• 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, Ep 94: 10 Questions, 10 Answers — Transcript

June 21, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/10-questions-10-answers).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 94 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, Craig, in full disclosure, this is our second attempt at doing episode 94, because we got four minutes into it and you realized that something was not right.

**Craig:** Yeah, I totally blew it. We use these external mics and I didn’t switch the input source to the external mic, so it was trying to record me though my closed laptop. So, I sounded like a ghost in a wind tunnel.

**John:** Yeah. That’s never good.

**Craig:** A boring ghost in a wind tunnel.

**John:** But, now we’re here and we can do the podcast that we really want to do which is that we have so many questions that have stacked up. And they just keep piling up and piling up. And if we don’t address them at some point they will just burst through and the email folder will come to tatters.

**Craig:** Yeah, there’s a real thing called Question Poisoning.

**John:** Yeah. It’s deadly.

**Craig:** Deadly.

**John:** And there’s not enough media attention on Question Poisoning. It just builds up and builds up. And, you know, everyone talks about the Explanation Point Poisoning, and sort of that’s the danger, but no, it’s the question marks that are really the dangerous part here.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** So, we’re going to try to churn through a lot of these questions that people have generously written in. If people have a question for us, I should start by saying you can always write at ask@johnaugust.com and we will attempt to answer your question. You can also, if it’s a short thing, just tweet Craig or I. I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

But, Heather from Dahlonega, Georgia…see, the good thing about re-recording this podcast is I was actually able to say her city right.

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s good. Well, because it’s called Roald Dahl’s name in it, so I figured you’d pick up on that.

**John:** Oh, yeah, Dahlonega. So, now I can’t not say it.

**Craig:** Dahlonega.

**John:** Heather writes with a really good question. “Why do so many TV shows now produce less than the average 22 episodes a season if they’re not midseason replacements? And how is this affecting the writers?”

That’s a good question, Heather.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, Heather brings up the point that most seasons of TV shows we think about as being 22 episodes, but that’s not actually really correct a lot of times. When shows are really successful, sometimes they’ll do a 23rd or a 24th episode. That happened to Chicago Fire this year. And I think Castle does it. And that’s a thing that happens because networks want more of the hit shows so they can keep their ratings up, which is understandable and great; exhausting for the writers, but great.

And TV shows used to be even longer. Series could be like 30 or 40 episodes in a season, which just seems madness now. And they were shorter schedules on things and it was all crazy. Now, we talk about 22 episodes as being a full season. And we talk about 13 episodes as being the initial order for a TV show. So, an American TV show, classically, if it’s going to be a fall pickup they will order 13 episodes, sometimes they’ll order less — eight episodes, or not quite to 13. But they’ll order 13 episodes and if the show is a hit then they’d hope to order the back nine episodes which bring you up to a full 22. And that has been sort of the classic model.

But that classic model is changing largely because of cable, because of other changes that happened in the TV industry. And, Craig, in the previously recorded podcast you’d actually talked about the TV season and why we have the TV season that we do.

**Craig:** Yeah. The notion of the fall, I mean, so summer was a break. It wasn’t a break because they felt like giving writers a break. It was a break because people didn’t watch TV, at least in the early days, in the summer very much. The viewership numbers went way, way down. And, remember, this is back in the day of three networks. So, they don’t have to wonder where people are going. When the ratings at ABC go down, and NBC and CBS, it means people have turned their TVs off. They’re outside; they’re picnicking; their swimming. This was back when people used to move around and not just eat in front of their TV.

So, the summer seemed like a good time to actually just put reruns on the air because the viewership numbers weren’t at a level where they could get great advertising numbers. But, then the question is well why does the season start in the fall as opposed to like, oh, I don’t know, late August, or when kids go back to school. And it’s the fall because that’s when the new car models were introduced to the public. And the new car models drove a huge amount of the advertising.

So, they very quickly landed on a fall to late spring season. But, you know, that’s kind of gone.

**John:** It’s gone to some degree. I think we still have a fall season because broadcast television, which means the big networks in the United States, so NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, they have a fall season because they still have an upfront season. And upfronts is where the networks display all of their new shows for the new season to big advertisers and the advertisers have a chance to buy a bunch of advertising time upfront and commit at a discount rate for the stuff that they want to — the commercials that they’re going to want to air over the next year.

And so it’s useful to broadcast TV to have a fall season. That doesn’t mean that everything has to be in the fall season, and I think we’re seeing more and more shows being introduced midseason.

But Heather writes like why some shows that aren’t even midseason don’t seem to go their full distance. And a thing that happens quite a bit is a show gets its initial order of eight, or its initial order of 13, and it may not get that back nine. It may not go to a full 22 episode season. And yet the network says like, “Well, it still did well enough that we want to give it another shot. We want to put it back on the network the next year.” And so therefore it might have a ten episode season the first year, and then ten episodes the next year.

That’s not awful. That’s just a thing that happens. It can be challenging for a writer who wonders whether, “Should I take a job on another show? Am I still under contract to this show so I can’t jump onto another show?” There’s challenging things with those short orders. But, that is a thing that really happens.

Now, in cable, weirdly a different thing happens a lot which is that you will get an order for ten episodes or 12 episodes and your season will go and you’ll go off and do something else and then you’ll come back and they’ll say, “Oh, no, no. This is still the first season. We’re going to just keep continuing on this same season.” And they do that because contractually that way they don’t have to give people their season bumps.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s lame.

**John:** It’s lame, but that’s the way that the contracts have sort of shaken out. And so it’s something that we should probably be addressing at some point in the WGA that you have to…

**Craig:** It should be by time, not by whim.

**John:** Yes. There should be some reason for why things kick into their next season of a show. But, for actors, and for writers, and for producers and everyone else who would get a bump in the second season, sometimes they will also get a title bump. So, like the first season you might be a staff writer and they’ll say, “We move you up to co-producer in your second season.” That wouldn’t happen because you didn’t actually have a second season; it was just a 40-episode first season that was spread out over four years.

So, that’s madness, but that is something that is happening right now.

**Craig:** It sounds like madness to me.

**John:** So that’s why Craig doesn’t do TV.

**Craig:** One of the many reasons I don’t do TV. I do actually kind of like the notion of the shorter seasons. It’s a very European way of approaching it. And certainly in cable there are shorter seasons, it seems like giving writers a little bit more time and directors in particular.

You know, people hear us talking about the writer-director issues in features. You know, directors in TV are constantly behind the eight ball. It’s actually one of the things that the DGA worries about when they go into negotiations and they try and protect their TV directors because they get these scripts at the very last minute. There’s no chance to prepare or really plan. And suddenly they’re thrown into this incredibly aggressive schedule to shoot the show. And so giving writers and directors a little bit more breathing room to create the shows would, you think, would maybe help quality.

But, you know, the business people have their quality and quantity graph. And that’s the way they approach it.

**John:** I will say in a general sense, I see more and more writers approaching shows as arcs of 13 episodes or arcs of seven episodes because they don’t know necessarily where their break is going to come. And I think a lot of feature writers would be more likely to approach television if they weren’t committed to that 22 episodes that’s just going to kill you.

**Craig:** It’s really scary to me.

**John:** With Chosen, which Josh Friedman and I set up at Fox, my hope — sort of my stated hope — was that we could get like a midseason order so that we could do ten or 13 episodes and have them be awesome rather than 22 episodes and have them be, you know, okay.

**Craig:** Alright.

Well, we have our next question from Anthony. Anthony! “Should one try writing a script before pursuing a career in screenwriting, or start pursuing a career in screenwriting, for instance an internship and assistant jobs, and learn how to do that first and then try writing?” I should say that I’ve added a lot of words into that question to make it read properly. [laughs]

So, Anthony…

**John:** Should I learn proper grammar before I start writing or should I do it afterwards?

You should write a script. But here’s the wonderful luxury of the screenwriter is no one can stop you from writing a script.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And so you should write a script. And you should write your script now. And you should see whether you enjoy the actual process of putting scenes together and writing a screenplay before you commit to doing it. It’s like, should I become a football player? Well, you should probably play some football first.

**Craig:** Yeah. When you say should I try writing a script before I pursue a career, or should I first pursue a career…do both. Write one now. Write one while you’re doing something else. Write one after you do that thing. Nothing is stopping you as John said from doing it.

You will learn just from the process of doing it. You will learn something. There will be some value. And you can rewrite that one if you feel like you’ve learned and you want to.

**John:** So, in full disclosure, I did try writing a script before I moved out and went to film school. And I just didn’t get it. All the pieces didn’t sort of fit together right for me. But, I think I didn’t have as much exposure to what real scripts look like. And I feel like now with the internet, and with like a thousand scripts online, and the ability to sort of see what that is actually supposed to look like, I would have read a lot more scripts and probably would have tried writing a screenplay before I ever moved out to Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Makes total sense.

**John:** Roger asks, “The last few years I’ve worked as a location scout on several movies and TV shows. This year I’m going to make a big push in sending out my scripts in hopes of getting an agent or a manager. Do you think my credits on IMDb as a location scout hurts my chances at getting representation or work as a writer? I know in this town it’s very easy to get pigeonholed. Should I use a pen name, my initials, or am I over-thinking this?”

**Craig:** Well, I’m glad he included this last little bit so that I could say, ah, that one. You’re over-thinking this.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Don’t worry. If your script is good that will be the matrix within which all is contextualized. If you write a good script then they’ll say, “Check this out. This guy wrote this great script and believe it or not he’s a location scout.” If you write a bad script it will be like, “Oh my god, do you want to see what a screenplay by a location scout looks like?” [laughs] That’s the way it goes. Okay?

Everything will be led by the quality of the script. You don’t have to worry about hiding what you do.

**John:** I will say if you have just terrifically embarrassing credits that you want to get off IMDb, get them off IMDb and go through whatever weird process you have to go through IMDb to get those credits taken off. Sometimes I’ve found where people will give me a “special thanks” on IMDb. It’s like, why did you give me a special thanks? So, now you have your link to your movie on my page? That’s just crazy.

And so I’ve had to…

**Craig:** That’s weird.

**John:** I’ve had to throw some tantrums about that. Because, that’s just not cool. And generally they’ve mentioned it in a nice way like, “This guy was a real inspiration to me and so therefore I want to thank him.” But then it shows up as like I was involved in this project which I wasn’t.

**Craig:** Eh, that’s weird. Don’t do that.

**John:** But if there’s something that like, you know, Steve Callahan is a friend, he’s an actor. He is a genuine actor and shows up in a lot of indies, but one of his credits is for this move that’s like Man at Urinal. And that’s the credit that shows up in IMDb. And I’m like, that’s not good at all.

**Craig:** I love it. I’m totally into it. Now, I want to see that movie. I want to see Man at Urinal.

**John:** Man at Urinal.

**Craig:** Well, Urinetown is great.

**John:** Urinetown is fantastic.

**Craig:** If Urinetown can somehow avoid the jinx of urine-based titles?

**John:** Urinetown relies too much on the theatricality of it all and the staginess of it.

**Craig:** It’s a great musical.

**John:** I like Urinetown a lot though, too.

**Craig:** It’s a great show. It’s a privilege…

**John:** It’s a privilege to pee.

**Craig:** …to pee.

**John:** I got it out first!

**Craig:** You did. Ugh!

Laurence from New York, otherwise known as Urinetown, “Why are actors sooo,” and he did put three zeroes, I mean Os. We call them Os! [laughs] I called the Os zeroes! What’s wrong with me?

“Why are actors sooo grossly overpaid in comparison to writers, directors, and/or producers? Are they paid more than you guys?” Now, first of all, I love those two questions. So, the first question as a premise and then the second question questions the very premise of the first question. Yeah, of course, they’re paid more than us if they’re big movie stars.

“It seems that if an actor is making $20 million then a director and writer should be making at least $30 million.” Oh, what a great guy. “But obviously this is not the case.”

**John:** Again, he’s like stating a premise, and then denying the premise.

**Craig:** It’s pretty funny.

**John:** So, let’s tackle the premise altogether. Are actors overpaid? That’s sort of one premise. And then are actors overpaid relative to writers and directors?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, are actors overpaid? Definitely, I think, we’ve gone through cycles where actors have been just wildly overpaid and that’s annoying. And yet you look at sort of why you pay an actor a certain amount of money. You pay an actor a certain amount of money because you believe that having that actor in your movie will guarantee you a certain amount of box office. That’s the only reason why you pay somebody a lot of money.

And so the classic example that everyone will always bring up is like Jim Carrey in The Cable Guy, who got $20 million for The Cable Guy. Well, maybe he was worth $20 million for him in that movie. I don’t know that the facts bore that out, but they felt that that was the right amount to spend on him.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s all about the marketplace. So, people ask this question a lot about professional athletes as well. There are actors who do get people to go see them in movie theaters. The trick of it is very few of them, really none of them, do it perfectly consistently. What happens, therefore, is the marketplace is reactive.

You are an actor, you have a movie, it’s a big hit, and people perceive that it is a hit because of you, as an actor. The next movie you’re going to get paid a whole lot of money. Does that one not do as well? Okay, then that’s when you’ll be paid less. Everything is this sort of marketplace analysis of what your value is.

But considering that most movie studios won’t make big budget movies without actors, big name actors, yeah, they clearly have a real value.

I have to tell you, I don’t look at my value as connected to their value. So, in terms of this question of should they be paid more than writers — there’s no “should.” You get what you get. For me, I don’t care what you pay Melissa McCarthy. Pay her as much as she can get. I hope Melissa McCarthy gets a billion dollars a movie.

None of that impacts what I think I’m worth. Right? My worth is based on my market value. And my market value is based on what you think this movie will make for you if I write it. And what other studios seem to be willing to pay me if I don’t work for you. And I have had situations where studios have said, “Look, we would love to pay you this. The only problem is we’ve agreed to pay this actor this and our budget is really getting squeezed.” And my response is, “Not my problem. That’s your problem.”

If you paid this actor this much money and you knew you wanted to pay a writer, you wanted me to do it, but you don’t have enough money for me, that’s poor management on your part. Either pay me what I’m worth, and somebody else gets jammed, or expand the budget. But, the option of getting me for a discount because you decide to pay somebody else more than you ought to have, per your own budget? Nope.

And almost every time it works out.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, the writer has two choices. The writer can say, yes, I will take this amount of money which is less than my quote, or you could say no. And, I’ve had to say no sometimes. And that’s just the situation.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, back to this issue of actors getting paid. Classically Marvel, as they sort of set up this franchise for how their movies fit together, made very aggressive deals with the actors that they brought in so that they could have them for multiple movies, so that their salaries couldn’t go astronomically huge in success. And that has paid off very well for them.

So, they were able to make sequels to these movies with giant stars and actually be able to afford to make them. Now, I’m not clear sort of where Robert Downey Jr.’s deal is right now with Marvel, but if he doesn’t have any more movies under his contract he’s in a position where he could ask for a tremendous amount of money because he has driven some very, very big movies for them.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** All the same, Marvel can say, “You know what? We get that. That’s not our business model.” And they could with somebody else for Iron Man. And people would go, “Oh, no, you can’t do that!” But you know what? It would be fine.

**Craig:** Yeah. And look, this is why, forget fairness and just deal with reality, okay. I believe, of course, that writers are an extraordinarily important part of this process. The most important part. I’ll just go ahead and say it. I’m a chauvinist. Writers are the most important part of the process.

However, when a big band breaks up, let’s say U2 broke up today, and Bono went and did a tour and the other guys did a tour… — Well, here’s the deal. I can get a bassist, a drummer, and a guitarist to sound exactly like those other three guys, Clayton, Mullen, and The Edge. But I can’t get anyone to sound like Bono. Bono is Bono. It’s just one of those human things.

Human performance is incredibly specific. And, yes, they can ultimately go and get other people to write and direct Iron Man movies. They’ve done it. Right? They’ve proven they can do that. And you may like one better than the other, but if you put somebody else in the suit and it’s not Downey, I don’t know, it’s just not as cool, it’s not as interesting for that movie.

Michael Keaton? Turns out he was replaceable as Batman. Is Christian Bale, was he replaceable as Batman? No. [laughs] It’s just different. It’s just one of those things.

**John:** You’ll have to do a different version. And that’s actually something kind of exciting about doing the next version of something. That is fine and good.

Jay Z asks…

**Craig:** Oh, my god, Jay-Z?

**John:** Wouldn’t it be amazing if Jay-Z were listening to our show? You know who does listen to our show is Rebel Wilson.

**Craig:** I saw that tweet. It was very, it was like, “Ooh, look at us!”

**John:** Ah, Rebel Wilson, we adore you. You’re very, very funny.

**Craig:** Hey Rebel.

**John:** So, I hope you’re enjoying your hike, because apparently you listen to us while you hike.

Jay Z. asks, “If you are a screenwriter over 60,” oh, so it’s probably not the real Jay-Z.

**Craig:** Oh, it might be because Jay-Z is interested in senior issues.

**John:** [laughs] He’s very interested in senior issues. Interested in Cuba. He’s interested in Beyoncé Knowles.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And writers over 60.

**Craig:** Ageism.

**John:** “If you are a screenwriter over 60 still looking to break in, which of the following are true? Number one, stop, you don’t have a chance in hell at this point. Number two, you have to write the greatest screenplay of the 21st century to break in; anything less won’t get developed once they see how old you are. Three, if you walk into a meeting with a 25-year-old writing partner you might have a shot. Four, make your own low budget movie; it’s your only avenue at this point. Five, write a play or a book and hope it gets noticed.”

**Craig:** He seems to be missing six.

**John:** Which is?

**Craig:** Write a good screenplay! I mean, god, darn.

**John:** Well, number two was that essentially.

**Craig:** No, he wrote, “You have to write the greatest screenplay of the 21st century to break in; anything less won’t get developed once they see how old you are.” Here’s the thing — write a good screenplay. Write a good screenplay.

I’m sorry. I think that there is this belief that somehow you’re toxic because you’re 60 years old. You are not. I know a lot of screenwriters out there who if they’re not already 60 are getting really close, and they earn way more money than I do year after year.

If you write a good screenplay, note that screenplays do not come with a photograph of you and your birth certificate. Again, just like we mentioned to Roger the location scout — the screenplay will set the circumstances. The guy who wrote The King’s Speech, older gentleman.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** If they read the screenplay and they really like it they’re going to buy it. You know why? Because they’re going to make money off of it. Don’t beat yourself down right off the start with a list, with an iteration of things you cannot control.

**John:** Yeah, don’t nick yourself.

Where I think he has some reasonable questions which is when I go into the room to do all the stuff, when I do the water bottle tour of Los Angeles and do all those first meetings, will it be different with me going in as a 60-year-old than me going in as a 25-year-old? Yes. It will be.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Because you will be older than some of the people that you’re sitting there and talking with. That’s just a fact of life. And so your question about like if you had a 25-year-old writing partner, would that be helpful? Yeah, it might be helpful, just the way perception works. And that’s if someone sees you as someone who is perceived as a peer rather than as their father, that could be useful.

But they’re ultimately going to respond to can this person write or can this person not write. Do I trust this person can write the movie that I want them to write and deliver? Then, you’re happy and you’re golden.

Now, going to say writing a book or a play and hope it gets noticed, well, you could absolutely do that, but I don’t think those are the best ways to get started as a screenwriter. If your goal is to be a screenwriter you should be focused as a screenwriter. If that doesn’t work out and you like to write plays or books, those are things which I think tend to favor people who are not so young, and therefore you could be successful at that at any age.

But don’t stop — don’t kill your dreams of being a screenwriter simply because of your age.

