• 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 699: How to Talk About Yourself, Transcript

August 22, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August and you’re listening to episode 699 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, before you begin pitching a project, you need to be able to pitch yourself. How do you do it without sounding like an egotistical jerk? We somehow spent nearly 700 episodes without really digging into this topic. Luckily, it was brought to us by one of our favorite returning guests, the wonderful Pamela Ribon. Welcome back, Pamela.

Pamela Ribon: Thanks. It’s always nice to be back.

John: Now for folks who don’t have their cheat sheets open, let’s remind them of the projects you’ve written on including Moana, Nimona, and your Academy-nominated short film and a wonderful thing many times, My Year of Dicks. Let’s also talk about underemployment because this is something a lot of our listeners are encountering now, especially our writer listeners. My friend Ryan suggested we discuss some of the pernicious effects that not working has on our choices but also the opportunities that are presented by the times that you’re not working. Especially if you know you’re not working for a certain period of time, that can actually be liberating. We’ll dig into that.

We have listener questions. Since I have you and our bonus segment for premium members, I want to talk a little meta conversation about podcasts because you are a podcaster yourself. I am looking at your podcast set up here on the Zoom and I’m so happy to see it. As we approach episode 700, we’re talking about making some changes around here and I would love your thoughts on that. We have Scriptnotes episode 700 coming up next week and we’re going to do a live show on YouTube. It’s happening tomorrow, Wednesday, August 13th at 10AM Pacific Standard. If you want to watch us live on YouTube, just subscribe to the Scriptnotes podcast and you’ll get a little alert when it’s happening.

Pamela: I love that I’m on the odometer rollover. The 699. We’re getting there.

John: It’s the eve of the 700. It’s setting us up for success. Drew, we have some follow-up.

Drew Marquardt: We do. Some listeners wrote in that a former How Would This Be A Movie article from way back in episode 348, the Rent-A-Family industry in Japan. It looks like it’s being made into a movie. It’s called Rental Family starring Brendan Fraser.

John: Great. We’ll put a link to the trailer in the show notes. I watched the trailer and I think that’s what we expected, although I wasn’t expecting it to be a white guy in Japan doing the thing. I thought that we would move the whole concept over to here instead it’s a large white guy serving as a token white guy in this movie. They’re addressing it in the trailer that he’s the one American who’s being placed into these family situations.

Pamela: Awesome. One of the co-writers here, Hikari, was my cohort when I did the film Independent Director’s Lab.

John: Oh my gosh.

Pamela: She’s awesome. She actually made the film that she went into the director’s lab with. It’s called 32 Seconds. I don’t remember how many seconds. It came out a couple of years ago. I also tried to get this project. I had a pitch. I was thrown in the mix. I was in the thing. It’s very scripted.

John: Can you tell us more about this because this is being released by Searchlight, but what was the process behind this?

Pamela: First you let people know like, “Hey, I found this article. I think it’s going to be a thing and I’d like to see if I can be involved in however it’s getting adapted.” Then they–Boy, this is so long ago so I’m trying to remember how it went this time. Sometimes you just hear like, “Oh no, Lucky Chap has it.” You’re like, “Okay. Bye. Thanks. Of course.” I think in this one, it was like, “Do you have someone that you could attach to with this? Is there a company already that would do this with you?” Because I’m nobody. I can’t remember because this one went very quickly. By the time I was interested in trying to gather a group, there were big people going out with this.

I think that eventually it was just I didn’t move the needle enough to be in the runner-ups for the next top screenwriter. Here it is.

John: It seems like it was probably a long journey to get there. It’s based on the same article but you don’t know everything that happened along the way behind the scenes. Maybe as it comes closer to getting released, we might get some more backstory. I’m just curious what the journey was and how it got to Hikari.

Pamela: I just remember thinking like, “This is such an interesting concept.” I’m sure mine was more in the vein of her or something like that where it was like, “You don’t really care for your life anymore so why don’t you just go be the person that other people need at these moments?” I remember pitching like, “Please, can you fire this person for me? I don’t want to do it.” That kind of stuff.

John: All right. Let’s get to our main topic, which is the topic you brought us. We actually have a question from a listener that sets this up perfectly true.

Drew: Charles writes, I’ve written a pilot and I’m fortunate enough to have gotten some general meetings from it. For all intents and purposes, I’m no one and they know nothing about me. What are the best practices or tips for starting a meeting? You sign on to Zoom and you’re suddenly met with a face and now you have to be interesting. When you’re no one, you can’t count on them knowing anything about you and it’s weird if too much about them. What are some general tips to ease into the general meeting?

John: Pamela Ribon, you’ve actually done workshops on this, like how to talk about yourself as a writer. I’d love to see this conversation to you if you want to direct us here.

Pamela: Sure.

John: What is your best advice for someone in Charles’s situation and really any writer who’s going into a situation where you have to talk about yourself.

Pamela: I like to talk about this topic whenever it’s film festival masterclasses or whatever because this is the thing that you have to do first. Sometimes before you’ve even written something, you have to talk to people about writing and if you want to write or that you have written and what are you going to write next? I find a lot of people start by apologizing for even feeling this way, for having a dream or for having accomplished a script and they’re like, “It’s just this thing. I don’t know. It’s whatever. I don’t know. It’s dumb.” Even in this question, it’s weird if you know too much about them.

You’re having a meeting. Knowing a lot about them shows that you did your homework. You’re excited to meet them. You’re equipped. I know we talk about like it’s a first date but it’s not. We’re not going to keep dating. There’s not like, am I attracted to this person or is that how they always dress? It’s more about how does this flow fit? When they ask me a question about myself, do I feel comfortable answering it? When they answer a question that I have, do I feel like they’re looking at me and talking to me? Do I feel like a real person in this room? These are basic questions that– In a general you can get yourself too hyped up to even bother to look for.

John: Somebody said there, I really want to pull apart is that you think back to a first date and if someone asks you about yourself on a first date, you’re going to come out with a set of answers that make you look good along a certain axis. You’re not going to get the same answers in a general meeting that you would on a first date. It’s a positioning thing you’re trying to do. You’re trying to explain to them who you are, what you’d like to write, why you wrote this thing, why you’re there. It’s good to practice this. If you’re giving a masterclass, you’re talking to people about this, what are your first bits of advice for the things they need to come into the room ready to say?

Pamela: What I usually do is we just have a general in front of the rest of the class. Someone brave enough to go first, I say, “You’re going to walk in here and I’ll already be seated, you’re going to come in like you’ve walked into my office.” Then you just do it because they figure it out. You walk in, you’re like, “Hey, how are you doing? Do you need anything? You want some water? Did anybody get you coffee?” You sit down and then you small talk. Was it hard getting here? Oh, it’s hot today. All the things we do at the top of a general, which at the top of a Zoom– Just so I’m also modern.

It’s the same way you make sure that you’re looking at the green light every once in a while so that you’re making the closest eye contact as you can make. You make sure that you’re comfortable, that you have water, that you have all the things you need. You start with whatever. Like we did when we first logged on of, here’s what traffic situation I was just in and here’s how things are going. Then, you gradually find yourself moving into the topic of why are we really here? Sometimes they start it where if they’ve read something of yours or someone recommended they meet you, that’s a kindness that they may do but you may start because a lot about it and you can start with, “I just saw this, I loved it.”

That’s enough to get things going. If they’re not giving you anything back, this isn’t a great room and you can learn very quickly. I don’t have to sweat here. We’re not going to work out. Like you said, you’re not going to give the same answer as on a first date but I know enough that when people go, “I don’t know anything about.” You can say, “Oh, I can do that.” I moved around a lot. I went to 13 schools and then I moved my way into the early internet and the older net. Then, that started me getting into rooms and I did comedy rooms and sitcoms for a while until I got the call from Disney. I just did so many years.

John: Some good at heavy lifting there. I liked as it showed a journey and it showed like, “Oh, if they’re curious about any bits of that, they can jump back to talk about that.” What were those early rooms like? What were you doing in those places?

Pamela: What shows or where did you end up? What was your last school? We can start by Austin. People in LA really like to talk about Austin.

John: They do.

Pamela: You can do that. Sometimes you’re talking about people you know in common. That thing of like someone said I should meet you or I saw that thing and it was great.

John: Or I see that you’re working with this director. I had a great experience with them or what this is. In some cases it’s the subtly coded like, “That director’s challenging for these reasons. I hope you’re having a great experience.” I love them. It’s also challenging on this thing.

Pamela: Finding your mutuals is a nice– When you have found your mutuals, you learn a lot about them too. Like, “Oh, I love her. She’s great. No, I haven’t met him.” Even just the things you’ve seen. They often ask, what are you reading right now? It’s not quite small talk, it’s medium talk because it’s small talk with cues of, do we think that one day when we’re arguing over a plot point, we’re going to get to a place together because we actually are on the same wavelength. Sometimes that just flies by and all of a sudden an hour has happened because you ended up talking about anything from Taylor Swift to some new app you’re playing with.

You never know where it’ll go. Being flexible with the time or just being free to explore wherever this conversation’s going to go and not get nervous about what you did or did not talk about. You don’t need to put that pressure on yourself. You can have an agenda of I really want to make sure I mention this one thing but you can’t script it.

John: Many episodes ago, Craig and I were talking through this article and we’ll try to find a link to the actual original article. The writer was talking about how good conversations have doorknobs and handles. Basically, there’s ways you can open and keep going. It’s about making sure that you’re providing them things like your bio of all the schools you went to, all the things. You’re giving them handholds that they can pull on and actually keep the thing going. In some of the early general meetings I had, I just didn’t get the flow of it quite right.

I would answer questions without lobbing it back so that they could do the next thing or really that I could ask questions about what it is that they’re looking for. Because if the meeting’s going well at a certain point it does transition into like, “Here’s what we’re working on and here are things that might be a good fit for you.” That’s the dream situation. Other cases it’s just like, “What are the general areas in which we might have some overlap there.” Things that they’re looking for, if it’s an actor’s production company, like what is that actor seeking? If it’s a director, what things never cross the line for that director? That place you’re hoping to get to in these conversations.

Pamela: I used to always have prepared screenplays I wish I had written.

John: For sure.

Pamela: Because that lets them know and let it be varied if it’s varied. Now I know myself well enough, please forgive me if I’ve already said this on this podcast, but I will say, I just am not into dragons, politics, or when people pay money out of a pouch.

John: Great.

Pamela: That’s it. I know it. It doesn’t matter. You can put other things in that pouch, jewels maybe or secret but not farthings.

John: Nimona had dragons and pouches for sure.

Pamela: I turned it down the first time it came around. 100% I was like, “It checks every box I don’t like.” Then they came around again and they were like, “The thing is you don’t have to come all the way out to Connecticut anymore because of Zoom. What if we come to you?” They were like, “They’re punk rock dragons. I don’t think we have to have any pouches.” I was like, “Okay, let’s try it.”

John: All right. My list for that, it’s not a thing I would often say in meetings, but I would definitely tell my reps is like, “ No gnomes, elves, dwarves or Christmas.” I just like no. People will still come to me with Christmas but it’s like, “No, I don’t care about Christmas as a concept.” Even there was a good documentary that was about Christmas trees in New York and the whole business of Christmas trees in New York City. It’s is actually fascinating but it’s also, “No, it’s Christmas. No, it’s just bah humbug.” I just don’t want to do those.

Pamela: Really does help them immediately go, “Oh, we’re going to put down a number of these things.” It may make them say, “What is it that you like?” I think with me in particular, they’re not always assuming what it is that I like because they’re– Now that you have produced credits, they’re like, “Oh.” There have been times when I’m like, “Do you think I’m a cartoon person? Is that what you’re doing?” They’re like, “Yes. Sorry, I don’t know why I’m doing that.” People have a way of learning about animation that is limiting.

You’re always having to show your other sides and the dynamics of you. Often, I’ll tell you what, we end up talking about roller derby.

We end up trying about what I do when I’m not writing and your hobbies, your family, whatever it is. In those generals, I’m always talking to this person until we find that thing that lights them up. Then I know we got it. Sometimes he’s like, “I collect trains.” I was like, “Tell me more.” Then, you watch them become the person they want to be in front of you because they’re talking about their passion.

John: Absolutely. You may not give a rat’s ass about trains but the fact that it is interesting to them, there’s going to be something there that’s fascinating. There’s something that’s driving them about that.

Pamela: They have stories because of that. That’s when you see the storyteller come to life.

John: Again, I’m forgetting exactly where I learned this but Rod Stewart apparently is a big model train builder and collector. I appreciate Rod Stewart so much more now just recognizing that he has an obsession, a hobby that has nothing to do with music or songwriting. That’s fun. That’s nice. Let’s talk about part of the general meeting is talking about what you’re working on right now, which could be a delicate subject because it could be in flux. It could be like, there’s a director on, director’s not on, there could be an NDA. How do you best do that? I think sometimes in animation where we’re under NDAs a little bit more than we are in live action but talk to us about that.

Pamela: For a while I would be like, I’m working on things I can’t tell you about for years and that would be enough. It depends on the room. Sometimes you can realize you’re at a Disney meeting or you can be like, “We’re all in the family here. I’m working on Moana.” If you’re in a position where you can’t really– Let’s say right now I’m working on Emily the Strange for Warner Bros Animation with Bad Robot. That’s all I can say about it.

John: It was announced in the trades. You’re safe there.

Pamela: I’m safe there. I’m talking about who I’m working with and I focus on the great things about it because we have hard days, and I try not to launch right into like where it hurts and just talk about where it’s working and what’s great and what we’re still excited about. Because really the NDA is often so that you don’t like talk about stuff that they wouldn’t want in a press release and you know that in your heart. There’s things that are set up that aren’t quite happening yet. I have a spec that went out this week. Here’s something, you guys. I’ve never sold a spec before, ever.

John: I’ve sold exactly one. It was Go. That was the only spec I’ve ever sold.

Pamela: Good for you. That’s amazing. Tell me what it’s like. I’m excited but I don’t know what’s going to happen and maybe nothing will happen. I have a little piece of news this week that I have a spec that’s going out, which if I were in a general, they’d be like, “Can you tell me about it? Can I get it? Can I get it on that list? Can I read it?” That’s the mystery. You can use an NDA to your benefit of a mystery. You’re working. I’ve got a project at FX. I’ve got something going on at Disney TV Animation or whatever. These things take forever and they all have their own timeline, you bounce around to being– I genuinely like to balance a bunch of projects at once.

I try to talk about the one that either is the closest to next that anybody could see but you also know that a lot of stuff you work on maybe no one will ever see. You try to talk within what is the you of it, not the all of it. I’m working on this project. It’s really fun. We’re putting some stuff together. You can sometimes say where you’re at in it but I just try not to get into what’s not my business.

John: If I can bring it back to my process, that’s also a useful thing too. I can say I’m writing this movie right now for this company and it’s under NDA but I can say– It was one of the rare cases where I needed to write the outline first and it’s just actually such a luxury to have a really big fat outline because as I go to my daily work on doing the scene, it’s like, “Oh, what happens in this? Oh, exactly. This is what happens.” It’s like so many of the fundamental questions have actually been tackled in the outline form. It gives me a chance to talk about myself as a writer, which is nice.

Pamela: Oh yes.

John: Another point of commonality I’m thinking is business affairs. We say like, “Oh, there’s this thing.” Business affairs is so slow. I don’t know when it’s going to happen. It’s like everyone will just nod because business affairs is crazy and it just takes forever to get contracts done. Something will be sold at a place and eight months later, you’re allowed to start writing because the contracts are finally done.

Pamela: Sometimes you are like that. The deals are taken. There’s a lot of heavy hitters in here. We’re waiting on some stuff. You can also say lawyers. These things take time but your excitement stays the same. You really get to talk about how you got– Even talking about how you got that job or how you met everybody, how you ended up with it. That’s a good one.

John: If you can sell the enthusiasm that you– If you’re excited to write this thing for them and they want to see writers who are excited to engage. I can imagine like Charlie Kaufman is a great writer, but I don’t imagine he’s great in a room in terms of being really enthusiastic about this thing he’s doing. It’s like, if you come in as a curmudgeon, maybe that’s true to your authentic personality but it’s not going to be like, “Oh my God, I can’t wait to work with him.”

Pamela: That being said, you do not have to fake, like some of us like going outside and meeting other people. Some of us do not. I think sometimes the pressure is on of do I have to be someone else in this general? Do I have to lie and be a fundamentally different person? Sometimes you have to fake a little bit the confidence to be yourself. Then, that’ll get easier. The more that you’re like, “Oh, I was myself and nothing bad happened.” You just do that again and do that again and get used too. Sometimes it takes them a minute to get used to me. Even as the extrovert that I am, I can tell that I’m like, “Hey, I’m very excited.”

I can say like a little bit too much coffee, a little bit haven’t been outside in a while. Give me a second to settle. I’m not so much nervous as I am jittery. I think all of those things of, “I am shy. I’m really happy to be here but you should know that I haven’t had that many generals. I’m a little shy.” Just be a person. Be a person and that makes everything easier on both sides.

John: 100%. I was on a pitch this week and usually there is the ramp, the warmup, getting into things. Everyone logs in and they’re like, “Great. Let’s go.” It’s like, “Sure.” I’m there and I’m pitching away. It went fine. It went great. You also have to be prepared. Sometimes there’s just not that on [unintelligible 00:20:22] and you’re just like, “Go. Okay. Great, I’m doing it.” Be ready for it. That’s why I think if you are actually pitching a project, really rehearsing that first minute or two, just so you feel really comfortable with how you get into it is going to be a huge help because it could just suddenly happen.

Pamela: I don’t record myself and watch it again but I do record myself sometimes for the pitch so that I don’t have to do that part.

John: You’ve talked about this on the show, I think, before, where you actually will send them a link to a pre-recorded pitch.

Pamela: People now are more able to be in the Zooms or you might be pitching knowing it’s being recorded for someone else who’s not in the Zooms, so you do have to be your game face on. If they do say go, like you just did, you’re like, “Oh yes, this is happening?” It’s totally fine to do that and be like, “Here we go, hold on. I’m going to pull up my draft and I’m ready.” I’ll do disclaimers at the top of you can totally stop me for questions. I hate pitching to mute buttons so whatever you want to do, we’re all people here and I’ll just get through this pitch together.

I find that they, in the Zoom room, when you’re pitching, they do sit back like here’s a little TV show. In a pitch where you’re with people, they are probably more likely to go, “Oh wait, did you or that’s funny.” Because you’re people.
John: You’re people rather than being little boxes with faces in them. Post-pandemic, how many pitches have you done in person, where you’ve gone in? How many general meetings have you been in, like a cross run person and then pitches in person?

Pamela: One?

John: One or two for me. This one studio has wanted me to come in in person twice. I’m looking at Drew to see if he can remember other times, but two or three times. Basically everything has been a Zoom since the pandemic. I’ve talked to some friends who was like, “I don’t know that I could pitch in person anymore because I’m so used to having my slideshow deck. I share a screen and I go through my slides and to do that in person, I wouldn’t know what to do.”

Pamela: One of my friends said, “This is terrible because I’ve learned a key component of liking me is the third dimension.” All credit to Don Todd. That one that I did in person, it was really early pandemic. It was literally the first time I had gone into a room with someone. I said to her when I sat down, she was a big, important person. I sat down, I was like, I can’t believe that we’re taking masks off. I’m like, “What is happening? Look what I’ll do for my career.” That’s still it. I’ve had a room where we all got together for a kickoff. I’ve done some of those kickoff in the room but not this type thing that we’re talking about. They’re all–

John: The kickoff stuff, I was in a room and meeting everybody in person but the initial things have basically all been Zoomy situations. This one that I did this week, I didn’t have a deck. There was no images. I just talked for 15 minutes and described it and it went great. I’m so used to having the fallback of like, “Here’s the next image, here’s the next image and [unintelligible 00:23:31] to not have that.” I’m sure we’ve said this on the podcast before but if you do have notes and you’re doing it on a Zoom, move your notes to the very top of the screen up by your camera so you’re not looking down, you’re looking closer to the lens. Just so you’re making more eye contact.

Pamela: I actually, I put the Zoom in the tiny little bar with the people I want to be pitching to under the green light. Then, my pitch notes are right below that. I have no choice to be looking into that little corner and I can read how they’re doing if they’re listening.

John: It’s good. Another hint is if you have somebody in a second for somebody who’s on your side, they can talk without the facts. You can see how are people actually responding? Because people’s faces are small, it’s a little harder to read the sense of the room afterwards.

Pamela: They can also do the flipping for you if you want so that you are only doing your talking part.

John: All good choices. All right. This is helpful. Any last wrap up on introducing yourself, how to talk about yourself, how to not to be a jerk?

Pamela: We have on here, how to not be a jerk but we have what is too personal and how do you feel confident about your work that you don’t sound apologetic for being in the room. I just want to say that my first general happened the day after my father passed away. I was like, “I’m not canceling this general. I’ve never had one before. I’m not going anywhere today.” My dad had entered hospice. He was like, “I’m going to go outside and I’m going to go do this career thing.” It was the very beginning of all of this. Trauma and time have made me not remember everything but I remember it was the Disney old animation building.

I sat down and she liked the script, which is about my different family members, but about generational trauma and such in a comedy. I don’t know. We just at some point started talking about families and I told her what had happened last night. She ended up talking about her dad. I do remember that we both at some point were just crying a little bit sharing stories with each other. Then that was it. I think that was a really good general. Even though that’s not– Most people are like, “No Pam, you take the day off. What is wrong with you?” I know that but I also know that’s what I wanted to do. That’s what he would have probably suggested I do, just go out there and talk.

Sometimes you bring the day in with you and that general is what I was trying to say about what’s too personal and what’s not. If there’s no getting around it, that your day is with you end up having some pretty profound general sometimes because you’re not doing this checklist of things and you’re just some people talking to each other. If they didn’t get around to the thing they wanted to talk to you about, they’ll call you again. You’ll have a follow-up or it becomes the beginning of something. The too personal, I think the line is you don’t owe anybody your story.

You don’t owe anybody the worst things that have ever happened to you in order to validate being able to talk about whatever you want to talk about. I think sometimes we get worried that we have to spread our hearts open and then give everything on that first try. You’re learning what they deserve to.

John: For sure. All right. Let’s move on to our second topic here. This comes from Ryan Knighton, who is a guest who’s been on the show several times. He’s a writer who lives in Canada who comes down to the US to write sometimes. He sent in this voicemail.

Ryan Knighton: In answer to your question, what would be advice I would give about being unemployed as a writer. I was thinking about it. One of the things that I’ve experienced at least is that unemployment can make you incurious as a writer. The anxiety of the unemployment can pull you towards the middle of things, towards the safe and what you might think is predictable way of doing your work or the subject matters you take or the approach you take. That’s on my experience is that I start to chase what I think people might want instead of following an investment in my own curiosity and hoping that it will connect somewhere in the road in some form.

I battle against the pull to the middle, to the pull to the safe and work I don’t think I would enjoy but I would enjoy if I took a risk, not riskier, that’s not the word. I think you get what I mean.

John: I do get what he means.

Pamela: I’ll never sound as beautiful or wise as Ryan.

John: He’s got a great voice.

Pamela: Oh man, yes.

John: You and I both know a lot of writer friends who are not working as much as they should be working and that’s always the case, but it feels increasingly so now just with the other fewer shows, staffing fewer writers and there’s a lot more scrambling. In that scrambling, it resonates what Ryan’s saying in terms of this pull towards safety, not taking risks. When you stop to think about it, the better instinct should be to take some risks now because it’s a chance to grow and do things that are breaking out of the box.

Pamela: It’s some form of a pandemic again right now with that kind of stuff. A lot of us during the pandemic became pioneers again and baked bread and learned the piano. I’ve taken up embroidery and all of those things that are important to keep your mind moving, learning a new language or whatever. We all have this confident delusion, hopefully that we will work again, this is temporary. If you’re not deciding am I retired or not? You’re waiting for that next opportunity then it has to feel like a hiatus. When you’re working in television, you have hiatus so it’s like–

Or you’re between gigs and you’re pretty sure you’re going to have another one but you don’t know when. Do everything that you’re going to miss when you’re busy, pack in family time or alone time or a stack of books or whatever. I know that doesn’t feel like you have that luxury when you’re feeling like I’m unemployed. That’s different that you’re running for safety. I understand that’s like taking care of your own and your future but your brain, I think that where Ryan’s worried, like am I ruining my risk-taking brain? Then there’s these other things that you can do. I’m making a documentary that’s crazy. I was like, this is some downtime. If I don’t fill it, I don’t know what I’m going to do with myself. I don’t know that I would have thought of it the way that Ryan’s describing of moving toward some– It’s almost like he’s saying I don’t want to be basic or something. He’s like, “Am I going to be less awesome the more this goes? Am I going to lose the me-ness of me?” Am I getting that right of what he means?

John: I absolutely do. I think you’re getting it right. That question of should I change my shape in order to fit this world, to make it easier to get through these doors and the limited number of jobs that are available to make myself more appealing to that? Should I write the thing that is more conventionally commercial? That is simpler to see like,” Oh, I get what this is.” I’ve gone through that at times in my career too. I remember just being frustrated that other movies were getting made that weren’t my movies. Maybe I can write that kind of movie too. Just like, I’ll write that movie. It was a waste of my time because it wasn’t the best thing for me to have been doing.

Pamela: I would imagine that no matter what you were doing, you were still making your version of that kind of a movie.

John: I was. Listen as you know every script you write is months of your time that you could have been doing something that is just truer to your own experience. When Ryan uses the verb chase, that is a thing you see yourself doing sometimes. You’re chasing a project and wait, is that a thing you’d actually even really want to write. Maybe not, but it’s something that’s out there. It’s a thing you could do so therefore you feel like you should do it. If you were to see that somebody else in the trades got this thing, it would be frustrating to you.

Pamela: I see that. That sometimes you only know that when you go a little on that journey. Then there’s just a moment where they want you to do another round of notes or another meeting where you’re like, “Oh, I don’t want to. This won’t feel good anymore. If I take that meeting, I hate myself.”

John: I try to pass quickly on a thing where it’s like, “No, that’s just not for me.” On the Christmas tree thing I was like, “No, that’s not for me.” There’s been other things which I feel over the years have engaged on more than I really should have because it’s a thing I could do but it’s a question, is it the thing I should do? I try to get back to the algorithm of just heck yes or no. Either absolutely 100% I’m going to do this or I shouldn’t do it. I think like, “Am I the person who should be writing this movie or is there five other people who are clearly better suited to be doing this movie?”

Pamela: You learned all that going through flirting. You learned all that the hard way, I’m guessing.

John: Yes.

Pamela: There’s a little bit of that here but I also think, in the little for me, little for them of how to do stuff, sometimes you’re like, “Man, I think I can get that one. I think I can get it quickly. I think I can do it quickly.” Then, that’s going to make me feel better about the rest of the year and next year and then I can go back to the thing I want. If you’re feeling that unsure about stuff and you can grab a fish maybe. You just know this is for this reason.

John: Being honest with yourself about that I think is important. You don’t have to be honest in the general meeting and say like, “I would do this for the money.”

Pamela: Can you imagine? It’s in the general feeling. You guys need anything back there. I’ve got like two weeks for you.

John: I used to do a lot more weekly rewrites. In that process it was just fully mercenary. I see what the problems are, I’ll becoming in and solve these problems. I’m going to deal with these difficult personalities and get through this thing. This is not my movie. It’s not my dream. It’s not my goal. I’m here to help out to maintain some relationships, but mostly you’re paying me cash. That’s fantastic.

Pamela: Maybe you think of it as money. It’s in the list but you still have to go to that job. You have to think like, “I can be helpful here. What can I do?”

John: Sometimes it’s really nice just to be able to use your craft to be able to do a thing and to just to recognize a problem, and solve a problem feels great because so much of what we’re doing as writers is so amorphous. I’m like, “Did that actually make it better? Is that even going to be a thing?” It’s also nice to write on something that actually gets made because so often the things we do just disappear. I’ve done so much work to contribute to a thing and then it just never happens.

Pamela: You should remind me what I do. I start mentoring. I volunteer for things. I try to mentor. Because when you’re talking to the people who are spending their whole day trying to figure out how to be where you’re sitting, it does remind you of where you’re at and how far you’ve gone and what you want next. It helps with goals and dreams and it helps reposition yourself into thinking like, “Oh, it’s not over.” I’ve been here before in some version. It just feels different now because I have a hundred more responsibilities or whatever your reasons are.

John: I was talking with Drew this week about– There’s a situation I’m finding myself approaching and I’m reminding myself that this always happens and it always feels this way and it’s going into it. I’m going to feel this way and we’ll get through it and it’ll be fine. There was this anxiety approaching. It’s like, “Oh yes, but I know what this is. It’s nothing new.” To get back to Ryan’s question here is that the anxiety that you feel when you’re unemployed is that, will I ever work again? That’s the thing that is so frustrating, which makes it so different than a writer on hiatus between two seasons of shows. Do all the things because you know you have a job to go back to.

Pamela: Usually. Sometimes.

John: Sometimes you don’t. Is there any advice we should give to writer listeners who are hearing this and thinking about so what should I write? Should I write this commercial thing that my manager wants me to do? Should I write this thing that has been a passion project that I’ve never allowed myself to do because I’ve always been busy writing stuff for other people? What guidance can we give to our writer listeners?

Pamela: I’m the kind of person who might try both at the same time and see which one is winning because maybe they’re right. Maybe you can crack some code and because you’re you and you’re thinking differently. I know when I’m on these pitches, the first thing I usually say is, “This is not going to be what you’re expecting but you called me so here we go.” In the end, they’re like, “You’ve given us something to think about.” It’s something I hear a lot. I also know that that’s just what is going to happen and if I wanted to be more of a sure shot, I would really be having to use different muscles of how I break things.

