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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: residuals

Scriptnotes, Ep 417: Idea Management, Transcript

October 4, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 417 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to take a look at the issue of idea management. What do you do with all of those half-formed ideas for various things to write? We’ll also discuss screenwriter’s quotes and answer some listener questions. To help us out on all of this, welcome back Aline Brosh McKenna.

**Craig:** Yay.

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** Woo! What!

**Craig:** I almost want to do like when Kermit waggles his hands around and goes, “Nah!” I don’t know why. It seems appropriate.

**John:** Yeah, Kermit’s hands are sort of like the inflatable car lot things.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They wave by their own magic.

**Aline:** Do you guys remember in that original Batman show that sometimes Catwoman would be on?

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Oh, I love Catwoman.

**Aline:** But you would watch in the credits to see if she was on that week.

**John:** I never watched the credits to see if she would be on.

**Craig:** I would not.

**Aline:** They changed the credits. If she was going to be in that episode it would be like, “And…” and then they would show a picture of her. And I would be very excited because I knew that it was going to be a Batman episode with Catgirl. Catgirl or Batgirl?

**Craig:** No, no, Batgirl or Catwoman. Catwoman was Eartha Kitt.

**Aline:** Catwoman.

**Craig:** Catwoman was Eartha Kitt. But I don’t remember who Batgirl was. Did they have a Batgirl on that original Adam West show?

**John:** I bet they did because the commissioner’s daughter was Batgirl. Here’s maybe what you’re suggesting though is we need to change the introductory bloops if it’s going to be an Aline episode so everyone knows, oh my gosh, this is an Aline episode.

**Aline:** Yes. And I can sing something and just mock something up.

**John:** Before we get started to our big topics we have some follow up listener questions and I thought maybe Aline would read the question because you’ve never gotten to read a question for us.

**Aline:** Great. Oh, it’s this question that I tried to shove back at you? OK, I’m going to read a question.

**Craig:** Great.

**Aline:** Lochiel writes, “I grew up with D&D basic, then advanced, and played up through Gen 2. I love or loved D&D, but Dungeon World is in my opinion so much better. The game is much less crunchy and can be learned in an hour. The best part of the game is that the players and the DM share narrative control in a much more collaborative way. It would be beyond awesome to witness some people as creative as you guys playing Dungeon World.

**Craig:** Yeah, it would.

**John:** Well, Craig, yeah, that’s good. So, maybe we can discuss some Dungeon World here.

**Aline:** This is obviously a question for me.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yes. 100%.

**Aline:** And my answer to this would be that I would think that Dungeon World would be a store where you could buy stuff for your dungeon.

**Craig:** Like a sex dungeon?

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** That’s what I would think. Where you would be kitting up for your BDSM dungeon. Is that not correct?

**Craig:** Right. It’s your BDSM superstore.

**Aline:** That’s what I would think it was.

**Craig:** Yeah, come on down to Dungeon World. [laughs]

**John:** So this is follow up on our episode from last week with Alison Luhrs from Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast makes Dungeons & Dragons, the official Dungeons & Dragons. Dungeon World is a separate gaming system that is very free-form, very loose, and Craig you and I actually did play a campaign in Dungeon World. I DM’d one. And I liked it more than you liked it. It is very free-form and loose. And I think we found it a little bit too free-form and loose. Is that accurate?

**Craig:** Yeah. I think so. I mean, the story part of playing Dungeons & Dragons is definitely a huge part of it. And, look, Lochiel, it’s really just a question of preference, right? I mean, you’re sort of arguing that vanilla tastes better than chocolate and some people will agree and some people won’t. I prefer Dungeons & Dragons or say like Pathfinder which is a similar, because I enjoy some of the rules minutia. I enjoy the constraints of combat. I think that’s fun. I think it’s just the leveling up and all that stuff. I just, I like it. I like it more. It gives me more of what I want.

But I also understand where some people would be like actually that’s the worst part of it all. I just like pretending and talking and such. The one thing I will say about Dungeon World is it feels a bit arbitrary. In other words success and failure feel a bit kind of at the DM’s whim as opposed to kind of influenced by statistical calculation.

**John:** So I remember Michael Gilvarry being frustrated like when is it my turn to swing a sword. The lack of initiative and the lack of sort of structure within combat was frustrating to him.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** But I do enjoy reading other games’ sort of inherent mechanics and seeing sort of how they do stuff. Like I think the new Paranoia has a really cool system for how it works. There’s a role-playing game called Kids on Bikes which is very much a Stranger Things. And how that all works in success and failure is clever. But you know what? I like Fifth Edition Dungeons & Dragons. I’m old school.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m with you. And Aline obviously we know that you strongly prefer Pathfinder.

**Aline:** Do you have a question on fall fashion?

**John:** We do. We have so many.

**Craig:** We do.

**Aline:** Something about belted tweed jackets?

**Craig:** Let me ask you a question, in all seriousness Aline.

**Aline:** High-waisted leather pants?

**Craig:** Am I a spring, a fall, a winter? What am I?

**Aline:** Oh, no, that whole thing is a scam.

**Craig:** That’s garbage?

**John:** That color theory?

**Aline:** I’m saying in terms of your look–

**Craig:** Oh yeah, yeah, my look.

**Aline:** Yeah. You’re in the hoodie and J-Crew shirt area. But, you know, Craig, if I took you to a mall I could work with the existing aesthetic but I could tone it up.

**Craig:** You could plus it. Come on down to Dungeon World. We’ve got– [laughs]

**Aline:** We could do that. But you might want to do that with Melissa.

**Craig:** Meh.

**John:** Let’s transition to a topic that we all sort of know more about. So, a story that was in the news this last week was about the controversy over sequels to Crazy Rich Asians and who was getting paid what for it. Without diving too deep into that situation, I thought it was useful for us to have a conversation about how are screenwriter quotes even figured out or even what quotes are. How does a screenwriter know how much they’re worth and how much they’re being paid for a project? Because over the course of 20 years I’ve seen the amount I’m being paid per project go up and go down for reasons that probably wouldn’t be apparent to somebody outside the system.

So we haven’t really talked about money as a screenwriter for a while, so let’s talk about how much a screenwriter is worth.

**Aline:** So one of the things that changed and I think it’s about four or five years ago was no quotes. A no-quote thing was issued.

**John:** Tell me how you perceive that.

**Aline:** To me it was perceived a little bit like there’s no quotes, tell me your quotes. Because it is a world where you’re sort of making things up. You know, Hollywood is an interesting system in that your pay rises based on certain intangibles. And they are not just how the things you’ve written have performed in the public sphere. They can also be determined by oh you wrote a script that got a director. You wrote a script that attracted actors. You wrote a script that people like. You wrote a script that got a bidding war. Even if those things didn’t get made. And that’s why I think that system seems really byzantine irrational to people because it is based on intangibles. And it’s a marketplace where things are worth what someone will pay for them.

**John:** Craig, could you start us out, the conversation. Talk to us about the floor of how much somebody gets paid. Because I think we need to talk about scale before we talk about above scale.

**Craig:** Yeah. And maybe also just quickly before we talk about no-quote system is, we should probably talk about what the yes-quote system is, too. A lot of people see this phrase “quote system” and they don’t know. So, first thing, the floor of what a writer gets paid in Hollywood when you’re working on a Writers Guild project, that’s going to be pretty much everything other than most feature animation. It’s determined by the Writers Guild. It’s determined by our collective bargaining agreement. So every three years the Writers Guild negotiates a new deal with the AMPTP. That’s the organization that essentially represents the companies in those negotiations. And that is the minimum we can be paid.

So, you start from there. And then because our business is an over-scale business, which makes us different. Typically a union will negotiate salary floors for everybody working in the plant. So if you’re a welder you make this much money per hour. And if you’re a welder for this many years you make this much money per hour. In our business, no. It’s all over the place. Most people are making more than scale and how much more than scale is up to you and your representatives and the marketplace, which is where the quote system comes in to play.

And all the quote system means is that you’ve been paid some amount of money by someone that someone else agrees is legitimate. Meaning I go to Sony, they say, OK, we want to hire you for something. And then my representatives say, “Well his quote for that service is blotty-blah because Disney paid him that.” That’s it. That’s the sum total of the quote system.

Now, doing better than your quote or when they say no-quote, that’s a whole other ball of wax.

**Aline:** Right. They can’t do that, though. They can’t do that anymore. They can’t ask for your quotes and they can’t–

**John:** Let’s talk about the change. So, traditionally over the last 15 years, ten years ago, that was the starting point of any discussion. So the very initial projects I was hired to write I got paid scale. Probably most of us got paid scale, which is the minimum they could possibly pay us. It’s like getting minimum wage. And then after you’d had a couple projects, things get made, you start creeping above that. And so if I got $200,000 on a project, you know, the next time I was going to make a deal for some place my quote was $200,000. And so we were trying improve upon that.

But as Aline is saying they’re not supposed to be asking for quotes anymore.

**Craig:** Right.

**Aline:** Right. So then it becomes a supply and demand question ostensibly. But one of the things that if it sounds like a somewhat amorphous system, it is. And so obviously it leads to and can lead to unfairness because a lot of these things are perceptual. And you can’t control perceptual things. You can’t, you know, when your agent comes back and says, “Well, they perceive that this happened as opposed to this happening on this project and that’s why you’re going to get this and not that.” There’s not a lot you can say back.

And I have a friend who has been trying really hard to make it so that everybody publicizes what they get paid because, you know, especially if you’re in a group setting like a television show and you want to know, OK, what are other supervising producers with six years of staff experience, what are they getting, you’re only getting that anecdotally or through your representatives. So some people are an advocate of everyone should just publish what they’re getting paid so then you can compare. But you are in this world of what in your resume earns what dollars.

And I will say that because the atmosphere has changed a little bit more in terms of like we do discuss bias more, I have now numerous times been told, “Hey, I think if you were, I mean, a man you would get paid differently. And the demand for your services would command a different price.” You can’t obviously prove that and you can’t “accuse” people of that. But, again, whenever you’re in the realm of perceptual things with humans it’s something we’ve talked about before, like people’s idea of what a director looks like is a 30 to 60-year-old man with some facial hair, you know, and cargo shorts or pants, or some kind of a vest. And that’s what they picture. So when they look at a 90-year-old – sorry, 90-year-old.

**Craig:** No, do it. I like that.

**Aline:** Yeah, a 90-year-old works. Or a hundred pound fashionably dressed 26-year-old female, just for example, it’s a perceptual thing. And so I have numerous times seen not just in my own career but in other people’s careers where what seems to me that people are doing equally well and then come to find out that the men are being paid more. And that’s not just true with screenwriters, obviously. I think that’s across the board in Hollywood. And I don’t know how you standardize that system without doing kind of what Craig suggests which is publishing people’s salaries so that you can say, “Hey, you know, my movies have earned this much, or my TV shows have gotten this rating, or whatever, and so I see what this person gets paid and I would like to be paid concomitantly with that.