**Craig:** Yeah. Let’s remember that if you want to look at a group that gets more rejections a year age wise, it’s going to be 20 year olds, because they’re writing the most screenplays, I think. And they’re getting their butts kicked out there. Okay? It’s no picnic for 20-year-old screenwriters, believe me.

One thing to think about if you do end up in rooms with people is that your attitude will carry you a long way. If there is a positivity about you and an acknowledgement that this is a bit odd, “I know, I’m 60. Maybe this isn’t what normally happens but, you know what, I’m having fun. I’m enjoying it. I have the kind of energy and spirit of somebody that isn’t 60, or 20, or 30, but just a writer who wants to make a great movie.” You will be appreciated.

If you walk in there with the burden, the silent burden, of all these presuppositions — that you’re being judged, that you’re going to be discarded, that you’re going to be somehow the victim of inherent discrimination — it’s going to radiate off of you and get kicked back at you. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can’t tell you that ageism isn’t real, because it is. I can’t tell you that you won’t suffer from it, because you very well may, might, or almost certainly will at some point.

All I can tell you is worrying about it and factoring it into the way you behave isn’t going to change anything.

**John:** I would expand that to sort of all of the isms or “obias” that you’re going to generate for yourself. And so I’ve walked into these rooms. You know, I had a meeting with Tony Scott. I’m like the gay guy going in to pitch to Tony Scott. And he’s like smoking a cigar in the room. But, you know what? It was just fine. And like I could have been freaking out about sort of what that was going to be like. And it was absolutely just fine.

And, you know, if you’re a woman going into a room to pitch, like, you cold freak yourself out about how this is all going to work, or you could be the person who is like confident going in there and delivering the goods and you’re probably going to have a much better outcome there.

So, it’s not to say that none of these things are real and that there’s not a reason to talk about them or discuss them. I would say that there’s not a reason to let them stop you from trying to do what you’re trying to do.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes. Yes.

**John:** Next, Fiona. Do you want to ask her question? It’s a long one.

**Craig:** Boy, all right. “How does someone hire you?”

**John:** That’s Fiona’s entire question.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s so great.

**John:** And here’s why I picked this question, because I could read it two ways.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The one question is like how does someone hire a writer, which I think is an interesting thing we don’t kind of talk about.

**Craig:** But I really think Fiona wants to know how do you get work.

**John:** No, I read this as how does Fiona hire me. I thought she’s saying, “How do I hire John August to do…”

**Craig:** Okay, see, that never occurred to me.

**John:** I would say a few times a year just a random person will say like, “Hey, I have this idea for a movie. How much would it cost to hire you to write this movie?”

**Craig:** I get that.

**John:** And that’s a charming thought. And so I don’t want to sort of automatically dismiss that [crosstalk].

**Craig:** I always tell them $800, and that’s enough to back them off.

**John:** [laughs] So, let’s talk about how writers are hired overall. And so writers are generally hired by studios and by producers when there is an existing something to adapt or the writer has come in with a pitch for some project and then the studio or producer or production company will hire that writer to write that for them so then it becomes a work-for-hire, which is an important sort of copyright concept.

So, you, the writer was the original writer of something, but authorship and copyright rests with the people who paid you the money to write it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They will pay you a certain amount of money to deliver a draft. And if it’s a WGA sort of situation, they will pay you a certain fixed amount to start writing and a certain fixed amount when you deliver. And there will be hopefully some guarantees about reading periods, and that they can’t sort of drag it out forever.

There are hopefully some guarantees in that contract, even if it’s not WGA, about sort of how this relationship is going to work.

It can be very little money. So, for like the non-WGA things, maybe it’s $5,000 to write a script, which is not a lot. If it’s a big tent-pole project, there are some scripts where people are paid $2 million, $3 million to write something. There’s a huge range of how that happens.

When was the last time where someone wanted to hire you individually as a person? Has that happened to you in your career? Someone who wasn’t representing a company but just wanted you to do something for them?

**Craig:** No, it’s been forever. I mean, I initially started when I was first out here and I was working, I was working in advertising. And so I was a copy writer for entertainment advertising, you know, trailers and TV spots and stuff like that. And so I would freelance and get hired by individuals at various, you know, people think that studios make trailers. The studio doesn’t make the trailer. They hire a trailer company to make the trailer. And the trailer company doesn’t really make the trailer. They hire people like me to go write the copy for the trailer.

It’s a whole thing. But, yeah, but it’s been 15 years or more.

**John:** Yeah. Going back to Fiona’s question about how do you hire a writer, generally if there’s a project, like, I have this book that I now control the rights to and I want this writer to do it. You would approach that writer’s agent. You would figure out what agency they’re at. You can call the Writers Guild to find out who represents a certain writer. You would call the agent, talk to the agent, convince the agent that you are not a crazy person. And then that agent would report to the writer saying like, “This person wants you to read this thing and I’ve read it and you should maybe consider doing it.”

You usually go through the representative, so either the agent or the manager to get access to that writer and get them to pay attention to you and see whether they would work on this thing for you.

**Craig:** If you want to hire me, if anybody out there wants to hire me it’s very, very simple. A briefcase of kidneys. I would write anything for 20 kidneys — healthy — packed properly in ice. Or five hearts.

**John:** Now, there was some writer and I feel like it is John Milius, but I may just be completely making this up. It’s probably an apocryphal story anyway. But like the price to hire him was a certain amount of money and like a rifle and some deer to shoot. There was some bizarre thing where like he wanted…

**Craig:** Oh, that’s bizarre? Should I have not asked for that? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] It’s a standard rider. So, you have like no green M&Ms in you bowl and some deer to kill.

**Craig:** I would accept lungs. I used to not. But, you know, things are getting tight. [laughs]

**John:** You know what’s good about money? Money is fungible and you can buy things with money. I get so frustrated when people want sort of those other things. And it’s just like, no, no, get money.

**Craig:** You think money is fungible? You should try human organs.

**John:** Ha-ha.

**Craig:** No taxes. Very portable.

**John:** For this project I’m working on I’ve had to learn a lot about gold. And gold is one of those things that seems like, oh, it’s fungible, and it’s safe, and it’s bankable. Gold is really a pain in the ass. And I don’t fundamentally get why people still want to use gold because it’s just difficult in so many ways.

Even though it’s exciting that you can actually sort of melt it down into different things, you have to test it and it’s just not good.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a big pain and it’s super heavy. I mean, but it’s shiny and it’s beautiful.

**John:** It is shiny and beautiful.

**Craig:** It’s beautiful.

**John:** And like if you’re a Looper then I could understand why they would want to give you some gold blocks to pay you off, because that would make a lot of sense.

**Craig:** Yeah, oh, for sure. But, you definitely can’t use hearts or lungs.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Because just the time. Well, anyway. So, what’s our next question? [laughs] Oh, Ferdinand.

**John:** Ferdinand from East Prussia asks, “Say you’ve got a scene set on a sidewalk then partway through a character arrives via car. You want to show his approach from inside the car, but there isn’t necessarily any dialogue or more than one shot before the sidewalk scene continues. How do you handle short inter scenes. I’ve always assumed they get their own slug line, brief scene description. However, when breaking down a script for production it’s a little misleading to identify this shot as a scene, isn’t it?”

**Craig:** Uh-huh.

**John:** This is Ferdinand from East Prussia, or just a clever name. It’s probably not a real person from East Prussia, but wouldn’t that be awesome?

**Craig:** Well, East Prussia is either from the east of Prussia, or it’s East Prussia, Pennsylvania. I think there’s an East Prussia, Pennsylvania.

**John:** I thought that Ferdinand was like the deposed, like assassinated person of East Prussia?

**Craig:** Archduke Ferdinand was…

**John:** Wasn’t he Prussian?

**Craig:** No. I think he was a Serb.

**John:** Okay. Well, I’m going to type this in and see what…

**Craig:** Right now. Let’s do a live Google. Live Googling. Archduke Ferdinand I think was…Bosnian?

**John:** Ferdinand Krueger of East Prussia…maybe not?

**Craig:** Oh, he’s from East Prussia, Illinois?

**John:** Maybe.

**Craig:** I thought it was Pennsylvania. But the Archduke Ferdinand who was shot was definitely not from Illinois.

**John:** Yeah. I know almost nothing about actual history. [laughs] I’m sadly just awful at most of history. I now know that World War I came first.

**Craig:** Oh boy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who I propose was Serbian, was in fact, well, he was Austro-Hungarian and Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia. And his actual nationality was, oh, I’m sorry, his assassination in Sarajevo precipitated Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia.

**John:** Mm-hmm. If it didn’t happen on Game of Thrones I’m not going to really follow what happened.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s as much history as I can sort of take in.

**Craig:** WWI was the original Game of Thrones. It was Game of Thrones but with mustard gas.

**John:** Oh, yeah. But they have the equivalent of mustard gas. You get that…

**Craig:** Yeah, Wildfire.

**John:** The dragon wildfire; the dragon stuff that they shoot out there and that was cool. That was green.

**Craig:** In WWI every day was the Red Wedding. Every single day. So, when things like that happened everybody was like, “Eh, it’s just another day.”

**John:** Back to Ferdinand’s question. So, he’s asking about sort of what happens when a scene is going to continue but you have to show a new thing that’s going to interrupt that scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a good question.

**John:** I would probably do that as a slug line. How would you do that?

**Craig:** I generally don’t, because I find that it’s going to make the read too jangly, because I really don’t want… — I mean, I understand what he’s saying. We don’t really want to feel like we’re watching three scenes in one scene. It’s one smooth flowing scene; there just happens to be a shift of a POV into an interior of a thing.

The interior of a thing really doesn’t demand a slug line. So, what I would probably do in this case is just an all caps action line FROM INSIDE THE CAR or POV INSIDE THE CAR, describe the POV inside the car, and then BACK TO SCENE as the next action line.

I might bold POV INSIDE THE CAR. Here’s the thing — you as the screenwriter, you’re trying to, again, as we said before, paint the movie for the people reading it. And that will do that. When it gets time for production, the first AD is going to go through and what he may just simply do is assign a number to that shot, just so that they know they have to be inside the car for that shot.

**John:** Yeah. So, you and I are actually talking the same thing, but you say slug line for what I would call a scene header.

**Craig:** Oh, I see.

**John:** I would do that same thing where it’s an all caps line that’s on the left that is indicating that it’s a major thing to pay attention to, a shift, and therefore we’re doing that but it’s not actually a new scene.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I agree with you that when the AD is going through and breaking down the script, if that was scene 32, she might call that scene A32, acknowledging that that little moment is a separate little blip that they’re going to have to pick up the day of shooting.

A general conversation about when you’re inside cars I’ll often go to the INT/EXT header for what that is, because if you’re inside the car and you’re outside the car, like you’re inside a car but you are in an outdoor environment. And so sometimes it’s really about the neighborhood that you’re in is as important as being inside that car.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, INT/EXT can be your friend when you’re inside the car, a scene that’s happening in the car but then it’s also getting outside of the car.

**Craig:** Yup. That’s true. Depends really on balance. You know, if you just have one moment that’s inside, then just call that out. But if you’re back and forth, if it’s somebody inside a car talking to somebody outside of the car and it’s back and forth, yeah, then just INT/EXT.

Next we have Jeff who wonders, “If you have an agent but you feel he or she isn’t doing enough to get your work out there, what are appropriate ways of being proactive?” Well…

**John:** Well, you’ve come to the right person because Craig is an expert at dealing with agent type situations.

**Craig:** Fire them! Well, I do love firing. In general, screenwriters are far too afraid to treat their employees as employees. Yes, an agent is an employee. Are they an employee who deserves a lot of respect and consideration? Yes. Should they be an employee/partner? Yes.

However, in the end they work for you. And if you are not satisfied with the way that they are doing their job, it’s a very, very simple thing. You call them up and say, “I want to sit down with you and I want to have lunch.” There is this thing in all agent brains that hears that and goes, “Oh no.” There isn’t one agent on the planet who doesn’t hear that and think, “Oh, great. I love lunch,” or, “Nah, I’m too busy for lunch.”

They all hear it and they go, “Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no.” If they don’t hear “oh no” from that then they really are ridiculous and you should fire them. You sit down and you have lunch and you say, “Look, I’m not loving the way things are going.” And be as honest as possible. “I’m a little uncomfortable. I’m very disappointed. I’m mildly disappointed. I am infuriated.” Whatever it is, lay it out there. And just say, “I want this to work. And here’s how I think it should work. You tell me what I can do to help you, but here’s what I need you to do to help me.”

You have that lunch and you listen to everything they have to say and hopefully they listen to everything you have to say. That lunch is like a flare you just shot out there. If it doesn’t improve within a certain amount of reasonable time, call it three months…

**John:** I was going to say three months, too. Then you have to leave.

**Craig:** You have to leave. You have absolutely laid down the gauntlet and it’s time to go.

**John:** Now, Jeff is specifically saying you feel he or she isn’t doing enough to get your work out there. Now, the reality of the situation may be that no one thinks Jeff’s work is very good. And you’re going to have to listen carefully to the agent because the agent may be phrasing this in a way, saying it’s just not landing the way you would hope it would land; it’s not getting the response we really hoped for. And that may honestly be the case. Or, it may not be the case and you may have other ways of finding out sort of what’s really going on there.

A general thing is you can talk to other people about your agent. And so if you’re going out on some other meeting or you meet somebody at a party and you’re five minutes into the conversation, you can kind of talk about sort of like what agents are like, too. And maybe there really is a problem and maybe you’re just not at the right place.

So, it could be you. It could be them.

**Craig:** Right. And that conversation that you have with them sometimes could bring up… — I remember years and years ago I was grumpy because I was looking around and I saw some of my peers doing production rewrites, like little weeklies. And I thought, “Why aren’t I getting those offers? Where are those jobs for me? I feel like I could do a really good job on those sort of things.”

So, I sort of had a, “Hey, what’s the deal? Why don’t I get that?” And basically the response back was, “Because they don’t think you can do that and you’re going to have to prove that you can do that. And it’s a very small list of people that do that and you have to earn your way onto it. And if you want to earn your way onto it here’s what needs to happen.”

And I thought, oh, thank you for the honesty. And so it all happened. But I needed to know that it needed to happen. In other words, I needed to know that there was a process to go through in order to get there.

And, similarly, if you sit down with your agent and you lay all the stuff on the table and they say, “I’m having trouble because everybody hates what you wrote,” then you should say, “Well, thank you for that. That hurts, but thank you. It would have been better for me to know that from you sooner. And let’s see now if I can write something better.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But honesty, honesty, honesty.

**John:** Mark asks, “I was very lucky to get a spec of mine shot. I was involved in the process and on set, but obviously not making decisions after the script was handed in. The movie did not turn out well. I was hoping you can discuss the etiquette for what to do with that situation going forward. For example, when you’re in a meeting and people who read and liked your script asked how the finished product turned out, what do you say? I don’t want to say it’s great and then have them see it when it comes out and think I’m an idiot; but I also don’t want to complain or badmouth the people involved.

“My manager recommended to deflect the question by saying I’m too close to it to have perspective. Any other advice?”

**Craig:** That’s not a bad answer. I mean, the other answer — it sounds like what’s going on here is we’re in that gap between the movie being finished and the movie coming out. And it’s an important time for this screenwriter because when he says “I was very lucky to get a spec of mine shot,” it sounds like this is his first movie. So, he’s going out there now as a screenwriter that just has a movie coming out.

People like his script and now he’s a guy who’s been through the process of production. So, these meetings are about getting work. You don’t want to necessarily call an air strike in on your own position here. So, what you could say is, “I actually haven’t seen it. I’m hearing some good things, but honestly the director kind of ran with it and I haven’t really been a part of the process since. So, I’m looking forward to seeing the movie.”

Now, that may be a total flat-out lie. And if you’re not comfortable with that flat-out lie, you that you’re going to get caught in that flat-out lie, then I think something like, “You know, it’s different. It definitely reflects his vision. I’m still kind of wrapping my mind around it.” [laughs] That’s a good phrase.

By the way, everyone will know what you mean.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Sorry to tell you, unless you literally lie and say I haven’t seen it yet, anything less than “I love it,” everybody will go, “Oh, it’s shit.”

**John:** Yeah. So, I think your suggestion is good. I think the manager’s suggestion is good about sort of the deflecting. I would also maybe deflect it into, “Yeah, I just don’t know how it’s going to turn out. It’s such a weird process going through that.” And you could talk about what your intentions were going on and just go onto the next thing over.

You could talk about sort of how hard it is to get a movie made. Or, the classic thing that Laura Ziskin would always say is like, “I think we should just give an award for getting a movie made,” which was always a sign that like, oh, that movie did not turn out well.

But, that’s the reality. And people will pick up on that code and they’ll also know to stop asking questions.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, you can thank them for loving your script. It’s like, “Well thank you; that really means a lot to me that you read it.” It’s such a strange thing to have something that was so close to you that now is this movie that’s the same but different.

**Craig:** The other thing you can do is kind of an invitation for bonding is to say, “You know, it’s in process. I’ve seen a lot of it. It is so-and-so’s vision of what I did. I’m still not quite sure how I feel about it. I would love to hear from you. When you see the movie I’d love to hear from you as a third party who read the script and thankfully liked it, and thank you very much for that, what you thought of it. Because I’m kind of curious about that myself.”

**John:** Now, here’s another thing that we should tell Mark is that we don’t know where it is in the process. So, he says it didn’t turn out well, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s done. Because when I saw the first cut of Go, my first instinct was to kill myself. And my second instinct was like do something so this movie never comes out, because it was awful.

It was soul-crushingly awful. And it just did not work at all. And so I remember I was just sort of shaking. I was downstairs in the screening room at Sony. It was not at all what I wanted to do. And I was in this situation sort of like Mark where people loved my script and then fortunately only ten people saw this cut. I’m like, “I just don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t know what to say. I don’t know how to proceed.”

And how I ended up proceeding was we just went back and we just kept editing, and editing, and editing and sort of getting it back to what it needed to be and doing the reshoots and it turned out really well. But, if I had gone out and sort of like badmouthed it at that point, that would have been a mistake, too.

**Craig:** Never do that. Never, ever, ever do that.

**John:** So, what Craig says about like it’s early in the process. It’s fair to say that it was so tough to see it because it’s just not the same thing that you went through. And you can bond on that level, too.

So, maybe things will get better.

**Craig:** Yeah. Doom — oh, I guess things aren’t getting better — Doom writes, “I have one bone to pick. John’s use of the phase of The Avid,” which is not a phrase but rather a term, “drives me crazy.” Not as crazy as your misuse of the word phrase.

Sorry. I can’t help but editorialize as I read these questions. You’re much better at it then I am. I’ll start again.

“I have one bone to pick. John’s use of the phrase The Avid drives me crazy. The reason is because he is so fair in pointing out alternatives to ubiquitous programs like Final Draft. In every other category you make room for the possibility that someone else is not using your technology. But when it comes to film editing there is just The Avid.”

Well, it’s not actually a question; that’s a bone which is being picked.

**John:** Yeah. So, I chose the question because I think on some level Doom is right in that I’m using the Avid as a generic description for any non-linear editor, partly because I feel like we don’t have a good term for what that is, because “non-linear editor” is just too long of a word.

And I’m using the term the way that people who edit movies really do sort of use the term. Because even if they’re not cut on the Avid, in a general sense people will say “the Avid” because what they mean is literally that machine that is sitting in that room that the editor is staring at.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** So, that’s kind of what the term is that we use and I’m sorry that I’m Kleenexing it, but that’s really sort of what we use.

I think it’s lucky to live in a time where there are many choices in editing software. And so the Avid is certainly some of the most common stuff you see, but people use Final Cut. People use all of the other systems that are especially designed for commercials and things.

