• 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 555: Marveling with Michael Waldron, Transcript

August 4, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/marveling-with-michael-waldron).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 555 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, I’m talking with the Emmy Award-winning writer behind Marvel’s Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and the Emmy Award-winning writer of Marvel’s Loki series, who happened to be the very same person. Welcome to the show, Michael Waldron.

**Michael Waldron:** Thanks for having me. Five hundred and how many?

**John:** Five hundred and fifty-five episodes.

**Michael:** Wow.

**John:** That’s a lot.

**Michael:** You brought me on for this milestone episode. Thank you so much.

**John:** This is the milestone, yes. Chris McCoy we always bring on every 200 episodes, to celebrate our bicentennial or whatever. You’re every whatever 555 is. That’s what you are.

**Michael:** I’ll see you the 1,010th episode.

**John:** That’s when we’ll bring you back on. By that point, we’ll have even more to talk about, but what I want to talk with you about today is the mushy boundaries between TV and movies and the role of writer and this weird transition and convergence that we’re facing. We’ll also have some listener questions that I think you’re especially well suited to answer. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I want to talk with you about Atlanta, because you’re from Atlanta. You live in Atlanta now while you’re shooting some stuff. It feels like all of Hollywood will eventually live in Atlanta. I’m hoping that maybe you can give our listeners your writer’s guide to Atlanta.

**Michael:** Cool, sounds great.

**John:** Let’s get into it. I’m just for the first time meeting you on this Zoom. I really have no idea about your backstory and how you became a writer. What is the quick Michael Waldron origin story?

**Michael:** Yes, I’m from Atlanta. I went to University of Georgia. I guess I graduated from college in 2010, which was a time that… It was before the whole movie industry had moved out here. It felt like being a screenwriter was an impossible thing to do. I had not grown up really writing scripts or anything. I just loved movies. I was going to go to law school, and at the last second was like, “I don’t want to be a lawyer. I just like watching Jeff Winger on Community. I like lawyers in movies and on TV.” I bailed on that, and I went out to California, which is the first time I’d even been. I’d never even seen the Pacific Ocean until I got out there.

I went to Pepperdine. They have a screenwriting MFA program, which was great for me. I fell under the tutelage of some really amazing mentors, a guy named Chris Chluess, who was the showrunner of Night Court for a long time, Emmy-winning writer and just a genius, and Sheryl Anderson, who’s the creator/showrunner, Sweet Magnolias on Netflix. I had some great professors. Before, I just knew how to write some jokes and some funny, stupid stuff. They really taught me how to write scripts. From there, I was fortunate enough to land an internship on the first season of Rick and Morty. That was really, really lucky. I was a huge fan of Dan Harmon, because I love Community, even when I was back in Georgia.

**John:** Before we get on there, I want to talk to you about film school here, because we get a lot of questions about like, “Oh, should I go to film school?” It sounds like for you, you were growing up in Atlanta, you were going to school in Atlanta, you were interested in film, so you just applied to film school and had no other plan or exposure to the film industry, other than like this is how you were going to get started, right?

**Michael:** Yeah. To me, it was the way I could wrap my head around getting out to LA, because I had no connections, knew nobody in the industry, had no way of getting a job. I was like, “I’ll just go into debt. I’ll just take on a lot of student loan debt.”

**John:** I want to get more, because we don’t have a lot of guests who actually went through film school. I went through film school for grad school. You show up. Is it a two-year program or a three-year program?

**Michael:** It’s a two-year program. I think you could take your time. I did it in two years because I wanted to get out and start working. The cool thing about Pepperdine was it was very practical. It was based on just writing pilots, specs. Each semester, you were creating an original piece of work. I had that very difficult process demystified for me very early on, where I was like, “Okay, I know how to write a pilot and create a world.”

Chris Chluess, my professor, did a great thing, where at the end of the semester, I took a half-hour comedy pilot writing class with him, where at the end you had to come in and pitch the show to him and an agent that he brought in. Only at the end did we learn that the agent was actually a real estate agent who was a neighbor of his in the Palisades. It was an incredible simulation of the pressure that I would go on to feel later in my career in some rooms where there’s some real skin in the game. I benefited from a couple of really fantastic professors.

**John:** You have good professors, but you obviously did something right while you were in that program. Imagine you’re a listener listening to this right now who is in a film program, is in a screenwriting program. What are things you could do in a screenwriting class to get the most out of it? What are the practical steps a student could take if you’re in one of those classes right now, to really dig the most out?

**Michael:** It’s the time. You’re paying a lot of money to be focused on writing. Now is the time. When I went there, I was still a lazy undergrad college kid. I had to shift out of that mentality and start learning how to be a professional writer, treat deadlines like real deadlines.

The other thing that was actually really helpful for me was the process of reading classmates’ stuff and giving notes on that, because that’s what you’re doing as a writer, especially in a writers’ room, all the time, is you’re reading stuff, you’re pitching, you’re giving feedback.

I was there with Eric Martin, a guy who became a close friend of mine and wrote on Loki with me, went on to work with me on Loki. He and I, we just said we’re going to treat each class like a writers’ room, and every script is a professional script that we want to try and get made with our feedback and everything. I think you just take it seriously. It really is one of those things that you get out of it what you put into it.

**John:** Yeah, because it’s not like going through a law program or a medical program where there’s clearly like, these are the things you’re going to learn, and you’re going to be tested on these things. It’s not that, because you could probably graduate that program and not really have learned a lot or not really have grown that much, correct?

**Michael:** A thousand percent. Also, your degree-

**John:** Has anyone ever asked for your degree?

**Michael:** Nobody cares. It’s worthless. You’re only there to learn, to make connections, and to hopefully come out of there with original material. That’s the other thing, samples that you can show to potential collaborators, people that are going to help you on your way up in the industry. I wrote the first draft of Heels, my show on Starz, in a class at Pepperdine. It was very, very helpful for me, because I was just finishing stuff.

**John:** Now, the other thing you got out of this program, apparently, was connections that got you an internship. You got an internship with Dan Harmon’s company. That was set up through the school?

**Michael:** It was set up through a buddy of mine who was a classmate, who was working on the first season of Rick and Morty. I had a chance to go on and be an intern on the first season, which was a blast.

**John:** We had Drew Goddard on the show, we’ve had Damon Lindelof on the show, who both said that working on a first season of the show was incredibly hard or being on the ground in a first season of the show was hard because everything was chaos and was constantly falling apart. Sometimes, because of the chaos, you could really learn a lot and you could see how it’s all being put together and be useful. Were you able to be helpful on that first season?

**Michael:** I think so. I think I totally benefited from the fact that it was a first season show. Nobody knew what it was going to be, at a little fledgling animation studio that Dan had just started with a couple of friends. I came in as the intern. The thing that I did is I made sure everybody knew from the beginning that I wanted to be a writer. That was who I was. Any time there was a hole that could be plugged with an intern who knew how to write, I was the first one to raise my hand.

The other thing that I did while I was there, weirdly, was I started a softball team, I guess as a stealth way to get to know Dan and Dino Stamatopoulos, one of the other owners. They played on the team. I was the coach. It worked out for me, because I went from being the intern to the coach. In that sense, I became a friend and a peer. That friendship led to my first real job as a writer’s PA on Season 5 of Community.

**John:** You talk about being an intern and offering to write anything they needed to have written. What are some examples of things you would’ve written as an intern on that show?

**Michael:** It wasn’t even necessarily Rick and Morty specific. It was just as simple as somebody’s got to make a sign to wash your hands or to wash the dishes in the kitchen. It’s like, that’s a chance to be creative. At some point, one of these great writers that’s working here you hope is going to see this stuff and say, “This is actually funny. Who’s doing this stuff?” You’re just trying to put yourself out there. Then writing coverage and just treating everything, every assignment like your life depends on it from a writing standpoint, because as far as I was concerned, it did.

**John:** You’re working there. You’re writing there on small things. When are you letting them or asking them to read the stuff you’ve been writing for Pepperdine? When are you asking if someone’s willing to read your samples?

**Michael:** A long time, if ever. I don’t know if I ever did. That was another great piece of advice I got from my mentor, Chris Chluess. He said, “Think of it. You’re sitting at a card table. You only get to cash in those chips, your equity with these guys, one time. You have to be really, really shrewd with where you asked for something, essentially.” It’s a political game. In fact, I think earlier in your career… Obviously, it’s harder now because not everything’s in person. You’re almost, I found, better off selling people on your personality as a colleague and as a collaborator, and then let them be blown away down the line when you’re actually a really good writer. I can’t remember how long it took for me to ask Dan to read something. It was years and years down from our relationship.

**John:** You’re starting off in Rick and Morty land. Then you’re going over to Community. You said you’re a writers’ room assistant?

**Michael:** I was the writer’s PA.

**John:** What was your job like doing that?

**Michael:** It was a nightmare. It was a nightmare.

**John:** Were you getting the lunch order?

**Michael:** Oh my god, the lunch, the dinner, the snack, the coffees, the midnight stack. It really was a blast, but that was a grind. I don’t know, there were like 13 writers that season. It was Season 5 of a network show, 13 or 14 writers. They had assistants. Each coffee order was a double decker, two boxes. I just remember trudging across Paramount with all that. I was getting lunches, getting meals and everything, but I asked Dan if when I wasn’t doing that, if I could sit in the writers’ room and just listen and learn. He was great, and he let me. Then I got to know all the other great writers there and suddenly had a whole new network of great mentors, which included Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, who’d written all the Spider-Man movies. I would show up early to sit in Erik Sommers’s office and just ask him, “What does a manager do vs an agent? What does your attorney… ” I really benefited from there just being so many good folks who wanted to help me learn.

After a certain amount of time, I had I guess earned enough trust to open my mouth and start pitching bad jokes. I got to feel that feeling of, oh, I just pitched a joke that crashed and burned. It was no good. Then I got to feel the feeling of, the world didn’t end. Nobody cares, because everybody’s pitching stuff all day, and a lot of it dies. Then the next thing you know, you pitch something that makes it into the show, and you can tell your wife, “Hey, look, I wrote that joke.” I think that was 2014. We worked from June until January. It was crazy. The hours were insane. In a lot of ways, I feel like I learned everything there.

**John:** Now, there was an amazing chance to learn things there. We’ve been talking with support staff over the last couple years about those jobs and how underpaid they are and how hard it is for some people to make a living or even keep a roof over their head doing those jobs. Was that your experience? Was the pay low, the hours long? How were you surviving during that time?

**Michael:** You’re certainly not handsomely paid. On that show, we worked such insane hours that I was actually making a decent amount from overtime. I got some checks that I was like, “Holy crap.” I was lucky in that sense. The food budget was so astronomical. I was in charge of the food. There was always an extra pizza or a tray of sushi coming home with me. I figured out how to scrounge my way through life. Of course, it’s a grind. Everybody, all the support staff is working just as hard as the writers and as everybody else. We’ve got to take better care of those folks, because you can’t do the job without them.

**John:** Now, what is your transition from you’re sort of in the room on Community, you’re now a repped writer who’s making things? What was that transition? 2014 or so when you’re in this writers’ room. When do you start getting some stuff that is Michael Waldron as a writer in himself?

**Michael:** That was on the end of Community. I got an email from a guy on the support staff, another assistant, who said that a young agent was looking to discover talent on the support staff, which I know now, an absolute lie. I said, “Wow, this is my big shot.” I sent this supposed young agent the pilot for Heels. They responded. This guy named Harry turned out to just be the assistant to a manager, who was a guy my age, but wanted to meet me.

Long story short, the guy’s my manager until today. We met. We went to The Den in West Hollywood or something. I had my first experience of, oh wow, here’s a guy who feels like a real gatekeeper talking to me about an original script I wrote, giving me feedback but also talking like he wants to be an advocate for me, and he was. I did some revisions on that script based on his feedback and some other folks he introduced me to.

That kicked off I guess that first general meeting tour. You’re meeting the people your age. Everybody’s climbing the ladder at the same pace. You’re meeting young creative executives or assistants and people that are looking to be somebody who discovered someone. Through that, I guess I legitimized the project enough, and there was enough interest in it, that my manager’s company LBI actually took me on as a client. They called me in to their big office, and I sat on the giant table for network. I was like, “Oh my god.” It was like, “We want to rep you.” That felt like wow, I did it. Then of course, you didn’t do it. You didn’t do anything.

Shortly after that, I met a guy who was working at Paramount television who would go on to become one of my best friends. He really championed the show over there. In about 2015, 2016, Paramount Television optioned Heels. It was funny how it happened. He called me and he was like, “Yeah, we want to have a general with you. Some of my bosses read it.” Then on the way over, called me and was like, “No, this is a pitch. We’re really interested.”

**John:** Oh my god.

**Michael:** It’s like, I don’t know what happens in this show. This is a sample. There was a lot of tap dancing and making it up as I went, but they got it. I got really lucky to just get into development on something original of my own very young. I was just learning and getting to go through that process. You learn so, so much.

**John:** If we were to watch the pilot of Heels today, the series that exists, and the sample that you wrote in film school, how close are they?

**Michael:** The one that I wrote in film school was markedly worse. I actually can look and realize that my writing took a genuine professional leap after going through Community, working on Community, and then suddenly finding myself in real professional situations where the stakes are higher. That actually made me raise my game. It’s not just a homework assignment anymore. You realize that this is something I’m trying to get on television and change my life. I have to put everything I have into this. It’s a hell of a lot better.

**John:** At this stage, you’re working on Heels. It’s great to have development. This is actually getting money coming in the door, which is fantastic and probably much needed. Were you thinking, okay, now I should try to staff on TV, now I should try to write a feature? What were the other things you were thinking about doing? Obviously, it’s never just one job. You need to keep it going.

**Michael:** Money coming in the door was insane. I thought about staffing. I guess in my mind, I was like, “I’m a showrunner. I’m a creator. I’m a showrunner. I’m going to get this show made.” So naïve. So stupid. I was like 26. That was I was determined to do. I had the good fortune of I was continuing to work with Dan in a more producorial, executive context. I had some other money coming in the door. I was helping Dan develop some stuff as a producer, which I only knew anything about that because I was just going through it on my own on the other side. I hadn’t written a feature.

**John:** That’s crazy you had not written a feature, throughout the whole time in film school that you never finished one feature.

**Michael:** I thought I was going to be a comedy writer. I was mostly focused on that. Then I fell in love with the one-hour world. Like I said, I got lucky, and then Heels caught fire. People really responded to it. It always felt like it had so much momentum. I was like, “I don’t want to step away from this thing. I want to always be able to run it.” Now, I remember I applied for the WGA Showrunner Training Program. In my interview, they were like, “Why are you applying for… Why don’t you go get a staff job? What are you doing?” I was like, “I don’t know, I’m a writer.”

**John:** I had the experience where I had a very hot script go that was getting a lot of attention. I was able to sell a TV show and make a TV show, a one-hour TV show for the WB. I was a showrunner who had no business being a showrunner. I think the WGA folks would’ve looked at me as well and said, “Why the hell are you doing… You should not be doing this.” I wish someone had pulled me aside to tell me that.

**Michael:** I needed it, yeah, jeez, because eventually, I would get into that position a year later and have no clue what I was doing.

**John:** It was just rough. Jump us forward a little bit in time to… Was Heels the first thing of yours that was wholly yours that got made?

**Michael:** No, the first thing that was wholly mine that got made was Loki.

**John:** Did Loki come out before Heels?

**Michael:** Yeah, Loki came out last June, and Heels came out in August. Long story short, what happened was Heels went to a mini room that I ran, as an idiot, but had a great writing staff. I didn’t know what I was doing, didn’t know how to lead a writing staff. I had some great collaborators and ended up writing a great season. We just couldn’t cast it, couldn’t cast the show. Starz put it on a shelf. I was like, “That’s it for me. I’m moving home. That’s end. That’s the end of my meteoric rise.” I licked my wounds, wrote a feature, just to do it, and then went off and actually got that staffing experience on Rick and Morty.

I was a writer and producer on Season 4 of Rick and Morty, went back and got to feel like what it was like on the other side of the whiteboard, which was very helpful, to be a showrunner, to know what your writers are feeling like and their anxieties as they’re pitching and coming in every day. Then right toward the end of Season 4, that feature that I’d written made its way over to Marvel. It was a time travel action comedy that just happened to be the perfect sample for the Loki show they were developing. That’s how I got in the game on that project.

**John:** Great. Now, before we get into Loki here, I do want to talk about the mini room you did for Heels. How many writers did you have in that room? You said you did it wrong. Tell us some lessons you learned in doing it wrong.

**Michael:** There was six of us, I believe. I didn’t know how to synthesize all of my writers’ tremendous ideas while still making it be my vision. That was just a hard thing of how do I take what your room is wanting it to be and reconcile that with what I want it to be. Every day I walked away being like, “Am I making the show I even want to make?” Then I wasn’t really giving them great instructions for the first half of the room. It took a while for me to realize that at least my best approach to a writers’ room is if you’re the showrunner, if it’s your thing, then your writers’ room is an extension of your vision, the voices in your head.

The best thing I think you can do as a showrunner is just listen, is to throw something out there, an idea that you’re interested in pursuing, part of your vision, and then let your writers take it somewhere really, because that’s what you’ll be doing at home in your head anyways. Here you have the benefit of great professionals who can do it out loud. It just took me a while to realize that that was the way to do it as opposed to I was a guy who was used to just sitting at home on my couch writing and doing it all on my own. That’s what I had to learn is you don’t have to do it all on your own.

**John:** Now, when Heels finally did shoot, were they using the scripts that you had come out of from that room, or did you have to go back and take everything out of that?

**Michael:** It was a combination. The first half of the season was pretty much locked and loaded. We needed to do big revisions on the back half. They brought in Mike O’Malley, the great writer and actor who had created Survivor’s Remorse for Starz, brought in him as showrunner. It was crazy, because it really did feel like I was giving my baby to someone. When they wanted to revive it in 2019, I was off doing Loki, and so there was no way I could do it. I had to give Mike the keys to this car that was very personal to me. Really, I owe Heels everything. I owe it my life, those characters and that world. He was just so gracious and generous and made the show better every step of the way. That in itself was a great learning experience of the ultimate collaboration, giving something so personal to someone else.

**John:** Let’s jump ahead to Loki here. I want to talk through the process from, okay, Michael, you got the job to now the cameras are rolling and we’re starting to shoot this show. What time frame was that? What were the steps along the way? They’re meeting with you. You’re pitching how you would do it. You get the job. What is your first step? Are you making documents just by yourself? Are you immediately going into a room situation? What is the process like for this Marvel series?

**Michael:** It was really the dawn of the Marvel series. Loki was the third or fourth one to go. It was at first very solitary. It felt almost like I guess developing a feature. Then it was just meeting with our executive team and pitching on… The core idea they had was, here’s Loki, and it’s Loki and the TVA. The pitch that I developed was where does it go from there. It’s Loki hunting a variant of himself across time.

Once I got the job, first off there was a process of mourning leaving Rick and Morty, where I’d been for nine months and created a lot of great friendships and was very comfortable. There was a real comfort level there. I was going into a situation of total unknown. It was hiring a staff and launching a room. This time around, I knew what I was doing.

On the first day of the Heels writers’ room, the only person I actually knew what to tell to do was the writers’ PA. I was like, “Here’s how the lunch order should go,” because that was the job I had had. On the first day in the Loki writers’ room, I knew I have a vision for how I want this story to go, and I want us to all get there together.

**John:** Is everybody looking at the same document? Are you talking at them for an hour about the big, broad strokes vision? What are those initial conversations?

**Michael:** There was a core document that I… They read my pitch that I gave to Kevin Feige that got me the job. It was pretty thorough. Here are the six episodes. Honestly, they’re generally what the episodes ended up being. Episode 3 is Loki and Sylvie are crossing a moon together. Then you want to hear, okay, my brilliant writers, what do you think the best version of a Loki show can be? They know the general framework and where I and Marvel would like to take it.

In the case of that show, our first job was let’s figure out the emotional story of this thing. Let’s figure out what each of the six episodes is. We can say Episode 2 is the zodiac episode. Episode 3 is Before Sunrise. We know what each episode is. Then we had to take about two weeks and just do time travel, which was its own… That was a new experience of really doing a sci-fi camp together, of a lot of us drawing lines, squiggly lines on the whiteboard, and just trying to create a shared institutional language of what is time travel in this show, what is a time law, how can it be broken, because we had to all be on the same page. By the end, it felt like we’d been in the writers’ room for 60 weeks, not 3 or 4.

**John:** That first writers’ room was how many weeks long?

**Michael:** Twenty, and that was it.

**John:** Was it enough?

**Michael:** It was enough to get solid first drafts of everything. The one tricky part of it is I hadn’t written the pilot. That’s the one atypical part of the process there was I hadn’t written the pilot as the writers’ room launched. It was about 9 or 10 weeks in, it became really important for me to get a decent version of the pilot written so that we could establish the tone of the show. Otherwise, it becomes really hard to write a writer’s draft if you don’t really know what the tone of the show is going to be.

**John:** For sure. During this 20 weeks, you guys are breaking these 6 episodes. Were there story areas? Were there outlines? What are the actual written documents that are coming out of this process, before there are scripts?

**Michael:** Everything starts with me with a story circle, which comes from the Dan Harmon camp.

**John:** Very familiar, yes.

**Michael:** From the Dan Harmon camp. That was how we broke our stories, which probably drove everybody else crazy, because I think everybody else prefers to do note cards. Even I am like, note cards are probably more efficient. It was outlines. It was let’s get a beat sheet that we feel good about and then let’s send a writer off to write an outline. That outline goes up the flagpole. Once that’s approved, we’ll write a draft.

**John:** A beat sheet is one to two pages. An outline is longer. Are those the right lengths?

**Michael:** Yeah, I think our outlines were, I don’t know, never more than 10 pages. Again, that’s probably a function of my own personal style. I am a bad planner. I like to discover it on the page. I’m more apt to send someone off to outline or to script with a little less figured out and leave some room for discovery, which is exactly what happened in Loki Episode 102 a lot. So much of the great stuff with Loki and Mobius in that episode was Elissa Karasik, our writer. I just trusted her to go off and say, “Go figure some of this stuff out,” and she did. It was all great. I was glad that we didn’t waste time in the room trying to figure out all the details when you can just rely on your writers to do that.

**John:** Is the first time the studio is seeing the specifics of what happens, are they seeing [inaudible 00:33:17] or they’re seeing the outline?

**Michael:** In the Loki process, we actually had our executives, our producers in the room with us. It was atypical but really fantastic.

**John:** Were they listening or contributing?

**Michael:** Contributing. It was great. It was like having other writers, other producers, somebody there who, A, is incredibly steeped in the Marvel lore, what’s come before. They also know what’s coming next. The most important role that is Stephen Broussard and Kevin Wright, they’re producers, but they’re also filmmakers. They may as well have been writers on our team for all the great ideas they had. Some of the most valuable things they did was know the stuff that Kevin Feige and the higher-ups were not going to respond to. Instead of spending five days in the room chasing a storyline that’s just going to end up being an absolute non-starter, you’ve got somebody to say, “No, don’t go there. I don’t think anybody’s going to really respond to that.” As a showrunner, or as somebody running a room, that is invaluable to not have to burn that time.

**John:** Jac Schaeffer was on the show, and she was talking about how on the first day of her writers’ room, she had up on all the walls all this imagery about what she wanted the show to look like and feel like, because she was in a physical room. You were in a physical room your whole time too, because this is all pre-pandemic.

**Michael:** Yes, I was in a physical room. The first time I walked by Jac’s room and saw it, absolutely, I was like, “I got to quit.” I was like, “This is a nightmare. I’m bad at my job,” because we shared a wall. They were the room right next to us. You look in there, and I was like, “Oh my god, it’s so organized.” By the way, her writer’s assistant was a guy named Clay Lapari, who was the writer’s assistant on Community with me a hundred years ago. It all comes back around. I came in, I was like, “We got to print some pictures out.” We did. I felt better once we had that stuff up there.

**John:** Earlier you referenced on Heels this other guy, Mike O’Malley, was coming in to be a showrunner on that show, and yet you’re listed as head writer on Loki. What is the distinction? Is there a meaningful distinction? Job-wise, what he was doing versus what you’re doing, are they similar?

**Michael:** The Marvel shows don’t have a showrunner. I guess the best way I know to put it is it’s you and the director, whoever the producing director is, you’re passing a baton over to them and working in tandem together, whereas if you’re Mike O’Malley, the showrunner, he’s the final say over the head of directors on set, through the edit, through everything.

The Marvel process is I guess a much more collaborative one, where at least in TV I’m not necessarily the final say. I was like, “There’s definitely an opportunity to have my ego bruised by this.” You realize, “I’m not the showrunner of this.” Then quickly it’s like, “I just want the show to be great.” When we hired Kate, her and I were so instantly on the same page creatively, and her level of ambition with the show matched mine. It was like, “This is going to be good. This is going to work.”

**John:** This is Kate Herron, the director?

**Michael:** Yes.

**John:** At what point in the process did she come on board and did you start having these conversations? Was the room finished? Was the room still going?

**Michael:** Yeah, maybe, I don’t know, a month or two prior. She came in at a great time in the process where we had our first drafts. I was making my way through my revisions on everything. She represented just creative, fresh eyes. I’m like, “Hey, we’ve all gone insane this summer making this crazy time travel show. Does this make any sense to you as a normal person?” Also, a practical filmmaker’s perspective. We’ve got a trained heist sequence. I could sit with Kate so I’m not wasting a week writing an action sequence that is simply un-renderable on screen.

**John:** I want to get to some listener questions, but I don’t want to skip all over Doctor Strange and your involvement on Doctor Strange. I’ve done a zillion features. This was your first feature to do. How did you take your experiences on these TV shows and apply it here? Did they apply? What did it feel like to be a writer on a feature?

**Michael:** Weirdly, it felt like TV. Sometimes it felt like showrunning. That’s just a testament to how collaborative Sam Raimi is and that he empowered me so much. He and I had a really special kinship together, forged by the fact that we were coming up with a movie over the course of 2020 when the world was ending around us. I was not on set of Loki. I was getting ready to fly to Atlanta to be on set. I got a call that said, “We need you more right now on Doctor Strange.”