**John:** Nice use of concomitantly. I’ve never tried that word in real life.

**Aline:** But, you know, it is a vague – when you get, you guys know, when you get on the phone with your lawyer so often the first thing they offer you is crazy shocking because in the no-quote environment instead of before where it felt like it was building on the pay you’d gotten sometimes they come back and they’ve made a number that sets you back seven years and the question is why. And it’s based in these things which are, you know, size of the budget, scale of the movie. But again these perceptual things. So, it’s an interesting system because it has, you know, it’s a little bit of the court of the Louis XIV. It’s like Tulip Fever. It’s a little bit things command the price that they command and you can’t really get behind.

But I will say that, you know, some of those things are steeped in assumptions that people make about certain – and it also translates into genres. So certain genres the people make extremely more money than in other genres irrespective of the box office performance. If they think well you can write this super hero movie in success that movie is going to make a lot more money than this movie about three girls on a road trip which, you know.

Anyway, it’s why it’s an imperfect system at the best.

**John:** Well let’s talk about the no quotes in two different ways that it comes up. I think it was California law that changed where you’re not supposed to be asking for quotes on previous things, and so that was a change. The other thing that happened over the last five, seven years is that increasingly projects at studios they really kind of didn’t care what your quote was. They said like we are paying X dollars for this project, are you interested or not interested. And so things that are like this a $500,000, it’s not more than that, and that’s a thing that changed, too. And that was a supply and demand thing as well because there were fewer projects.

**Aline:** Absolutely.

**John:** And so some of us had to take a haircut to take some of those projects on. So there’s an objective reality which is the dollars you’re being paid, but the subjective quality is how much are you worth. And value is not an easily calculable thing. It is a matter of opinion and that is a reality.

**Aline:** And what you’re saying, the landscape of the business is changing and another really interesting factor in this is television and film are fusing and melding and, you know, what does years of experience in television, what does that translate into feature wise? When I started they would disregard your television quotes in features and they would disregard your feature quotes in television as if you had been fixing airplanes an then you show up to paint a Renaissance master.

**Craig:** They still do that.

**Aline:** Guys, these things are related. So they are still doing this. And I think Craig you experienced this.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**Aline:** But that’s going to change as more people are doing both, freely doing both, moving back and forth. And they are going to expect their high quotes in some areas to translate into quotes in other areas because what is the big difference. What is this artificial gulf that we’ve created?

**Craig:** Well, when we talk about all of this stuff, I mean, the amusing part is the law may say you can’t ask what their quote is, and yet they’ll know because they talk to each other. This is something that maybe people don’t know. The division within each studio that negotiates how much a writer gets paid is called Business Affairs. So it’s different than people who are hiring you. This is another interesting thing. Usually, well I guess it’s sort of like in a big corporation human resources is there to determine salaries, right. So you get hired by somebody and then they send you over to HR and a negotiation occurs. In Hollywood it’s business affairs. And the business affairs executives pick up the phone and call each other. They know exactly what you’ve paid.

And, more to the point, when it’s time for you to make a deal if you like the amount of money you just got paid you’re telling them. So, we can say it’s a no-quote time but it’s not. What you just got paid is known by both sides. Or, it is confirmable by both sides. So that’s the first thing.

And the second thing is when we talk about what you’re worth we’re talking about what the market decides they’re going to pay you at that moment. The hard part is it has absolutely nothing to do with your actual worth as a writer. What you’re being paid now is actually what you were worth. It’s never what you are worth. It’s what you were worth before this moment.

So when you’re a new writer you are worth nothing. [laughs] You were, right? That’s all you have to show is nothing so they pay you like that. When you just had a hit movie they pay you like what you were worth on the hit movie. They’re always behind. They’re always lagging.

**Aline:** When you as a creative person become part of a negotiation I’ve always found it really challenging because there’s things that I just want to do them. And so I don’t want to get immersed too much in the pay because I’m desperate to do it. And your representatives in a way are there to buffer that enthusiasm so that you have, you have a stronger hand. Because if you’re saying to your lawyer I’ll just take, just take it, just take it, you’re really cutting them off at the knees. But if it’s something you’re dying to do, you know, we’re not usually driven by money. We’re driven by the love of the material. And so it’s very challenging just to empower your reps to say, “Well, if it’s shitty walk away from it,” when it’s something you want to do. And you have to have some sense of like, no, this one is worth it. Maybe I’ll take a little pay cut on this one because I believe in this and I think in success this will really work for me.

But I have always found that transition from you’re talking to the creative executives and you’re all on the same page and it feels great and you’re going to go do this thing and then the first offer comes in and your lawyer is like, “This is atrocious.” And it’s hard not to take it personally. And sometimes it is personal in the sense that they are lowballing you because they think they can for whatever reason and it hurts.

**Craig:** They do it every time. They literally do it every time.

**Aline:** Your lawyer is trained to say, “Hey, don’t feel differently about this project because of this,” but it’s almost impossible not to feel that way. And because business affairs is a different department and you’re dealing with people who only deal with money and only deal with deals, but then they have to translate these intangibles of like we really, you know, the creative person has their heart set on John August. When they first read the book that was the only person they could picture so they desperately want John August. But the business affairs person has to pretend like they don’t care if it’s John August. And sometimes they do.

**John:** Well let’s talk about leverage because that is the way that a screenwriter ultimately increases the amount they’re paid for that project. And leverage can come from a couple ways. But the biggest one is the freedom to walk away, to say like, “You know what, I’m not taking this deal. So if this is where we’re stopping then I’m stopping and I’m moving on to the next thing.”

Leverage can also come from kind of being perceived as being irreplaceable by other creative elements. So that director desperately wants you. That star desperately wants you. We have a friend who is sort of the only person who can get along with a certain actor and so she’s worth a lot on those projects because she’s the only one who can sort of handle that person. So those are reasons why a person can get paid more.

I would say classically coming off of a hit movie, like you got that bump on your next movie and your next movie after it, I see that happening a little bit less now than five years ago just because the business has changed. Again, the supply and demand of how many projects there are out there is different.

Another way that you can increase your quote or the amount that you’re being paid on this project is by working for one of the new places. And the new places will tend to overpay because they’re desperate to get in business with certain people.

**Aline:** In certain moments. I mean, you know, if it’s your passion project you’ve got to be prepared to take a haircut. But I think one of the things that’s interesting, you know, the three of us have been in this business a long time and it was kind of the same for a long time. It was a very calcified, for better or for worse, it was understandable. And some of the things of like, Aline, you’re not going to get paid as much as the other people, I mean, those were codified, too.

Technology and the rise of all these other means of distributing have effected everything. And it’s exactly what you said, you know, movie quotes are not what they were, TV quotes are not what they were. You’re in a sort of a more freeform environment and there’s wonderful things about that but there’s also, you know, in some ways they have us over a barrel and they are trying to redefine backend. Redefine all the ways in which screenwriters are being paid. And it’s one of the reasons there’s sort of a lot of tumult and discussion among writers because I’ve never seen a more rapid period of change.

**Craig:** We’re also in the middle of a rapidly increasing income disparity which echoes what’s going on in the economy at large and the world at large. What used to be a kind of gentle bell curve has been accelerating even more and more, so now the question really isn’t, well, what’s my quote and how much am I being paid and can I get a bump – that’s what they say is a raise is a bump. Can I get a bump? What’s happening is that the writing business is starting to separate between employees, just standard old employees who are more and more just being pushed towards scale, and mega deals.

In my career the thought of a writer earning nine figures – that would be over $100,000,000 – for a deal that went on for two or three years was kind of astonishing. It’s happening all the time now. And so we are moving out of what we’re all familiar with. And the mega deals seemingly don’t care about, well, I guess you get what you get. And what’s concerning to me is that the opportunities for new writers coming in are going to be defined by this new system which is essentially, oh yeah, we don’t really do live over-scale. Do you know what I mean? That’s the fear is that over-scale essentially just goes away and everything is just sort of scale. It’s like, well–

**Aline:** I also just, I mean, we’ve talked about this before, but I don’t know how I would have broken into the feature business given what I write. I would absolutely now be going in through the TV door.

**Craig:** Of course. Of course.

**Aline:** Where minimums are different. But, you know, just to be writing sort of character-based comedies often, most often with female leads, they’re making so few that – there used to be a pipeline and all of that is going now into these television–so the other thing is that the feature business is much more steeped in–

**John:** In giant IP. Yeah. Absolutely.

**Aline:** And so it is a different – if you are person who can take one of those pieces of IP and make it make sense, there’s wild rewards in that. And those people’s careers have skyrocketed. And also it’s kind of sucked up a lot of our A-list talent. You know, I always think of like people who would have been doing Three Days of the Condor or All the President’s Men or all those, you know, Sydney Pollack, Alan Pakula, you know, a lot of those movies. They’re doing big genre franchise movies. And I wish that they could do both at the same time because I do mourn a little bit the original character-based movies that we all grew up on. And because a lot of the people grew up loving these genre pieces they’re making these IP movies. And I do mourn a little bit the movies they might have made if we were still making those personal pieces.

**Craig:** They’re gone.

**Aline:** They’re on TV.

**John:** They’re on TV.

**Craig:** They’re on TV. And when it comes to movies you’re absolutely right. They would not – if you were starting out and you were writing romantic comedies or character studies or smaller let’s say call it a $25 million budget with a female lead, no question. They’re just not making them. And nor are they making the movies that I was writing when I started out. If you want to make sort of a family PG-13 live action or PG live action comedy–

**John:** That’s me.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s television. You know, you’re going to Netflix now. They’re just not doing it.

**Aline:** But unless you have Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

**John:** Or Aladdin.

**Aline:** Or Aladdin.

**Craig:** Exactly. But even then, I have to say even now I got to argue that in 2019 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a harder bet. Because we talk about these big movies and IP and stuff but we’re not saying the word “superhero” which we need to. Because the superhero thing has essentially transformed Hollywood. The theatrical movie business is the superhero movie business. Period. The end.

**Aline:** And we’re way deep in the bin there. People are like, oh, are you pitching on Oatmeal Boy, and you’re like, what? There was one issue about that character in 1964. We’re deep, deep in the well there. And there are so many kind of big classic pieces of novels that have yet to be adapted. It’s so funny because somebody once said to me they never made a Mata Hari movie. And it’s just something that I think about. But if you had done a Mata Hari comic in 1972, you know, and people collected it and whatever you could shove that through.

But it is funny. We just have gotten – I run into people and they’re working on superhero stuff that – I mean, obviously I’m not an expert. But we’ve gone deep, deep in the well there.

**Craig:** Well, they don’t even have to go that deep in the well. They just remake.

**Aline:** Keep making the ones, yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, I think everybody kind of giggled when the fourth version of Spider Man had come out. But now it’s sort of like, oh, what’s this year’s Spider Man? That’s it. Just every year there will be a new Spider Man. And every year there will be a new Batman.

**Aline:** That’s like those old Tom Mix westerns, you know, from early Hollywood. You would just go that character, they would just do latest adventures or comic books.