**Craig:** I just know really there’s the Avid and there’s Final Cut. And, frankly, it seems like Final Cut had its moment and then blew it. And we’re back to the Avid again. I don’t see anything else out there actually.

**John:** There actually is other stuff. And people who cut stuff for commercials and cut things for other systems, other systems are used in other things.

Most of the TV and film work that I’ve been encountering recently has been on the Avid. Final Cut Pro, the older version, was making some serious inroads. People sort of chafed at what Apple did with the revisions.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They may be winning some of those people back but the Avid is just sort of the term that we use for these things. And it’s what people are sort of using as their workhorse in making features and TV shows.

**Craig:** I think that Doom, either you work for one of those companies, or you’re just a little fussbudgety. But, here’s the thing — is that really worth, I mean, as somebody that loves umbrage, you need to portion it out at the right moments I guess is my point.

**John:** It’s a good point because this took Doom easily ten minutes to write this email to me. And easily probably an hour to think about like, “Oh, that just drives me crazy!” He had to sort of sit with his anger long enough to decide to write the email about that.

So, it is sort of interesting that it actually crossed over a line to him for that. Because we got some two-page emails about the Bechdel Test and other things like that. And I can see where people were coming from, because they had a strong opinion about sort of how that stuff fit. Or, like, please don’t bring up Jesus again, because we had enough emails about that.

**Craig:** Oh, really?

**John:** Yeah. Oh, I’ll send you some of those. Nothing terrible. You shouldn’t be afraid for your life.

**Craig:** No. Should I be afraid for my eternal life? [laughs]

**John:** Basically saying your earlier Jesus analogy and your Moses analogies were pointing out reasons why they didn’t fit perfectly and really was kind of moot.

**Craig:** I’m sure that’s true, by the way.

**John:** Well, what’s interesting, going back to last week’s conversation about Nikki Finke and comments sections is that this is the kind of thing where it would be very easy to write in a comment section, but to actually — this person chose to email me his thought. I guess that’s why I’m responding to it because it took a lot more initiative to actually send the email to me and to have that personal relationship of like, “I am sending an email to you rather than just commenting on your blog.”

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, listen, I get it. It just seemed like a strange thing to be fussy about. Because, you know, if I were listening to a podcast between editors and they referred to Final Draft all the time. “Well, you know, when writers are on Final Draft,” I would think, yeah, I get it, because that’s what they know. I mean, that’s not…whoop-de-do. I’m not going to get that worked up about it.

Whereas they know about Lightworks and the little shark that comes along out of the door and eats your, or whatever that thing is.

Anyway, last question. Nick. Do you want to read this one?

**John:** No, you can do it.

**Craig:** “Is it a bad idea to copyright my screenplay? Some say that it’s a speed bump in the selling process because lawyers would have to get involved to get the copyright transferred to the production studio company. Thank you for any help.”

What do you think?

**John:** So, what Nick is referring to — obviously anything you write is copyright you. You don’t have to submit stuff. And he’s talking about the actual process where you’re submitting stuff to the copyright office and going through that process. And I’ve seen people come on both sides of that. And I’m honestly hoping that you’ll have a more definitive answer and I can just say I agree with Craig.

**Craig:** Well, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to copyright your screenplay at all. Yeah, it requires that somebody actually fill out the paperwork to transfer the copyright officially as opposed to just pretending from the start that you in fact wrote… — See, the fiction is this: You write a screenplay. It’s a spec screenplay. That’s you. Copyright you.

It’s not registered? Doesn’t matter. Your copyright. You then sell it to a studio. The studio wants to own that screenplay under a work-for-hire doctrine meaning I own this screenplay, all parts of it, I wrote it.

So, what they say is, “I’m going to buy this from you and part of the purchase agreement is that you agree that we commission this,” which they didn’t. And that is fiction. And the reason the Writers Guild allows this fiction is because it’s good, frankly, for the Writers Guild. Because what it means is that this is covered as employment and therefore the following things apply to it — minimums, and I believe health and pension apply to sale of literary material, I believe. I may be wrong about that. Credits, more importantly. And, of course, then the requirement that the person selling it get the first rewrite job on it, which is a big deal.

If you just go ahead and copyright it yourself, eh, so they transfer the copyright. And it may be, I’d have to check with the Guild to see if that would disrupt things like pension payments or health payments on the sale itself. But, you know what? I’ll follow up on that.

**John:** Okay. We’ll do follow up on that.

**Craig:** Yeah, I’ll follow up.

**John:** Because I remember being at a panel in which an entertainment lawyer was making a very strong case that you should absolutely register these copyrights and that it was a very important thing for writers to do. And I was surprised by it because I’ve honestly never done that on any of my specs.

**Craig:** I mean, the benefit of registering your screenplay with the copyright office is that in the case of infringement I believe registration with the copyright office does give you a certain avenue that you wouldn’t otherwise have. And I believe it’s to collect punitive damages as opposed to just damages of infringement.

But, let me check and see if there’s any downside over the Guild. And we’ll do a little follow up on that.

**John:** Cool. It’s time for One Cool Things. Do you have a One Cool Thing for this week?

**Craig:** Have I talked about the Fitbit before?

**John:** I think you may have. Is that the bracelet thing?

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, mine is like a little clip on in my pocket. If I have talked about it before then, oh well.

**John:** No, I don’t think you have on this podcast.

**Craig:** On this particular podcast I haven’t talked about it.

**John:** Yeah. I think maybe last week’s you did.

**Craig:** [laughs] So, I’ll just do it again. I’m like an old man now. “Have I told you about how I met your mother?” Yes!

**John:** Yes. [crosstalk]

**Craig:** It’s this little doohickey and you clip it to your pants pocket or your bra, if you’re so inclined, and it keeps track of all of your movement throughout the day. It keeps track of how many steps you take, how far you walked, distance. How many flights of stairs you go up and down.

And it’s super motivating because the theory is you should take 10,000 steps a day. You should walk five miles a day. This is just good, basic health. And because I’m wearing this thing and monitoring it with my iPhone and the computer, I’m just taking the stairs more and walking more. It’s so stupid, and yet it works.

I am a slave to a Fitbit now, and better off for it. And, oh, the other cool part of it is it monitors your sleeping. Again, this is something I got out of conversations with Bob Gordon of Galaxy Quest fame. So, you can wear it on a little wristband thing when you sleep — it’s very soft, so it doesn’t bother your sleeping — and it basically measures your restless moments and your awake moments and gives you just a general sense of how much did you actually sleep last night.

You know, yes, you lost consciousness at midnight and you regained consciousness permanently at 8am. But, did you sleep eight hours or did you sleep five hours and like three weird tossing, turning hours? So, it’s very cool. I like it. And it’s like $89 at Amazon.

**John:** Lovely. Cool.

my One Cool Thing is a website that is free and this is a suggest from a listener named Jason Ahlquist. So, Jason, thank you for sending me to this link.

It is called Mission Log. And the Mission Log Podcast has this archive of discovered documents from Star Trek, the original series, dating back to 1966. And there are a bunch of memos and photos and outlines from the original series from back in the day.

And so I’ve always loved seeing things like letters from Desilu Productions to Gene Roddenberry, and sort of talking about like, “I just read your script for The City on the Edge of Forever. Here are my notes.” And these are actually typed like on real typewriters. And they’re on letterhead. It’s just such a different way of how things used to be done.

And so it’s great to see notes about episodes of TV shows you’ve seen 30 times and sort of how they’ve changed over the time.

**Craig:** I’m going to check that out. that sounds awesome.

**John:** So, the Mission Log Podcast. And thank you, Jason Ahlquist, for sending that in.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** If our listeners have suggestions for things we should talk about on One Cool Things, or have questions about anything we’ve talked about on the show today, they should visit johnaugust.com/podcast. We’ll have those links.

We will also have information about the t-shirts. And I probably should have started the episode with this. The t-shirts, we have the amazing orange t-shirt and the amazing blue t-shirt.

**Craig:** So soft.

**John:** So soft. Stuart swears it’s the softest shirt he’s ever touched. This is the last week to order them. Actually, if you’re listening to this on Tuesday, Friday is the last day that you can order them. So, just stop whatever you’re doing, pull over the car, and just go to johnaugust.com/store and take a look at the t-shirts because they’re really good.

We’re only selling them in this window so that I just don’t have to deal with t-shirts for more than just this one little window. So, we are going to get the orders. We will make the t-shirts. We will put them in packaging and send them out to the world.

**Craig:** Are we profiting on these t-shirts?

**John:** We’re sort of barely on these t-shirts. We are covering out…

**Craig:** We do we make a shirt?

**John:** We’re going to cover our costs. So, we’ll cover our silk-screening cost.

**Craig:** No profit yet.

**John:** No profit yet.

**Craig:** I’m waiting for the profit part.

**John:** I think we make like five bucks on a shirt, maybe a little more.

**Craig:** Whoa! Woo!

**John:** So, that money will help pay for things like our transcripts, which I never talk about on the show, but it’s one of the rare things that a podcast does is we have transcripts for every single one of our — approaching — 100 episodes that are actually at johnaugust.com.

So, if you are listening to this podcast and wanted to go back and see what we actually said, if you go to the actual episode at johnaugust.com, at the bottom of every post when Stuart has the transcript he will put a link to it. And the transcripts are usually up three or four days after the episode. And you can go back and see exactly what we said.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So, that’s what we will cover. And it may help us buy some alcohol at our 100th Episode.

**Craig:** Woo!

**John:** So, in fact, we have two live events this summer. We have Saturday, June 29, which is part of the Writers Guild Foundation’s big benefit a whole full day craft seminar. Tickets are available for that right now. You can go to the Writers Guild Foundation. Just Google that and find tickets for that.

I think there are still tickets as we’re talking right now. And our 100th Anniversary Extravaganza…

**Craig:** The big show!

**John:** …which is Thursday, July 25. Tickets for that should go on sale July 1.

**Craig:** That’s going to be fun.

**John:** I’m really looking forward to that.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s going to be a great night. Are you going to wear something special?

**John:** No.

**Craig:** You’re just going to do regular…?

**John:** I’m dressing in normal clothes. Are you going to dress up?

**Craig:** Well, I’m either going to wear my regular clothes or I’m going to go like a full Liberace fur — I might do like a fur and sequins.

**John:** There’s nothing better on a nice summer night than fur and sequins. So, applaud that.

**Craig:** Furs. Rings.

**John:** And maybe you can just crank the AC so it’s all comfortable for you.

**Craig:** Rings. And those big boots that Gene Simmons would wear in Kiss. You know, just something for the ladies.

**John:** Yeah. Or, maybe you could bring Michael Douglas in to wear that for you and you could wear normal clothes.

**Craig:** Hmm. I’d have to get a hold of Michael Douglas somehow.

**John:** Oh, we’re going to have a bigger guest than Michael Douglas at our 100th Episode.

**Craig:** Oh? Well, now I’m showing up.

**John:** All right. Cool.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Craig, thank you for another fun podcast.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** And we’ll talk to you again next week.

**Craig:** Bye.

LINKS:

* [Email us](http://johnaugust.com/ask-a-question) or tweet [John](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) or [Craig](https://twitter.com/clmazin) your questions for future episodes
* [Fitbit](http://www.fitbit.com/) helps you manage your health and wellness goals
* [Mission Log Podcast](http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/discovereddocuments/)’s archive of discovered Star Trek documents is fantastic
* [Order your Scriptnotes shirts](http://store.johnaugust.com/) before June 21st!
* The Writers Guild Foundation presents [The Screenwriter’s Craft: Finding Your Voice](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/the-screenwriters-craft-finding-your-voice/) featuring Scriptnotes Live
* John’s blog post on [this summer’s two live shows](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-live-in-la)

End today’s writing with a plan for tomorrow’s

June 6, 2013 Writing Process

Chuck Wendig offers ten little writing tricks, including an old standby he calls [The Tiniest Outline Of Them All](http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/06/05/ten-stupid-writer-tricks-that-might-actually-work/):

> The last 50-100 words you write at the end of your day should be a note to yourself detailing just what the fuck you should write tomorrow. (“HORACE MURDERS LORD THORNJIZZ AND THE LITHUANIAN DETECTIVE CIRCUS IS ASSIGNED TO THE CASE”). In other news, now I want to write a book about a “Lithuanian detective circus,” whatever that is. I call dibs. You can’t have it. I’ll get stabby.

And yes, OF COURSE you should use Google Street View to see the places you’re writing about. But I feel dumb for not doing it more often. Super helpful.

Scriptnotes, Ep 89: Writing effective transitions — Transcript

May 16, 2013 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: And this is Scriptnotes, Episode 89, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig, we have actual news this week, exciting events that we can talk about finally.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, we’ve really been struggling making stuff up on the fly, but now we can talk about things that are real.

John: Things that are real, including a long-promised and wished and hoped for live event in Los Angeles. Not just one, but two.

Craig: Two!

John: There will be two live Scriptnotes this summer in Los Angeles. The first of which will be Saturday, June 29th, at 10am, at the Writers Guild Theater in Beverly Hills. It’s part of a larger event that the Writers Guild Foundation is throwing. Tickets are not yet available, but they will be available soon, and there will be a link when those are available.

But, if you are in Los Angeles and would like to come to that you can mark it on your calendar and make sure you don’t have any other plans for 10am on Saturday, June 29th.

Craig: I can’t wait to get a look at our listenership.

John: Yes!

Craig: I want to see what they look like. I want to get an eyeful of these people.

John: So, to date we’ve only done one live event and that was in Austin. And that was at the Austin Film Festival. So, it was already the people who we were seeing every day at the Driskill Hotel. So, this is a chance to see our Los Angeles fan base, including people who I do see at like Trader Joe’s, or at the Nobu restaurant. But this is a chance to see them all together to see us on one stage. It’s going to be exciting.

That is the first of two events. The second event will be Sunday, July 28, at the evening, probably a 7:30 show. That’s going to be at the Pickford Center in Hollywood, which is part of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It’s their big complex on Vine. And we’re going to be having the theater there to celebrate our 100th episode of Scriptnotes.

Craig: Woo! That’s going to be fun.

John: That’s going to be fun, in quotes. So, that’s one where we’ll be actually selling tickets sort of separately. It will be our own thing. And that will be a celebration of 100 episodes of you and I talking at each other over Skype.

Craig: And when we say we’re selling tickets, are we making money off of this?

John: I don’t think we’re making any money off of this.

Craig: Ah!

John: So, I’m sorry, Craig. You won’t be able to raise some money for your electronic cigarette habit.

Craig: Hmmm, maybe we could do a Kickstarter for that. [laughs]

John: That’s what we need to do. But there may be something you could take home with you after the event, and that’s still in discussion. So, the elves are busy working on those things.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: Yeah. So anyway, those are the two dates for the summer. We can’t sell you a ticket right now, or send you to a link, but you can mark them on your calendars. So, the first is Saturday, June 29th, 10am. The second will be Sunday, July 28th, in the evening, probably a 7pm or 7:30 pm. Those are two chances to come see us and come to a taping of our show.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Now, there’s one other chance. If you are in Los Angeles tomorrow night I will be hosting an event at The Academy, which you are all welcome to come. Tickets are $5. This is storytelling in a digital age. It is me hosting a big panel of screenwriters and editors and DPs talking about the challenges and possibilities of making movies in the age of technology that is quickly advancing. So, we will have amazing guests like Mark Boal, and Damon Lindelof, Maryann Brandon, William Goldenberg, Mary Jo Markey, Dylan Tichenor, and also some DPs who I can’t announce yet, but by the time this airs people will know who they are.

So, it should be a really fun time. We’re showing clips. There will be clips from Zero Dark Thirty, from Argo, from Star Trek. There’s an amazing clip from Star Trek which I got to see, which everyone will get to see before the movie even comes out. So, come to that event tomorrow if you would like to.

Craig: And you’re the perfect host for that.

John: Well, thank you. I hope it will be a good, fun time. I love technology. I love making movies. I love talking to people. So, hopefully it will be a good, fun time.

Craig: Nice.

John: But now you’ve jinxed me, and I will just completely stumble and fall.

Craig: There’s no way you could blow it.

John: Thank you. I will find a way to blow it.

Craig: Certainly you’ll enunciate every word and no one will ever turn to somebody in the crowd and say, “What did he just say?”

John: “What did he say? What was that? What did he say?”

There’s a pre-reception for like press and with wine, so I’m having to very carefully moderate my alcohol consumption before I start. Because, one glass of wine I’m better than normal. Two glasses of wine, you don’t want me on stage.

Craig: It’s so funny you mention that, because I brought up before my favorite British comedians, Mitchell and Webb. And they have this amazing — so here’s another link — an amazing sketch whereby we find out that the world is run by this Illuminati group and their entire philosophy is based on the fact that anywhere between one and two glasses of wine makes you a super human.

But if you have less than one glass of wine you’re just a loser. And if you have more than 1.5 glasses of wine you’re an idiot. [laughs] So, you have to have exactly 1.5 glasses. It’s pretty smart.

John: I will confess that there have been times over our 89 episodes that we’ve recorded of the show that we’ve done it late at night, so I’ve already had my one glass of wine at dinner, and it’s just vastly easier with one glass of wine in me.

Craig: I walk around naturally with one glass of wine in me. I don’t drink the wine, it’s just I think I live on a level of one glass of wine.

John: That’s nice. It’s three in the afternoon as we’re recording this, so I have no wine in me. But, if we lived in a different era, if we lived in a Mad Men era, I’d have two martinis in me already. And maybe that would be much, much better.

Craig: That’s right. But you’d be married to a woman.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Bummer.

John: There’s pros and cons. [laughs]

Craig: Exactly. [laughs] Up and downs.

John: I would have the two martinis because I was married to a woman.

Craig: I know, exactly. And then you’d just stare at her, “Ugh.” And she would cry, “Why?”

John: “Why doesn’t he touch me the way I want to be touched?”

Craig: [laughs] Stupid.

John: Today on the agenda we have three things to talk about.

First we want to talk about this $23 million lawsuit filed by two of the writers from G.I Joe.

Second, we’re going to talk about shots that we need to stop putting in movies. So, it’s sort of a corollary to our Cut it Out things, but these are visual things that are in movies that we just need to stop putting in movies.

Craig: Yup.

John: And, finally, a topic that you suggested was transitions. And I think that will be very useful for us to talk through. The craft of transitioning from one scene to the next.

Craig: Great. Big show.

John: Big show. Craig, let’s start by talking about G.I. Joe. So, this was a piece of news that came out this last week, I think. Maybe it will be next week by the time this show airs. Two of the writers from the original G.I. Joe movie, the one that came out — I don’t know — eight years ago? Whenever.

Craig: Well, no, not eight years ago. I think it was like 2009 or something.

John: Well, everything happens…

Craig: 2009. Yeah. 2009.

John: 2009. Because it happened sort of during the strike. It was shot during the strike.

Craig: Yes.

John: It happened during that time. So, David Elliot & Paul Lovett, who are two of the writers credited on that movie, filed a $23 million lawsuit against the makers of the sequel movie, the one that just came out. And it’s interesting for a whole host of reasons. There have been lawsuits filed over movies over people who claim, “Well, I should get credit for writing that movie,” or, “they took my ideas before.”

This is a very unique case in the sense of these aren’t just two guys off the street. These guys wrote the first movie. And they’re arguing here that much of the second movie was work that they actually did and stuff that they had pitched. And raises a whole host of interesting issues, not only for this one lawsuit, but potentially this is the case that you and I have talked about for a long time that could change a bit of how we handle paper in Hollywood.