**John:** Doctor Strange was shooting in London?

**Michael:** Shooting in London. Then COVID hit, and it became the last two and a half years of my life. I was on set every day of Doctor Strange. I was there for six months last year locked down in London. When I think about Doctor Strange, really I think about it as much of a filmmaking experience as a writing one. I was writing, but it was also just so much working with our actors and working alongside and learning from Sam about directing and everything he does. When I think about Doctor Strange, I just think about being cold on set in London.

**John:** A lot of being on set is just being cold or hot or being in the sun when you don’t want to be in the sun.

**Michael:** Exactly.

**John:** Or cursing the sun for coming up when you’re supposed to be shooting nights and you run out of night.

**Michael:** Precisely. It was an absolute adventure that didn’t… Probably 2020 and 2021 for a lot of people doesn’t quite feel real, but yet again was an amazing experience, where I just got to learn so much.

**John:** Great. We have some listener questions. This first one I see is actually about film school. It feels like exactly what we should have you talk to us about. Megana, what’s the first question here?

**Megana Rao:** Live and Die By Approval from Columbus, Ohio wrote in, “I was recently accepted to USC School of Cinematic Arts. As a country bumpkin from the shire of Ohio in the twilight of his 20s, this is an honor and huge dream come true. Recently, we had a meeting about financial aid options. The thing I most anticipated hearing about were merit-based scholarships. Turns out they emailed everyone who had received a scholarship earlier that day, and I received no such email. It’s funny, despite having gotten into one of the most competitive film schools in the world, I already feel like I’m not enough. If this class is a group of people who they view as having a unique voice among thousands of other voices, I somehow feel like I’m already on the low end of this elite totem pole.

“I guess I’m asking for any words of advice you may have on handling rejection or I’m not enough self-judgments. It’s one thing to battle those voices in your personal life. In dating, for instance, sometimes people just don’t fit. It’s another thing entirely when there’s something as measurable as money at stake to validate your insecurities.”

**John:** To summarize, Live and Die has gotten into a great film school but feels bad because they didn’t get a merit-based scholarship. They feel like they’re coming in at the bottom of this class or not at the top of this class.

**Michael:** As somebody who got rejected from USC’s screenwriting program, I would say congratulations. Also, your ability to focus on defeat, even in the glow of victory, means you’ll probably be a very successful writer, because that is a quality we all share.

If I’m reading between the lines of that, I know what it’s like to feel like a country bumpkin wanting to go out to Hollywood and make it. I’d say first off, that is a voice that needs to be… Shit, I’ve made a career out of it. Hollywood needs country bumpkins too. It is an honor to get in, and Hollywood does need your voice, clearly, or you wouldn’t have gotten accepted. I think rejection that is tied to finances is a bummer. That’s just your first lesson in film school, because that is going to be your whole career is rejection tied to finances. Steel yourself now.

**John:** I would say, Live and Die, that you’re having a feeling, and feelings don’t come from logic. Sometimes we try to use logic to justify the feelings that we’re having. If we actually check the facts, you got into one of the best film schools in the country, if not the best film school. This obsession with a merit-based scholarship is like… What are they actually measuring? Do you even know how many people are getting them, why people get them? Do the people who get them succeed more often than the people who don’t?

I think just hearing Michael on this podcast today, he was talking about how you get value out of film school. It’s actually by showing up and just doing the work all the time and try to do your very best in it. So often, I think as writers, we were probably really good at being in school and were probably really good at getting grades and everyone commending for our writing. Suddenly, when you get into a place where you’re not necessarily the best, you panic that you’re the worst. That’s just not true. You could come in there with a head of steam and actually get amazing stuff done while you’re in film school. I understand your feelings, but you got to push them aside and be excited to be at USC. Megana, do we have another question?

**Megana:** Yes. Cherry asks, “After years of struggling to break in, I’ve signed my first contract to write a feature, and it will qualify me for the WGA. I’m thrilled to finally be in the game, but now the real work begins. My primary focus is nailing it with this project. My question is, what should I be doing to prepare myself for the next step?

“I have new spec scripts that will be ready to share soon. I’ve had a couple meetings with managers and an offer of representation. I have a light relationship with some producers, agents, and development execs who have read my work. How do I go about getting the next job or getting my new material in front of the right people? It seems like the next step would be to sign with a manager, but I’m not sure how to navigate that. What am I looking for in a manager? More importantly, what am I looking to avoid in a manager? If I didn’t work with a manager at this stage, what would an alternative game plan be?”

**John:** Michael, you’ve had a manager all this time. Talk to us about managers.

**Michael:** My relationship with my two managers has been one of the most important parts of my career, as has my relationship with my agents. I’ve had the same team my whole career, which is atypical. My answer to that is it’s all personality base. I am teamed with people that I click with on a personal level whose values align with mine. It’s not based on agency or management company clout. Wherever you’re going to seek representation, I wouldn’t even say tell yourself you need a manager vs an agent. You need somebody that you connect with and that can be an advocate for you. That’s the most important thing.

Then as far as what is that next thing, it’s doing a great job on the project you just landed, which is amazing. Congratulations. That is the most important thing. That’s what will get you the next jobs is kicking ass on the thing you just got hired on. Really, don’t think too much beyond that other than maybe know what is the one thing that I have behind this that I believe in the most that I would show someone when that next opportunity comes calling.

**John:** You’re going to probably end up signing with some manager, Cherry, who is going to take you on the water bottle tour of Los Angeles that Michael was describing earlier where they just sit you in a bunch of rooms and you talk with people. That’s good. That’s a natural function. Whether it’s this person who’s already introduced themselves to you and wants to represent you… Maybe it’s them.

A really good place to check on that is the other producers you have light relationships with. Ask them. Say, “Hey, this person offered to represent me. What do you think of this person? Is this a good match?” If not, they might suggest a better person or a different person you could meet with. All of my previous assistants have gone on to have writing careers, and most of them had managers. In every case, they would come to me like, “I think this person is great, but I get a weird feeling.” If you get a weird feeling, that’s not the right person. You should not sign with a manager or a representative or a lawyer who you dread taking their phone calls or dread getting their emails. It has to be somebody you’re excited to be on the phone with, because otherwise it’s just not going to work.

**Michael:** Hundred percent agree with that.

**John:** Megana, do you have another question for us?

**Megana:** Yes. Moomin asks, “In the conception phase before any word of the screenplay is put to paper, what tools or methods do you both use to keep everything organized? Where do you compile all your thoughts, ideas, and bits and pieces?”

**John:** What are you doing for that stuff, Michael?

**Michael:** Not being as efficient as I should. A lot of my writing is done walking my dog, going for walks in the woods, or driving around. Then as far as recording it, it’s usually going onto my iPad and doing story circles and stuff.

**John:** Are you doing story circles just with a pen and drawing?

**Michael:** Yeah, just to get it down. In the inception phase, that’s what I’m doing. I spend a lot of time just daydreaming. I don’t necessarily need to write it all down, because I feel like anything that I don’t remember probably wasn’t that good of an idea to begin with. It’s the stuff that I can’t let go of, finally I know it’s time to put this down. Then when I’m actually writing a script, my process becomes really inefficient, because the way I’ll write a scene is I’ll just retype it over and over and over again, making little, minute changes here and there, because I just need to… It’s how I play the scene out in my head is typing it out.

**John:** I loop scenes just in my head first. I have the blocking for everybody and the rough dialog. I will do a scribble version, which I’m just like, the quickest version on paper I can possibly get down so I don’t forget it. Then I’ll start tackling the scene. I’ll know that sometimes in this loose version, some stuff’s just not making sense. I’ll work on that when I get to the real final version. That scribbling process isn’t part of my overall note taking or overall recordkeeping.

I think more what Moomin’s asking for is those general ideas that come to you, you don’t want to lose. I’ll have index cards everywhere. I’ll just scribble it down on an index card. Then I just try to process those once a day. I just put them in. Now we’re using Notion, but we used to use other tools for that, just so they are someplace. I don’t look back to that that often, but sometimes I do need to find that thing, or if at least it’s in the same document, I can say, oh, all of these ideas go together, and they fit in a meaningful way. If I don’t write something down, I’m going to have to keep spending brain cycles to remember it, because it’ll go away. I want to use those brain cycles to do new stuff, rather than just remembering stuff.

**Michael:** That’s how I end up looking back in my Notes app. I’m like, “2016 Moby Dick in space?”

**John:** Fantastic.

**Michael:** What an idea.

**John:** It’s come time for our One Cool Things, where we recommend something to our listeners. Michael, do you have something to recommend to the folks listening to this podcast?

**Michael:** Yes. A cool thing that I’m going to recommend is giving blood, which is a cause that has become near and dear to my heart. One of my best friends, a writer and actor named Breck Denny, who was a member of the Groundlings, he passed away earlier this year. He was a beneficiary of a lot of blood donations. They were trying to save him. Cycled through an outrageous amount of blood in the hospital. What I learned on the other end of that process is just how bad of a blood shortage there is in the country right now and how far a single blood donation can go. We’re at a historic shortage of blood in the country.

My buddy, he was one of the first people to get COVID back in 2020. After that, he started giving blood religiously, so they could test blood, and was actually part of vaccine trials and everything. He was just a great guy. As a way to honor him, we created a blood drive called Blood for Breck. You can find it in my Instagram bio. I think it’s on my Twitter. You can go there and pledge to give blood.

Really, giving blood, it’s an awesome thing that you go, you do it for 30 minutes, you get to take a picture. It just makes such a difference. It really does save lives. I don’t know. I feel like in a day and age where we spend a lot of time being like, “How can I help?” and it’s like, if I just do an online challenge and donate money, where does that money go? What is this? A bag of your blood is going to go into somebody’s body that’s fighting for their life. It’s just not a thing I ever really thought about until this touched our world, and so now it’s something I’m passionate about.

**John:** That’s great. Back in college I donated blood and loved donating blood. As of right now, we’re recording this in Pride month of 2022, gay men still can’t donate blood in the US, which is crazy. There’s lots of work being done to try to fix that problem. If you can donate blood, donating blood is a great idea. We’ll put a link in the show notes to your blood donation charity and some other blood donation drives out there across the country.

**Michael:** Great.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is this essay I read this week by Elizabeth Williamson in Slate. It was an excerpt from her book about Sandy Hook. I’ll put a link in the show notes to this. I’ve always been fascinated by conspiracy theorists and people who believe in impossible things. The people who believe school shootings didn’t happen are just this weird, special breed. This is what the article’s really getting into. This one talks about this Tulsa grandmother who goes by the handle gr8mom and really dives into why is she going after parents of Sandy Hook families and continues to believe that all these school shootings are nonsense, and digs into it.

It describes a dark triad of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, which is basically you really fundamentally cannot convince them that this is not the way it is. There’s no reasoning with them. They literally just cannot be swayed from the path that they think they’re on. If you point out any inconsistency in their logic, they will “what about” to get to another thing.

It wasn’t a hopeful article to be reading, but I think it actually helped me understand more like, oh, they’re actually just psychopaths, really, some of the people who are believing the wildest of these things. As opposed to other people who get sucked into it and they can be talked out of it, there are some people who are just never going to be talked out of this, and maybe we shouldn’t try.

**Michael:** You found some depression I hadn’t even thought about in a while. That’s great.

**John:** Absolute pleasure to have you on the show this week. That’s our program. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Ryan Gerberding. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. Michael, are you on Twitter? That’s where I reached out to you the first time.

**Michael:** Yes, @michaelwaldron and on Instagram @fakemichaelwaldron.

**John:** Love it. We have T-shirts, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. We have one Loki-inspired T-shirt, which you should check out. Our 10th anniversary T-shirt is Loki-inspired. Our designer Dustin Box did a great job making it feel both like Scriptnotes and like Loki.

You can find the show notes to this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. You can 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 about Atlanta. In the meantime, Michael Waldron, thank you so much for coming on Scriptnotes and sharing your history here.

**Michael:** Thanks for having me. It was an honor. I’ll see you after another 555 episodes.

**John:** It’s going to be great. We’ll be living in the future.

**Michael:** Yes, exactly.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** We’re back, and we’re here with Michael Waldron, who is not only a film writer and a TV writer, he is a person who came from Atlanta, who now works in Atlanta. We will all inevitably now work in Atlanta, it seems. Can you give us some tips for… Let’s say I’m a Los Angeles person who is moving to Atlanta for work, to work on a thing. Where should I live in Atlanta? What should I do in Atlanta? Give me an overview of life in Atlanta for a writer.

**Michael:** Right now I think the heat index is 106 degrees, so don’t come. That’s my biggest advice.

**John:** We won’t. Okay, done, won’t come.

**Michael:** It’s great here. It’s been amazing to watch the city become more progressive and grow up as the years have passed. As far as living, the places that you’re going to feel the most like LA, like what you’re used to probably, it’s Inman Park is what you always hear, down south side of the city. Inman Park, Grant Park, Old Fourth Ward.

**John:** What are the Los Angeles equivalents of any of these neighborhoods? What’s the Silver Lake?

**Michael:** Inman Park is like the Silver Lake. It’s like one big Silver Lake. There’s a bunch of different areas around there. That’s probably the place to look at if you’re moving that’ll feel like LA. It’s very walkable. Atlanta’s great. There’s a thing called the BeltLine. It’s a sidewalk. It’s a sidewalk that stretches throughout the entire city. You can walk or bike across the whole city. There’s great restaurants and breweries and all sorts of stuff all around it. Inman Park or anywhere right around there, that’s going to be your best bet.

**John:** If I’m moving to Inman Park, but I’m working on a Marvel property, a Marvel project, how long is my commute to get from where I’m living to-

**Michael:** Marvel, we shoot all our stuff down at… It’s called Trilith Studios now, which is the old Pinewood, which is in Fayetteville, which is… I don’t know, it’s about a half hour with traffic and stuff. If you’re from LA, you’re not going to be daunted by any of the travel times out here, unless there’s a wreck on 85. Then you’ll be like, “What on earth?”

**John:** Like, what choices have you made?

**Michael:** You can get screwed, but it’s nothing. The traffic here, it’s as congested as LA, but somehow you’re always still going 80. It’s like Nascar. Get ready. It’s an intense vehicular experience.

**John:** Now, when I’ve been shooting things in Vancouver or Toronto, one of the things we have to watch for is any line that a local player has to say that has a U sound in it, so no “abouts” and that sort of problem. There are certain lines we’re going to write around certain things. Is there any local casting things you should be aware of if you’re filming something in Atlanta that is not supposed to be in Atlanta?

**Michael:** I’m always delighted with the local casting around here. It’s some real talented folks. What wouldn’t you want? I don’t know, if you can write stuff with Southern accents, you’re going to have an easier time. That’s for sure.

**John:** Now, something like Loki, which obviously had a tremendous amount of set work, you had some real practical exteriors as well in that show, because the main… Or at least the places that weren’t sound stages, like that TVA building. Was that a real building?

**Michael:** The shot of the archives with the elevators coming down, yeah, that’s an old hotel in Atlanta. Everything else was, generally in the TVA, that was a practical set that we built down there at Trilith. That was Kasra Farahani, our brilliant production designer.

**John:** Are people who have to come into Atlanta and leave from Atlanta, are there now direct flights? Are there enough direct flights that you can always get back and forth reliably or are you flying two places now?

**Michael:** It’s so easy out of LA. There’s probably eight or nine flights out of the day. Atlanta, it’s the Delta hub. The airport is massive. You’ll never want to go back to LAX after you’ve been to the Atlanta Airport. Before COVID, they’d added direct Burbank to Atlanta flights, which were really nice, but they were always on planes that felt like they were from the ‘60s. You’d get excited, and you’d take them, and then it was a real like, “I don’t know about this.” You’re normally on a nice airbus if you’re flying Delta to and from LA. It’s pretty easy travel-wise.

**John:** Now today, a lot of productions have moved to Atlanta, obviously. How much post-production on these shows is happening in Atlanta versus other places in the world? Is any writing happening in Atlanta? I feel like maybe Walking Dead maybe did writing in Atlanta. Do you see either writing or more post happening there?

**Michael:** I don’t know. I’m certain there’s got to be post going on here. Maybe, sure, Adult Swim does some of their stuff. None of my shows have posted here. That’s all still LA. Writing-wise, still LA, but maybe in the future. I think that if you were doing something that was very specifically Southern, maybe it would be helpful to immerse yourself in the fast food and the fried catfish and stuff for a couple weeks.

**John:** You as a student who was going to high school and then college in Atlanta, there would’ve been opportunities for you now to be working on sets and doing PA kind of stuff…

**Michael:** Totally.

**John:** …that there wouldn’t have been before.

**Michael:** I was an extra. They were shooting a Revenge of the Nerds reboot that got killed. I got to be an extra in it. I was like, “The movies came to Atlanta. I can’t believe it.” Now it’s everywhere. I think, yeah, if you’re a kid now who loves show business, you can just get out there and do anything, put honey buns in a basket somewhere as a PA, and you’re going to meet people who can help you get that next job.

**John:** This is not a specific Atlanta question, but what’s your instinct on writers’ rooms going back to in person versus staying virtual? What’s the split going to be? Is it mostly going to be in person? Is it mostly going to be virtual?

**Michael:** I guess it’ll be dictated by showrunners. Generally, I think people prefer to work in person. You just get better work. I think about so many of our great ideas come from just the moment, the times after lunch when you’re screwing around. It’s like, “Wouldn’t it be funny if Loki went to Walmart?” and suddenly-

**John:** Then he’s at Walmart, yeah.

**Michael:** That’s not how that came about, by the way. That was just an example. I think it’ll go back to in person, but probably not the five days out of the week grind. Like in anything in show business, there can be a lot of wasted time in a writers’ room. Hopefully, if we go back to in person, we retain the efficiencies that we’ve picked up from doing it on Zoom.

Links:

* [Michael Waldron](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5642271/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/michaelwaldron?lang=en) and on [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/fakemichaelwaldron/?hl=en)
* Donate blood with the Red Cross [#BloodforBreck](https://sleevesup.redcrossblood.org/campaign/blood-for-breck-the-breck-denny-memorial-blood-drive/)
* [“Prove to the World You’ve Lost Your Son”](https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/06/shooting-school-texas-uvalde-sandy-hook-conspiracy.html) by Elizabeth Williamson for Slate from [Sandy Hook: An American Tragedy and the Battle for Truth](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1524746576/?tag=slatmaga-20)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Ryan Gerberding ([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/555standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 502: Free Will (Or, It’s Okay to Not Be a Screenwriter), Transcript

August 4, 2022 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/free-will-or-its-okay-to-not-be-a-screenwriter).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 502 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we keep saying it’s important that characters make choices that effect the story, but of course they really don’t. We’ll tackle the problem of free will as it applies to both fictional heroes and real life screenwriters. We’ll also answer listener questions about unready scripts and what happens after an option expires.

And in our bonus segment for premium members let’s discuss AP classes. Are they worth it? And what did we actually learn?

**Craig:** Oh, you just put a big old pitch right there. Right down the middle for me. Oh, I’ve been sitting on that fast ball. Here it comes.

**John:** All right. As always what actually is being discussed in an episode is a complete surprise to Craig. He’s not allowed to look at the outline ahead of time.

**Craig:** I mean, I’m allowed to. [laughs]

**John:** So this is all going to be Off-the-Cuff Mazin.

**Craig:** Basically the way it works is I’m like a hostage that gets – somebody puts a bag over my head and takes me somewhere. I don’t know where I am and then the bag comes off and they’re like, “Talk!” That’s how I am on these shows. And you know what? It works.

**John:** Yeah. It’s like improv theater but he’s the only person who has to improv.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s like I’m an improv artist but I’m working with people that have read a script. It’s very weird. No one else is improving. Just me. I’ve got to figure out how to make it work. And you know what? It does work.

**John:** Yeah. That was probably Robin Williams on many of his films.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m the Robin Williams of Scriptnotes.

**John:** You are the Robin Williams of the podcast.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Last week on the show we talked about the Breaker Upperers. And Fred wrote back in who said, “I just heard the episode and I realize I wrote Australia rather than New Zealand.”

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** “A perhaps even greater mistake than Craig swapping of Liverpool and Manchester. If possible please relay my sincere apologies to all the New Zealand listeners. In my haste to promote a great, under-seen movie I committed a grave error.”

**Craig:** You know, Fred, it’s OK. And I’ve got to tell you it’s not a greater mistake than the one I made. So, football fans in Liverpool and Manchester are not known for their own calm demeanor and forgiving natures. But everyone I’ve met from New Zealand has been the loveliest person ever. Everyone. It’s not that I’ve met a ton of people from New Zealand, but if you ever go to French Polynesia, for instance, you will run into quite a few Kiwis because it’s pretty close and they can hop over there. And they’re all lovely.

Melanie Lynskey, one of the best actors on the planet, from New Zealand. Maybe the nicest person who has ever been born. That’s right. And I’m including Jesus in that.

**John:** Yeah. Former Scriptnotes guest, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** There’s a whole bunch of talented people there. So, and including Taika Waititi who has never been a guest. I should have noticed when I read Fred’s statement on the air that like, wait, it’s Taika Waititi, that’s probably New Zealand and not Australia, but I didn’t question it at that moment.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So I regret my part in–

**Craig:** Everyone, it’s going to be OK. Because no one from New Zealand is going to yell at you. That’s what I’m saying. They’re forgiving, wonderful people.

**John:** A second bit of follow up, we talked in the game show segment, so this is a premium segment, so a follow up on a premium segment which I think is fair. I think it’s fair.

**Craig:** We can do that.

**John:** We can do that. One of the questions asked of us like what did we say was the death of screenwriters. And the answer was apparently we said many times on the show that children are the death of screenwriters. I was just reading an article this last week and Seth Rogan pointed out, oh, the reason why I get so much done is I have no kids. And it’s the first time I’d seen a person in the last ten years actually say that out loud. But I want to link to the article about that.

**Craig:** Other than us.

**John:** Other than us. And so sometimes we look at people’s output of work and it’s like, oh, did they have kids/did they not have kids? And in the case of Seth Rogan who is like I don’t have kids, I don’t want kids, and that’s why I get so much done.

**Craig:** I’m glad we’re all talking about it. And this is not anti-kid actually.

**John:** No. I’m pro-kid.

**Craig:** Yeah. We love our children. And anybody that has children, look, so at some point they’re going to make you insane. That’s just a fact. Pete Holmes, the standup comedian Pete Holmes, has this great bit about how when his wife gave birth to their first child they’re in the hospital and all the nurses keep coming by and saying, “By the way, don’t shake the baby,” and there are all these signs like don’t shake a baby. Never shake a baby. And they’re like who shakes a baby? And he goes what they don’t tell you is you’re going to want to shake that baby. And it’s true. It’s really, really true.

But it’s something that’s so impactful in your life that it is beyond the concept of regret. It is sort of life-changing and wonderful. But it definitely – it will reduce your output. That’s OK. I think it’s a perfect tradeoff.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Output and productivity are not the judge of a great life.

**John:** Yeah. So I just wanted to sort of point this out to acknowledge that like if you are going to have kids you’re going to take a hit in your productivity and that’s just actually fine and normal. And I think if we don’t talk about that then people might say like, oh, I used to be so much better, what happened. And it’s like what happened is you had kids. And so it’s something that every writer goes through when they have a new life in their house.

**Craig:** Yeah. We should acknowledge it impacts women more than men.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yet it doesn’t not impact men.

**John:** It’s true. Also in the news this week, everybody is merging. So, Warners and Discovery. They’re going to be combined together. So Discovery is HGTV and Discovery Network and Food Network. A bunch of other what we used to think of as cable channels but are of course just slices of reality programming. They’re going to be merging together. And it looks like Amazon and MGM are also going to combine. So, really Amazon is going to swallow up MGM.

**Craig:** That one is really something else. I got an email earlier this week from Casey Bloys who runs HBO and it basically said, “Hey, just so you know, nothing is going to change in terms of what we’re doing together and everything is cool. Just business as usual. Don’t worry about it.” And I was like, great. What’s he talking about? [laughs] I had no idea what he was talking about.

And so I looked online and then I tried to understand what happened. And I must admit the concept of a corporate spinoff is not necessarily something I have a great grasp on. But what I could get was that AT&T sold Warner Bros, the whole Warner Bros conglomeration to Discovery but also still owns most of it. I don’t understand. They own like 70% but Discovery is in charge of it? Maybe that’s what it means?

**John:** Well I think it’s just like if they both extended pseudo pods towards each other and the pseudo pods merged together to form a bigger blob of a company.

**Craig:** I see.

**John:** That is better positioned to take on Disney.

**Craig:** I don’t see at all. [laughs] I don’t understand.

**John:** I think it’s also interesting because the guy who is running Discovery will probably end up running this whole new thing. And even as you said, oh, that’s right you’re making a show for HBO, which is Warners. And I’m making a movie for Warners. And so it’s weird that the Discovery guy is going to ultimately have an impact on sort of both of our lives, which is just weird. And the way that everything is streaming now, it doesn’t matter that I’m making a theatrical movie and you’re making a TV series. It’s kind of all the same.

**Craig:** Well, this seems like a great time to point out how wonderful the guy who runs Discovery is and how much I admire him, or her, and think they’re just beautiful, and handsome, and kind. And don’t take any money out of our budget please. That’s all I’m really asking here.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** Leave our budget alone.

**John:** What if it turns out that the guy who runs Discovery actually just hates videogames and hates anything post-apocalyptic?

**Craig:** He’s in a weird business. I mean, the Discovery Channel definitely loves everything.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I don’t know what impact – I suspect that I have always been shielded, like a child, from all of the corporate shenanigans that go on. And so I will never sense what they are in this case either. But the Amazon/MGM thing is startling. Because Discovery has been in business on television for many, many years. Amazon is purely an Internet company and now they own the oldest, I guess, even if it’s not technically old, it feels like the oldest film company in our business. This historic Hollywood studio that lately – and when I say lately I mean in the last 20 years – was really more of just a distribution channel for James Bond movies and not much else.

**John:** And Creed. But yeah. Rocky.

**Craig:** And Rocky. It had things it did, but mostly it was kind of living off of the library. And it is kind of startling that the lion going roar is now owned by Amazon.

**John:** Yeah. So in my time in Hollywood it’s always been a thing with MGM is like who owns the MGM library. The asset was really the MGM library which would keep getting shuttled around from place, to place, to place. I have no idea what MGM actually owns of their library at this point. Amazon gets the Bond movie. They get other things and potential things they can remake. And again it’s always about streaming. So they get more stuff for Amazon Prime Video which is how they make their money in the entertainment industry.