You can try that but probably what it’ll do is lead you back to the thing you were like, is this worth my time? I want to write this thing that’s in my head and feels more me.

John: Always a great time to remind people that as a writer, you have this amazing power that you can just go off and write. No one has to hire you to do anything. Unlike an actor or a director who has to be put onto a project, you can just do whatever you want to do at any moment. I think the worst thing for you to do during a period of unemployment is nothing. You’ve got to find something to write, whether it’s commercial, whether it’s something for yourself to keep those muscles going.

Pamela: It also doesn’t necessarily have to be a screenplay because you might find a play in you or a song or a book, all of a sudden you’re like, “Oh, I’m writing a novel that I will eventually adapt into a screenplay with success.” Not deciding, unless you’re like this is the break I need to get back to my painting, the clay, the garden, the something. Just something that allows your brain to keep processing all these thoughts instead of thinking, this is useless, I’m useless, I’m nothing, I’m yesterday because that’s just not true.

John: All right. Let’s get to some listener questions.

Drew: We’ll start with Marie in Brussels. I’m telling the story of a couple. My main narrative point of view is that of a man and we begin with him, finish with him, and above all the main question addressed by the film is driven by him but at many moments throughout, I write from the point of view of the woman. The story’s about motivations and I would like to fully understand her. I listened very carefully to your episode about point of view, episode 358, but could you explore in more depth how to alternate point of view? What do we need to pay attention to and how can you make the alternation fluid?

John: Great. Marie thinks she’s writing a single point of view story and it feels like it might be more of a two-hander. I think she’s asking the right questions. I’m excited to just see where she’s going with it. I’m not nervous on her behalf, but I understand her question because she wants to make sure that it really does feel like the movie is centered around this man even if he’s not in every scene.

Pamela: I have a script like this but I want to say it’s unproduced. Maybe part of it is the problem. I’m doing it because one is a realist and one isn’t, and so I also want the audience to be a little unsure. I want them to believe in both of them actually. That both of them have a valid point in their way through the world and they both could be true. I want to understand her without making guesses. I use his point of view to ground us. If it’s mostly about this man and she’s not the B story, when you move into her point of view, it has a different feel. My writing has a different feel a little when we are in her point of view. It allows for the magical realism of her life.

When we’re in his point of view, the things that he’s doing, the world that he’s in, the way that it’s written is more clipped. It’s his practical point of view. Your script can feel like your characters and maybe that helps with that fluidity you’re looking for.

John: The movie’s about Edward Bloom but the Will character, the son, does have a lot of storytelling power. He drives scenes by himself but it’s in an effort to understand his father better. It makes sense that you’re switching POVs between those two things. This also made me think about The Brutalist, which is all about Adrian Brody’s character, yet sometimes you’re switching to the wife’s point of view or other characters’ point of view. about the scenarios that’s happening here. There’s scenes that he’s not driving. It’s absolutely doable. I think just be mindful of when you’re shifting to a different character’s point of view and make it count. Make sure that the scenes where you’re shifting point of view there really is a good reason why you’re doing it.

Pamela: That it’s very clear from the beginning we’ve changed point of view. That we’re not just waiting for him to enter and be the scene.

John: Such a great point. As an audience, we don’t know what’s going to happen in a scene and so if we’re just standing around waiting for him to show up, we’re probably not paying attention to what you’re trying to get us to see in the scene. Our next question comes from Brandon.

Drew: I recently wrote a script that used the word sinister three times. Is that too many? Would you feel comfortable using the same adjective three times in a script?

Pamela: Is it a five minute piece?

John: I would throw the script across the room if I saw it. On the third time I saw it, sinister didn’t have it.

Pamela: Wait, is it called sinister? Is one of the characters named sinister? I guess why? If there’s a reason, if it’s like Act one, Act two, Act three and sinister means something different, is it thematic? Why? You already have flagged it. Is it too many depending on what you’re trying to do?

John: Brandon, if it feels weird to you, then you’re using too many. If you’re noticing it, then sinister is just not a was or a house or a common, it’s a rare enough word that for it to show up too often, it’s worth addressing and finding a good synonym there to avoid it.

Pamela: For me, it would need to be– I’m going to notice it too and so you want me to notice it. Every time it’s something different is happening here. That’s why we’re using the word sinister.

John: Agreed. English has so many words. It’s so many words. You have your choice. If you’re writing in Esperanto, I could see the problem here. It’s a much smaller vocabulary set but you got so many, tons. Let’s do one more here from Ryan.

Drew: Ryan writes, I’m currently outlining a period biopic feature with no shortage of fun and memorable scenes. The anecdotes play well in a room whenever I tell them aloud but in a film form, I’m finding the whole and then of it all is working to the detriment of my story. It doesn’t add up to something substantial like I’m hoping for. Any advice on how to confront this linear stringing out of events and bend them into a more consequential series of scenes and sequences?

John: We’re nodding here. Just to make sure everyone is hearing what he’s asking in this question is, there’s a moment, there’s a scene, and then there’s a moment, there’s a scene, and then it doesn’t feel like there’s a causality between things. It’s just a bunch of stuff happens without feeling like there is a purpose, a drive, a natural flow of cause and effect between them. That’s where I think, Ryan, you need to step back and think about– There’s the real version of stuff and then there’s the movie and you got to write the movie and the movie is going to have causality. Our main character has to be causing these things to happen in a pursuit of some goal of theirs.

Pamela: Just change and then to because and see what happens. At this point, you want to track the emotional journey of your story. All these cool moments that happen in real life not only because of this happened, because of this she went this way and because of this he got married. How do you want the whole thing to feel? You also don’t necessarily have to tell it in the order of the way you’ve been pitching these fun scenes. The one that gets everybody hooked that might be somehow even first and you end up doing a Stewart special. Whatever it is that you’re tracking, how’s the movie going to make you feel from the beginning to the end? Then, you know and it’s because I felt this, that I was able to feel this and then this happened and because that happened, this very terrible thing happened and then you have the flow of your movie.

John: You’re starting with an advantage because you have these moments to do play well in a room, and so you know that there’s something to those moments. It’s making sure those moments really feel earned in your story and that we’re getting into and out of those things in the right way. It’s why setups for jokes are so important. It’s making sure that it really feels like you’ve led us to this place where we get to have this experience and then we can use that energy to get to us to the next place. It’s the right stuff. I would say stop writing scenes for a moment and really look at an outline and really look at what the overall shape of this is best served us.

Pamela: Motivations. Now, where are they trying? How come these scenes feel like achievements? These moments that you can pitch, like what did they try to do that got here? Because they got here, they had to go try something else or had a setback or whatever.

John: Be careful of things that happen to your character rather than because of your character. All right. It’s time for our one cool things. My one cool thing is something that has actually been around for a long time but I just found out about it this week. Pam, you grew up in Texas. You are used to thunderstorms, I’m assuming. I grew up in Colorado. We had some thunderstorms. In California, we just never get them. If I did get thunderstorms here in Los Angeles, I would use the Real Time Lightning Map. This thing is really cool. On this website you see, basically all the lightning strikes happening in the world, especially in North America because of these sensors they have places.

What’s cool about it is, if you are someplace in the middle of a lightning storm, you can look and see where lightning strike was. It’s timed in a way that you’ll see the radius expand. You’ll hear the thunder at the same time that the radius expands to wherever you are. The timing is built that way. We live in an age of wonders.

Pamela: I’m afraid of lightning, so I don’t like this map. I used to just tell people, “Do you know lightning strikes the earth 100 times a second?” Now I can see it.

John: Now you can see this.

Pamela: It’s terrifying.

John: There’s some lake in South America that has a thunderstorm every night. Literally every night. Don’t go there. It’s my recommendation to you. Pam, no.

Pamela: Spent a lot of time in the deep South, there’s a lot of lightning.

John: Pam, what’s your recommendation? What’s your one cool thing?

Pamela: I started with what turned out to be a rerun. I’m glad I got to find the second one cool thing. You mentioned Texas, so this is a nice segue. Segue man to studentsengaged.org, SEAT it is. Man, it’s amazing. It’s one of those things where you’re like, “Why didn’t we do this?” Gen X thinks they’re so awesome but this current generation that is like, “We want a seat at the table.” This is a group of young people throughout Texas who are trying to have any school board has a student representative on board. They go to the Capitol and they introduce bills. They speak on legislation.

They stand up for their rights, and they also have a bill of rights to help other young people know when their rights are being violated. How to get involved at the Capitol building and how to get your community involved, how to make politics personal and get them empowered. I’m just so proud of these people. I hope this is everybody’s future because as we’re all learning, the entire country is Texas now but they are teaching each other how to be leaders not later, how to be leaders now, and how to bring people along.

Just the basic decency of tampons being free and available in every bathroom in school because you shouldn’t have to go to the nurse and you shouldn’t have to miss class and nobody should be embarrassed about basic private body functions. Why didn’t we think of this? We thought we were so cool. The Breakfast Club should have said, “I would like a seat at the table, please, to make my own rules about detention.” Anyway, studentsengage.org, you can get involved, you can donate to their work, you can just go see what they’re up to and what they’re doing. I hope it inspires a young person or you in your own life.

John: I want to celebrate what they’re doing and give us and Generation X a little grace because we were doing this at a time before internet, at least early internet, so it was hard to mobilize people. You had the people right around you, so within a high school you might be able to affect some changes. I remember I was a student leader so of course I was doing some things inside of my high school, but it was tough to mobilize and see the bigger picture around you. You couldn’t find all the other teens.

Pamela: Did you think that you could go to a school board meeting?

John: I went to school board meetings.

Pamela: You went to city council and talked to the big room?

John: I was in Boy Scouts so I had to for a merit badge.

Pamela: Oh. We just had student walkouts that would give you maybe detention.

John: We are in an age of horrors but it’s also nice to see that there’s some bright spots there and people who are pushing back against the horrors. It’s nice to see. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We love our outros and our larder of outros is getting a little bit lean and so we would love some more outros from our listeners. Ask@tjohnaugust.com is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today.

You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing and pre-orders on the Scriptnotes book. The book comes out December 2nd. If you pre-order your book, thank you, and you just send that receipt to ask@johnaugust.com. Drew is collecting all those, and we’re finding a very fun thing to send you via email before the book comes out. You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes. We have t-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau.

You’ll find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Your premium subscribers are the absolute best. You are going to be getting an email about our live show we’re recording tomorrow, the day after this comes out, the episode 700 live show, but everyone is welcome to join us on YouTube. That’ll be next week. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net. We get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the present and future of podcasts. Man, this was a very good present podcast. Pamela Ribon, thank you so much for joining us here today.

Pamela: Thanks, anytime.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right. Pamela Ribon, you have been in various kinds of media, online media. You were early on the recapping world. You were early in podcasting too. How long have you done podcasts?

Pamela: I loved being a professional guest. It took a long time before I had my own podcast. Legally, we all have to have one.

John: We’re required now.

Pamela: We’ve been doing Listen to Sassy. I don’t know. We don’t really count it like that. Are we in our fourth year? Maybe. Yes, it doesn’t feel that long. Before that, I would just guest anywhere.

John: You’d guest anywhere. You’ve followed podcasts but talk to me about what you perceive as being a podcast because if there’s two people talking on YouTube, is it a podcast?

Pamela: Now it is, I guess because people want to watch their podcasts. I asked Tara and Dave, I was like, “Are we not ever going to do one of these even as a bonus for our subscribers?” They were like, “Never. I don’t want anyone to see me doing this.” We would do watch parties where we’d put a movie on and then we all chatted while it was on. We said hello before and after. My friends, they don’t want to be public facing.

John: I hear that. We’ll put a link in the show notes to two articles, one from The Wrap and one from The New York Times, talking about how so much of the podcast market has moved on to YouTube. 30% of podcast listeners play the video in the background or minimize rather than just the audios. It’s like people are listening, watching podcasts on YouTube. Just my daughter who’s 20, she will say like, “Oh yes, I watched that podcast.” I’m like, “Wait, that’s the wrong verb. You’re listening to podcasts.”

Pamela: I think when the comedians all got involved– It’s just a stage. First we were like, however I get in your ears, I’ll put it in a podcast. Me and my buddies talking about being funny. Then you’re like, “This is the show of it all.” Let them see us. That’s now I have my own show. I get that. My kid also would prefer just watching YouTube to listening to things. We just like looking at people doing things. We like looking at windows where things are happening, like the zoo. Oh, the Panda Cam. It’s the original podcast.

John: The New York Times article interviews some people about it. They’re saying they want to be able to look at the screen, even if they’re not mostly looking at the screen. Just like us Gen X’s, sometimes they’ll start a podcast and they’ll do their dishes. They’ll do other stuff while the podcast is playing, but they’re not necessarily looking at it. Which raises the question of should Scriptnotes be recording video for our podcast? We’re on Zoom right now so we could use this video. I went on Mike Birbiglia’s podcast. For that, they do shoot three cameras of video for the whole thing. They edit that and they put that up on YouTube.

It seems like a lot of work for us to honestly be doing. Matthew’s busy enough cutting the audio and making it sound good. To have to think about the video too is an extra factor.

Pamela: Is his show like on Wondery or something? I always assume that’s what happens when you’re getting paid to do your podcast. They need to put it on TikTok and all these little clips that get people driving to more clicks. You have to be like, “I guess I’ll wear my good shirt.” Other than that–

John: Mike’s podcast does have ads but the YouTube version of it does not have ads. I guess they’re getting some monetization off of YouTube in general. I don’t believe he’s part of a bigger network behind it.

Pamela: He’s a comedian. I just think that’s it.

John: It’s driving people to come see his stand up. It’s probably part of it.

Pamela: Part of him is his physicality. You’re only getting some of it if you can hear him. Why not?

John: You got to go get a hold of Mike Birbiglia a package.

Pamela: There’s a reason that I’m asking Tara and Dave, can we turn the cameras on? I want to.

John: Absolutely.

Pamela: The third dimension. That’s how he’s used to communicating with his audience. I get that.

John: I think what we’ve been talking about is when it gets closer to award season, that’s when we start to have filmmakers and directors and writers coming on the show. We have to deal with publicists to get stuff going. We’ve had Christopher Nolan on. We’ve had Greta Gerwig. It’s lovely to have them there. I think we do a great job on the audio of those things. It would make sense honestly to record video for those situations. To record video in our setup, it’s a really tiny little space and pulling out the cameras to do all that stuff feels like a lot.
We’re considering for the episodes where we do go video, we’ll just rent an existing studio to do a situation. We’ll go to a place that just records podcasts and just rent it by the hour or whatever to do that. We have video for just those ones where we decide to do it.

Pamela: The events. That’s fancy because you could just record the Zoom.

John: We could just record the Zoom for the ones that are on Zoom. We actually have those people in person. Christopher Nolan actually showed up here.

Pamela: Oh, that was fancy.

John: That was fancy. We have like Julia Louis-Dreyfus came to our office and she’s sitting at this shitty little table and it would make more sense, I think, to do it in a professional place.

Pamela: It depends on however you get the actual vibe of your show. If moving to that studio makes you guys more formal and weird and it’s actually funny to watch you guys just be at a table with Julie. I want to see you with them, particularly when we find out, “Oh, you guys are friends.” We’re going to see that better in a less formal situation.

John: That’s true. Basically we need to create an artificial space that’s well lit that seems like it’s just hanging out at our place. That’s what we’ll do.

Pamela: That’s what the garage is for.

John: That’s what the garage is for. We have to have the lawnmower hanging there on the wall. It all feels fun and random.

Pamela: Honestly, it’s just getting to watch you interact. I don’t know that you need to worry about if the quality of the sound is good and we can see all three of you. If all three of you were in the same room with three different Zooms, it’s still going to get that feeling of you’re looking at each other and talking to each other like a general. I don’t know. You throw some money in and it gets fancy. Now you’re going viral on TikTok.

John: Absolutely.

Pamela: Here you go.

John: We’ll see what ends up happening. It’s weird to be 13 years into a podcast and seeing-

Pamela: The growth.

John: -the medium itself evolve and figure out like, “Oh, are we going to still be doing the same stuff we’ve been doing? Is the official version of an episode the audio?” To me, it always will be. The video may just be a little fun bonus.

Pamela: You’re evolving your podcast into the next version of it. A lot of times it’s just people looking like this sitting at their desks. It looks like when behind the scenes of a radio station. It looks like Frasier.

John: You in particular, you’re sad because of the louvered blinds behind you there. It feels like, “Oh yes, she’s at a radio station.” Some drive time traffic there.

Pamela: I’ve got all kinds of sound effects over here. I’m ready to hit. It’s just a peek at your humanness. I don’t know that you should worry about it looking like a big production because it’s just a hang. It’s a good hang.

John: It’s a good hang. We’re going to hang. You are a fantastic hang. Pam, thank you so much for bringing a great topic at just the right moment. Craig couldn’t be here today, but it’s so nice to see you and so cool to hang out with you.

Pamela: A lot of fun. Thank you so much.

John: Awesome. Thanks.

Links:

  • Scriptnotes Episode 700 – LIVE
  • Pamela Ribon
  • My Year of Dicks
  • Rental Family trailer
  • Japan’s Rent-A-Family Industry by Elif Batuman for The New Yorker
  • 37 Seconds
  • Good conversations have lots of doorknobs by Adam Mastroianni
  • Real Time Lightning Map
  • Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT)
  • Who Is Watching All These Podcasts? by Joseph Bernstein for NYT
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 698: Movies that Never Were, Transcript

August 19, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to Episode 698 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we discuss movies that never existed, from high-profile projects that got shelved at the last minute, to our own experiences with unmade projects. Then, it’s time for some listener questions covering multi-language dialogue and multi-part movies, among other things.

In our bonus segment for premium members, if no one paid us to write screenplays anymore, Craig, if they would never get made, would we continue to write them as a form?

Craig: Uh. [chuckles]

John: Yes, you have an hour to think about that.

Craig: I don’t know if I need an hour, but all right.

John: We’ll talk about the pros and cons of the screenplay format. It’s a literary thing independent of a way to make a movie. Craig, this last week, I ran the San Francisco Half Marathon.

Craig: Congrats.

John: Which was really fun. I’d done the second half of it six years ago. This week, I did the first half. As I was running it, I was thinking like, “I wonder if Craig knows these things.” How do they know when a racer crosses the finish line? How do they know the time of a racer?

Craig: If I had to guess, I don’t think it’s as fancy as like an RFID tag in a bib.

John: It is an RFID tag in a bib.

Craig: Oh, it is? It is as fancy as that.

John: The day before the race, you go and you pick up your bib, and that’s the thing you have paper-clipped onto your shirt, or we have little fancy magnets now because we’re fancy. On the back of that bib is an RFID tag, and so as you’re running the race, you’re constantly passing through gates that are tracking that you ran through. There’s an app that you install on your phone-

Craig: For friends and family to follow on.

John: -to find you, but also, it tells you in real time what your pace is.

Craig: Oh, so you actually carry a phone with you as you’re running?

John: I do carry a phone with me as I’m running.

Craig: Because that’s extra weight.

John: It’s extra weight, but it’s fine. Most people are, I think, are running with phones these days.

Craig: Running with phones, yes. It would be rough if you were tracking this, your loved one is in a marathon and they just stop.

John: Yes.

[laughter]

Craig: They stop for a long time, then you hear sirens. It’s rough.

John: It’s not good.

Craig: No.

John: It’s helpful for your friends and family because that way, they can figure out where you are on the race, so they can come and cheer you on on a certain place.

Craig: Yes, that makes absolute sense. It’s a nicer scenario than the one I suggested.

John: The whole idea of RFID and tracking leads to a bigger question because earlier this summer, I was on a cruise in Alaska. On this boat, you wear this little medallion that has an RFID with you, and it’s super handy because, again, you pull up the app and it’s like, “I want a cup of coffee.” Wherever you are on the boat, [crosstalk] press one button, they find you, they bring you this stuff. It’s nice.

Craig: Oh, they’re bringing it to you?

John: They bring it to you, not to your cabin, just to you-

Craig: To you.

John: -directly, wherever you are.

Craig: Yes, right now, I guess our phones are that thing, but eventually, we’ll all be chipped at birth.

John: Both the race and the cruise ship were cases where that kind of constant surveillance I liked, but I don’t want to have it everywhere all the time. I don’t want to be forced into it.

Craig: No, I don’t want to have a situation where a corporation can track me wherever I go, although, currently, that is the situation I have. Let’s face it.

John: It is, yes.

Craig: They know everything. I was just thinking in my mind, if you did start to chip human beings at birth.

John: Yes, because you’re a parent who wants to know where your kid is.

Craig: Let’s say the state has decided. In our rougher scenario, every human shall be chipped. I’m trying to think biologically where to put this so that it won’t be dislodged by growth. I’m struggling. I think everything grows. Nothing is fully sized when you’re born, not even one little tiny thing.

John: Yes, your eyes are bigger, proportionally bigger, but the eyes are still going to continue to grow.

Craig: Everything grows, so I don’t know where to put it.

Drew Marquardt: With animals, they’d put it under the skin and it sits on top.

Craig: Animals grow, yes, and they don’t grow as much as we do. Humans are ridiculous. We’re born so stupidly small compared to–

John: Early because–

Craig: Early, because of our dumb heads.

John: Otherwise, we wouldn’t fit through the birth canal.

Craig: Yes, but I think you could put it under the skin, I suppose. I just wonder if it would get irritated, or it could move, it could shift.

John: Yes, you might swap that at a certain point.

Craig: Yes, maybe you do like a little baby tag. Then you do a kid tag. It’d be great. Kids would love it.

John: Oh, fantastic. Alrighty, the issue of tracking your kids and turning on Find My Friends and Find My is a thing. I remember talking with you at a certain point, and we realized that I think our daughters are at the same concert in Boston. You’re like, “Let me pull up,” and was like, “Oh yes, she’s there.” You did that. I didn’t do that because I sort of have an unspoken thing that I don’t find my friends when she’s not in Los Angeles.

Craig: Oh, that’s interesting. I never have to look at it, but when Jessie was in school in Boston, I never went to go look for her. I would look for Melissa, like, “Where’s my wife?” Always at the tennis. The tennis is where she is. It has a list. It’s like, “Melissa is 8 miles away. Jessica is 3,000-something miles away.” Then I’d be like, “Oh yes, look, there she is in Boston somewhere.”

John: I only share location with family. I don’t share with

Drew. That feels like–

Craig: I share my location with Drew, which is weird.

John: It’s just strange. Yes.

Craig: I just want him to know. No, just family. Just really, just actually, not even my full family, just Melissa and Jessica. You know what I don’t use enough? When you are meeting somebody somewhere in a large public place, you can share your location with them, which obviously Drew and his generation does constantly. I’m like, “Oh yes, I forgot.”

John: Yes. I will do that temporarily, but I don’t do it with friends. Drew, do you share your location with any friends?

Drew: I only do the temporary. Even me and my wife don’t share. We don’t have Find my Friends.

Craig: What? Oh wow.

John: Wow.

Drew: Pure trust.

Craig: It’s not about trust. It’s not like I think, “Oh, she’s going whoring again.” I–

John: To me, it’s always like, how close is Mike to being home?

Craig: Yes, exactly. If I’m going to order food, should I see if she’s going to be here or–?

Drew: I don’t know. It feels like a threshold that because I haven’t crossed it yet, I don’t want to cross it yet.

John: Yes, exactly.

Craig: You’re up to something.

Drew: [laughs]

John: It’s all– [crosstalk]

Craig: I am absolutely [unintelligible 00:06:01] Drew is up to something.

Drew: I’m whoring.

Craig: You’re whoring?

John: Absolutely.

Craig: I love whore as a verb–

John: He’s a secret assassin. He’s out there killing people.

Craig: Not anymore.

John: Not anymore. Some follow up. Hey, remember we wrote a book?

Craig: Oh my goodness. We wrote a book, and John, I have an author page-

John: On Amazon.

Craig: -on Amazon, which as you can imagine is populated with almost nothing. It’s got my picture.

John: Yes, got your picture. People have been sending Drew their pre-order receipts, which is great.

Craig: Amazing. How are we doing? Are we going to be doing a lot of signing?

Drew: We have about 150 so far.

Craig: Oh, that’s pretty good. Of just people that sent receipts?

Drew: Just people who sent receipts.

John: Oh. A reminder, if you pre-order the book from wherever you order it from, so not just Amazon, but any place– [crosstalk]

Craig: Sure, anywhere.

John: Send your little receipt through to Drew, ask@johnaugust.com, and we will send you something cool. We’re not quite sure what it’s going to be yet. It could be a bonus chapter. It could be some successful video report.

Craig: It could be a brand new car.

John: It could be something cool, but we’ll send that out well before the book comes out.

Craig: Do we have any sense, other than the receipts that you have received, does Amazon tell you how many people are buying it or–?

John: Pre-ordering it? I think Crown, our publisher in the US, has had this,-

Craig: Oh, they got– [crosstalk]

John: -and so at some point, they’ll tell us.

Craig: At some point they’ll give us the bad news.

John: They’ll say, “We’re really worried, John, Craig.”

Craig: [laughs]

John: No, I think they’re happy with almost anything.

Craig: Wow.

John: No, because here’s the thing, it’s–

Craig: That’s a low bar.

John: There are books that need to be giant hits out of the gate and needs to hit those lists. We are a catalog title, where there’s like, we’re evergreen.

Craig: We are not the latest Stephen King novel.

John: Yes. Questions that I got off of Reddit and other people asking, audio book. Yes, if you see, there’s a listing with a little button for audio book, there’s plans for an audio book. There’s nothing to announce yet, but there’s going to be an audio book. It’s not me and Craig talking.

Craig: Should we just get Ryan Reynolds to do it? [laughs] Just hold Ryan down and force him to do it at some point?

John: Yes.

Craig: It’ll be fun.

John: Yes, good.

Craig: Because occasionally, in the middle of an audio book, you get the sense that the person reading it is a hostage. [chuckles] They try and run, and there’s scuffle, and then they come back and resume reading.

John: For the podcast, they did lauch about the [unintelligible 00:08:02] books. The episode I did about the audiobook was actually really fascinating because I met the guy in LA, who actually recorded the book, and just his whole process was great and crazy.

Crown came to us and said like, “Hey, do you and Craig want to record the audiobook?” I’m like, “No. We record a podcast every week, and that’s plenty. No. No, thank you.

Craig: Yes, it’s too much reading.

John: It’ll be great to have a real professional do it.

Craig: Yes, terrific, so Ryan Reynolds?

John: Or somebody like Ryan Reynolds.

Craig: Yes, somebody bigger.

John: Yes.

Craig: Tom Hanks? [chuckles]

John: Yes. Crown said we should go for Tom Hanks.

Craig: Tom Hanks would be great.

John: Yes.

Craig: is he doing stuff? We’ll check into it.

John: I’ve heard that the Britney Spears biography that is read by Michelle Williams is incredible, so maybe Michelle Williams should be the choice.

Drew: That would be perfect.

Craig: That’s kind of amazing.

John: The person who I think is actually going to record it, is actually listening to the podcast right now, and he’s so upset that–

Craig: He’s like, “I’m an effin’ person.”

John: He’s an effin’ person in the world.

Craig: I’m an effin’ person.

John: Other questions were about the international versions, and so, there are no plans right now for a translation, probably because if you’re listening to this podcast, you speak English, you can probably read English. People ask about like, “Oh, I want to buy it in Europe. I want to buy it in Asia. Where do I get it from?” I asked, and the real answer is, wherever you get your English books is where you should go, so go to whatever bookstore or whatever online site is that you buy books in English, because they will have it. They’ll either get the US or the UK version. They’re both basically the same.

Craig: Yes, it’s an interesting question. I suppose that the marketplace will determine these things, if there’s a clamoring from a particular country. I’m looking at you, Brazil.

John: Yes, my agent was saying that there are cases, you’ll be in India, and you’ll see the US and the UK version side by side on a shelf. That’s just what happens.

Craig: Does just that color is spelled differently?

John: No. Honestly, the UK version is not changing our spelling.

Craig: What is the difference? Page size?

John: I think page size and slightly different pricing.

Craig: Oh.

John: Because of imports and–

Craig: What, tariffs?

John: Tariffs and things.

Craig: What? What? What?

John: What? What? What? Books are physical things that are printed in places. Other bits of follow up. My game Birdigo that I made with Corey Martin is out now on Steam. It’s a whopping $8.49.

Craig: Oh my God.

John: It’s a huge burden.

Craig: Ugh.

John: Ugh. We’ve gotten so many good reviews in the press,-

Craig: Great.

John: -and we’re currently 100% positive on Steam itself, which is great.

Craig: Only 100%?

John: Only 100%.

Craig: If I go in there just as a jerk, I can get it to 99%? [chuckles]

John: Weirdly, it would actually help us a little bit because how Steam ratings work is that it’s based on total number of reviews. We’re at the threshold where we’re listed as positive, but once we get to the next threshold of reviews, which is 50 or 100, then it becomes very positive.

Craig: I see.

John: Then it becomes overwhelmingly positive.

Craig: I see.

John: If you are a person like Craig who has played the game and enjoyed it and want to leave us a review, leave us a review because it actually does help.

Craig: That makes sense because if you put something on there, you could say, “Hey, I’m going to get 50 of my friends to do a review.” They need to know that it’s more than just the friends and family. I get that.

John: Yes, so that’s what–

Craig: That’s fantastic.

John: Yes, that’s good news.

Craig: Birdigo.

John: More follow up. Last week, we talked about Solar Storms as part of How Would This Be A Movie. Drew, what did we hear?