Craig: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Exactly right. This is the proverbial time bomb that I’ve been going on and on about for a long time. And kind of ironically as part of our little CPSW stuff, our Committee for the Professional Status of Screenwriters, a few of us have gone to studios to talk to the people who run the studios to say, “Look, here are some practices that we think aren’t very good. They’re not productive. They’re hurting writers. We should stop them.”

And you can imagine what they are. Let’s try and have more two-step deals. Let’s try and pay writers on time. Let’s stop asking them to write stuff in order to get jobs. And on that point, I have said repeatedly — including to the folks at Paramount — this is going to blow up in your face. There are divisions of lawyers at these studios who are obsessed with making sure that they own the copyright on every single thing that goes in and out of the gate.

And then you have these other people working there, whether they’re studio executives or producers, who very cavalierly demand that writers write stuff before they get hired and then they don’t get hired. Well, they don’t own that stuff. And if it should happen to turn up in a movie, uh-oh, right?

So, let’s talk a little bit about the details here, because there are some things that I want to be clear about. First of all, it is tempting to side with the writers always the second you hear something like this. But, please always remember that there are other writers on the other side of this issue, namely Reese & Wernick, who wrote — or are credited with writing, and I assume did write — the actual sequel that it is currently being litigated.

I happen to know Rhett & Paul and they’re great guys. And there’s no chance in the world that they would actively rip somebody off. That’s just not possible. So, the question then is, okay, did these guys who wrote stuff down and handed it to the producers in the company, and who then did not get the job, did their material by way of producers repeating things back and so forth sort of contaminate the pool of ideas that were given to Rhett & Paul?

And, again, personally, there’s just no way that Rhett & Paul stole anything.

One thing that is concerning for me about this when you look at David Elliot & Paul Lovett’s case is that the Writers Guild determined that they weren’t participating writers on the project. And that doesn’t bode well for them, because the Writers Guild does take a look at material and say, “Okay, well, this person wasn’t hired, but if they wrote on it they are a participating writer.” And somebody looked at that material over there and said, “We don’t think you wrote on this movie.”

John: So, clarify this for me, because this is something I could not see from the material that I read through. In the pre-arbitration hearing, or was there a pre-arbitration hearing that established that they were not part of this group of writers?

Craig: Yeah, it appears so. Yes. So, what happens is, let’s say you write a script and you’re not hired by a studio. It’s a spec script, or spec material, anything really. You’re not hired. And then you see the script that arises when the credits are being determined and you say, “Oh my god, there’s a whole bunch of stuff that I wrote that’s in this script. And I should be a participating writer. I should be able to get credit on this if I deserve it.”

The Writers Guild will do what they call a participating writer investigation where the material is read by a writer at the Guild, and that writer’s simple determination is, “Yeah, this person’s material actually is evident in the screenplay,” or, “No, this person’s material is not. They shouldn’t be a participating writer.” All you need really is a couple of lines, frankly, that are sort of word for word, or like a very specific kind of scene or moment, or something like that, I would imagine.

I’ve never done one of those myself, but point being these guys were not awarded participating writer status. So, that certainly call their claim into question. We can’t — we don’t know. We don’t know all the details. All we know is what the court is going to decide, or what a settlement determines, and certainly a court doesn’t care what the WGA thinks.

But what does matter ultimately in the end is that the studios have to really now take a very strong look at who is asking for written material, because at this point if they don’t issue a blanket policy that they can’t accept written material from writers trying to get jobs, they’re nuts.

John: Yeah. So, let’s do step away from the details of this specific case, because I don’t know these writers at all and I don’t know the specifics beyond what I read. And so if people are curious about the specifics, there are PDFs up that show not only the lawsuit as it was filed but also attached are the emails that were sent through describing in detail what these writers had pitched. And so that’s one thread to look through if people are curious about that.

But, I do think the general topic of prewriting, which is basically this is stuff that you are writing before you’ve gotten the job, and maybe you’re writing that for yourself, but the minute you hand that over to somebody, you are creating written material that could potentially become part of the movie, and that is hugely troubling for the studio, and for the writers, and for the producers.

And let’s also take a look that this is G.I. Joe. So, this is a preexisting property. When you come into this property, they did not create these characters, so these are preexisting characters. So, they can show that they created the situations in which these characters are doing things, but they didn’t come in from scratch writing brand new characters, which is also a complication in this situation. But, very, very common for the situations where there are a bunch of writers going up for a job.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And when people are asking you to come in and pitch a take they are saying, “Okay, we have this material, we have this book, we have this preexisting property. Let’s redo The Addams Family. Well, how would you do the Addams Family?” Well, if you’re going to do The Addams Family you’re going to look at, well, this is The Addams Family. These are who the characters are. And so anything you’re pitching is going to be using those characters in a specific way.

And if you create, you know, you may be writing stuff for yourself, but if you hand over that written material, that’s the problem. And let’s talk about why you would hand over that stuff. Because here’s what happens when I’m in a meeting. They’ll say, “We love that. That was fantastic. Do you have something I could have so I can pitch this to my boss?”

Craig: Right.

John: That’s invariably sort of how they phrase it, because you are talking to some lower level creative executive who has to then go turn around and pitch your take to his or her boss. And they’ll say, “Can I have something to refer back to?”

And from my earliest jobs I’ve sometimes done that. I’ve given that paper over. And that’s not a good choice for the writer, and it’s certainly not a good choice for the studio.

Craig: Yeah. It’s a mess. And I don’t really know any way around it other than the studio saying, “We’re not doing that anymore.” Because if you were to say, “Well, why don’t we do this: everybody who comes in, you want to give us some material, that’s fine, but we’re going to pay you for it. So, we have a new deal. We’re going to pay you $5,000 for it. Everybody who comes in.”

Well, that’s great for the writers. They get five grand. And great for the studio. They’re covered on all that material. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. But, the problem then is when you get to your credit arbitration you have about 40 guys all with pieces of a story. And the poor guy who actually wrote the movie is like, “What?! Who am I sharing story with? Which one of the guys that didn’t get the job am I sharing story with?”

It gets crazy. The fact is studios cannot per the terms of our collective bargaining agreement insist that there be written material as a condition of employment. They are forbidden to do that. And they do it all the time. So, that has to stop.

And then as far as the writers go, writers can offer that material. I think, frankly, the studio is going to have to say no. “If I want you to pitch this idea to my boss, I’m taking you to my boss and you’re going to pitch it.” Because once it’s written down on paper it exists and they’ve accepted it.

John: So, let me back you up one step. You said that the studio cannot require writers to do this prewriting as a condition of their employment, but they could pay them for exactly what you’re describing. They could pay them for a treatment.

Craig: Yes.

John: So, in television that’s common. And I have to say like television has somewhat solved this problem to some degree. Granted, you’re not bringing in a bunch of people to pitch on one particular project so often, but in television you do get paid for those steps along the way. You get paid for those outlines. You get paid for those things, or at least they’re considered part of your overall employment. So, basically upon giving your pitch, part of your deal is that you’re going to be writing this material and you’re going to be working through these drafts of stuff before you actually get to your script.

And that may just be a way that smart studios may want to proceed is that they’ll hire you to certain steps and then pull triggers to get you to the next step. And that may be a way to cover themselves.

Craig: Well, I’ve always been in favor of that. I believe that’s a great part of the process, and it used to be a formal part of the screenwriting process and it sort of went away.

The major difference between television and film I think in this area is that most television projects are generated by the writer. So, the writer comes in. They say, “Look, here’s the idea. Here’s the world I want to do,” and they say, “Great. Let’s start developing it. Here’s some money, write a treatment, do all these steps.”

In features, so often they’re coming to you and saying, “We have something we want to do. Five, six, seven of you come in and wow us,” whether it’s a sequel, or a book, or a remake. And in those situations they very typically engage in the sweepstakes pitching stuff where a lot of writers are coming in.

And those situations in particular are the most treacherous for the studio to accept written material for. And yet that’s the situation in which they are most likely to accept written material because the writers are all competing with each other and basically racing to the bottom of the barrel in terms of working for nothing.

John: Yes. And it’s very unlikely that if you had seven people come in and pitch their takes, there would be great similarities between those seven takes.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Let’s talk Charlie’s Angels, or whatever. If you were coming in to pitch Charlie’s Angels, well, you know there’s going to be three Angels. You know they’re going to have different types. And so you’re going to probably find there’s going to be some overlap of who those types of women are.

There’s going to be a nature of who is the Bosley type character? What is his function? What is the plot of this big movie? And so the movie version of Charlie’s Angels, well, it’s pretty natural that someone is going to try to kill Charlie. That’s kind of an obvious idea because it’s a movie idea.

So, those kinds of things are going to happen a lot. The idea that there’s going to be an old Angel that comes back — which is what we did in the sequel — who is the villain, that’s kind of an obvious idea. And yet, if you were to sort of track through and say like these things are all similar, and this must have influenced this, well, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it influenced. It just means that like that’s the kind of idea you have for the movie version of this property.

Craig: That’s right. And unfortunately the rules of these things are fairly dumb. They very dumbly look at chronology and little else. And the assumption is, okay, if it came first, everybody else looked at it and saw it, and if it’s the same thing then you must have taken it. And that’s just not true. You’re absolutely right. Frankly, so much of our film language is influenced not by writers that precede us on a project but by movies that precede all of us and oftentimes are berths.

So, it was a former Angel that came back. Well, you know, we’ve seen that in other movies. That’s sort of a time tested thing of the former ally coming back now as an enemy to write a wrong. Bond has done that at least, what, three times?

John: Yup.

Craig: So, that’s not what makes, frankly, the movie interesting. You know what I mean? And there are movies where the characters, the tone, the action is the fun stuff, and the intricacies of the plotting is not. That’s not the point. And frankly G.I. Joe 2, I’m guessing, is probably in that category.

And how many different ways can you do a sequel based on a cartoon property like that, a toy? You could easily see three or four writers coming up with very similar stories. And then it’s just about the execution, tone, and all the rest.

John: Agreed. You and I have both been part of lawsuits where someone has come in to sue and say like, “Well, I wrote this script first. And this script existed afterwards. And clearly it must have influenced. We can’t prove that you read this script, but clearly this must have influenced it. Because who else could have the idea of doing a script like this?”

And that’s the most maddening kind of thing at all. Who would have the idea of doing a movie about bowling? Well, everyone had the idea. And so my defense in those situations, which I’ve never actually used legally, but I think my sort of emotional defense is that if I can show any other script that existed about bowling before your script, then you have no case. Because therefore you must have stolen that idea from somebody else before.

Craig: Right.

John: Prior Art as sort of the defense against those kind of copyrights.

Craig: That’s exactly right. But, you know, look, there are crazy people who are crazy. There are narcissistic people who are narcissistic. And self-delusional people. That’s always the case. This is not what’s going on here. I mean, in truth, we are dealing with two professional writers who had a very privileged relationship with the people that they’re suing. And that has to give everyone cause for concern. It certainly gives me cause for concern.

And, listen, if these guys have a case, and they were infringed upon, I wish them nothing but the best of luck in this, you know. I feel bad for Rhett & Paul, because you don’t want this hanging over your head as writers.

I just feel like the larger answer for the studios has to be that they just can’t get involved in this stuff anymore. If their lawyers knew the way that the producing world in general was behaving, they would lose their minds. They would.

John: Yeah. I would agree. I’m sort of on the side of all the writers in the situation. And I’m not rooting for or against anybody. I’m more rooting for the case changing something, because I feel like this is the kind of lawsuit that you and I have been taking about for years. That someone who has — not just some Joe off the street — but someone who actually has a career is going to step up and say, “This is what happened.” And people are going to have to acknowledge the reality behind it.

Craig: Yup.

John: Cool. Let’s move on and talk about, this was a list that I found today, or actually I think Stuart actually found this list and passed it on to me, so thank you, Stuart, for finding it. It’s from a blog called Reverse Shot. And it’s a list of sort of visual clichés.

In a previous podcast you and I did this thing called Cut it Out, which is like things we see way too often in scripts, or just tropes that need to stop being used in screenplays because they’re clammy. They’re just not original anymore.

Craig: Although, literally, I think people called out three that I’ve used recently. [laughs]

John: Which is fine.

Craig: So, I don’t think those count.

John: No, they’re not clammy then.

This was a list of sort of visual equivalents of that. And so it’s things that you see, that wouldn’t necessarily show up in a script, but then you see them in movies and you’re like, “You know what? Let’s stop doing that because we’ve seen that shot way too many times.”

So, I thought we’d take some turns reading through this and discussing some of our favorites.

Craig: Sure.

John: So, I loved the first one on this list which is moving clouds that are sped up.

Craig: Yeah, Koyaanisqatsi time-lapse.

John: Yeah, exactly. So, time-lapse is lovely and great, but we’ve seen those moving clouds a lot. And so maybe we could do something else rather than those moving clouds.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, sometimes when they’re part of something else that’s going on, I’m okay with it. If it’s just the clouds and that standard shot then it is pretty boring.

John: It’s pretty boring.

Craig: Yeah. The next one is we’re in a long shot and a guy is really far away and walking toward the camera and you’re thinking, “Oh, I’m going to have to watch him walk the whole way.” And it turns out, yeah, you are going to have to watch him walk the whole way.

Does that happen? [laughs]

John: It does happen. And it happens a lot over opening credits where we see somebody walking, and walking, and like the credits are just showing up on the screen. And like, oh my god, I’m going to have to watch this person the entire time?

Craig: It’s kind of an indie vibe sort of thing?

John: It’s sort of an indie vibe thing. Sometimes it’s a walk and talk where literally the camera is stationary and it’s a walk and talk towards the camera. And every once and awhile that will work just great. But, man, it just drives me crazy because I start to notice that, wow, we’re just going to stay in this shot for forever.

It has to be a really fascinating moment for me to want to stay in there and not really notice that we’re staying in this moment. A Steadicam can be the same kind of situation. Like, if I notice that you’re Steadicam shot has gone on for two minutes I’m going to just start looking for the cut and I’ll stop paying attention to the scene.

Craig: Unless it’s Goodfellas.

John: Unless it’s Goodfellas. But Goodfellas, it’s just such a good shot that it’s amazing, but how often is it really going to be that shot?

Craig: Are you Martin Scorsese?

John: Yeah. I mean, Joe Wright does it a lot, too. And I got fatigued by Joe Wright doing it.

Craig: All right.

John: Third one. An alienated teen or adolescent girl in the passenger side of a car driving down the highway, window rolled down, her hand swaying in the wind as it zips down a road to who knows where.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah. We’ve seen that a lot folks. I mean, if she has something in her hand that she lets go, that’s also a cliché.

Craig: [laughs] Top down. Feeling youthful. Yeah, we’ve seen it.

This one’s pretty great. Overhead shot of protagonist in the rain, arms spread, just letting the downpour come. Yeah. That is really baroque.

John: Yeah. So, Shawshank Redemption is sort of the classic version of that, but like in Shawshank Redemption he just did crawl through a sewer tunnel. So, you give him, like he kind of wants the shower. But we need to stop doing that.

Craig: Yeah. Because people don’t do that.

John: People don’t really do that. People really don’t want to be in the rain overall. In movies they seem to kind of love it, but whenever it’s raining I’m kind of like how fast can I get out of the rain.

Craig: I mean, maybe you like the rain, but then you don’t put your arms out and look up at the sky and go, “Yay!”

John: Yeah, because it’s not comfortable.

Craig: It’s not!

John: Rain hitting your eyes is not good.

Craig: It’s weird. That’s how turkeys drown.

John: Number five. So it’s a side angle, above-boob shower shot of women cleaning themselves after the previous events. So, it could be like a terrible date, or something awful happened, but it’s that sort of frantic scrubbing. Also in the bathroom here, things like shots are into the mirror, people washing their faces and looking up to examine their wet face in the mirror with their mouth open.

Yeah, people looking at themselves in mirrors is happening a little too much in movies overall, but that washing and then looking at yourself in the mirror, that’s just a kind of cliché.

Craig: Yeah, washing and looking at yourself in the mirror, I do feel like I can make a list of 20 movies that do that.

John: Not so good.

Craig: Good point. Next one we have is protagonist on mass transit, looking pensive. Everyone else also looking miserable. And maybe layered with some “melancholic electronica.”

John: Yeah, the point being, so you’re on mass transit. So, you don’t have a car, I guess. But just being miserable on a train is just, well, yeah, people are miserable on trains.

Craig: Don’t you get it man, we’re all alone. Together.

John: That’s what it means. Yeah. We’re all alone together. And everyone has got their headphones on. It’s meant to be a great, big point. No, not so much really. I think if you’re going to put somebody on a train, we should know the reason why they’re on that train. Something should happen that they’re on that train. Because if it’s just them going to work, then it’s just kind of a stock shot of people going to work.

Craig: Yeah. They’re sad on a train.

John: They’re sad on a train.

Next up, this would be a Mexican, or Sicilian, or Indian, or Iranian child running through the streets without a care in the world, smiling and laughing, running right by a mother who hardly notices them, so busy she is hanging laundry.

I do see that a lot. It’s sort of like a third world/happy children/mom is doing laundry.

Craig: Tired mom.

John: Tired mom.

Craig: Happy kids/tired mom. Yeah, I guess that, generally speaking the running, laughing children is annoying to me. [laughs]

John: [laughs]

Craig: You know, what is that? Is that a game? The run and laugh game? I don’t know that game.

John: Yeah, what are they doing? They’re running and laughing because they can. Maybe they have a stick in their hand and they’re running it across the fence.

Craig: Yeah. Exactly. And laughing. And, yeah, no, no.

John: Stop.

Craig: Cut it out.

Guy goes to open a safe, or refrigerator, or something like that and BOOM, all of a sudden we’re shooting from inside out that thing, looking out at them.

Yeah, that’s even cliché for bad commercials.

John: Yeah.

Craig: You know, the beer ads, you know.

John: It goes back to point of view. It’s like, so why are we inside the refrigerator? Is there a really good reason why we’re inside the refrigerator? I mean, is there an important story point happening in the refrigerator? Or are you just doing it so you can do it? And if you’re just doing it so you can do it, that’s probably not the best choice.

Craig: Yes.

John: Worst choices would be sort of like shooting up from the sink’s point of view, or something. Don’t do that.

Craig: Yeah. Unmotivated camera work. Just, why?

John: Next up. Epiphanies while jogging. So, often it’s like the big tracking shot, the gliding tracking shot. Then we pull up short while they suddenly have a revelation.

Yeah, you know, you can have good ideas while jogging. Things can happen. You can be interrupted from your jogging by something. But, if you suddenly stop short, and often the music will tell you that you had an epiphany. It’s like you’re responding to the score rather than actually to an event that happened.

Craig: It totally agree. There is this very famous moment from Good Times where the dad dies. He dies because John Amos wanted too much money. I think that was the actor’s name, John Amos. So, Norman Lear was like, “Eh, now you’re dead.”

And Esther Rolle, I believe, is the woman who played his wife. And they go through this whole episode where he’s dead, and the funeral and everything, and she’s kind of like keeping it together in this amazing way. And then at the very end she’s alone in her kitchen, she’s just cleaning up. And she just takes a dish and then she suddenly smashes it into the ground. She says, “Damn, damn, damn!” And it’s awesome.

And it’s awesome because she didn’t need to go jogging. There was no music. [laughs] It was absolutely quiet. And for sitcoms to be absolutely quiet it is very eerie. And you suddenly feel like, oh my god, I’m watching a reality show, because nothing is happening at all. They’re wasting broadcast time watching a woman literally clean for 20 seconds.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. And you don’t have to go in the rain, or jogging, or punch a punching bag to suddenly realize something important. “Damn, damn, damn!”