**Craig:** And how – so MGM released Wizard of Oz.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But Wizard of Oz is controlled by Warner Bros because of some strange real estate transaction that occurred in the ‘80s I believe.

**John:** Yeah. I’m not sure how that all happened. But it has done very well by me, so I’m happy it happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. I feel like Warner Bros owned some sort of bit of real estate that Columbia – remember the whole thing when Sony bought Columbia and then they put those two guys in charge and it was a train wreck? And one of the things they did was try and get back some real estate from Warner Bros and trade it at MGM. Something crazy happened. I don’t understand it.

This episode should be called Craig Doesn’t Know How Business Works.

**John:** But at some point we should talk about LA real estate and the entertainment industry because it is so fascinating how much LA has been shaped by where those studios were placed originally and how the failure of Cleopatra is why we have Century City.

**Craig:** That’s right. And furthermore a studio that no longer exists like Fox, because Fox was purchased by Disney and is controlled by Disney mostly, that – my guess is that the real estate–

**John:** Oh my god. Worth so much.

**Craig:** Is worth more than Fox. That’s really the big prize there is the land. Because you can put at this point now soundstages – people just stick them out wherever. Like Santa Clarita, which is about an hour north of where you live, they got a whole bunch of soundstages up there because land is cheap. But Paramount and Fox and Sony, that land is invaluable.

**John:** Yeah. So at some point we’ll bring somebody on who can tell us about the actual history of the land in Los Angeles and how the studios shaped it. It feels a little bit more like some other person’s podcast, but we can do it.

**Craig:** You know what? It probably is. Maybe we’ll go on their show.

**John:** Yeah, that’s what we’ll do.

**Craig:** I’ll be just as unprepared.

**John:** All right. I want to talk about free will. And so the reason that this came up in my brain–

**Craig:** Do you want to talk about free will or do you have to talk about free will?

**John:** That’s really the question. Was it always predestined that we were going to talk about free will in this episode and that you’d be 15 minutes late because you confronted by production concerns? What got me thinking about it was this article I read by Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian and it’s really looking at this issue that philosophers have been grappling from the very start and now increasingly because of modern science they realized like, oh, you know what, free will probably is not quite what we think it is. And by free will let’s talk about sort of defining our terms. Free will being the ability for a person to make their own choices. To have agency. To decide what they’re going to do. That they’re not being forced to do a thing.

The problem comes from our understanding of physics and science these days is that things don’t just happen kind of spontaneously. There’s always a past event that sort of anticipated what’s happening next. And there’s just the billiard balls banging through the universe, except on a very small quantum level you can kind of always predict what’s going to happen.

**Craig:** Right. This is one of those great college chats. I sometimes think that it’s a bit of a pointless discussion because in the end we don’t know and we can’t know. But I side generally with the people who say we do not have free will as we understand free will. Because I literally don’t understand how free will could possibly exist.

**John:** Yeah. Where you are an independent agent who at this moment can make any choice you want to make because there’s nothing behind that.

**Craig:** Well, right, because I don’t understand how choices can be made without precursors. And we are nothing – I mean, when we try and analyze what consciousness is we really stumble around in the dark because we’re asking a microscope to stare at itself. So, just observer error is baked in. And we want to believe we have free will because we’re experiencing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct.

The fact that there are optical illusions should tell us everything we need to know about the accuracy of our brains.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s different levels of sort of how much people believe in free will on a philosophical level. And there’s people who truly think that we can do anything at any point. They’re kind of falling out of favor because that’s clearly not the case.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** There are strict determinists who say, no, literally you are on rails this entire time. You are not making any choices. And then there’s some compatibilism which is basically yes but it’s also – you can say that free will is an illusion, but it’s a common illusion to a lot of our other experiences. And like consciousness is an illusion. We recognize that what we experience from the outside world is not really the outside world. And that we are constantly living in this – it’s not even a simulation, it’s just like we are trying to synthetize a bunch of outside forces and it’s not really what’s happening outside of us.

**Craig:** Correct. The world that we see is not the world at all.

**John:** So that’s the struggle for us in the real world, but let’s talk about it in terms of people who really have no choice which are the characters in the stories we write, which is really what I want to focus on today. Because one of the struggles we have as screenwriters is we want to create characters who feel like they are making valid choices. That they are in a real world and that their choices have impact. But of course as creators we know they really don’t because we are limiting the choices they could make. We are basically making the choices for them and trying to make it seem like they’re making their own choices themselves. It’s like a very talented sleight of hand magician who says like pick a card, any card, but of course they are forcing you to take a specific card.

**Craig:** That’s exactly what we’re doing. It is that principle of magic. We are forcing cards. So, the trick to a lot of magic is convincing people that they are really choosing from a bunch of things. And that is what we do with our characters. We need the audience to believe, and we have to give the audience evidence that our characters have real choices to make.

And that means we have to bait those traps. We have to make them tempting. We have to make them reasonable. We have to allow the audience to experience a kinship with the character so they imagine themselves in that position and can feel what it’s like to be torn between two options. Even as the audience understands which of those will be chosen. And that’s the fascinating part to me.

We know what they’re going to do. We know what they’re going to choose in certain genres. But we still feel like maybe they won’t.

**John:** All right. Let’s zoom back and take a look at creating a story when we’re at sort of the whiteboard stage of the index card stage. And we need to make it feel like our protagonists are actually making choices that impact the world. And what are some of the things we’re going to do to set that character up for success and make it feel like they are making choices that are valid.

We talk a lot about where is this character coming from, what is the origin, what do they want. Really we’re kind of trying to decide what is a want to give that character that will help drive the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. And so the want generates a single sort of choice that you would imagine, right? I want that guy. So I just want to choose a guy. But then what do we have to do as screenwriters, we have to fire all of these other choices at that person to muddle their minds. We have to distract them. We have to pull them off the path.

There is of many, many Thief of Baghdad remakes there was one – I talk about this all the time. I just, maybe I’m wrong, maybe it wasn’t the Thief of Baghdad, but it was definitely a movie where there was a treasure cave and they had to go get something at the end of the treasure cave, it was the best treasure of them all. And the trick was you have to stay on the path to that treasure. But the cave would show you illusions on either side of the path and if you fell into that temptation and stepped off the path you would turn to stone. And so the place was full of treasure and statues.

**John:** Yeah. Aladdin has a similar kind of thing in the Cave of Wonders.

**Craig:** There you go. And so this is our job is if the choice is simple, I want that guy, then my job as a screenwriter is to show you different guys. My job is also to have somebody lie to you about the guy you want so that you don’t want that guy. This is what we do. We confuse and muddle and therefore create frustration in the audience. That frustration will ultimately be released. We want to see, just like when we go to a magic show we want to see the magician succeed. Also we want to see them fail. So it’s like they have to give us the sense that they are really struggling. That’s part of the showmanship. So that when they finally do pull it out you’re like, “Yes!”

**John:** Now, what you’re describing in terms of throwing other choices at that character and other options is valid, but if we just did that then it would seem like – you’d feel the heavy hand of the writer.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Because you’d feel like, oh, all this stuff is being thrown at them and they’re not actually proactively making choices. And so you’re also doing this thing where you’re looking at it from their point of view and it’s like, OK, what are reasonable things that that character could do in this moment? If they have their overall goal of getting that guy, what are their next strategies? What are their next tactics for what are they going to do next?

And so you’re trying to balance this like what is their overall thing, what would they actually realistically do next. And how do you set up those next choices in a way that moves your story forward but also feels valid for the characters, so it doesn’t feel like that character is just on rails.

**Craig:** And in this sense we are creating a maze. And there are lots of different ways to get to the end of the maze. It’s a very good thing as a screenwriter to lead your character into a place where you’re not quite sure how they’re going to get back towards where they’re going.

You allow three different doors and you imply that only one door is accurate or good, and the other two are doomed. But you know of course they’re not. As a DM when I’m DMing and you guys are playing you’re not on rails. You can do anything. And I know that I have to get you from A to B. Everything that happens in between A and B can be as squiggly and as backwards moving as we want. Moving away from things. Being inefficient in your path. These are all ways that we create the illusion of free will.

Especially when a character is choosing something that clearly is not going to move them toward their goal.

**John:** Absolutely. So D&D is essentially a conversation. Yes, you may have a map that you’re looking at, but it’s essentially a conversation about what choices are our player characters going to make. But I’m thinking back to fantasy videogames and so often you recognize that it feels like you can go anywhere. And really you can at any moment. I could go over there, go in this direction. But if you actually look at level design those levels are designed in very clever ways that like, OK, there really is one path through this. And it looks like you could go anywhere, but ultimately you’re going to go one way through. So how things are sloped, where you can walk, where you can’t walk, what doors are open, what doors are not open.

There is generally a linear path through that and careful level design makes it feel like you don’t sort of see the path, but it’s just there. And that really is what we’re talking about in terms of the whiteboard stage of a movie is that you’re doing level design. So there’s really one path the character is going to take through the story, and yet they’re not aware of it, and the audience is not aware that they were locked to that path.

**Craig:** And we can mess with the path. We can create gates. And in stories if it seems like there’s too direct of a path towards what the character will want through their will then you put a gate up. And the gate swings on a test. So, if you need to get – if you want that job and we say like if you work hard you get the job, well just work hard. Work hard for five minutes and you’ll get the job. In the movie it doesn’t work that way. The problem is there is a gate and that’s the person who already has the job.

Now, what do we do to move that person out of the job? And in D&D there may be a real simple, boring path that would cheat you guys of the story. And usually there’s a gate. There’s something that’s blocking you. And sometimes there isn’t. And sometimes you actually can just sort of go really fast and usually if you get through something really fast you should feel a sinking sense that perhaps you should not have wished for this. That there is something even worse – there is a punishment for essentially not having to work for what you want.

It’s punishing you for not exercising enough free will or enough illusion of free will.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about those gates or really decision points, decision tree points, and it’s making sure that when a character hits one of those moments it really does feel like a choice. That the choice was not so predestined that like, well, of course they’re going to take this way. That there actually are pros and cons to both things. And there’s a cost to taking either version. And that’s something you do hopefully think about on the whiteboard version, but really as you get into scenes that’s where you have to be clever about how you’re communicating what the choice really is. And so that we actually see that character making the choice.

It may not be dialogue. It may literally be they can pursue her or not pursue her, or decide what they’re going to do. But we need to believe they actually could decide not to do that thing. And most times we’re going to want them to take an action versus not take an action, because we want to see characters actively engaging in their environment. But, we have to believe they could just sit there.

**Craig:** Yes. And we can also emphasize the character’s inherent misperception of reality. It makes us feel like they have free will when they make a choice and within a scene they realize that they had misunderstood even what the choices were and therefore they reverse course and make a different choice. Or they stop in their path and question whether or not they should continue. Those kinds of things, those confusions, begin to mimic the way we move through real life. We may think we have free will because when we start the day we literally don’t know what’s going to happen next. We have some theories. And our characters have theories.

It’s important to give a character a theory.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** When they go into a scene they should have a theory of how it should go. An expectation. And then our job as screenwriters is to either reinforce that expectation so much that the character becomes paranoid that people are messing with them, or subvert the expectation in some way so the character has to figure out what to do next. Otherwise, you just end up with a boring day at the office.

**John:** Absolutely. So we want characters to have some sort of agenda. Basically you say expectation. Agenda would be a more proactive way of like this is how they see these things going. And we get to mess with them and interrupt their agenda. But just as important that we believe the protagonists are capable of making their own choices. We want to believe that the people surrounding the protagonists also have free will. That they actually could do things and they’re not just there to service that protagonist.

And when I see bad writing I often encounter characters, I don’t believe that they’re real because I don’t think they would do that thing that is just there to help our story. That it’s just there to provide an obstacle or provide support to our protagonist. You want to write these characters in a way that makes it feel like they could have not done that. They could have gone somewhere else. They didn’t have to say that thing.

And that’s one of the trickiest things to do in scene work sometimes is that you’re trying to make the scene efficient and also feel real and reality is not efficient.

**Craig:** Correct. Reality is a big old mess. And it’s confusing. If we think about The Matrix which is about free will as much as it is about anything, one way of looking at that movie is to think of the Oracle character as the Wachowskis. The Oracle is the screenwriter. If I put myself in a movie, me, Craig, as the writer in a movie that I’m writing and I’m sitting there and a character walks in I know everything. I know what’s happened. And I know what’s going to happen.

Also, I have total confidence that if that character says, “Am I the one?” And I say, “Uh, you’re not, sorry.” That they’re going to believe me and that that’s what they needed to hear. But I also know that that’s going to lead to them being free to do certain things because they no longer have the burden of feeling like they’re the one, so they’re going to start to do things, and thus they will be the one which they must be because I’ve written it.

And that’s the fun of that investigation. That you say to somebody, “You see this world you’re living in? You don’t have free will in this world. You’re actually part of a massive computer simulation,” which we all are anyway. “We’re going to show you the real world.” Except when you’re in the real world you’re also in a simulation. You’re in a freaking movie. And that’s the fun of it is that once you envelope people in the quirkiness and the backwards motion and the confusion they forget that it’s entirely determined.

The people with the least free will are the people we write. We literally chose everything for them. But it seems like they’re doing it. Isn’t that fun?

**John:** It is fun. And so we are creating these characters. We’re doing these things that we’re telling them to do. And it’s being played by actors who are reciting the lines that we wrote for them and having the whole scene being controlled by a director who is following our script but also following their own instincts. So, there’s so many levels of unreality being forced upon this.

And the fact that we can watch these stories and sort of believe and sort of accept them as being real is a testament to craft and our brains and sort of how art works. Basically even recognize that you’re seeing a simulation, you enjoy the simulation and it feels real to you because you can imagine yourself being in that situation.

**Craig:** Yeah. And when you’re writing these things, if you can try and surprise yourself then the odds are that the illusion of free choice/free will will be stronger. And of course we can’t really surprise ourselves because, again, it’s all determined. But if it feels like in your mind things are sort of unfolding in a fairly obvious, pat way, just try and throw something at it. See if you can – just surprise yourself. What would this person do that would be entirely unexpected?

Particularly if it feels like the scene you’re writing is something you’ve seen, or felt a lot. What do you do to make it different? And that will help also.

Because if you’re watching something and you think, oh, I’ve seen this scene quite a few times, the free will of it all kind of gets exploded. You just – it’s gone. Because those people are just copies.

**John:** Yeah. You’re watching a magic trick that you already know how the magic trick works because you’ve seen it a zillion times and it’s just not interesting anymore. There’s no surprise. Even if it’s really efficiently done, I can only see that magic trick a certain number of times to say like I don’t quite know how that magic trick works, but I know it’s a thing, and it’s just not interesting to me anymore.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** All right. So, in no part of our conversation about free will have we talked about three-act-structure and hitting plot points and how movies are supposed to work. And how official guidelines for sort of how things should be structured. And that’s sort of by design because I feel like structure as you often read in screenwriting books feels like it’s just – like here’s how you build the rails to sort of bring a character through a movie. This is how movies work. Put them on this track. And we’re arguing against that.

Yes, there probably is going to be a track and you’re going to build that track. But if you just are using somebody else’s track it’s not going to work. It’s not going to feel real.

**Craig:** Yeah. Those things are, as I’ve said, I think I said in my How to Write a Movie episode, those things are post-mortems. They are not guides for creating new life. They are simply excellent – sometimes – excellent analyses of dead bodies. They are things that already happened. They’re taking them apart and showing you, look, this connects to this and this connects to this. Has no relation to creation as far as I’m concerned. None.

And if you follow those things you will have something that looks kind of like a person, or it seems kind of like a movie, but really it’s just a boring kind of copy of stuff.

**John:** Yeah. Now, you may have started your interest in screenwriting by reading one of those books and at this point you may be questioning like, wow, do I even want to be a screenwriter, because what John and Craig are saying feels kind of unapproachable and sort of just how am I supposed to do all of these things at once. And I want to segue our conversation from looking at free will for characters to free will for screenwriters. Because a thing I think we don’t talk about enough on the show is it’s OK to not be a screenwriter.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I’m reading this book by Adam Grant called Think Again. And one of the points he makes in the book is that so often people pick a career, pick an interest, and sort of like double down on that interest without ever giving themselves permission to sort of question whether like, wow, is this even a thing I really like?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I think we need to give people more permission to say like you can enjoy us talking about screenwriting. It’s absolutely fine if you don’t want to be a screenwriter yourself at all. Or never write a scene. That’s OK.

**Craig:** 100%. And similarly it’s OK if you are a screenwriter and want to stop.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** Dennis Palumbo who was with us on Episode 99 – feels like we’re due to have him back, right?

**John:** We should.

**Craig:** Oscar-nominated screenwriter. And now therapist. And he’s been a therapist for many, many years. And one of the areas of his practice is aside from helping writers navigate through their lives, he also specializes in mid-life career changes, which can be traumatic for people because it violates this concept we have vocation. Vocation as in a calling. You are called by some higher power to do something. And then at some point you realize, wait, I don’t like it that much. Or, I don’t know if I’m actually that good at this. Or, I’m good at it, and I like it, but I want to try something new.

All of these things can be very disruptive and it’s OK to go through that process of disrupting these things. If you are pursuing the path of being a screenwriter and it’s not going anywhere you are bombarded with these messages of “don’t quit.” Don’t be a quitter. And persistence. That’s the key is persistence.

**John:** That’s what it is. Yeah.

**Craig:** I don’t know if persistence is the key. I’ve got to be honest. I don’t know if it is.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a concept that’s in Adam Grant’s book, I don’t know if he created it or if he pulled it from someplace else called Identity Foreclosure. And that’s when you fixate on one vision of yourself, or who you’ll become to the exclusion of all other ones.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** And it’s a thing that I see happening a lot in my daughter. Our kids are 15/16 and they get really – they go through phases where it’s like I’m going to be a rocket scientist. I’m going to be this. I’m going to be – and it’s so completely natural, but so unhelpful because it’s not asking the right question. It’s not asking the question like what are you really interested in. It’s thinking like, oh, I will do this job because then I’ll be this and I’ll make this much money and then I will be happy. And ultimately they’re getting to like they want to feel satisfied and happy and secure but they’re focusing on the job rather than what they actually would want to be doing on a daily basis.

**Craig:** And this is not new.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** When you and I were children they called it an Identity Crisis and I was always told teenagers go through identity crises where they are like who am I and what am I supposed to be. And I always felt like what a strange question who am I. I’m me. What other options are there?

But there is this desire to define yourself because if you do it’s like I’m finished. I’m completed. I no longer have to feel like I’m free falling or failing at things or grasping for who I am. It’s so much simpler to just say I am blank. This identity foreclosure has extended beyond just the notion of career. It’s also extending to notions of who we are in terms of our gender and in terms of our sexuality. I see my child’s generation grasping to immediately foreclose their identity because they can, whereas it used to be you couldn’t. And now you can. So this is a new area where they’re sort of like clamping down and at 15 saying I am this, or I am that.

And, of course, humans are, A, more fluid than that, and B, you’re still pretty young. So I think for a lot of people things are super clear because they are, and they’re factual. And for other people they’re still figuring it out. But the notion of foreclosing the possibilities is fascinating. I think that’s exactly right. And it’s a great thing to urge people to, as we would say to our son all the time, you have to sit in the discomfort of uncertainty. And that is very hard for people. It’s hard for a lot of people, especially if they’re neuro-atypical. But it’s hard for all of us to sit with the discomfort of uncertainty.

**John:** One of the things that can be helpful is to really plan for an audit. Basically twice a year to sit down and say, OK, what am I doing? Do I like what I’m doing? Is there something else I might enjoy more? And doing that might actually help you think rather than giving up something, like oh, I’m going to give up trying to be a screenwriter or give up trying to be a basketball player. Really think about affirmatively choosing something else you want to try. And not to think about it as a thing you’re going to be, but a thing you want to do. Because you can’t change – on many levels you can’t change who you are, but you can change what you’re actually doing on a daily basis, overall sort of what your activities are. And really think about it that way.

And so if you were to decide I’m not enjoying screenwriting, or I don’t think screenwriting is the thing for me, great. But if you can phrase that in terms of like I want to spend the time I used to be thinking about screenwriting in this other thing that I am more interested in, that’s great. To affirmatively choose something else rather than giving something up can be a useful way of making those tough choices.

**Craig:** And I think also it’s helpful, although scary, to admit that you are not in control. That the choices you make about yourself, the theories of what you think you want are not always accurate because, again, no free will. And that the world will collide with you in ways you cannot imagine and you cannot predict. And when that happens things change. And they change dramatically. When you look back at your own life, which you and I can now do and actually see five decades, man–

**John:** A lot happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. It certainly wasn’t planned. And you have to be ready for those things. I think the saddest thing that could happens is if you are so rigid in your identity foreclosure out of fear of uncertainty that when a collision occurs you do not allow it to change you, or you do not allow yourself to adapt and consider reforming your relationship with the world and reality because of what just occurred. That’s sad.

**John:** This is advice that’s been given a zillion times on this podcast, but it can be helpful to think of yourself as the protagonist in the story of your life. And so if you think about sort of you as that central character and the choices you get to make, maybe it’s time to pull out the whiteboard a little bit and say like, OK, where am I going? What is the story I’d like to be on? And that story you’re on may not be sort of where you’re at and think about sort of how might want to get to the story of the heroic journey that you’d prefer to be on. It feels like a time to be doing that.

**Craig:** Yeah. And just like we, screenwriters, when we throw things at characters we do it so they react.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, if you throw a bunch of stuff at a character and they never react and they just keep turning away for 90 minutes, boo.

**John:** Not good.

**Craig:** Don’t be that boring character.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our listener questions. But before we get to our listener questions I’m curious, Megana Rao, our producer, does any of this spark for you? Because you’re a person who changed careers. You started at Google and then you came over to work for us here. Does this resonate for you at all?

**Megana Rao:** Yeah. Something that I was also thinking about as you guys were talking is that no matter how much you research or job shadow it’s really hard to know what the reality of a certain experience is going to be like before you try it. Maybe you love film. You love screenwriting. And you love the craft of it all. But the weight that comes along with the industry of Hollywood is unappealing to the point that it outweighs your passion.

I mean, you just couldn’t have known that until you put yourself in that position. And I think about all the identities that I foreclosed on before I could pursue this dream and looking back I can thread together the aspects and how I got here. You know, I thought I was going to be a doctor, and then I thought I would work in tech for the rest of my life. And those were really difficult paths to turn away from because all of these external signals were validating my choices. But ultimately it wasn’t right for me and I don’t know how I could have come to those conclusions until I explored them as options. So, I would just say that trying – the act of pursuing something and putting yourself out there is really hard and if you realize it’s not quite right, congratulations for trying, and have some grace for yourself as you figure out what you want to do next.

**Craig:** That is really interesting. Particularly the doctor part, because you and I are basically the same person. And I was in the same spot. And I’m wondering, Megana, if you had the same feeling I did. Because I didn’t – I liked medicine. I liked the notion of it. And a lot of it still fascinates me to this day. But did you have a moment where you suddenly just thought “I’m not like those people and I don’t know why?” What was the moment where you realized, ooh, I think I should be doing something else?

**Megana:** That’s interesting. I feel like in the question of free will I never felt like I had free will because everyone I knew was basically a doctor.

**John:** Having read your script, you’re also the child of immigrant doctors.

**Megana:** Exactly. Exactly.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So no free will for you.

**Craig:** No. No free will for all the little Indian and Jewish children. That’s just how it is.

**Megana:** But the thing that I was interested in being a doctor was just people’s stories and talking to them. And when I think about how my dad is as a doctor I was like, oh OK, that is a very different approach to what this field actually is like. And the science aspect of it, like I like science and I think it’s cool, but it was never like oh that is what gets me going in the morning.

**Craig:** Right. So you were on a path and one day you realized I don’t have to be on this path.

**Megana:** Yeah. And I think I also realized I think in some ways I’m too sensitive to be a doctor. Because you have to be able to detach a little bit. And I’m not very good at that.

**John:** Yeah. Because all it takes is one “yup” from me and you’re questioning all your choices. [laughs]

**Craig:** This is why I think Megana you would have been a brilliant pathologist because they’re already dead.

**John:** Let’s see if we can help some of our listeners out with questions they have. Megana, can you start us off?

**Megana:** All right. So Jamie in Maryland asks, “I’ve had a situation come up a few times that I’ve never really gotten clarity on. I’ve had scripts optioned and been hired to rewrite. The complication arises when that script falls out of the option period but it’s been rewritten, and in most cases by me. Going forward, now that the material is back in my hands what do I own? And I don’t own the rewrite work how can I possibly forget improvements I may have made? Or what if I get similar notes from a producer who options the script in the future?

“I can’t really say, no, the old company owns that. What are the rules for dealing with this?”

**John:** This is a really good question. And Craig and I, we don’t write a lot of specs, and so we’ve not had this happen where we’ve optioned stuff out. So I ended up asking a lawyer friend about who deals with this a lot. And it’s actually more complicated than I would have guessed.

Let’s first start by talking about what an option is. Craig, can you remind us what an option is?

**Craig:** Well, an option is a payment to you, the writer, that says that producer who pays you the option has the exclusive right to arrange for the sale of that script to a studio and there’s a baked in price usually for what the price will be. And it lasts for about a year or so. And they give you some money for it. It could a dollar. It could be a lot. It’s not like a WGA thing because we haven’t been employed.

And then when that time is over the option ends.

**John:** And so in a vacuum you would get that script and it’s exactly the same script that you optioned to them, and so you still control copyright and it’s just entirely yours. Now the complication is generally they’ll option that script but then they will hire you, probably under a WGA contact, as a work-for-hire to do some rewriting work on that script. And that’s where it gets complicated.

So let’s say you make some changes to the script and improve it. And the option lapses. You get your original script back, but you don’t automatically get all the rewrites that you did back. And so if there’s things you changed that are not part of that, that is still owned by them, because they own that copyright on those rewrites because of work-for-hire.

So, it does happen some and here’s the advice I got from my lawyer friend on this situation. In your initial contract for the rewriting you could have had a clause in there saying that you get the rewrites back or for a certain fee at the end of this. That’s a thing that could happen.