Drew: Multiple people wrote in that it sounded very much like the novel Aurora by a former Scriptnotes guest, David Koepp.

John: David Koepp, that hack.

Craig: Koepp, what can he do? By the way, David Koepp has quietly crushed the Summer Box office. Everyone was going on about Superman and Fantastic Four. Meanwhile, Jurassic, Jurassic-ness?

John: The Jurassic World Rebirth.

Craig: Jurassic World Rebirth has done better than both of those movies. It’s just massive.

John: Massive. Massive.

Craig: It’s like it’s grossed like almost $800 million globally. That’s David Koepp still doing it.

John: Also, Presence, a movie that Drew and I both saw, directed by Steven Soderbergh.

Drew: Black Bag too.

John: Yes, Black Bag also.

Drew: Black Bag is great.

John: Just killing it.

Craig: Just Koepp, just–

John: Keopp it in. Koepping it real.

Craig: You cannot beat David Koepp. Also, side note, and we’ve had him on this, one of the loveliest people. Just incredible guy. Love him.

John: Love it. I should not be surprised that he saw the scientific thing that exists in the world. It’s like, I should–

Craig: Of course he did.

John: I should write a book about this.

Craig: Yes, he’s sort of casually predicted that we would eventually get that and fumble it. Although, if you have a David Koepp novel, and it has not yet been turned into a movie, that is an indication that it should not be a movie because you know people must have tried.

John: Yes. What’s wrong with a book that it’s not–?

Craig: I think the book is probably great, it’s just that it’s not movie-ish.

John: Maybe.

Craig: How does that not happen?

John: He’s so angry now listening to this podcast.

Craig: I hope he is.

John: Yes. We were talking back in Episode 675 about lost genres or genres that people should see at least one example of a movie in. A bunch of people wrote in with recommendations for genres that people need to at least see one thing in. Drew, help us out.

Drew: Andrew writes, “Yakuza films, they are more often than not just as economical as noir films, but even more stylish, cynical, and tragic.” He recommends Pale Flower from 1964.

John: I’ve not seen any of these in the genre, and I think it’s a good recommendation.

Craig: Sure.

John: What else do we got?

Drew: John James recommends giallo, which is Italian horror.

Craig: Of course, yes, no.

Drew: Dario Argento’s Deep Red.

Craig: No.

Drew: No?

Craig: No. Not for me.

Drew: Not for you?

Craig: I’ve seen some of it. It’s not for me. It’s gross.

John: I’ve seen an Argento movie, and I do understand it as a genre. It’s just nothing for me. Either too, but it’s–

Craig: Right, other people, sure.

John: Should see it.

Craig: I think Suspiria-

John: Suspiria, yes.

Craig: -that’s the one to see, and then you would know.

Drew: I think nerds say that that’s not quite a giallo for some reason.

John: Oh.

Craig: No.

Drew: That would be my pick.

Craig: Nerds say that?

Drew: Yes.

Craig: I’m not going to listen. Let’s see if some of them write in. [chuckles]

John: What if we said like, David Koepp’s genre is dinosaurs, and then it’s just like, “Oh, but I also made Black Bag.” There’s no dinosaurs in Black Bag.

Craig: Black Bag’s not quite a dinosaur film. Then we’re like, “Yes, it is, nerds.”

Drew: [chuckles] Absolutely, and they just get angry.

John: Because this is about old spies and young spies.

Craig: Yes, it’s dinosaurs.

Drew: Dwayne writes, “Post-Michael Moore Americana documentaries, featuring cheeky editing, eccentric people, and small stories about the alluring weirdness of pre-9/11 Middle America. Documentaries like Hands on a Hard Body, or American Movie, or Wonderland.”

Craig: You know what? I’ve seen two of those movies. Yes, they were both interesting snapshots of a time.

John: Yes. Also like a style in editing. It’s good to point out what it is. It’s not that Michael Moore’s sort of like, “Here’s a broad statement about a thing.” It’s very specific on people and behaviors.

Craig: Hands on a Hard Body probably got 40% of its audience just from title confusion. Just brilliant.

John: Love it. So good.

Craig: Do you know what Hands on a Hard Body is though?

John: Absolutely, it says something about–

Craig: Oh, you might have seen even the show. They made a show.

John: Yes, they made a Broadway show of it.

Craig: Yes, I saw that show.

John: I never saw the show, but how are the songs? Were they–?” [crosstalk]

Craig: I remember there was one great one. I remember that. There was one really good, like eleven o’clock-ish kind of number.

John: How was the truck? Was the truck good?

Craig: The truck was great. They had it on a turntable, and the cast had to keep their hands on it. Although they were allowed to sort of like astral project forward to sing their solos and then move back to the truck.

John: Oh yes, that makes sense.

Craig: Yes.

John: Yes. Did you ever see Waitress either on stage or-

Craig: No.

John: -the musical version? It’s one of the rare cases where they captured the Broadway version and really filmed it in a way that’s impressive. I’d recommend it for people who want to see it. Last one.

Drew: Last one is Aldo says, “If John likes Memories of a Murder, he’ll probably dig Cure by Kiyoshi Kurosawa in the Japanese horror genre.

John: I don’t know very much about Japanese horror, and that’s another good recommendation for me. If we could combine Yakuza horror,-

Craig: I’m sure that’s good.

John: -that’s has to have– Oh my God. As I said the sentence, like that one can happen.

Craig: Japanese horror is pretty cool. I had a pretty cool moment. Then Korea came along and just ate its lunch-

John: Yes, crazy.

Craig: -for East-Asian horror films. Kairo, aka Pulse is Japanese, they tried to– Well, they attempted to adapt it here in the US. Didn’t go well, but that movie has one of the scariest single scenes in it where basically, nothing happens. Totally worth it for that. Just the scene of a ghost walking down a hallway. It was very cool.

John: Love it.

Craig: If you know, you know.

John: Some more follow up. We had Scott Frank on and we’re talking about writing education.

Drew: Tim says, “I’m a high school film and TV teacher, and I’ll admit I’ve been guilty of teaching structure as a shortcut to storytelling, mostly because I don’t get much time with my hundred plus students before we need to move on to the rest of film and TV production. The conversation about craft versus voice really landed.

The Scott Frank school of screenwriting seems to emphasize practice as a path to discovering voice, which also helps to answer a question I’ve been wrestling with. Why teach students to write screenplays if AI can do it better than most of them? The answer is ChatGPT doesn’t have a unique voice, we do. This year, I hope to shift my focus to helping students find their voice and maybe a little less on the proper use of a parenthetical.”

Craig: Oh, wonderful. That sounds great. Because structure and all the rest of it, these parentheticals, margins, rules, format, all that stuff, you can pick that stuff up in three days if you feel like it. What you can’t pick up in three days is knowing what to write. I could certainly see a class where everybody has to write the same scene, and they have to rewrite it and rewrite it and rewrite it and rewrite it, until it’s something special. This is how you find your voice.

John: Love it.

Drew: More follow up, this one from Kate. “I’m a playwright and I teach theater at a small high school. I actually had to step into this job mid-year when the other teacher had to leave unexpectedly. I was so excited because in addition to my theater classes, I’d be teaching a screenwriting and playwriting course. The previous teacher had focused a lot on pitching outlines and working on index cards. Students wanted to talk about their ideas, but had trouble putting anything on the page.

I often got the feeling that students felt stuck or afraid when it was time to write their projects because they had an outline that they had to follow. Almost like they were afraid to write a scene because it may be wrong or different from their original outline. When you suggested writing short scenes with no pressure to be part of a larger script, I was practically fist pumping in my car. Yes, short exercises give young writers permission to experiment. Be messy, make mistakes. This is how we learned to write.”

Craig: Hallelujah. Hallelujah. Look, we may be changing things one teaching program at a time. Again, here’s your assignment, a scene. Write it, rewrite it, rewrite it, rewrite it, rewrite it. Have your classmates perform it. Rewrite it, rewrite it, rewrite it. If you could take a class where you end up with one great three-page scene, you’ve come so far, baby.

John: Absolutely. Because you would probably have started this class thinking, “I cannot do this thing. I have no idea what this looks like in my head,” but the ability to actually visualize, “Okay, this is what’s happening in the scene, that I can picture the whole thing. I can hear the whole thing. Now I’m going to capture it down on paper in a way that makes sense,” is so crucial.

A thing I did for myself when I was in high school, I think, is I had an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that I had recorded on probably VHS. I just went and transcribed it, and then actually tried to write what the actual scene would look like on the page. That’s a good practice too, just like how do you– You see a thing, but what does it actually look like in words on paper?

Craig: Yes. The iteration, I think, is an incredibly important thing. I think that that’s not given enough attention. Being forced to rewrite the same thing over and over, it sounds bad, except you write a scene and then you share it. It is exposed. You learn how it’s landing. People give you feedback. Are we bored? Are we interested? Do we have questions? This doesn’t make sense. Or I’m just bored. What else could you do here? How could this be richer? What does the room smell like, look like? All those wonderful things we do. Then you rewrite, and you rewrite, and you rewrite. At some point, you’re going to find something.

John: Yes. As you talked about in the episode, acting classes are so helpful because that paradigm of just like, you have to be on your feet and doing a scene and you’re getting feedback on it. It’s just like, you just have to do it.

Craig: You have to do it.

John: You can’t talk about acting a lot.

Craig: Because you’re performing the scene, you are required to think about the things that happen in between your lines. Where were you the moment before? Massively important. How did that statement land with you? Are you lying? All these wonderful things need to be in the scene you write when people are learning how to write. If they’re concentrating on hitting the fricking midpoint, whatever the hell, they’re just not going to get it.

John: All right, let’s go to our main topic today, which is movies that never were. I’m not quite sure how this idea came to me. It could have been an article I read, but this week, I got thinking back about giant movies that never happened, things I sort of know about or I’ve heard about, but it never actually became movies that we saw in the theaters.

A lot of these are superhero movies. There was the Tim Burton version of Superman with Nicolas Cage.

Craig: Yes, I remember that.

John: McG Superman that had a script by JJ Abrams. Okay. James Cameron’s Spider-Man. I’d actually read that script a zillion years ago.

Craig: Oh, okay.

John: It was a, Spider-Man versus Electro. There was like a–

Craig: Oh, which they ended up doing anyway.

John: Yes. There was a Justice League that was supposed to be directed by George Miller.

Craig: Oh.

John: Yes. I think it was around the time of the earlier Record strike. Of course the Batgirl movie that was actually shot, but then it got shelved.

Craig: It got shelved.

John: Which is a really rare situation. Superhero movies are really common for this, but also Jodorowsky’s Dune is sort of legendary. There’s a documentary about that. Then Mouse Guard, which was the very expensive adaptation of a beloved children’s book or middle-grade book that Wes Ball I think was supposed to direct. They pulled at it the very last minute.

Craig: There are also these movies that I’m sure you either wrote on or somebody asked you to write on them that have been floating around seemingly forever.

John: Yes. Did you ever work on Bob: The Musical?

Craig: No, but I know that Alec Berg did.

John: Yes, I wrote on it. The amount of money spent on scripts for that movie, it’s got to be astronomical. Real composers did songs for it.

Craig: There are things like this.

John: Here’s the good scene of Bob: The Musical, a man who hates musicals wakes up and discovers he’s in a musical and has to get out of the musical. It’s a comedy in the world of a Liar Liar or those kinds of things.

Craig: Sure. Which it sounds like the premise of Schmigadoon!, which obviously came after the 800 years of development of Bob: The Musical. Yes, they’re just these movies. I remember in the ‘90s working on Stretch Armstrong. There are movies that they really wanted to make out of a toy or an object. Eight Ball’s been floating around for a while, the Magic Eight Ball. Then Monopoly. Monopoly–

John: Oh, yes. There have been so many versions of Monopoly.
Craig: I think they announced a new one recently. Every year, a new Monopoly is going to not happen.
[laughter]

Craig: It’s actually kind of amusing that that’s the property that people lose so much money on. [laughs]

John: Let’s just talk about the pure development projects. Because Monopoly, as far as I know, never went to pre-production, never spent that money. It was probably just on scripts.

Craig: Yes, endless development.

John: The endless development things, sometimes it’s all with one company. Therefore, it’s one property that has hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars of script fees against it. Some cases, which I suspect is the Monopoly case, they didn’t set up this place or that place or this place or that place. Those all become new projects, essentially.

Craig: The rights lapse.

John: Therefore, the studio burned a certain amount of money on a script, but they can’t make the property anymore.

Craig: Clue they’ve been trying to redo again. Risk is one that was going around for a while. What are you supposed to do with that exactly?

John: No. Yes. There’s a version of that movie that could have been terrific, but we never saw it.

Craig: Board games are not a great idea to adapt. I understand why everybody went for them.

John: Yes, it’s a recognizable title.

Craig: Clue–

John: Clue is a better idea than most. It actually has characters.

Craig: The Clue that was made is a cult classic and I love it. It is probably the one that’s most– Because there’s a narrative to it. Someone killed somebody with a thing in a place. Monopoly, Risk, they’re just words we know.

John: Here we’re talking about the IP that is just like, is that even a really good idea for a movie? In other cases, like they are good ideas for movies that are based on a really good book.

Craig: They just don’t seem to be able to happen.

John: Absolutely. Let’s talk about the things that don’t happen and why-

Craig: Sure.

John: -they don’t happen. Sometimes there’s a piece of talent who was keyly involved in getting it set up and getting the momentum going on it. Like a Will Smith. I’ve been on a couple of really expensive projects with Will Smith that didn’t go forward. He loses interest or another thing comes up in front of it. When a director or a star has like 10 projects, nine of those aren’t happening generally. Sometimes you’re one of those things. People are gambling like this is going to be the one that they’ll say yes to.

Craig: Sometimes there’s projects where everybody, it feels like, is tight. The pressure to make it, the costs of the rights, some sort of window to get an actor or a director makes everybody tight. Everyone’s tense. Everything is overexamined, overthought, overanalyzed, and nothing can survive that generally. Nothing is natural about that process. Everything is hyper-coordinated, and you end up with a hyper-coordinated script, which nobody wants to make.

John: Some cases it’s not the script that was ultimately the problem though. It was that to actually make the movie, it just became impossibly expensive.

Craig: There is that BioShock.

John: Yes, so BioShock is a great, great property, but the world building in it is so expensive that it’s hard to justify making that as the movie. They’re trying to do it as a series now, we’ll see what that is, but those are real issues.

Craig: I think now in the era of these big streaming shows, it’s doable to do BioShock, for sure. I do remember being on the Universal lot. There was a building that used to be Ivan Reitman’s company, Montecito. It’s a big building, and they had all this great Ghostbusters stuff in there, and then–

John: Was that the big blue house or a different one?

Craig: No, it wasn’t big blue house. It was more like this squarish modernish building. It was pretty cool. It was near the big blue house. Then it got taken over by Gore Verbinski when they were well on their way to making that BioShock. I remember going in there, I think to meet with Gore, and there was a big daddy– I don’t know [unintelligible 00:26:23] Just this big oldie timey diver suit with a drill hand, full life size in the lobby. I’m like, “Oh, this is going to be awesome.”

John: Then, it didn’t happen.

Craig: Then, it didn’t happen.

John: Let’s talk about that because more than I think the money you’re spending on scripts, that kind of R&D where you’re actually starting to really go into prep, that’s where you’re spending some real money. There was a project I was on a few years ago that I finally asked, “What actually happened?” I realized and I was told, they spent tens of billions of dollars that I did not know they were spending on storyboards and everything else.

That momentum, it’s a weird thing. You think, “Oh, it’s a sunk cost policy, so therefore, they’ll make it because we have to keep going because we already spent all this money,” but at a certain point, they realized like, oh, no, no, that the movie itself is going to be too expensive to make and we have to stop.

Craig: One of the things that is true about Hollywood, and I’m not sure it’s quite as true in other industries, is that there’s much more turnover. Now, Hollywood has actually been a fairly stable place leadership-wise over the last few years. When you look at how long Donna Langley has been running Universal, Bob Iger came back to continue to run Disney.

Generally speaking, every three, four years, somebody got kicked out and a new person got put in, and that was the point where they would sit down, look at stuff and go, “This isn’t my Concorde fallacy.

John: No.

Craig: -this thing is absolutely turning around.” They would just drop the axe on those things knowing full well that they couldn’t be blamed for the money that was spent. They could only be rewarded for not spending more money. In that regard, Hollywood had these weird safeguards against the sunk cost fallacy.

John: I’m sure there is a corollary to the sunk cost fallacy where if someone just recognizes it doesn’t matter how much we’ve spent before. With the project I see right now, is there a way to go forward and have this make sense?

Craig: Yes, that’s the fallacy part, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: Somebody else comes in and goes, “Oh, I see we’ve all been engaging in the sunk cost fallacy on this. It’s over.” That’s a traumatic thing. When we talk about storyboards, and a large statue, and rooms of people that are trying to find locations. There’s a lot of jobs. A lot of those jobs at least used to be here too. Now, those too start to go away.

John: There’s other issues that come up. Once you think you’re making a movie, you’re starting to reserve a stage space, and so you’re like, “Oh my God, we need to shoot this in Australia. We need to shoot this in London. We need to scramble to get these things,” so you’re putting holds on things. I remember talking with a producer who coming out of the pandemic, it was like, “We have to reserve stage space, but I think we’re going to be okay to start shooting, but I’m not sure we’re going to be–“ Just having to make these calls, because it’s like, you can be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on a stage that you’ve rented that you can’t actually use.

Craig: Stage space is probably the largest pressure behind ratings for any network streamer to decide if they’re going to renew a show. They may be on the fence ratings-wise, but while they’re there, somebody from that show is going to say, “If you don’t renew us in the next week, we won’t have stages and we won’t be able to make the show.”

John: No.

Craig: “Are we going or are we not?” Stage space is the thing that makes some places– As attractive as the tax credits may be. For instance, in Australia, not a ton of stages.

John: No.

Craig: UK, amazing tax credits but not as many stages as you would think.

John: When I was shooting my one and only TV show up in Toronto, it was at a Canadian boom. There were so many things shooting in Canada, we couldn’t find stage spaces, so we ended up having to shoot like a warehouse.

Craig: Warehouses.

John: That was not really meant to be this. I’m sure you ran into similar situations like Calgary was not intended to have as much production as you were doing.

Craig: No, Calgary had one facility that was actually constructed to be stage space. The other large facility was two massive warehouses that they had retrofitted, but barely. In Vancouver there are both kinds, but there are a lot. Part of our thing, we’re going to be up there I think going side by side with Shogun this time, so Justin, and Rachel, and I are like, “Hey, are you using this person?” “Yes.” “Can I have that?” “No.” Where are your stages? Who’s your makeup person? It’s been a lot of that.

They have constructed more stage space there. When you look at other places the other issue is size of stages. Northern Ireland built quite a few stages during the Game of Thrones boom, but size like sometimes you need an enormous. Then there are the specialty stages, like at Warner Brothers, which has 20-something stages that are currently sitting mostly empty. Just tragedy. They have one, I think it’s stage 16, with the floor actually, you can remove the floor and it’s got a pit, which is very cool for all sorts of interesting things.

John: Let’s talk about this from a writer’s point of view and how this matters and what to think about with this. Some of the properties you mentioned early on, like the superhero movies or the things that are based on titles, the reason why a screenwriter might pursue them and take them is because they will pay you money to do the thing. It’s not like some wildfire. They’re actually going to pay you your quote to do a thing, and that can be great and that’s fantastic. I always go into those jobs knowing it’s like I might so naive to think like I’m the one person who’s going to crack the Monopoly movie that everyone else has been trying to do.

Craig: Yes, absolutely. I remember I think somebody had asked Ted Elliott around the time that the third Pirates movie came out, and they were saying, “How do you pick projects? Because people come to you and offer you things. What kind of movie do you want to write?” He said, “Movies that are getting made.” [chuckles] That was it.

John: That’s always been my answer about what genre- [crosstalk]

Craig: Genre is movies that are getting made. Yes, when you take one of those jobs, you have to know I am seventh in a line of 14.

John: You have to go in both hoping and expecting that it’s going to work, and then also, holding your heart a place that like, I understand why it could not work.

Craig: Yes, it’s a job. Yes. Everyone’s looking at it that way too. Sometimes the executives are like, “We don’t know why somebody made some deal with a wraith and we have to make this film or we’ll be cursed forever. We don’t want to, so we don’t really care.”

John: I want to distinguish between those two things. Listen, this is the luxury of where I’m at in my career, that I don’t pursue those things that I just don’t care about. Like Drew will say, like a lot of stuff comes my way, and it’s like, “No, that’s not for me.” I’ll often say like, “That’s not for me, but there’s a writer out there who will love that, and I’m so excited for them to do that adaptation of–

Craig: Monopoly.

John: Yes. There’s somebody who said that’s their favorite property at all time, but I try not to approach those jobs with such cynicism. For a weekly, if I’m just going on to fix a problem for a person–

Craig: Yes, I’ll do anything for a week.

John: Yes. Oh I know some of the movies you’ve worked on.

Craig: I’ve worked on just Extraordinary Girl. I’ll work on anything for a week. What do I care? You know what? I can’t make it worse.

John: No.

Craig: I try, I do my best, I make sure to listen to everybody, and I improve it. I really do.

John: Yes, exactly.

Craig: I do the job I’m paid to do. What I know is, and I’ve said this at times to them, I’m like, “I just want you to know I’m making this corpse okay for an open coffin funeral. That’s what I’m doing. Just so you guys know. This is not a patient I can cure, but you’ll be able to look at it.”
[laughter]

Craig: They’re like, “Great. We thank you. That’s what we were hoping for. We just want mom to be able to see her boy there in his little suit. Sometimes that even that’s hard.

John: Yes. Sometimes there’s just this fundamental problems.

Craig: Yes, but I’m always honest about it, but yes, for a week. To actually do a movie– When I started out, there are movies where I’m like, It’s job. A job’s a job.

John: A job’s a job.

Craig: I got to to it. I need money. You know what, I will learn along the way.

John: I did.

Craig: I did. I will also gain fans along the way. People that hire writers. Everybody calls everybody and asks. They all have their lists. Writers move up and down the list.

John: I was on Zoom this week with an executive who I’ve known and then talked about parties and had meetings with for 30 years. I’ve never worked with him or for him, but like, “Oh it’s great to catch up with you, Michael. I’ve not seen you.” I’ve not had a chance to do it, and it would be great to be able to do this project with him.” Going and knowing like it may not happen, and it’s okay also it doesn’t happen.

Craig: Sure, yes. There are some things you can just sort of smell the curse on them.

John: Yes, and I will run away from those. I’ve also learned, it’s like, “Oh, there’s this terrible person who’s attached to this intellectual property.” I will never touch it because that person, I cannot have in my life at all.

Craig: Correct. There are things where people start talking about them, and I think, “Oh, this is– Oh. Oh.”

John: Sure, yes.

Craig: “I wonder why this hasn’t–“

John: Absolutely. I remember loving that book and like, “Oh that guy.”

Craig: “Oh, this person’s involved.” Goodbye.

John: All right, let’s get to some listener questions. What do we got first, Drew?

Drew: Vanessa writes, “I’ve been listening to your podcast for a while now, and every time the intro comes around and the chime starts playing, I think I’ve heard that before. This email is asking if the chime is fully original or inspired by a movie or something like it.”

John: That is the “boop, boop, boop, boop, boop.” That is a thing I wrote originally for my short film, The Remnants. I thought I just needed a quick little intro that I sort of felt like The Office, but even quicker than that. I think it’s original, but you can actually find it in other things. Over the years, people have said like, “Oh, I found this theme from the ‘70s, which actually that has the same chord progressions.” It’s so simple that–

Craig: Yes, I know, it’s five notes. It’s five notes. Of course. It’s five notes that resolve. Yes, it will be in other things. It’s not like an identifiable jingle from any popular thing. Yes, but sure, you can find a five note progression before. There’s no new five note progression.

John: I will say, as we come up to episode 700, one of my favorite things about the show is that our incredible listeners starting with Matthew [unintelligible 00:37:03] who did so many of the incredible early intro, but just have taken those five notes and just done remarkable things with them. I’ll have a new one this week and every week. Please keep sending in your interpretations of the intro to make our outros.

Craig: Love it.

Drew: Larry writes, “”What’s the best way to watch a movie to put money back in the pockets of the people who made it? I half remember at one point that renting something out iTunes was better for y’all, but I feel like perhaps that’s out of date.”

Craig: No, that’s in date.

John: In date. We’re talking about the rental on iTunes or Amazon or wherever you rent those things. That rate is actually really good for us.

Craig: That is the best residual rate we have of anything. We got that all the way back in 2000. Yes, 2000, I’m pretty sure it was, or 2001. I think we got it mostly because the companies hadn’t really caught on yet. They were like, “What are you? Okay.” I remember the deal was that they refused to do sales. It was they were just like, “We’ll give you rentals. We’ll give you a great rate on rentals.”

John: If I’m this is a movie that I want to watch and I feel like I’m going to watch it once, I will rent it. If the movie is like, I think I may want to watch it again or if there’s something like an adaptation, I’ll buy it off of iTunes. Listen, there’s times where it’s like, “Oh, it’s got to go be streaming someplace,” and it’s like, “Sure, I’ll spend like two minutes to look see if it’s streaming someplace,” but just buy the movie or rent the movie because it’s just, I just have it.

Craig: I will say too that is very nice that he’s asking, but the truth is, the nicest way to watch anything, assuming you’re not pirating, is to watch it however you want. Rent, buy, stream, add support, doesn’t matter, just do it. Then, if you like it, tell other people to watch it too because the that’s the best residual rate we get is popularity. Spread the word, and that’s as best you can do, but you don’t need to be too concerned about the ethical viewing. [chuckles]

John: Yes, as long as you’re not pirating it, you’re making ethical choices. My movie The Nines, I think it’s it showed up on streaming every once in a while, but it’s basically always been a purchase or download, and so just like it’s cheap, it’s like $3.99 to rent the movie. Just watch the movie. It’s a good movie.

Craig: Just watch that.

John: Just watch the movie.

Craig: It’s all good.

Drew: Jeremy writes, “As a non-american, I’m horrified to watch what’s happening in your country, and my screenwriter brain was wondering how you would go about writing it in a humane, empathetic way. How do you write scripts in the era of neo-fascism that won’t dehumanize those who suffer most?”

Craig: I’m not sure I understand the question.

John: Yes, I think we may be some language barriers here, but I think I take this to mean like recognizing that your country’s is falling into fascism, how do you go approach writing movies, and does that change how we’re thinking about the stories we’re trying to tell and the choices we’re making?

Craig: if you’re writing a story that touches upon themes like that, then yes, you would want to touch on things, the part that I’m not quite getting is the, how do you be humane?

John: Humane. I think, from the context of the whole email, it’s something along the lines of like, if you’re writing about these big things, making sure that you’re thinking about the people who are affected by these big things.

Craig: Isn’t that what you would be writing about?

John: Here’s an example I can take from my own life. A project that we’ll see if I can end up getting it set up, but there’s a big military and international cooperation aspect of it, and it’s like, oh, it’s a different movie now than it would have been three or four years ago.

Craig: Sure.

John: Just because our allies are not our allies again. Europe isn’t necessarily on our side, and so those things change. You have to understand that, but in pitching it, it was actually nice to be able to say, “No, this is actually a moment where international cooperation becomes incredibly important, an outside threat unites us all together about a thing,” and that felt good and useful. In terms of, I’m not writing, I don’t have an extra appeal writing something dystopian and bleak, I think because I’m living in a bleak, dystopian moment, and I also know that I’m not going to get joy from writing that, but I also know that no one’s going to want to make that.

Craig: Right. I guess people have been writing about fascistic regimes, terroristic regimes, repressive regimes forever, whether they live in them or not. We are all, as artists, impacted by what’s going on around us. I don’t think it should be a challenge for anybody to write victims humanely.

I think sometimes there is an undertone of fear in some of the questions we get, and I don’t mean fear of fascistic regimes, although we should have that and quite a bit of it, fear that we’ll make a mistake in our writing. You use the phrase, make sure to, which is a very defensive position when you’re writing. I just want to make sure that I don’t blank, or I want to make sure I don’t blank. Make sure that you write something good, true and honest. If you do, some characters are going to be ugly, and I mean ugly on the inside, and like all of us, some victims will be imperfect. That’s part of what makes it true, interesting, and upsetting.

The weird attraction that Spielberg gave Ralph Fiennes in Schindler’s List, that strange hypnotic power he had, made that interesting more than just, there’s the dickhead Nazi. Because he understood that the truer that person gets, the scarier he gets. Yes, I wouldn’t worry so much. I would just write what’s true.

John: Absolutely, and I also need to recognize that your movie, when it happens, will resonate with the culture of the time that it comes out. The most recent Superman movie really resonates with this moment that we’re in terms of world crisis, and yet it was two years ago, three years ago, that it got put in motion. It wasn’t actually responding to the moment that we’re in, it’s just because of when it comes out, it resonates with the world that it’s actually in.

Craig: Yes, things take on stuff. I wasn’t thinking about, Donald Trump wasn’t the president when I started working on Chernobyl. Truth wasn’t necessarily under global attack at that moment. If you write about things that are evergreen concerns for humanity, and you write them truly, without fear of making a ‘mistake,’ then I think you’re off to a good start.

John: Let’s go to this question here from John about stamina.

Drew: “I’m quite fortunately a consistently working writer who has had a handful of produced credits, and I feel like I’m firmly in the prime of my career. I’m suddenly becoming very aware that my stamina as a writer is nowhere near where it used to be. I’m starting to have more anxiety over whether this means I’m losing my love for the job, or that sometime soon I won’t be able to do it at a high level anymore. Then I stress over the actual work itself. Do you have any tips for how to keep your energy for the job up when you know that you’ll never be the version of yourself that you were 10 or 20 years ago?”