**Craig:** The only thing is like in the old days they would crank out programmers, like Wallace Beery wrestling pictures, or [Odors] as those of us who do crossword puzzles love to say. But they were low budget. They were cheap stuff to flood the theaters.

**John:** They’re filler.

**Craig:** Nobody does that anymore because it’s the opposite now. Everything has to be a massive event. So either you’re doing superhero movies or you’re doing Star Wars movies. And then there’s animation. Or, in the case of Disney, live action animation. But there is no space really for other stuff. There’s the tiniest space which I find myself now when I’m working in movies that’s where I live. In this tiny space. Which is why I’m quite happy to be embarking on a television journey because, you know, I–

**Aline:** I’m just imagining you trying to pitch Chernobyl as a feature. Like having ten meetings in a week where you go in and pitch Chernobyl and executives sort of come in expecting you – what does Craig have? Like expecting some fun comedy with big comedy stars. And here’s [laughs] Craig saying–

**Craig:** That’s why I didn’t do it.

**Aline:** So he’s vomiting. He’s bleeding out from his face. And, you know–

**John:** There’s male nudity but it’s not funny male nudity.

**Craig:** Right.

**Aline:** But there was a world where you would have conceivably pitched and made that movie and that’s why I think there is a giant hole in the marketplace for somebody to start a company which makes a lot of the stuff that’s now going to Netflix. Other kinds of stories, character-based stories, but female leads, non-white leads. To sort of have a woke, for lack of a better term, studio that opens its doors to everybody who wants to be doing stuff like that because if you make them for a price they can work huge. And the upside can be huge. And you can make Girls Trip and you can make Mamma Mia and you can make Get Out. And for someone to really open the doors on a big company like that that is run by executives who are not all named Matt. That would be incredible and I think we would all run to that person.

And I understand that financially now the amount of money that you need to be that person is almost too astronomical to exist. But I am waiting desperately for someone to make the superstore, the big box version of Fox 2000 with big funding that we can all run to for those projects. Because people have an enormous hunger to still make them and to see them on a big screen.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** Question for you. Didn’t you just describe Megan Ellison and Annapurna? And didn’t they just go bankrupt?

**John:** Or A24. Fox Searchlight.

**Aline:** But are they taking the Girls Trip swings? Are they taking the Mamma Mia swings? Or are they taking more of the art – which again, and love those more arthouse type movies, obviously a thing I love. But I’m talking about more the sort of commercial in-the-box comedy character-based, you know, Bad Moms, Get Out is a good example of, you know–

**Craig:** Well Jason Blum obviously has a very successful business making genre films.

**Aline:** But I’m just talking about non-IP driven original content that is run by and includes a wider swath of the community who are desperate to tell those stories. I am sure every writer, we all have something in our drawer that we would love to do that way. And frankly right now people are going to streamers to do that.

**Craig:** I would. I mean, I’m just being honest with you. I would. I mean, unless I had something – I mean, look, Mamma Mia would be – that’s different because that is IP and all the rest of it. If I had something that was akin to, well, if I had something that I thought was an interesting $25 or $30 million movie I would be going to a streamer without question. Without question.

**Aline:** So maybe that’s a hole in the theatrical feature environment then. Maybe not.

**Craig:** They just don’t do it. I mean, the problem is you’re right. There is this massive hole there. But you can’t get a movie in theaters without distribution. And these major studios control it.

**Aline:** And giant marketing costs.

**Craig:** Well, exactly.

**John:** So there’s a project I’m doing which may end up at Netflix. And part of the discussion was it was hard to envision what the Friday night of this movie would be. It’s just like could you get enough butts in seats on Friday night to make this smaller comedy work. But if it were on a streamer that pressure is just not there. And so I think people would find it in their own time and it wouldn’t be that sense of like it has to be this giant weekend.

**Aline:** Interestingly though, when those movies drop on Netflix they do get humungous, crazy-huge eyeball numbers on the first weekend.

**Craig:** So they claim. [laughs] So they claim.

**Aline:** No, well I do believe that. Because–

**John:** Always Be My Maybe is a good example.

**Aline:** You guys know you turn on your streamer box and that’s the first thing there. And they have this marketing which is insane. You pay to subscribe to this service and it’s pushing something on you. And you’re not sure what you want to watch and everybody looks at each other and says great. And it’s new and it’s being promoted to you. So, you know, there’s nothing – so I don’t know, maybe this new studio that we’re creating is a subscription service.

**John:** So let’s bring this around and talk about where we’re at and sort of what we can do to sort of make this better.

**Aline:** The quotes?

**John:** The quotes. I do think in a world where quotes become less important the transparency in terms of what you’re getting paid is helpful. And I see more of that happening in TV. And in TV there are clear rungs that you’re going up through. So if people publicize like I’m a story editor on this show, this is what I’m getting, that is truly helpful for people figuring out am I getting paid more or less than sort of the average for this role.

A thing I’m going to probably do and I’ll just commit to actually doing it now is on Aladdin it’s going to be one of the probably last movies that’s going to have traditional residuals. And so I’ll just publicize, as I get each green envelope on Aladdin I will put up on the site how much I’m getting from those envelopes because it’s going to be huge. That’s a big movie and this is classically how writers were able to make a living is the constant residuals that come through.

And those are going to go away, too. And that’s another future topic, but figuring out how we sustain a career without the good residuals we’ve traditionally had is going to be a challenge.

**Aline:** Data would help the representatives. Because if you had data about what everyone was getting paid your agent could say, you know, this person and this person have a similar track record, or this person has made a special contribution in this way. And here’s another instance where someone did something similar and this is how they were recompensed. So, secrecy always benefits certain groups.

**Craig:** I agree. I mean, having representatives would also help representatives. Because when I listen to this—

**Aline:** Well, the lawyers generally do the, right?

**Craig:** Well lawyers do the negotiating of the hard numbers. Or a lot of the internal numbers. But one thing that agencies can do, particularly the big ones, is say I can tell you exactly what this person got or this person got. They’re really good when you can talk about participation, backend. They know how those things work. Because we’re not the only deals that impact us. Again, because we’re over-scale there are other people like actors and directors and agents who are making certain kinds of deals that we can also make, depending on what the kind of movie is.

So having more information like that is great.

**Aline:** And also these are intangibles, agents have long relationships with these folks and bring them numerous people. And so they can be saying, “Hey, F-you. Step up. You know what’s right.”

**John:** And at the same time they can also be saying, you hope that they’re always advocating on your own behalf. But they could also be advocating on other people’s behalves or trying to get this other thing to happen.

**Aline:** Or trying to protect a relationship.

**John:** Exactly. So it does work both ways.

**Craig:** It does. I mean, we’ve all paid 10% to agents our entire careers I guess because we assumed that it was working in our favor.

**John:** All right. Let’s move on to the marquee topic for today which is idea management. So this came up to me because there’s a couple projects that I’m sort of noodling on, so I’ve not really started writing them yet but they are things that are in my head. They’re like the shiny jewels that I pick up and hold in my virtual hand and stare at them and do a little work on and then set them back down. And we haven’t really talked about this on the show which is that sort of early stage of holding onto and sorting through your ideas before you start writing and some best practices on that.

Because what really occurred to me this past week is I had some insomnia and I realized I was doing that rather than actually letting myself fall asleep. I was like so worried about holding onto this idea and focusing on it that I couldn’t set it down and actually go to sleep. So, Craig let’s say you have a good idea, it’s midnight, you’re headed to bed. You have a good idea. Do you get out of bed and write it down? What do you do with that idea that occurs to you?

**Craig:** If there’s something that happens right there while I’m in bed, my iPad is on my nightstand so I’ll just send myself a quick email. I have in the past said to myself you’ll remember this and then I don’t. I just remember not remembering it and being very angry. But that’s not really where most of my thinking happens. By the time I’m going to bed I’m just tired and I want to go to bed. Most of my thinking happens, well, most of my freeform thinking happens in the shower. That’s where I like to just think.

**Aline:** We’ve established this.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Aline:** We’ve had a lot of mind images of Craig in the shower over the years if you’re a Scriptnotes fan.

**John:** Aline, you have that late night idea, what do you do with that idea?

**Aline:** So I do a lot of my thinking in the bathtub.

**Craig:** Oh, it’s the same thing.

**Aline:** It is the same thing. A bathtub. But also when I go to sleep I try and think about something that I’m noodling on or have to solve. And I don’t think I wake up instantly with the answer but I do try and noodle on it because I know that that’s a fertile period. I will say like Rachel and I frequently had this conversation – I don’t write things down very often because I feel like if it’s a good idea it will persist and it will return to me. And I know a lot of people who think I’m insane who are real note-takers. And for them they need to see it concretized. If I start writing on an idea too soon I’ll kill it. It’s like I’ve over-watered the plant.

So I have to kind of keep it in a back-burnery place where only my subconscious is working on it until it’s kind of formed before I start putting voice to it, because there’s something about rendering it that sort of makes it less magical and interesting for me. So if I’m going to email myself something it’s a line of dialogue. Sometimes I think of lines of dialogue in the bathroom or in the bed. And then sometimes it’s plot stuff that I cannot fix. So, I would say the bathtub especially is a place where I go, oh, you know what, that’s where I go. And then I will put notes – I usually use the notes app. And kind of get it down.

But again I try and get it down in a skeletal way because somehow if I fully express an idea in print it doesn’t engage me in the same way.

**John:** I totally get that. You just did an over-watering metaphor which I really do like because it does kind of feel like it’s a garden that you have to tend every once and a while because if you don’t actually pay attention to the thing it can just wither and die on its own. And sometimes it’s best that it wither and die. Like it really did not want to be anything that you pursued. But also things can overgrow and just become too crazy.

And like I’ll try not to put something down in print and fix it in one form because I know it’s growing in different things and it could be combining with a different idea. You know, these really inchoate ideas they’re sort of competing for attention in your mind. They’re trying to get brain cycle. Like, no, no, think about me, think about me. And that’s the only way that they can actually become real projects.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t, you know me, my whole thing is I don’t write the script until I know exactly what the hell it is that I’m writing anyway. So in a weird way what we’re talking about here is this kind of idea gathering process. That is the process for me. I’m gathering ideas and writing things down on notecards and putting snippets of dialogue in little clustery files. But I don’t start writing anything until I see it. It’s like, oh, I always think of this wonderful scene from Searching for Bobby Fischer. Do you love Searching for Bobby Fischer the way I love it?

**John:** I do not recall it well, so obviously I don’t.

**Craig:** My god. Aline? Big Searching for–?

**Aline:** I haven’t seen it recently.

**Craig:** Oh, Steven Zaillian wrote and directed, brilliant. And there’s a moment where Ben Kinsley as the grandmaster is teaching this little kid. And he’s looking at the board and Ben Kingsley says, “You can get to checkmate in five. Don’t move until you see it.” And the kid is looking at it and he goes, “I don’t see it.” And Ben Kingsley says, “Don’t move until you see it.” And the kid says, “I don’t see it.” And Ben Kingsley says, “Here, I’ll help you. And he takes his arm and he wipes all the pieces off the board and they all clatter to the floor. It’s gorgeous. And he says, “There.” So now the kid can look at the blank board and then imagine the pieces and then he sees it.