More likely what’s going to happen is as the option lapses, and if you do want that stuff, you talk to them. And they may ask for all that money that they gave you for the rewrite back. They may ask for some percentage of that. More often what happens is that when you go to set something up someplace else, like you’re going to sell this script to someplace else, you then negotiate to sort of get that stuff back in. Or you put it as part of a – if you’re selling it to someplace else in that contract to sell it to this second company at the start of production there’s a payment made to the first place to get all that stuff back.

Here’s why you do that. Is because you can say like, oh, well yes, you had that idea to make those changes, but I also had that idea to make the changes and I did it slightly differently. It’s still copyright law and it’s still very clear that you had access to all the material. So, you could be in a lawsuit situation. Rarely. But it could happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, Jamie, the inflection point here is when you say hired to rewrite. You get hired. It’s a work-for-hire. So the person that’s hired you to rewrite, the person that optioned the script now owns that rewrite. They own it. They’re the writer. They are the legal author of that.

So, you can’t really undo that. Writing screenplays and developing screenplays is like cooking. So you should them a dish and they’re like, great, now I’m going to pay you money to take that and turn it into a stew. And you do. How do you un-stew a stew? It’s really not possible. You can go somewhere else and say I’ve made something new. It’s not the first thing I showed them, it’s something in between this and a stew. And then the people who own the stew are like, uh, you got stew elements in that.

So, my advice if at all possible is to not get paid to rewrite an optioned script. That sounds a little crazy, but hear me out. Your script is optioned. That means you own the copyright. They just have the exclusive right to shop it. Hold on. And if they want a rewrite, if they’re giving you advice on how to make it better and you agree, just say great, I’m going to do that on my own. And you can option that. But don’t give me money and employ me to do it. Because the most important thing you can have when a studio is interested in your script is ownership of it. And I can’t imagine the amount of money that they’re giving you to rewrite is as significant as the amount of money a studio will pay if they really want that script.

So if you can try and keep copyright all the way through until a real studio wants it. And then you give it away.

**John:** So, the con to that is that there may be reasons why, A, you need that money, or that money may actually get you into the WGA, or sort of keep you active in the WGA.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes.

**John:** So, there may be reasons to take that deal.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But I agree with Craig in that if it’s sort of a shopping agreement, if you keep control over everything that’s kind of ideal. Ultimately what we’re talking about is how did the option lapse. What is the end of that relationship like? And if the end of that relationship is good, and they want to still keep working with you on other stuff you’re going to have a better negotiating what you’re going to do with the rewrite stuff you did for them before. And really the best case scenario might be just a lien against that script for – if it goes into production they’ll pay you whatever money that was owed.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s fine and that’s reasonable. But it’s a good question to ask and I agree with Craig that if you’ve written this material and you can control this material it’s generally worth it to keep control for as long as you can.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Cool. Megana, what you got next for us?

**Megana:** All right. Maya asks, “I’m an up and coming writer that just got out of grad school. My program sent out loglines to industry folks and a manager who is now interested in reading my script. Problem is, it’s not ready. How much time do I have? Is it a bad look if I send in my script after a month of them asking for it? I just want to make the best first impression possible and I know that if I send my script right now that first impression is going down the drain.

“Should I let them know I need more time and expect my script in a month? Or should I just not reply until my script is ready? What I’m trying to ask, is there any leniency in this process or am I basically screwed?”

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** I like that Maya’s default position is everything is terrible. Maya, you’re not screwed.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** My instinct is to send an email and say like, oh my god, I’m so excited you want to read this script. I’m in the middle of a rewrite on it now and I can’t wait to show you the next version.

**Craig:** This is one of those areas where if you could only imagine how little other people are thinking about you it would blow your mind.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** You know, like someone is like, huh, that’s an interesting logline. I’m interested in reading that. That’s literally all it is. Then they forget. They move on. Now the next thing they’re worried about is lunch. And what they’re not doing every day is waking up going, “Where the hell is Maya’s script? Where is it? I said I wanted it. Where is it?”

And similarly if you send kind of along Hamlet-like email, like I’m so sorry, I do, but I don’t, but I don’t know. They’re going to be like, “What? What are you talking about man? Also, who is this?” It doesn’t matter.

Here’s what matters. You’re going to send a script and they’re going to read it and they’re going to either like it or they don’t. A logline means nothing. I think we’ve said that a billion times on this show. You’ve certainly intrigued them with the idea. What they’re really saying is if that script is good that would be good. As opposed to if that script is good I still wouldn’t care because I don’t want anything about that topic.

So, there is no reason for you to rush something out that you don’t think is ready. Nor is there any reason for you to fret or sweat or freak out every day that you’re taking too long because they’re sitting there tapping their fingers on the table going, “It’s Maya o’clock. Where’s my script?” Just relax your body, you know, waggle your head around. Take some deep breaths. Don’t tell them you need more time or anything like that. Just send the script. And when you do say, “You might remember that you were interested in this logline. Here’s the script.” And then they’ll go like, oh yeah. Oh yeah.

That’s it. Simple as that.

**John:** So my argument for sending the email now is, again, to be very, very short but saying like, hey, I’m so excited for you to read this. I’m doing a rewrite. I’m going to send it to you. It might remind them that like, oh, that’s right, I did read that thing. So that when they get it a month from now they’ll remember sort of what it was.

**Craig:** Sure. That seems reasonable.

**John:** But it should be nothing more than that. And you should not fret about it. But also I think sending that email will light a little fire under you to actually really get that work done. Because nothing helps a writer more than having promised it to somebody.

**Craig:** I think that’s true. You have a certain accountability. Yes, you can send a little short email that’s just like, great, thanks so much. I will send you the script as soon as it’s finished.

**John:** Yeah. One more question, Megana. What do you got for us?

**Megana:** OK, Bill from Dallas asks, “I have a question about child screenwriting prodigies, specifically where the heck are they? We’ve got pre-teen violinists who can play with professional skill, young mathematicians who can solve problems at graduate college levels. And of course plenty of chess prodigies. So where are the screenwriters? Where is that 10-year-old kid topping the Black List and clinking glasses with the finalists of Nicholls? Are we just not finding them? Or are there really zero out there? If the latter is true, why?”

**John:** So I’m going to find this Ben Stiller sketch from The Ben Stiller Show a zillion years ago where they had this young child prodigy director. And the line I remember from it is, “My movie is called Horses are Pretty because horses are pretty.” And it’s great.

I don’t know why there are not more teenage filmmaker prodigies except that maybe there are prodigies and they’re making TikToks and YouTube videos that are stunning but they’re just not writing screenplays.

**Craig:** There aren’t really novelists prodigies either.

**John:** True.

**Craig:** I think it may be because writing fiction is harder than all the rest of this stuff. Now, I can already hear people going, “What?” Because, you know, that’s pretty braggy. Like a bunch of guys writing movies about cars smashing into each other and people over there with Fields medals in math are like, “Are you serious? I’m unraveling the fabric of the universe and you think what you’re doing is harder?” It’s not harder, it’s rarer. How about that?

There are actually fewer working, consistently working, impactful screenwriters than there are mathematicians like that. It’s crazy. I don’t know why. It’s weird. It’s not harder. It can’t be harder. It’s not harder than chess. I’m so bad at chess. John, do you understand how bad I am at chess?

**John:** I believe that you’re bad at chess because I’m bad at chess, too. And I’m smart enough person. I understand how it all works. But I’m just not good at it. My daughter beats me regularly.

**Craig:** Anyone could beat me. I think my dog could beat me. Yeah. But, I don’t know, it’s rare. It just is. And it may be that the neurological components required for writing well, whatever that means, just take way more time. And require way more integration. So, all of the parts of your brain need to be working. And working at a certain level. As opposed to one part that’s just skyrocketing early.

**John:** I think to Amanda Gorman who wrote the amazing poem that was read at the inauguration. And she’s young. She’s not necessarily that young. She’s not a teen prodigy necessarily, but she’s really, really good. But poetry is also a shorter form. And one of the challenges of a screenplay is it’s 100 plus pages and that’s just a lot to manage. There’s a lot to sort of do.

So it’s certainly not impossible for a teenager to understand that and do that. People can write in with examples of like, oh, this is a teenager who did this thing. But even like Lena Dunham who was super young as she started, she wasn’t that young.

**Craig:** No. Poetry is very flexible. You can define it essentially how you’d like. In that regard it’s a little bit like lyrics.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And my daughter is an up and coming budding songwriter. And she writes really interesting stuff that is getting legitimate attention out there. And she’s lyrically very advanced. But it is a different deal. Because there’s a freedom to it. And that’s the misery of screenwriting and it sort of ties into our main topic is that there isn’t so much freedom to it. You are required to make things function in an interesting way in a fairly rigid format.

And I don’t mean on the page format. I mean just the structure and the reality of what it means to write a two-hour-movie, or a one-hour-episode of television. Or a 30-minute-episode of television. So, my final answer is very rare skill, requires high functioning across all aspects of the brain, including visual imagination, language skills, empathy, IQ, EQ, all of it humming, all at once. As opposed to one area that is like through the roof but could Einstein tell a joke? Eh, I don’t know.

**John:** Einstein’s episode of Friends, his spec Friends, was really disappointing.

**Craig:** Atrocious.

**John:** Just atrocious. Now, I’m sure we have teen listeners. So if you’re a teen listener who has other insights for us please do write in, because we’re curious what you think.

**Craig:** I know what they’re going to be like. “Shut up old guys.”

**John:** Megana, thank you for these questions.

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks guys.

**John:** All right. It is time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. Two TV shows to recommend. The first is Hacks on HBO or HBO Max. I don’t even know what the difference is between HBO and HBO Max at this point.

**Craig:** Oh, I can tell you.

**John:** Tell me what the difference is.

**Craig:** I’m so glad you asked. HBO Max is the service that delivers both HBO and other programming. Now, does that sound confusing? It does sound confusing. I’ve been described like HBO, the branded HBO stuff, is on a tab. So, you know, for–

**John:** So Chernobyl is on that tab and The Last of Us will be on that tab.

**Craig:** Chernobyl is on that tab. The Last of Us is on that tab. HBO Max covers a whole other world of programming that is a little bit, like for instance I guess a lot of the – like the DC shows probably are on HBO Max. It’s a very strange thing.

**John:** It’s very strange.

**Craig:** It’s so weird.

**John:** Having watched the pilot episode for Hacks I cannot tell you whether there was the static-y HBO thing before it started, so I can’t tell you if it’s technically an HBO show or it’s just a show that I watched on HBO Max. Regardless, everyone would watch it because it’s really, really well done. This is the show that stars Jean Smart as a Las Vegas comedian who is kind of forced into hiring on a young joke writer and it’s their relationship. And it’s so well done.

It was written by Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs, and Jen Statsky. Here’s the reason why I think it’s an HBO show. It looks so expensive. It looks like Succession in terms of like, wow, they spent some real money on that. And I just love that. I mean, I respect people who do a lot with a little, but I also respect when people do just a lot with a lot. And it looks just great. And everything about it is just flawlessly done, so please – I’ve only seen the pilot, but it’s just really good and I can’t wait to watch more episodes of Hacks.

Another show I watched the whole season of this last week was Girls 5eva, which is on Peacock. Do you know the premise of Girls 5eva?

**Craig:** No, this is the greatest. Is it like a girl band kind of thing?

**John:** Exactly. And so it is a 2000s girl band that had sort of one big hit and then broke up, or sort of they never had a second hit. And so it’s following them up 20 years later as they are trying to form the group back again. It stars Sara Bareilles, Renee Elise Goldsberry from Hamilton.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** Busy Philipps. Paula Pell. The fifth member of Girls 5eva died in a tragic infinity pool accident. And it’s written by Meredith Scardino. Created by her. But it’s under the Tina Fey sort of umbrella. And so it has the 30 Rock-y/Kimmy Schmidt kind of feel and music. Real joke density. Just delightful. So if you enjoy 30 Rock or those kind of shows you really will love Girls 5eva. Great songs throughout.

**Craig:** Well yeah. I mean, Sara Bareilles and Renee Elise Goldsberry, those two alone – I mean, I just watch them sing. So if they’re singing at all I would be thrilled.

**John:** Oh they’re singing a ton. And Sara Bareilles is a really good actor.

**Craig:** Isn’t that fun when that happens?

**John:** It’s so good when someone is from a different field but they can actually – she can act her little heart out.

**Craig:** A little bit like, you know, I think in a couple of weeks there might be an episode of Mythic Quest with another brilliant performance.

**John:** I’m excited to see it.

**Craig:** I’m going to just tease it like this. Craig with hair.

**John:** Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh.

**Craig:** It is so weird. I sent Melissa a picture from the makeup trailer. And I was wearing my mask and so she couldn’t see my whole face, but I just sent a picture of me wearing a mask, but with hair, and she wrote back, “Who is that?” She literally didn’t know it was me.

**John:** Did not recognize her own husband.

**Craig:** Yes. Correct.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** And happily she wasn’t like, “Hmm, who is that?” She was like, “Eww. Who is that?”

**John:** Elon Musk treatment there, yeah.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** The hair back.

**Craig:** Well, my One Cool Thing this week is sort of a redo of another one. At one point, I’ve been looking for translation apps because I’m working with a number of folks from other countries. And there’s got to be a really good one. And I was using one I think called Mate, and it was decent. It didn’t quite do a perfect job translating. And it would lose formatting. For instance line breaks and stuff, which was really frustrating.

And I’m so sorry, someone on Twitter, and I cannot find the tweet so I cannot give them credit, but I apologize. If you tweet back again I will give you credit next week. Turned me onto something called Deepl Translator. That’s Deepl Translator.

And like a number of these things there’s a cost if you want to use it fully. It works really well. And I ran a translation by Kantemir Balagov, our Russian director. Because I always feel like translating to Russian that’s a good challenge. And he was like this is really good.

So I’m using Deepl Translator. So if you do have needs for translating. And what I also love about the simplicity of it is, this is very good, you write a bunch of stuff, you want to translate it. You just highlight it and then you do, if you’re on a Mac, Command C twice. That’s all you do. You just do the copy command twice and it automatically brings up a screen and starts translating it. Very good.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. That’s the future.

**Craig:** The future is now.

**John:** One last request for our Scriptnotes listeners. We have a Wikipedia page like all things on the Internet. There’s a Wikipedia page for Scriptnotes. It’s really out of date. It’s like super, super out of date. And so if people want to take a look at that and bring it a little bit more up to date. I’m going to put links in the show notes to the Scriptnotes index that Megana worked on and also a Scriptnotes guest list that we have. Because I want our Wikipedia page to be just a little bit more up to date. And you’re not really supposed to do it yourself.
And so if you guys want to take that on as a little project that would be great to see our Wikipedia page be a little bit more updated if that’s a thing you like to do. I suspect we have some Wiki editors in our listenership right now.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah. I haven’t looked at it in a long time. Now that you’ve said that it’s just going to be like–

**John:** It’s going to be madness.

**Craig:** Massive vandalism on our Wikipedia page.

**John:** Wikipedia does a pretty good job dealing with vandalism. So I think we have responsible listeners who will do well by us.

**Craig:** We have the best listeners.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, the best producer. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Brian Ramos. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust. Craig is there but he just kind of sends gifs, so don’t really ask him any questions.

We have t-shirts. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts. And you can sign up for weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all of the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the AP exams.

Craig and Megana, thank you guys so much.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, so Craig this last week my daughter took the AP US History exam. And so she had the whiteboard filled with a timeline of all these things. And I recognized some of the names of these events that occurred in US history but I couldn’t tell you what actually happened in them.

I took AP US History and dropped it at the semester mark because I just did not like it. And I ended up finishing it on a tele-course over the summer and enjoyed that much more. I suspect, and you actually promised, that you have strong opinions about the AP exams.

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** Go.

**Craig:** They should be eliminated.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** They should be eliminated with force. They should be all piled together, put on some sort of space vessel, and shot into the sun. And here is why. AP exams are entirely unnecessary. The initial thought about AP exams was that if you were particularly advanced in a certain topic that you could test out of having to take an introductory class at the college level, which I understand. You’re paying for college. You don’t want to necessarily just sit there in a boring class that is a prerequisite to get to the class you want when it’s already something you already know. That’s all it was meant to be. Just place out of stuff so you could start a little further along in college.

And what it has become in an insane arms race regarding your GPA, your grade point average. Because AP classes, which are classes that are taught to exams, and the AP classes should not exist in my belief, load on bonus points to your grade point average. And this insanity in our nation that every ounce of your existence as a child must be focused to the great prime achievement of getting into “good college” which therefore defines you as a good person and a future success. All of that is nonsense.

It is destroying kids’ childhoods. It’s also destroying the entire concept of what high school education is supposed to be. It’s not supposed to be that. The stress that we are piling on these kids over this AP stuff is insane. Not only do they have to study massive amounts to take these exams and do way more work than they normally would have to basically do extra high school while they’re in high school, they’re also doing 12 other extracurriculars because they’ve got to be well rounded. You’ve got to be well rounded all so that you a group of people sitting in a room somewhere at freaking Dartmouth can go, “Yes, this person is worthy.”

Horseshit. It’s horseshit. Look, if I could wave a magic wand I would eliminate most colleges entirely. OK? Because I think the entire higher education business is largely fraud and a certification Ponzi scheme. But if I can’t do that, and I can’t, then at least give me a want to get rid of the freaking AP exams. Or, if I can’t do that, keep the AP exams, get rid of AP classes, and say to kids if you really do want to advance yourself when you get to college just study on the side at home or over the summer and take this test and then you can. But we’re not giving you anything for your stupid GPA. So stop asking.

And just go back to, oh my god, the highest number you can have for a GPA is 4.0. There you go. We’re done. No more of the valedictorian has a 6.8.

**John:** Now, Craig, does it make you feel any better that colleges and many schools are actually already taking your advice and they are getting rid of AP exams?

**Craig:** It does make me feel better. But it has to happen – OK, so education is largely driven by the major state schools. A little bit by Ivy League schools. But for instance almost everything that happens in the California public school system has to do with the UC system. If the UC system accepts something everybody is funneling towards that. Everybody. And it’s the UC system that has to say we’re not doing this anymore. It’s over. Stop it.

**John:** Yeah. So no more Stand and Deliver for Craig Mazin. He believes that is a false promise, a false goal. That Edward James Olmos should be ashamed of himself.

**Craig:** I don’t know about that because I don’t remember – what was he doing in that? Was he teaching an AP class?

**John:** He taught his high school, he started the first AP Calculus class at his school.

**Craig:** I mean, look, I have a whole problem with the entire genre. Like John Gatins, our screenwriting friend, has a genre.

**John:** Inspiring teacher.

**Craig:** Yeah. I didn’t know that insert, you know, minority could do that. I didn’t know that Latinos could do Calculus. That’s not a genre of movie, but it sort of somehow became one. Like, wow, I didn’t – yes, of course they can. Of course they can. And you should be able to teach anyone calculus. And if kids want to learn regular calculus just teach them calculus. Calculus is enough. Why is there AP Calculus? “Well, it’s extra calculus because I don’t want to have to do regular calculus at college.” Fine, then go do that on your own time.

But this – what we’re doing is we’re putting college into high school. Then what the hell is college for?

**John:** Now, Craig, back when you were in high school did you take AP classes?

**Craig:** When I was in high school I was in a magnet program for medical sciences. So it was like a pre-pre-med program. We didn’t have AP classes. I don’t think we even had them at Freehold High School in New Jersey. What we did have were some specialized classes in topics that were not offered normally, like for instance we had a class in organic chemistry. It was called AP Orgo or anything like that. It was just organic chemistry.

So we did not have AP classes as far as I understood them. I never took an AP exam. What I did was take a few of the SAT achievement tests. Do you remember those?

**John:** Yeah. They’ve gotten rid of those largely, too.

**Craig:** Exactly. All of it nonsense. All of it unnecessary. And I can’t explain how much I’m retroactively angry at the process of being a high school kid with this college insanity looming over me. I’m angry at how happy I was to get into the school I got. I’m angry that they made me happy about it. And I’m not coming from a point of bitterness. Meaning it wasn’t like I got rejected so I’m angry. I didn’t. I got accepted. And it’s wrong.

It’s wrong. The whole thing is wrong. There are wonderful schools out there who teach kids terrific things as young adults in higher education and we don’t know their names because they don’t have marketing budgets or a $500 billion endowment. And so nobody cares about them. They’re just driven to whatever the hell, I don’t know, USC wants.

But why? Why? Why? Why?

**John:** This is not a defense of AP exams.

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** But I will talk about my high school experience was I ended up dropping AP US History. I did take AP English. And I learned a lot in AP English, but I think it was just the Honors English class. We read good stuff. We discussed it. Great. And so whether I took the test or not it doesn’t really matter.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I also took AP Spanish Lit, which I think they still offer the test. It was a helpful test for me in that we read a lot of books and I took the test and I did well on it. And it was handy for me to get to college and I already had more than a semester done. And so it really lightened my load. In college let me sort of explore a lot more in college because I didn’t have to – I had so many literature credits going into it that I didn’t have to take certain classes which was great.

So I appreciated that. But I recognize that on this conversation you and I are both like stumbling blindly because we have someone else on the call who has much, much more experience with AP exams. Megana Rao, can you talk to us about your AP experience?

**Megana:** So, I just looked it up and I think I took like 12 or 13 AP classes.

**Craig:** Oh god. No.

**John:** And how do you feel about those AP classes and exams now looking back?

**Megana:** I mean, I agree with so many of Craig’s points, and like College Board and the whole thing is just a racket. But, I really enjoyed taking those classes. And I think at a lot of public schools it gives – just because it is so standardized it gives you a really rigorous curriculum that you might not be getting from your education in certain school districts. And I think like at Harvard they didn’t accept them, but if I were to have gone to Ohio State like I would have started off as I think a spring semester sophomore.

**Craig:** That’s crazy.

**Megana:** I mean, this is a larger conversation about, you know, higher education. But I think that does seem like a good option for people because college is so outrageously expensive. So I think that option of being able to, I don’t know, mitigate that at some level feels like maybe a positive thing.

**Craig:** But look what they’ve done? They’ve created a system where you have to jump through a thousand hoops as a child to then not have to pay them so freaking much because they charge so much. That is so warped.

And by the way, don’t get me wrong, I’m not against honors classes. I’m not against kids if they are at a certain level and they want to learn a little bit more they can. Honors classes are fine. But this thing where there’s any indication whatsoever that taking an honors class is going to move you ahead in college and leap frog you past other things in college is crazy. And the idea that you would get these weighted GPAs, so suddenly grade point averages are in these insane inflated numbers is crazy. And the fact that education, higher education, costs so much that you’re going to beat yourself up as a 16-year-old to try and get a bunch of free things, but you don’t have to pay as much. How about don’t pay them anything?

How about that? How about we shouldn’t even have to go to college? How about that?

**John:** All right. So let’s imagine AP classes go away and look at the pros and cons of that. So obviously from a college level once they’ve admitted you as a student they could just give you a placement test to see like, OK, which physics should you be in, which Spanish should you be in. That’s great and fine. They can absolutely do that. So we’re really not losing much there.

I want to get to Megana’s point which I had not considered but I think is really good is that if you’re looking across the country and different communities, where you have really good high schools or not really good high schools, the AP curriculum actually does give some comfort of like I know that if this student is taking this AP curriculum they’re going to actually at least have this. That they’re actually going to learn this and there’s going to be some kind of rigor, some sort of standardization. It may be too standardized. It may be sort of you’re teaching towards that test, but at least you know these people got this out of it.

And in a country where there’s such wild disparities of educational access and opportunity AP could help arguably to make sure that students have access to a certain kind of rigor that they might not otherwise get in their underfunded schools.

**Craig:** Allow me to rebut.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** If the school can teach an AP curriculum then it can teach an AP curriculum. Just doesn’t have to call it an AP curriculum. Meaning it’s capable of doing it, therefore it can and should do it. But let’s be honest about the way our system functions. If there is a deal where there’s a specific thing called an AP class that leads to an AP exam that lets you skip ahead then rich kids will always do better. Always. Because they can afford tutors. And because they don’t have to work. They don’t have jobs.

I had a freaking job.

**John:** I had a job, too.

**Craig:** I couldn’t have been in those classes. Like I couldn’t do the things. But, you know, these rich kids – did we talk about, what is it, the Polaris List? Did we talk about that on the show?

**John:** I don’t remember what that was. No.

**Craig:** He’s a kid, he’s a young guy. And he’s put together this list that basically is like every high school in the country, private or public, how many kids did they send to either Princeton, Harvard, or MIT. I believe those are the three that they picked. And it is astonishing. Astonishing. The top ten schools, it’s just like, wow.

So Harvard Westlake. Percentages.

**John:** Or Marlborough. All of those.

**Craig:** It’s a joke. It’s a freaking joke. My school that I went to, this is so good. Because any time there’s a thing like that, they’ll all say we believe in equal access to education and all the rest of it. Somebody pointed out that if say Harvard, or Princeton, why not. I’ll go after my own. Let’s say Harvard or Princeton really was committed to equal opportunity of higher education for everybody in the country what they would do if they were really interested in that is kill themselves. They would dissolve their institutions and take all that money and create a whole bunch of equal opportunity programs spread out across the country.

We’re talking about billions. Billions. Do you know what the Harvard endowment is?

**John:** It’s probably a billion dollars itself.

**Craig:** Oh, I think it’s got to be more.

**Megana:** It’s something like $30 billion or $26 billion or something.

**John:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** $30 billion. $30. Do you see what I’m saying? Like when you really look at it, I know I sound crazy. I know I sound a little like QAnon here. But if you really look at the situation with just a very sober eye there is very little in our country that is as insane and Kafkaesque as the way we are educating our children to a purpose.

And the purpose is getting more education from some place and then when they’re done we go, ha-ha, have fun. With no job. Have fun. You did it. You achieved something. You rode all the way to the top of the rollercoaster and that’s it. You just get to the top and then you fall off and you hit the ground. That’s it.

**John:** Megana, I want to hear what you think about a life without AP classes.

**Megana:** So I do agree with a lot of what Craig is saying. I recently read this tweet that was like Millennials have 4% of the national wealth and I think Gen X had had 9% and Baby Boomers have had like 21% when they were at this stage. And it’s because we have gone through the system and taken on all of this student debt and it has not paid off with the job market that’s been available to us.