John: Oh, for sure. Yes, I nod with all of this, and I do recognize it. I think, John, you already have the insight of that you’re just never the same person you were at 20 or at 30. Because on those, I could stay up to like four in the morning writing a thing, and my life was just different. It was before I had kids. We often talk about how kids are just career killers.

Craig: Vampires.

John: Vampires sucking away at your life and your time, and yet, I’m still productive. I still get a lot done. I think if you actually look at the output of work that I’m able to do now, it hasn’t really diminished much. I have found my habits changing, and I do write in shorter sprints and get stuff done, but stuff does still happen. You can both recognize that your stamina has changed and not panic that it makes it incapable for you to write stuff.

Craig: This is one of those areas where– first of all, John, I’ve felt all of those things that you’re feeling, and I feel all of them. The other day, I had lunch with Brian Johnson the other day, and we were both talking about how like, “Are we just slowing down?” It feels like we’re slowing down, but the work keeps coming, so the problem is feels like. It feels like it sometimes.

I think part of it is because, okay, John says he’s in the prime of his career. What that tells me is he’s done enough work now at a professional level, seen enough of it go in and out of the machinery to have improved. As you improve, it becomes harder to write because you can’t write garbage the way you used to. When you start out, you’re just wee, right? I’m awesome. Because you don’t know enough to know that you’re not. You’re freer. It’s a lovely feeling. Then later, after life has beaten that a lot of you, but also after you create a little bit more of a sense of inner scrutiny, then the crucible of your own judgment becomes much hotter.

Yes, then it is a little harder, and it can feel like you’re losing stamina, but you’re not. You’re just more exacting, so you know more. You have the burden of knowledge, John. Your anxiety is normal. Just make sure to not draw any conclusions from it. You’ve made a mistake of drawing a conclusion from it. You think because you’re anxious, you are in trouble. You are not, you’re just anxious.

One of the things I’ve really tried to accept as I’m getting older now is that part of why I do what I do is because my brain is attuned to scary things. Everybody that we write about, we’re usually writing about somebody that’s afraid of something. We have very fear-attuned minds. No surprise, I’m afraid all the time. I just have to accept that is part of the package of doing what we do. What you’re feeling right now is incredibly normal. It’s actually a fantastic sign that you are a good professional writer. If you felt as free now as you did when you started, oh boy, I don’t know what to say. Something’s wrong with you.

John: If you were a professional athlete, you would have the same kind of questions, like, I don’t have the same stamina as I did earlier in your career. It’s like, well, that’s true. That’s objectively true. You can actually measure those sort of things. What we would have is experience, technique and all the other things that make it worthwhile. Unlike a professional athlete, there is no forced retirement date. You’re never going to break your back and be unable to play again.

At a certain point, you may decide you don’t want to keep doing it, which is great, but that’s not what I’m hearing in this letter. I think I agree with Craig, it’s just anxiety and fear.
Craig: Yes, you’re not at the place yet where you actually are slowing down and preparing to stop. That will be a different feeling. I don’t think I’m at that place yet.

John: A friend of mine did retire and he actually is a writer friend who worked in TV for many, many years and it’s just like, “Yeah, I’m done.” I love it for him.

Craig: Listen, in the throes of certain phases of making a large TV show, I fantasize about just pulling the old ripcord, but I know that it’s not time yet. Really what I’m reacting to there is this is hard.

John: It’s hard.

Craig: When things are hard, there’s a little boy or girl in us that wants to quit. Then there’s our memory of our mom, dad, coach, older sibling, somebody saying, “You can want to quit, don’t yet, don’t.”

John: In the time of doing this podcast is when I started distance running. I will say that it’s been a useful metaphor for some of this stuff because it’s like, you just want to stop running. You just want to stop and just walk for a while. It’s like, no, but you actually, you really can just keep running and you just keep running.

Craig: You’ll be fine though, John. You’re in a good spot, actually, weirdly. It’s an encouraging question.

John: Let’s take two more questions, first from Kat here.

Drew: I wonder if you could settle a rumbling question for my university peers and I.

John: We can.

Craig: For my university peers and me.

John: Sure.

Craig: I’m just going to correct right away. For me, object of the preposition.

John: We understand that it’s standard to render non-English languages as English on the page with the indication in parentheses that it is in Mandarin or whatever the language is, potentially mentioning whether or not it should be subtitled. Then along came Celine Song, who, as you’re aware, used Korean text on the page in past lives, setting an industry precedent by writing bilingually with all Korean translated into English.

My tutor has said that for the purposes of the degree with Celine’s industry precedent, I can use Chinese in my script. I would very much like to use this. Characters speak in their native language unless noted otherwise. Where rendered in English, the dialogue will be subtitled. Where written in Mandarin or Taiwanese is the intention not to use subtitles.
My cohort feels this would be unacceptable. to the industry. I could be getting the characters to say all sorts of nasties, unbeknownst to the producers.

What are your thoughts on the wider industry acceptance of having small parts of the script unintelligible?

Craig: The answer is in the question. Celine, by the way, one of the best people. I like that when she did that, it became an industry precedent and therefore is now allowable at universities. That just tells me how broken the university instruction system is around screenwriting.

John: Because if there’s one movie from a filmmaker that was successful, now, I guess, sure.

Craig: What was the point of all of that dogmatic nonsense to begin with? The answer is do whatever you want. Clearly do whatever you want. She was nominated for an Oscar. Why is this person worried about what the university will think?

John: All choices you’re making have pros and cons. It’s the question of like, is it a problem that certain blocks of text in your script will not be intelligible to a person who only speaks English? It could be, but maybe it’s absolutely fine. You won’t know until you try it. Yes, if it makes sense for you, you should do it.

Craig: The whole point is to say to an English reader, you won’t understand this. Isn’t that the point?

John: Yes.

Craig: So, do it. The idea that you would be putting in stuff that so like, after the movie comes out, they’re like, oh my God, one of those characters said the Holocaust didn’t happen. That’s not a thing.

John: That’s not happening.

Craig: It’s not happening. That’s such a not worry. Who asked this question?

Drew: Kat.

Craig: Kat, listen, you write this however you want. If you are a good writer, Kat, who is going to succeed as a screenwriter, you are already beyond the concerns of this university. You have already escaped its surly bonds. If you’re not, you’re not, so it doesn’t matter. You write whatever you want.

John: Last question here from Henry.

Drew: A few big films recently are the first of a multi-part series, and while I’ve enjoyed watching them, I always leave the theater feeling that I’ve only seen half a movie. I think there’s something off with the structure here, where they’re basically making one really long film instead of discrete parts that can be watched on their own, because I don’t feel this way with, say, The Empire Strikes Back or The Fellowship of the Ring. Do John and Craig have any insight into what’s going on here?

Craig: Money.

[laughter]

I mean money’s going on. Harry Potter, the seventh book, was broken into two books, because it was very long, and I think they looked at it and they were like, okay, so on the one side, a very long movie. First of all, people don’t like to see very long movies, so we’re going to lose some people. Two, fewer showings per day on a blockbuster, we’re going to lose some money, or we split into two and we get two hit movies.

John: Let’s say, hypothetically, there was a screenwriter who was approached with the property of Wicked, and was just like, so Wicked, you could do it as one long movie.

Craig: Somebody smart.

John: Somebody smart would say like, no, and actually, let’s approach it from the start, saying like, what if at the act break, we actually split it into two movies? How do we make sure that the first movie is as rewarding and successful as possible, and the second movie is as rewarding and successful as possible? I think Wicked made completely the right choice.

Craig: Oh, I’m sure they did.

[laughter]

John: Now, Henry, I will say that there have been some movies recently where I did feel a little bit of that, what, because I wasn’t expecting it. That rug pull can be a thing. I felt a little bit on the last Spider-Verse movie, where it was like, oh, wow, I really thought we were going to resolve this, and we didn’t, it’s just a cliffhanger. Same thing happens in the 28 Years Later, where the movie resolves nicely, but then there’s a code that’s not a post-credit scene, that just basically sets up the whole next movie. I’m like, wait, what?

Craig: Right. Certain things have built-in dotted lines that you could see yourself folding or tearing the page. Wicked is obviously one of them. It has a huge intermission, and the last song before the intermission is Defying Gravity and as I recall, someone saying to the people there, “How in God’s name can you sit around after Defying Gravity?” Defying Gravity happens, roll credits, go home. There are certain circumstances where it makes absolute sense.

There are movies like Harry Potter, where you’re like, look, you’ve been on this ride for six movies. Let us give you a larger feast for seven and eight. Henry, I do know what you mean, and I think sometimes there’s been a little bit of indulgence. It’s that same indulgence I see in limited series sometimes, where it’s like, oh, this is a seven or eight episode limited series. It should have been a five episode limited series.

John: There’s some padding and some, oh, yes.

Craig: It’s just some sort of stretch and pull and froth, and yes, I can see that is sort of happening as movies try to accomplish some of the things that television series can accomplish. In television, we can just work with a bigger canvas, and movies want that, but I know what you mean, and I think we all smell it when it’s happening.

John: The Avengers finale, which was a split over two parts, I enjoyed the entire experience, but I really couldn’t tell you what happened in one part versus the other part. It’s just like, it was a big two-part thing.

Craig: Again, if you have successfully laid out another sequel, I don’t know how many movies we’re talking about at any given point in that one. I think it was four total, right? Then, okay, if you want the finale to be a big, big finish, sure. If you’re just starting and you’re like, hey, or if it’s part of a series, but it’s not really like, each one of the series is its own thing.

For instance, I don’t know how many James Bond movies we’re up to, but if the next James Bond movie, just being made by Denis Villeneuve, it’s going to be awesome. If the next James Bond movie did that, it wouldn’t necessarily be earned because James Bond isn’t like, okay, it’s one, two, three, done. Avengers, I got that. They want to do a big finish. [crosstalk] Yes, I’m cool with that.

John: I’m cool with that, too. It’s time for one cool things. My one cool thing is actually on the back of my phone right now, Craig, I’m going to show it to you.

Craig: Great.

John: It’s called the Mott Magnetic Wallet Stand.

Craig: This is very much in my interest.

John: It is a little thing that magnetically clips to the back of your phone, and it magnetically clips down, so you can have it be a stand vertically.

Craig: I didn’t think that was going to be what it was.

John: Or horizontally.

Craig: Okay, that is cool. For what that is, what I thought I was getting shown was one of those back of the phone wallet replacers.

John: It is awesome. In that little slot, you can put two cards.

Craig: Two cards?

John: Only two cards now. If you want more than that, you’d need a different thing.

Craig: This is very slim.

John: It’s slim, and I don’t use a case on my phone.

Craig: Really?

John: I’ve never used cases on my phone.

Craig: Interesting.

John: Not for a very long time. I also use it, just I loop a finger through it and just to help hold my phone, so that I’m not bending my pinky– I’m not holding the weight of it on my pinky.

Craig: What would you call the color of that, out of curiosity?

John: I would call it–

Craig: I have a color in mind, but I don’t know if I’m right.

John: Purple is probably the closest, but I think purple is a scrappier than that.

Craig: I’m going to say mauve.

John: Mauve, okay, yes.

Craig: But is that right?

John: That was my go, Mauve. Mauve, yes.

Drew: Mauve.

John: Yes, it’s a good color, I like it.

Craig: It’s like a grayish purple.

John: Yes, I like it. If you’re looking for something to help hold onto your iPhone, the Mott Magnetic Wallet Stand, it’s like $28.

Craig: That’s fantastic. Oh, 28, that’s not bad. Just a little bit more than that, and you can get the Scriptnotes book.

John: Yes, delivered to your home.

Craig: Really, if you had a choice, I would say Scriptnotes.

John: I haven’t put it out, but as soon as I put it, it’s also available as a e-book. People are like, oh.

Craig: Of course, and that’s even cheaper, I assume.

John: People ask about the paperback, and there’s not currently plans for a paperback. We’ll see.

Craig: If it does well, there will be a paperback.

John: Probably, but there’s also increasingly some books are just never going to paperback, because-

Craig: Because the e-book sort of takes that place.

John: It does, and it’s also, our D&D books are never paperbacks, because they would rip apart. For something that you’re referring to a lot, it could be useful.

Craig: Sure. I remember my Syd Field book was paperback, and I’m sure the many Save the Cats is paperbacks.

John: Yes, are paperbacks.

Craig: My one cool thing this week is a podcast that I appeared on as a guest. I don’t know if it’s– it must be out by now. The podcast is called Total Party Skill.

John: I’m guessing it’s a D&D podcast.

Craig: You know it, a little take on Total Party Kill, and it is a Dungeons & Dragons podcast that is, I wouldn’t say hosted the podcasters, are Gabe Greenspan, Dylan McCollum, and the delightfully named George Primavera. George Primavera, by the way, sounds like a bad character name, like– [chuckles]

John: Yes. Oh, 100%.

Craig: Yes, like Gene Parmesan from– [laughs] George Primavera, and all three of these guys were absolute gentlemen and scholars, all three deeply, deeply well-versed in Dungeons & Dragons as players and DMs. They’re just fun.

John: That’s great.

Craig: We had a fun–

John: You’re not playing the game, you’re just talking through stuff?

Craig: The topics, one topic was just, “Okay, it’s been a minute since we’ve got the 2024 rules. Now that we’ve had a chance to play with them for a while, what are the things that we really love? What are some of the pain points of things we don’t love?” We had a pretty good in-depth discussion of that.
Then they did a little fun draft where we were drafting classes.

John: Right.

Craig: The question was, you’re drafting classes to survive an apocalypse. Then, I think they’re a Patreon thing. One of their Patreon subscribers wrote in to say, “Oh, here’s a name of something. What would you home brew this thing to be? Item, spell, weapon, what would it be?” It was just a joy talking with those guys talking with those guys.

John: Love it. Sounds great.

Craig: Check it out, Total Party Skill, on wherever you get your podcasts.

John: I listen to so many podcasts, and deliberately have not added any D&D podcasts, because that’s just too much. I’m sure there’s so much good content that would just eat up more of my time.

Craig: You know I don’t listen to podcasts, but I actually will listen to this podcast.

John: That’s great.

Craig: Not the one I’m on, the other ones.

John: For Craig to start listening to a podcast is a pretty big deal.

Craig: It’s got to got to be about D&D, basically.

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

You will find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes. We have t-shirts and hoodies and drink wear. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this show each and every week, along with our videos and other things.

You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net. We get all those backup episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on whether we would still write screenplays if we weren’t going to sell screenplays.

[laughs]

Thank you for pre-ordering the book. Pre-order those books and send those receipts to drewaskatjohnaugust.com, and we will send you something cool. Thanks, Craig. Thanks Drew.

Craig: Thank you.

[music]

John: This bonus topic came from a question. Drew, would you read us the question?

Drew: Your recent Scott Frank episode wrapped up with a bout of brutal honesty concerning the likelihood that any of us will have a career in screenwriting. I realized this was in an effort to encourage folks to be unique, advice I think I need myself, but I’d love to hear your perspectives on the idea of art for art’s sake. If, for whatever reason, nobody could ever pay you for a script again, would you still write them?

Craig: I wonder if Fraser– it feels like Fraser’s really asking this for themselves. Do I have permission to write screenplays if I’m not doing it professionally? The answer is, absolutely. I think for me, it’s a different question because I’ve written 4,000 scripts now and drafts and versions and things, and so, would I want to do it just for fun? No. I don’t think that’s a thing anymore. I would always want it to have a purpose just because I would.

If I hadn’t done so much screenwriting, I could see absolutely doing it for enjoyment.

John: I take this more as a question about the format of screenwriting as a worthwhile literary pursuit or a thing to spend your time on if it weren’t in the pursuit of actually making it into a movie or making it into a TV show. I agree with you. If I hadn’t done this job for so long, I could start writing screenplays.

I enjoy the form. I think it’s a great form, but it’s not a very shareable form. It’s not a form that other people are going to read and enjoy with you. I think having written books, and I have a graphic novel coming out next year, having written other things, I think there’s better stuff to write that for people out there in the world to read. You don’t have to write for other people to read stuff. You can just write for your own purposes and your own self.

Given what I like to do, I think I do like to write for other people to read it. I think books or stage musicals, or other things would be a better– it’s how I would spend my time.

Craig: One thing that this prompts is the idea that people pursue artistic expression for its own sake because it makes them feel good. It is part of our behavior as humans. We want to express ourselves creatively and artistically. I think it’s important that anyone give themselves permission to do so, as long as they acknowledge that they are not entitled to an audience.

If you want to write songs to make yourself happy, just don’t force your family to listen to 12 of them. You can play one maybe at Christmas, see how it goes. If you want to write a book or a poem or screenplay, great. Don’t make everyone read it. If people want to, great. I guess my point is, if you’re doing it for yourself, do it for yourself with no expectation because I think sometimes people say they’re doing it for themselves. What they really want is for everybody to tell them how great they are, and that’s a different thing.

John: It is. I feel like Fraser’s question is especially relevant in this era of increasingly powerful AIs that can generate things that look like the work that we’re doing, and just do it with seemingly effortlessly. Why even bother spending the emotional time and energy to write a thing when I can just generate a thing?

I still think there is meaning and value, and there’s discovery that happens when you’re actually trying to write a thing that is unique and wonderful. Those moments when I’ve written something, even if no one read it, I felt really good to have written it. Yes, fantastic, but I don’t necessarily need that to be a screenplay form. It could be something else.

Craig: It’s its own pleasure, right? If Fraser wants to write a screenplay because he enjoys writing screenplays and he’s able to accept that perhaps he may not write professionally, but that’s okay, he just likes writing, then that’s fantastic. There doesn’t need to be any reason to do that because there’s really no reason to do anything if we consider our mortality. What’s the point of anything? There is none. You die, so really, do you need to paint that painting? No.

We do it because it feels good. It helps us figure ourselves out and it might help us connect to one person. Beyond that, yes, just lower the requirements.

John: I always love the stories when they find some person who died and they find all this incredible writing or all these paintings that this person did. It’s like, oh my God, this person would have been a known artist, but they just chose not to do it or whatever circumstances, they didn’t. The work still is valuable and if they still enjoyed doing that thing, they did it for their own.

Craig: It’s not valuable for them anymore.

John: Intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation. They did it because it was meaningful to them.

Craig: Absolutely, it felt good. Then there’s the counterpart to that, which is the Kafka situation where while Kafka’s alive, he goes, “You know what, I hate all of this, I’m burning most of it.” No, don’t, and he did. That can happen too.

John: It can.

Craig: I think, make a good point, there are authors that are discovered posthumously, there are artists that are discovered posthumously, but it just doesn’t matter, actually. If you’ve decided it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. Certainly, I would say, give yourself permission for it to not matter.
I wish I liked writing screenplays enough to just wake up and go, “You know what I’m going to do today? I’m going to write some screenplay. Make myself feel good.”

John: Yes, that’s not me.

Craig: It’s not me. That’s the way I approach solving puzzles.

John: Playing D&D.

Craig: Playing D&D. Playing D&D, what’s the point of that?

John: No, it’s absolutely pointless.

Craig: Fellowship.

John: It is fellowship.

Craig: Fellowship, and it feels good. It’s fun, it’s interesting.

John: It’s problem solving.

Craig: It’s problem solving, but it’s creative. We get to–

John: Collaborative.

Craig: It’s collaborative, it’s creative. We get to express ourselves, does all these things. For its own sake, we are not critical role. Look, if we wanted to go, hey, some platformer, even if we went to the critical role people were like, hey, it’s me and John, and we’ve got Tom Morello and Dan Weiss and Chris Morgan, and all these cool da-da-da, Phil. Hey, we’re going to go ahead and just do it. Yes, they’d be like, yes, we’ll do it. You can make money off of it.

John: It would ruin it.

Craig: Of course, it would ruin it.

John: It would ruin it.

Craig: It would be horrible.

John: Also, the things we say around the table would get us canceled immediately.

Craig: I don’t think we would make it past a minute, but even if we could, the point is we’ve never even considered it because we don’t need it.

John: No.

Craig: Not because it’s that we don’t need money, it’s that we just don’t need to do it for a reason. It is ontological.

John: Also, we’re happily amateur D&D players.

Craig: Absolutely.

John: Yes, and so I want to shout out to community theater because community theater is pointless, and also amazing and wonderful.

Craig: It is professionally pointless, but it fills people’s spirits and souls. And Waiting for Guffman, if that is not the most beautiful love letter to community theater, I don’t know what is.

John: Love it. Thanks, Craig. Thanks, Drew.

Craig: Thanks.

Links:

  • Preorder the Scriptnotes Book!
  • Birdigo on Steam
  • Aurora by David Koepp
  • Pale Flower
  • Deep Red
  • Suspiria
  • Hands on a Hard Body
  • American Movie
  • Wonderland
  • Hands on a Hardbody the musical
  • Cure
  • Pulse
  • Moft magnetic wallet stand
  • Total Party Skill podcast
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Steve Pietrowski (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 696: A Screenwriter’s Guide to Directors, Transcript

August 6, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 696 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, what do screenwriters need to know about working with directors? This question is so foundational that producer Drew Marquardt has cut together a new compendium on just this topic. Drew, what are we hearing today?

Drew Marquardt: We’re going to start all the way back in Episode 4 from September 2011. We’re going to talk about working with directors as a screenwriter. It’s everything from that working relationship to set etiquette and all the way through post.

John: I love when we go back to the very early episodes where Craig and I have just no idea what we’re doing in a podcast.

Drew: Craig sounds bubbly in this one almost.

John: Yes. Weird. Yes. Yes. What happened to Craig Mazin?

Drew: What happened?

John: So much happened to Craig Mazin. He’s still fine. What’s the second episode we’re going to talk about?

Drew: Then we’re going to go to Episode 176. It starts as advice to a first-time director. In this case, it’s our own Matthew Chilelli. It’s how to run a set. It’s how to prep your shot list. It’s working with actors. It’s all that good stuff. Then from there, we’re going to look at the perfect director. We had that The Perfect series for a while. This outlines just sort of the ideal qualities of that writer-director relationship.

John: Fantastic. It’s weird that 172 episodes later we’re coming back to that topic. That’s still 10 years ago.

Drew: I know.

John: Just so much time has passed.

Drew: We’ve touched on directors a lot.

John: I think we’ve talked about directors a lot, but we haven’t done sort of special segments on them because I think we covered it pretty well. Now we are unearthing it from the archive and talking about it today.

In our bonus segment for our premium members, you, Drew Marquardt, are just about to be a director, again, yourself. You’re about to go off and direct a project. You suggested we talk about something that you’re experiencing for the first time about trying to cast actors.

Drew: Yes. I got my first round of rejections, like roundly rejected. It’s a strange feeling. I’d love to talk through it.

John: You were an actor before this. You’ve been rejected before, but now you’re being rejected by actors.

Drew: In a totally new way.

John: It’s a whole new way. This industry is mostly about rejection and it’s sort of on one side of the fence or the other.

Drew: Truly.

John: All right. We’ll dig into that. Listen to these two compendium bits from previous episodes. We’ll be back at the end for one cool things and then an other wrap up business. Thanks, Drew.

Drew: Thanks.

(Episode 4)

John: Today we want to talk about directors and how screenwriters deal with directors, and what that relationship is like. Some templates for thinking about how you would work with a director on a project. You’ve had many movies shot and have all of your director experiences been fantastic?

Craig Mazin: No. [laughs]

John: That’s weird.

Craig: No. I mean I think I’ve had more good ones than– I really only had one weird one. Mostly though they’ve been good, I would say. Mostly good.

John: Yes. I’d say most of mine have been pretty good, and some of the good ones were ones where I wasn’t all that involved with the project from the beginning. I just came in and did some work and helped them out. They went off and shot the movie and good luck and Godspeed.

Other times I’ve been on board the project from the very beginning, and a director comes on board. You’re trying to get them up to speed with where you’re at. So let’s aim more towards that from-inception kind of relationship because I think that’s more what our audience is listening for.

Also, we’re talking about movies. That relationship between a writer and a director in television is very, very different. The writer in television has more power but also has responsibility to the overall continuity of the show. The director is there to get what needs to be shot on the page, onto film, and into the episode.

Craig: Yes, in television the director doesn’t have to determine who is going to be playing these roles, what they’re dressing like, what the sets should look like, what the tone of the product is. All those things have been determined already. I mean that’s the massive gulf between feature directing and television directing.

John: Well, all those things we talk about are the crucial things that a director is doing while the director is getting up to speed with the script and thinking about making the movie. So let’s just start talking about all the stuff that a director needs to do because it’s tempting to think about, “Oh, the director is responsible for the story and for getting the story told.”

Yes, that’s one of his or her jobs, but so much of a director’s time as you’re approaching making a move is really dealing with completely different things that have nothing to do with the script itself. So recognizing that you as a screenwriter are essentially a department when it comes to making a movie.

You are going to be one of his meetings over the course of the day, but he’s also talking to the costume designer, the production designer, the cinematographer, the editors, the producers, the casting directors. As a giant village who’s come together to make this movie, he’s the village chief and you’re one of the villagers. Recognizing that difference is a hard thing to sometimes to get up to speed with.

Craig: Yes, we are very focused in on what we are responsible for. Like you said, that’s the story. As it turns out, that is the most important part of this whole thing. The story is more important than the costumes, the locations, where the lights are going to go, and what the makeup should look like. But all those things flow from the story and are mission-critical to making a good movie.

You have to look at every department as necessary. The story is the thing that’s driving everything. It’s just a question of time. Throughout the day he still has to sit there and figure out what the cars should be in the scene where, okay, and then she pulls up in her car. What car? Here, I got pictures of cars for you. That’s where you want to blow your brains out as a director.

Or we have a scene where there’s a party, and he’s going to crash the party and deliver a speech to the girl. Okay, well, how many people are at the party? What ages are they? Are they different races? How are they dressed? Is it upscale? Is it downscale? The billions of questions that start to bury the director in quicksand soak up so much time, and they all have to be answered. They’re all theoretically part of some cohesive vision.

John: A crucial thing that a smart screenwriter pointed out to me once is that as a screenwriter, you’re the only person who’s already seen the movie. So when you approach your first meeting as the director you have to remember that you already made the movie in your head. You can see the whole thing.

The director, he or she, hasn’t seen the whole thing yet and is still trying to figure out what the movie looks like and is starting to answer those thousands of questions ahead of time. If they want to go through every page of the script with you, it’s not necessarily because they have a problem with it. They’re just trying to figure it out.

Your job a lot of times is to almost be like an interpreter as if the script was written in some other language, and you have to help talk it through with them so that it can be understandable in their language and they understand what your intention was, who are these characters in the scene, what is important, and how they’re going to get through that.

Because ultimately the smart directors realize that they’re going to be on the set at four in the morning after very long days of shooting. They have two hours until the sun rises, and that actor is going to come to him and be saying like, “What am I supposed to be doing in this scene?” They have to be able to have an answer.

So the times where I’ve been most exhausted with a director, I’ve always tried to remember that, “Okay, that’s right. They’re trying to figure this all out, too.”

Craig: Yes, and you’re smart because you’re putting the movie first. It’s tempting to put your own ego and what you’ve invested in the screenplay first, but the point of the screenplay is the movie. What you’re talking about is helping the director do the best job they can do in realizing their vision and your vision and your intention. So obviously, part of that is explaining your intention and defending your intention.

Another part of it is recognizing that they have to do it for real. The movie that you saw in your head? That can’t ever be a movie because in your movie people move like they do in dreams. They’re on one end of the room. Now they’re on the other end of the room. Time speeds up and slows down in accordance with the importance of the moment.

But in a movie, time moves at one second per second. [laughs] You can’t speed it up, really, or slow it down. I mean, you can a little bit here and there, but there are demands of production that force the director to, frankly, make a less amazing, wonderful, kind of translucent thing than you have in your brain, which is this kind of shimmering dream of whatever your movie was.

That said, the more specific you are in your head about the movie — Like I wrote a blog piece once that says, “You can’t just walk into a building.” You should know if your character walks into a building, see the building. You may not want to waste a bunch of space on the page describing the building, but sooner or later someone’s going to say, “What building did you have in mind?” It’s good to know.

If you drop your jaw and go, “Uh, I don’t know. A building,” you’re expressing a different philosophy than everybody else in the movie. Because they have a job to actually shoot something. If you start saying, “Ah, who cares, it doesn’t matter,” or implying, “Who cares, it doesn’t matter,” you’ve put this thing between you and them.

John: You should be able to have an answer for any question that comes up. So rather than having generic type of like, “This is a police station.” Well, what kind of police station is this like? Where are we at in the police station?
The very first movie I was involved with, the first movie of mine that got produced, was Go. On that movie, fortunately Doug Liman had me super-involved. I was not only on set every moment, but every moment of pre-production I was there, too.

It was a great experience for us to get in the same brain space about what was important, what kinds of things we were going to see. But I always had an answer. It wasn’t always going to be the same answer as Doug’s, but when asked, or occasionally when not asked, but when I saw something going in the opposite direction, I could volunteer my opinion of like, “This is what the intention of this was.” Always couched in terms of like, “These are the other options I could see being out there, but this is what the actual intention of this thing was.”

From casting, from what locations we’re picking to, just the style of the world. Like how rundown of a grocery store are we at, and where are we at in this grocery store. The script reflected a lot of those things, but you’re not ever going to be able to have all those details on the page. They were in my head, though, like I had filmed it well enough in my head that I could at least give them my answer for how things were supposed to be.