And a lot of times for me I’m like don’t write it until you see it. That’s the way I kind of think about it. Don’t write it until you see it.

**Aline:** There’s also a thing that can happen where if you iterate something before you’re ready it creates a box or a fence in your brain and you can never get over it to where the good idea was. And so I fear that a little bit. Like you don’t want to start putting in those 2x4s and beams until you really know what you’re doing because you can get trapped in your edifice and then you can’t ever – because I was talking to another writer yesterday about sometimes you see something on the page and it’s so not what you want that you’re like I don’t remember writing, I don’t remember being a writer, I don’t remember what stories are. Have I ever seen a movie? It can block you.

So, I’ve written – a lot of the stuff I’ve done have been originals, 27 Dresses, Morning Glory, Crazy Ex, were all ideas that I had for a very long time. And what I tend to do is I store them up and I think about them until I meet the person.

**John:** Now did you have a list of those ideas?

**Aline:** No.

**John:** So just floating in your head somewhere? It’s like I want to do a movie about that.

**Aline:** They’re floating in my head. And then 27 Dresses I was like, you know what, this is a good idea. I should do this. Because my best friend Kate had been in 12 weddings at that point and it was insane. And I could see that the wedding industry was getting to this point where she was asked to do stuff that was bonkers.

And I pitched it to a lot of people. I think I pitched that to 11 people and the person that I didn’t know who latched on to it right away was John Glickman. So when I find often a collaborator or person I know this is the right person who can help, you know, water this with me and then I’m in a process. And with Morning Glory that was JJ. I pitched it to JJ I think the first time I met him. And then Crazy Ex was an idea, the title and the character – because I think there’s – I really relish and am giggly about all the moments in my life when I’ve been a crazy ex, even if it’s just like I want that sweater and there’s only one left in the small, you know, and I stalked it. And I always loved that idea.

And when I met Rachel I went, boom, that’s how to do it. So, I think it’s nice to carry around a little suitcase of notions in your brain and then when you think, oh, you know what? Now’s the moment to do it. This wedding stuff is getting so over the top that a movie about a perpetual bridesmaid, this is a good time to do it. So either the circumstances or you meet a person or you think of the genre. You know, you have an idea and you think, oh, the way to do this is, you know, this is a movie about terrible in-laws, but it’s Meet the Parents, or it’s Get Out. It takes a certain form.

And to me if the thing isn’t good I’ll forget about it.

**John:** Craig, do you have an idea suitcase?

**Craig:** No. I’m not a big idea person like that. In other words I’m not a big “here’s an idea for a movie.” I was like that early in my career because early in my career you were rewarded for that. Over time it seems to me that my skill isn’t so much in coming up with a wonderful idea for a movie. My skill it seems is figuring out how to write a movie. So, and that kind of meshed nicely with the way the business evolved because suddenly—

**Aline:** Well I would argue that that’s not true of Chernobyl.

**Craig:** Well, Chernobyl isn’t an idea. In other words, Chernobyl – it’s a topic.

**Aline:** The way you did it. Well, it’s a topic, but the way you did it and the way you chronicled it.

**John:** That’s execution rather than idea.

**Craig:** Correct. I think of that as actually the best example of the fact that I can execute things. But I don’t think of it as like, in other words what you do there – I used to do it. I don’t. I don’t know if I was ever really good at it to be honest with you. I mean—

**Aline:** So just to bring this back around, one of the reasons I’ve always done that is because that’s how I got hired. And there was not a lot else out for me. I was not being offered the big IP. Even back in the day I wasn’t getting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I wasn’t well-known enough in those days. And that’s, you know, that’s why I chased Devil Wears Prada. Talk about Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, I chased that. Every single time they replaced the writer I said to my agent, “Get me in, get me in, get me in.” Because there’s so few things like that.

So I wasn’t getting – because there weren’t – there were so few pieces like that. Annie is one. Weirdly Cinderella was a thing that I came up with and pitched, strangely. That’s how long ago that was. That was before they were doing that. Annie is an example of like that’s a big piece that got given to me, but one of the reasons I did that is because for whatever reason I just have not been gifted with things that already had momentum. Annie was one, but not often.

**Craig:** At least in the beginning I certainly wasn’t either. So I was coming up with ideas and things. Some of them were really bad, but then they made them. Right? So they made some movies, some of them did OK. Most of them didn’t do well. What happened was I got stuck on sequels. And I guess at that point I was able to demonstrate some sort of executional ability.

But, yeah, when you start out you do kind of need to go here is my suitcase, here are my samples. Would you like to buy? And I do remember, you know, I mean, look, there’s a movie that I co-wrote with my partner back then called Senseless. It’s just a bad idea for a movie. It’s really just terrible. It’s a terrible idea for a movie.

The reason it got made I think is because it was in the middle of the video era when they would make anything. And, you know what? Penelope Spheeris did her best to direct and Marlon Wayans was really funny. And Matthew Lillard was really funny. But the idea was just dumb. It was just a bad idea for a movie.

**Aline:** Some ideas don’t work.

**Craig:** I mean, but that one honestly mystified me – I remember my writing partner and I were taking a walk and we had just pitched this thing. Because we were, again, we were like we need to get the suitcase out. No one is giving us anything. We have to make our own opportunities. And he said, “Do you think they’ll make that?” And I said not a chance. Not a chance. And then they did.

**Aline:** So one thing I would say for aspiring writers, when you are breaking in and you start to get those round of general meetings they’re going to say to you, “What do you want to write? Is there an article? Is there an idea? What do you have?” Wait a second. Get to know this person. Have a nice general meeting. Just chat in general about their movies. Hope you bump into them. Don’t give your babies, because in the beginning, you know, anybody who wanted to meet with me I’m a more reticent person so I would meet someone and five minutes into it they would say, “What is something you’ve dreamed of writing your whole life?” And I would think I just met you. I don’t know if I want to entrust you with that.

But I’ve seen young writers often, they’re just so excited to be in a meeting with someone that they take one of their idea babies out of their suitcase – not a good place to keep babies.

**Craig:** Put holes in it.

**Aline:** And they give it to someone and then that’s where it loses its momentum. So if you have something that’s near and dear to you in the beginning you might want to write it, or wait until you find someone who is truly a champion. Because the other thing I was naïve about is people take these general meetings with you. They actually haven’t read your work.

And one of the funniest – I don’t know if I’ve told this story on this podcast before – but I was in a meeting, my very first round of general meetings. And while I was sitting there an assistant walked in and said to the executive, “I have that coverage on Jersey Angel you wanted.”

**John:** Your script.

**Aline:** And I was so dumb that I didn’t know that that was – she hadn’t read it. And was taking the meeting as a favor to my agent. And so that was a person saying, “Gee, what are your hopes and dreams. And give me those things that reside in your soul,” who hadn’t actually read my script.

So, just, you know–

**John:** So I’m taking a lot of generals right now because there’s just a bunch of folks who over the years I’ve never met, or all the executives moved from one company to another so I’m just taking those generals now. And I’ve found that, granted I’m not at the beginning of my career, but I will generally go into those meetings with some sense of like, OK, these are the kinds of things they might be looking for. And so I may not pitch a specific story, but I’ll pitch like this is a story area that I’m really interested in. Like I just read an article about this thing and I think there’s probably a great movie to be made that’s looking at the reality of this but also pushes it into this fantasy aspect. And so those are helpful things to have as you go into those things.

Just give them a sense of like what your taste is and what’s interesting to you. And a lot of times I really am pulling some stuff out of the old idea suitcase. Like I’ve always wanted to do something with this place. Or like this old idea, I realize now in 2020 is actually more about this and that is a point of discussion. So, a deal I’m making now was out of one of those general meetings where I had an old thing but I realized like, oh, actually the way you make this story now in 2020 has a whole different [valence].

**Aline:** You said something so brilliant once and I think about it a lot, so I’m going to make you repeat it. Somebody said I have two ideas and I don’t know which one to write. And you said pick the one with the better ending.

**John:** That was Episode 100.

**Aline:** Ah, I love that piece of advice. And to go with that is I would say pick an idea that suggests a structure. Because sometimes I’ve had ideas – that’s why I had not done Crazy Ex because I didn’t know what the structure of that could be. And it wasn’t until Rachel and I started talking about it and I realized it was a TV show so you could kind of examine the prism. I was worried that a movie would be too reductive and broad.

Pick an idea that suggests a structure to you. Because if it just seems like a good idea for a movie, and I will tell you something quite counterintuitive. Things that are set on the backdrop of a wedding, rom-coms, a lot of people their first movie is like, “Oh, it’s the destination wedding. Or it’s the wedding where you find out your divorced parents fall back in love or whatever.” Weddings are brutal structurally because they are not escalating. So, your rehearsal dinner to your ceremony to the football game on the lawn, they don’t have a natural escalation in stakes. Actually it seems like that’s a structure. It’s not. And I’ve wandered down that garden path more than once because I’ve written a bunch of things that have weddings in them. They’re actually very difficult.

If you’re starting out and you have an idea, the one that suggests I have to be there by Tuesday to get a thing is probably the easiest the one, the simpler one to write. Something that suggests a journey. Suggests a story.

**John:** Like your Crazy Ex-Girlfriend example, Arlo Finch I had in my head for a very long time and I just didn’t know what it was. It’s not really a movie. It’s not really a TV show. And then I had a conversation with a middle grade novelist and I realized like, oh, this is a middle grade novel series. That’s what it is. I started writing that night and that became the thing. So, you do hold on to those things not knowing quite what form they want to take, but you know that there’s a thing there that’s interesting and appealing.

**Aline:** But I still think I would still argue Craig that the idea of doing Chernobyl in the way that you did it is a great idea because, you know, you could make a lot of Chernobyl movies but they would have been the more typical accident of the week kind of thing. So it’s just – it’s a cool idea just to examine that because it’s not something that people know enough about. But also the way in which it was done is a cool idea. I think.

**Craig:** Well thank you.

**John:** Take the compliment, Craig. She’s complimenting you.

**Craig:** I mean, you know, I’m not good – I’m really bad at compliments. Mostly when somebody gives me a compliment my mind immediately starts creating a very good rebuttal.

**Aline:** Or you think, “What an idiot? What a dummy?”

**John:** They couldn’t recognize the real me, because if they knew the real me they’d be disappointed.

**Craig:** I don’t think you understand. See, I’m not really very good. That’s kind of, yeah. Well, you know, Chernobyl couldn’t have been a movie anyway. That’s true.

**Aline:** Part of your idea was we’re going to really look at this in a very granular beat-by-beat and the millions and millions of bad decisions that go into something like this. And that’s what makes it a great cautionary tale because all these disasters are a collision of a million mistakes, human and technical. And you need time. You needed episodes for that to unfurl. And a movie might have constrained you. Also because movies are going to follow a more traditional escalation crescendo structure which sometimes things don’t want to be. And those make you be phony.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Sometimes the form is a terrific idea. I haven’t seen it, but doing Emily Dickinson’s life as sort of like an emo-teen-pop thing which they’re doing on Apple, I have no idea what that’s like. But it’s taking the biopic and making it, from what I’ve seen it looks like a cool Ariana Grande video. That’s a cool idea.