But, I will say that, you know, I did not come from one of those feeder schools and I was I think like the first kid maybe from my high school to go to an Ivy League, to go to Harvard. And when you get there and there are all of these kids from super elite prep schools and private schools from all over the world there is something reassuring in being like, OK, well we all took these classes and – like for some of the classes I just read those AP books on my own and then took the test and did well. And I’m not saying, I’m not advocating for AP, but there is something nice about having that standardization that I was able to have confidence that I was stepping up to freshmen year on sort of an equal playing field. And that those resources were easily accessible to me.

**Craig:** I’m like you. I came from the same situation.

**John:** Yeah. I want some clarification here. So, how many AP classes did you have versus tests did you have?

**Megana:** I think I took 10 AP classes and then I took two that I did not have the classes for and I just took the test from reading textbooks.

**John:** OK. So that’s something Craig would argue kind of in favor of to some degree, to be able to prove that on your own you did this thing.

**Craig:** But the problem is that there are far fewer – the AP – let’s call it a ladder to success. That ladder is far narrower for people that come from backgrounds like yours or mine. And it’s why you were the first person to go to Harvard from your school. I don’t know if I was the first person to go to Princeton, but we didn’t send many people to Ivy League schools from my school and we still don’t. Maybe one or two.

And there are dozens, dozens, of kids every year coming from Harvard Westlake. Why? It’s not because they are inherently smarter. It’s because everybody is getting a boost up that ladder. Everybody. This is what happens when you – you extend an opportunity and people game it because the entire thing is set up to be gamed and smart people are always going to figure out ways to mess with it. If the SAT is designed to be a standardized thing that gives everybody the same chance, well putting aside the inherent biases and however the test is created, it’s not an even playing field because now you have tutors. You have the Princeton Review.

If you can pay for the Princeton Review you’re already doing better. If you go to two of those classes and you learn their simple methods of process of elimination and all of that stuff you are already doing better. It’s not – it all gets – by the way, Harvard’s endowment is $41 billion.

**Megana:** Oh my goodness.

**Craig:** Thank you. So, it’s like a small country. And these things that are dangled, if we eliminated all of it, if we just eliminated all of those things and we just said write your application and we’ll take a look, and we expanded the understanding of what a good school is, we’d be vastly better off.

The problem for Harvard or Princeton, and if I worked at one of those admissions offices I don’t know what I would do, because I’m taking in 3% of the applications I receive. How the hell am I discriminating between all of these people? It’s impossible.

**John:** It’s really hard. So I’ve been on Zooms with college admissions things that are organized to sort of talk through what they’re doing. And those admissions offices are on some of those Zooms. And they’ll say, listen, we’re not looking at ACTs or SATs. They’re just looking it up – in both UC schools – Cal State schools and UC schools are not taking SATs or ACTs. They’re not requiring them anymore. And so all of these admissions officers have to look for other things to sort of determine is this kid going to be able to succeed at our school.

They look at grades. They look at where that kid falls in class rankings overall. What activities. And basically – and this sort of feels appropriate for a podcast about something – is what is this kid’s story? Basically how can this kid articulate sort of where they come from and what they’re trying to do? And that’s ultimately what they’re making admissions decisions based on. It’s tough.

**Craig:** I wish they wouldn’t. Because that’s gross. When we take a step back and we think about it, some panel of eight people in a room are examining what my child’s story is? F-off. They don’t know my kid and they’re never going to know my kid from an application. It’s impossible.

The whole concept of it is insane. That’s my point. The whole concept of deciding who belongs here is insane. And the notion of selectivity is kind of insane. I just don’t get it. I don’t. And I will remain forever angry about it.

Oh, and also US News & World Report should go to hell.

**John:** All right. But, the good news is I think we actually have a first candidate for Change Craig’s Mind is like if we can change Craig’s mind on some aspect of the college process then that will be a goal for this. I don’t even know what I want to change him to.

**Craig:** Or anything. Just change it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh man, I feel bad for that person. Oh, this was a good one. I feel so good. I feel like I exorcised a lot of demons today.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** God, I hope some admissions officer writes in like, “Well, you know, we actually can tell about what a human being is like from their five pages and their dumb essay.” Oh please. Please. Beat it. [laughs] That’s all I have to say.

Thank you for tolerating me through all of that, by the way. You’re both incredibly patient and lovely people.

**John:** Thank you both.

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

**Megana:** Thank you. Bye.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [The Scriptnotes Index](https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes-index)
* [Scriptnotes Guest List](https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes-guest-index)
* Help us update the [Scriptnotes Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptnotes)
* [Seth Rogan on Productivity](https://www.insider.com/why-seth-rogen-and-wife-do-not-want-children-2021-5)
* [The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliverburkeman) by Oliver Burkeman
* [Hacks with Jean Smart](https://play.hbomax.com/series/urn:hbo:series:GYIBToQrPdotpNQEAAAEa) on HBO Max
* [Girls 5eva](https://www.peacocktv.com/stream-tv/girls5eva) on Peacock
* [Horses are pretty because horses are pretty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYZOlwsMGFA&feature=youtu.be) sketch on child-director prodigy
* [Deepl Translator](https://www.deepl.com/translator)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([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/502standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 551: Making the Modern Comedy Series, Transcript

June 30, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/making-the-modern-comedy-series).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 551 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’re going to the writers room to discuss the making of two of my favorite comedies of the last year. To do so, we have two amazing guests. John Hoffman is a writer, producer, and actor whose credits include Grace and Frankie and Looking, but most recently was also the co-creator of Only Murders in the Building, starring Steve Martin, Selena Gomez, and Martin Short. Season 2 premiers in June, but we have him here right now. John Hoffman, welcome to Scriptnotes.

**John Hoffman:** Thank you, John August, very much. It’s so nice to be here. I’m a big fan.

**John August:** Thank you very much for coming on the show. I loved your show. I was excited to see it beforehand because of the cast. What you were able to build that we’re… I really want to dig into the strange, very specific tone you got to and where that all came from. I’m hoping we can explore all that.

**John Hoffman:** Thank you. It’s a favorite topic. I love it.

**John August:** We also have Brittani Nichols, who is a writer, actress, and organizer, known for Suicide Kale, A Black Lady Sketch Show, and the phenomenal Abbott Elementary. Welcome, Brittani.

**Brittani Nichols:** Hey. Thanks for having me.

**John August:** Now, I want to talk to both of you about going from the whiteboard to a finished episode, about alt lines, tone, table reads, what you learn as the season unfolds, so just a few things. In a Bonus Segment for Premium Members, if you’re up for it, I want to talk about the pressures and possibilities of being openly queer writers, because all three of us on this call are, and something we don’t get to talk about a lot. If you guys are game for that, we can do that as a Bonus Segment. Sound good?

**John Hoffman:** All in.

**Brittani:** Sounds great.

**John August:** Fantastic. Now first, you guys, we’re all working on acclaimed shows that got second seasons, so congratulations. This past week was a bloodbath for a few shows that didn’t make it to their second seasons or didn’t make the cut. Seventeen shows canceled in 48 hours, which is so brutal. Now, Brittani, you’re on a network show, so it’s a reminder that there still is a season to network shows. In the spring, a bunch of shows don’t make the cut. When you were working on Abbott, at what point in the process did you start thinking, worrying about a second season? Did you know early on, okay, our show is doing great, we’re going to be able to go back for a second year?

**Brittani:** I think we were all pretty confident from the first moment that we saw the cuts of the early episodes coming in, and so we were like, if we’re able to just get this out there, we feel pretty good about it, which was definitely a unique position to be in. I think that second-guessing varies a bit within a room, and the people at the top are a little more hesitant to be confident. Us lower-level, mid-level writers are very much like, “We think we’re going to be okay and feel pretty safe.” We’re not going to be out shucking samples, looking for something else to hop onto.

**John August:** Now, you got your renewal notice. Were you still working on the show when you got the call that you were going to have a second season?

**Brittani:** No, we were out of the room. We just were playing the waiting game and hearing about all of the backroom details that go into renewal, and based on if the studio has other shows that haven’t been renewed and if it’s a shared production and all the sort of stuff that I never really knew about, I learned about as we were waiting for something that we knew was going to happen and hadn’t happened yet and we were trying to figure out why.

**John August:** Now John, for your show, I went into watching the show thinking it was just going to be a limited series. I really thought there would just be one season. Did you know going in that you wanted a second season, that there was more to do? What was your process about thinking about a second season, and when did you know that it was a possibility?

**John Hoffman:** I actually did want and assume there would be a second season, I think because of the auspices around it and the desire to dive in and explore these characters and this world in the way that we were talking about in development. I think there was the sense like, okay, I think there’s a good shot. It’s how we went into a second season which was concerning to me. That was the big question mark of whether the show would be embraced, whether everyone involved with the show, who I loved and respected so much, would feel good about it. These are the questions that I obsessed on and just thought, oh god, what a nightmare if this doesn’t get received well or what a nightmare if Steve, Marty, Selena aren’t having fun or enjoying it or thinking it’s worth their time. That was where I was thinking more, and just entirely on story and entirely on fulfilling that crowd.

**John August:** Your shows are so different in a sense of Abbott Elementary is like a classic sitcom. It is an engine that can keep generating story. It can just keep going in a way that’s so nice and refreshing, we don’t see as much anymore, as opposed to Only Murders in the Building, which resolves. There’s a murder, and the murder is resolved. I guess it wasn’t until those last episodes I realized, oh, you were setting up hooks for a second season. That was always part of the plan.

**John Hoffman:** Yeah, it really was. It was the pitch from the beginning. When we sat down with Hulu, it was in the pitch, at the end of Season 1 we have three newbie true crime podcasters who find themselves suddenly the suspects in a new murder and the subjects of a new podcast that’s being done by their beloved mentor. That was really where we were aiming. I think when you’re making a murder mystery, you have to know where you’re aiming, to twist your way there. I felt, I know where we’re going and I know how to set it up so that it doesn’t belie the truth of what really happened in this mystery, but also it was just necessary in some way for the storytelling to have it be satisfying reveals and a leap forward into, oh god, now what, that takes you beyond how many people can die in one building.

**John August:** Now Brittani, you’re back in the room on the second season of Abbott Elementary, so obviously you can’t give us any spoilers, but as you were writing that first season, did you have a sense of like, okay, this is the territory we want to cover in this season, this is where we want to leave characters at the end of this season? Did that change at all during the time you were in that room?

**Brittani:** Quinta came in with a pretty good idea of where she wanted things to start and where she wanted things to end. It was really on us to fill in that middle and figure out how we got from point A to point B. It feels a bit like that this season as well, where she has what happened over the summer planned out and where we’re starting the characters and we’re figuring out where we want them to end up now, especially with… We’re hoping to have more than 13 episodes this season, so seeing what we can do with a little bit more time to play.

**John August:** You say you’re hoping for more than 13 episodes. That just gives me a panic attack. I can’t imagine doing 13 episodes, much less 18 or 22. It just seems like so much. Yet as we were talking before we got on the call, you were able to shoot your episodes in five days, which is just terrific. It’s so smart that you can do such a great show in such a limited period of time. John, I see you nodding here. Do you want 13 episodes? Do you want 20 episodes?

**John Hoffman:** No. I’m right with you in that. I admire so much. I talked to Quinta about this too. I’m like, “God, the idea of it seems so daunting.” To keep it alive and as fresh as you guys are doing on that show, and knowing the work that goes into the 10 that we have to do, and to feel like it’s fulfilling and deep and funny and all of those things it has to be, yeah, it makes me sweat.

**John August:** Brittani, you first came onto my radar because you had a tweet that showed some of the handwritten alternate jokes from one scene on Abbott Elementary. Can you describe what we saw in that tweet? Because it was just such a revelation to me, all the different ways you were trying to get out of that scene or what the anchor points were for that dialog. Talk to us about that tweet.

**Brittani:** We are lucky enough that we’re not under the gun constantly. We have a little bit of time to play with alts. We also are lucky enough that when you’re the writer of the episode, you get to be on set for your episode, which I think was really touch and go during COVID. We felt so lucky that we got to be there and also that we were given the opportunity to do that, because I know a lot of shows, if the showrunner’s there, if the upper-level producers are there, just because it’s your script doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to be able to talk to the actors, look at the director, and figure out spots where you can play with things, play with lines. Actually, when I was on A Black Lady Sketch Show, we certainly did not have time to do that, but I would still prepare each day or have alts and just show up with alts.

With Abbott, I tried to do the same thing. I would have alts prepared, and I would also be writing while I was on set, depending on the blocking, depending on how things felt, on the tone, on what was hitting, what wasn’t. I tweeted a list of alts for a joke, because I thought I had some pretty good ones that didn’t make the cut and just really wanted to share them. I thought it was fun. That’s I think a practice a lot of the writers here do, just trying to make ourselves laugh, keep it fun on set, keep the actors surprised, guessing. Also, it encourages them I think to have some fun as well. We’ve definitely had a couple of lines from this past season that the actors came up with themselves. It’s been really fun, especially with some of the inspirations for me, like Parks and Rec and Community, where I know some of the famous lines from those shows were alts or were improvs.

**John August:** We had Mike Schur on the show recently talking about Parks and Rec. That mockumentary format is so handy for being able to just throw out ideas. The camera’s rolling, you pitch a thing, and they could say that thing, and you could see what actually lands, as opposed to I’m guessing Only Murders in the Building. It’s a really tightly shot, cinematic show. Are alts a thing that happen on your show, John?

**John Hoffman:** It’s so funny. Marty and I were just talking about this last week and dinner. He said, “I get asked all the time about improvving and alts and things like that.” He said, “Honestly, it’s so rare.” As you point out, it’s necessarily so in certain ways, because it is very densely plotted. Also, what I love is that I get the benefit of Marty Short’s phone calls after a script lands in his laptop, I want to say 45 minutes after we sent it. He’s already pitching on… “There’s just two lines, John.” I get one-sentence emails from Steve, always, three times a week, which I love. They’re either ideas for the show or there’s one line. Steve will walk onto set, ready to do a scene, and inevitably, “John, John, there’s just one line.” I’m like, “I know. I’m sure there is. Let’s make it better.” That will happen. In general, the other thing that happens is Selena, every now and then… They’re all just lovely, generous, open people. Selena, when she feels something is not right or false or this doesn’t feel… Nothing is better for me than hearing her say, “This is what I think I would do,” and we have a good phone call or two about it. It’s great. That’s really the limit. Sometimes for alts, I’m reaching or thinking or popping another line just to button a scene or something like that. Otherwise, it’s pretty straight to script.

**John August:** Let’s talk about the script and the actors encountering the script. Do you guys have table reads for Only Murders in the Building? Do you table read each script?

**John Hoffman:** We have blessing of table read over Zoom that’s only for cast and myself and for Dan and Jess, Dan Fogelman and Jess Rosenthal. We don’t have studio or network there for that. It’s very familial and very Zoom-like, Hollywood Squares with a ridiculous cast. It helps them tremendously on a Saturday afternoon to read through it and hear it. Then many times the actors will make appointments on Zoom with other actors to say let’s go over our scene. It’s great, and yet there is a freedom that doesn’t put the angst around a table read as much either. Everything’s been signed off by the time we have them.

**John August:** Now Brittani, for Abbott, do you guys table read?

**Brittani:** We do, yeah. We do Zoom table reads. The actors have their videos pulled up. When you are the writer of the episode, you’ll cast the day player parts with the other writers. That’s always fun. You might get your feelings hurt a little bit if you’re not cast. Then we’ll have network and studio folks on the call as well, but without their videos on.

**John August:** Let’s talk through the whole process for coming from the whiteboard, the start of the season, blue sky, we could do anything, to a finished episode. John, for yours, you started with, I assume, a pilot script and then went to a room to figure out the rest of it. What was the process for you?

**John Hoffman:** That’s exactly right. This one, I just felt the onus immediately of being as prepared as I possibly could. I did have a full three-act structure to the whole season. I had a real sense of how it would move. I had the main thematics of the character arcs across the season, and a pilot, a pilot I worked on with Steve and got great input from Dan Fogelman and Jess Rosenthal as well. All of that was in plan in a big pitch. Then got together with the writers and tried to make sense of the pilot, because I had certain specificities in the pilot which posed questions that I didn’t quite have the answer to yet, one of them being who is the ultimate killer. I knew I would need that pretty quickly. The writing team and everyone else got in there, and we sorted out how that would make the most sense and how that would make the most bang for our buck.

**John August:** It sounds like the pilot was asking provocative questions, and then it was the job in the writers room to find provocative answers.

**John Hoffman:** Yeah, I saddled them with that. I was definitely like, “Yeah, we got to figure that out.” I was happy to have a group to work some stuff out that way. It was all strangely though infused, I should say. Also, just on a personal level, I had been through this very profound year before this show landed in my lap, a personal experience around the murder of a friend of mine that I had been out of touch with for a while. I found myself investigating and getting involved in that in a way that was revelatory to me. I’ve had a very personal connection to the kind of story we’d be telling in this show. A lot of it was guided by the underlying truth that I had experienced in that journey. That helped guide us a bit into the-

**John August:** John, let’s dig deeper on that, because I think those writers, as they’re approaching a piece of material, the question you’re always asking them is what is your personal connection to this. It sounds like your personal connection to this was you had the experience of being a person investigating a murder or asking people questions about a murder. Your assumptions of what you did, what you didn’t know, and the ethics of what you’re doing in terms of this investigation, how much of that carries through into the script, and how much of your quest is really the quest we see the actors going on, the characters going on?

**John Hoffman:** I think the spirit of what I had experienced is in the show. It was something Dan… I don’t know why I told this story in the first meeting with Dan Fogelman, but I couldn’t not, because I was so deep in it. It made us connected. I think that was the core of the show. That became the core of the show. The funniest moments can come at the most traumatic. The best laugh is at a funeral. The best laugh is at the most inappropriate time. The most bonding moment can be in the most shocking moment that you share with people that you may not know that well, and therefore your vulnerabilities are stripped bare and you are investing with people and around people that you wouldn’t normally.

All of those things felt like a basis of where I wanted the funny to live in this show and where I wanted the poignant to live in this show. It’s very much what I was experiencing. I was taking big leaps in my own life to go and meet people I didn’t know around my friend’s death, his family, his children. I didn’t know they existed before I found myself in Wisconsin meeting them and being completely charmed and having huge laughs with them out of this huge traumatic moment that they had all experienced. There’s that that feels to me connective tissue that we could play with. It felt like a bit of a guiding force for how to best play the comedy and the drama in our show while trying to keep it all fairly buoyant.

**John August:** Brittani, Abbott Elementary exists in a world that has The Office and Modern Family, so this convention of characters acknowledging the camera’s established. For that aspect of tone, you had it. Yet Abbott is so specific and uncomfortable at moments. We’re seeing things we don’t normally see on screen. Can you talk to us about when you’re in the room pitching on an Abbott Elementary or pitching an idea for that, what does that feel like? Because it sounds like [inaudible 00:17:34] that you were probably describing some really uncomfortable things and trying to find a funny way into it. What is the process of… You are a story editor on the season. What are you doing in the room as you’re pitching an idea?

**Brittani:** Luckily, I’m a producer now.

**John August:** Fantastic. Congratulations.

**Brittani:** Congratulations to me.

**John August:** Second season, love it.

**John Hoffman:** Go get it, Brittani.

**Brittani:** One of the first things that we did the first season was talk about the characters’ relation to the camera. Obviously, Ava really loves it. She brought them there. She is living for them. The rest of them, it varies from tacit acknowledgement to trying to hide to being caught by it constantly. I think even as far as character development, their relationship to the camera I think tells that story as well, so seeing how people are going to be reacting to the camera in the second season. Is there a way to even use the camera against other people or for your own devices? Are there ways to manipulate the camera? That’s definitely something that we are talking about all the time, because we also want to be very careful in how we develop the camera’s relationship outside of the school.

I think with mockumentaries, as they go on, you tend to expand the world a bit. This being set at a school, that will be outside of the school, possibly at apartments. It’s going to be a decision from us about where is it realistic for this camera to follow people. How much are we going to hang on to this convention? Because shows like Parks and Rec, they at a certain point left that behind a little.

**John August:** They can go anywhere.

**Brittani:** I think we just want to be aware of it so that if that ever happened, it’s happening because we’ve made a collective decision to move away from that. Right now, we’re still pretty firmly planted in the boundaries of that reality.

**John August:** I’m thinking back to The Office. This may not be the first time we really left The Office, but I remember the Diwali episode was one of the first times where we seen people outside of their normal space and comfort zones and you get a sense like, oh people go home to a place after they leave work, and they have a whole other life. It hadn’t even occurred to me that we really have not seen outside of the walls of the elementary school in that whole first season, but we really have been locked in there. I guess we go to the zoo in the last episode, but it’s literally a field trip.

**Brittani:** Yeah, we go to the zoo and we go to the nail salon.

**John August:** That’s right.

**Brittani:** At the nail salon, it is very much a topic about the school. We still buy why we’re there. We still get why we’re there.

**John August:** Let’s talk about the topics you do get into in Abbott Elementary, because especially in those first couple episodes, the stakes feel a little bit higher than most of these mockumentaries in the sense of there are kids who you want to see getting a good education, yet the system seems stacked up against them. The first episode is about literally getting rugs for the classrooms and the shenanigans you have to go through to get them. As you’re discussing those, do you bring up the uncomfortable idea and everyone kicks around trying to find the funny? What is the pitching process in the room about it, that goes from here’s a general idea to this becomes a center of an episode?

**Brittani:** We don’t pitch lesson-first. It really is what do we think is funny, what is the situation, and then from there we will layer things on or we’ll find things. It’s just an inherently political show, I think just from the fact that it’s at a public school, and we do have a very contentious relationship with public schools in our country right now. All of those things I think are really naturally interwoven, and it’s really easy for us to organically find those tie-ins that I think a lot of the time just come from a moment of dialog, a scene here or there. It’s not what is driving the story. It’s the background. It’s something that is constantly present and that we acknowledge when we have to. There is no separating the show or the characters or the situation from reality.

I think that’s something that makes some people a little uneasy if that is something that they’re facing in their real lives. It could be a pretty hard show to watch because we are having people not laugh at the situation, but laughter and humor is a coping mechanism. I think that that’s one of the ways that we want to use the show overall is there’s so much that’s happening constantly. This can be a nice little reprieve from that, while not completely divorcing yourself from what’s happening.

**John August:** Great. I want to talk to both of you about the documents that come along the way. We’ll start with you, Brittani. You’re in the writers room for Abbott Elementary. You’re figuring out an episode. That’s literally done on a whiteboard. I guess probably it’s a virtual whiteboard for a lot of this, because of the pandemic. At what point does it come off that board into an outline form? Are you pitching story areas? What are the documents that happen before there’s a script?

**Brittani:** For us that is a sort of general brainstorm doc of one or two lines of I think this would be funny, what if this happened. We just blue sky that for a bit. Then we’ll identify from within those what seems like an A story, what seems like a B story, do any of these seem like thematically they resonate with each other and trying to pair those together. Then we will do a story area. We’ll do just a few paragraphs about the A and B story. Then after the story area we’ll go to a pre-outline. We’ll have all the scene slugs and just some sentences below that about what’s happening, a little bit of dialog, a little bit of jokes. Then that’s when we’ll go to the outline.

**John August:** The story area is the first document that you’re turning in to other people outside of the room, that’s going to a studio and a network, taking a look at what the general idea of the episode is?

**Brittani:** Yes.

**John August:** John, curious on your side, what does it look like for the documents along the way? You have such a puzzle piece of a show. A lot of stuff can happen in an episode that ties into things two episodes later. What do the documents look like along the way?

**John Hoffman:** It’s so much so early for ours, because in some ways we have to have the whole season mapped out in general terms in order to make sense of episodes. A lot of it is focused early on in the writers room to map out the full thing. Mystery-wise we have what I call clotheslines. We’ve been nothing but a Zoom room. We couldn’t deal with whiteboards on writers room. It’s terrible. I know I should be better about these things, but I was like, no, I can’t. We had no whiteboards. I would call them clotheslines, the mystery clothesline, the character arc clothesline, the bucket of things that we want to do that feel like comedic premises that feel fertile. There was all that. Really, I have to do a full season pitch over Zoom to Hulu and 20th. We work on that pretty quickly to get that together.

**John August:** How long is the full season pitch?

**John Hoffman:** Forty-five minutes to an hour. It’s very visual and slap-happy and gets you all of the things we’re exploring in the season, a general three-act beat of a three-act structure for the season, and then the character arcs for the season. Then we jump into Episode 1, Episode 2. Then we accelerate it through all the things we still don’t know yet to come, but we can give general blocks of areas. Since the show itself is set up so that each episode has its own way in, a perspective through the narration of the podcast that is being done, and the template we now have of walking in from a perspective of a kind of New Yorker that you might not expect to be telling the story, we’re making this little bit of a tapestry of characters of New York through episode per episode. The big arc is laid out, and then each one feels like its own little episode I can hold in my hand is what I keep on saying to the writers, and understand what we’re telling in that story. We actually do not go to outlying stage to present to anyone but ourselves. We only give full scripts into studio and network. It’s painstaking to get there, but they have understood the entire arc of where we’re going by the time they’re getting a first episode.

**John August:** This presentation which is taking the place of the outlines, how far are you into your writers room by the time you’re putting together this presentation?

**John Hoffman:** It’s been at least two months, two and a half. It’s the most painstaking part of it. You make commitments to it that you have to be able to toss away. You also have to be prepared to fulfill them in better ways than you pitched them in that 45 minutes to an hour, for sure.

**John August:** Is Only Murders in the Building block-shot or are you shooting it episode by episode?

**John Hoffman:** We shoot two episodes in a block. We have one director handling two episodes. They’re always back to back, or have been so far. We have it mapped out in twos.

**John August:** Brittani, you were saying earlier that your episodes shoot in a five-day week.

**Brittani:** Yep, Monday through Friday.

**John August:** Wow, such a dream. We were also saying that that set that we’re seeing in the school is truly a set, and so you guys can do whatever you need to do in that one standing set, which is just remarkable.

**Brittani:** Yeah, we’re on a four in, one out schedule, or we were the first season. I think we might get a few more days out this season.