Craig: Yes. That’s important. By the way, that is a help for a director.

Look, I’ve worked primarily with two directors, David Zucker and Todd Phillips — both incredibly different guys, very different filmmakers, different kinds of movies. But they’ve both been very generous with me, and they’ve included me as a partner. One of the parts of that contract that I honor is if they don’t get it — let’s say I express my intention as best I can, and they just don’t get it — it’s important for me to stop and go, “Here’s the deal.”

It doesn’t really matter if I get it. If they don’t get it, I have to figure out something else that they do get that satisfies whatever this intention is, because they have to do it. They’re the ones that actually have to relay it. Just as I think when you are directing, and your actor looks at you and says, “I just don’t get this,” you got to think about how to either make them see so that they can internalize and perform it, or find another way in.

The director has to be an adult enough to sublimate his own desires and ego to make the moment with the actors work, and the writer has to do the same for the director. Everybody ultimately has to be subordinate to the movie.

So when I work with those guys, they’re kind enough to let me on their set — and it’s their set — and they want me there, and I am respectful enough to help them. By help them, I mean help the movie, not the script.

John: Let’s talk about being on the set, and let’s talk set etiquette. I found a range of experiences on being the writer on the set. With Go, I was at the monitor for every shot. I had the contacts on, the little ear pieces on. We had a little hand-held monitor so if I needed to walk away from the camera, I could see what they were setting up and run back if something was not going to work right.

With those, I could always talk directly to Doug, and I had to talk directly to Doug because the camera was on his shoulder. So there really were no private conversations. Like I had to come up to him and say like, “What Sarah did was great. It’s going to be a problem when we cut to this next thing here, because we’re setting the expectation…” I would try to give a note that both validated what just happened, but also explain why I was coming up and talking to him. So that he could then turn to Sarah and say like, “Yes, what he just said,” and shoot the next take.

Other cases, like on Big Fish, first day of shooting we’re in Montgomery, Alabama. Tim picked a really easy day of stuff to shoot, which is a smart choice. A really simple thing where Billy Crudup is coming to talk with Jessica Lange.

So I’m watching on the monitor, and I see one little thing, “Oh, I should tell Tim that, that there’s a little moment, opportunity there.” I go up, I pull him aside, it’s like, “Tim, that was great what she just did. But there’s also the chance here when he’s there, and there might be a little moment here.” And I could see like these garage doors go down in front of his eyes.

Craig: [laughs]

John: I realized, this is not going to be the kind of set relationship we have. He doesn’t want me to be chumming with those notes, and it’s a very good idea for me to go back to Los Angeles.

Craig: [laughs]

John: There wasn’t a problem. There wasn’t a disagreement, there wasn’t anything like that. But that wasn’t the way he wanted to work, and I wasn’t going to be able to have a lot of input on the choices made on the set.

Craig: Well, surprise surprise, the directors are as different to each other as we are to each other. I mean, David Zucker and I essentially would co-direct. We sat together at the monitor — I don’t think we would ever move on unless we both agreed to move on. Occasionally, he wouldn’t even care if I gave notes to the actors. We walked through the setups together in the morning. We set the blocking together. We very much worked hand-in-hand.

Not at all the case with Todd Phillips, who is a very different kind of director, and certainly a more traditional one. Todd is the captain of the set 100 percent. As he’s pointed out, I think the way he’s put it is, “I don’t need you to be here.” [laughs] “I’ve made plenty of movies without you. That said, if you’d like to be here, it could be helpful.”

So I take that to heart. I mean, I don’t think I maybe…With that relationship, it’s really just about picking those moments where you think I’m going to just say, “Okay, this is something that matters to me that’s really important, and I’m going to share that with him.” Either he’s going to go, “Shut up, stupid,” or, “Yes, that’s a good idea.” But I pick those moments carefully and few and far between. Frankly, he’s pretty good at what he does, and he’s the sort of very independent director.

One thing that I want to make clear about directing: so much of it has to do with confidence. You need to feel confident in your own vision. Some directors, their confidence goes up the more direct and obvious help they get. Other directors, their confidence goes down.

I understand that. I’m kind of that way myself. You and I write on our own. We don’t have writing partners. I always feel like I should be able to move this boulder myself. So you have to learn which kind of director you’re dealing with. If it’s a director that likes moving the boulder himself, just pick your moments carefully, and don’t be a nudge.

John: One of the luxuries of being a writer on the set is if you’re watching the monitor and you see something that you can fix and you have a good idea, you can speak up and have a good idea. If you see something that’s not working and you don’t know how to fix it, you can just sit there and shut up.

Craig: [laughs] Yes, exactly.

John: Versus the director, who every time he calls, “Cut,” there’s 20 eyes looking at him saying, “Okay, what are we going to do next?” And the director has to figure out who he needs to talk with, about what needs to change, has to figure out what wasn’t working about that moment.

Craig: Yes.

John: So giving that person the space to be able to do that and hopefully help where you can help him or her make that next thing happen.

Craig: That’s a good point. I will say — I don’t care who the director is — give them a little bit of time to find it. No director is going to get it on take one. Well, occasionally magic happens. But the point is, if you watch a take and you go, “Oh, no,” after watching that take, it’s for the same reason people would say, “Oh, no,” if they read the first thing you typed in the morning.

It’s beginning. The process is beginning. Don’t overreact. Don’t jump in there and say, “It’s not working. It’s not working.” Believe me, they know. Everybody knows. [laughs] It’s fine. You have all day to shoot two and a half pages, let the director do what they do.

The only times I ever discuss things with Todd, for instance, is if I thought, “Okay, here’s just another way of approaching this.” Someone once said, “Don’t ever show up with problems, just show up with solutions.” Give them an alternative. If they like it, they’ll do it.

John: Another director who I’ve worked with twice is McG. I love McG. McG can be frustrating at times, but I do love McG. What I love about McG is his energy and his passion. It’s hard to connect with McG on a story level often, but it’s easy to connect with him on a, “This is what it’s going to feel like,” level.

I think no matter who you’re talking with as a director, early on in those conversations, have conversations about tone and feeling, and what this is like to you. A lot of times you end up watching other movies with directors or talking about references. With Tim Burton I could just go into his office, and he’ll have water-color painted a lot of scenes from the script. It says, “Okay, I get what this world is like as he sees it.”

Like for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I was very specific about a lot of the stuff in it, but like the Oompa-Loompas, how is he going to do the Oompa-Loompas? Then you go into his office, and you see he has this scale drawing of what the Oompa-Loompas are like standing next to all the different characters. You can just see everybody in their wardrobe, it’s like, “Oh, okay. I get what this movie is like to Tim.” Then every other conversation I have can be about supporting that vision of how he sees the world of Willy Wonka versus what I might have had in my head originally.

Craig: That’s a good way in with directors who aren’t also prominently screenwriters. In working with David and Todd, I’m working with writers, because they’re screenwriters in their own right. That, actually, also dramatically changes the way you approach that relationship. Because with both of those guys, I’ve been writing partners.

So I don’t have to do quite as much ambassadorship with the script to them because we all wrote it together. That also takes an enormous burden off of me — or I guess not even a burden, because there’s no burden on me, it’s just a worry that I don’t have to have. Because the truth is I know that they actually sat here and worked through this scene with me. We made it together. They’ve seen it in their heads. It makes sense to them. That’s a big relief.

John: It’s great when you have that opportunity to work with a writer-director who actually can generally understand the writing process on that. I think there’s a misconception that because of the perils of auteur theory is that all directors really come from a place of story, and understand story, and have a great grasp of what the narrative of something is. A lot of them don’t.

Some of the best directors, I think, are the ones who are very upfront about that’s not their strongest suit. Just like we don’t expect every director to be a master of cinematography, we don’t expect every director to be a master of visual effects. There are some who are great at figuring out all the pieces of a story and how to move from the beginning to the end, and there’s others who are really good at getting that story up onto the screen. Recognizing which kind of director you are working with early on is crucial with that.

One of the places where I feel like I think I’m good at, which I think a lot of screenwriters will tend to be good at once they have some experience with it, is editing. We’re often the right people to come into the editing room after there’s a director’s first cut to help talk through, “This is what’s not working, and this is what we may want to talk about changing.”
We talked about that first test screening, which is just incredibly nerve-wracking. Especially if you’re the director, of course, because you’ve been staring at this thing on an Avid screen for eight weeks, 12 weeks, trying to get things to work, and you have no idea if it actually works.

As a screenwriter, you’re watching it a lot of times blind. You just don’t know what movie it is that they ended up making. Where I’ve been most helpful to directors, I think, honestly, is being that first set of notes after the test screening and saying like, “These are the things that were awesome. These are the things that worked great. These are the things we had challenges with, and here are some ways we might want to talk about changing them.” Being that first person with the best notes is a helpful role for a screenwriter, I think.

Craig: I totally agree. To that end, here’s just a bit of practical advice. If you want to be a screenwriter that collaborates with filmmakers beyond just, “Congrats, we’re making your movie. See you at the premier,” you need to understand the process of editing. You can’t approach it like you’re just sitting there watching a show going, “I don’t know. I didn’t get this part,” or, “Why…it’s just boring here.”

You have to understand how editing works, and you have to be able to speak the language of editing. Because ultimately, you need to — if you’re going to give advice, and it’s going to be a solution-oriented advice — you need to be able to say, “In this scene, how about just cutting the head” “How about taking this much off, and just keeping that line there?” “I know that you might have a problem with that because let’s say they’ve been talking up to that line and it’s all one shot, but do you have any coverage where you can establish them quietly and then just go in for that line?”

If you can talk like that, then your advice is usable, and it’s also clinical. Because remember, the director is going to be about as fragile as a human can be when they’re showing that cut for the first time. It’s truly nerve-wracking. So try and get some kind of handle on how editing actually works.

The other thing I was going to add was just when you were talking about directors who write and don’t write, comedy, it’s very rare — I don’t know why, it’s just the way it is — I don’t know any successful comedy, or repeatedly successful comedy directors, that don’t write. I don’t know if you can direct comedy if you don’t write. I’m not sure you can.

John: I’m sure if we spent a few minutes on that we’d find some really good directors who aren’t writers, but all of my favorite comedies I can think of have writer-directors behind them.

Craig: Yes. I mean, if you look at the guys doing it now, Phillips, Apatow– I think Dobkin writes. Dobkin may be an example, actually. Because Wedding Crashers is awesome. I don’t know if he writes.

John: I don’t perceive him as being a writer.

Craig: Yes, well, then maybe I’m wrong.

John: [laughs]

Craig: Look at that. There you go. [laughs] Mazin’s wrong again.

John: We’re out about time, but let’s talk through some general advice for screenwriters dealing with directors. First off, the question of when a director becomes involved. Like, I may come on board this project which it’s the director’s idea. So I would be coming in, working very closely in collaboration with him, which can be really great and exciting, but can also be exhausting, because you feel him trying to shoot the movie while it’s still being-

Craig: Yes, yes.

John: -while it’s still at a very raw state. It can be great because it can be a really good collaboration. It could just take a lot of time. More often, you will have written something, and now a director comes on board. Your responsibility is to have a meeting of the minds where you can instill what was going on in your head to him or her, and she can communicate back to you like what she sees for the project.

That’s where I’m at right now with Susan Stroman on Big Fish, where I’ve had now 12 years to work with Big Fish in various forms, and she has to process what I’ve done and pull out of me what she needs to make it on the stage.

Craig: Yes. If the director isn’t writing with you, I think it’s best to give yourself a little distance. Just like they need to get takes one through three in before anybody starts yapping in their ear, I feel like the writer needs some space to just write the script.

So if the director’s not writing, as long as everybody is connected on the vision and the rough idea of what the story is, you just…Yes, it’s not a good idea to have them over your shoulder while you’re doing it. Look, even editors get to do an assembly.

John: Yes. They give everyone a chance.

Craig: Everybody needs their shot. Yes.

John: As you get closer to production, you have to accept the fact that you are going to become another department. Whatever close, one-on-one relationship you have with the director, it’s going to be a little bit more distant just because his or her time is going to be divided between a bunch of different people who need answers out of him — line producers, ADs, every department head wants as much time as they can possibly get.

So hopefully most of the big issues have been solved. Hopefully you feel like you really have a movie. If you get a chance to do a table reading, that’s awesome, because it’s the only way you’ll ever know that the actors read the script at least once. [laughs]

Craig: Well, and it’s your chance, too, to kind of…It’s your last shot at rewriting before they start shooting.

John: Yes.

Craig: Start to hear what works and what doesn’t.

John: And if there’s lines that an actor literally can’t say, you have to change them. You can’t make an actor say a line that he or she doesn’t understand.

Craig: Yes. They’re human beings. Use your actors to the best of their abilities. They’re all unique, and they’re there because they can do something we can’t, so make the best use of them. You’re right, as you approach production, understand that you’re a department, but be the best department. Be the department that the director turns to at the beginning of the day and the end of the day. Be the safe port in the storm.

You are technically — not technically. If you do it right, you’re really the only person that they can look at and say, “You and I both get this. Everybody else is looking like the blind men at the elephant. They’re feeling the piece of the elephant they feel, you and I can see the movie.” Be that person.

John: Sometimes I’ll have a producer on set who actually has the whole movie in his or her head, but more often, you’re going to be the only person around who has a understanding of what the whole story is, and how this little piece fits into the whole bigger piece.

Craig: That’s right.

John: The classic stories are always like the director decides to, “Oh, I really like that actress. Let’s throw her into this scene, just in the background.” The screenwriter says, “No, no, you don’t remember! She’s already dead!” A lot of times you are that person who remembers that. There’s a script supervisor who’s there, and his or her job is to check for some things like that, but you’re the person who remembers why everything is the way something is.

Craig: Yes. I love script supervisors, but they’re not narrative supervisors. That’s the difference. They’re supervising the day’s work on the page and making sure that when you shoot things out of sequence, “Okay. Show me the Polaroid of what they look like in the scene before so I can make sure they match up.”

John: “Coffee cup right hand, coffee cup left hand.”

Craig: Yes. Exactly. “You should be looking camera left and not camera right.” But we are the ones that technically we should know the narrative better than anybody.

John: We’re the story supervisors.

Craig: So to speak, yes.

John: Then I would say, whatever your function is on the set, you’ll go away for a while, and the director will do his or her cut. You’ll get a chance to see it, and that’s hopefully a time where you can be a real help and a real ally to the director in getting the best version of this movie done. Because you had your shot at making the movie when you wrote the script, he has his shot shooting it and doing that first cut, and that final product is what you’re pushing to.

You’re always trying to write a movie, you weren’t trying to write a script.

Craig: Exactly, exactly. So just let the document go. Once the cameras are rolling, let it go. Every morning you take that piece of paper, the two and a half or three pieces of paper, look at them, love them, and then say goodbye to them. Because by the end of the day, they’re just paper, and now it’s movie. So service the movie.

John: Definitely.

(Episode 176)

John: Our first is a question that comes from Matthew Chilelli who is the person who edits this podcast. So, he wrote this question and I said, you know what, we’ll answer your question on the air and you’ll get to hear it first because you’ll edit the episode that has the answer to your question.

So, Matthew Chilelli and his writing partner are directing a movie that they raised money for on Kickstarter. His question was what advice would you give to a first-time director of his own script. I’m like that’s a great question. I had some thoughts, and I’m sure Craig will have some thoughts, too, because we both directed and we both learned a lot.

My quick bullet points of advice is to remember that you’re not there to throw a party. One of my sort of first real worries about directing a movie is I wanted everyone to be happy. I wanted to make sure that the set was comfortable and that everyone was having a good time. Then I realized, you know what, this isn’t a party. It’s not my job to make sure everyone is having a good time. It’s my job to make sure that everyone has the information they need so they can do their jobs really, really well.

Once I stopped thinking about myself as host and started thinking of myself as the person who is directing the movie, things got much happier and better and everyone was happier.

You will be facing a thousand questions. I was terrified of the thousand questions. Should it be a green shirt or a red shirt? Like this? Like this? Do you want a wider lens, a tighter lens? Here are some things: you will usually have an answer. And just pick an answer. And answers are great. Although you can also say, “I don’t know.” And you can solicit their opinions. You can figure out sort of what the choices really mean.

You can also say, “None of the above.” And if the none of the choices that are presented to you are the correct choices, say none of the above and let them come back to you with more choices.

While you’re directing, always remember what the intention is of the scene and what the intention is of the moment. Because when you’re in the middle of directing a scene and things are going crazy and you’re turning around shooting from one side to the other side and things are just nuts, it’s so easy to forget what the scene is actually about. And so making notes to yourself before the day starts, like the scene is about this is incredibly useful. Like the minimum viable scene will be about this, rely on that.

If you are directing actors, directing actors I find works best with verbs. So, it’s very hard for an actor to be happy, be sad, be angrier. Give an actor a verb to play. So you can say don’t let him walk through that door. Or, you can sort of give them a simile. Can we try that same moment but as if he’s just said the most horrifying thing imaginable to you? That’s something an actor can do. An actor can’t be an adjective. So, those are my quick run throughs of advice.

Craig: All spectacular suggestions. I agree with every single one of them.

John: Cool.

Craig: I’ll only add the following.

John: Please.

Craig: When you’re directing a movie that it’s your first time and you’ve written the script, you will have a natural tendency to want to be the person that is defending the guy that came before you, the screenwriter. So, in other situations where we’ve written a script and somebody else directs it we go, oh my god, what are you doing to my screenplay, and it’s bad. And you think, well, when I get in there I can defend this.

However, that’s not the person you should be worrying about. When you direct, the person that you should be solely concerned with is the you in the future who is in the editing room. That’s the person you’re taking care of. That is the person who needs you right now to figure this out.

So, give that person options. When you’re a first-time director, you may think I’ve figured out, I know exactly what I want to do with this. And you may think that’s the name of the game. But sometimes the name of the game is collect options. And then you’re going to find this movie and write this movie in editorial. And Matthew is an editor, so he understands this better than most. To that end, I believe in shot-listing, particularly for a first-time director, and especially if you’re dealing with limited time which typically a first-time director is.

You don’t have a lot of days where you can go, “Yes, we didn’t figure it out today, I’ll figure it out tomorrow.” It doesn’t go that way for you. You’ve got to get the day’s work done. So, shot-list.

As a writer we are obviously absorbed with all writerly things: character, dialogue, theme, scenario. As a director, take a moment to just think about aesthetics. Think about your color palette. Think about movies that look the way you want this movie to look. Think about how you want to move the camera. Do you want long lenses, wide lenses? By the way, if you’re not sure what those things are, pick up a book. There are all sorts of instructional things online now so you can learn.

But really think about how you want it to look, how you want the camera to move and feel, because that is essentially the directorial equivalent of theme for the screenwriter. And without theme as a screenwriter we tend to just wander without some sort of unifying visual concept as a director. You’re just collecting footage and making a big TV show.

So, work on all of those things, but most importantly really, really care for your future self who will be in editorial because that future self is the one who is going to — every director, first-time, 20th time, at some point in editorial will curse themselves for what they didn’t do. So, you want to try and limit the amount of cursing of yourself you end up doing.

John: I think that’s fantastic advice. Let’s talk about what shot-list is, because I think sometimes people get confused about that term. So, there is storyboarding, and storyboarding is when you are sort of sketching out what you think the shots are going to be like to build a sequence. A shot-list is a much more practical thing. It’s literally a thing you’re probably holding in your hand, which is like a bullet point list of these are the shots I need to make this scene.

Craig: Right.

John: And that’s something you probably would do in preproduction. You’d figure out like what the shot-list would be for a scene. But honestly it’s a thing you might do in the morning before you’ve started that day’s work and you’re going to hopefully have people you can trust and talk through that shot-list with.

The people who are so crucial are your first AD. And your director of photography. And I found it to be so useful to like walk through with Nancy Schreiber, my DP, and my line producer, like these are the shots I need in this scene. And she could tell me like, “Okay, well let’s prioritize this and prioritize this because of light.” That was so useful.

Also, when you’re making your shot-list, prioritize within that. Because there are going to be some shots you’re just not going to get. And so you need to be able to tell the scenes, even if you never got that second close-up that you really wanted, okay, but that’s why you put that at the bottom of your list. So, no matter if you’re making a tiny movie or a giant movie, there is going to be stuff that you just don’t get. And protecting that future editor self, you want to make sure you get as much of the stuff you do need and this extra stuff is just gravy.

Craig: That’s absolutely right. That is a perfect description of a shot-list. And what you find as a first-time director is that directing — whatever you thought about directing is wrong. And that a huge amount of what directing is is breaking moments down geometrically. It is literally figuring out how to capture a moment through angles. And the angles could be moving and they could be different sizes, but ultimately you’re fracturing a moment into various geometric angles that will be repeated so that you can edit them together.

And understanding the geometry of your scene is really important before you shot-list, because sometimes if you think about it you’ll say I don’t want to break this down. I actually think this is a one-er. I think that’s how this works. I don’t want coverage here. I want this to be about these two people playing something in the moment together. And if it’s a one-er and you know it’s a one-er, no problem. Everything is a tradeoff, right? You’ll probably do nine takes of that, but there’s no more coverage, so you’re done with it, right.

If you’re doing traditional coverage with two people talking, you’ve got yourself a master, and overs, and closes. Okay. So, you don’t have to do as many takes of each one, but there’s a lot more setups.

So, one thing to do as the first-time director of your own screenplay is to go through your screenplay and start asking yourself this question: how would this moment be best broken down geometrically? What do I want to see and how? It will help you make your shot-list. And then as you said your DP and your first AD will have all sorts of great ideas to add to it and to make it more efficient.

John: One last thing, thinking about that future person you’re going to be when you’re in the editing room, a lot of times as you’re watching a shot happen before you you say like, oh, that was good, but this thing wasn’t good, that thing — like it was almost right, but this wasn’t quite right. If you know you’re going to be cutting it, it doesn’t have to be flawless all the way through. It would be great if it were flawless, where you had that one take that’s fantastic, but pushing for that eighth take to try to get one perfect take through on one person’s coverage is almost never worth it.

Craig: Yes.

John: If you know you have the moments, if you know that I can see and feel what this is like, then you’re wasting a lot of your day to try to get to that perfect eighth take when you have the stuff you need in those earlier takes.

Craig: It’s why you need — before you direct anything you must have experience editing something. You must. You need to know where the scissors come in and where the scissors can’t come in. You need to know when something is married to something else so if one half of it is no good and one half of it is good, it’s no good.

But Matthew happily has that experience, so that’s a huge part of it. It’s how you figure out how to break a moment down very often.

John: Yup. So, a great segue to our next topic which is our Perfect Series. And this time it’s the Perfect Director. So, I want to take a look at the perfect director from the writer’s point of view since we’re a mostly a writer’s podcast. But also from what a perfect director looks like from an actor’s point of view, from different department heads’ point of view. Because how does a director do her job the best and what are the tools and techniques she’s using to make the best movie. So, obviously a very wide topic, but Craig how should we start?

Craig: Well, let’s start with what we’re most comfortable with, I suppose, which is how — what we want from a screenwriting point of view when we work with a director what do we want. And I’m going to dispense with the obvious ones. We want them to be good. [laughs] We want them to know how to shoot. We want them to be visually interesting. We want them to know how to work with great actors. We want them to be really specific, make terrific choices. But, of course, what a lot of screenwriters will say is we want them to shoot the script.

Well, I don’t want the director to shoot the script. I want the director to shoot the movie of the script. But here is what I want most of all: I want the director to presume respectfully that if something is in the script it’s there for a reason. I think the biggest mistake directors make vis-a-vis screenwriters is when they read a screenplay they presume that some of it is just whatever. There’s moments that have to happen, but then there are moments inside of the moments that are like, eh, you know what, I actually would love to do this, or I’d love to do that or it would be more fun if the camera was here, more fun if the camera is there. This just feels like a waste of time.

And, not always, depending on the quality of the screenwriter, but I would argue if it’s a good screenwriter 99% of the time that is a huge mistake.

John: Yes.

Craig: It is not a mistake to ask the screenwriter how can we do this differently. It is a mistake to say quite arrogantly, “Some of this isn’t important.” It is as much of a mistake as it would be to open up a human body during surgery, grab a hold of some little gibbet and go, “Eh, this probably doesn’t mean anything,” and just pull it out.

Because we put things in on purpose. Then, of course, what happens is, three or four weeks later, you might get a call like, “Oh, this doesn’t make sense.” Yes, well, because you took that thing out and you didn’t realize, because you hadn’t lived in it the way I did. When you want to change things in a screenplay, and it’s perfectly fine to say, “Look, we’re changing it, we must change it for the following reasons, even if one of the reasons is my directorial taste.” Tell me, how can I change this so that I don’t hurt anything? First, do no harm. That’s what I want from a director more than anything else in terms of how they interact with me. That involves, obviously, a certain amount of respect and acknowledgement that the screenplay isn’t just a suggestion or even a blueprint, which I’ve never understood, but rather is a conceptualized movie.

John: What I’m looking for in a director is that someone who can come in and channel this vision of a movie onto the screen. It’s really a person who can experience the movie internally and then has the skills to be able to put that up on a screen. That is such a unique skill set. There are people who are just amazingly good at it and who can do things that I would just never think of to do. That’s what gets me so excited, is when a director who can just do these amazing things. I cannot underscore enough is that I don’t want this person to make my script.

I want this person to make my movie and make her version of my movie. I want that movie to be fantastic. When there’s suggestions or changes or concerns or things they don’t like, that’s awesome. Let’s talk those through, but don’t try to change them on the set without getting some feedback, because yes, everything that’s in the script was there for a reason. There’s a reason why this whole carefully constructed puzzle fits together one way. There’s other ways it could be assembled, but there was one way it was supposed to work. If you can talk with me about that beforehand, that’s awesome.

In those first conversations, a lot of those first conversations with the director is basically just talking through the whole movie so I get a sense of what the movie looks like in the director’s head. Sometimes that really does mean as a screenwriter, I’m explaining scenes and like, well, I wrote it and now I’m actually talking through the whole explanation of it, but it’s so important that we’d be on the same page, literally the same page written, but also the same idea about what the intentions are of those scenes.

The times where things have gone not especially well have been cases where the director really thought the scene was about something completely different than what I thought the scene was about. It’s fine for us to have a difference of opinion, but we didn’t even have a difference of opinion. He just shot a different scene than what I meant that scene to be. Then that scene no longer shows up at the movie, and there’s problems.

Craig: Absolutely true. The other thing that I think the perfect director exhibits is patience. Now, directing, I’ve said this before many times, directing a movie, a feature film, is the hardest job in show business. Directors cannot be patient with everybody. In fact, most directors really have only a very tiny amount of patience that they reserve entirely for their actors. They must be patient with their actors because if they yell at their actors or are impatient with their actors, they’re getting bad performances.

Of course, this is all about what they’re getting on screen from their human beings, unless they’re all computer-generated robots. I would ask the perfect director to extend that patience to actors, to writers, that we need actually the same amount of patience. The reason I say that is not because we’re sensitive flowers, but rather because you will get a better movie if you’re patient with the screenwriter. Frankly, there are a lot of directors who are least patient with the screenwriter.

They find the screenwriter and the screenplay to be this offensive reminder that this world that they’re creating is not entirely their world. It’s disruptive of their confidence. I understand that. There are screenwriters who get fussy about changes. The perfect director is patient with the screenwriter because they will get better work, and they will make a better movie if they are. I always tell my fellow screenwriters to be patient in return to the director. They need us at our best in order to survive, and we are all in the same boat of trying to make a good movie. A good director is patient with the screenwriter.

John: You talk about how incredibly hard the director’s job is, and I completely agree. It’s like you’re a general leading your troops into battle. The crucial thing is that you have to have the trust of your troops. Your crew has to trust and believe that you have a vision for how you’re going to win this fight, how you’re going to succeed in doing this thing. That means that you had a lot of planning. You really knew what you were going to do ahead of time.

You’re able to read the lay of the land and see, like, okay, on the day we’ve arrived at this location, this location is different than how I expected it to be. I’m flexible enough to roll with what needs to actually happen because the directors who are inflexible, who everything has to be exactly the way that they had storyboarded it, are not going to be able to roll with the changes and roll with the punches. The great directors can also recognize and really remember the intention of the scene.

If an improv moment comes up that’s actually better than what was there, they will be able to incorporate it and be able to both have the version of the scene as it existed, but also recognize this new version is better, funnier, more dramatic. It does something unique and wonderful. I’m so glad I’m going to have that in the editing room as well.

Craig: Right. Yes. That reminds me, just another bit of advice, going backwards for Matthew Chilelli as he approaches his first movie. A good director leads the crew, but also understands that the crew will not be able to tell her or him that they’re making a good movie. All the crew sees are dailies. That’s what they see. They see live dailies going on, and they may see funny moments, and they may see an actor do a hysterical thing or a beautiful thing. As the old saying goes, there’s nothing better than your dailies, and there’s nothing worse than your first cut. They don’t know what the movie is.

John: They don’t.

Craig: Don’t ask them what they think, and don’t be encouraged or discouraged if they offer their opinions. No one except for you and your editor has any sense, really, of the movie that is going to result. You’re the only ones that have seen the completed jigsaw puzzle. You’re just making pieces now, right?

John: Yes.

Craig: Don’t overreact to that whole thing. In comedy, we called it dailies laugh, where the crew just goes, “Oh my God,” and they’ll come up to you at lunch. “That was so funny.” In your heart, you know, “Ah, it’s getting cut out of the movie.” There’s something about those moments, those moments that are so funny in the moment, so often just do not live in the matrix of the put-together film.