**Craig:** Have you guys ever heard someone pronounce biopic “bi-opic?”

**Aline:** Yes.

**Craig:** It’s amazing. Every time it happens I get so excited.

**Aline:** I have to stop correcting. We have a thing in our house but with fewer and less. And two of us are quite strict on it and one of us is really annoyed.

**Craig:** That would be Will, your husband, I’m assuming.

**Aline:** No, he’s a bit of a stickler in a way. One of my children finds it very annoying to be policed.

**John:** And your dogs are like I don’t know what you’re talking about.

**Aline:** Yeah, we’re idiots.

**Craig:** We don’t speak at all.

**John:** Let’s answers some questions here. First question is an audio question from Nathan Morris.

Nathan Morris: Hello, my name is Nathan. I’ll give you a dollar each if you can guess where I’m from by my accident. I’m currently living in New York. I have a question about working with actors. I’m a writer-director. I’m working on a little passion project right now to prove to the world what I can do. It’s all improvised. I wrote large backstory for each of my characters. During casting and workshopping with them was really fun and some ideas come up that the actors thought of about the characters I created.

I used a couple of these in the edit I’m putting together now and I’m wondering should they be credited as writers because they did create the joke? I don’t want to annoy anyone, piss anyone off, or just be a dick. Yeah, so I’d love to know what you guys think about that. I’m especially interested after hearing your Veep episode. Armando Iannucci is one of my heroes.

**Craig:** I’ve got to tell you all I did was listen to his accent for the first half of that question. I have no idea what the question was.

**John:** So here was his question. He made a short that involved a lot of actors who were doing improv.

**Craig:** Oh, yes, yes, yes.

**John:** He is wondering whether he should credit them as writers for the improv.

**Craig:** No. So, the, well, listen, it’s entirely up to you, Nathan, how you go about these things if you are not working within our Writers Guild world. In the Writers Guild world writing credit is for literary material. That means specifically material that has been written down on paper. So ad-libs, things that come up on the day that actors are putting out there are not considered literary material so it’s not creditable as writing.

If you are creating something that is highly improvisational you can consider it. But I would point out that even in shows like—

**Aline:** Curb.

**Craig:** Curb Your Enthusiasm, right, which there is a very strict outline that’s been written but inside of those scenes the dialogue can be often very improvised, those actors are not getting writing credit either. It’s just sort of understood this is how it works. Also I think he’s from South Africa.

**John:** All right. Aline, what is your impression both of what Nathan should do with his actors and where he’s from?

**Aline:** He’s from Australia.

**Craig:** It’s one or the other.

**John:** I’m pretty sure Australia.

**Craig:** Those two are always in my mind competing.

**Aline:** Interesting. Yeah, there’s a lot of the Christopher Guest movies and Curb are examples of the story is preset. They’re given material and then the dialogue is – what I wouldn’t do is spring it on anyone. Just make sure going into it that they know what examples you’re following and that this is how you’re going to be doing it.

It’s different if they’re sitting in a room with you and you’re typing it together.

**John:** Yeah. I think our consensus is that these actors sort of knew going into it that this was an improv situation. They probably don’t have an expectation that you are going to be giving them writing credit for this. But, of course, what we really care about is where you’re from and Nathan has an answer. So I actually heard the answer so I know. But I wasn’t convinced – I was thinking South Africa originally, but I was also thinking it could be a British accent, like a specific one that I was just missing. But let’s hear Nathan give us his answer.

**Craig:** Oh good.

Nathan: My accent is from…New Zealand.

**Craig:** Ah!

**Aline:** Ugh.

Nathan: Aotearoa. That’s the Maori name for my country. And we also have tall poppies [in germ]. Some would say greater than the Australians. Maybe that’s tall poppy syndrome right there. OK, I will stop wasting your time.

**Aline:** I feel bad about that because my sister-in-law is from New Zealand.

**Craig:** It’s really close. I mean, honestly, I mean Australia certainly is closer to New Zealand than South Africa. But I make that mistake, I mush those two together all the time. All the time. Mush those three together I guess all the time. Shame on me.

**John:** Shame on us. Monica asks, “Hi John, what was your budget on God and how did you go about funding it?” So God was a short film I made with Melissa McCarthy in 1998. We shot on 35mm film. We shot on short ends. We got the film pretty cheap but processing is expensive. So the full budget on that was $30,000. You can now make that same movie for $3,000.

**Aline:** John, where can people see The Nines?

**John:** The Nines, anywhere. It’s actually streaming kind of in all the places. It’s on iTunes but it’s also everywhere else.

**Aline:** It’s so good.

**John:** Thank you very much. So Melissa McCarthy’s character in God shows up again in The Nines. And as we all know Melissa McCarthy is a treat and a gem and a wonder of our age.

**Aline:** And Ryan Reynolds in it. It’s really good.

**John:** Thank you. Paul asks, “I watch a lot of movies and notice that it usually starts raining at the beginning of the third act or the end of the second act when things get bad in the story. Is this a tradition that should be used? Is it a crutch? Is there a way to stop using rain as a crutch? Should it be written in the script or left to a cinematography decision? I don’t hate it when I see it but I don’t love it either. It’s in many of my most beloved movies of all time. Help.”

**Aline:** I mean, it’s a huge rom-com trope.

**John:** It is a trope.

**Aline:** We made fun of it on the show. It’s a huge rom-com trope. You know, using the environment to reflect the inner feelings of a character, so as things are darkening the weather is reflecting that. That’s why you can call it out in a comedic sense because climaxes of romances in romantic comedies are people speaking to each other in the rain which is a thing I’ve never done. Dude, it’s raining. Let’s have this fight under an awning. People will stand there getting drenched with rain drenching them. Women with like their shirts drenched having a romantic conversation with someone. So, externalizing people’s emotions in the weather can sometimes reinforce the atmosphere, but sometimes can just make it seem like hilariously people’s emotions are being externalized.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a trope. I mean, is it a crutch? I don’t know if it’s a crutch. Although I do agree that there are times when you want to see your characters at a low moment and you decide it’s not enough to just know that they’re feeling terrible. You have to also rain directly on them, like those cartoons where a little cloud follows someone around.

**Aline:** But have you guys ever just stood there while it was raining?

**Craig:** Yeah, no.

**John:** No!

**Aline:** And spoken to someone?

**Craig:** No. I mean, unless I was so depressed because I was at the end of my second act. I mean, that’s the point. It’s silly but there’s a lot of silly stuff in movies. Like the fact that usually people don’t have rear view mirrors in their cars. So, I would say, look—

**Aline:** And they talk to people who are sitting in the middle of the back seat.

**Craig:** And they don’t say goodbye when they hang up a phone.

**Aline:** All these things we love.

**Craig:** All these things we love.

**Aline:** I think it can be cartoony. I mean, I love a sunlit noir. I love a movie where someone is going through some horrible noir. After Dark, My Sweet is the one I think of. Where it’s a noir but it’s Jason Patric being sort of bathed in horrible, horrible California sunshine instead of dark.

**Craig:** Yeah. Glaring hangover light.

**John:** So a thing that people who don’t make movies probably don’t realize is that whenever you write rain in the script, when you actually show up on set it is miserable generally because like the rain towers and the whole process of getting people wet and getting people dry and shooting in the rain is a huge hassle. You’re trying to protect everything. So I learned this firsthand on Go which does have rain in the third act. And it’s a hassle. It’s fully appropriate in Go. It actually serves a character purpose. It’s part of the reason they hit Ronna. But good lord, rain is a brutal thing.

**Craig:** Rain is hard to do. One thing, Paul, you would not do is leave it up to the cinematographer. The cinematographer does not make that decision. The cinematographer has to figure out how to shoot it. But, yes, it is absolutely within your domain to write that into a script. And then, you know, people can discuss after if they want to do it or not. But, yeah, it’s definitely something you should be deciding.

**John:** It is time for our One Cool Things. Now, Craig you and David Kwong just finished a massive puzzling expedition. It was like five days of work I believe?

**Craig:** Six.

**John:** Six days. So I’m going to break precedent and I’m actually going to recommend a puzzle thing. This is called Reg Ex Crossword. And so it’s the perfect Venn diagram intersection of what’s interesting to me and what’s interesting to you. So Reg Ex or regular expressions are the computer code that helps do pattern matching. So it’s how you find text within text. It is really esoteric and strange. This is a crossword puzzle situation where the clues are actually just regular expressions so you have to figure out what letters could possibly match up with those things. It’s very ingeniously done.

Craig, I hope you will clear out your afternoon schedule so you can try some of this.

**Craig:** I shouldn’t, but I will.

**John:** So, weirdly a cross between what we love about crossword puzzles and also what we love about Sudoku and only certain things can fit in certain boxes.

**Craig:** It actually sounds like a cross between what I love about crosswords and what I love about you.

**John:** Aw, Craig.

**Craig:** Aw.

**Aline:** Aw.

**John:** Aline knows that I’m blushing right now.

**Aline:** He’s blushing. Do you guys know what Sooth is?

**John:** Sooth is the relaxation app.

**Aline:** Sooth is a massage app.

**John:** Oh yes. Yes.

**Aline:** Sooth is an on-demand massage app. And I’ve got to say I’ve used it for a bunch of years now. It’s great.

**John:** We’ve used it.

**Aline:** And I’ve had many, many massage therapists. You can request the same one. But the beauty of Sooth is that you’re like, you know what in about an hour I’m in the mood for a massage and I have time. And they’ll come to your house and they bring the table. And I’ve had many, many Sooth massages and they’ve been different people and they’ve all been pretty great.

You know how sometimes you go to a spa and someone starts and you’re like this is – what am I doing?

**John:** There’s going to be 45 more minutes of this.

**Aline:** There’s going to be 45 minutes of nothingness. These are really good, strong massage therapists. I’ve only had women because I’ve had too many creepy male massages in my life. So I can only speak for the female massage therapists on Sooth. But they’re really good. They come to your house. And what’s nice about that is when you’re done, you know, and after they go you just get in your shower. You’re not in a spa. That’s a whole – I don’t like things that are a whole thing. Going to get a massage can be a whole thing.

But Sooth makes it into a really easy, pleasurable way to get a massage in your home.

**John:** Nice. That sounds like an ad for Sooth but it’s actually just a One Cool Thing. Craig, what’s your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** Well I don’t know if I’ve mentioned Assassin’s Creed Odyssey yet.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** I’ve been playing it. So, hat’s off to Ubisoft. Every Assassin’s Creed game is kind of the same thing. I mean, it’s amazing. And yet it’s sort of like, well, you know, the Big Mac works for a reason. People like it. And in this game you’re running around Ancient Greece which is cool because you get to talk to Socrates. But what my One Cool Thing specifically about the game is sex. There is sex in Assassin’s Creed and it’s hysterical.