**John August:** Four in, one out means that four days you have to be on your sets and one day you can be out in the fields with trucks and trailers and doing all that stuff. That’s to get your exteriors for places that couldn’t be on there or if you need to go inside some place. Before this, you were working on A Black Lady Sketch Show. Is that entirely out?

**Brittani:** The season I was on, which was the first season, we were completely on location for everything.

**John August:** With Abbott, John’s talking about one director’s doing two episodes back to back, you’re mixing in scenes. With you guys, how far ahead of the episodes shooting do scripts tend to be?

**Brittani:** I think we’re going to have turned in maybe 10 episodes I believe is the goal before we start shooting the first episode.

**John August:** That’s fantastic. That’s great. I want to talk a little about career trajectories. We got right into the shows you’re making and not where you came from. John, what’s your origin story? I know you’re an actor as well as being a writer. How did you come up the ranks to be doing what you’re doing?

**John Hoffman:** I know, I make no sense when I look at my own IMDB or whatever it is or any resume I look at. I started as an actor in New York after college and then found myself working really hard to get cast in plays that I was then embarrassed to have people come and see. I thought why not try and write something. I found myself writing for myself as an actor. When I wrote, I wasn’t just writing monologues or one-man shows. I was writing plays. I found myself learning structure in certain ways. I’ve always been a storyteller, I think when I was a young person. That segued into coming out here to Los Angeles and getting work as an actor in TV shows, many TV shows that weren’t very good in certain ways. Some were wonderful experiences. It was again that muscle in me that was saying I think I do better with the things I write than it was a crazy ride of screenwriting for me where my writing got picked up by certain producers, certain studios.

At the time when writers got deals at studios, I was getting deals at Disney and Warner Brothers and writing screenplays and learning how to do that while being able to make a living. I segued that way, mainly into growing into more deeper love with storytelling that way, but also finding myself picking the projects that were harder to get made and finding my way into getting very close to getting certain things produced that felt very close, and after years of work and things like that, challenges all around, and finally relented and joined a team at HBO where I’d been developing many shows for them.

They finally said, would you like to join this new show called Looking? I thought, I’m going to have trouble hitting someone else’s target for a show. They know what they want. Let them do it. I consulted on it, because I loved the people that were involved. I remained great friends with them to this day. It allowed me to feel myself as like, oh I could be valuable in a room. I learned a lot and very quickly moved through the television world to land in this crazy place.

**John August:** Now, Brittani, you are an actor as well. What was your journey coming up as a writer?

**Brittani:** I started as a PA, background actor, writer for a website called Autostraddle just to make a few pennies here and there as I was trying to become a writer, because I really was steadfast that I was not going to work in a service industry. I just was going to be broke until I wasn’t broke. I did a web series called Words with Girls. Then I wrote a pilot version of that. I was part of this Listserv for Black people in the industry. Denise Davis, who was one of Issa Rae’s producers at the time, and continues to be, sent out an email, and I cold responded with a pilot of mine. Issa ended up independently producing it alongside two other pilots. Right when we were going to try to take those out on the town, Insecure got picked up. That was enough to give me a little bit of credibility.

I ended up working on a BET variety show. I ended up doing Billy On the Street in one of the earlier seasons, and really just through luck and randomness and being prepared, just continued to I guess somersault from one thing to the next, until I made a feature called Suicide Kale that did the LGBTQ film circuit, won a bunch of awards there, audience awards, comedy awards, etc. That is ultimately what landed me my first scripted job, which was Take My Wife on Seeso, RIP.

**John August:** Oh, Seeso. It sounds like you say lucky, but also you were putting yourself in positions where luck could strike, having the courage to blind submit to Issa Rae’s producer. You’re making those choices. You had the material that you could send, and you weren’t afraid to share it with people. It sounds like you were happy to work for people who wanted to employ you. Didn’t matter whether Seeso was a real network or not, you were there and eager to do it, ready to step up and show that you could do these things. We have a couple questions from listeners. Most of our listeners are aspiring writers and writer-directors. Maybe you guys could weigh in on what you think they should do. Megana, do you want to start us off?

**Megana:** Great. We got a question from Tim from Washington, D.C. who asks, “I’m an East Coastie writer-director who moved to Los Angeles from 2016 to 2021 after having made an indie film that sold at Sundance. Though I improved as a writer and improved my network, I had so-so relationships with my reps and wasn’t really able to get anything going during my time in LA. My question is whether I’d be better served living in LA year-round versus instead living where I would like and visiting Los Angeles for a few weeks or months out of the year. I’m trying to cobble together one of those careers where I can write feature scripts for myself to direct, occasionally write features for hire, develop television, and occasionally direct for TV.”

**John August:** John, what’s your instinct? Do you think that Tim from DC should come to Los Angeles? Should he go to New York? Right now in 2022, what should Tim be doing?

**John Hoffman:** It’s hard to say for Tim personally. I don’t know what his life is like. It is hard for me to imagine a place, I hate to say this in this way because it sounds so corny, but more embracing of talent than Los Angeles. New York is tough. New York was tough for me. New York is theater-based. I love the theater. I found it hard to break into television and film through New York. People do. I know they do. I think in general the swath, the breadth of opportunity in Los Angeles is just greater for what it sounds like Tim wants to do. In the world of film, independent film, you can find your way easily. I was just talking about Looking and talking about my friend Andrew Haigh who broke in by making an independent film in England for $45,000.

**John August:** That’s Weekend.

**John Hoffman:** Exactly. That’s a great model. Not to say you can’t do it. It can happen anywhere if you’re working at your craft and making it in the way that you want, bring yourself to it. I do think there’s no way to get around the fact that there is more work, more opportunity, more people in the business, more conversations you can have with people that can lead to opportunities.

**John August:** Brittani, what’s your instinct for Tim?

**Brittani:** I can’t speak to the feature aspect of it, because that just might be something that’s completely different. As far as the jobs that I’ve gotten and the friends that I’ve made that have helped me make my feature, that was all a product of being in LA. Every job that I’ve had I can connect back to a chance meeting or a random text or some event rather than I can trace it back to me being incredibly talented, which I am.

That is an additional thing that never would’ve been any use to me if I hadn’t been out there making connections, making friends, and just being around. I tell people this all the time. I hear people when they’re hiring. I hear people when they’re casting. So much of it is, oh, I just saw so-and-so at this coffee shop. Oh, I just ran into so-and-so at the movie theater. There’s so much just recency bias of the last person I saw is the person that I’m thinking of and the person I’m going to hire. If you just do not show up and be in people’s faces, it’s just easy to forget you, no matter how talented you are, unfortunately.

**John August:** I’ve said this on the podcast several times. I bumped into Melissa McCarthy at Starbucks. She’d been in Go. She’d had a tiny part in Go. She was great in it, but the movie hadn’t come out yet. I bumped into her in Starbucks off of Melrose and said, “Oh, you’re amazing in the movie. I’m going to write something for you.” Then I did. Then we ended up writing a bunch of stuff together. She ended up being in my little short film, and our careers grew together. Being in the place where people are trying to make film and TV is really helpful just for the accidental overlaps of interest. I think, Tim, if you have the opportunity, if you didn’t like LA the first time, maybe give it another shot and maybe just find ways to put yourself out there more so you’re bumping into people the way that I bumped into people and Brittani bumped into people. Megana, do you have another question for us?

**Megana:** Yeah. Jason asks, “I understand that new writers are generally expected to specialize if they want to get anywhere with their career. How do you choose which path to take when, for example, your first love is feature comedy but your idea generator tends to produce six times as many pitches for TV dramas? Assuming the quality of my writing in both is comparable and at a professional level, and that I would enjoy drama television writing only slightly less than feature writing, would I be better off investing in writing this one comedy feature idea or pursuing several drama samples?”

**John August:** Brittani, what do you think, sample-wise? You were writing samples I’m guessing for years. Were you trying to specialize? Were you trying to just write a huge variety of things?

**Brittani:** I knew I wanted to work in comedy, but even comedy right now, there’s such a diverse set of what is considered a comedy. You got hard comedies, you got drama comedies, you got mixed genres. I think honestly, it being good matters more than it necessarily falling into any specific bucket. I’ve been writing off of the same sample for, I’m not kidding, probably four years at this point. It’s just because it’s really good. It’s just the one that people gravitate towards the most. Though I have a large selection, it’s really just getting it to the point where you feel like it really exhibits your voice and really is something that only you could write. That should come across no matter what genre it is.

**John August:** John, what’s your instinct? Do you think Jason should try to specialize or branch out?

**John Hoffman:** I agree with Brittani. I came at this, as I said, as an actor. My path to what scripts I wrote, the genres and all of it, was wildly an actor’s point of view, like I want to play every part and be comedic and be dramatic. I confused a lot of people, truthfully, in the screenwriting world when I was doing a World War II epic and then I was doing a really straight down the line comedy. Then I directed and wrote a family film for MGM. It’s all over the map. I agree with Brittani. You find the thing that is the great story and tell it the best way you can. That’s going to be the ticket I think more than anything, than genre or anything like that. I think the most personal and the most connective to what you do and what you love and what you respond to or what you recognize out in the world as a great story that no one’s told yet or a great story no one’s told in the way that you want to tell it, that’s the thing that ultimately will feel signature to you. That’s everything.

**John August:** I’ve said before on the podcast that I got pigeonholed really quickly as a guy who does kids movies. My first two paid jobs were A Wrinkle in Time and How to Eat Fried Worms. I was just getting sent material that was about gnomes, elves, dwarves, and Christmas. I was just very much pegged as a safe family guy. Writing Go was really helpful for me, because that became my sample for years. You could look at Go and see it as a comedy. You could look at it and see it as a drama, an action movie. Whatever you wanted to see in that movie, you could see. Writing something like that that can serve more than one purpose can be really helpful as well. It’s time for our One Cool Things, where we recommend things that people should check out. Brittani, do you have anything you want to recommend our listeners investigate?

**Brittani:** I want people to check out the Knock LA Voter Guide because we have an election coming up on June 7th.

**John August:** I had a hunch that you were going to talk politics. Tell us about this guide. Tell us what are some races that we really need to be keeping our eyes on.

**Brittani:** The races that I think people should really be paying attention to are the mayoral race. We have a billionaire who is running, Rick Caruso, not great. I don’t know if you’re a billionaire yourself.

**John August:** There are no billionaires on this Zoom.

**Brittani:** Then maybe that might be your guy. If you are not a billionaire, then I would caution against supporting his candidacy. The sheriff’s race, our sheriff currently, Alex Villanueva, is the laughingstock of the nation. Actually was just on John Oliver’s show. He has been putting out some really, I think, hilarious while also deeply disturbing ads, if you haven’t had a chance to check those out. They’re very cinematic. If you’re a filmmaker, they’re worth checking out. Paying attention to the sheriff’s race and seeing who else is out there that you might consider supporting, because those are the two really big ones. The Knock LA Voter Guide if you are progressive, which I think most people in LA consider themselves to be, even if that’s not necessarily the case. You should check it out.

**John August:** One thing I would stress is that this election could be a preliminary election. There could be runoffs for mayor and for sheriff, but not if either of these candidates get over 50%. You may have different opinions about who you want to be the mayor that’s not Rick Caruso, but if you really don’t want Rick Caruso to be the mayor, just don’t vote for Rick Caruso, but definitely vote, to keep him below that threshold, same for sheriff. We can have a whole other podcast about why we vote for sheriff, which just seems really crazy, something you’d want to appoint and then be able to fire when they are terrible. That’s a whole different podcast on law enforcement. John, do you have anything to share with us? Do you have a One Cool Thing?

**John Hoffman:** I love that we go political deep, because it’s all I can think about these days. I do think that we’re in a time, we’re heading to a time, it’s the most tumultuous time I’ve known in my life. I think any time you’re wondering what to do with yourself as a writer or a creator, if you’re not looking to tell the stories that are happening now in real ways, that I watch what’s happening in the Ukraine and recognizing that’s a camera sitting in someone’s house that’s changing the world right now. The personal stories are going to be the ones that make the most impact. To me, that’s everything right now is to look to ways to lean into making the world better. It’s our vote. It’s our activism for the things that matter most to us right now. Find the ones that feel straight to the heart for yourself, and don’t hesitate to get out.

**John August:** Sounds good. My One Cool Thing is an article by Ameena Walker, who’s writing for a newsletter called The Prepared, which is actually a really great newsletter you should also subscribe to. Basically, it talks through the logistics industry and how products go from place to place and how things get made. This article that she did was about… The headline is, “Each year, millions of barrels are shipped from New York City to the Caribbean. Here’s why, how, and the economics behind it.”

She’s talking about how people from the Caribbean Islands who live in New York City are always sending stuff back to home. They’re always sending stuff back to the islands. The way they do this is they buy these barrels that are about 40 bucks, and they pack it full of all the stuff that they can find to stick in there. It could be toasters. It could be rice. It could be whatever. They seal it up, and they take it to a specific delivery place that just ships stuff on boats to the Caribbean Islands. Then it carries from there to individual homes. It’s just such a specific thing that I’ve never seen before, because I always think about sending money home. I always think people who live here are sending money back to the countries they come from. In this case it literally is a barrel.

It just felt like such an amazing story opportunity for getting that barrel, what you’re putting in that barrel, that barrel gets lost. It just felt like a very cool story area that I’ve never seen before. It’s a good reminder to me about why it’s important to try to make sure we get writers on staffs who have a range of experiences, because I wouldn’t know this was a thing that existed. It just feels like such a great comedic or dramatic potential that I wouldn’t know about if I hadn’t found this article or if someone hadn’t pointed me to it. This is by Ameena Walker in The Prepared. We’ll have a link in the show notes to this.

That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Daniel Mix. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. Brittani, what are you on Twitter?

**Brittani:** @bishilarious.

**John August:** It’s true, B is hilarious. John, are you on Twitter?

**John Hoffman:** I am, yes, @johnnyhoffman.

**John August:** Fantastic. We have T-shirts. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the 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 being queer in Hollywood and queer stuff, queer stuff in general. John, Brittani, an absolute pleasure having you on the podcast. Thank you so much for joining me.

**John Hoffman:** Thank you.

**Brittani:** Thank you so much for having me. Really would be wild to go back to 2010 me and say this is happening.

**John August:** Why so? You read my blog, didn’t you?

**Brittani:** I did, yes. I credit your blog for really teaching me a lot of the underpinnings of screenwriting.

**John August:** Fantastic. Makes me feel so happy and so old.
[Bonus Segment]

**John August:** There are three queer writers on this Bonus Segment for the podcast. I guess I just want to start, I was out really from the very start of my career. Was that true for the two of you as well?

**John Hoffman:** Almost. I would say because I started as an actor, it was a tricky moment and a tricky time for me. I was very cautious about that, because clearly I’m leading man material. No. It was all that dance. It was just a different decade. I came out probably very shortly after I realized I don’t want to be an actor. I actually wondered if the last part I got on a television show is actually a replacement happening that never happened. It was a question as to whether I was going to get replaced, because I was supposed to be a character that was deeply invested in women. I don’t know that I was pulling it off as clearly as I could’ve been. That was a moment.

**John August:** You were Frasier Crane-ing it a bit there?

**John Hoffman:** Exactly.

**John August:** Or Niles maybe, a little too Niles?

**John Hoffman:** Yeah, a little bit of Niles. That was for a moment. Then it was just the greatest relief and creativity just opened me up completely to be able to just own everything and be honest about it.

**John August:** Brittani, how about you?

**Brittani:** Yes, my professional career, was out the whole time. I think when I first started writing plays in college, I was definitely still grappling with some things. I think the arts is how I figured some of that stuff out.

**John August:** John, I would say your show, there’s not a lot of directly queer content. I would say it has a queer sensibility. I’m not even sure why to say that. I guess there’s a New Yorker quality. The aesthetics of it feel kind of gay. To what degree do you think your show has queer elements to it?

**John Hoffman:** I hope it does. I think all the things you point out, like New York, the theatrical way we’re telling the stories.

**John August:** Splash the musical feels like a-

**John Hoffman:** Splash the musical.

**John August:** It’s a very queer idea.

**John Hoffman:** Not to mention the poster of the show I really want to see, which is in Marty’s, Oliver’s apartment, Newark, Newark. All of that sensibility, I can’t help it. It was crying out for everyone I knew in prewar apartment buildings in New York City when I was living there, when I was forming my creative identity there, all of the characters, all of the richness of New York. It’s representation within the fabric of the truth of New York. There are representations, Detective Williams, played by the amazing Da’Vine Joy Randolph, who narrates our Episode 6. She and her wife were struggling with naming their child.

**John August:** I forgot that, but yes, absolutely.

**John Hoffman:** That’s what I hope. It’s almost like you want to blend it all together as New York does. I think that’s part of it is the sensibility and the storytelling feels not afraid to be filled with pathos and filled with struggle and vulnerability and everything that makes people laugh in the deepest way in the queer community for me.

**John August:** Brittani, on the projects you’ve been working on, how often do you feel like you’re able to bring some aspect of queer culture into it, or to what degree do you feel like that’s helped you sell some jokes, make some things work? To what degree are you able to bring that into the room?

**Brittani:** The first couple of scripted series that I worked on both had queer main characters. With Black Lady Sketch Show, definitely was able to get some queer sketches in there. They’ve continued to do that even now that I’m gone, because there are plenty of queer women in that room. Then with Abbott, I think this is probably the first time where there hasn’t been a very obvious queer hook to the show, and so finding moments in Abbott I think has been interesting. I think the moments that we have found, people think they’re really fun. As we grow the world, I think we’ll be able to see more queer characters in ways that I would like to see them more, which is just existing and just living their lives and having normal jobs.

We did have a moment like that in the first season actually, where there’s a delivery woman who is just very clearly a stud lesbian, and it’s very quick, but so many people messaged me just being like, “That person was hot. Is there a way to bring them back? Also, it’s so fun that there’s just a queer person existing and there was no commentary on it.”

**John August:** A person existing on screen is such a signifier. I just remember growing up watching TV shows, and you just see like, oh, that’s an actual person who does that thing. I grew up with… We had Paul Lynde in the center square of Hollywood Squares, but we didn’t have a lot of actual… I think part of the reason why we love Bewitched so much is that, again, you have Paul Lynde, but you have that sense of it has a queer sensibility even if there are not openly queer characters. I feel like the one delivery person in that background shot isn’t a big thing and yet it is for that kid who’s watching that wants to say oh, I see myself in that character.

**John Hoffman:** In the storytelling, I feel that. That’s so right. I was recently talking to someone about What’s Up Doc and how that’s informed our show in a certain way. Again, not outwardly queer characters, but the sensibility in the storytelling, I remember that so clearly opening up my brain and like, why am I into this and why am I so deeply intrigued and all of that, poking around at that to give people the sense of possibility and wonder about a way to tell a story that’s a little bit heightened maybe and connective tissue to more characters than would typically be on your TV screens.

**John August:** One of the things I loved about Looking was that that show was full of gay men and other queer people who were not saints, and they were actually kind of obnoxious at times. They didn’t know what they wanted. There’s that thing, either the gay people have to be funny or they have to be heroic and saintly. In this case, they were neither. That was remarkable in its time.

**John Hoffman:** Not to mention Chris Perfetti from Abbott Elementary.

**John August:** Who is delightful. Let’s get back to Chris Perfetti because he’s great. He reads as gay to a gay person immediately, and yet the show holds off on the reveal until pretty late on that he has a boyfriend. Clearly, everyone else in the universe knows that he’s gay, even though it hasn’t been said. When his boyfriend is revealed, they first mention his boyfriend, that’s news to the characters in the show. Did you guys always know that the reveal was going to come about when it did?

**Brittani:** We did. We talked about it early on, because there are certain things that we as writers know about the characters that we’re just keeping close to our chest. I think for queer people, we definitely were like, oh, obviously this is family. Most of the world is not queer. People were genuinely surprised. We even tried to point to it a little earlier in the episode where he gets roasted. Someone calls him gay Pete Buttigieg, which he says is repetitive. A lot of people didn’t catch that. A few people on Twitter did. I think it’s looking back when you rewatch the season, a lot of people will be like, okay.

They were layering that in without explicitly saying it. We definitely didn’t want to make it a huge moment, because he’s existing in a world that knows that he’s gay and has accepted him. It’s more about what is it about his relationship that is revelatory to his relationship with Janine, rather than it just being a shock that he has a boyfriend, and then being sure to bring that boyfriend in later in the season and not just be something that we pay lip service to and then never really see that relationship.

**John August:** In some ways I think I blame Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory for people being confused about the Chris Perfetti character, because Sheldon Cooper, any queer person can see that’s a gay person, that’s a queer person, and yet the show makes them straight. It always feels off to me that it’s not acknowledging that this character is who we think he is.

**John Hoffman:** I agree.

**John August:** That’s my little rant about Big Bang Theory.

**John Hoffman:** I agree. I also just want to say what I love is the thing that we’re doing now. I don’t know, starting with Looking for me, just because that was something I worked on, but I loved that discussion. I loved so many of the discussions around the writers room on that show and how it always had to be about character. It wasn’t the fact that they were gay that you were talking about by the end of Looking. Maybe that was one of its problems with connecting to the gay community in some ways. I think it was about the character flaws and about other things. Of course they’re all in bed with each other. They’re all looking for people of the same sex and all that. It’s all there. It’s connecting through character and the moves of which, the way in which you approach love and romance and relationships and struggles with your own history that tie in, certainly, but make it more dimensional. That’s all I hope for, to continually make this all the more dimensional and just unafraid.

**John August:** I think what’s crucial about the Chris Perfetti character… I’m sorry, I’m forgetting the character’s name, so I’m just calling him Chris Perfetti.

**Brittani:** Jacob.

**John August:** Jacob. What I love about Jacob is he’s sipping a character independent of his being gay. We can see all of the choices that he’s making and what he wants to do and how he keeps bringing up Africa. Those are all very specific things that have nothing to do with his sexuality, so that he doesn’t have to carry a lot of water for being gay. He doesn’t have to carry that into the storylines.

**Brittani:** Yet we really try to make him being queer inform that specificity. We talked so much about how does that white person become that sort of white person. We’ve talked really extensively about his upbringing and what it was like for him coming out and what are the situations that led to him being the way that he is. I think that it is deeply informed by the fact that he grew up a queer kid. Getting to explore that and finding ways to explore that as the show goes on is something I’m personally really excited about.

**John August:** Talk to us about those conversations. Are those being written down in some sort of bible form? They’re not canon yet, but they’re what you guys are thinking about for his history. You have some sense of who his parents are, what his family is, where he’s from, even though it’s not been established in the show yet?

**Brittani:** Yeah. We just have tons and tons of notes. What we’ll find I think a lot of the times right now in the second season is a lot of false starts where we think this is this story that’s going to bring this to the surface, and then we’ll get to writing it and we’ll go, “No, not yet.” It’s a little bit there, you’ll get a little bit here, but we’re not going full bore into that yet. It’s just I think a lot of excitement about really wanting to explore so much about so many of the characters, but still the confines of a half-hour sitcom. You really only have so much time. Wanting to give it the space that it needs to breathe and really hit I think is just something that we’re going to keep trying to do and keep finding exactly which stories are going to allow us to tell those stories the way that we want to. We’re just tracking all of it, talking about it all the time.

**John August:** Fantastic. John and Brittani, absolute wonderful time talking with you both about queer things. Congratulations to both of you on your second seasons. I cannot wait to see them.

**John Hoffman:** Thank you, John, so much. Great talking to you.

**Brittani:** Thank you.

**John Hoffman:** Great talking to you too, Brittani.

**John August:** Cool.

Links:

* [Only Murders in the Building](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12851524/) on Hulu
* [Abbott Elementary](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14218830/?ref_=nm_knf_t3) on ABC/Hulu
* [John Hoffman](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0388971/?ref_=tt_ov_wr) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/JohnnyHoffman)
* [Brittani Nichols](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4575382/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/BisHilarious)
* [Remittance by the Barrel](https://theprepared.org/features-feed/shipping-barrels) by Ameena Walker
* [The Knock LA Voter Guide](https://knock-la.com/los-angeles-progressive-voter-guide-june-primary-election-2022/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Daniel Mintz ([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/551standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 549: The Sideways Effect, Transcript

June 3, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/the-sideways-effect).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode has a few bad words from Paul Giamatti. Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is Episode 549 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

In Episode 547 we touched briefly on the Sideways effect. Basically, movies sometimes have a real-world impact, not just in culture but also politically and economically. We see the Black representation onscreen or depictions of nuclear power. Movies can make things seem cool or uncool or scary. As screenwriters, we want to be aware of the influence our writing can have.

The term Sideways effect comes from the 2004 film Sideways, written by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor from the Rex Pickett. Who better to ask about the Sideways effect than the writers themselves? Luckily, someone else just did, so I don’t have to. Today’s episode comes from the amazing Slate podcast Decoder Ring, hosted by Willa Paskin. It’s been one of my One Cool Things before, but this recent episode on the sideways effect was so good, I asked Willa if I could run it as a Scriptnotes episode. She said yes and agreed to have a chat afterwards with me about sideways and other cultural mysteries she’s investigated. Stick around after her episode for our conversation. For our Premium Members, Craig and I will chat about what he’s missed these last few weeks that he’s been gone. Enjoy.

**Willa Paskin:** In October 2004, the movie Sideways was released in theaters. It’s about two guys who go on a bachelors week to Wine Country. One of them is a cad who’s about to get married. The other, played by Paul Giamatti, is Miles, a hardcore wine-lover.

****Miles Raymond:**** We’re going to drink a lot of good wine. We’re going to play some golf. We’re going to eat some great food and enjoy the scenery, and we’re going to send you off in style, mon frere.

**Willa:** Sideways is a small, mellow movie, but it got big. It grossed $110 million worldwide and received five Oscar nominations. It also upended the wine industry. Famously, it is said to have done this with one line of dialogue. It arrives about a third of the way in as the guy are preparing to meet up with two women.

**Jack Cole:** If they want to drink Merlot, we’re drinking Merlot.

**Miles Raymond:** No, if anybody orders Merlot, I’m leaving. I am not drinking any fucking Merlot!

**Willa:** At the time this line was first uttered, Merlot was a popular wine people were chugging down by the glass full. Legend has it that after this line, after, “I’m not drinking any fucking Merlot,” Merlot went ahead and tanked.