John: Yes. Any last bits of summary for our perfect director? I don’t think there’s one– I would say there’s not one perfect archetype for a director, and I’ve worked with directors who I love who are vastly different from each other, and that’s fine, that’s okay. They all have different ways of communicating their vision to their department heads and to me, and to everybody else who has to see what it is. Sometimes it’s not immediately clear to me, I have no idea what you’re doing, but it all works.

The directors who I admire as a viewer, I don’t necessarily know what they’re like on the set, but if people are working with them again and again, there’s probably something that they’re doing that’s really, really good. They’re probably treating their crews with respect. They’re probably able to communicate what it is that they’re trying to do, so people can do their very best jobs. They’re able to inspire the best work out of people, and that’s how you make great movies.

Craig: Yes, I think that frankly, the best directors, the directors that I love, as I run down the list in my mind, they’re either writers or they really respect writers. The directors that I find ultimately are disposable, who disappear or who just make stuff I don’t like, are directors that are notorious for not giving a crap about the script, that the script is a ha-ha-ha, I’m a director.

[music]

John: All right. We are back in 2025. I had to actually think about what year we were in.

Drew: It’s a weird year.

John: It’s time for one cool thing. My one cool thing is also very nostalgic-driven. Way back in the day, I loved HyperCard. I’ve probably talked about this on the show before, but, Drew, you’re probably too young to remember even what HyperCard was.

Drew: I don’t know what HyperCard is at all.

John: HyperCard was not a programming language. It was a thing that came with Macintoshes for a certain number of years that you could build these things called stacks, which were– Before web pages, but they were things you could build to do cool things. You could build games out of them. You had buttons and fields you could drag around. It was how a lot of people got started understanding programming, and also the sense of objects that had scripts. It was a really foundational, important way of how I got to appreciate computers.

Drew: Now that you say that, I think I was there when you and Jordan Mechner were talking about HyperCard.

John: Fantastic. HyperCard was great. There’s a new app called Scrappy, which is a web app, which reminds me a lot of the things I loved about HyperCard, because in the back of my head, I always thought like, “Oh, it would be fun to build something that was like a new HyperCard.” These folks went out and did it. It is a very bare-bones, but surprisingly clever demonstration test project that talks through things you might want to build in Scrappy that are just one-purpose, one-time things. It’s a fun little toolbox.

Drew: Oh, I love these things. These are the things that I feel like, especially for kids, getting the sort of foundational building blocks of working with computers, and more than just pointing and clicking kind of thing. I am terrible at this, so I should probably do it.

John: One of the things I loved about HyperCard is that the distinction between building a thing and using a thing are very minor. It’s not like you have to commit to a build, and then you run it and see if it works. You just click on either your pointer, like a finger, or your arrow. Either you’re editing it or you’re designing it, you can do both at the same time, which was a thing I loved so much about HyperCard.

Drew: It’s the computer equivalent of potato clocks.

John: Yes. Oh, yes, great, simple. Fun things to play with. If you’re nostalgic for old school programming or just feel like something to spend some time on, Scrappy, and I’ll put a link in the show notes to that.

Drew: I love it.

John: What do you have for us?

Drew: I, last weekend, went to Mount Wilson for the first time, which, if you’re in Los Angeles, Mount Wilson is an observatory that– It feels high above us and far away, but it’s actually really close, and it’s really, really cool. It’s where all of the early physics discoveries were made in the early 20th century. Einstein was there and all that stuff. It’s a place that I’ve heard about so many times, but when we had the fires earlier this year, it was severely threatened. It was one of those places that, actually, I ended up only thinking about when we would have fires, being like, “Oh, I need to go to Mount Wilson before that’s gone eventually.” It’s so cool.

John: Talk to me about the experience of visiting Mount Wilson. Did you have to get tickets because there was timed entries or anything like that?

Drew: There’s timed entries on the weekends. They said to get there early that they sell out. We didn’t have any issue with that. You don’t get to look in the telescope for the weekend tours. Those are specific nighttime tours, and those ones you have to be hawkish and look online, and that kind of thing. We’re going to do that now. They just do tours of the grounds on the weekends, and it’s a working research facility still. One reason, though, that I would encourage everyone to see it is because of all the cuts to the NSF.

They’re hurting for money a little bit, even though they’re basically a national park with these incredible telescopes and towers and working scientists. One scientist just has her dog sitting there. There’s a lab dog, and you just get to go through, and they get to talk to you about space and the universe and all that stuff.

John: How many people that were touring this place were adults versus families with kids?

Drew: It was mostly adults. There was one family with kids. It was the best tour group I’ve ever been with. It seemed like a lot of people who had jobs at JPL-

John: Oh, sure.

Drew: -or local scientists, so people were curious and asking really good questions. I think part of the reason I had such a great time is because our tour group was actually adults, and it wasn’t just like awe and clap. It was thoughtful, and it was considerate, and it was really cool.

John: One thing I often forget, but I think people outside of Los Angeles may not even be aware of is that in addition to Hollywood, Southern California is also the home to the aerospace industry, and so we have JPL and other big manufacturers of satellites and things like that, so we also have a bunch of smart people here, and it’s fun sometimes going to see smart people in their domain.

Drew: Yes, going to that space. Also, so Mount Wilson does movie screenings up in their things, so they’re showing Contact soon and all sorts of stuff. There’s fun reasons to go up there. I think they have musicians come up and do stuff. I just loved it, and I’ve been here for a decade and never made my way up.

John: I’ve been here for multiple decades, and I’ve never been up there, so we’ll put that on the list. It’s worth the trip. Cool. Drew, thank you for putting together this compendium episode.

Drew: Of course. It was really fun.

John: It’s Scriptnotes. It’s produced by Drew Marquardt, with segments this week produced by Stuart Friedel. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions that we often answer on the show. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You will find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube, just search for Scriptnotes.

We have t-shirts, hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find all those at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. As always, we really do appreciate our premium subscribers. You make it possible for Drew and Matthew, and everyone else to do this show every week. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on casting as a director, as opposed to being an actor–

Drew: Getting very rejected.

John: Drew, thanks so much.

Drew: Thanks.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Drew Marquardt, you’re about to head off and shoot a short film. It’s a short film that I’ve read the script of. It is delightful. You have two lead roles in this short film, and you are trying to cast them. Talk to us about the process of casting a short film in Los Angeles.

Drew: The first thing we did is we hired a casting director. You can go out to breakdown services yourself if you’re doing it. The main mistake I did is I didn’t take your and Craig’s advice of writing to the things that I have, and I wrote a short film about two elderly people, basically. Which was exciting to me because it felt like a thing I hadn’t seen before, but I don’t have those things. I think first thing is, if you’re in Los Angeles, write for your actor friends and don’t go out and cast.

We hired a casting director, partly because I had hoped to get names, or faces if not names.

John: Actors you’re like, “Oh, yes, I’ve seen them in things.”

Drew: That person.

John: Yes.

Drew: Great character actors. Sure. Because there’s so many great character actors, especially, so I’m looking in the 75 to 90 range, and I was like, there’s so many of those people around.

John: They won’t do the nudity required in the role.

Drew: They won’t do the nudity for the role. [laughs]

John: I’m kidding.

Drew: My casting director reached out to them, and I wrote cover letters for all of these people who I’ve seen for decades. Another factor here is we don’t have any money, and short films don’t have any money. I’m learning that all of these confluences of factors really play into it, because I had naively thought like, “Well, what else are they doing?” This is just a good weekend thing, and it would be hours towards SAG Health Insurance or something like that. We could come at it from that angle. In reality, I think they’ve got nothing to prove. They’re very comfortable, and getting them interested is a little bit more difficult than I thought it was going to be.

John: Yes. You had come at this from the other side. Back in the day, you were auditioning for things, stuff was coming your way, and you were passing on some things. As an actor, what were things you would pass on? Is it things like, I don’t want to go to [unintelligible 00:56:22], I don’t want to–

Drew: [laughs] No, I think at the time, I would’ve loved to go to [unintelligible 00:56:26]. I think it was not being confident in the director. It would be usually someone– I’m going to flatter myself and say young, like me, but who might be slightly inexperienced, and wondering where the funding was coming from, especially if it’s low-budget. I did a few low-budget things because I liked the script so much.

John: How did they turn out?

Drew: They turned out okay.

John: Yes, I’m realizing now, I’ve never actually seen any of your cinematic work.

Drew: Can you imagine? It was just all very bad. There was one I did for a bunch of students in Bournemouth in the UK, and at the time, they had a producer from The King’s Speech attached on the stuff, and the script was really cool. It felt like a young Trainspotting-y thing. Then, it turns out that they just loved smoking pot, and we shot a whole thing all summer, but it morphed into something. They lost that producer, so there wasn’t a ton of money, and we just had like a Canon D5, or whatever they were shooting stuff with, and there was all the enthusiasm, but…

I think just the thread of the story got lost. It’s out there, the scenes make no sense, sort of, it’s just a jumble of things. That one was probably one of those ones that honestly felt like a cautionary tale, because I’d come at it with this enthusiasm, then you see how it falls apart, especially if people don’t have their shit together. From that point on, I was weary of everything that came across my desk, so to speak, that felt like that. Yes, I understand people’s reticence with a smaller project like this.

John: I think about casting on short films I’ve done. The first short film I shot was beyond film school, but the first real short film I shot was God with Melissa McCarthy. Melissa was someone who I had seen in an early cut of Go. She was cast in a very minor role in Go, and I’m like, “Wow, she’s phenomenal. I need to write something for her immediately.” I wrote that for her. We talked about writing for what things you feel like you can control, and that was, I think, I could control it, and I could cast around her with other very smart, funny people.

During the first writer’s strike, I shot a short called The Remnants. Both of these are online, we’ll put links in the show notes to both of these. The Remnants was an interesting case where I wrote this thing not for any specific people; we actually had to cast it. I went to a casting director, Robert Ulrich, who I’d worked with on some TV projects, and we just cast it, but it was a weird time to be doing anything because it was during the strike, the WGA was encouraging other weird little indie short films to shoot, because why not?

We got together a really good group of actors, but it was weird to have written this thing without having a sense of who was going to be playing these parts from the very start.

Drew: God, I’m sure. That one seemed to come together pretty well, too, because I feel like you had locations and stuff, reading the script on that, and then also seeing the short. It feels like it was pretty similar.

John: On the outside, it does seem similar. They’re both written for mostly a single location and all that tracks, but the first one was literally in my apartment, so I could shoot it there. The second one, I didn’t have that apartment, so I was just finding somebody’s apartment we could borrow for the two days it took to shoot the thing.

Drew: I will say, so with this project that I’m working on, other than casting, it’s been pretty charmed. We’ve had a lot of people donate some really wonderful stuff, and with Film Independent giving us fiscal sponsorship. There’s been a lot of wonderful things coming in.

This is what I wanted to ask you about. Another thing that a casting director does really quick is they send out an avail check to people, saying, “Are you available for these dates?” For everyone, they’re like, “Yes, and we’re ready to work.”

We said, “Here’s the script, and here’s how much money we have,” and they said, “Never mind.” It’s teasing apart for me what’s the problem– I don’t want to compromise the idea of the short, and that is its own thing. But do I take this as feedback or not?

John: Oh, I would not take that as too much feedback. I think it may be a sense of– I think you have the right internal model for what some of these actors are saying no to. I think they’re saying, “It’s not worth it for me to go do this.” You only need two actors, and the right two actors will be out there and will be the right people to do it. The whole tech avail versus not actually available check is fascinating because I’ve also heard that happen in Broadway, where we’ll reach out on tech avails for people, and then you follow up, and it’s like, “Oh, but they really don’t want to play that smaller part.” That becomes the issue.

Drew: Sure. That makes sense. Once you get the details, it changes how things go about that.

John: The other thing I would keep in mind is that sometimes actors may say no because they’re trying to keep themselves open for another thing, like a TV thing that will actually pay some money, and you get that.

Drew: Totally.

John: As you get closer to the dates, in a weird way, things may open up a little bit.

Drew: That’s helpful. Yes, I think when you don’t get the people in your head, do you feel that changes things for you down the line, into production? Do you feel like–

John: Yes, sometimes you have to adapt with the batch of people that you’ve cast and what their abilities are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, whether you believe them in that part, but I don’t know. You didn’t write Yeti. These are really recognizable Midwestern humans. I don’t think it’s going to be a challenge for you to find these people down the road. If not, I’m reaching back to the Robert Eggers episode because he was talking about his short film where they had a puppet-

Drew: Puppets.

John: -[crosstalk]. Maybe it’s just puppets. Maybe that’s really the secret that we didn’t consider. Some Henson folks who come in there and give you some puppets.

Drew: I keep having fantasies. I’m like, “I should just do this animated.” I’ll just animate it, and then I can get someone in a booth for a day to just give a couple lines and don’t have to worry about it.

John: Yes. Right now, people are crashing their cars and saying, “Animation is not easier.” [crosstalk]

Drew: No, it’s not.

John: It takes so much of your time. I think aiming a camera at these things will be the right choice, but puppets are pretty great, too.

Drew: Puppets will be fun.

John: Well, good luck, Drew. We’ll obviously keep the Scriptnotes listenership posted on updates as the show progresses.

Drew: Thank you so much, and thanks for your help.

Links:

  • Episode 4 – Working with directors
  • Episode 176 – Advice to a First-Time Director
  • Scrappy
  • HyperCard
  • Mount Wilson Observatory
  • John’s shorts God and The Remnants
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Segments produced by Stuart Friedel. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 695: Advice to a Young Film Student (with Scott Frank), Transcript

July 30, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. A standard warning for people who are in the car with their kids, there’s some swearing in this episode.

[music]

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

Craig Mazin: Umm. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to episode 695 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Often on this program, we offer advice to young filmmakers and screenwriters on the next steps they should take in their career. Today on the show, we’re going to turn our attention instead to a young development executive or aspiring development executive and offer her our guidance. How do you become an exec, an agent, a manager, a producer?

We’ll talk about the first steps and next steps she should consider. I also want to talk about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations and how they interact to form story with a specific example of the police procedural. To help us do this, we welcome back Scott Frank, a legendary screenwriter and director whose credits include Out of Sight, Minority Report, Queen’s Gambit, and the new Department Q on Netflix. Welcome back, Scott Frank.

Scott Frank: Thank you for having me. I’m mildly happy to be here.

Craig: Well, that makes one of you.

Scott: Yes, thank you.

Craig: And so it begins.

[laughter]

John: You actually had an agenda coming in here, too, because you said you wanted to talk about how we’re educating writers. Give us a little sense of what you want to dive into.

Scott: I just noticed because I mentor quite a few writers, and I’ve been doing, as you’ve been doing, the Sundance Lab for now, I think, 30 years or something.

John: I’m only 25 years. You got me there.

Scott: Okay, good. The thing I’m noticing a lot at the labs, in particular, we get a lot of people post film school, and it’s amazing what’s not being taught. It’s amazing the kind of approach to writing that I see increasingly. The discussion about writing has become, I think, co-opted by what I would consider craft issues and good student issues and not really voice issues and intention issues and things like that. One of the great things about the lab is we always start with the conversation about intention. We arrive at craft later. I feel like there’s a lot of discussion about reverse engineering screenplays. I’ll get more into that as we talk later, but that’s become my pet issue.

Craig: This is great. I can take the week off and not talk about all those things [laughs] because I have a feeling you and I agree about quite a bit of it. If there’s anything we can do to help, I don’t know if there is, but if there’s anything we can do to help, because I do think that people, at least some of the film schools listen to this, including the professors, that maybe we can offer some guidance that might be a practical value.

John: I love it.

Scott: As an AFI dropout, and I do think AFI is probably the best of the bunch actually because it’s more of a workshop, but these film schools are so– I feel like in order to justify the cost, they create these curriculums full of classes that are writing the thriller, outlining, writing a half hour. It’s all nonsense to me. It’s really about being able to make mistakes. It’s about getting comfortable with the mess. It’s wrong until it’s right. There is no way to game writing. There is no way to get ahead of it. It’s just being comfortable with that feeling of it’s not working, it’s not working, oh, it’s working.

You can talk about outlining. You can talk about a three-act structure. You can talk about setups, payoffs, conflict, all the things people like to talk about, but it’s really irrelevant without the real conversation, which is one about intention to begin with, and then mindfulness in terms of spinning yarn, which is really what we do, and then we apply the craft later. If you start with the craft, it feels built.

I see it happening all the time where people are talking about these things that are very craft-oriented. A lot of the things that people have arrived at, whether it’s screenwriting books or podcasts, a lot of it is looking back and analyzing something, which is very different.

Craig: It sure is.

Scott: You can look at a script and say, “Oh, look at that,” but when you’re writing it, I feel like it’s trial and error, and you have to be comfortable with getting it wrong over and over and over and over again. That’s where the best stuff happens, through those happy accidents.

John: I think we can hopefully get into a bit of the syllabus of the Scott Frank film school that does not exist as we dive into it.

In our bonus segment for premium members, I would also like to talk about education in general and how we educate our kids, because the three of us had kids who went through public schools, private schools, alternative schools. Now that we’re on the other side of that, I want to talk about the lessons we’ve learned and things we would do differently where we’re just starting over now in 2025 with kids.

First, we’ve got some follow-up. Drew, we had some follow-up about movies they don’t make anymore.

Drew Marquardt: Phillip wrote in. We had talked about the decline of sex in movies. Phillip wrote, “I recently read the story from 2021 about how the action superhero genre has people with perfect bodies and no interest in sex.”

John: It has the best headline, I think, for this saying, “Everybody is beautiful and no one is horny,” which feels very true about our superhero movies. It’s a story by RS Benedict writing for Blood Knife. We’ll put a link in the show notes for that. I think it’s just really true, like we have a bunch of sexless gods in our superhero movies.

Craig: Yes, I guess that’s true. The superhero movies are probably a subset of the larger PG-13-ification of the world. Even the rated R-ification of the world, they’re happy with violence, they’re happy with horror. We’ve talked about this before, but it does feel like there is a generation that’s like, “If I want sex on screen, I’ll watch any of the 14 trillion porn videos available to me. Why would I want that in this? This isn’t for that. Porn is for sex.”

They maybe have a point because sex on film has always been weird to me. The dramatized sex on film, I struggle. I’ve written two sex scenes in my life, and you can feel the camera wanting to drift towards the fireplace. [chuckles] It’s brutal. What do you do? Basically, the movie says you can be sexy up until a point, and then it’s fireplace time so you really can’t, whereas we can blow someone’s head off, and that’s interesting.

John: Scott and I have both written some sex scenes that I actually shot, and I think were good. The three-way sex scene in Go, it’s sexy and then there’s a fire burst out, so there’s a point to it. I think one of the real challenges of sex scenes is like, well, if it’s just the sex scene because of the sex scene, then it’s frustrating. If there’s character moments that’s happening, if it’s Jennifer Lopez and George Clooney in the trunk of a car and there’s a character happening there, that’s a different kind of sex scene. That’s something you don’t get in porn.

Scott: Yes, and I also think there are two things that drive me crazy vis-à-vis sex on film. One is when people are deliberately avoiding the physicality. They’re in bed having sex, and she’s wearing her bra or t-shirt or fur coat, and it’s so clearly perfunctory exercise, and now we’re having a sex scene, but we’re not really going to have a sex scene.

Then the gratuitous on the other side where it’s just as perfunctory where you cut to this other thing that feels like rote, now they’re in bed and there’s nothing learned, nothing gained, there’s nothing awkward or uncomfortable or interesting about it, there’s no conversation during it. You’re not exploring character, you’re just exploring naked people, and that’s a problem. There are movies where sex is done really well, I think.

John: Yes, I thought Anora did sex incredibly well. Obviously, it was crucial to the story, but it was interesting, it was fun. It was never gratuitous. The plot was happening as the sex scenes were happening.

Craig: We’re not going to be seeing that– we’re talking about big movies, right?

John: Yes, we’re talking about big movies.

Craig: Big movies used to have sex and then they don’t.

Scott: Yes.

John: I think I may have mentioned this last week, I watched Altered States for the first time, and like Altered States, there’s sex scenes in it, there’s nudity, there’s all this stuff. That’s not the point of it, but it’s because the characters would have been doing that stuff, and so we’re doing it.

Craig: Well, also in the ‘70s and ‘80s, people thought it was fun. They liked it. They thought it was exciting, and it was a draw.

John: It was a draw.

Scott: Take Body Heat, it’s part of the plot. It’s how she manipulates him through sex. There’s a scene where she literally leads him by the dick, and you’re going, “That is the point of why this is happening.” He’s showing you how she has completely got this guy under her physical spell.

Craig: It does feel like the audience, when people say, “Well, everyone is beautiful and no one is horny,” this is a guy named, or a woman named, RS Benedict. I don’t know if it’s a man or a woman, but this writer, RS Benedict, I’m guessing, is complaining. I do feel like when you talk to people who are younger than we are, which is 98% of the world’s population, they’re like, “I don’t know if I want to see this cringy shit on film.”

It isn’t what it was for us, and I think in part because, putting aside the artistic value that a good sex scene has, it could be as good or bad as a fist fight. It could have as much character or not character as a fist fight. When we were watching movies as 20-somethings, it was harder to see sex on film. It was harder to see nudity on film. It was special, and now it is not. It’s just not.

Scott: Yes.

John: I saw F1, and there is a sex moment in it, basically, but it just skips over. They start to, and then you come back to it at the end. Movies of a different time would have actually shown that thing, and it would have been a bigger deal, and the movie just skips right over. It was the right choice for that movie, but it is a little bit frustrating that we don’t have those moments anymore.

Craig: I got to be honest, I’m not frustrated. I’m okay. I’m with the kids. It’s tough. I do feel a little squirmy.

John: This whole conversation stemmed out of a discussion last week about genres of movies that Gen X (sic.) has just not seen at all because they haven’t made them. Sex thrillers was one of them, but spoof movies was another. There’s a whole big list of them. My point was that if people never have any exposure to a certain kind of movie, they won’t even know what to do with it. They won’t have a vocabulary for it. They might not know that they’d love it if they’ve never seen one of them.

What I propose for our listeners is write in with your suggestions for what are the genres that people should see at least one movie in that genre of? You can offer examples from that, but I’m really more curious about what are the genres that people should see at least one of? I’ve seen very few Japanese horror movies, and I feel like that’s a whole genre that I should see at least one of those. I’d love that list of what are the 15 or 20 things that everyone should at least give one of those movies a shot, because there could be something there that you probably love, you just don’t know about it yet.

Scott: Well, it’s tricky because I’m not even sure you need to break it down by genre. There are movies that you should just see that are either part of the canon, or they speak to you in some– I’ll recommend a movie specific to somebody I know in terms of their point of view, and so on. You want to talk about Japanese horror, I say, “Okay, go watch the Audition,” whatever it is.

John: Exactly, but I don’t even know what that is, and so I think I need to be told like, “Oh, Japanese horror is a thing,” because I might not even know that. Then like, “Okay, what are the examples within that to consider?”

Scott: The question is, do you need to watch it? Do you need to watch it by genre? I feel like, again, going back to this, it’s storytelling stuff, and the way different cultures tell stories and the way– It’s not just Japanese horror, there are Japanese police years, there’s all kinds of different things. Just watching Japanese cinema, getting exposed to that in general, you can go on a huge deep dive, where one part of it is horror, same with French cinema, you can go down the deep dive. There are great psychological thrillers, erotic thrillers, and then there’s great comedy in France too and all kinds of things. Whatever country you want, pick one, we could do this forever.

I feel like when I watch these movies, I’m watching them to see how they’re telling the story more than anything. You’re always on the make for filmmaking things as well, but it’s like, “Wow, this is a different sort of story,” particularly European films because American films are now conceptual and everything sort of services, the concept. You can predict what the story of F1 would be or something and occasionally in a big movie, we get surprised. I feel like a lot of these films, they’re great to watch for storytelling, period, the end.

John: In part because you just don’t know what’s going to happen.

Scott: Exactly.

John: You don’t have a set of expectations, you come into it with a thing. I guess my counterargument would be that if you had a sense of what those genres were, then you could understand what they’re doing that’s different from that. You might understand like, “Oh, this is how this fits into this framework.”

Scott: Of course, yes, I think that’s true too. As a corollary to that, tone is something no one talks about in terms of writing because tone is super hard, both for writing and directing for that matter. Tone and transitions are the two most neglected thing you have in conversations about storytelling, I think.

John: That’s pretty good. Craig, you’re silent, but it’s because you agree.

Craig: What can I say? I’ve been talking about transitions. I feel like I’ve said the word transitions too many times, [laughs] so this is great. We’ll get to our complaining section, when Scott and I have a complain off. It is the part that hurts me the most. I think I try and be very positive about the things that we talk about on the show. When we do our three-page challenges, we’ll zero in on this.

When I watch movies or television shows, the first thing that hurts is fumble transitions, lack of transitions, clunky transitions because it’s not just a matter of a director failing to go, “Oh, big to small, far to close,” whatever it is, it’s just a lack of attention to the fact that one scene is following another. It contrasts to another. It exists in relationship to what came before it, and it is preparing you for what comes after it. The lack of transitions is an indication that I’m not in safe hands, and this happens all the time. Yes, when we get to our complaining section, we’ll get in– We’ve done entire episodes about transitions.

Scott: Also, it should be in the script. It should be in the storytelling [crosstalk]

John: Of course, 100%.

Scott: It should be you read a novel. There are great transitions in novels.

Craig: Scott, no one’s teaching novel writers to not direct on the page. Let’s save this for when we get into our film school thing, because that is, I think, the number one crime of writing education [laughs] for the screen is this terror of the DGA coming to whisk you away in the middle of the night for writing “close on.”

Scott: Well, it’s all in how you do it, too.

Craig: Everything is, everything is.

John: Well, this is actually a very good transition into our short marquee topic, which is advice to this young film student who’s an actual real person. We’ll call her Lisa for this discussion. She came into the office. She was a classmate of my daughters in high school. She’s now halfway through undergrad film school, a good film school. She’s a really smart young woman. She had questions about the next thing she should be doing. She’d gone to film school with the intention of becoming maybe a cinematographer.

She really wanted to get in the production side of things. She realized, after two years of film school, that was probably not what she actually enjoyed. She did not like the physical production of it all. We didn’t dig into this, but I think she also might not really like film students because there are some really annoying film bros who are doing that stuff. What she actually really loved was storytelling development. She really loved the making of big movies aspect of this. As we were sitting there across from her, I was like, “Oh, I think you are exactly right, that you are a prototypical, wonderful, young development executive.”

You see her, it’s like, “Oh, I can completely envision you in that office, in the meeting, having a discussion about a script.” We talked to her about taste, about knowing what you want, what you don’t want, being able to go into an interview or a meeting and describe the kinds of movies that you love, being able to talk about– I don’t know, she says, “I like big mainstream movies.”

I kept pushing her, I’m like, “Be able to tell us why. Be able to talk about the recent films that you loved and why you love them. Be able to talk about, specifically from your perspective as a 20-year-old, what are the kinds of stories that you’re not seeing about your generation being told? What are the things that they should look to you as being a good voice on? Because those are the kinds of things that make you so valuable in those rooms.”

Scott and Craig, you’ve both been in a lot of meetings with a lot of young development executives. What are some other things that impress you when you meet one of them and say, “Oh, this kid is going places.”?

Craig: Typically, for me, it’s nothing specific that they say. It’s not the fact that they know a particular movie or that they have a single great note. It’s that I can sense that there is raw processing power. They’re smart. They have a point of view. They know how to have a conversation. They aren’t there trying to know everything, nor are they there to be a student at your feet or anyone else’s feet.

When you meet somebody with processing power, it’s exciting. Not that there aren’t a lot of people at these companies that aren’t smart. There are, but at that tier, when you’re talking about these junior executives, you’re going to meet a lot where you just think, “Probably in 15 years I’m not going to see you around.” When you meet one where you’re like, “Ooh, look at the big brain on Brad,” then, yes, it’s exciting.

Scott: I think that’s true. Let’s assume they’re all smart. I’ve met very few really dumb, especially younger executives in particular.

Craig: [chuckles] All the old ones.

Scott: Yes, but they’re not. They’re smart. The problem is the conversation that you’re having. Most often, you’re having the wrong conversation. Again, I’m going to use this word over and over, and it’s going to be annoying, but intention is never discussed. They confuse agenda with intention.

John: Pull those apart for us, tell us.

Scott: A lot of times, they’ll have an agenda in both directions. It’ll be stuff they want to do and stuff they are afraid to do or don’t want to do, and so the whole conversation that you’re having about the story is filtered through that. Whether they’re overtly saying it or trying to push it and goose it into a certain direction, you feel that way. Instead of saying to– again, this goes back to Sundance, instead of saying to the filmmaker or the storyteller, let’s call them the storyteller, what is it you’re trying to do?

What is it you want to do? In the case of Lisa, your example, the best conversations are not just why she likes the movie in particular, but also what it is about the story, and I love how they did this in the story. It’s rarely done that way. It’s comparing movies with other– you read pitches, and it’s a lot like Succession meets The Last of Us. They’re comparing all these things, it’s going to be awesome.

There’s a lot of that. Instead of starting with, “Okay, what is it you want to tell? Why do you want to tell it?” Then having a conversation in that direction, making it downhill, not challenging it so much as– The problem, I think, is because people are smart, they feel every idea becomes instantly transparent. They feel the need to see through it right away instead of, “Let’s jam for a minute and see what this is.” A bunch of musicians get together, they’re just going to play and see what happens and see what they can create together.

Even if you’re going in to pitch, even if you’re going in for a meeting, you want to find a way to engage people in a conversation that isn’t just me, “I’m here for an interview. I’m going to tell you about my CV and my background and all the things. This is what I like. I like the flavor strawberry, I like the color green and I like to be warm, not cold.” That’s okay, but when you can get people communicating through storytelling, it’s always, always a stronger, better conversation.