You know the old cliché of two people start kissing and then they just sort of pan over to a fireplace? So that’s what it is every single time. But the best part is you can play the game as a man or a woman. It’s kind of ingenious actually. There’s a beginning where there’s a brother and a sister and something terrible happens and they’re split apart. And then they have to kind of find each other over the course of time and they’re rivals. And so if you choose to play as a woman, well, you’re the sister. If you choose to play as a man you’re the brother. And then they just flop the other things. But what doesn’t change are all the people that are interested in having sex with you. And your choice is to have sex with them.

I have had sex with everyone. So I played this character, because you have an option. You can turn down people. I turn down no one.

**Aline:** Just the pulled quote from this episode is Craig Mazin for Deadline Hollywood. It’s going to be Craig Mazin, “I’ve had sex with everyone.”

**John:** Everyone.

**Craig:** My favorite thing happened the other night. For whatever reason I had sex with this woman that I used to have sex with that I hadn’t seen in a while. Then I go rescue this guy and he’s so into me right from the start, right? I’m playing as a guy. So he’s into me from the start. And then he has a brother. And he and the brother are very different. I’m like, OK, I kind of see what’s going on here. This brother is into guys, or if I’m playing as a woman he’ll be into women. It doesn’t matter. The point is he’s into me and the other one is not really. A sad story.

No. They both are. I have sex with brothers, not at the same time, but separately. And then they both find out.

**Aline:** Next quote. New article. New piece. “I had sex with brothers.”

**Craig:** I had sex with brothers. And then I dumped both of them. It was great.

**Aline:** Have you guys seen the Black Mirror with Anthony Mackey in it?

**John:** I have seen that one.

**Craig:** No.

**Aline:** You have?

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Yeah!

**John:** It’s sort of that situation.

**Aline:** Yeah. Craig have you seen that one?

**Craig:** I’m living it, man. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I’m having sex with everyone.

**Aline:** Well, it can get tricky.

**Craig:** One of the quests in the game is you have to go get somebody’s like armor from a special blacksmith. And you go to the blacksmith and he’s like, well, and he’s like a big burly dude. He’s like, “I would, but you know, I don’t know. Maybe if you make it worth my while.” I mean, he’s literally saying, “You know, if you have sex with me I’ll do it.” And I’m like, done. In. And he’s like, “The only problem is I need special herbs to actually have an erection.” So I have to go and like kill some mountain lions or something so I can collect herbs to give it to a blacksmith to have sex with him in exchange for armor.

I mean, that’s a day. That’s a freaking day.

**Aline:** What’s going to happen when we find out this is not actually happening?

**Craig:** Yeah. There is no game called Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. [laughs]

**John:** Craig is just sitting there staring at a black screen. [laughs]

**Craig:** Or I’m doing it. First of all, I have to find a blacksmith. A real blacksmith.

**Aline:** Brothers.

**Craig:** Brothers. I have to find brothers. I have to find an old flame. I want to be clear. Every single, and I urge people when they’re playing Assassin’s Creed, whether you’re playing as a man or a woman, have sex with everyone. Because you end up kissing everyone and then like the camera just drifts away. And the best part is the next thing that happens is like time has passed and you’re alone. They’re gone. So you have sex with people and they just leave. It’s perfect. It’s a perfect world.

**Aline:** It’s perfect for our Tinder age.

**Craig:** It really is.

**Aline:** Tinder.

**Craig:** It’s like, hey, yeah, I’ll have sex with you for armor. And you’re gone.

**John:** That should be the title of the episode. [laughs]

**Aline:** I’ll have sex with you for armor and then you’re gone.

**Craig:** And then you’re gone. It’s fantastic.

**John:** Oh, that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Victor Krause. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. But for short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Aline, do you want to be Twitter mentioned now?

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** Great. You are @?

**Aline:** I’m @alinebmckenna.

**Craig:** @alinebmckenna. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts. We get them up the week after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net. And you need to sign up there if you want to use the app to listen to back episodes. So some people were having a hard time listening to back episodes on the app. It’s because you have to go to Scriptnotes.net to log in there. The app exists for iOS and Android.

You can also download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com. Aline, you use the Scriptnotes app?

**Aline:** Oh yeah. I do. I do. I’m not a completist, but I’m pretty close to it. I’ve been an early fan and I was an early fan partly because when you’re a screenwriter you’re so lonely and the fact that there was a show where I could listen to two of my friends talking was so nice.

**Craig:** It was like you weren’t alone.

**Aline:** Yes. And it was like my buddies are over and we’re talking about screenwriting. But as you know I’m a legit fan and I recommend the show all the time. And so I did recently when I was writing a script I went back and I did kind of a deep dive into the early episodes.

**John:** Well, Aline, thank you for being a super fan and also for coming back again on the show.

**Craig:** Thank you, Aline.

**John:** To be our buddy and talk through these issues with us.

**Aline:** I just looked it up and Batgirl and Catwoman, they were both on Adam West, but I can’t remember – and fans will tell us which one used to appear in the credits.

**Craig:** And Eartha Kitt was Catwoman right?

**Aline:** Julie Newmar did the first two years, and then Eartha Kitt.

**Craig:** See, I’m an Eartha Kitt fan because she would [purrs]. She was great. She really leaned into the purr.

**Aline:** She was the greatest.

**John:** Yeah. And she would have sex for armor.

**Craig:** I mean, honestly I think you would, too.

**Aline:** I’m getting Craig a t-shirt that says Will Have Sex for Armor.

**Craig:** Yeah. Don’t say it like it’s bad. It’s good.

**John:** Craig, thanks so much. Have a great week.

**Craig:** Thanks guys, bye.

**Aline:** Bye.

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

July 25, 2019 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** No. It’s just us talking.

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

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

**Craig:** Weird, right?

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

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

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

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

**John:** Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Ditto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Correct. Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** I insist upon it.

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

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

**Craig:** No problem.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Right.

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Great.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Oh, great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, that is our unique challenge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Stranger Things.

**Craig:** Stranger Things.

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** We’re gonna.

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

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

**John:** Jacked up.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Barely–

**John:** Well it is progress.

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Good.

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

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

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

**Craig:** I’m down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig, what were you feeling?

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

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

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

**Craig:** Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Shelly Duvall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yeah.

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

**Craig:** Or say nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig, what did you think of these few pages?

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Boom.

**Craig:** So good.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** So good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** She lies.

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** 100%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yeah.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Right.

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Always a good idea.

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

**Craig:** 100%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yeah, way better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Four.

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

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

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

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Craig:** Yep.

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

**Craig:** Yeah.

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

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

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

**John:** Oh my.

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

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

Woo-hoo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** You can’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** Oh yeah.

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

**John:** Yeah. It’s because of–

**Craig:** Width.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**John:** OK.

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

**John:** Yeah.

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

**John:** Good stuff.

**Craig:** It’s the new Craig.

**John:** It’s a new character?

**Craig:** It’s height, sir. Height.

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

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

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

So, I was just reading an article about, you know, little life hacky stuff. And they sent me to a product called iRoller. Ugh, revolutionary name.

**John:** That’s an eye roll.

**Craig:** Yeah, exactly. It is an eye roll of a name. iRoller screen cleaner reusable liquid free touchscreen cleaner for smartphones and tablets. And lo and behold and it works. It works really, really well. It’s not like a lint brush thing where there’s like an adhesive. It looks like it’s more of one of those static films that actually just does a really good job of picking stuff up. And then when it stops working you can wash it and it just sort of goes back to the way it used to be.

And it’s very portable. It’s very tiny. And it’s not, I think it’s $20 or something like that which is, I don’t know, a profit margin of $19.98. But it actually does the job. So if you’re looking for one of those things and you’re grumpy because none of them have worked, check out the iRoller.

**John:** So, and it works better than my solution which is just rubbing it on my shirt?

**Craig:** It does. The rubbing it on – listen, I’ve rubbed many a phone on my shirt. It tends to take spots, which are really just accumulation of grease and dust, and just disseminate it over the entire screen.

**John:** Equalize it.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s like a light fog over everything, as opposed to clean which is different. Oh, and it works on laptop screens, too, which is another plus.

**John:** Because it’s really embarrassing when I have to pick up my laptop screen and rub it on my shirt. It’s awkward.

**Craig:** I’ve done it. [laughs] I’ve done it. I’ve got real problems.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It was edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Mackey Landy.

If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts which go up about four days after the episode airs.

If you want to read the recap of this on Reddit, go for it. We’re R/Screenwriting.

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

That is our show for this week. Craig, thank you for helping me achieve some self-awareness.

**Craig:** I love that and we’ll do it again next week.

**John:** Thanks. Bye.

Links:

* John and Craig’s panel on Addiction & Mental Health organized by Hollywood, Health & Society Wed, July 31, 2019, 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM PDT at SAG. Limited tickets, email: hhs@usc.edu
* [Research Methods for Writers with Chernobyl’s Craig Mazin](https://www.wgfoundation.org/events/all/2019/7/17/research-methods-for-writers-chernobyl) Wednesday, July 17, 2019 @ 7:00 PM
* Trumpcast [Is Trump a Disease? A Medical Perspective](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/is-trump-a-disease-a-medical-perspective.html)
* Edith Rodriguez, [The Days Ahead](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3PageEdith.pdf)
* Carolyn Getches & Hilary C. Gish [Formerly Fat Housewife](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3PageCarolynHilary.pdf)
* Christine Hoang [Fly Girl](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/3PageChristine.pdf)
* Bo Burnham’s [Eighth Grade Script](http://a24awards.com/film/eighthgrade/Eighth_Grade_Script.pdf)
* [‘Versing’ Verse as a Verb](https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4029)
* [Screen Cleaner](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BX1AOVA/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Mackey Landy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_409_self_awareness.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 408: Rolling Dice, Transcript

July 19, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 408 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast we have far too much to talk about.

**Craig:** Oh no.

**John:** Eight topics, any one of which could be the centerpiece. So I thought Craig we might borrow something we do every time we play D&D which is there’s situations where arrows are shooting into a group of people and you’re not quite sure who the target is. So you as a DM, what kind of thing might you do to figure out which of those random people is the target?

**Craig:** You give them a number. You count how many there are. And you roll that many sided die.

**John:** So luckily in the world there exist eight-sided dice. So here are the topics we will let the dice decide which order they will fall into. The topics are: Aladdin. Chernobyl. John’s new agent. The WGA elections. The status of the agency stuff. Craig’s solo episode. WGA financials. And dots, dashes, and parentheticals.

**Craig:** Ding.

**John:** One small craft topic.

**Craig:** I just wanted to add the Jeopardy noise.

**John:** It’s important.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** We could have Matthew do it in post but really I think that artisanal homemade feel is what this podcast goes for.

**Craig:** Ding!

**John:** Ding. But first, Craig, there was some follow up from Episode 406. Do you want to talk us through this?

**Craig:** Sure, Alice, a longtime listener, first-time commenter writes, “Dear John and Craig. I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your discussion with Rachel Bloom about how sex is portrayed on TV. You asked her to give you a wish list of the kind of scenes she wanted to see but I don’t think she did. So here is my wish list of what I would like to see more of.