**Laura Lippman:** It’s like I’m RoboCop and that’s one of my directives now, no Merlot.

**Willa:** Laura Lippman is a crime novelist who saw Sideways when it first came out. Did you notice right away that it just put you off Merlot?

**Laura:** Yeah, right away. Right away. It was like a battle cry. I have literally tried to kind of overcome that, standing in neighborhood liquor stores and looking at what’s for sale. I can’t do it. I bet I would like Merlot. I think I did like Merlot. It’s so weird. It’s like I’m the most susceptible, suggestible person on the planet.

**Willa:** When it comes to Sideways, Merlot, and wine in general, she’s not the only one. I’m Willa Paskin and this is Decoder Ring. In the mid-2000s, the movie Sideways had an impact on the wine industry so notable that it has a name: the Sideways effect. In this episode we’re going to be looking closely at that effect and what it really is. Did a line in a movie depress Merlot sales for decades? Did a monologue jumpstart demand for a whole other varietal? Did Paul Giamatti’s sad sack character change our relationship to yet another wine, one that was barely mentioned in the film? Today on Decoder Ring, all of these questions and this one. Is it long past time to start drinking some fucking Merlot?

The Sideways effect is not just one thing. There are a number of components to it. I’m going to begin with the best known part of the phenomenon, the one I started with, the theory that Sideways shanked Merlot sales. When Sideways arrived in theaters, Merlot was the trendiest red wine in America, but America had not always had a trendiest wine. The country had been largely indifferent to wine well into the mid 20th century. California whites caught on in the 1970s when one of them won a blind taste test against world-class French wines. Then in the early ‘90s, red wine got a boost when 60 Minutes aired a segment on the so-called French Paradox. The paradox was that French people ate very fatty foods but had much lower rates of heart disease than Americans. The 60 Minutes piece came to a definitive conclusion about what was going on.

**Morley Safer:** The answer to the riddle the explanation of the paradox may lie in this inviting glass.

**Willa:** Sales of red wine spiked, and none benefited more than Merlot, which by the end of the decade would become the most popular red wine in the country.

**Tim Farrell:** Merlot is a good candidate because couple of things.

**Willa:** Tim Farrell is a wine buyer for the wine store Brooklyn Wine Exchange.

**Tim:** This is not actually too simplifying to say. It’s an easy word to pronounce. The other part is that it’s fairly fruit-forward and the tannins aren’t very strong, and the acidities are fairly low, especially when it’s made in California. It’s like a very soft, easy-drinking kind of red wine.

**Willa:** Merlot is most famously grown in Bordeaux, France, largely as a blending grape, but the American boom was centered in California, where production of Merlot quadrupled in the 1990s. Merlot is a relatively easy grape to grow, adaptable to a range of climates and soils, but that doesn’t mean it should be grown everywhere.

**Tim:** Grapes are a funny fruit because the more grape vines has to struggle to ripen, the more flavorful the fruit is.

**Willa:** California’s cool coastal areas are good for Merlot, but during the Merlot boom, it also started being planted in California’s breadbasket, the hot, fertile Central Valley.

**Tim:** That’s where Driscoll’s strawberries come from. If Merlot grows too easy in the irrigated, flat, sunny Central Valley, you’re going to have really bad grapes. That’s where the really bad Merlot grapes were coming from.

**Willa:** The mediocre grapes led to a lot of thin, too sweet Merlot, and even the better stuff was often made to be an affordable, easy sipper, the kind of inoffensive fruit-forward gateway wine offered by the glass and sold in Franzia boxes, all of which made Merlot something of a joke to wine people.

**Rex Pickett:** It was uncool to drink Merlot.

**Willa:** In the 1990s, Rex Pickett was a struggling writer living in Santa Monica.

**Rex:** I’ll try to be brief. My life was shit and I made some films and parted company with my ex-wife, whatever. I started going to wine tastings up at a little wine store. There were doctors and lawyers and snobs and whatever. It was just generally conceded that if you liked Merlot, that you were either a wine philistine or an idiot.

**Willa:** Rex regularly went up to the Santa Ynez Valley, just north of Los Angeles. As Wine Country goes, it’s nowhere near as famous as Sonoma or Napa, which are hundreds of miles north, closer to San Francisco. This region in Santa Barbara County was sleepy and underdeveloped, dotted with horse stables, golf courses, and vineyards.

**Rex:** There’s nobody up there. I’d go up midweek. I was broke. I’d go play golf for $25 on a grape course. I’d go wine tasting. It was free.

**Willa:** Rex poured these trips and his thoughts about wine into a book called Sideways. The main character, Miles, shared a lot with Rex. He was also a frustrated, divorced writer whose favorite wine was Pinot Noir, and who had the reflexive disdain for Merlot, of a 1990s oenophile. When Rex finished the book, it was rejected by dozens of publishers, but it ended up getting to Alexander Payne, the director of Election and About Schmidt.

**Alexander Payne:** I read the book actually on a flight from London to Los Angeles. When I’m reading something that I think could be a movie, I’m just praying, “Oh, please stay good until the end. Don’t come up with some gimmick or guns or violence or something. Keep it a good, sad, funny human story.”

**Willa:** When his plane landed, he called his agent and said he wanted to make Sideways into a movie. Payne is also into wine, and when he co-wrote the screenplay, he knew the no fucking Merlot line was a good one.

**Alexander:** People who knew about wine knew how much crappy Merlot there was. Then I think people who didn’t know about wine and always order Merlot were called out in an affectionate way. It had this kind of snowball effect. It was a good snowballing joke.

**Willa:** It seemed to roll right over Merlot’s reputation. What do you guys make?

**Jeff Bundschu:** We’ve been growing these Bordeaux varietals for as long as I’ve been around.

**Willa:** Jeff Bundschu is the sixth-generation owner of Gundlach Bundschu, a family vineyard in Sonoma that specializes in, among other things, Merlot.

**Jeff:** A good Merlot is pretty sexy, voluptuous, round, and intense, without the mouth-puckering tannins or austerity of an ageable cabernet.

**Willa:** Jeff agrees that in the 1990s a lot of Merlot on the market just wasn’t very good. When Sideways called this out, his Merlot, the high-quality stuff, got caught up in it.

**Jeff:** You’d have thought Spider-Man himself had swung in and tossed out Merlot.

**Willa:** Scores of newspapers chronicled Merlot’s troubles. Katie Couric, while hosting The Today Show, said she heard she wasn’t supposed to drink it anymore. People started coming into Jeff’s tasting room and saying they just did not drink Merlot. Pretty much every winemaker and seller has a similar anecdote. Steve Cuellar, a professor of economics at Sonoma State University, has heard plenty of them.

**Steve Cuellar:** It was literally just repeated over and over and over, tasting room after tasting room after tasting room, even to this day. I just figured, okay, let’s try to measure it. What is the effect?

**Willa:** In 2009, he co-authored a paper called The Sideways Effect: A Test for Changes in the Demand for Merlot and Pinot Noir Wines. It looked at wine sales in supermarkets in the four years after Sideways.

**Steve:** The movie was released in October 22, 2004. Prior to that, Merlot was experiencing a really strong growth rate. After that, sales really just collapsed. If we do a percentage growth rate, it literally goes from, I think, 13% growth rate before to almost 0 afterwards.

**Willa:** Steve was showing me a line graph as we were talking, and it’s the shape of a steep mountain that just abruptly flattens out.

**Steve:** When I first saw this, I’m like, holy cow, this is going to be a huge effect. At least I’ll be able to put some numbers on it and all that kind of good stuff.

**Willa:** First, he wanted to check Merlot’s sales against a control, to look at another wine to see what happened to its sales.

**Steve:** We figured, let’s choose something that isn’t mentioned in the movie. Let’s just avoid the red wine and we’ll choose Chardonnay. It’s got large sales. It should be equivalent to Merlot.

**Willa:** In fact, I think of Chardonnay as the Merlot of white wine.

**Steve:** Exactly. It is the big seller.

**Willa:** As big as Merlot was, Chardonnay was bigger. It was and is far and away the most popular wine in America. When Steve looked at the sales numbers for Chardonnay, he found something surprising. He pulled up the graph for me.

**Steve:** When you do that…

**Willa:** It looks the same. The graph of Chardonnay’s sales growth right after Sideways has the same shape as Merlot’s, a steep mountain that just abruptly tables off. After Sideways, in the sample he was looking at, Chardonnay sales had flat-lined too.

**Steve:** Which is just bizarre. This is really the gist of the paper. Yeah, Merlot did crash, but it probably wasn’t the result of the movie Sideways, because Chardonnay, which wasn’t featured anywhere in the movie, good or bad, really experienced the same crash.

**Willa:** Based on these findings, Steve feels strongly that we only think the Sideways effect is real and that there must be another explanation for what happened to Merlot, one that applies to Chardonnay too. In the decade-plus since this paper was published, Steve has asked dozens of people if they have such an explanation, and they don’t. There is a sense among wine insiders that Merlot sales were already cooling off, its low quality catching up with it. Nothing can stay trendy forever. There was no major event, no financial crash, no natural disaster, nothing of note to explain such a dramatic change except Sideways. What does Sideways have to do with Chardonnay? That’s not a rhetorical question. I think there’s an answer to it. Before we can get there, I want to turn to the next component of the Sideways effect. Let’s put a pin in Merlot and Chardonnay for now and talk about a wine that Paul Giamatti’s Miles actually likes.

**Miles:** Pinot’s a very thin-skinned grape that doesn’t like constant heat or humidity, very delicate.

**Willa:** If the first theory about Sideways is that it tanked Merlot sales, the second is that it boosted sales of Pinot Noir. Pinot, wine experts tell me, is a subtle wine that is exquisitely sensitive to the environment in which it is grown. Two Pinots from vineyards just a thousand yards apart can taste really different. This distinct expression is part of what geeks wine people out.

**Kathy Joseph:** Those of us in the wine world feel once you love Pinot Noir, you love Pinot Noir, and you explore Pinot Noir. It’s very sensual and it’s exciting and it’s delicious.

**Willa:** Kathy Joseph is the owner of Fiddlehead Cellars, a vineyard and winery in the Santa Ynez Valley. She makes a Sauvignon Blanc that was name-checked in the film, but she also makes a Pinot Noir, which she readily admits is tricky to grow.

**Kathy:** Probably more than any grape, Pinot Noir does demand a certain environment for it to excel. It needs a cool climate. It needs good drainage. It needs a place that isn’t too rich. What happens is that it’s all expensive.

**Willa:** All of this had made Pinot a kind of specialty grape in America, a fanatics grape, as someone put it to me, grown in small quantities and rarely offered by the glass. Then along came Sideways. See, Pinot Noir is Miles’s favorite wine. He gives a beautiful speech about it, in which it’s clear he’s not just describing a grape, he’s also describing himself.

**Miles:** It’s thin-skinned, temperamental, ripens early. It’s not a survivor like Cabernet, which can just grow anywhere and thrive even when it’s neglected. No, Pinot needs constant care and attention. Only if somebody really takes the time to understand Pinot’s potential can then coax it into its fullest expression. Oh, its flavors, they’re just the most haunting and brilliant and thrilling and subtle and ancient on the planet.

**Willa:** Upon hearing this ode to Pinot, Americans started buying it in droves.

**Kathy:** Absolutely. Yes, there was an uptick in immediate interest for Pinot Noir.

**Willa:** A Nielsen analysis found sales of Pinot spiked 16% in the months after the movie came out. Wine producers were caught off guard by Pinot’s overnight popularity, and there was a mad dash to plant more of it. In California, production of Pinot Noir has increased 75% in the years since. There was a lag at first, because it takes four to five years for a grapevine to bear usable fruit. There were other difficulties too, starting with the price. Tim Farrell, the wine buyer you heard from earlier, was working at a sports bar in Indianapolis in 2006 when a customer ordered a glass of Pinot.

**Tim:** I remember thinking, oh, we do have a Pinot Noir, and it’s $12 a glass. I thought, that’s insane. We have Bud Light for $2.50. Why would you ever want a $12 glass of wine?

**Willa:** Pinot grown correctly is expensive. It just takes a lot of care. After the movie came out, not only was there more demand for Pinot, there was more demand for Pinot from casual wine drinkers, the kind of folks who want an affordable Pinot. You start to see a version of what happened to Merlot happening to Pinot. Pinot is planted in places that it probably shouldn’t be and attended to less carefully, and that means less quality product makes it into bottles. Another paper, one from 2021, found that most of the frenzied Pinot plantings of the mid-2000s were in the Central Valley, the sunny, fertile, hot, strawberry-growing Central Valley that wasn’t even good for adaptable Merlot.

**Tim:** Then you have a flood of really bad Pinot Noir coming out by about 2008, 2009.

**Willa:** Even good Pinot Noir didn’t necessarily deliver what a casual wine drinker was looking for, like the person who ordered a $12 glass of Pinot at Tim Farrell’s sports bar.

**Tim:** They returned it. They said, “Oh, this is watery. I don’t like this at all.” I took it back. I didn’t know anything about wine at the time. The flavor profile and the texture and the body of Pinot Noir is not actually what people were expecting. They were Merlot drinkers, and so they were probably expecting a big, rich, full-bodied, powerful wine, and it’s exact opposite.

**Willa:** Wine producers needed to please these customers that wanted a Pinot that didn’t taste like a Pinot. Fortunately, there were a lot of other grapes around, because remember, growers hadn’t been expecting Pinot to be the next big thing.

**Tim:** The less scrupulous producers of Pinot Noir that just wanted to cheapen their production and make a more rich, smooth wine for this market that was sending watery glasses of Pinot Noir back at sports bars, was they started adding 25% Syrah to a lot of these wines.

**Willa:** Blending is a common and accepted practice in winemaking. Some of the very best French wines are blends. In America, the standards are a bit looser. You only need 75% of a wine to consist of the grape that’s named on the label. All of that extra Syrah, it made the Pinot go down easier.

**Tim:** They had to soften up and make Pinot Noir super accessible because real, unadulterated Pinot Noir, in addition to being very expensive, is not what the American consumer in 2006 really wanted. It even confused the market for what Pinot Noir should actually taste like.

**Willa:** I’m not saying Pinot Noirs all became phony baloney overnight, all got bad or all tasted like Syrah. In the long-term, the interest in Pinot probably did push American palates in a new direction. In the short-term and on the low end of the market, Pinot became a victim of its own success. While this made for a bunch of lousy Pinot, the irony is it made for better Merlot.

**Jeff:** What it did mean there for a minute, there was a ton of really good Merlot that was available for super cheap.

**Willa:** Jeff Bundschu, the Merlot maker at Gundlach Bundschu again.

**Jeff:** The red blends in the 10 years that came out after Sideways, that became red blends because no one would buy Merlot, were way effing better.

**Willa:** As you may have suspected, I know very little about wine. I’ve learned a bunch from working on this episode, but I can still barely tell when a wine has gone off. When someone asks me what I think about one, I often don’t know. I think the truth is that none of the wine tastes that good to me, but I feel like it could, if only I knew more, tasted more, tried harder, grew my palate. I honestly feel a little self-conscious about how little I know. I know this isn’t a universal feeling, but I don’t think it’s uncommon.

**Jeff:** Like you could ask somebody, “Do you like that movie? Do you like that peanut butter? Do you like that toothpaste?” They’re going to say, “I hate that movie. I love that peanut butter. I’m down with that toothpaste.” You ask them about a wine and they’re like, “I’m so sorry that I’m not a wine expert, but this kind of doesn’t taste very good to me.”

**Willa:** Why is just uniquely intimidating. I think that’s at least as important to the Sideways effect as whatever was in the script. It helps explain why a little movie that opened in four theaters could have such a big impact. People want guidance about wine, and we’ll take it from a waiter, a wine store clerk, a sommelier, a wine critic, or a movie character. Miles is a man who can barely affect change in his own life. He’s miserable, lonely, and a little insufferable. Listen to him.

**Miles:** Don’t be shy. Really get your nose right in there, really. A little citrus. Oh, there’s just the faintest soupcon of asparagus. There’s just a flutter of a nutty Edam cheese.

**Willa:** He is not at all what you picture when you close your eyes and imagine an influencer, and yet he influenced the heck out of us, even though we weren’t using that word then. His high-strung, forceful, informed opinions make him a compelling authority. His strongest views are about Merlot and Pinot Noir, but maybe thinking his influence stops there is underestimating him, the movie he’s in, and how much hand-holding people want about wine. Maybe it’s all bigger. Maybe it’s even big enough to extend to Chardonnay.

We’re going to get back to that Merlot Chardonnay mystery I pinned back there. You remember the economist Steve Cuellar published a paper that showed both Merlot and Chardonnay sales plateaued, in an admittedly small, regionally specific sample, right after Sideways came out in 2004. No one had really been able to make sense of this. Then I mentioned it to Kathy Joseph, the owner of Fiddlehead Cellars. Should I tell you what the economist said?

**Kathy:** Yes, I’m very interested.

**Willa:** Kathy pointed out that in the 1990s there had been a rise in sales of wine by the glass at restaurants, and those glasses were mostly full of Merlot and Chardonnay.

**Kathy:** The reason, in my opinion, is because of their accessibility and also how they were made. Chardonnay was a little bit sweet. Merlot could be a little bit sweet. They were just like almost a transition wine. They were easy. People didn’t order white wine any more by the glass. They ordered Chardonnay.

**Willa:** Once Kathy flagged this connection for me, I realized she was not the only person who had talked about it. It came up a lot, including with Alexander Payne.

**Alexander:** Those were the two wines ordered by people who didn’t really know much about wine. People who knew wine would start saying, “I’m ABC, anything but Chardonnay.”

**Willa:** Rex Pickett had noted it too.

**Rex:** The waiter would say, “Red or white?” If you said white, it was going to be some really cheap, probably Chardonnay. If it was red, it was going to be Merlot.

**Willa:** Here are these twinned wines. Then Sideways comes along and curses one of them out and ever so slightly shades the other.

**Jack:** I thought you hated Chardonnay.

**Miles:** No, no, no. I like all varietals. I just don’t generally like the way they manipulate Chardonnay in California.

**Willa:** Maybe what happened to Chardonnay is just a minor version of what happened to Merlot. Audiences picked up that Chardonnay was the other uncool wine, and they backed away from it. If that feels a little overdetermined to you, another way to think about it is that Sideways made it very clear to casual wine drinkers our basic choices had been noticed and found wanting, but it also made it clear there was a whole wide world of wine out there. Walking out of the movie, you could think, I’ve got to stay away from Merlot, I’ve got to drink Pinot Noir. You could also walk out thinking, huh, I should learn some more about wine.

Steve Cuellar’s graphs of Merlot and Chardonnay in the wake of Sideways show consumers cutting back, but the wine market didn’t collapse. We just started drinking something else. This is certainly how the winemakers I spoke with saw it. They thought Sideways encouraged people way more than it shamed them. Jeff Bundschu again.

**Jeff:** I think that what happened in Sideways is Miles, who I can’t believe I know of by first name basis, was like, “This Merlot sucks.” He sort of just gave voice to an entire world of people that had been choking down what they think they should have been choking down instead of standing up for saying, “I don’t care. This isn’t very good.”

**Willa:** Do you really think that people were trusting their own palate or they were just like, “We trust Miles.”

**Jeff:** I see it more as permission, but I guess that’s because I’m an optimist. Everybody is like total sheep, like a permission to hate wine that they don’t like.

**Willa:** Kathy Joseph use the exact same word, while being similarly optimistic.

**Kathy:** The movie gave people permission to explore beyond what they already were comfortable and familiar with.

**Willa:** This is based on her experiences in the years after Sideways, years in which the Santa Ynez Valley, where the movie was set, became a bustling tourist destination, when the wine market doubled and wine was diversified way beyond Merlot and Chardonnay. It all amounts to a third theory of the Sideways effect, that Sideways encouraged wine drinkers to branch out. As it turns out, there’s a speech in the movie that makes the case not for any one varietal, but for wine in general. It isn’t from Miles. It’s from Maya, the wine connoisseur and romantic interest played by Virginia Madsen.

**Maya Randall:** I like to think about all the people who tended and picked the grapes, and if it’s an old wine, how many of them must be dead by now. I like how wine continues to evolve. If I opened a bottle of wine today, it would taste different than if I’d opened it on any other day, because a bottle of wine is actually alive, and it’s constantly evolving and gaining complexity.

**Willa:** Maya isn’t relaying rules about wine. She’s praising it for always changing. There’s a contrast between her and Miles, and the movie knows it. It’s why they make a good romantic pairing.

**Maya:** It tastes so fucking good.

**Willa:** Miles’s rigidity is set off against her flexibility, his instructions off her explorations, his acidity off her balance, two ways of appreciating wine and life.
Steve Cuellar’s paper about Merlot and Chardonnay sales only covered the four years following Sideways. Chardonnay sales bounced back. It’s still the most popular wine in America. Merlot production and prices stabilized too, but it’s now often used in America as it’s used in France, as a blending grape. The overall percentage of it, compared to all the grapes crushed in the country, has fallen.

**Jim:** A few years in, our Merlot sales were down and I’m like, “Dad, we got to get out of Merlot. We got to plant something else.” He was like, “Oh, it’s going to come back, Jim. It always come back,” for a decade, two decades. When’s it coming back? When’s it coming back?

**Willa:** This brings us to the final wrinkle in this story, that Miles, the guy that destroyed Merlot’s reputation, doesn’t even hate it.

**Maya:** What gems do you have in your collection?

**Miles:** Oh.

**Willa:** About halfway through the movie, Miles tells Maya that he’s been holding on to this one really good bottle of wine.

**Miles:** I’ve got things I’m saving, definitely. I guess the star would be a 1961 Cheval Blanc.

**Maya:** You’ve got a ’61 Cheval Blanc and it’s just sitting there?

**Miles:** Yes, I do.

**Maya:** Go get it. I’m serious, hurry.

**Willa:** A ’61 Cheval Blanc costs about $4,700. He tells Maya he’d been saving it for his 10th wedding anniversary, but is now just waiting for a special occasion.

**Maya:** The day you open a 61 Cheval Blanc, that’s the special occasion.

**Willa:** In one of the final scenes, Miles finds out his ex-wife is pregnant with her new husband, and he decides to drink that wine. He takes it to a diner, orders a burger and onion rings, and drinks it out of a Styrofoam cup. As he sips it, he lets out an appreciative, “Hm.” Even in these degraded circumstances, the wine shines through.

This shining wine, this Cheval Blanc, as Alexander Payne knew, is made mostly out of Merlot. Some viewers spotted this contradiction instantly. You can read comment threads about how this makes Miles an idiot and a hypocrite. The meaning seems plainer to me. Miles really loves wine. He really knows wine. He doesn’t hate Merlot, one of wine’s essential, noble grapes. He just hates the bad version of it. This love hate thing is right at the heart of why this little movie had such unpredictable and outsized effects. It tapped into the dualities that exist in most of us, people who hate being uncool, but who also love to try new things. We’re sheeple and we don’t want to be told what to do. We’re easily led and we’re curious. We’re Miles and we’re Maya.

When I spoke to Laura Lippman, who rejected Merlot like RoboCop at the beginning of this episode, I told her about the twists and turns of this story and my sense that Miles himself would now have it in for some other trendy wine. The next time we talked, a few weeks later, she’d just gone to the wine store.

**Laura:** There was something going on where I was like, “I should get a really good bottle of red wine.” I was like, “What if I bought Merlot?”

**Willa:** She did it. She took the bottle home, made a nice dinner, and poured herself a glass.

**Laura:** I thought it was terrific, actually. I was like, “I will do this again. I will drink Merlot again.”

**John:** I am thrilled to welcome Willa Paskin, who is the host of Decoder Ring podcast and Slate’s TV critic. Willa, congrats on another great episode of your show.
**Willa:** Thank you so much. Thanks for having me, John.

**John:** Recently we’ve been doing episodes on nuclear energy and climate change, looking at how stories we tell have an impact. The idea of the Sideways effect has come up multiple times. It was just amazing kismet that your episode this last week was on the Sideways effect. How did it come to be? How did you decide to do it for an episode for your show?

**Willa:** At the beginning of every season, I scratch around for ideas. I think I had asked on Twitter if anybody had any thoughts. It had come up. I had looked into it really perfunctorily. It seemed like the answer was really obvious. It seemed like everyone was like, “Yeah, it just tanked Merlot sales,” whatever. I was like, “That’s not interesting enough.” Then, luckily, a couple of weeks later, this other tweet started going around that was a graph of what had happened to Merlot after Sideways essentially. We just started talking about it in Slate’s internal messaging system. There was a wine guy on staff. He’s Jordan Weissmann. He writes about money and economics.

**John:** I know Jordan.

**Willa:** He’s entwined. We just started side chatting. He was my wine guy basically. He has a wine guy. His wine guy, who’s a wine seller in Brooklyn, had basically talked to him a lot about Sideways. It just suddenly became very clear, just from this brief chat on Slack, that oh no, there was enough there for it to be interesting. Had it really affected Merlot? Had maybe it actually affected Pinot? Then I started talking to people, and it turned into this nice little delectable rabbit hole, which is always super fun. I ended up, in the episode, speaking to an economist who had done a study about it.

One of the things that’s interesting and funny about something like the Sideways effect is we all know what it is and everyone talks about it, but of course, it’s not actually hard science or news, and so there have not actually been… Most people who are economists or who study stuff for a living have not actually been like, “Definitely, I need to look into the Sideways effect.” There actually haven’t been that many real papers about it. When I did speak to one of the guys who had done one of the papers about it, it ended up taking me places I was not expecting.

**John:** In the episode you frame three questions, which is did a line in a movie depress Merlot sales for decades? Where do you stand, Willa? How strong do you think the Sideways effect was for what happened to Merlot?

**Willa:** I think the consensus about Merlot is twofold. One is that it did depress both Merlot sales and Merlot plantings. There was another study that just came out very recently, actually, about the long-term effect of it, but not dramatically. It affected it some. Wine, as an agricultural product, it’s interesting in the sense that it takes years to plant a grapevine and then for it to make grapes that are good enough. You just can’t act on information as quickly as you can on like, everybody wants a strawberry or everybody wants a pair of jeans. You have to wait. While you’re waiting, you’re not making any money. No one was ripping Merlot out, basically, because that’s just-

**John:** That’s suicide. It got blended into other wines, as you talked about.

**Willa:** Over time, it did not get replanted at the rate that it had. It does seem that Pinot really did get planted at a huge rate. That’s the first thing. I would say the second thing is much, much fuzzier. Just reputationally, absolutely, it really, really hurt Merlot. That doesn’t mean that it hurt it for everybody. That doesn’t mean that all consumers were suddenly paying attention to this movie. Madmen doesn’t have to be watched by that many people to have a really big footprint or to feel like it has a really big footprint. I think something like that is very similar.