Then everybody’s inside it in the same way so that when you’re actually making it, shooting it, we’ve had this conversation with the actors, with everybody and going, “Well, did you change your mind because that’s really what we said we wanted to do, and we still want to do that, or we don’t in some cases.” For me, the conversation to begin with is always wrong. It’s framed most of the time wrong. When you turn in a draft, they’re talking about length. “You know what? Fuck you. It’s too long.” They’re always too long. Every episode will be too long.

Every draft will be too long until we cut it. Right now, just let me tell the fucking story, and we’ll get the story right, and then we’ll figure out how to tell it more efficiently. You’re telling me that it’s 140 pages is too long. What the fuck do I need you to tell me that for? That’s the kinds of things they’re doing. They’re drawing from these mechanical ideas a lot of the time, that’s only one example.

Craig: I do try and keep in mind that that’s what– I’m only seeing the little bit of the iceberg above the water, and below it, they are in meetings being told, “Don’t come in here with a script that’s blah, blah, blah. Also, here’s what I want and here’s what matters. By the way, this guy’s going to come in and talk about intention for an hour. I need you to get him to make this like that movie [chuckles] instead of that movie.”

I try and keep in mind they also have a whole other life and a boss, and it’s not me because I’m like you, I want to always try and get to, “Okay, here’s what I’m going for. What are you going for?” Part of it also is me, almost quietly like a person that walks by someone that might be in trouble, and I’m like, “Just blink twice if you’re in trouble, and we can just quietly talk.” I’ll cover you. I’m never going to call your boss and go, “Well, they didn’t care about the link.” I’ll cover you on that. Let’s just have a quiet conversation away from your boss.

Scott: I’m going to push back hard because I think if you–

Craig: Do you agree?

Scott: Yes.

Craig: I didn’t state what I said fervently enough.

Scott: [laughs] I really think the problem with that is if you’re trying to be tricky from the beginning and have an understanding and so on, I feel like eventually you’re postponing the inevitable. You’re going to run into those people you’re talking about. I’m well aware that they’re being told, “We’re not going to make anything, period. We’re not going to do anything that’s about this or about that and so on and so forth.”

At the same time, everybody is looking for something golden. They’re looking for something different. They were looking for something that feels, sounds, smells different than everything else. You could be telling a story that might fit with what they’re looking for, but how you have that conversation, make it not feel like you could– We’ve all been in these pitches where you sit there, and it just feels like fucking homework.

I say very little in a pitch. When I pitch something, I’m just telling the story. I’m just saying, “This is why I wanted to tell this story. This is what I love about it.” I give the once upon a time of it. Then I let them ask questions because I don’t want to sit there and have them say, “Well, when you say you’re talking about them living in Encino, does it have to be Encino? Did you mean the valley? Were you talking about California?” Because shooting in California–“ whatever it is that triggers them, and it’s everything that triggers them, so I try to find a different level to have these conversations on.

That’s really what I’m referring to because you’re right, Craig, they are being beat up from above. Also, the good executives, the ones that are going to have a career, go, “Listen, I know you’re not looking for this thing, but here’s a story about 1921, whatever, that’s really fucking good. Someone’s going to make it. Maybe you don’t want to make it, but I’m going to show you this person and this idea. If you don’t want to make this, we should at least work with this person. We should at least buy them if you’re not willing to buy this project.”

John: Before we can get Lisa in the media across from Scott Frank, where he– tell me what you think, or realistically, probably not Scott Frank, but Drew. Before we get her into those meetings where she gets to have those meetings with writers, she needs to get that first job. She needs to get that first spot, and she has two more years of film school and has decisions to make after that. My advice to Lisa was, she’s already in film school. She should probably not do grad school right away. She’s learned as much as she’s going to learn in this system for right now.

Her next priority needs to be meeting a bunch of writers. She’s in a place where she can meet a bunch of– some could be good, some are going to be terrible writers at her school. This is an opportunity for her to read those scripts and figure out how to form relationships, and also just actually help writers get to their best next draft, and that’s a process too. She has to learn how to do that. She’s going to get some shitty notes for a while and have some successes and failures, but better that she’s doing that with writers who are also learning than to try to give a note to me or Craig or to Scott and have it just tank.

Craig: If you give a note, and it tanks, it tanks, but there’s ways to– Look, obviously if somebody that I’ve known for 30 years and who should know better gives me a really stupid note, I’m going to be like, “Come on.” If it’s someone who’s starting out, and they give me a clunky note, I’m going to be kind to them because I don’t want the lesson to be writers are dicks.

I want the lesson to be, “Someone took care of me and explained to me why that isn’t helpful, but here’s something that is helpful because it doesn’t cost anything to do.” One thing that I’m keying on that you said that is absolutely true is when you begin this job as an executive and a development executive, you are mostly going to be assigned to people that are beginning as writers.

You will get a chance to grow up. Neither side of you knows what you’re doing. No one knows what they’re doing. Everybody is tripping over their own shoelaces, so laugh about it, trip over each other’s shoelaces. Nobody should feel superior to anyone else. What ends up happening is ideally both of you, the new writer and the new executive, know what you’re talking about and have value and insight. If one of you does, that one will continue on. [laughs] If neither of you do, God help us all, it’s just going to be sad. I don’t care. Nobody comes out of the shoot just hitting three pointers. That’s not a thing. You don’t know what you’re doing. How could you?

Scott: Well, you just don’t know what you’re doing for the rest of your career. Every new project, you start not knowing what you’re doing again. I’m not being glib. It’s true. Once you get into it, it’s all a new organic organism. You’ve just cut open a different body that’s got different things going on. It’s all new. I completely agree with a lot of that and all of that, really. I think that it doesn’t mean that you have to be like everybody else. If you’re like everybody else– There are two kinds of writers I found now, very distinct.

There are people who are bodies in a room who are contributing and working that way and throwing out ideas and writing drafts and doing things like that, and there are creators. Who do you want to be?

John: As a person who wants to be working in future development, who wants to make movies, those are creators. You have to be excited to be in a relationship with people who are struggling to deliver a two-hour movie that makes sense, that is so hard to do, and that the writer will trust you and push back against you, but also understand where you’re going, and that just takes practice. It takes taste also. I feel like Lisa needs to read her classmates’ work and give notes on her classmates’ work and be really excited about that, but at the same time, she needs to read really good scripts. She needs to read the screenplays for her favorite movies to understand what that actually looks like on a page.

She probably needs to read everything that makes the blacklist each year so she has an understanding of where is the market right now? Where is the taste right now and how does she react to it? What are the things that she really loves? Who are the writers that she needs to be trying to follow and trying to understand? Because when she goes in for a meeting at whatever production company, Hello Sunshine or whatever it is, to be able to talk about these are the writers who are really exciting and why.

It could be some names that are on that list, but names that are not on the list because she’s read them because they’re classmates, that’s going to be helpful and impressive in getting her that chance to be in that room with other real writers.

Scott: You’re talking about someone who wants to be an executive, not a writer, though.

John: To be clear, this is a young woman who definitely wants to– she’s not a writer. She wants to be a development executive or a producer or an agent, or a manager. She’s going to probably go through one of the agency training programs, which I think is another good way to see a bunch of stuff and understand how the business works. No, she definitely does not see herself as a writer, the person who’s writing the script.

Craig: That’s okay.

Scott: Yes, which is great.

Craig: Somebody’s got to do it.

Scott: Craig will love this, but I just now fully understood that she didn’t want to be a writer.

Craig: Let’s go, let’s get grandpa’s pudding and– [laughs]

Scott: Give me my Jell-O and my blanket, and I’ll be fine.

Craig: At least he’ll give him pudding, but it’s too much for him.

Scott: I was off on this whole other thing, but I understand. When she’s coming in the room and talking about– it’s a whole other kind of thing, and it’s something which I probably don’t know how to help her with it. I don’t know how people [crosstalk]

John: Yes, but that’s the thing you really do because you know what it’s like to be on the other side, and you have a– I think writers have a certain amount of experience. We should have the ability to empathize and put ourselves in the places of those people who are giving us those notes, and I’ve been one kind of, and I’ve been around so many of those people. You get a sense of what their– you say what their agenda is, what their intention is. Your distinction there is really important because an agenda is like you came into this room with a list of things you had to accomplish, versus your intention is a more deeply seated, like this, “I’m trying to make these kinds of movies. I’m trying to tell these kinds of stories.”

Craig: Well, the thing that probably would help when you talk about– taste is a tough one because who knows, and it is a weird business, where 1 out of 100 people might think a script is good, and then it turns out that’s what the audience wants. It’s difficult, but I would say if you’re going to go down that path of being a studio executive, before you get that job, before you ever set foot in one of those buildings, know what you want to make.

Aside from what you think people would want you to make, aside from what you think they’re going to promote you for, or pay you more for, anything, just know, okay, here’s something pure. More than writers, we have something pure all the time. We have some story that we’re clinging to, and then we defend it to various levels of success, but they only get this one thing. This is their one life preserver, and then they are in the ocean for the rest of their careers. They better have a life preserver. It better be that touchstone that they can come back to; otherwise, they’re doomed.

Scott: What word would you use to describe knowing what you want to do?

Craig: Intention sounds pretty good, although I think I would, in this case, it’s really more–

Scott: Come on, can’t you give it to me? [laughs]

Craig: No, because this one actually is an aspiration, so this is aspirational. I feel like, okay, you’re a 19 or 20-year-old. You want to be in the movie business as an executive. Why? Because what I would love more than anything is to be there to help someone like a new Tarantino come along and make Pulp Fiction when everyone else is saying no. That’s the thing I want, that’s my aspiration. That’s what I’m praying and hoping for. Just know you’re not going to get anywhere near that for five years, but at least you have that there, so when it happens, [laughs] you’ll recognize it.

John: I’m recognizing an echo here because I do want to talk about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. I think, Scott, your split between agenda and intention is that. In intention, it feels like an inner thing that’s pushing you towards a thing, like this is a thing that’s driving you. Intrinsic motivation is the thing that is taking a character and making them go on that quest and make them feel like this is a thing I have to do, and I have to achieve, versus extrinsic motivation, which is they are being called upon, forced to do a thing in order to meet the plot requirements of the story. That agenda feels like an extrinsic motivation, like it’s being forced upon the character rather than something that’s coming from inside.

I actually want to circle this back to your show, Department Q, because one of the things that really struck me about the pilot that I really loved, and we’re not going to spoil some stuff that happens in the show. As we meet the Carl Mørck character who is at the center of this, extrinsic motivation is pushing him through a lot of it. He’s basically forced into taking over this cold case department that doesn’t really want to do.
It doesn’t match his intrinsic motivation, which is to solve the mystery of who shot him and get some closure on that and move forward, and he’s not being allowed to. What’s so interesting, in a feature, that tension would be tougher to manage, but in a series, that’s actually a nice engine to help tell stories. Was that a thing that was always present as you came upon this book and started on this project?

Scott: Wow.

John: Do you even identify that as being an engine of your story?

Scott: What I was thinking as you were speaking, and it’s what I’ve always thought is, “Man, John is really smart.”

[laughter]

Scott: All I think about is, and this also goes back to what Craig was just talking about, it’s I don’t think about any of that ahead of time, or even during. I am just trying to make people talk to one another. If I can’t make them talk to one another, it means I don’t know them. If I really know them, the plot is going to come from that. At some point, I may look back at it and analyze it this way or that way, say it’s too long, or we’re away from this too much, or we’ve lost this character, whatever it is.

There are certain craft things that I apply much later. For the beginning, I just want to get lost and confused and play in the sandbox and see what happens. I don’t think that way. Things like that may occur to me as I’m writing during the process, not before. I don’t even know what a theme is before. I only know, unless I’m adapting something specific, I might have a theme that I can extract from the book to help me adapt it, but with these books, there was some great ideas, but beyond that–

John: What is the central idea of the book? Because I don’t know what the original source material at all, and how similar is it to how the show sets itself up?

Scott: Very different because the show is about going from, again, looking back at it, isolation to the family you choose, which is everything I write. I always end up doing that, and how your identity comes from the people you surround yourself with, and so on, and your mental health is really defined by the quality of the relationships you have, and so on and so forth.

I just always come back to that for whatever reason. It’s not intentional, and it’s just something– When I’m writing, I’m just trying to think about once upon a time, what? I can’t do that until I know, once upon a time, who? For me, especially writing a lot of thrillers over the years and even some mysteries and things, I feel like the whodunit is nowhere near as interesting as the whydunit.

The audience is going to constantly be guessing the whodunit, and in Department Q, I give it to you right away. I pretty much tee it up, but you have no idea why. Even when you think you do know why, it’s different. For me, Chinatown is that way. Yes, you know Noah Cross is a fucking shit heel, but when you get to “she’s my sister, she’s my daughter,” you’re like, “Whoa, wait, what?” [laughs] That’s the why of it all.

I think that I appreciate everything that you’re saying in terms of identifying the two threads, and one could be an A story, and one could be a B story, is what I was thinking as you were saying, “Oh, that’s how that happened.” It was by accident. It was just by my messy process.

Craig: Well, I don’t know if it’s by accident. I’m going to say it’s not that you sit there and– okay, we’ll borrow the term intentional again. You don’t intentionally say, “Hey, I want to write about people who their inner want is this way and the world is sending them that way.” I think that there is something in your fingerprint where this does also come up quite a bit, and it’s part of the music of how your brain works. I think it’s important to say that there are things that we can– and this ties into the educational thing, that we can notice post facto that we do not notice, nor do we need to notice pre.

We just follow what feels right. It’s like Princess and the Pea. This feels good. “Oh, oh, there’s a pea down there. Something’s wrong.” How do we know that something’s wrong? Our brain is just telling us something’s wrong. We can’t get there through analysis. It is interesting that, as you said, like okay, so you’re identifying certain things that pop up, but even by your own admission, it’s not like you’re sitting down going, “And now a found family.”

[laughter]

Craig: It’s just in the DNA, and it’s also in the music of– and I will say it’s also in the audience for what you do because I consider myself a fan of your work, not because you’re a good person. You’re horrible-

Scott: Thank you.

Craig: -but the stuff is so good. It’s always struck me that way from the very first thing I saw that you did, which was Out of Sight. That means there’s something in my rhythm, too, because there are people that probably don’t like the things you do, that’s fine. Our brain’s like, “There’s a harmony going on,” and I love that. We can put a pin in this and bring it back when we talk about education, because I’m not sure there is a way to teach that at all.

Scott: No, there’s a way only to teach the process, which goes back to your development executive thing, which is it’s not really even about what made– Lindsay Doran taught both of us, I think, really, but she certainly taught me how to write. I thought I knew how to write when I was 24 and gotten my BA in film studies at UCSB. I was an AFI dropout. I know what I’m doing. I got an office on the Paramount lot, and I’m a writer. No, Lindsay taught me how to write because what she brought to bear was a process of thinking, a way of thinking, a way of thinking.

Everything about it, for me at least, just for me, I don’t preach this or think it should be this way for everybody else, it’s a way of thinking. If you’re writing a horror film, you’re mindful of certain things. If you’re writing this kind of movie, you’re mindful of certain things, but tone is a way of thinking. You can call it point of view, but I feel like for me, it’s more accurate if my brain gets into this kind of mode.

All you can do is figure out what is the primordial ooze to create that you can set up for yourself, and it’s different for everybody. Everybody has their own way of doing it. For me, I remember seeing, I guess it was Dustin Lance Black, maybe, who’s a great writer. He’s a terrific writer and done amazing things, but there was a YouTube video where he’s talking about his process, where he’s got three-by-five cards, he’s got six different colored highlighters. John, maybe you’ve seen it, I don’t know.

John: Yes, I think I did a similar one for the Academy. I would say mine was a little bit faked in portion, wasn’t quite true, so I’m curious what it shows of him doing his stuff.

Scott: Well, he was doing this whole thing that was very mechanical and for him, it works. For me, it just makes me feel like I’m a good student. I don’t feel like I’m being a writer, I’m being a good student. Outlining for me just makes me feel like I’m a good student because the truth is, I’ll outline two or three scenes at a time, but I don’t know what’s going to happen because, again, once I get them talking to one another, I want them to do things because of who they are, not because the script says so, and my big pet peeve.

How do you create a process? It’s why I think fiction workshops are more successful than film school because you’re just doing it over and over. You’re just doing it over and over, and you’re reading it out loud or people are reading it, and then they’re telling you what they like, what they don’t like. Then there’s a teacher who’s also telling you some things, and maybe you’re reading a lot of things at the same time, but you’re just doing it over and over. You’re not writing the thriller, writing a half hour, outlining, writing a treatment. It’s useless.

John: Let’s go into the syllabus because I really do want to– let’s imagine that Scott Frank course in screenwriting or filmmaking, if you want to call it that, but how do you start? What is the first class? What are the things that you’re diving into in the first class? You say intention, and intention is what is it that is making you want to tell that story? What is it? What is the spark? What is the genesis? You’re not talking about what the process is going to be at all. What do you want these students in the class to be doing? What is the discussion about?

Scott: Well, first of all, the first thing would be how to mix a cocktail and there would be an open bar and just that so that we can have our fallback, and just because we should be drinking while we’re talking about story.

Intention for me would not be something I would teach. It would be the style of conversation. It would be like, again, what happens at Sundance. We’re not saying we’re going to talk about– We don’t do that. It’s just the conversation is, so what are you trying to do?

John: Is it one-on-one or is it a salon? What do you think is the right way to–?

Scott: I think it’s both. I think you do have to write for people, and you do want to hear what people have to say. I also feel like, listen, our business, whether you like it or not or even agree, I really believe this, our business is one of apprenticeship and mentorship. The best writers come out of that. I’m not a writers’ room person. I didn’t come from writers’ room, so I don’t have any experience with that, so I can’t comment up or down on that. I know I am the beneficiary of mentorship and apprenticeship, where people gave me the time to– were telling me deliberately to slow down, as opposed to you get your first assignment, it says 10 weeks or 12 weeks in the contract.

For 40 years, I’ve been saying, I’ve never written anything in 10 or 12 weeks. I don’t even know that I can get a title page or my opening scene done in 10 or 12 weeks. If I do, I’m forced at gunpoint to write in 10 or 12 weeks. It’s going to be bad because the process for me is everything. I would say in the class, I would just start small. I would make everything bite-size. I wouldn’t say at the end of 10 weeks, you’re going to have a script, which is film school. “You need to have your project, and if you’re getting your master’s or whatever it is,” it would be just writing, talking about writing.

Let me tell you one thing about craft. I gave this speech at the Writers Guild, and so I’m just going to– I use this example, and Craig, I don’t know if you know, in Pasadena, they’re in LA, and they’re in Texas. I use the example of Mission Renaissance, which is, they’re usually in mini-malls. They teach you how to draw. The Larry Gluck method, his name is actually Larry Gluck, promises that he can teach anyone how to draw.

He’s pretty effective, it really does. If you want to learn how to draw, you’re going to learn how to draw by doing the Larry Gluck method. My kids went when they were very young, and I remember how he did it, how they did it. What you do is, you take an object or an image you’re going to copy, whatever it is, and you turn it upside down. You’re not looking at the image, you’re looking at what makes the image. Then you do that, you draw that, you copy that.

John: You figure out the light and the dark, and what the edges are.

Scott: Exactly, and then when you turn it right side up, it looks like the thing you were copying, but it is a cold, dead, fucking version of it. It is not the thing. There’s no life to it. That is how most conversations about screenwriting go, less fiction, but most conversations about screenwriting are, “Let’s look at it upside down and see what’s going on and what’s happening and the shape of it and the this.” If you don’t have that thing, that voice, that point of view, you don’t have that way of thinking, when you turn it over, it’s going to look like a script. It’s going to be the right number of pages, and things will happen when they’re supposed to, but it’s going to be a fucking cold, dead thing.

Craig: Well, this gets to the fundamental problem with writing education as a concept because I think you’re 100% right that professional screenwriting tends to be a pursuit where mentorship and apprenticeship occurs and is most effective. You were my mentor. I don’t know if I was your apprentice as much as your whipping boy.

Scott: Bitch.

Craig: [chuckles] I prefer whipping boy.

Scott: Yes, all right.

Craig: That’s what I was, and it worked. Then I was Lindsay’s student, just as you were.

Scott: Yes.

Craig: We all have people like that. Lindsay’s not a writer, so she’s a producer. We’ve had people that we’ve worked with who are directors, who are brand studios, and they recognized something and took us under their wing. Education, formalized education, and we’ll dig in a little further in our bonus segment, requires institutions to hire a lot of teachers. They need to bring in students, that is their commodity, meaning anyone can do it, is what they have to tell you, and they need to set up curricula.

That means standards with exams and targets. Before you begin, you’re fucked because that’s not how it works at all. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve spoken to people who are in the middle of very expensive writing programs. I didn’t even drop out of one. I just didn’t ever go. They are explaining to me what is going on in there, and I just want to light the place on fire. It’s not like it’s a large, organized RICO case scam. It’s not. Everyone’s trying. It’s just maybe this is not instructable like this.

John: I want to be a little more optimistic that there’s some better way, at least to get started, because I want Scott Frank’s Academy to succeed.

[laughter]

John: I’m wondering, a thing I would love to see, which I just don’t see it very much of, because when I’ve gone to visit film classes, what I’m often doing is I’m visiting on the day where they’re laying out the three by five cards and pitching me their story. There’s always too many cards for the first act, and it all falls apart, but at least I have some vision of what their story is. What I haven’t seen is they’re just writing scenes. Scott, I think I really appreciate about what you’re pitching is that don’t write a whole movie. Today, let’s write–

Craig: Scene work.

John: Scene work. Today, let’s write farewell scenes or let’s write [crosstalk]

Scott: Write a scene that’s four pages long called The Confrontation. Well, what’s it about, Scott? It’s about whatever the fuck you want it to be about, just write a scene called The Confrontation.

John: It doesn’t have to fit into a larger thing. It’s just about what this feels like.

Scott: Exactly.

Craig: Do you know the artistic educational system that gets this better is acting instruction.

Scott: Oh, yes, without a doubt.

Craig: Because acting classes, they say– Okay, I remember the very first assignment I ever got in my college acting class. Our teacher said, “Okay, one by one, each one of you is going to do this.” This is the very first day. “Go and sit in that chair on your own. We’ll all look at you. For one minute, act like you’re a person sitting in a chair.” Of course, everybody did something ridiculous. Then she did it, and she just sat there in a chair because that’s what you do in a chair, and we all went, “Oh.”

The point is, the building block was a moment of honesty. Honesty is the thing that we’re always looking for, and it’s what I appreciate about your work. When I watch the scenes, any scene, I don’t know if I’ve ever had a moment watching anything you’ve written where I thought, “No, somebody wouldn’t say that,” or, “I don’t believe it, or, “That’s just a false note,” no, never because honesty is so important to you. It’s so important. Well, no one’s teaching that. No one’s going, “Okay, everybody, forget the four pages. Write one half of a page and this is all that happens: Guy walks in, orders a sandwich, waitress comes back, says they’re out of it. He says, “What?” Go, you have a page, go. That’s all you need. Make it honest.”

Then, if you’ve made it honest, and it’s incredibly boring, what is she wearing? What is he wearing? Where are they? What kind of restaurant? What kind of sandwich? Do they know each other? What is he doing there today? What time is it? The million Lindsey Doran questions that suddenly bring forth life. Now, before it, it’s not an upside-down thing that’s dead. Instead, because I don’t know if there are a lot of teachers who can do that. I’m just saying it. I don’t think there are a lot of teachers who can do what we just did.

John: Here’s the question, I don’t know that you necessarily need a great teacher to do that. As long as you had an environment, you just had a curricula of the Scott Frank Academy where everyone was doing this, and we’re like, “This is the week where we are going to write scenes about this thing,” and everyone just does it, and they all share it. Then just the process of writing and sharing that scene, because the experience of writing 20 scenes will help you understand like, “Oh, this is how scenes work,” and reading other people’s shitty scenes makes you like, “Oh, that’s a shitty scene and it’s a shitty scene for these three reasons. Let me not do those thing,” is so helpful.

Going back to the Lisa example of the development executive, I worked for a year as a reader at TriStar. I read 100 mostly shitty scripts and I had to write coverage on them, which means I had to read the whole thing and write a synopsis of these things that often didn’t make sense, but it just so helped me develop my taste of like, “I don’t want to do these things. This will never work.” That’s an experience that I think people benefit from and writers benefit from, and you can’t start them with saying like, “Okay, now outline this movie you want to write.” You don’t know where to even begin.

Scott: You don’t, and I think that’s really smart what you were just saying, and I think both of you, and I think that you can’t, again, you just don’t know. Most scripts, you’re looking at scenes, and you’re going, “This scene could be in any movie.” These characters, every piece of real estate in a script, is precious. You only have a certain number of pages. If you have an elevator operator or a grocery clerk, you want them to be– they don’t have to steal everything, but where’s the specificity? Even in the scenes, in describing scenes, where’s the specificity?

Do you need to describe so much? Do you even need to stop, and there’s flow? It doesn’t flow because you’re stopping to just– you read down the page and you’re just stopping to describe someone’s fucking bedroom or whatever it is. It makes me nuts. I only need to know things when I need to know them. Don’t even get me started when you’re telling me how people are saying their dialogue, where you have the parentheticals where they’re sarcastically or reluctantly or whatever adverb they want to throw in there.

It’s like, “Isn’t the dialogue good enough that you should know? Don’t we know these people?” Again, what’s difficult about screenwriting, I think, more than anything, I think playwriting is even more difficult because in screenwriting, at least we have cut two get the fuck out of situations. In playwriting, I get them on and off. In screenwriting, the problem with it is we only have two senses, sight and sound. Anything else is cheating because the audience isn’t sitting there reading, “John, who was really traumatized as a kid, is walking into this feeling–“ They don’t get that.

How do you tell a story with just sight and sound? What’s an obstacle ultimately becomes something really interesting because you can find a tone in the script. Again, scripts should have a tone. You should read them; there should be a tone. It should be tense if it’s a thriller, it should be funny if it’s a– whatever it is, there should be a specific tone. You should have a voice, it’s not this mechanical, this happens and then this happens and then– and every scene could be, is just described in the most generic way. That’s hard. Again, one thing about the AFI is they were just making shit all the time.

John: At least when I was there.

Scott: They’re shooting–

John: The workshop aspect of it is really important.

Scott: Really good. In film school, you are making connections, and there’s plenty of things to recommend, depending on who you are. The most talented writers are both insecure and secure in what they want to do. They’re insecure in their ability because we all think we’re frauds, and we all think it’s over tomorrow, but at the same time, we know what the fuck we want to do. We know what we sound like, and that’s the thing. I know what I sound like. I know when I’m being me and when I’m trying to be somebody else, and I’m going to get killed because I’m not being true to the way I sound.

John: At the Academy, some of those first things you write will be imitations, because they have to be imitations.

Scott: Of course.

John: You’re learning what a thing is, and that’s okay.

Scott: Of course.

John: We’re writing scenes all the time, we’re reading scenes, we’re reading whole scripts and having conversations about what’s actually happening on a page, separately from watching the movie, because we need to do both.

Scott: Absolutely, and steal. I think it’s perfectly okay borrow someone’s voice to get your own sea legs. If there’s somebody you really love and you really liked– and I really recommend reading novels more than scripts to become a good writer, because then you’re going to get character. The thing we’re not talking about enough is everything comes from character. Characters are not attitudes or types or, worse, just movie stars. You plug in, it’s Tom Cruise, that’s who it is.

Craig: Because you know who loves hearing that, Tom Cruise. He’s like-

Scott: Yes, he does.

Craig: -“Oh, you named me. Okay, yes, I’ll be there.”

Scott: I’ll be there.

John: You just spoke his name.

Scott: I think that characters are everything. I think that no one is all good or all bad. Everybody lives in the gray area. We’re manipulating people in a way, but we’re not being sentimental. We’re being emotional. There’s a difference. Sentiment, bad. Emotion, good because sentimental, is sort of, I’m telling you to feel this way. Emotion is, you’re just really feeling that way, and you’re not sure why. We’ve all worked on movies and scripts that needed to be fixed at a certain point. Movies in particular, you get to the end, and they’re saying, “Our ending doesn’t work.”

People are not feeling what they’re supposed to feel at the end. You go, “Well, because you fucked up the beginning. Because you were in such a hurry, because you were so worried that it was slow or whatever it was, even though in your test screening, nobody moved, nobody got up, nobody did anything, but it was–“ If you ask people, “Was there any slow part of the movie?” They all said, “The beginning.” “Was there any slow part of the fucking book you just read?” “If I had to pick the slowest part, I’d say the beginning,” and then the editor goes, “Okay, you need to cut 20 pages out of it,” fuck me.

I think that with movies, you don’t understand the character, so when you get to the end, you want to feel it. You understand it all the time. I understand I’m supposed to feel this way, but I don’t really feel it. What the trick is, how do you make people actually feel it, that’s character. That’s pure and simple fucking really interesting character.

John: Wrapping this up, it feels like the Scott Frank Academy is-

Craig: Failure.

John: -utter failure.

Scott: Let’s call it School of Scott Frank, like Rembrandt. Let’s do it like Rembrandt.

Craig: School of Scott Frank. You’re just churning out hundreds of foul-mouthed, miserable, bent-over– [laughs]

John: Wasn’t Rembrandt’s school, though, literally, it was like people had to paint his stuff for him. That’s not probably what we’re talking about. Here’s what I’ll say is that–

Craig: I like that idea.