John: “Damn!”

You’re up.

Craig: Oh, yeah. Well, “Damn, damn…” I’ll just keep doing it. So good. That show is so good.

So, in documentaries, stock footage of 1950s appliance ads and educational reels for a goofy, eerie conformism effect. That is super, duper clammy. You know, the whole point is that the ’50s were terrible, and robotic, and nobody was free, and everybody was just a cog in a huge machine, when that’s not at all true; it’s just the style of making those movies of the time.

John: I also have a hunch that a lot of times the reason why we see them in documentaries is those are free to license. And so it’s a simple, easy thing to stick in there. And because we’ve seen them so much in documentaries it becomes sort of default, like, “Oh, we should cut to that.”

Craig: I mean, I think that there’s probably stuff from the ’60s and ’70s you could license as well with like that wah-wah-wah. Like, you know, when we were kids, remember those film strips? And they were always like wonka-wonka with the crazy Wah-wah pedal.

But, I think the point is like, “Ha, ha, ha, stupid ’50s people.” And you know, I’m sorry, they were just in a war. Lay off. There’s nothing wrong… — So, I’m sorry, they all worked in a factory and they all look clean. Oh, whoop-de-do.

John: It’s a terrible thing for that. Related in documentaries is that when you hold on a shot just slightly too long after someone said something ridiculous.

Craig: Yeah.

John: You get that. It’s just like leaving tails on something to sort of makes somebody look like an idiot.

Craig: I know. And you know what? It kind of bums me out. I happen to love Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! I don’t know if you ever watched that show on Showtime. It’s really good. They’re so smart. They’re so good. And they do such a great job of being skeptics, and certainly I am one of them.

But one thing they do that bums me out is that. They’re always having people say things, or responding, or saying a line, or responding to a question, and then they just hold on them pointlessly to make them look dumb. And that in and of itself is bullshit.

John: Yeah. Because really the reason why there’s that silence is because you haven’t said the next thing, and you’re creating that space for them to look stupid.

Craig: Right. Like there could be somebody talking on the other side of that, and they’re just listening. But if you take that audio out, then it just looks like they’re dummies that say a line and then suddenly turn off like robots running low on battery.

John: Yeah, it’s not good.

Craig: No.

John: This is an obvious cliché, but when something is blowing up behind somebody and they don’t look back or acknowledge it blowing up.

Craig: “Damn, damn, damn!”

John: [laughs] Uh, yeah. It’s been such an acknowledged cliché that to do it now it sort of has to be sort of, you have to do something special with it because we’ve just seen it way too much — the being cool while something is blowing up behind you.

Craig: Yeah. Yeah, that’s ridiculous.

John: That’s ridiculous.

Craig: Old-timey camera flashbulb close-up opening a shot. Often in slow-mo so you can see the scorching filament. And this is, yeah, with that sound that goes, [camera flash sound effect]. Yeah. That should stop.

John: Yeah. And actually that’s a perfect opportunity for us to transition to our third topic today which is about transitions. Because that is an example of a transition.

Craig: Right.

John: It’s sort of a hacky transition. But, it’s a transition that somebody probably wrote in there. Okay, maybe it was written into the script, or maybe it was a thing that was done on set with the anticipation of like, well, this will be our transition to get us into a new moment. A sudden flash of light that will carry us into a new world.

So, let’s talk about transitions because it’s an important part of screenwriting that we really haven’t touched on so much over our 88 episodes.

Craig: Well, one thing that we should probably say right off the bat is that there are people out there in the screenwriting advice world who spread this nonsense that writers shouldn’t direct on the page. “Don’t tell the director what to do.”

Oh, please! We’re not selling screenplays to directors. Directors aren’t hiring us to write. We’re writing screenplays for people to read so that they can see a movie. And part of our intention when we write screenplays is to show what the movie should look like. The director doesn’t have to do what you say on the page. But, you know what? I find that they tend to appreciate that you’ve written with transitions in mind because it’s really important to them. And, frankly, if you don’t write with transitions in mind, some directors aren’t going to notice and they’re just going to shoot what you wrote and then it won’t connect.

Transitions are a super important part of moving from one scene to the next so you don’t feel like you’re just dragging your feet through a swamp of story, but rather being propelled forward through it.

John: So, let’s clarify some terms. There’s two things we mean when we talk about transitions. And one is literally just the all uppercase on the right hand margin of the page, CUT TO, or TRANSITION TO, or FADE TO, or CROSS-FADE TO. That is the element of transition. That is a physical thing that exists in the syntax of screenwriting.

And we’re only kind of half talking about that. That’s a way of indicating that you are moving to something new. Most modern screenplays don’t use CUT TOs after every scene. That’s a thing that you were sort of originally taught to do. And you can sort of tell first time screenwriters because they will always say CUT TO.

Craig: Right.

John: In most cases you won’t really use a CUT TO. In personal life, I only use CUT TO if I have to really show that it’s a hard cut from something to another thing, to really show that I’m breaking time and space to go to this next thing.

Usually you won’t do that. Usually what you’ll do is you want a scene to flow into the next scene. And that’s really what I think we should talk about today is how do you get that feeling of we’re in this scene, and now we’re moving into the next scene, and there’s a reason why we left that scene at this moment, or we’re coming into this scene at this moment.

Craig: Yeah. And this is a very kind of nuts and bolts craft thing. There are techniques. I mean, I wrote down a few techniques which I will run through. And you tell me what you think.

John: Great.

Craig: The first and the easiest one is size. A size transition is to go from a very tight shot to a super wide shot, or to go from a very wide shot to a super close shot. Sometimes you can even be in a medium shot where two people are talking, and then the next thing you see is a close-up of a watch, and then we’re into a scene where somebody is checking the time.

So, just using the juxtaposition of size in and of itself helps feel like things are happening and they’re connected.

John: So, let’s talk about what it actually looks like on the page, because you’re not describing every shot in a movie obviously. But, if you were in a dialogue situation where it was two characters talking, and they’d been talking for awhile, the assumption is that you’re going to get into some fairly close coverage there. So, if it’s just about those two people, then if your next shot is described as a giant panorama of something, something, something, that is a big size transition.

Similarly, if you were to cut to the close-up of the watch, or some fine little detailed thing, then we’d say like, okay, that’s a huge size transition. Even if you’re not describing what that shot was on the outside, we have a sense of relative scale there. You don’t have to necessarily draw our attention to it, because we’ll notice that something different has happened.

Craig: It will help your reader see your movie instead of read it. I mean, it’s just real simple things like that.

Another simple one is music or sound. There’s nothing wrong with calling out a piece of music. It doesn’t have to even be a specific song. You may just say, okay, like we’re looking at two cops and they’re in the break room. They’re chitchatting. And then over the sound of hip-hop we are…and now we’re South Central, LA. Rolling down Crenshaw. Just to kind of help the reader understand there’s a connection here.

Similarly, you can use sounds. Two people are talking quietly about what needs to happen, and then the next thing we hear is a siren. And, by the way, you can pre-lap that audio, or you can have it just be a hard cut. But something that jolts us. In a weird way, the funny thing about transitions is they’re almost anti-transitional at times. It’s not about… — Because the point is you want people to understand I’m in a new place at a new time. And if it all just flows together like mush, it’s almost too transitional.

John: Absolutely. There are time where we want that really smooth legato sort of flow from one thing to the next thing. And there are times where you want big, giant, abrupt things, like that cliché flashbulb, to tell us we are at a new place at a new time, and brand new information can be coming your way.

Craig: Exactly. One cool thing you can do, I wouldn’t overdo it, but it’s fun here and there, is what I call misdirect transitions. So, a guy says, “They’ll never see us coming,” and he’s got a gun. And we go to a close-up, bullets going into the gun. Pull back to reveal, interior, it’s another character loading a gun.

John: Exactly.

Craig: Little tricks, basically.

John: Yeah, and again, that’s a thing where if you did that three times in a movie, you’d be golden. If you did that ten times in a movie, we would want to strangle you.

Craig: Probably. Unless it was just like everything was so clever and it’s kind of like a, I don’t know, like a Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels kind of movie or something.

John: Yeah, I was going to say sort of the Asian action films might do that more often. So, yeah, if that’s your style then it’s going to work, but otherwise it’s going to probably feel too much.

A similar related thing is Archer does these amazing transitions from scene to scene where a character will — they’ll pre-lap the character — they will pull a line of dialogue up above the cut that seems to be about the scene that you’re in, but it’s actually about a completely different moment that’s happening on the other side of the scene.

It’s very clever how they do it. And that’s a way of misdirecting you sort of comedically from what you thought you were talking about to something completely different.

Craig: Right. Exactly. And there is a general kind of, I suppose the most conventional transition is the pre-lapped audio. So, two people say, “Well, that didn’t go very well.” The next shot is a courthouse. And over the courthouse we see, “Everyone please come to order.” It’s the most standard kind of TVish thing. But, it helps you move at least inside and outside in ways that are not so clunky.

Another sort of tricky dialogue method is the question-and-answer transition.

John: Exactly.

Craig: Or, someone will say, “Someone isn’t telling us the truth.” And the next shot is a woman smiling. [laughs] You know? It’s just little, it doesn’t even have to be a dialogue answer in other words. But just the transition itself is giving us information.

John: That’s very much a TV procedural kind of thing. That’s a thing you would see in Law & Order where the “We need to find a witness who can…” and then the next shot is going to be the witness who can do that.

Craig: Right.

John: Or like this is the question we need to have answered. So you ask a question on one side of the cut and you come to a possible answer on the other side of the cut.

Craig: Right. Right. “Does anyone know where Luke is?” Cut. A guy on a boat. Drunk. You know?

John: In a very general sense, what you’re trying to do as you end a scene is you’re trying to put the reader’s head, and really the viewer’s head, in a place where they have a certain image in their head. And so when you come to the far side of that cut, that is changed or that is addressed in some meaningful way.

So, thematic cuts are another common way of doing this. A classic is sort of Lawrence of Arabia, the match that transitions to the sunset. That is a fire. There’s fire on both sides of the cut. So, you’re thinking fire, and then you see this giant image of a fiery sun. That is a natural transition.

Sometimes you’ll do that with imagery. Sometimes you’ll do that with a word that matches. Sometimes you’ll do it with a question that needs to be answered on the far side. Those are natural ways to sort of get people across the bridge there.

Craig: Yeah. The ones we’ve gone through here are very rudimentary. And they’re generic because we’re discussing them in generic terms. Find your own and find ones that are meaningful to you and your story. But really do make sure as you’re writing that you’re not just bone-on-bone here. That there is something that helps more us through, little tiny things.

It makes an enormous difference. It really, really does. And, frankly, it puts you in greater control over the movie that will eventually exist.

John: I would agree.

Another thing I would stress is that you probably want to save your powder a bit, and use those big transitional moments for big transitional moments. So, don’t paint a big giant landscape of something if it’s not an important moment that we’re going to, something new. Don’t always give us those big transitions. Some things should be sort of straight simple cuts, where we’re just getting from one thing to the next, so that when we do the bigger thing we as the reader will notice, “Okay, something big and different has changed here.”

When you’re reading through scripts, after awhile, well, the first couple scripts you read, you probably read every word because it’s all a new form to you. But after you’ve read like 30 scripts, you recognize that you stop actually reading the INT/EXT lines basically. They sort of just skip past you. And you can sometimes jump back at them if you’re curious, but you’re really just sort of looking for the flow of things.

And so most times you’re just jumping over that; you don’t really kind of know or care where you are. So, even though we tell people to be very specific in those things and give us those details, a lot of times people aren’t going to read those. They’re just going to read the first line of action that happens after the scene header, if you’re lucky.

So, save those bigger moments for the bigger moments that you really want that reader to stop, and slow down, and pay attention to the fact that we are in a new place, a new time, this is a new section of the movie.

Craig: Well said. Well said.

John: Great. Craig, are you ready for some One Cool Things?

Craig: I have Two Cool Things.

John: I have Six Cool Things.

Craig: I have Twelve Cool Things.

John: It’s going to be an arms race. You go first.

Craig: Okay, well one is fast and one is a little longer, but they’re both sort of linked together by charity and the notion of charity.

The first Cool Thing is that, and I had no idea this was going on, but studios are —

I read this in the LA Times. This was forwarded to me by Todd Amorde at the Writers Guild. Studios are donating their old sets to Habitat for Humanity. And Habitat for Humanity actually, they’re not using the sets to build houses, because sets are not built for people to live in, but what they do is they sell a lot of the stuff that they get to people, and then they collect the money and they use that help build homes for people.

And , in fact, The Hangover Part III sent over a whole big bunch of stuff to them, ten truckloads of stuff, [laughs], to Habitat for Humanity. And there is an interesting — there is a scene that happens in the movie in a cellar basement, and the walls were this kind of cool faux brick, rocky wall kind of stuff. And I remember thinking, “Oh, that looks real.”

John: It’s actually just foam, right? It’s painted foam?

Craig: It’s kind of painted foam. And somebody bought that stuff. [laughs] “Habitat received about 60 sheets of faux brick wall used for a wine cellar set in The Hangover Part III. One customer bought 40 sheets for $25 each to use in a custom-made space.” Now, I may not want to go to that spa, that might be weird, but I think that’s cool. So, well done — Sony, I think, kicked this thing off. But, they’re all doing it now. That’s really, really great.

I never really thought, oh, where did all that stuff go?

The other thing is a repeat of something that we helped promote last year, and that’s Joe Nienalt who is a screenwriter is once again dong the fundraising for the Heart Walk 2013/2014. Last year they raised almost $45,000. And they are looking to do it again.

And they are doing their same campaign. And the way it works — listen up people who say, “No one will read my script. No one is going to read my script!” Well, shut it. Here’s the story:

Daniel Vang is a manager at Benderspink. They are a real, legitimate production management company, unlike some of the people cited in your average Brooks Barnes article. [laughs] Is that his name, Brooks Barnes?

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Brooks Barnes. Eh. I tried to forget his name.

Anyway, they’re real producers. They’re real managers. Daniel Vang is an actual human being who reads things and is involved in this business. If you donate $25, Daniel will read the first ten pages of your script. If you donate $50, he will read the first 50 pages. If it’s great, he’ll keep going.

If you donate $100, he will read your entire script. $100 and a guy at Hollywood will read your script. Not a guru. An actual guy. And here’s the best part: He doesn’t pocket the money! It goes to charity. It goes to the American Heart Association.

So, we’re going to put the link on John’s website, so you can go there and take advantage of this. And stop whining. “No one will read my script!” Save a life. Do something positive for once!

John: Absolutely. The angry man is yelling at you to do something positive.

Craig: Do it! [laughs] Stupid idiot!

John: [laughs] No, it sounds very good. And so last year a lot of people did take advantage of that, obviously. And I think it’s a great opportunity for people to get their scripts read.

Craig: For sure. Do it.

What about you? What’s your One Cool Thing? Couldn’t be cooler than saving lives, but okay.

John: So, for the last 12 years, 13 years, I’ve had an assistant. And so I’ve had a string of assistants who have all gone on to do really, really well. And I got to thinking about them over this time that I was in Chicago because Stuart — poor Stuart who edits this show, god bless Stuart — was here sort of alone, keeping the home fires burning. And working on his own crafts and projects.

But this summer was actually a very eventual summer for many of my former assistant, so I thought I would actually sort of go back through my last six assistants — my only six assistants — and just sort of track their progress.

Craig: This honestly is an amazing thing.

John: [laughs] So, Stuart is my current assistant. And Stuart keeps all the stuff running here. So, god bless Stuart.

My assistant before him was Matt Byrne. Matt Byrne is working on Scandal now. And when he started working on Scandal it was like, oh, that show, is it going to last? Is it going to work? The ratings were dicey. Now the ratings are really, really good. I think it’s the top drama running right now.

Matt was just — so he’s a staff writer on Scandal. And he was just today in a podcast for Scandal. So, I will put a link to the podcast in which Matt talks about his role in Scandal.

Craig: Nice.

John: It’s been fascinating to watch Matt sort of become a big TV writer, which is fantastic.

Chad Creasey and his wife Dara Creasey, Chad was my assistant before Matt, they are writers on Mistresses which is a show that airs on ABC this summer. It’s very exciting for them.

Craig: Excellent.

John: Dana Fox, who is a friend of the show, Dana ran the show Ben and Kate. She has written a gazillion movies. But this last week she got named Hollywood Reporter’s Comedy Class of 2013.

Craig: Nice!

John: For all of her rewriting.

Craig: And she is a member of The Fempire.

John: She is a member of The Fempire.

Craig: She is a Femporer.

John: Yes. With Diablo Cody and the other very talented women who write movies and television shows.

Craig: Yes.

John: Rawson Thurber, who was my assistant before Dana…

Craig: The king of them all.

John: The king of them all. Well, he got engaged which is why I’m so personally happy for him, but he also has a movie coming out this summer called We’re the Millers.

Craig: Wait a second — he got engaged just recently?

John: Yeah.

Craig: No way. I thought…okay. So, I’m so traditional. I was at his house, I met his — now — his fiancé. I thought, oh, I guessed he’s married. Stupid me. Wasn’t even engaged.

John: No. So, we’re very happy that he got engaged. And we’re very happy he has a movie coming out this summer.

Craig: Yeah. Great guy. Great guy.

John: Great guy. And, so back to my very first assistant who predated Rawson by only like two days, but Sean Smith had a baby.

Craig: Hooray! Congratulations Sean.

John: Sean Smith, who is a television writer, who created the TV show Greek, just had a baby. So, yay!

Craig: Nice. So he made life.

John: He made life. Other people made television shows, but he made life.

Craig: Now, you’ve got to be leaving out one assistant who is like, eh, he’s in his mom’s basement.

John: I’ve had essentially really no dud assistants. The only people who I’m sort of leaving out are people who like filled in for a week at a time, but those are not the real assistant people.

Craig: So, Stuart, I assume, sits there thinking, “Soon it will be my time.”

John: Soon it will be Stuart’s time.

Craig: Yes.

John: It was tough while I was in Chicago because I didn’t have — for the first time I didn’t have an assistant. I didn’t have like a full time person who was my person. So, I ended up drafting in some people from the music department. And there was an observer from the Director’s Choreographers Guild who was there, who ended up sort of de facto becoming my assistant because there were things that I needed someone to do. So, Amber Mak, I thank you very much for that.

But, it was weird sort of just being solo for a time, and having to figure out how to get this thing to print. So, I’m very grateful to be back with an assistant.

Craig: Well, that sounds wonderful. I have assistants — I underutilize them. I tend to do everything myself. Sometimes I forget that there is somebody who can do it.

John: Honestly, the last ten years have been a process of gradually recognizing that certain jobs are better performed by somebody who is not me. And so with an assistant, and then with Ryan Nelson who does all the digital stuff for us. I was recognizing that people have skills that they’re better at.

And when directing a movie I’ve had to definitely step back and recognize that I have an idea of how to light a scene, but I should never be anywhere near a light. I shouldn’t really edit. I sort of know how to edit, but I really shouldn’t edit. These are things that people are going to be better at than I am. And it’s not about humbling, it’s empowering when you realize that someone else can do that job.

Craig: When you’re directing, also, your personal life needs to be attended to. I mean, you suddenly are like a baby.

John: Yes.

Craig: Somebody has to put food in your mouth for you.

John: Yeah. Someone has to like literally bring food and say, “Eat this food,” because otherwise you will not eat that food.

Craig: Right. Exactly.

John: It’s a good thing.