“One, discussions of contraception. A humorous and embarrassingly memorable example is in the movie Shop Girl. Two, allowing men to say no to sex instead of implying that they are always ready to go at a moment’s notice. Three, discussion of menstruation as a natural part of a woman’s life and not just as a punchline. Four, verbal discussions of what kind of sex the characters are comfortable with before the act. Although it has been derided by many, one of the good things about 50 Shades of Gray is that they had such a discussion. Many shows imply that not saying no means yes and they skirt dangerously close to date rape, see for instance Blade Runner.

“Five, more laughing during sex because it can be hilarious. Thanks so much for your show. Keep up the good work”

That’s a pretty good list.

**John:** That’s a great list. Alice, thank you very much for that list. I hope that some of these topics make it on to the whiteboards of TV shows that are in the room right now to figure out their seasons because they’re all good things. And there’s ways to do all those topics even on broadcast television. So yes, more of that.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** Yep. All right, let’s get to our eight big topics because this could be a marathon episode if we don’t get to it quickly. So I could roll a physical die but I think I’m going to try to have Siri roll the die for us so that everyone can hear and so that Craig knows I’m not cheating and trying to – because we’re doing this on Skype so he can’t see what I’m doing.

**Craig:** True.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** Rolling.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Siri:** Five this time.

**Craig:** Wow. Whoa.

**John:** Siri has picked number five.

**Craig:** God, she started us off with a hot topic.

**John:** Oh, the status of the agency stuff. Oh my gosh. All right, let’s get into this.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** So much has happened since we last talked about the agency stuff, but nothing really fundamentally on the ground has changed. Let me recap some of what’s happened since we talked about it on the show last, because there are a lot of little individual things. And we are recording this on a Friday. By Tuesday when this episode comes out, who knows, things could have changed again.

So, the WGA got back into the room with the ATA. The ATA doubled their previous offer on packaging but didn’t change anything on producing. That’s a fair summary I think of what happened in that room. It didn’t go great. In a video response the president of the WGA, David Goodman, explained that revenue sharing was a non-starter and that we weren’t going to negotiate percentages on something we didn’t think addressed the fundamental issues involved.

At the same time the WGA stated they were at an impasse with the ATA and would begin negotiating with the individual agencies instead. Then, WME, CAA, and UTA sued the WGA for antitrust. They were separate lawsuits but they’re basically all saying that the writer firing that happened in April amounted to an illegal boycott. The WGA issued a cease and desist to the ATA claiming antitrust, price fixing, and unlawful collusion.

The WGA sent out a modified proposal allowing a one-year sunset clause on packaging fees. Abrams Agency let the world know that they were willing to give up packaging fees and producing since they were the first of the major ATA agencies to sort of break away from the pact there. But they didn’t want to sign the Verve agreement, so as we’re recording this it’s not clear that anything is actually going to happen with Abrams. So, that’s a summary of I think the highlights of what’s happened since we last talked about this on the show.

**Craig:** Yeah, if we want to call those highlights. So, it seems to me that the kind of missiles, the legal missiles that are firing back and forth is, well, in the short term – and when I say short term I mean probably within a year – I can’t imagine either one of those or any of these kind of cross-suits having a direct impact because it’s going to take forever to wend its way through the system. These are leverage moves.

I am so disappointed. I’m just going to come out and say it. I am so disappointed with the position that our side took which is that revenue sharing was a non-starter. I don’t know how else to get to an agreement myself. And I’m concerned that the agencies make so much money off of packaging fees that they may just look at the numbers and say we make more if we keep packaging directors and actors and never get anything from writers than we would if everybody goes to 10%. In which case this never ends. And the guild sort of unilaterally excludes its own membership from the four biggest agencies on the planet, which I’ve said before is unacceptable to me for so many reasons, not the least of which is I think it will permanently damage our status in television which is well-earned and well-deserved and hard fought for.

So, I’m really disappointed. And I think it’s something that has to change. I don’t think we’re going to get there with a lot of the same people in charge. I don’t think anything is going to happen until an election. And I just feel a little jerked around. I think that the vote that we had, the implication was give us negotiation strength so we can negotiate a deal and we haven’t negotiated anything. We’ve just said, nah, no packaging fees. So, I’m upset. I’m upset. Yeah.

**John:** I hear all that. And so last time as you vented I didn’t sort of respond back. I do want to respond back on some things because I feel like there’s some differences of opinion here that are important to voice.

So I can’t say some things that are sort of stuff that’s ongoing. I do think it’s a little disingenuous to say that, well, you can say that you gave him your vote on moving ahead to give them leverage to make a deal. But I think it’s very clear and there’s good tape to show that the request with the vote is to vote honestly, to vote your conscience, and not to vote to give them leverage. And that’s a thing that was said repeatedly in the run up to it.

So, I can totally understand why you felt you were doing that and that could have been your intention, but that wasn’t a thing that was asked for. Am I communicating that clearly?

**Craig:** Yes. I disagree.

**John:** OK. We can disagree on that point.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I share your frustration and disappointment at this process. I think I quite naturally direct most of my frustration and disappointment at the agencies for not looking at their clients, or their former clients, and a valuable thing for them to be winning back. And I don’t see them trying very hard to do it. And so I think a difference I’ve noticed with the smaller agencies and we’re going to get to Verve later on, but of the major agencies only Verve was the one who emailed out a survey to all their former clients saying like, hey, what do you actually want. And they took the results of what they heard back from their former clients and realized like, oh crap, we should probably actually take that seriously.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And I don’t see the agencies, big, and some of the smaller ones, too, taking that seriously.

**Craig:** I agree with you on that.

**John:** That’s a thing I would hope to see more of in this near period.

**Craig:** You won’t. [laughs] You won’t. I don’t foresee that changing on their part. I mean, just so you know, I don’t think that their angels in any way, shape, or form. To me they’re a known quantity in a sense, so I just – I’m so pragmatic. You know, I just think like, OK, they’re not going to stop being leopards, but we need to figure out how to get them to stop taking bites out of our leg and go back to biting other people on the leg. And any kind of hope that they’re going to find their way toward some sort of more moral position is I think ultimately going to be fruitless.

**John:** Oh, no, no, I’m not arguing for a moral position. I’m arguing strictly practical. Strictly sort of like what do the numbers tell us. And what is the opinion of the folks we were trying to represent as clients? And I don’t see them actually doing that.

As I would say in the run up to it they were doing a lot of outreach meetings trying to sway that opinion but didn’t do a lot of actually listening sort of what that opinion would be or what the opinion is right now.

**Craig:** Yeah. They blew that. They blew it. No question.

**John:** I do want to talk a moment about the revenue sharing, the decision not to move ahead with the revenue sharing. And we’ll link to the video which sort of explains why that became a non-starter. You know, as the video explains it wasn’t simply that it was the moral issue of sort of we’re now trying to share this thing we don’t think should exist. It was also the practical matter of how the hell are we supposed to divvy up this pie and divvy up this pie not only necessarily among writers but other folks who would be perhaps entitled to a piece of this packaging fees. It became – it was basically like kick it all at the WGA to figure out how to disentangle this incredible mass of stuff that would be heading our direction. And it wasn’t clear how soon that money would be coming. It became clear that we were negotiating to enter into a percentage negotiation on this thing was to accept a tremendous amount of responsibility for dividing this thing that was probably indivisible.

And that there were other topics. There were other solutions that were not being seriously considered because this had been the anointed decision.

**Craig:** I think it’s our responsibility if we’re going to demand that our membership fire all their agents that they have relationships with and empower our guild to negotiate with the agencies, then yeah, it’s their responsibility to do the difficult thing. Of course it’s difficult. If it were easy, you know, this wouldn’t be a negotiation or at least the potential for a negotiation. It’s not going to be as difficult as the MBA which is 800 pages.

We have models for divvying pooled amounts of money between writers, directors, and actors – residuals for instance is an excellent model. And I do think there’s a way to do revenue sharing that restores the you-make-more-when-we-make-more. The fact that it simply wasn’t explored either somebody – either we don’t have the right people because our people are saying, “Oh golly, the math is too hard.” Or we’re using that and when I say we I mean some people inside the building are using that as an excuse. I don’t know how else to get there. I literally don’t. I’ve thought about it for a while. I don’t know how else to get there and I don’t think we will get there any other way.

And, by the way, we’re leaving money on the table which I think is really bad for writers. Again, we’ve empowered the union to make a deal for us and they’re not. Currently the plan appears to be nothing, because saying we’re going to negotiate with the individual agencies, they’re not doing that. They’re not going to do it.

**John:** Again, things I can say and things I can’t say. I think what you say from Abrams was an attempt to do that. And so we’ll see–

**Craig:** I’m sorry, they don’t count. And no offense to Abrams, and no offense to their clients, but the big four are the ones that we have to figure out how to live with. We have to. Or we’re going to be damaged.

**John:** Yeah. I understand the sense of the necessity of figuring out how we’re going to deal with the giant elephants in the room.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I totally do hear that and understand. I will say that there are the members of the negotiating committee and the board do understand that and do have – that is a subject of discussion.

**Craig:** I’m praying for all of us. And when I say I’m praying I don’t pray. I just sit and stew really is what I do.

**John:** As an atheist Craig prays. All right, are we ready to roll the die again?

**Craig:** Roll it.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** It’s four this time.

**Craig:** Four.

**John:** Four.

**Craig:** Oh, more WGA stuff.

**John:** Oh, this is a very related thing. So it’s the WGA elections. The announcement came out about the upcoming WGA elections. Every year we have an election. Every year on this podcast we talk about the elections. In certain cycles we’re electing the officers, so the president, the vice president, and the combined secretary/treasurer. In other cycles we are just electing half of the board. So there’s a total of 16 people on the WGA West board. Eight each time are up for reelection or for selection for those spots.

So if you’re looking through the list that came out recently of who those candidates are you will notice Craig Mazin is among the people who is running for the WGA board.

**Craig:** What an idiot. What an idiot.

**John:** I can say that because I’m not a person who is running for election in this cycle.

**Craig:** So smart.

**John:** So Craig and I would not be on the board at the same time if this were to happen. There are eight board seats. There are 17 board candidates. But there could be some more being added because people can also submit their names by petition. Those petitions have to be received at the guild by July 23.

There will be a candidates’ night forum which I suspect this year will actually be fascinating. Where people can ask questions of the candidates and sort of engage in a discussion there. That is happening Wednesday, August 28, at the WGA headquarters, probably in the newly refurbished room that is so much better than it used to be.

**Craig:** So much better.

**John:** So much better. Voting ends on Monday, September 16. So, the candidates’ night forum is probably the start of the election cycle, so the 28th. But all voting is done by September 16. So, we’ve still got a long runway ahead of us here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Thank god. Because I really don’t want to do any of this stuff for a while. Campaigning is inherently demeaning to everyone. I really do believe that. I wish we didn’t have to do any of it. But I understand the point of campaigning. I mean, you need to let voters know what you think.