John: None of us grew up in the writer’s room, the TV model, but some of what we’re talking about does happen, though, where you just have to iterate a bunch of shit all the time.

Scott: Of course.

John: You’re always in conversation about the thing you’re trying to do. You’re trying to do one thing, which is not the breadth of what we’re going for here.

Craig: I think in those rooms, there are some amazing rooms where you learn from incredible people like Vince Gilligan.

John: Historically, yes.

Craig: Then there are a lot of rooms where you’re learning from not great people, and it’s really more, “Guys, we need to make the donuts, more donuts, please.”

Scott: There are legendary rooms that threw off amazing writers.

Craig: Absolutely.

Scott: Going back to the show of shows, but even Everybody Loves Raymond, all those guys ended up doing their own stuff, Breaking Bad, Sopranos, Mad Men, all of it, so there are really great– and then there’s a lot of times where I have showrunner friends who’ll say, “I have 11 people in the room and only one guy can write.”

John: This is a salon situation where we’re writing a bunch of scenes, we are discussing really good movies on the page, and then probably screening them so we can talk about what has changed between them.

Scott: Reading books. As the instructor, I’m encouraging people to read novels that sort of feel like what they want to do. They don’t have to read the great novels, they have to read the novels that speak to them and make their sun tingle.

John: As we get to the point where they’ve actually written a full script, then I think, Scott, I’m guessing, we get more towards the Sundance model where you have individual meetings with smart writers who are there not to tell you what to do, but to help evoke out of you, what is it that’s not working for you, and let me help you move it to the place you wanted it to be. An extra brain for them.

Scott: Then craft comes out of that conversation because how many times at Sundance would you read a script that’s a mess? The font is weird, the format is weird, but there’s something fucking undeniable about it. You just go, “This person is an artist, but it’s a mess and it’s hard to read and I’m having– but it’s amazing.”

John: Every Sundance last project is unique. It’s very careful curation. These are very smart people who are doing very smart things, and even if the craft is just nuts, there’s good stuff there. Then, ultimately, great movies come out of this. Great writers come out of this, and it’s just a better model than I think what we’ve seen.

Scott: Because we’re not leading with craft. Craft is the easiest part of it. You apply craft last. You’re mindful
Scott: full of it. There are things that are obvious that you just know from experience. The problem is we’re always talking about all of the books, everything. It’s a lot of craft conversation.

Craig: It’s what you can write a book about. This is it. You can write a book about it. You can teach it. You can break it down into a lesson, and you can mass produce it. People do. This is the problem with the Scott Frank Academy. It requires a lot of Scott Franks, and we don’t have a lot of them, and they don’t want to teach.

John: I don’t think it does. I think I think the idea can be done without a Scott Frank. I don’t think it actually needs a genius at the helm of it. I think it just needs an intentionality of like, “This is how we’re going to do this stuff. I think you need some Scott Franks when it comes time for that. The Sundance part of it, where you’re sitting across from a very smart writer.

Craig: Sundance, correct me if I’m wrong. You guys deal with what? Eight, nine writers?

John: 12, 15 writers at top.

Craig: 12, 15 writers a year. There is a world out there that is a multi-billion-dollar higher education industry. 15 students pays for nothing.

John: Yes, I know.

Craig: It’s not–

John: Yes, I don’t think there’s a viable business model behind this. That was never my intention.

Craig: If your intention was to ruin Scott Frank.

John: We’re on a money-losing podcast still.

Craig: It’s a joy. I thought we were breaking even.

John: We are breaking even now.

Scott: What I was going to say, too, is it’s like you guys had a really interesting conversation about setups and payoffs. Last week or the week before, I don’t remember when it was, I wanted to teach people about setups and payoffs. I go, “Okay, let’s watch a couple of clips from Kramer versus Kramer. Let’s watch the beginning when his wife has just left him, and then the kid wants French toast. He doesn’t know how to fucking make French toast. He’s mad. He’s breaking things, and the kid is going, “Mom doesn’t do it that way.” He’s getting the shells and the yolk, and the kid is watching all disillusioned, and finally, he burns himself. He says, “God damn her.”

Then later, when the wife shows up– the second scene later in the movie, when the wife, when Meryl Streep comes back because she wants to take the kid now, and now the two are in the kitchen quietly, not saying a word, working in sync, making French toast. Really, it tells you everything you need to know that they love each other, that they figured it out, and now this woman is going to fuck it up. Okay, they’re set up some payoffs. You want obstacles? Watch Butch Cassidy when they’re running away from the train, and they have the super posse chasing them. Who are those guys? There’s obstacles. It’s like a lesson in obstacles for 20 fucking minutes.

There are ways to do that and then move on. You don’t have to have a fucking three-hour conversation. It’s just like, “Here’s a tool you can use. Here’s something you can do.” Here it is, but you know what, use it, don’t use it, it’s not a requirement. Melvin and Howard has a 30-minute or 25-minute opening scene. Best screenplay, Oscar. It’s two guys in a truck. I think that it’s just those things; rules are for the uncreative. The end. That’s what they’re for.

Craig: There are no rules.

Scott: You have to be mindful of certain elements and things, but you have your own rules. When you’re filming–

Craig: You understand, no one out there believes you. I am telling you-

Scott: I know. They don’t.

Craig: -no matter how many times we say it and no matter how many writers we have on the podcast who do what so many people want to do, no matter how many times they say it, everyone out there go, “They can do it, but we can’t.” We were they.

Scott: We were they.

Craig: We were they.

Scott: Also, here’s the thing. You are competing with a lot of people. I remember Bill Goldman used to go to those– what was that thing down by the airport, that screenwriter expo where they were 1,000?

John: This is 25 years ago, but there genuinely was a thing at the airport, a huge expo.

Scott: I did a thing with him, and I can’t believe he did this. I did an interview with him, and there were 600 people in this huge room. Bill said, “Okay, maybe one of you is going to actually have a career.” They’re like, “What?” They thought he was kidding. [laughs] He goes, “No, I’m serious.” Probably none of you are going to have a career, but maybe one of you might have a career. The odds are that none of you will have a career.

Craig: I will say we say this a lot, and maybe we’re not William Goldman-esque in the crunchiness of it.

Scott: He’s very Crunchy.

Craig: We talk about the fact that there are fewer professional writers than NFL athletes.

Scott: Absolutely. Why then would you want to follow the same rules everyone else is following?

Craig: Maybe if we say it four million more times. It is so frustrating. It’s almost like the crabs in a barrel thing. Everyone is like, “Yes, but before you escape this barrel, let us pull you down and remind you that you can’t say we see in your action description.”

Scott: Oh, my God.

[laughter]

Craig: This is what happened. This is what’s going on out there.

Scott: I’m like, “Wait, what? You can’t say we see. I was saying we see for 40 years. Wait, what font am I supposed to use? Fuck.”

[laughter]

Craig: It’s the crabs in a barrel. We’ve tried so hard. We really have. We’ve tried so hard to preach a lack of orthodoxy, not a it’s just as orthodox to say, “I’m going to break all the rules.” That’s also stupid. It’s just figuring out who you are and pursuing the thing that makes you unique because I can’t do you. You can’t do them. Then are you good? Are you good?

Scott: That’s the thing. You can learn all the craft in the world. Yes, there are people who are amazing musicians, and there are people who appreciate music. They’re not the same thing. I’m not going to be the one to tell you which you are. The universe will tell you, will sort it out pretty quickly. It is the truth. If you’re leaning into craft and not into the creative side of things in terms of spinning yarn and character and how do people talk to one another and all of those things that are, by the way more fun than writing shit on three by five cards or a dry erase board or whatever it is, then there’s a reckoning that’s going to come.

Craig: One day, a real rain is going to come.

Scott: One day, a hard rain is going to fall.

John: Let us transition to our one cool things. I’ll lead us off. There’s a book I’m reading right now called Antimemetics. It’s by Nadia Asparouhova. Craig and Scott, you know what a meme is. You’re familiar with the idea of a meme. A meme is a unit of culture. It’s an idea that wants to spread. The same way that genes are selfish, they want to get out there in the world, they want to propagate. Antimemetics, or an anti-meme, is something that doesn’t want to spread or just doesn’t spread easily. This all comes out of the– there is no Antimemetics Division, which was a work of fiction, which is really cool, which is now coming out as a book.

This is a nonfiction book that she’s written that’s really digging into this concept of what does an anti-meme actually mean? What is an idea that doesn’t want to spread? Some examples would be things like the topics that everybody agrees upon, but nothing ever actually happens politically. Like extended parental leave or universal background checks on guns. Everyone agrees, like, oh, that’s a good idea, but the idea never takes hold and never gets anywhere. Topics that are taboo, like pornography, or topics that are boring, like insurance.

Craig: So boring.

John: Things that are so traumatic that you just don’t want to think about them, like global poverty. It’s a really good, smart book on this nascent concept. I’ll put a link in the show notes to where you can buy it. If you decide to buy it, the book cover is really cool, and the shape of it is really cool. I really hate the typesetting in it. If you decide to get the digital version of it, I think that’s also fine, and it’s a good way to read it. The book is Antimemetics by Nadia Asparouhova. It’s published by the Dark Forest Collective. The Dark Forest being that part of the internet where you hide so that no one can ever find you. That comes from the three-body problem.

Craig: Oh, I would love to go there.

John: Wouldn’t that be nice? Craig, when you’re peeking your head out of the Dark Forest, do you have one cool thing to share with us?

Craig: I don’t know. You may think this is not cool, but did you read the story about the people that discovered the horrible security with the McDonald’s AI hiring bot?

John: No, but it sounds-

Craig: It’s incredible.

John: -great. Is it funny or tragic or both?

Craig: It’s in this case, I think it’s funny, but it’s funny because of the one cool thing. My one cool thing is hackers. Now, no one likes the idea of them. No one. A lot of them are malicious. No one is going to ever call up a newspaper and say, “By the way, we want to admit our security sucks. We’re going to do better. Nothing happened, but it sucks. We just wanted to tell you that while you’ve been using this, it’s been incredibly insecure. Nothing happened, but now we’re going to fix it.” No one ever does that.

We unfortunately need hackers. There are the white hat guys that are trying to protect us all. There are the bad guys who are trying to steal stuff. In the end, because people, corporations are irresponsible/stupid/lazy/cheap, these things happen. McDonald’s decided, so many people apply to work at McDonald’s that they were like, “Why don’t we just offload this process to a company that uses AI and they use a chatbot? It’s probably so regimented, it sort of makes sense like, “We are going to ask these formatted questions and we’ll get these answers. We’ll sort through some things. You’re going to eliminate 94% of people because these seven things are immediate disqualifiers.”

John: It’s just documentation, et cetera.

Craig: “You can’t be currently on parole.” I don’t even know if that’s true. This company, Paradox AI, was being looked at by these security researchers, Ian Carroll and Sam Curry, and they were doing it not for security purposes. They were just like, “We just want to know, what is this like applying to an AI chatbot?” Then they were like, “While we’re here–“

John: I’m not surprised you could break the chatbot.

Craig: “While we’re here, let’s just see if we can log in to the admin system of this entire thing.” What they tried was the username admin and the password 123456.

John: Hold on.

Craig: It worked, and just like that, they had access to 64 million records, including applicants’ names, email addresses, and phone numbers. Furthermore, [laughs] they discovered that even if you weren’t that enterprising, even if you didn’t think, “Let’s try admin 123456,” when you applied, in the URL, it would create your application, and it would give you a number. It’s like a big, long number. You’ve seen those in URLs, where it’s like some long, shit numbers. They were like, “What if we just subtract one from that number and reload the page?” Yes, that’s the person’s application before us, and so on, and so on, and so on.

The company’s like [onomatopoeia] We say the same thing, like, “Yes, it’s not so bad, but we’re going to fix it. We’re going to fix it.” My one cool thing are hackers. Please, hackers, use your powers for good. I’m begging you. Without them, no one would ever know, and companies would do stuff like this all the time, which is unconscionable.

John: I think what you’re asking is hackers, but probing their intention. If they’re going into these sites with the intention of uncovering things for the good of humanity, fantastic. It’s when they go in there to–

Craig: Here’s the deal. It’s the only thing that keeps these companies honest. It is the only thing that makes them go, “We have to harden the wall around the stuff we give them,” is the idea that there are people out there trying to steal it.

John: It’s the stories that come out about them that scare the genius out of stuff, which helps.

Craig: Hackers.

John: Hackers.

Craig: Hackers.

John: Scott Frank, do you have one cool thing to share with us?

Scott: I do. The New Yorker fiction issue has two great pieces in it, one about Elmore Leonard and one about Richard Price, two of the great dialogue writers of all time. Pursuant to what we’ve been talking about today in terms of character and in terms of efficiency and in terms of describing character and so on, and the way they work, I recommend both of the pieces in the magazine. The Elmore Leonard one, Anthony Lane wrote it. It’s really terrific. It’s full of great quotes. It’s going to lead you to also read Elmore Leonard’s 11 Rules of Writing, which is this little book which begins– it’s a great list of things, one of which is–

Craig: No rules.

Scott: No, one of which is never begin a book with weather.

John: Oh, yes, sure.

Scott: It’s a great read. It’s hilarious. You’re going, “Yes.” Never use adverbs. It’s like J.K. Rowling, you read the Harry Potter. He said sneeringly, he said [unintelligible 01:12:59] never do that. It’s full of stuff.

John: Opposition to only the L-Y adverbs or all adverbs?

Scott: I think mostly the L-Y adverbs, I would say, because he’s not ruling out all adverbs.

Craig: Sneeringly.

Scott: Specifically, he said just said. Everything should just be said. It’s also full of great things. The piece that Anthony Lane wrote is terrific because it’s full of great examples of how he thought and the way he thought about story. You read it, and you just go, “Okay, that’s specificity.” The same thing with Richard Price. He’s amazing. What he does is slightly different in that they’re both big research guys, but what Richard does is he immerses himself in a culture, usually cops or city people, city government, or things like that, or a restaurant in the case of, I think, Lush Life.

He gets into this place, and the language of it and the feel of it doesn’t feel like research. It feels like character. They’re both, for us, and what we were talking about tonight it’s about really good writing. They’re not telling stories that are breaking ground. You don’t have to do that. What you have to do is just do it really well and do it in a way that feels fresh. I think both of those pieces are great examples of those two guys that I just love. Those are my two one cool things.

John: I love it. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Don’t know him.

John: Outro this week is by Nico Mansey. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a signup for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube, just search for Scriptnotes. We have a brand new one up, which is me and Aline talking about farewells. That’s great. We talk about Big Fish, and Devil Wears Prada and Terminator 2, Casablanca, Past Lives, a really good video up there on YouTube for Scriptnotes.

We have t-shirts and hoodies, and drinkware. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week, at least until Scott Frank’s Academy opens up, and then we’re out of business.

Scott: Good.

John: You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on education and alternative schools for everything that’s not film education. Scott Frank, thank you for this film education and everyone should watch Dept. Q on Netflix. Scott, thank you so much.

Scott: Thank you for having me. It was mostly fun. [laughs]

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, Scott, Craig, we have had children go all the way up through from kindergarten through college and various different schools. Craig, you and I both started in public schools, our kids were in public schools. Scott, what was your kids’ journey?

Scott: My kids, they were in private school until high school, and then they had three different tracks. They were in a very progressive school until through eighth grade. My daughter went to an all-girls school, private school in Pasadena called Westridge, uniforms, everything. She went from the super progressive school called Sequoia over there. Then my son went to LACHSA, the LA County High School for the Arts, as a jazz drummer. He went there. Then my youngest daughter went to Thatcher, which is a boarding school, and the first person in the family ever to go away for school.

John: I remember talking with you about that because we were at some Sundance thing, and you were like, “My daughter’s just suddenly at a boarding school.” It’s like, that’s not a California thing. No one does that.

Scott: It’s not remotely. She wanted to do her own thing and didn’t want to do what her siblings had done. It’s a great school. It was at the time, at least, I don’t know now, but I loved it. It was very progressive in its social thinking and more rigorous in its academics. It was a really great place for her. It’s in Ojai and it was beautiful. It wasn’t that far.

John: My daughter went through K through five at the local public school, which was great. The sixth grade year was the year that we were living in Paris. She went to an international school in Paris, which was a really good experience. International schools, by their nature, they turn over a third of their students every year. They’re just really good at onboarding kids and getting stuff going. The fact that she made friends from around the world was terrific. Then, coming back to Los Angeles, she went through a girls’ school for 7 through 12 and then went off to college. Craig, your kids both went through public school the whole way?

Craig: My older kid switched over to private about halfway through. Then my younger daughter went public all the way through. My older daughter has not gone to college. I don’t think has any plans to go to college. My younger daughter is currently in college, but I don’t know how long that’s going to last either.

John: She’s at Berkeley, and so she’s in a very special program.

Craig: She is, and she’s doing well. Berkeley is a vocational program, and she’s doing well enough where maybe she has a vocation, and so school becomes moot.

John: I want to talk about, we had the experience of sending kids through this, but now in 2025, if you’re a parent who’s looking at the future of education and what that is, I’m just recognizing that so much of how we set up our educational system, and Scott, you have more experience with alternatives to things, is that very classic– there’s a teacher in front of the room who’s mostly just there to keep the order and this is a set curriculum, but we’re not really assessing whether kids are getting any mastery over these things. We definitely know that kids need to understand fundamentals before they can move up to certain things, but we do also just progress them when they progress.

I was in a talented and gifted program growing up, which was useful, but I was never accelerated, and I was always bored through a lot of it. I was able to get out of high school a little bit early to do some college classes, but I came so late. We had the school of Scott Frank for future screenwriters, but for all kids, do we have a vision for what a better education would be if we could just magically do it?

Scott: Also, the other thing is we’re confronted by the double negative of right now, curriculums are smaller, everything is considered a waste now, which is a mistake. What they’re teaching, they’re not even teaching really well. What is the United States in terms of an education, number 39 or some fucking thing?

Craig: However they measure it.

Scott: Yes, however they measure it. In California, certainly pretty low in terms of the rest of the country, but I think they’re cutting the funding, they’re cutting the curriculum, and the other negative is that it was a system that was designed for people who work in factories. We’ve still got this antiquated education system, and so I think that it is the single biggest threat to our country. It was until recently, but I’ve always felt like an uneducated population is a disaster, and I think that we have an uneducated population.

Listen to how people in leadership speak. It’s amazing, the language is eroding, and this is me sounding like an old guy, but I do feel like no one knows civics. When I was shooting in Scotland, the cab driver would know who Chuck Schumer was, or the Electoral College, or the Fed, and all this stuff, and they were really well versed in sort of civics. Here, I doubt people can talk about how many people are in Congress versus how many people are in the Senate, or even tell you what the three branches of government are, and so I think education has become, I think, the weak spot for us.

John: I’ve been reading articles about alternative systems that are replacing how we’re doing, and I feel like they remind me honestly, I don’t know if your kids went through Montessori preschools, but that kind of thing where you have smaller activities where you’re just focused on– everyone’s doing their own thing, but then you are coming together for stuff. Some of the most extreme ones, basically all of the classic academic education, is individual. You’re going through the assignments on your computer, in a group room, but you’re going through all this stuff, and they do all of that just in the morning, like two hours in the morning.

The whole afternoon is group activities, putting on a play, sports, if it’s a sports school, or something like that, where it’s like the whole afternoon is for you to do all the group stuff together, because they don’t have to– instead of using teachers to do– the person in front of the room, everything is just like, you’re at your computer. It’s almost like the remote learning, but a very focused time where the person’s coaching you through that stuff, and then everything is grouped in the afternoon.

I don’t know if that’s the answer, but I just feel like how we’re doing it right now, I agree with Scott, it’s like a placeholder for 12 years, and you just don’t know that– certain kids will thrive in it, but a lot of them don’t, a lot of them learn to hate school.

Craig: Maybe this will sound weirdly optimistic relative to Scott, but on very quick psychoanalysis, more pessimistic. I don’t think it’s gotten worse; I think it’s always been horrible. I think education in the United States has always been a disaster. It’s just that we used to not insist that everybody go to college, and we used to have more vocational programs, which I think are incredibly important, and also we used to have people that knew how to do things, make things, fix things. We still need people to do these things, but what we keep telling everybody culturally is that’s not good enough, and that what you really need to do is go get yourself that college degree.

Why? I don’t know. I do not know. There are plenty of things that college degrees are wonderful for, but need? If you want to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or an engineer, or if you want to, I don’t know, something that requires that level of education, sure. If you want to be an art historian, if you want to work as a molecular biologist, sure. If you aren’t one of those people, and almost no one is, we think everybody is, very few people are, I’m not sure there’s a point to that.

Our educational system, our K through 12 educational system, which used to just be geared to, let’s just give you enough stuff so that you can go into the workforce and not be a total dummy, now is about go pass these tests. Which have no bearing on anything except to help you with your standardized application, that now goes to 800 colleges all at the same time. I just read an article where the biggest problem on college campuses right now is not only are students using AI to write things, professors are also using AI to read things. Now you just have AI talking to itself while parents are plowing hundreds of thousands of dollars into this nonsense.

Go all the way back to K through 12 and start asking some difficult questions. There are a lot of things we just take for granted. For instance, everybody needs to take algebra. No, they don’t. Very few people need to take algebra. You should take algebra if you have an interest in algebra. Once you get past arithmetic, I honestly believe math should be something you opt in on. I don’t understand why we force kids who clearly have no aptitude or interest in mathematics to learn the quadratic equation. Why? Why are we doing that?

John: I hear you, Craig. I think there’s good enough evidence that most math education is just so terribly done that the reason why kids struggle to get into algebra is because all the fundamentals weren’t. They were getting advanced beyond.

Craig: What is it that most kids, and I’m going to include us here– look, I love math. I would have opted in. I love it. Why do you need that?

John: I do wonder whether some fundamental understanding of logic is actually very difficult to do without algebra.

Craig: Okay. Logic. Let’s talk about that, because that’s actually very important, because I think Scott put his finger on civics, which is critical thinking, is the topic that is the most important thing for kids to learn in school, and no one teaches it anywhere at all. It is not a curriculum topic anywhere. It is so vastly more important than trigonometry, I can’t even express. Our civilization will not be undone by only 5% of people understanding trigonometry, because only 5% of people understand it right now. It will be undone by people who do not understand how to think critically, because they’re not taught it.

John: Thinking critically is discussion, but it’s also writing, and that is an area which I do feel like the influx of AI is incredibly dangerous, because if you don’t have the process of actually having to compose your thoughts and think on the page and express yourself, you really aren’t thinking. You don’t have the ability to analyze an issue, analyze what your opinion is of something.

Scott: Also expressing yourself, also being able to write and express yourself in writing, and being able to do that, not relying on AI or anything, but being able to make an argument on paper, to being able to just speak the language.

John: I remember proving my daughter’s papers from 7th grade through 12th grade, probably earlier than that, but really 7th through 12th grade, and you just watch how frustratingly limited she was in seventh grade and how good she got by the end of 12th grade, like, “Oh, she really is genuinely thinking. She’s expressing herself with new, unique ways.” It’s just so much hard work, and it’s so necessary to do all that work, and there’s no shortcut.

Craig: Counterpoint.

John: Please.

Craig: That’s what we value.

John: It is what we value.

Craig: I do think there is a system where you take children and you say, “I’m going to arrange a bunch of things you can look at today. Pick one. What do you want?

John: That’s preschool Montessori.

Craig: Where do you go? Because there are incredibly wonderful and pivotally important people in our society who can’t write at all, they’re terrible at it, but they’re very good at–

John: Absolutely valid. 100% I agree with you.

Craig: For instance, tax attorneys, not great writers, but God bless them. They love that. My younger daughter and I both do something that neither one of us was actually rigorously instructed in as part of a curriculum K through 12. I did not take any creative writing classes because they didn’t exist in my school at all. I did take calculus. Now, that was a waste of my time, a full waste of my time. It is a requirement to be in a pre-med track, which I would argue is a waste of time for people that would make excellent doctors. We have a system that is built around a pedagogy that is stupid. It is ancient.

Our society is changing at light speed daily. Our educational system is firmly in 1930. If we’re lucky, it’s in 1950. If we’re lucky. The government system that funds it is stupid; it is underfunded. The teacher unions have too much power. They do. The structure of the way the unions and the funding collide together– you have administration funding, you have unions, and together they go swoop. In the middle are children who are not being served well. Then they all get funneled up into the worst system of them all, the college system, which is mostly there, as far as I can tell, on a broad basis to support NCAA sports. I’m not joking.

John: I will say, the three of us on this call with kids, we all had the resources to effectuate whatever was going to work best for our individual kids. All three of Scott’s kids were different. Your two daughters were different. My daughter was exactly the right kid to go through a selective girls’ school and thrive. We need fundamental changes to the system so that parents who don’t have the resources to do all those things, the time, the money, the whatever, can have a great outcome for their kids.

Craig: Absolutely.

Scott: I think that’s true.

Craig: Since we’re waving the magic wand, we should be spending far more money on education, but it’s a little bit like your antimemetic thing, nobody can really agree on it because there is no instrument through which to spend it right now that makes any sense at all. Everybody understands that the more money you pour in, the more it will be absorbed by two entities: administration and teachers. By the way, my parents were both public school teachers. I don’t want teachers to think I– I love teachers. They’re incredibly important. I’m not a big fan of the way some of the unions function, but that’s fine.

There’s a whole tenure thing in California that makes it very hard for good teachers to be hired, and it makes it very easy for bad teachers to never go away and to soak up a lot of funds. If we could figure out a delivery system, then it would be worthwhile to pour all that money in, and our country has money.

John: My mom was originally a Spanish teacher, but then, when she went back after I was old enough to be a latchkey kid, she became an ESL teacher. As an ESL instructor, she had two or three students at a time, where she had most of the day to get them up to speed on everything. Guess what? If you have an adult working with a motivated kid who’s engaged, you can Zoom through all that stuff. I just feel like with the job losses that are probably coming in a lot of different sectors, using those to educate our next generation makes a lot of sense.

Craig: If teachers, let’s say great teachers– we understood as a society, there was a system where a great teacher could thrive and get what they needed and be rewarded for it. We came and said, “We’re going to pay you guys like they pay Goldman Sachs first years.” What a glorious–

Scott: Pay them like they were even teamsters. The guy that drives the honey wagon on the set makes more money than a teacher.

Craig: A new teamster doesn’t, an old teamster does. That actually is sort of the teacher issue. Figuring out how to make it work so that teaching is a viable profession where people have protections and pensions just like we do, all of that is doable. The system, as it currently exists, is a negotiation between two enormous entities that are so far away from individual students or teachers, it’s insane.

Scott: Even well below that, what you were saying is really the problem too, which is really teachers and what they’re paid and how they’re valued is a huge issue, and-

Craig: Of course.

Scott: -awful.

Craig: Of course.

Scott: Again, one of those anti-memes that we’d say this forever, and nothing ever happens.

Craig: Nothing ever happens.

Scott: I do think that what are the fundamentals? Okay, yes, no one needs to know calculus unless you really want to learn calculus or physics or whatever. There are basic science things people should know.

Craig: Of course.

Scott: There are basic fundamental things people should know to be a functioning human in the United States. I also think that I don’t think people should learn to write like the way we write. I think it’s just the basics of how the language works. The end. Ideally, maybe speak another language, but dare I dream?

Craig: Dare you dream.

Scott: I do think that the civics and the fundamental things that in order to be a responsible, participating, voting citizen in this country, it’s all been pulled out. The attitude toward being educated. Now, if you’re educated, the cultural elite, and the intellectual elite– I want my doctor to be smarter than me. I want people-

John: At least about medicine. [laughs]

Scott: -to be smarter than me. This whole idea that people are smart or whatever, we’re in this place where it’s weird. Now education has become also the target. I agree with you about universities. I agree with you about not everybody should go. Not everybody needs to go.

Craig: No. Which would require employers to stop requiring college degrees for jobs that do not require college degrees.

Scott: That don’t need it.

Craig: That is ruinous.

Scott: Ruinous in many ways. Financially ruinous in terms of where you spend your time, where you could be either getting your life together or traveling for a bit, and then getting– whatever it is, because people are too young to know what they want when they go to college.

Craig: Being able to afford a house because you don’t have $400,000 of loans or whatever it is. It’s the system. Every year, I get angrier about it. Every year, I get more extreme about it. It’s not going to change. I know that.

Scott: No, we have the head of– what’s her name? The head of wrestling or–

John: Oh yes, Linda McMahon.

Scott: Linda McMahon is going to fix it. We’re going to–

Craig: She’s done a great job with the WWF. Bang up job over there.

Scott: Thank you. Yes.

John: By getting rid of her dad? Anyway. Thank you both for helping us solve the education crisis in America and probably worldwide. We’ll be looking forward to seeing it rolled out shortly.

Scott: School of Scott Frank, coming.

Craig: That’s the real problem.

Scott: To a mini-mall near you.

Links:

  • Dept. Q on Netflix
  • Scott Frank
  • Scott’s last time on Scriptnotes, Episode 476: The Other Senses
  • Everyone Is Beautiful And No One Is Horny by RS Benedict for Blood Knife
  • Scriptnotes 639: Intrinsic Motivation
  • Antimemetics: Why Some Ideas Resist Spreading by Nadia Asparouhova
  • Elmore Leonard’s Perfect Pitch by Anthony Lane for The New Yorker
  • Richard Price’s Street Life by Kevin Lozano for The New Yorker
  • McDonald’s AI Hiring Bot Exposed Millions of Applicants’ Data to Hackers Who Tried the Password ‘123456’ by Andy Greenberg for Wired
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nico Mansy (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • 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 (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (491)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (164)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.