So, listeners, if there is anything that we talked about on today’s show that you would like to find a link for, well, you can find links at johnaugust.com/podcast. And so all the previous episodes will be there as well, but on this episode you will see links to things like the Heart Walk. What was the thing called? The Heart Walk?

Craig: Yeah. The Heart Walk.

John: Heart Walk. See things to the podcast that Matt is featured in. You’ll see stuff for this lawsuit.

Craig: And the sketch for between one and two glasses of wine. [laughs]

John: [laughs] Exactly. We’ll have Stuart find that and put that as well.

Craig: Yes.

John: If you like the show, you can subscribe to us in iTunes. That helps other people find us. You can leave us a comment there. I was looking at comments today. People leave really nice comments for us.

Craig: I got to go. I haven’t been back in a long time. I tend to spend my time on the internet just reading the terrible things people say.

Some guy out of nowhere the other day, some guy sends me a tweet. I just love these people. They’re like, “You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to send a guy a tweet telling him he’s not funny. That’ll be fun.”

John: That’ll be good.

Craig: Why don’t I do that? Let me start a fight.

John: Yeah. That will make everyone’s day better if you say that kind of thing.

Craig: Right.

Oh, well, okay. All right, fine, I guess I’m not funny. But you didn’t make me any funnier. You didn’t make me less funny. I’m as you found me.

What’s wrong with people?

John: I don’t know what’s wrong with people.

Craig: What is the story?

John: So, Craig, I would like to propose — and we haven’t talked about this — so I’m going to propose it here on the air. I would like to propose for next week, perhaps, that if people have a question that’s not about screenwriting, but about like their personal life, or other advice, they send in that question.

Craig: Whoa!

John: Because I feel like we talk a lot about sort of screenwriting here, but we have a lot of listeners who are not screenwriting people. And we have a lot of opinions.

Craig: We do. And we’re so wise!

John: So, next week let’s have an episode that’s just entirely off-topic.

Craig: Oh, yeah.

John: Where we just talk about what should, you know, really anything is fair game. And so obviously we’ll pick which questions we’re going to actually answer.

Craig: Sex.

John: But I’d like a very wide, I’m going to cast a very wide net here.

Craig: Sex.

John: So, anything you would like us to answer, we’ll happily try to answer on the podcast next week.

Craig: Sex.

John: Sex. I’m happy to talk about sex. It can be our first sort of mature-rated thing. I’m happy to talk about sex.

Craig: I think this is a great idea. More than anything, because I’m kind of fascinated to see what you think about some of these things?

John: I’m happy to talk about it.

Craig: I feel like the two of us are so different but we’re so similar. We have different styles.

John: We are really different about a lot of stuff.

Craig: We are. But I feel like we always end up in the same place.

John: I think it’s largely because I create a very open space where I allow you to be over on the edge of crazy.

Craig: [laughs]

John: I say like, well, it’s fine that you’re on the precipice of crazy. Here’s the other side of that line.

Craig: I get it. I get it. You’re just humoring me. That’s cool, too. I think it’s going to be a great show.

John: [laughs] I think it should be a good, fun show. So, we’ll encourage people to send in any question you want to ask about anything. You can send those questions to ask@johnaugust.com. You can also tweet us if it’s something short, but why don’t you just send us a longer thing and we’ll read it on the air?

Craig: “Dude, you’re not funny.”

John: Yeah. That’s always a good thing to say.

Craig: “Be funnier.”

John: “Be funnier.”

Craig: Okay! All right, Twitter. I’ll get on that.

John: That’s going to be good. Last thing, so if you want to see me tomorrow night at The Academy, there should still be tickets left. I don’t know, we’re recording this on a Friday, so who knows. But they tell us that even if it is sold out, they always have a line. And people who are in line almost always get in.

So, if you want to come see us tomorrow at 7:30 — me tomorrow at 7:30 at The Academy — you can come to that. And you can mark your calendars for — god, I’m going to forget the days — June 29th and July 28th for live podcasts.

[Sirens in background.]

Craig: Nice. Look, the sirens are coming. The sirens are coming to tell us it’s over.

John: This is the end of the episode.

Craig: This is it.

John: So, Craig, thanks for a good podcast and I’ll see you next week.

Craig: Thanks John. Bye.

John: Bye.

LINKS:

  • Turning the Page: Storytelling in the Digital Age at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater
  • The Inebriati from That Mitchell and Webb Look
  • Paramount & MGM Sued By ‘G.I. Joe’ Writers and the complaint from Deadline
  • Twenty Shots to Be Henceforth Retired from Film Vocabulary on Reverse Shot
  • The Los Angeles Times on Studios donating film set materials to Habitat for Humanity
  • Joe Nienalt and Daniel Vang’s will-read-your-script fundraiser for the American Heart Association
  • Listen to Scandal Revealed episode 221 featuring Matt Byrne
  • Chad & Dara Creasey are on Mistresses on ABC
  • The Hollywood Reporter Comedy Class of 2013’s writeup on Dana Fox (and John Hamburg)
  • Rawson Thurber’s We’re the Millers on Wikipedia
  • New dad Sean Smith on IMDb
  • Email us or Tweet John and Craig your questions on anything
  • OUTRO: Cyndi Lauper’s Girls Just Want to Have Fun covered by Busby Marou

Scriptnotes, Ep 83: A city born of fire — Transcript

April 4, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/a-city-born-of-fire).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 83 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Now, Craig, I think this is a first for us, because this is the first time where not only are we not in the same space, but we are not even in our usual home cities. We are both on the road.

**Craig:** We’re both on the road. This is a road game for both of us. We are in, I believe, the first and second great cities of this United States.

**John:** They’re pretty amazing cities. You’re in New York City, right?

**Craig:** Yes ma’am.

**John:** I’m in Chicago.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** And I’m here in Chicago. We’re doing Big Fish. I don’t even know why you’re in New York. You’re just seeing musicals? What are you doing?

**Craig:** You know, took a little short, short three/four day jaunt out here just to see some friends that I hadn’t seen in a long time. This is my hometown. And, also, yeah, I did want to see a couple of show and I’m visiting Scott Frank on the set of his new movie that he wrote and is directing called A Walk Among the Tombstones.

**John:** Very exciting. Tonight is also a special podcast because it’s the second ever podcast in which we’ve had a special guest here with us. Our special guest today is Derek Haas who is the screenwriter, along with his writing partner Michael Brandt, of movies like Wanted and 3:10 to Yuma. He co-created Chicago Fire. And also is a novelist. He has a book out right now called The Right Hand. Derek Haas, welcome to our podcast.

**Derek Haas:** I am thrilled to be here as a giant fan of this podcast. It is fun to watch the sausage get made.

**John:** So, I want to talk about Chicago Fire. I want to talk about screenwriting. I want to talk about book writing. We have a couple of things that were already on our agenda before you agreed this morning to be on our podcast, so you can join on these topics as well, all right?

**Craig:** No!

**John:** First off I want to talk about some comments that Amy Pascal made at the LA Gay & Lesbian Center about sort of responsibility in terms of using gay slurs in movies.

Second, I want to talk about refrigerator logic. Refrigerator logic is something we hear a lot in terms of movies and TV shows. I have sort of a special case with Big Fish that we’re doing right now called “balcony logic” that I want to talk through.

And then we’ll talk special stuff with our special guest, because we have a person here who has done movies, and now television, and writes books. And so I want to talk about the differences between those.

So, let’s get started. First off, Craig, you had emailed me this last week about it was a Deadline Hollywood article recapping what Amy Pascal said. It was the March 21 LA Gay & Lesbian Center Fundraiser. And it was actually a pretty long speech, but one of the things she said — the quote that started getting excepted — was, “How about next time when any of us are reading a script and it says words like ‘fag,’ or ‘faggot,’ or ‘homo,’ or ‘dyke,’ take out a pencil and just cross it out.” That was sort of the excerpted quote.

And so it raised the issue of responsibility and to what degree are filmmakers, writers, studios responsible for the kinds of words we’re using in our work. And since you highlighted, Craig, what are you thinking?

**Craig:** This is what she said that I thought was right. She said, look, there are a lot of moments in movies where gay or lesbian characters, or transsexual characters, or transgender characters are either a joke, or are pathological and are a punch line. And that words like “fag” are essentially a joke of weakness, and that’s true. That has been the case for a long, long time.

So, on the one hand, I think she’s right to say that joke should end. Now, is it the bravest stance to make now? No, because it’s not as funny anymore. The thing about comedy is that things stop being funny at some point.

When Don Rickles used to go out and make fun of people’s race in a way that was off, it was funny then. It’s less so funny now. Whereas somehow Lisa Lampanelli manages to still make it kind of funny because it’s almost like it’s meta, like I’m making fun of racism while I am racist. So, funny is funny, not funny is not funny. And just simply saying “fag,” that joke is done. It’s just not funny anymore.

But there is a question that I want to put back to you, because one of the things I thought was odd was that she was also calling out movies in which characters are gay but tragic in some way, and she was sort of saying, “And that’s no good either.” But, I don’t know, my thing is tragic characters are why we make movies. They’re interesting.

So, she was singling out Brokeback Mountain, The Talented Mr. Ripley, My Own Private Idaho. Some of these movies were made by gay people, like for instance My Own Private Idaho. And I’m not sure that we should be replacing casual homophobia and gay as silly and funny in a pejorative with an over-fastidiousness so that gay characters have to somehow be saintly. I don’t know if it’s worse, but it’s certainly no more desirable to me.

**John:** I would agree with you on many of your points. The challenge becomes how do you represent a group of people who historically have been sort of either underrepresented or poorly represented on screen without sort of deifying them in a way that doesn’t feel good and appropriate.

So, as a gay person, I guess I’m allowed to say all those words, but I get really uncomfortable seeing any of those words in our media. I don’t like to see them in movies. I certainly don’t like to see them on television. I get a little bit frustrated, but obviously any Deadline Hollywood comments section is going to be a disaster anyway.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. For sure.

**John:** So, you don’t want to sort of go there for your insights into humanity, but I get frustrated with the cries of like, “Oh, this is censorship,” or “This is ridiculous,” or “It’s not reflecting reality,” where it’s like, well, no. If someone raises a challenge saying let’s not use these words because they’re really stupid words that aren’t helpful in how we’re going to portray — how we’re going to make our movies — that’s not censorship. That’s someone saying like let’s not use those words. And it’s not government coming in and saying you cannot use those words anymore.

Derek, you’re making a TV show right now. You couldn’t use any of those words in your TV show.

**Derek:** No, we couldn’t. But I do get uncomfortable with the notion that something needs to be crossed out of the script when it’s really — it’s not the author making a statement as much as it is sometimes a character that makes a statement. And you want to show a guy as a villain, or a guy as an idiot, or uneducated, and through the course of history you have the bad guy kick a dog, or you have the bad guy do something, you know, a bully to a student.

And to just say unilaterally we’re not going to do that anymore because somebody might get offended, I get worried about that kind of stuff. I remember I wrote in a book once that the train station in Naples was a toilet in a bathroom town, and I got an email from someone from Naples. And it said, “How could you say this about my city?”

And I said, “I didn’t say this about your city, this character said it in the book.” And it was that character’s point of view. It wasn’t my point of view.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s the one area where we just have to make sure that our scruples don’t impact what we do. The job of Hollywood isn’t to create some sort of Disneyland of happiness where bad things don’t happen. Quite the opposite. Drama relies on bad things. Drama relies on bad people. And even if you’re not talking about villains, even if you’re talking about a hero, a lot of times drama relies on complicated human beings, anti-heroes sometimes who are difficult people.

And we are fascinated by that. We’re fascinated by the audacious. So, the one thing that she said though that I thought was correct, and this is hard, I think, for a lot of writers in particular is that sexuality and sexual orientation specifically doesn’t need to be some sort of defining characteristic. It doesn’t have to metastasize to become the point of that character.

Frankly, it was the two I guess you’d say lead characters in Go that were the first gay characters I saw who were gay incidental to everything about what they were doing, which was — and no surprise that it took a gay man to write those characters initially, I think. I mean, I’m sure there were characters before that, John, but those were the first ones I saw on screen where it was like, well that’s — in fact, it was so unique that I remember thinking, “Huh, it’s almost like a twist,” you know, that they were gay. And who cares?

So, I would love to see, I think as we as a society become so unconcerned with it, it’s almost like this latest thing over marriage and everything, everything that’s going on right now is the last gasp of an old way of thinking that we will all be so bored with sexual orientation as we ought to be that we’ll start to see this more and more as being gay will be right up there with wearing glasses, or being bald.

So, that was a good thing to sort of call out.

**John:** Stepping back from the gay conversation specifically and turn to what words we use, I know I’ve hit this, and I suspect both of you have encountered this at some point. If you have a character say “retarded” anymore, you will get an incredible outpouring of criticism for any character saying “retarded” anymore. It’s become one of those incredibly loaded words, to the degree where like even if, “A descent is retarded by air resistance,” I will get people saying, “You can’t use that word, ‘retarded.'” It’s like, no, that’s actually what it means; it means to be slowed down.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s like there was a city councilman near Oakland who got in trouble, or it was an official who lost his job because he used the word “niggardly,” which is from a Swedish rude word that just means stingy. Oh, god.

**John:** Yeah, I’m very mindful that we have to be careful that we don’t set such fences around certain words that we can’t even have the characters say them anymore. That’s obviously a huge concern. And so it’s become to the point where like I don’t want to enter that fight anymore, so I won’t have a character say that word anymore. I don’t know that I’m making the world a better or a worse place for not using the word anymore; I just know I don’t want to deal with those conversations anymore, so I will find a way around that.

I don’t think that’s good for writing. I don’t think it’s good for — it’s just good for my choices in terms of what I’m going to spend my time fighting.

**Craig:** I don’t mind taking that fight. We’ll talk about, you know, I’m having my little Broadway week and just saw Book of Mormon. And even though it wasn’t news to me because I’ve listened to the soundtrack so many times, that’s a show that doesn’t shy away from words that otherwise people tell you you can’t use.

And I think we should not deprive ourselves of the right to be audacious, or to be transgressive. And so I’m willing to fight. I’m willing to fight as long as I feel like it is audacious. There’s nothing audacious about a gay slur anymore. It’s just old and boring.

**John:** And lazy.

The next topic I want to get to is refrigerator logic. And so refrigerator logic is one of those tropes that you can see if you go to tvtropes.com you will see all the tropes that you sort of see in TV shows and movies again, and again, and again. And one of them is refrigerator logic. And that is the idea that something will make sense as you’re sort of watching it, and then later on, like a half an hour after the show has ended and you’re at your refrigerator, staring at your refrigerator, you go, “Wait, how could you have gotten from Melbourne to Los Angeles in half an hour?”

It’s the logic that makes sense while you’re watching it an then actually sort of falls apart while you’re looking into your refrigerator. And so I looked up sort of the history of it, and apparently it comes from what Hitchcock calls an “Icebox Scene.” And an icebox scene is something that after the fact you realize like didn’t actually make sense, but it worked in the course of the story at the time.

A weird thing that I am encountering right now as we’re doing Big Fish, and so we’re in our last week of tech rehearsal, and actually by the time this podcast airs, Tuesday is our opening day, so I will be a puddle of anxiety on the floor.

**Derek:** I’m going that night. Take that, Craig Mazin.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Derek Haas gets to go there. Our first performance. One of the fascinating things I’m encountering right now is we’ve been though the show so many times and I’ve described it on the podcast before that it’s like a combination of production and post-production where every day you’re making new stuff, but you’re also just going back over the same thing again, again, and again. It’s like you’re looking at the Avid except it’s live people in front of you and you’re sort of moving around and making little tiny cuts.

But one of the things we’re encountering this last week is the difference between being in a rehearsal studio and watching something, and being like back in the audience, or in this case being on the balcony watching something, there are moments that make perfect sense when you’re ten feet away that make much less sense when you’re 50 feet away. And sometimes you have to change something because it doesn’t make sense from 50 feet away. So, I’m calling it balcony logic.

And it’s just such a different thing that we encounter in movies or TV because in movies or TV we cut to the close up or we add a loop line to make something clear. And here you have to make sure like is it clear what that prop that person is holding from a distance is? Is it clear that he is talking about his father who is that person over there? Do I need to change that pronoun back to “my father” so we clear up who he’s really referring to, because if you can’t really see who he’s pointing to or who he’s nodding his head to, that it’s the same character.

It’s been really fascinating to bump in to. And so I wanted to have a little conversation about refrigerator logic and those little things that you don’t necessarily notice when you’re writing on the page, that make perfect sense on the page, but are different in real life. And, Derek, maybe you can start with this, because you must encounter this all the time shooting episode after episode of your TV show.

**Derek:** Yeah, now with TV the thing that I wasn’t ready for, because this is our first year to ever do it, and we’re about to shoot our 22nd episode, so now I feel like an old hat — a year later. But how rapid the process is, and therefore how rapid the notes are, and how you’ll have to get a network and a studio’s notes with only a couple of days to spare before we’re going to go shoot this thing.

And what I’ve really tried to do in this refrigerator logic scenario is try to maintain the idea that I don’t care if the dumbest person doesn’t get what’s going on. And I think a lot of times the notes will default to, “Well, I understand what this is, but I’m not sure the dumbest person in America is going to understand what this is, so you guys need to put in a loop line that says he’s his brother.”

And one of the big fights that we’ll have is we’ll say, “We don’t care.” If the dumbest person doesn’t get it, that doesn’t matter to me. I want the smart people to be serviced in this idea. So, you’re always walking a thin line.

**John:** Well, I want to distinguish a little between you’re talking notes that somebody gives about this moment, like the smartest person in the room, there’s a line in The Nines saying, “I didn’t think we were making it for dumb people.”

**Derek:** Right.

**John:** And that’s very much the case. And looping is often kind of there for the dumb people, like someone might not get it. Or the argument that TV is sort of like radio with pictures and you should be able to understand it even if you’re in the other room making an omelet.

One of the things that I think has been great about TV over the last decade is we’ve gotten away from that. And so you really do actually have to watch the show in order to understand stuff and it’s more sophisticated.

**Derek:** Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. We always resort to the “no one in the world is going to think that.” That’s what we’ll say back to the studio. “No one in the world is going to wonder whether or not he’s his brother. So, we’re just going to keep it as it is,” which is never a good thing when you get to that point.

**Craig:** Well, you know, there’s this book called Everything Bad is Good for You. And one of the theories is that the narrative of television and movies has become so much more complicated that it is good for your brain to keep track of it all.

You look at a show like Game of Thrones, and you find yourself actually doing the math as required at the speed it is required. If you were to actually sit down and write the names of every character on that show that you’ve been following, or The Wire, or The Sopranos, you would be shocked at how many storylines you can keep a track of.

And there’s two issues going on here. One is the teaching to the slowest kid in the room theory, because yes, it is very frustrating for dummies to not know what’s going on. It is also frustrating for plugged in audience members to feel like they’re being spoon fed stuff. There’s nothing worse than a character on screen telling you something you already know.

So, who are you pitching the movie towards? And that’s something that you have to figure out. There’s this other thing going on which is actual logic problems in a narrative. When we’re writing things, sometimes we want to do something. He’s here and we really — we know that what this movie needs is for him to be over here in the next scene doing this. The problem is it doesn’t make sense. It would be dramatically satisfying, if only it made sense. So, you have to figure out how to make sense of it, or not.

And now here’s the tricky part, because movies unlike stage, which is unfolding in real time, movies are elliptic –they’re dream like. And you can play around with things. And there are times when, frankly, you can just get away with it. It’s a saccade basically, and they won’t notice, or they don’t care. Then there are other times they will notice and they do care and you have to figure out the difference. You have to have a sense of what the difference is.