**John:** I always think about Twitter, because not very many Americans are actually on Twitter, but Twitter has a huge impact on the national conversation. People didn’t need to necessarily see the movie to know that, oh, we’re not supposed to be drinking Merlot. It just had a stink to it because of the smart people who saw the movie said, “We shouldn’t be doing this.” It had an outsized impact.

**Willa:** I think similarly to Twitter, there’s tons of people that have no idea what’s happening on Twitter, are never affected by it all, but the people that are paid attention to by the media basically did.

**John:** It was a meme, basically. Don’t drink Merlot is a meme. It just got spread in a pre-internetty kind of time.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes to… The Travis Lybbert paper that you mentioned is behind a paywall, but there’s another, Journal of Wine Economics, that shows the graph of the two things. You really see how Pinot Noir just really took off. You can also see that the prices fell for Merlot, which I think is also useful to see that supply and demand… There just wasn’t demand, and so the prices for Merlot fell.

**Willa:** I would say one of the things that was interesting from talking to wine people about it is this isn’t settled. I think if they looked into these papers, it would be, but it was not. Something happened and everyone has a ton of anecdotes, but a lot of the serious people were like, “It’s not clear that that’s really true,” which I was surprised by. I was like, “Oh, isn’t it obviously true?”

**John:** These can all be future episodes of Decoder Ring down the road if you want to. Around the office we were talking about other examples of things that are like the Sideways effect, where movies had had a weird impact in the real world. I wanted to bounce them off of you and see what your instinct is for these.

**Willa:** Is your first one Clark Gable and the undershirts?

**John:** Hey, it was my third one, but yes, let’s talk about Clark Gable and the undershirt, because it happened one night. He takes off his shirt, and he was not wearing an undershirt. Apparently, men realized, oh, I don’t have to wear an undershirt underneath a dress shirt. Snopes says it’s unclear whether that’s actually a real thing or not. What’s your ruling on Clark Gable and the undershirt?

**Willa:** I would love to believe that is true. How can we have any idea? It would be hard to follow that, track that information at the time.

**John:** If you were to do an episode on that, you’d probably need to talk to fashion historians and really figure out where we were at at that time and was the undershirt going away at that point.

**Willa:** If I was doing that, there’s a couple things. There’s immediately, I think, a number of things. One is I start to think about hats. It’s similar to-

**John:** What happened to hats?

**Willa:** What happened to hats? In a way that it’s like, you were going to do a couple stories from one episode. It’s like, what happened to hats, what happened to undershirts. I could imagine undershirts being the open. Then also undershirts, which we’re not allowed to call wife-beaters anymore, but what is the semiotics of the undershirt. I think there’s probably a bunch there.

**John:** It gets complicated.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** Two other things that you actually can measure. Super Size Me. We had the documentary Super Size Me. Six weeks after the movie came out, McDonald’s dropped the term super size me from everything. They stopped using the term all together. That’s an impact.

**Willa:** Can I tell you my cocktail party chatter about Super Size Me?

**John:** I want to hear this.

**Willa:** This is truly basically the only thing I remember from Super Size Me. I remember the takeaway was McDonald’s is really bad for you. There’s in passing a graphic about how one bagel is equal to eight slices of bread. It’s a picture of the bagel. It’s a drawing. Then it equals eight slices in bread. I believe in carbs. I don’t have a problem with carbs. It has haunted me. It didn’t ruin McDonald’s. It just really gave me pause about bagels forever. That was my personal impact [inaudible 00:40:40].

**John:** That was your Super Size Me. Blackfish, the documentary about SeaWorld, the stock in SeaWorld fell 50%. That’s a pretty direct cause and effect there. I want to talk about the name Madison. What is your perception of where the name Madison came from?

**Willa:** Oh my god, I have no idea. I do just perceive it as being one of those on the top 20 girls’ names now.

**John:** It came from Splash.

**Willa:** Did it?

**John:** In the movie Splash, Tom Hanks is with Darryl Hannah. “What’s your name?” She looks at a sign for Madison Avenue, and she says, “Madison.” He says, “That’s not a name.” It wasn’t a name. It was the 216th most popular name for girls in 1990, but then it became 29th, and by 2000 it became number 3. It was not a name being used.

**Willa:** It does fit in with a ton of other name trends, which is the last name for first name trend, like Hudson. There’s a lot of names that sound like that, Lawson. It’s snugly right in there, and then also it’s upscale.

**John:** It does fit in with that trend. My very first TV show, there were these twins, a boy and girl twins. I named them Mason and Finley.

**Willa:** You nailed it.

**John:** I’d never seen anyone in the real world named Mason and Finley. I called that trend. They are now popular names.

**Willa:** I’m really impressed. That reminds in Baby Mama, the kids are named Banjo and… They didn’t call it, but they just made fun of it nicely. Those are perfect. You did it.

**John:** Finley and Mason. We also talk a lot about representation and how depictions of people on screen matter in terms of how people interact with people. Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner, Sidney Poitier, hugely important, probably the face of a Black man on screen was helpful. Philadelphia, for just Tom Hanks playing a person with AIDS was important. We can have our faults with either of those movies, but they were important in their times. It’s always hard to remember what it was like before that movie came out.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** Jaws and perceptions of sharks, perceptions of shark safety. We can’t go back to a time pre-Jaws.

**Willa:** No, we definitely can’t.

**John:** People weren’t worried about sharks. Now my daughter was scared to be in the pool because of sharks.

**Willa:** Sometimes when I’m just swimming out, I hear the song in my heart. You feel it. It’s coming for you. I think I talked about this in the episode pretty directly. A thing about Sideways that really tickled me and that I thought was really fun about this episode was we don’t imagine that someone like Miles would have an impact upon us. He just is not a poster child for that. That’s just not how things work. Sometimes it’s who you least expect. I like that. I like that it’s unpredictable in that way, because if it was just up to people who make decisions based on what you think is going to happen or what’s happened before, you’d never cast… You’d make Miles be totally different. You’d sand off his edges and you’d make him someone else.

**John:** We often talk on this podcast, what is the nature of a protagonist, what is a hero, what is a hero going through. Also, Miles feels like a sidekick character to somebody else, and yet he’s centered in this movie. He’s like a Shrek at the very center of this movie, who is grumpy and angry, and we learn to love him because he’s just center frame the whole time. One of the things that I really liked about your episode is that you bring up Maya, who is his antagonist, who’s this person who’s challenging all his beliefs and actually genuinely loves wine in a way that’s more approachable than maybe he does. She’s not strident. She’s embracing of like, let’s celebrate wine, rather than pit them against each other.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** Which is fun. I want to talk just a moment about some of your other episodes.

**Willa:** Please.

**John:** It’s been a One Cool Thing repeatedly on the show for me. You have a two-part episode on the Jane Fonda workout, which was a really fascinating deep dive in terms of it’s so strongly associated with her and yet she’s really taking this work that someone else has done and repackaging it. You broker a conversation between the two women.

**Willa:** That’s one of my top two episodes we ever did. It was totally not what I was expecting to happen. I basically had decided that the Jane Fonda workout itself was fascinating and that Jane Fonda’s story is fascinating, because it is. When I started looking into it, the woman who actually created the workout is named Leni Cazden. Jane Fonda had cited her in a couple places and in her biography, but also she’d thanked her at some awards show. She was findable, essentially. It wasn’t a secret. Then a lot of things just fell into place that I didn’t have anything to do with it. My timing just happened to be really good. I got to speak to both of them and then got to follow up with Leni. I just felt this delicious psychological long-term relationship just fell into my lap. That doesn’t happen that often. That was super fun. Then we basically did the episode that I had been imagining second. Then we did this other fun one that I hadn’t been expecting first.

**John:** A lot of them are just one-offs that are just great and fun. The history of Gillette razors, let’s go to five blades, then the razor wars was just weird and how we got into that and the history of razors. It feels like there’s some, not necessarily a movie, but there’s some version of that absurd way we got to it. It feels like a Soderbergh movie, where it’s just like how we got to five blades eventually.

**Willa:** Some corporate espionage. The thing that I always want is there to be an actual idea, that’s not just the idea that the show purports to be about. It’s not just the topic. With that one, with the five blades one, the big idea was just like, oh my god, capitalism is so silly. Why do we keep doing this? It’s cool, a single-blade razor actually works pretty well. It lent itself to that. I usually find those things as I’m looking into them, but that one was very clean in that way.

**John:** I want to talk to you about the making of the show, because unlike Scriptnotes, which is exactly what we’re doing, which is just a conversation between two people, and there’s an outline I’m looking at, you are fully scripting the whole thing. It’s starting with research, and then you’re doing your interviews. You’re figuring out what parts of those interviews you can use. Then you’re having to write every word you’re saying to get that right and make it all fit. What is the process for you? You’re figuring out your ideas for the season, but what are you actually doing on a daily basis to get this stuff written?

**Willa:** The process is, I’m like, okay, what sounds like a good episode? As I said earlier, I start to dig around about a subject, just Google around about it. The ones that are right, they feel like, you know when there’s things hollow, like there’s a trick door or something, it’s going to spring back at you? It actually feels that way. You’re like, “Oh, this has a little give. There’s stuff here that I wasn’t expecting.” Once it starts to feel that way, there’s just… I just have to have one idea about it or just a sense that there’s a layer.

Then I just start to report. I do a lot of research. I’m also having a lot of conversations as I’m doing it. It’s not like a one and then two. They’re together. Then ideally, I would do all the reporting. I now report a couple of episodes at once, just because it’s just a better use of time. Then I essentially sit with all the stuff that I have, all the actualities, all the research, all the audio, all the interviews, and I write from the beginning. I listen back to the tapes and stuff, to the tracks. I’m trying to get somewhere, usually. I’m trying to make a point or explain some history.

It feels really written. It feels sculpturally written in a different way. It’s pretty that. Then I just spend a bunch of time writing it, however long it takes. It always takes longer. It’s the part that still hurts, as writing anything does. Ideally, that doesn’t take more than two weeks, but it’s been to. In some ways, it’s hard to track it. Then it still takes a pretty long time, because basically it’s-

**John:** It’s all the post process. You had this plan going into it. Then you’re listening to this thing. These episodes are scored. They have ins and outs. You have to figure out breaks.

**Willa:** A hundred percent. It’s all those things, but it’s not even that. It’s almost like when you turn in a first draft to an editor, they change it. They tell you all these notes. They give you all these thoughts. Weirdly, putting it on tape is the same thing. Suddenly, you just hear all these things that are wrong with it. You hear all the places it’s paced wrong. You hear the information that’s in the wrong order. You hear the beats that aren’t quite working right. Because a show is trying to build and often is about ideas…

Just with the Sideways episode, for example, there was a third sections that’s about… It’s after Pinot. It’s after the Merlot section. It’s after the Pinot section and trying to resolve what happened with Chardonnay. I knew where it was going. I knew what the end was. All that stuff was written. There was something about the pacing that was making that pay… It just wasn’t working. On paper, it was working fine, but it’s not working fine when you actually hear it. That takes a long time. I think that takes longer than it probably should. I think it takes longer than other people’s process. There’s a lot of iterations basically. The music comes in later. The breaks are written in. It’s a lot about making sure the arc works. I have found that that is not… It’s supposed to be written to be heard. When you’re just writing it, it’s not in the form it’s supposed to be at. Something really changes there.

**John:** The closest I’ve done to this is I did a podcast called Launch, which was a six-episode series about the creation and printing and release of my book series. It was great, but it was such a different experience. I was not prepared for how much time it was going to take and also just what a different workflow it was. We hadn’t transcribed everything, all the interviews, but then we missed out on stuff. Are you transcribing everything you do from all these people or are you just taking these are the bits we need?

**Willa:** This is a thing that I don’t know what would’ve happened in the past, but we use basically an automated transcription program. A computer does it. You get them back fast. There’s use cases that I don’t have, where you would need it to be really precise. It’s pretty good actually. Because I’m listening back to it no matter what, the transcript lies, you still have to hear. It sounds like it’s great, but then you listen in, they’re talking in a monotone. You still have to listen back to it. We do transcribe everybody, but that’s because it’s not what it was.

**John:** Once you’re writing it, is this in Google Docs? What program are you using when you’re writing?

**Willa:** I was a faithful Microsoft Worder for all my writings, and I still am. Google Docs, it’s just if other people have to get into it, which obviously the producer and editors do at some point. Then also, just when the drafts were just changing so much, after you’re going through, we basically listen and we make changes and then retrack. It just became so much easier to just have it all just in this one place. You just need the link, not to email the document every time it changes.

**John:** That’s brutal. The episode we listened to, how many hours of work on your side was that?

**Willa:** I couldn’t…

**John:** Is it three weeks?

**Willa:** I work really hard.

**John:** It was a ton of work.

**Willa:** That one I will say, it was a lot of work, but in a different way. The writing of that one was the smoothest, cleanest writing experience I’ve had in a long time. I think it took me, not counting the day that I just went back through all the audio that I had… I also didn’t over-report that story, so that helps a lot. I wrote that piece in four days, which never happens. Then I got stuck with it at different stages once it was whatever. It’s almost like I’m almost sad it happened. I’ll be like, “I can do it in four days.”

**John:** [inaudible 00:52:42] “Maybe I can do it in three days.”

**Willa:** It hasn’t happened in a long time that I’d done it that fast, and it’s not going to happen again. It was nice. That one was just very structurally, very clear in my mind as I was doing it. That’s not always the case.

**John:** Willa, so many of your episodes are just incredible fodder for our segment How Would This Be A Movie. In a future How Would This Be A Movie, would you mind coming back and talking us through some of these things?

**Willa:** I would love to. Anytime.

**John:** Fantastic. Willa, thank you so much.

**Willa:** Thank you.

**John:** That is our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. You can find the show notes for this episode and all other episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can 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 what Craig’s been up to. Now, let’s roll the credits for the original episode of Decoder Ring.

**Willa:** This is Decoder Ring. I’m Willa Paskin. Decoder Ring is written and produced by Willa Paskin. This episode was produced by Elizabeth Nakano. Derek John is senior supervising producer of Narrative Podcasts. Merritt Jacob is our technical director. Thank you to Jim Taylor, Jordan Weissmann, Peta Work [ph], Lo and Lou, Josh Levine and Travis Lybbert. The 2021 paper Travis co-authored called A Sideways Supply Response in California Wine Grapes also corroborates the Sideways effect, and we’ll link to it on our show page.

If you’re a fan of Decoder Ring, please sign up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get to listen to this show without any ads, and they’re supporting the work we do to make Decoder Ring. Members will also get to hear a special behind-the-scenes episode with me at the end of the season. Please go to slate.com/decoderplus to sign up now. I really appreciate your support. Thanks for listening. See you next week.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig is back. Craig has been gone for weeks and weeks and weeks. Now Megana, last week I asked you, “Hey, is anybody wondering where Craig’s been?” You are the person who’s responsible for the ask@johnaugust email account. I was wondering whether people were wondering where Craig has been.

**Megana:** Yes. We had one person who wrote in, curious about where Craig has been.

**Craig:** One person was wondering where I was.

**John:** By the time this Bonus Segment is out, I guess the news will be out. Craig, you were in space. You were the first screenwriter to fly on Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin spaceship. I guess my real first question is, what was it like to leave the bounds of Earth? What was that experience like? They always say to send a poet, but a screenwriter is the person to send.

**Craig:** Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise a kid. In fact, it’s cold as hell. Anybody? Anyone?

**John:** I don’t know what that’s from.

**Craig:** That’s Elton John’s Rocket Man. It’s a popular song.

**John:** It’s a popular song. I’ve heard it once or twice.

**Craig:** 1970-something. God, this is just one kind of sadness upon another. One person cared, and neither one of you know Rocket Man. I think it’s going to be a long, long time until touchdown brings me around again-

**John:** That I do recognize.

**Craig:** I’m not the man they think I am at home.

**John:** You were not on Mars. You were instead in night shoots. You were in night shoots for your TV show, which is just a lot. Your schedule, which was difficult, became impossible.

**Craig:** I’ve been doing pretty well, I think, all things considered, by when you go into three weeks of nights, you’re no longer on the schedule that any other normal human being is on. It’s amazing actually how fast you can get used to it. Much easier to get out of it than to get into it. I would say that much at the very least.

**John:** While you were gone, you missed some episodes. I don’t think you had a chance to listen to the episodes. I thought we’d review what we learned and get your opinions on some things. The first episode, which I really missed you for, was on nuclear issues. We had two experts on to talk about nuclear war, nuclear arms, nuclear energy. You obviously have a background in this stuff. We were looking at what the current landscape was, and of course with the war in Ukraine, the growing escalation of possibilities of nuclear war. It was not a fun episode. I wouldn’t say it was joyful.

**Craig:** No, never joyful to talk about things like nuclear weapons. I don’t really know what the point is of talking about the possibilities. Either they will or will not occur, and if they occur, we’re all dead. That’s basically the deal.

**John:** I would say going into it, I was of the mindset that because of the reduction in number of nuclear arms that are out there in the world, nuclear war wouldn’t be as bad as what we grew up expecting. It’s still terrible.

**Craig:** Oh lord, yeah. The arms race that occurred, I’m sure you guys covered this, largely in the ‘80s, between the Soviet Union and the United States, led to a situation where both nations had this absurd surplus of nuclear warheads. We don’t need that many. We know that a single large nuclear weapon can destroy most of a city. There are only so many cities. Once you start lobbing them, the destruction that occurs is dramatic not only to the people that live there. Obviously it’s fatal. Then you have long-lasting effects around it. Economies are shredded. The environment is destroyed. It’s almost impossible to imagine a situation where one nuclear weapon is intentionally fired and set off and is not followed by a retaliatory strike. Essentially, nuclear weapons are unusable or usable all at once. It’s actually amazing that we have these here and have had them for our entire lives and they haven’t been used in our lifetime.

**John:** Let’s keep it that way.

**Craig:** That would be nice. Unfortunately, we are not in charge.

**John:** Craig, are you familiar with the story of Stanislav Petrov?

**Craig:** Was he the guy who said, “I’m not going to fire that nuclear weapon.” The Soviet said, “Fire nuclear weapon,” because they had misunderstood a test, and he was like, “No, I’m not going to do that.”

**John:** Yep, it’s that guy. That was brought up as one of the potential stories that has not really been very well dramatically told. One of the things I brought up is that I think it’s sometimes really challenging to tell a story about a thing that didn’t happen. The guy who stands in the way of a bad thing happening is a little less dramatic than the guy who does the thing.

**Craig:** There’s one movie that I think does that very well is Crimson Tide, 1994’s Crimson Tide, which I think probably drew quite a bit from the Petrov incident and is very much based on that idea that a submarine receives orders to fire a nuclear weapon and then there’s another message coming in, but the radio’s damaged. They don’t get the rest of it. It might say, “Wait, actually don’t,” but they don’t know. There is essentially a debate and mutiny over whether or not they should fire those nuclear weapons. They made it very exciting. A fine Tony Scott film.

**John:** Agreed. Other episodes you missed. Episode 546 was Limited Series. We had Liz Meriwether on the show, finally…

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** …and Liz Hannah. They both recently had limited series out there. We had a talk about what that was like. You of course did a limited series for Chernobyl. One of the things I think was so key from their descriptions of why tell this story now was that feeling that in a limited series or a dramatic series versus a documentary series, you can tell that central character’s internal POV, that you just couldn’t if it’s strict documentary. They had a chance to really explore what was inside the character, rather than what just the facts were.

**Craig:** The difference between a limited… Any kind of fictionalization, doesn’t matter whether it’s a limited series or an ongoing series or a single movie, but any dramatization affords you a wildly different palette than you would have as a documentarian.

**John:** Lastly, the episode that we are going to be putting this Bonus Segment on, was about the Sideways effect. I think we’ve talked about the Sideways effect just between you and me, or maybe on the air as well. Of course, that’s the impact of the film Sideways on Merlot and Pinot Noir in America and around the world and how one character’s rant, or he rants twice, can have a measurable impact on popular culture and economics. We talked with Willa Paskin about that.

**Craig:** It’s an interesting thing. I remember seeing Sideways. I remember that happening. I didn’t know anything about wine then. I barely know anything about wine now. I know the kinds of wines I like. Interestingly, I don’t like Pinot Noir.

**John:** I’m not a fan.

**Craig:** I don’t know about you, John. I like a huge, big, red, stupid wine. I like a dumb, big Cabernet. That’s what I like.

**John:** That’s what I say too. Whenever somebody’s coming over, “What kind of things you like?” I just say, “I like a big, dumb red.” I’m not apologizing for that. It’s just actually what my taste is.

**Craig:** I like to be hit in the face with a Cabernet bat. That’s me. That’s just what I like. Am I a cretin? Probably. I don’t care. I don’t like Pinot Noir. It’s thin. It’s like it’s not really there to me. Merlot, it’s not offensive to me. I don’t mind it. It’s fine. Actually, there are some fantastic wines that use Merlot as part of their blend.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** There are some great blended red wines out there. Sideways, I don’t know. By the way, I love that movie. It’s amazing. Why was it so obsessed with Pinot Noir? I don’t know.

**John:** Basically, Willa’s argument is that Pinot Noir was really just meant to be a stand-in for the Miles character himself, and that he’s difficult, but there’s actually something good underneath the surface, and you have to really come to appreciate what it’s trying to do and take it as what it actually is. He feels like he is a Pinot Noir that people are not appreciating properly.

**Craig:** Thus an entire industry was disrupted.

**John:** It was. Now, part of the reason we got into the Sideways effect is on Episode 547 we had Quinn… You know Quinn Emmett.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** The other folks behind Good Energy were coming on to talk about how we talk about climate change in our films and TVs and how we can put messages out there that have an impact. We talk about how sometimes things really do have an impact, but in terms of representation, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner or other films along the way have that impact in terms of showing a different way of people interacting, dramatizing situations that people may not have thought of, and certainly for LGBT representation. There’s important films along the way like Philadelphia that get people to address their prejudices.

**Craig:** I don’t know how good of a tool movies are going to be for climate change, because the thing is most people recognize that it exists, most people are concerned about it, and most people, meaning almost everyone, feels that they have no direct impact upon it, and they’re right. It’s going to take large governmental action and sweeping changes globally to prevent this situation from getting worse. I think that’s not going to happen. I think the situation will get worse. I don’t know what it is. With something like climate change, where we can see it’s there and we’re just not sure how to deal with it, it very quickly can turn into lecturing or it can be parody or satirical. We can make fun of people for being stupid and ignoring climate change.

Ultimately, I’m not sure how you’re going to do, because the problem is you don’t see the end result. Philadelphia, you see a man change. You see the way he thinks about another human being change. You see how that human being’s death changes him so that theoretically, moving forward, he will be a better person. We can identify with him because he’s Denzel Washington and he’s a great actor. That’s impossible to do with climate change, because they’re not going to see it happen.

**John:** I would debate the premise that it’s impossible for it to be done with climate change. I think it’s a question of what are you trying to do. Are you trying to make a movie that is specifically about climate change or are you trying to normalize things that you wish people would normalize in their real lives? An example would be, if you have characters who are going onto the roof of their building, are there solar panels on that roof, and normalizing that expectation. Are you seeing people do small things like take public transportation rather than be in a car? Those are some small steps. Then there are also… We’ll put a link in the show notes again to the Good Energy playbook.

There are things that don’t feel like climate stories, but of course really are climate stories. Anything about disasters have a climate element to it. One of the points they try to make is that in anything we’re doing in film or television, if you’re not addressing climate change, you’re making science fiction, because a reality of the world is climate change. To not address it is science fiction.

**Craig:** Sure, unless you’re telling a story that really doesn’t have anything to do with outside. Even if it does have something to do with outside on any given day, you’re not going to be experiencing this specific aspect of climate change. I don’t know. I don’t know about that. I love Quinn, and I get what he’s doing, and I appreciate how devoted he is to this. To me, honestly, the thing that we could do, the thing that I could do, I try to do this, is talk all the time about how positive nuclear energy is.

I feel like I have a somewhat privileged position in that regard because I made a show about a nuclear disaster. I’m saying nuclear energy is a good thing. In fact, if the United States invested heavier in nuclear energy, and I know that Quinn and I agree on this, that would matter more than anything else. That would matter more than solar panels. That would matter more than wind turbines. Just putting us back on a nuclear grid would change everything. I try and talk about that. It’s hard to put that into… Maybe I’ll have a character yammer about it in a show. I can do that, I suppose.

**John:** Talk about your show, because your show’s going to have some connection to climate change, just by necessity. There’s fewer people on this planet.

**Craig:** Climate change stops. Once we stop driving cars and pumping coal carbon into the air and burning fossil fuels like oil and gas, then climate change essentially gets reversed. I think it’s fair to say, without giving too much away, that climate change is not irrelevant to what happens. That’s as far as I’ll go.

**John:** That’s as far as you’ll go. Craig, it is wonderful to have you back on the show. Next week we’ll have you back for a full episode. Anyway, congratulations on surviving your night shoots.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** I’m looking forward to having you back on the show and back in Los Angeles before too long.

**Craig:** I’m almost home.

**John:** Cool.

Links:

* [Decoder Ring](https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring) and the [Sideways Effect Episode](https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2022/05/sideways-the-movie-had-lasting-effects-on-the-wine-industry-and-casual-wine-drinkers)
* [Sideways Movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375063/)
* Willa Paskin [on Slate](https://slate.com/author/willa-paskin) and [on Twitter](https://twitter.com/willapaskin)
* [A “Sideways” Supply Response in California Winegrapes](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-wine-economics/article/abs/sideways-supply-response-in-california-winegrapes/FE14CECD927047BD0582207D77F1B09E) by Travis Lybbert for the Journal of Wine Economics
* [Snopes on Clark Gable and Undershirts](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-shirt-off-his-back/) and [Madison Name from the Movie Splash](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bp/splash-joke-lead-madison-baby-name-boom-190720175.html)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([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/549standard.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.