinating, no doubt.

**John:** It will be a fascinating year, I’m sure.

**Craig:** We will, as always, look back on this and go, “Aw, you guys didn’t know. You didn’t that the space weasels were coming.”

**John:** So naïve we were.

**Craig:** From the Planet Weasel. Yeah, they’re coming. We didn’t know. Until they do come, let’s have some fun.

**John:** Thanks, Craig. Thanks, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks, John.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [William Nicholson](https://www.williamnicholson.com/) on [IMdB](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629933/)
* [Watch the conversation between John and William here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ22OXQEyos)
* [Thank you to the Writers Guild Foundation for organizing the event!](https://www.wgfoundation.org/blog/category/FYC)
* [Use Promo Code ONION for two months free in our annual Scriptnotes premium membership](https://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Welcome to Digital Nomadland](https://www.wired.com/story/digital-nomad-village-madeira-portugal/) by Kyle Jeffers for Wired
* [Fleischman Is In Trouble](https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/fleishman-is-in-trouble) on Hulu
* [Andor](https://www.disneyplus.com/series/star-wars-andor/3xsQKWG00GL5)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Michael Lane ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/580standard.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 (73)
  • 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.