In general I find that screenwriters are far more — far more — interested and capable of logic than directors. I find that a lot of directors just think that if you just keep moving the pace, energy, vision, and sound will make the rest of it not quite as important. And sometimes I find myself arguing for logic, because I just feel like, “Well, but that just…”

And I’m kind of curious what you guys have to say about this. I don’t get into fights about much, but I will plant my flag if something is just incorrect. If it’s illogical to the point where anybody at home would say, “This movie didn’t need to happen because of that.” I just don’t want these fatal flaws in there. And I lose sometimes. I lose big.

**John:** I think the dream logic thing is a crucial argument because what you’re saying is you don’t want there to be such a fundamental flaw that pierces the little bubble of dream that you’ve created in the movie.

If it sticks out so much that you cannot continue to suspend disbelief in the movie, because like, “well that’s actually impossible,” then that’s going to be a huge problem. And other things you are willing to sort of let slide because within the course of the world it could possibly be true. So, a small example would be like your character is capable of flying a helicopter. It’s like, well, you haven’t set up that he can fly a helicopter, it may be a stretch.

But if the character is like an adventurous type of person it’s like, okay, you believe he can fly a helicopter. But if that suburban house mom is flying a helicopter, you’re not going to accept that. And it’s now going to be like the refrigerator that you’re going to have the question, “No way is that soccer mom flying a helicopter. I know a helicopter is too difficult to fly.”

**Derek:** But you as the writer, you have such an opportunity to go back and put in what you need to put in to make that scene in the second act, or the third act, work. So, a lot of times you’re such a slave to your outline that you think, “Oh well, I didn’t set up that she could fly a helicopter, so therefore no wonder the director is bumping on page 60 when I have her flying a helicopter.”

But you as the writer can go back in to page 12 and make it so that she has an army background, and you might not have known this but before she was a housewife she was a spy. Whatever you need to do to fix the logic, it doesn’t matter what you had in your outline; if you want somebody to get from point A to point B as Craig described, and it doesn’t make sense on page 60, well that’s usually a page 12 problem.

**Craig:** But, I’ll say though that sometimes the fixes are so awful because you’re attempting to fix logic, and you’re fixing it, but in doing so all you’re really doing is introducing a logic fix. And my favorite example is in Batman & Robin, which we all remember fondly; they wanted Mr. Freeze to be looking for a cure for his wife. His wife had a fatal disease called McGregor Syndrome. Terrible name.

**Derek:** Okay. Okay.

**Craig:** And she was going to die, so he froze her. And everything he’s doing is to find a cure for McGregor Syndrome so that he can thaw her out, give her the cure, and get his wife back. Okay. Fine.

They wanted very much to put Batman on some sort of ticking clock disease-wise to tie him into that whole story. So, they decided let’s give him McGregor Syndrome. The problem is, of course, if you give Batman McGregor Syndrome, he’s going to die, too, because there’s no cure. Ah ha!

Okay, so what should we do? We need to have a situation where they can be a cure for Batman for McGregor Syndrome but there can’t be a cure for Mrs. Freeze, because you know, it’s not going to happen.

**Derek:** “You’re a popsicle.”

**Craig:** “Everybody chill.” Now, it may have been Alfred that had McGregor Syndrome. Regardless, here was their logic fix: There’s a McGregor Syndrome Stage 1, and a McGregor Syndrome Stage 2. And Mrs. Freeze has McGregor Syndrome Stage 2.

Now, I’m sorry, but that just stinks. It’s so stinks. It stinks on ice!

**John:** Yeah. That’s story shoe leather. You’ve introduced a whole other sort of journey that we have to go on to accommodate one very small thing. But, Derek, you write books, and so I would say some of the stuff that we’re talking about here, it could be frustrating and challenging because we’re doing it in a very time-based sort of medium is much simpler to do in a novel. Is that correct?

**Derek:** Yeah, well, there’s no deadline. The deadline is of your making. I do remember in the first book that I wrote, The Silver Bear, I needed the main character to find this guy he hadn’t seen in 20 years. And when I got to that point in the book I went back into the earlier part of the book and I put in basically a mistake that the guy had said when they first met that would give away where his hometown was.

And it was one of those things where I didn’t — you know, refrigerator logic, I didn’t have an answer, and it would have taken me, you know, I would have had to manufacture a chapter of how to hunt this guy down, or I could back in and put a sentence in earlier that made it seem like, oh wow, he planned this all the way from the beginning, but, I didn’t…

**John:** I would just say like in a book you have abilities to do things we just can’t do in film and TV. Like in film and TV we’re limited to what you can see and what you can hear. You have introspection in ways that are just completely different.

**Derek:** Good point.

**John:** And so if you want to say that this guy can fly a helicopter, one sentence.

**Derek:** Exactly.

**John:** “Back when he learned to fly a helicopter in,” whatever, could do it, like in a clause you could take care of that problem. It doesn’t have to be a scene. It doesn’t have to be a line of dialogue. It’s actually just part of the book’s [power].

**Derek:** Craig, I have a question for you.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Derek:** How many years of doing this podcast did it take to get to a Batman & Robin example?

**Craig:** The entire length of it. So, however long we’ve been doing it we are now at T-minus zero, finally.

**Derek:** Okay, perfect.

**John:** The podcast officially began today with our Batman & Robin thing.

So, refrigerator logic, I want to go back to that definition. So, it’s the kind of thing which you’re willing to let pass as you encounter it in a story. And it’s only afterwards, like, “Huh? Okay.” So, one of the classic examples is Sydney Bristow in Alias, like somehow she’s able to get form place to place just sort of magically teleport. Like whatever plane/flight she’s taking are happening faster than the speed of light because she’s able to get around and stuff.

But you just sort of accept it because that’s sort of the thrill of the show.

**Derek:** They do those in the spy movies all the time, be it Bourne or in Bond where we want to see an awesome action sequence, but we don’t really want to see how this guy packed his luggage and got on the plane to Belize, and then went through the airport customs…

**Craig:** Right.

**Derek:** And then somehow he’s got his gun still. We don’t want to think about those things, so audiences have accepted that they can just show up.

**John:** And travel has sort of gotten cut out of movies almost all together, which is mostly a good thing. The old movies you used to see them packing their bags, and go to the airport, and fly the plane. We needed to have all of that stuff to fill in there.

But I think excerpting all those sequences, we’ve also sort of accepted the idea that it takes any time to go any place, which can be a little bit frustrating.

**Craig:** We also don’t watch anyone eat anymore. And we’ve never watched anyone go to the bathroom.

**Derek:** That’s why Pulp Fiction, that was such a great shocking scene showing Travolta sitting on the toilet reading a book.

**Craig:** Yeah. Right.

**Derek:** And that’s a good thing to your listeners from a screenwriting standpoint is, okay, if no one is showing us how somebody gets on an airplane anymore, well show us an interesting one, because that’s going to cut through the clutter of what everybody else is reading.

**John:** And the second topic, sort of the derivative topic, is balcony logic, which is really that thing where if you aren’t clear what somebody is doing you can sometimes just stop paying attention. If you sort of get off the train a little bit, like you don’t know what somebody is taking about, you don’t know who they’re talking about, you can just sort of slide off the train. And that’s something that we would usually do in post-production.

It’s like you’re watching a scene and it’s like, “I don’t remember — I can’t actually focus on what they’re talking about. I can’t see what that is — can you give me a close up of that thing?” We don’t have any close ups in theater, so it’s been really interesting to have to sometimes create the close up, either by re-referencing something, or literally just changing a prop, like, “That key is too small, I can’t see it from the balcony. We need a bigger key.”

**Craig:** We need a giant key!

**John:** Literally, the key now, the key to the city of Ashton is pretty damn big now. That’s the way it needs to be so you can actually see it in the back row.

**Craig:** There is…no, go ahead.

**John:** No, you go, Craig.

**Craig:** Well, there’s this other thing, there’s another phrase that’s also tangentially related to all of this called “pie talk.” And I don’t know if Gore Verbinski coined it or not, but I heard it first from Ted Elliott who heard it from Gore Verbinski. Pie talk is this: You see the movie, and then you go out to dinner with your friends and you have pie, and you start to talk about the movie over pie because there’s something you’re still trying to figure out.

And the difference between refrigerator logic, which is a “wait a second, that doesn’t make any sense,” and pie talk is “the movie does make sense, but they’ve left out certain things.” You can therefore retroactively explain it if you talk about it, because all the things are there for you to piece the mystery together, but they haven’t necessarily spelled it all out, so it’s not inconsistent; it’s just incomplete.

And I kind of like that idea.

**John:** There is a related concept to refrigerator logic called “refrigerator horror,” which is sort of as the story is finished, and you watched the story and enjoyed the story for what it was, that if you actually think about the repercussions of what it actually means for the world, it’s like, “Oh my god, that world is horrifying. That person’s father is dead forever!”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, you recognize that all the stuff that is not sort of part of the story but as a natural consequence to the story that would happen can often be just kind of terrible. You watch people survive the story, but the world is irrevocably awful.

**Craig:** My favorite of those, and it’s not even the world, it’s just about one person. And I love Titanic. I love the movie. And she has this amazing romance on the ship with Jack and then he dies. And she goes on and lives this wonderful long life with her husband, and we see pictures of them going all over the world. I mean, whoever this man was, he was with this woman for 70 years, you know? [laughs] And then he died.

And she takes this little trip on the boat, drops the thing in the water, dies, and spends the rest of eternity with Leonardo DiCaprio. And where is this guy? He’s just like, “What?! I was faithful to you. I supported you. I loved you. We made vows to each other! And I’m alone for eternity, and you’re with a guy you knew for a day.”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** It’s not fair.

**Derek:** I always think about that kid in The Sixth Sense. He’s like, you know, he finally solves the mystery, or Bruce Willis find out, “Oh, I’m a ghost,” it’s cool. And then I just think about this poor kid who has to walk around town seeing ghosts…

**John:** The whole rest of his life.

**Derek:** …the whole rest of his life.

**Craig:** They addressed it a little bit because it seems like now he’s friends with all the ghosts, and he’s like, “Hey!” He’s like, you know, the guy who’s walking through a party like, “What’s up, Jimmy?”

**Derek:** Yeah, until the next one comes by with a severed head.

**Craig:** Yeah, but you know, it’s like, “I get it.” [laughs] He gets it.

**Derek:** [laughs] This podcast is making me hungry.

**John:** Mm, food.

**Craig:** Oh, really?

**John:** We’re in Chicago, home of great pizza. So, where should we get pizza here?

**Derek:** We went to Pizzeria Uno yesterday, and I know it’s a tourist trap, but man that pizza is good.

**Craig:** I’m sorry. This is disgusting to me.

**Derek:** Pizano’s is the best.

**Craig:** Chicago is the home of no-good pizza. Chicago pizza is…oh, maybe now some people will write in and be upset. Tough. Chicago pizza is disgusting. It’s not pizza at all. New York pizza is pizza. That’s it. Period. The end. I don’t care wherever you go.

Chicago makes me so angry, because they are so proud of their terrible pizza. Just don’t be proud of it. Just say, “Oh, we have pizza.” Like Los Angeles has pizza, they’re not proud of it. They’re like, “Yeah, I know. Okay, it’s whatever. Do you want it or not?”

**John:** Craig, you’ll be happy to know that we went to California Pizza Kitchen yesterday with the kid, just so she could have sort of her normal thing.

**Craig:** Terrific.

**John:** We didn’t even do pizza. She had like the terrible macaroni and cheese.

**Craig:** Fine.

**John:** We’re doing it right and wrong, just the way you like it.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** Derek, because we have you here, we need to take advantage of the sort of special opportunity you give us. So, why did you do a TV show after never doing a TV show? How has it been? What’s the difference? Should people write TV shows? Should Craig and I stop trying to make movies and just make TV shows? Tell us the secrets.

**Derek:** We got lucky because Dick Wolf basically called us and said, “I’ve already set up a show at NBC this year, and basically all I have is it’s going to be about firemen. And we want you guys to do it.” So, we talked to NBC. We said we don’t know anything about firemen, but we should set it in Chicago because the city is born out of fire. It’s got such a rich fire history, so put us on a plane and let us meet firemen and get to know Chicago.

And so we came here and we spent three weeks riding around, doing 24 hour shifts with firemen. And we realized, “Oh, there’s a great opportunity for a show here in the vein of ER or Hill Street Blues, that doesn’t have quite the cynicism that Rescue Me had.”

And so we have been loving it. This is our first year to do it. All of the adages are true about that the writer is the boss and the writer is the king in TV, whereas in a movie you’re servicing the director. In television the directors are servicing you. And the speed from which it happens in that Michael and I will write a scene on a Wednesday, that they’ll shoot on Thursday, that will literally be on air the next Wednesday — it’s incredible.

I didn’t realize we could reshoot as much as we have, or fit in an extra — you know, if we see something in a cut and we’re a week away from shooting and we realize, like you said, your balcony logic, we realize, “Well nobody is going to realize he’s holding a key.” Well, we can quickly insert a shot of a key. And that’s something when we made and independent movie we just couldn’t do. You know, once we were done we were done. There was no redeeming it at that point.

And so the speed and the amount of words that I’ve had of mine on a screen in this year, it’s made it really worth it. And we have a great cast and crew. So, I’m just ecstatic about the whole experience.

**John:** I was nervous when you set up the show because I had not had a good experience working with Dick Wolf; you had a much better experience. I’m so happy that you’ve had a good experience working with him. But the reason why I thought you would do great at TV is you are incredibly prolific. So for people who don’t know, I mean, Derek writes a ton of movies, but independently of all that he also writes his books.

And so somehow you’re able to just keep generating words and the tap never seems to stop. And that’s what you need for TV.

**Derek:** We got lucky because we hired one of our best friends, Matt Olmstead, who had done four years show-running NYPD Blue and then four years of Prison Break, and then did the show Breakout Kings, and he just happened to be available at the same time as our show got picked up. So, we talked to Dick, and we got Matt. And Matt, Michael, and I have pretty much show-run the show for a year.

And we have a staff with five other writers and they’re great. But, yeah, the sheer amount of — the volume of which you have to… — We got 24 episodes, which usually you start with 13 and then you get a back nine, and then they want us to do two more. And I cannot believe how much work it is to do. Every eight days we’re shooting a new movie basically. And we have an awesome producer. And definitely the Dick Wolf machine helped because he’s done so much television that he already has the post in place, and the casting in place, and all of those kinds of things.

So, some of the things that you’d have to stress over, we didn’t have to stress over. But, yeah, it’s a lot of work, but I love it.

**John:** Talk us through the process in terms of from conception of an episode, to the writing, to the shooting, to the post. What is that process? And so how much time is in the room together? Who’s leading the room? How does that all work?

**Derek:** Yeah, we don’t have a room in the traditional sense of like a comedy room where you’re in there and everybody is spitballing jokes. We pretty much broke out the first 13 episodes all in a week or week and a half based on stories of us all — we brought all the writers to Chicago. They all rode around with paramedics and with firemen. And so we just put all of those stories up on the board and looked at our characters and said, “Okay, here’s 13 episodes, here’s 10 characters; how can they all interrelate?”

Once we had those, we assigned episodes to writers. And so Michael and I said, “Okay, we’ll do the second one, we’ll do the seventh one, we’ll do the 13th one.” And then other writers took other episodes. And then we turn in outlines just like you would in a movie. And then we work off of the outline.

**John:** How long is an outline for your shows?

**Derek:** The outline is usually like eight or nine pages. But, you know, a script is only 50 pages. So, it’s pretty much everything but the dialogue.

**John:** And are you four acts or five act?

**Derek:** We’re five acts. Yeah, a teaser and five acts.

**John:** Teaser plus five acts. So, in your outline you’re really writing towards — you’re figuring out what those act breaks are first, and then you’re figuring out how you’re going to get through your episode that way?

**Derek:** That’s exactly right. In fact, that was a new skill that I had to learn which was writing a wave towards an act break, or towards a commercial, where you really want them to come back on the other side of the commercial. So, you can’t just write a scene that isn’t going to have some sort of cliffhanger, or at least new information, something that teases somebody to come back to.

And those are all like ten page bites; ten pages worth of new scenes and then a commercial. Ten pages of new scenes and a commercial.

**Craig:** I have a question for you. This is the part of television that fascinates me, I guess, from an operational point of view. You’re a writer. You and Michael write movies. And then one day you find yourself not only writing a television show, but the boss of other people writing that television show that your name is on.

**Derek:** Right.

**Craig:** What is it like to be the boss of other writers? And I guess follow up question inherent to that: Does it make you like or hate writers? [laughs] I’m just kind of curious. Or both?

**Derek:** It was hard for me, at first, because I’d get really frustrated when somebody who had a long resume or had come in highly recommended and then just had basic screenwriting flaws, or just really generic, stiff writing. And so I’d get really down or disappointed and think, “Now I’ve got to spend a week fixing this,” where I was supposed to be working on my own thing.

But then at the same time you do have the victories where somebody will turn in a script and you’ll be like, “Oh my god, this is amazing. Why didn’t I think of this? Wow, they hit it out of the park.” And so they’re fun. I mean, it’s hard in a lot of ways, but when somebody achieves it’s exciting and when somebody fails it’s disappointing, so it’s like anything else.

**Craig:** It seems like it would have the potential to make you a better writer on your own, just because you’re seeing reflected back at you a kind of writing, and a kind of writing behavior that you don’t like, and a kind of writing and a kind of writing behavior you do.

**Derek:** Yeah. You spend a lot more time with other people’s processes. And anytime you can do that is a good thing, I think.

**John:** But one of the challenges, like everything you’re shooting, maybe it’s the second draft, maybe it’s been through it twice, but there’s never that time of like sit back, reflect, and then come back to it a month later. You don’t have that time. Ideally you want to finish a draft of a script, and set it in a drawer and not look at it, and then pull it back out. That does not exist in television. It has to be — the first time you write a scene you have to be able to shoot that scene immediately. Like you might go back and retouch it, but often you’re never going to retouch that scene.

**Derek:** Yeah. There’s no time for saying, “Okay, we’ll figure this out a month from now.” So, it behooves you to bring your A-game on the first draft. Whereas a lot of times I think screenwriters can get lazy and screenwriters, or movie writers, can say, “All right, I’m going to spend two month on this outline, otherwise it’s not real writing. And, boy, you don’t have that luxury.

**John:** So, how much of the planning for an episode has to — do you have to keep in mind what your schedule is going to be, what your locations are going to be? You have to plan for a certain amount of this episode needs to take place in locations that you already own and control, and a certain amount of time — you’ll be in for a certain amount of days, and you’ll be out for a certain amount of days. Is that your show?

**Derek:** They told us that at the beginning it was going to be that, but we haven’t found that to be the case.

**John:** You just had so much money and so much…

**Derek:** [laughs] We just write it. And I got to say, one of the fun things about doing a show about firemen in a city like Chicago is anywhere you point the camera in Chicago is architecturally stunning. There’s a lake. There’s a river. There’s all sorts of things to have fun with. So, almost as a challenge to ourselves we try to set things — I’ll write in “top of the Willis Tower, they’re having a scene on the observation deck,” thinking there’s no way they’re going to get this, and then they do.

And we have a great producer, John Roman, and great locations guy. And I’m always amazed at what we end up getting and what we don’t. And, yes, they’ll occasionally come back to us and say, “Hey, this scene takes place outside the firehouse. Can we set it inside the kitchen because we’re already going to fill out a day there?” And we’ll say, you know, “Oh, well let us look at it. Let us rearrange it.”

But sometimes we’ll insist and we’ll say, “No, this needs to be outside.”

**Craig:** I love that you guys are doing this primarily because it’s great security for me. I’ve always said if I have friends who need to create 22 episodes, or whatever it is, 26, whatever, some…

**Derek:** 24, yeah.

**Craig:** 24 episodes of television a year, year after year, because this show is going to be on for a long time; it’s a hit. That if I should hit the skids in movies, I know where I can go. At least I can get a paycheck, I could show up. I mean, other writers will be like, “Ugh, he’s just here because he’s friends with Derek.” Yeah…

**Derek:** “This is ridiculous.”

**John:** “Nepotism.”

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s right.

**Derek:** You two are two of the most successful writers in the world. Ridiculous.

**Craig:** Right now.

**Derek:** Ridiculous.

**Craig:** Right now! But who knows, in three years it all dries up, and I’m just there, and I’m saying stuff like, “Um, Derek, what if, um, what if Mouch, um…”

**Derek:** Craig, you have Hangover money. I’m learning about TV money. None of this compares to Broadway money. None of this compares to Broadway money.

**Craig:** I disagree. Like a hit TV show is… — Well, I guess a massive Broadway hit, like I hear that Wicked money is pretty amazing.

**John:** Wicked money is pretty good. The one thing that is different in Broadway is that I will own copyright on Big Fish, which is just kind of ridiculous. And so I’ve described it in a post that it’s like you’re making — a TV show is like a sprint. Each episode is a sprint. Making a movie is a marathon. Making a Broadway show is like a migration, where we’re here in Chicago. The whole circus comes to Chicago. We spend months making it here in Chicago, and then we’ll move to New York. And then we will move to other places. And that’s a strange thing.

So, the rest of my life will be rewriting this show.

**Derek:** Awesome.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Craig, you saw two shows just today, or the last few days. Tell us what you saw.

**Craig:** So, yesterday I saw Hands on a Hard Body, the musical.

**John:** Which sounds so pornographic and dirty, but it’s not at all.

**Craig:** But it’s not at all.

**Derek:** That’s based on that documentary that Matthew McConaughey did?

**Craig:** Did Matthew McConaughey do it?

**Derek:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Really? I didn’t know. Well, I guess it makes sense.

**Derek:** He produced it.

**Craig:** Yeah, because it’s from Longview, which is his hometown. It was a documentary I think back in ’94. And I remember actually watching it on HBO because I saw the title come up. I’m like where is there bad HBO porn on at two in the afternoon? That just seems weird.

And, in fact, it’s a documentary, not at all pornographic, but a real life contest in small town Texas where eight or ten people basically put their hands on a truck, a hard body truck, and they have to keep their hands on it, and the last person standing wins the truck.

And the documentary became a very fascinating insight into the strength of personal conviction, religion, the question of why we’re doing something. It was existential. It was just a really cool documentary.

And now flash forward, it’s a musical. To be honest with you, I did not love the musical. There were some great performances. Hunter Foster plays a terrific villain. He has a great 11 o’clock song that, to me, was the highlight of the show. He was really, really good. And there’s a woman named — I don’t know if I’m pronouncing her name right — it’s Keala Settle, who plays this religious woman and she has this amazing number right before intermission that was spectacular.

But then, oh, then the show blows it and it’s sort of something you can’t really recover from. So, it’s this incredible, wonderful, up-tempo song, I think it’s called Feel the Joy. It’s a cappella; the whole group gets into it. And you’re just happy.

And then they immediately follow — they don’t even let it end. They immediately follow it with this really super downer song about this soldier who’s back from Iraq. And it’s just the song doesn’t work. And you’ve just lost all energy.

**John:** Was her big number, that was the act out? And the first number in the second act was this downer song?

**Craig:** No, no. That would have been okay. No. It was right before the end of the first act. She does her big number. And then they tack another one on. And the other one is a huge downer. And then they go to intermission. And I just wanted to grab the people making the show and say, “Cut that song!” Maybe cut the character.

Because here’s the thing: There are too many characters in the show. So, I believe when you watch a musical, to enjoy the drama of the characters I feel like there should be two, three, four people that you truly understand and care about. And then you have comic relief, and you have villains, and you have whatever. But this show is demanding you to care about eight or nine people, and they’re giving all of them equal weight. And everyone is equally, therefore, thin. So, it was tough to care.

There was also a couple — I thought they made some mistakes. They were trying to make the show about, I think, a little bit too political, rather than about sort of the personal things involved in hanging on to this truck. It became sort of a — there was a little too much “times are hard; we’re desperate for a truck.”

There was one bizarre song where the cast sang and lamented the disappearance of mom and pop stores which have been replaced by big box stores, which I just thought like, well, are we just going down a list of things that we complain about at Whole Foods now?

So, that didn’t quite work. But the one thing I’ve got to give a ton of credit to is it’s a very sparse production. It’s one set that does not change. And there’s a truck in the middle of it. And the truck is kind of the star of the show. It’s on some sort of moving platform that they disguise beautifully behind the wheels. And the characters are constantly turning and moving the truck onstage. The wheels don’t move; the truck is just sort of spinning and turning and moving around.

And they’re on it, and they’re in it, and they’re around it. And it’s very well choreographed. Music was by Trey Anastasio, I think, is his name, the guy from Phish.

**Derek:** Oh wow.

**Craig:** And so it’s not typical show tune stuff. It’s very rockabilly, bluesy.

**Derek:** Does the truck have its own song?

**Craig:** Believe me, that would have been awesome. It didn’t. I think there was only really two good songs. That’s the other issue. A lot of the songs just melodically were okay. Two of them were very good. I don’t know if the show will make it or not. Also strange: It jumped from La Jolla to Broadway.

**John:** That’s actually not uncommon. It’s a classic sort of try out city for productions. I think Jersey Boys was originally La Jolla. So, there’s a track record for that working sometimes.

**Craig:** Okay. I’m not sure it worked here. But, Hunter Foster, who is Sutton Foster’s brother, was great. Keala Settle was great. And also a woman named Allison Case, I thought, did a great job.

Then today I saw Book of Mormon and, well, that’s a classic. [laughs] They just do everything right. Everything.

**John:** I don’t think Book of Mormon is going to make it.

**Craig:** [laughs].

**John:** It rides a little bit of heat. But, no, it’s not going to make it.

So, Book of Mormon is also here in Chicago. Usually a show will do really well on Broadway, like Book of Mormon is doing, of course, very much on Broadway. And eventually there will be a national tour. It will like land at certain cities for a certain number of weeks. But I don’t know how many tours are sort of going on constantly, and some of them are just sitting down for a long time. Chicago seems kind of open-ended. It’s crazy.

And the great, but sort of frustrating thing about Book of Mormon is — so we’re at the Oriental Theater in Downtown Chicago which is a beautiful giant theater. But on the side of our theater there are three big billboards for The Book of Mormon. I’m like, that’s our theater! Get off our theater!

And then our box office is Broadway Chicago, so we share it with all of the other shows. And so I’ll see like people lining up to buy ticket, and I’m like, “Yay, they’re buying Big Fish.” And it’s like, “No, they could be buying Book of Mormon as well.” So, it seems wrong.

**Derek:** It’s nice for those guys to finally get a hit and maybe have some money.

**John:** I feel so good for them. I’ve told you my story about Matt and Trey, haven’t I?

**Derek:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** On the podcast? So, way back when in Los Angeles, it was my first year of Stark, and we were out at a bar called Three of Clubs, which still exists as Three of Clubs. It’s in Hollywood. It’s a dive.

And I was out there with some friends and I got introduced to this guy who was from Boulder, which is where I’m from, and he’s a writer. And so I’m talking to him for awhile. And it’s like, oh, what are you working on? “We’re trying to make this video for this guy at MTV, like this Christmas card thing.”

I’m like, I feel really bad for him, because he’s clearly struggling. He’s sort of like me; he’s sleeping on the floor. And so at the end of the night I was like, “Oh, it was good to meet you, Troy.”

He’s like, “No, it’s Trey.”

I’m like, the only reason I know it was Trey Parker is because I said his name wrong. So, of course that video was South Park, the original thing, and it’s gone reasonably well for him.

**Craig:** It’s gone okay. It’s gone okay.

**Derek:** He’s done all right.

**John:** But, Book of Mormon is just so fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah, everything about it is terrific. And, again, to loop back to our first discussion about Amy Pascal’s comments, it’s incredibly audacious. They don’t care. They absolutely go for it. They put this show on and there were so blissfully unconcerned about language, about potential accusations of racism, or anti-religiousness, or pro-religiousness, or anything. They were just like, “Screw you, this is what we’re doing. We don’t care. We are completely confident in every move.”

The songs are spectacular. There’s not one bad song. In fact, every single song is great. And I was — even though this is not the complete original cast, Nikki James, who is Nabulungi, the female star of the show, is still there on Broadway. She was amazing. I mean, she is so talented. And Lewis Cleale, who originated the kind of Mormon boss, and Joseph Smith as well — he’s still there.

And Matt Doyle and Jon Bass are the new guys. They did a great job. I just, yeah, it’s a great show. It’s going to be running forever.

**John:** Yeah, the secret behind Book of Mormon, I think, is that like South Park it does filthy things but is incredibly sweet about it. And so you have these — everyone in the show is actually really sweet and nice, and no one is sort of mean-spirited. Terrible things happen because of misunderstandings and horrible things are said. It’s just…

**Craig:** Yeah, but it’s sweet. And, you know, my favorite moment in the show, it’s a tiny little moment, but it explains why, for instance, the actual Mormon Church doesn’t seem to mind that this play is out there, which is actually the coolest thing about Mormons. Period.

In the song All American Prophet, Elder Price, who is the star of the show, is telling the story of how the Mormon religion came to be. And as he tells it, part of the joke is this is ridiculous. And Joseph Smith receives the Golden Plates from the Angel Moroni, and the angel says, “But, don’t show the plates to anyone. Even though if you don’t show them no one will believe you. Just translate the plates and write them down on regular paper, even though people won’t believe in you. That’s sort of what God is going for.”

And you’re meant to laugh at how stupid this is. And then later in the song Joseph Smith, they get to the part where Joseph Smith is shot by an angry mob. And as he’s dying he looks up and he says, “God, why have you forsaken me? You never let me show the plates to anybody. They have no reason to believe it; they’ll just have to believe it just cause.”

And then he goes, “Oh, I guess that’s what you were going for.” And it’s this really nice, sweet, kind of like, “Oh, I think I’m starting to understand the point of faith even though it’s challenging and a little crazy.”

The show is full of really smart moments like that that manage to balance the sacrilege of it all with the point, which is that forget the details. If the message helps somebody here in a positive way, maybe we can extend that.

Now, of course, there is a dark side to all of these things. And Turn It Off is a great song about how hard it is to be gay and a Mormon. Terrific stuff. It’s great.

**John:** Very, very good.

Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing this week? Or, are those your One Cool Things?

**Craig:** No, I do have a One Cool Thing. I have One Awesome, Awesome, Amazing Thing this week. But do want to go first because yours can’t possibly be as cool as this.

**John:** And, Derek, I didn’t even warn you.

**Derek:** I didn’t know.

**John:** You could think of one while I tell you my One Cool Thing. My One Cool Thing is actually how we’re recording this podcast here today is that, so we are on one microphone that we’re sharing between us, and I was trying to figure out how we would both have headsets. And it’s like, oh my god, I’m going to need to find a Radio Shack that’s open on Easter so we can split the headphone output jack.

It turns out a little Googling that even on any Macintosh, any modern Macintosh, you can actually set up a special mini-controller output thing, so you create a special mini group for multi-output.

So, you can use it for plugging two people’s headphones into different jacks. In this case I’m connected to the microphones. He’s connected directly into the little MacBook. And it’s actually very useful and potentially very useful for situations where you need to send to multiple speakers at once or you need to do some other strange things.

So, you can use it for multi-output, multi-input. So, I will put a link to the article I found which was hugely helpful and saved me an hour’s worth of time and purchased it at Radio Shack to make this possible.

So, a fun little thing that I Googled and will help you out if you have to do what we’re doing which is to share a microphone.

**Craig:** Excellent. I did not know that. I’m going to read that link. That sounds useful.

So, here’s my Cool Thing that started off as a terrible thing. Last week my dog got hit by a car.

**John:** Oh my god, Craig. I’m so sorry.

**Derek:** I was reading about this.

**Craig:** Yeah, now here’s the deal. If this had happened, I think, ten years ago, she would have just been dead. So, she was hit by a car and here’s what happened to her:

She had a fractured pelvis, she had a concussion, she had internal bleeding, she had a broken rib, and most dangerously, her lungs were very, very bruised and they were punctured. And when your lung is punctured, what happens is you get something called a pneumothorax.

So, okay, let me just step back for a second. And you know I love medicine, so I was reading this like medicine.

**John:** Yeah, you’re Dr. Craig Mazin.

**Craig:** Dr. Craig Mazin. The doctor’s in.

So, lungs are just sponges that expand with air and then contract and air goes out. As they expand with air, if there’s a puncture the air will, of course, start to leak out. So, you can be breathing, okay, fine, but the air continues to leak out. The chest cavity is closed. It is rigid specifically so the lungs to work. If it were flabby the lungs wouldn’t work because there would be nothing to expand against.

But, pneumothorax means the air is starting to leak out of the lung and slowly build up in the rib cage. As it builds up, what happens? It begins to compress down on the lungs, which cannot expand, and so you can’t breathe. It’s a very dangerous condition.

So, here’s my Cool Thing. Well, first of all Dr. Kym Mitchell at the Montrose Animal Hospital was awesome. She sort of did like an immediate, okay, you’re not going to die in the next five minutes. But, there is a place in Glendale called Animal Specialty Group. And we’re lucky because, you know, I live in La Cañada which is pretty close to Glendale. This is maybe ten minutes away.

It is the animal hospital where they bring animals from the LA Zoo. It is the — I don’t know what you call it — the Cedar Sinai for animals. And they took my dog and they saved her life. And I have to say what they had to do was remarkable. They had to put in a chest tube and they had to give her a blood transfusion. It was ridiculous. [laughs] You don’t even want to know. It was crazy.

I mean, again, ten years ago she wouldn’t have made it anyway. Forty years ago, somebody would have just put a pillow over her head or shot her, like Old Yeller, but they saved my dog.

And all I can say is to those guys: You are the coolest guys there at the Animal Specialty Group. They did an amazing job. She came home today. She was hit by a car on Wednesday, I believe, and she’s back home today totally fine.

**Derek:** I love that when you describe the doctors, I know as a kid growing up in Dallas and being like, “This is the guy who performs the knee operations on the Dallas Cowboys.” You know, like, “Oh, they must be the best.” And you’re like, “These guys are the ones who do the LA Zoo.” [laughs]

**Craig:** The LA Zoo! I mean, doesn’t that tell you something? You’re like, “Oh, well what are we going to do? The gazelle is vomiting. Um, I don’t know, there’s a guy down the street.” No. You go to ASG.

**Derek:** ASG.

**Craig:** That’s where you go. They are the best. 24 hours. Seven days a week. They actually — at one point they said, “Listen,” because the truth is when we brought her in they were like, I said to my — because my vet, Kym Mitchell, she came with us. And she looked shaken up. And I was like, “So, what are the odds here?” And she’s like, “She’s really hurt.”

And I was like, “Okay, so 50/50?” And she looked at me and went, “Um, yeah.” [laughs] Which means 10/90 kind of. You know? So, I was like, okay, this isn’t going to go well.

I mean, I had to tell my kids, like, there is a pretty good chance, you know, that she’s not going to make it. But they said, “Listen, um, if this chest tube thing doesn’t work and the puncture isn’t healing on its own, there’s a chance that we might have to put her on a ventilator, and even then that might not work. And that comes with its own complications, but we have to sort of talk to you about it beforehand. And you have to come here and sign papers if we’re going to do it because it’s so expensive.” And when they told me what it was I was like, oh my god.

And it actually was a great moment for me as a man, because I was like, yes, absolutely we’ll do that. And I didn’t have to do it, so it’s like a great Seinfeld episode where I should get credit for something that I just didn’t want to do but I said I would do, because oh my god, it would have been so expensive. [laughs]

But, we got our dog back. So, thank you, ASG. You are this week’s One Super Cool Thing.

**John:** Cool. Derek, did you think of something?

**Derek:** I did. There is a movie with Chris O’Donnell and Arnold Schwarzenegger called Batman & Robin. It’s my One Cool… — No, I’m just kidding.

**John:** One COOL thing.

**Craig:** It’s so COOL.

**Derek:** In Chicago there is something that you can get that you always think, I don’t really need this City Pass, but the City Pass, which gets you five museums and you get to walk right in and cut the line, is the greatest tourism thing you can get.

I took my kids to the Science and Industry Museum yesterday. Cut all the way to the front of the line. Took my kids to the aquarium, cut to the front of the line. Took my kids today to the Field Museum. And, again, get a City Pass when you come to Chicago and have a great time. It’s a great tourism town.

**Craig:** Awesome. And, this is a fact, although Chicago has terrible pizza, it is a great place to be in a fire because super handsome dudes come with their muscles.

**Derek:** It’s true.

**Craig:** And their perfect hair. And they’re like, “Ma’am, don’t worry, Ma’am, I’ve got you.”

**John:** Yes.

**Derek:** It’s true. The true CFD guys are an inspiration, really the inspiration for this show.

**Craig:** And handsome.

**Derek:** And handsome.

**John:** And handsome.

Derek Haas, thank you so much for being our second ever live in-studio guest. We’ve had, you know, Aline came twice, but you’re a friend who now gets to be part of the show.

**Derek:** I am thrilled. Thank you for having me.

**John:** And you’re the first genuine surprise to Craig Mazin.

**Derek:** That was hilarious.

**John:** So, I want to keep introducing new people from his life.

**Craig:** Well, I’m just glad that it was somebody good, because what if you had saddled us with an idiot?

**John:** I can think of a few writers that would be just amazing people to have on this show because you would have a tremendously good time with them.

**Craig:** Mm…

**John:** You’re thinking exactly the same person I am.

**Craig:** Hmm…

**John:** It would be amazing to have him here.

**Craig:** So much fun.

**John:** Oh, so good. And he’s an Academy member.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, thank you so much. Derek, thank you so much.

**Derek:** Thanks for having me.

**John:** Have a great week. And we’ll talk to you next week.

**Craig:** See you later guys.

**John:** Take care.

**Craig:** Bye.

**Derek:** Thank you. Bye.

LINKS:

* [Derek Haas](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0351929/) on IMDb
* [Chicago Fire](http://www.nbc.com/chicago-fire/) on NBC
* [Popcorn Fiction](http://www.mulhollandbooks.com/popcornfiction/index.html)
* [The Right Hand](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316198463/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) on Amazon
* Deadline’s coverage of [Amy Pascal’s speech](http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/amy-pascal-asks-hollywood-to-eliminate-gay-slurs-stereotypes-from-movies/) at the LA Gay & Lesbian Center gala
* [Fridge Logic](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic) on TV Tropes
* [Hands on a Hard Body](http://www.handsonahardbody.com/) and [The Book of Mormon](http://www.bookofmormonbroadway.com/home.php) on Broadway
* Lifehacker Australia on [using multiple audio inputs and outputs in OSX](http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/08/how-to-use-multiple-audio-inputs-and-outputs-in-mac-os-x/)
* The life-saving [Animal Specialty Group](http://www.asgvets.com/)
* [Chicago City Pass](http://www.citypass.com/chicago) is worthwhile
* OUTRO: [I’m on Fire](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvksSDzslCw) acoustic cover by ilikegtar

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.