You and I talked about how we do the podcast. When you were running our basic rule was we could talk about WGA issues the way we always do and we could endorse other people, but you couldn’t campaign for yourself. And I think that’s a perfectly good way we should approach mine.

**John:** And on this podcast I will not be promoting you either, so it will just be a discussion of the general things and the election, encouraging people to vote, but not to vote necessarily for–

**Craig:** Me.

**John:** You, a person who is on this here podcast.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So, Craig, things you get to look forward which may be different from the last time you were on the board because that was 10 years ago? More. It was a long time ago.

**Craig:** Almost 15 years ago.

**John:** 15 years since you’ve been on the board. So a thing you will probably be doing, you will probably go to wix.com because everybody goes to the exact same website for the endorsement stuff. So you put up a little endorsement website with a form that fills out. People fill out their form.

**Craig:** I was the first person to use an online form.

**John:** Craig, you were a trailblazer back in the day.

**Craig:** I was just lazy. It was Wufoo was what I was using back then.

**John:** Wufoo is the other good choice. So Wufoo probably will be the one you’re using. You know what, I said Wix. I bet it was Wufoo that I used this last time. I blocked it out of my memory.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** But that will happen and you might have some events. You’ll get some people to endorse you. It will be a thing.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Craig, it’s important to have screenwriters on the board. Because here’s a general pitch I can make on behalf of sort of interests of the board and just what I’ve seen is there will be really smart, talented people running for everything which is great. I want to make sure that as I leave the board, as Andrea Berloff leaves the board, and Zak Penn leaves the board, that’s three screenwriters we’re going to be down. So please do elect some folks who are primarily feature writers, or at least do write features because some of those issues are different and we need to make sure that screenwriters are well represented on the board.

**Craig:** I feel like I have enough anger for five screenwriters.

**John:** Yes. But you’re only one person.

**Craig:** I’m only one person.

**John:** And you will also be busy doing other things. So I want to make sure that the screen subcommittee that Michelle Maroney and I started and ran these last two years can persist, because there are enough people on it to actually get that work done.

**Craig:** Nevertheless we persisted. We will persist.

**John:** Nevertheless.

**Craig:** We will persist.

**John:** And now we will roll the die again.

**Craig:** Woo-woo.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** Rolling. It’s seven.

**John:** Seven.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Oh my god, we’re so WGA focused in the start here. I apologize. This really was random. Every year the WGA has to publish its annual report, its financials. And every year on this podcast we talk about it, so let’s quickly look through the financial report. We’ll put a link to the PDF in the show notes here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, some interesting things popped out but no more interesting to me than the very first thing that the guild currently for fiscal year, for this fiscal year, ran an operating surplus of $10 million. And this practically sent me through the roof. Why?

Because, it’s not like surpluses are inherently a bad thing. In a sense you can squirrel away from stuff for a potential cold winter. My problem is that screenwriters pay 1.5% in dues. It used to be 1%. Then it went to 1.5% of every dollar they make in writing income and residuals to the union. Television writers don’t. They pay 1.5% of WGA minimum because there’s this other surplus money they make as producers that the WGA can’t touch. So essentially feature writers have been over-taxed in a way that is hard to describe. And when we’re running a deficit it’s hard to make an argument that you should be reducing one category’s dues rate. But we’re not.

So to add insult to injury we’re running a surplus of $10 million. That’s for an organization that spends about $43 million a year. So that’s like 25%. It’s a lot. So, I think dues reform has to happen. Has to.

**John:** Great. That’s a thing Craig Mazin can do if you were elected. That won’t be controversial at all, Craig. I think that will be smooth sailing, nothing to worry about. Those aren’t live wires sitting in a shallow puddle.

**Craig:** It’s all I’ve ever wanted.

**John:** No worries there. Let’s take a look at some of the little chart things because I always find that interesting. So the number of writers reporting earnings, which is basically the number of working writers really, that dropped 0.6%, but the overall amount earned grew 4.2%. That was slower growth than previous years, but sometimes those numbers in the last year adjust upwards because stuff gets reported late. So I’m not going to take that with too much – I would say it looks more flat than anything else, so we’ll see what happens.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s my guess, too. But of note we have increased our earnings every single year for five years running now. We’re doing well.

**John:** And easily you can point to the growth of streaming television as why there are more jobs. We’re making more money because there are more writers working. There were 6,057 writers working this last year earning $1.5 billion. That’s great. We cannot count on that always happening. There’s obviously disparities between features and television. What I found interesting is that there was a decline in the number of people working in TV but not in features. Actually the number of people working in features was up a tiny bit.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that’s Netflix.

**John:** That’s probably Netflix. Movies written for Netflix. I’m sure you’re right.

**Craig:** I think that’s what it is. Also, it’s good to note that even though we are essentially flat in terms of the number of writers reporting earnings, I mean, it’s just like whatever 38 fewer, we still are going up in earnings, meaning we’re earning more per writer which is great to see.

**John:** Yeah. But let’s take a look at sort of why that is is it tracks pretty closely to the increase in scale minimums that happen. Because particularly in TV, as Craig said earlier about dues, is that in television we’re only looking at the writing income and that writing income tends to be scale. It’s producing income that’s above scale. And so as we’re looking at writing income increasing that’s largely because every three years we’re negotiating for increases in those things. So, that’s largely what’s pushing those numbers up.

So, we’ve just got to keep pushing those numbers up.

**Craig:** That’s true. In screen, however, where that doesn’t apply at all, we are again doing better, which is great, because screen, you know, really got hammered for a while. So in feature I think entirely because of Netflix, I really do, we have essentially again holding flat the number of writers between 2017 and 2018, but the income goes up again, I think when everything is rounded up probably around 8% or so, or 9%, which is fantastic. It means, again, we are earning more per writer in features which is a sign of the marketplace.

**John:** Yep. Let’s take a last look at residuals. So TV residuals were up 10.6% to $307 million. That’s good. Theatrical residuals were basically flat line, it was a 1% increase to $154 million. The best part of that chart to look at is the source of where that money comes from, because the actual money coming in is about the same year to year, it’s that it used to be home video and now it’s entirely “new media,” which is streaming, it’s Netflix, once again.

The answer to most of the questions in the annual financial report is Netflix.

**Craig:** Correct. It has made a massive difference in things which is scary. You actually don’t want that to be so concentrated in one area, but while it’s happening let us celebrate it and make hay as the sun shines as they say. The only other thing I noticed, and this just sort of is a general bums me out thing, our legal department every year reports the number of open cases they have. Those are cases that they’re pursuing that have not yet been resolved. And every year roughly that number is around 500 and change.

It’s too much. Either we don’t have enough lawyers or, I don’t know.

**John:** Actually, I’m going to – so I will say that I see the settlements and I see sort of what actually happens. The amount of money that legal brings in in getting stuff done is really impressive. So, the fact that we may have 500, those aren’t the same 500 year to year.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** That’s how many they’re actively pursuing. And so you may absolutely be correct that we may need more resources there, but I don’t know that more resources would actually push that number down. It might just mean that we are bringing more cases. I think the better thing to look at is how much money are we collecting for our writers who are not able to collect it for themselves. And I think that is a meaningful statistic to look at.

**Craig:** Yeah. And for that we kind of move in a weird way between about $4.5 million and $16 million, it was a high water mark in 2014. 2017 was $5.6. This year it was $10.8. So, yeah, you know, it’s in that kind of zone. This looks to be more like an off year for us, but it may be cyclical. We may get more stuff done by the end of the year. I don’t know.

But, yeah, you know, I think more lawyers would be a good thing.

**John:** So, and here’s what I’ll stress I that whether it’s $4 million or $10 million that the guild is bringing in overall, if you are one of those writers who is not getting paid or needs that money that is a game changer. So we have to make that for every member we are able to do that work and sort of deliver the checks that they deserve.

**Craig:** Unquestionably.

**John:** So that’s a thing that if you are back on the board this next time you can look at their reports every time and see who we’re getting money for and that to me is one of the best parts of every meeting is seeing what they were actually able to do and solve.

**Craig:** Yep. I will.

**John:** Let us roll the dice again.

**Craig:** Roll it.

**John:** Roll an eight-sided die.

**Siri:** OK. Seven this time.

**Craig:** We already did that one.

**John:** OK, we repeated a seven. So maybe we need to switch to a D6. Let’s renumber and go to D6. Change here. So we’re going to get rid of – number four is gone.

**Craig:** Number five.

**John:** So four will now become your solo. Four is now your solo.

**Craig:** And five is gone, too.

**John:** Roll a six-sided die.

**Siri:** It’s five.

**John:** Number five – dots, dashes, and parentheticals. So, a long time ago I would do these little videos on YouTube where I would record my screen as I was writing through a scene and talking through stuff and people found them really helpful. They were just a huge hassle for me to do and so I sort of stopped doing them. But this last week I was answering a question, I guess coming in through the mailbox through ask@johnaugust.com about when do I use three dots versus when do I use two dashes. And it felt like the kind of thing that like it’s just going to make much more sense for me to just show in a video than try to describe it.

So I’ll put a link in the show notes to it, but it’s a little six-minute video I did that sort of talks through the conventions of when to use three dots versus dashes when dialogue is interrupted or when people don’t finish their thoughts.

Craig, was it consistent with what you do? I go for three dots when someone is trailing off, when it’s like an incomplete thought. I use two dashes for someone who is cut off by either another event or someone else interrupting them. Is that what you tend to do?

**Craig:** Essentially. Yeah. I will also – I will use dashes if I’m cutting them off because I’m putting a parenthetical in or some action takes place. So it’s meant to say there is no real disruption. If I go from you’re saying something dash-dash and then you’re saying something start with two dashes, and then continue. That just means you keep rolling.

So, yeah, that’s pretty much what I do.

**John:** The last little point that I talk about in the video is that when characters are talking over each other you have a couple of choices. And a tempting choice is always to do dual dialogue and it’s rarely the right choice. So there can be cases where you have two people speechifying at the same time. And the point is that they’re not listening to each other. That’s an example where dual dialogue might make a lot of sense.

You also have situations where do you want to go to the park, one character says yes, one character says no, and they say it simultaneously. You can dual dialogue that.

But if someone is just overlapping or you want the sense that people are talking over each other, I find the parenthetical of overlapping or at the same time tends to be more helpful in communicating what I’m trying to convey on the page. Is that your experience, too?

**Craig:** It is. I almost never use it. I used it one time out of all of the five scripts for Chernobyl and it was when Akimov and Dyatlov are having an argument about what the rules state, that you can’t lower it from 50%, when we came down from 80%. And I wanted it to basically be these two guys were essentially talking over each other and not listening to each other and that worked.

But by and large I just think that forcing overlaps like that is very mannered and it’s also uncommon. People don’t really do that with each other. They might overlap each other a little bit naturally at the beginning and end of something, or interrupt each other, but it’s so rare to have people just talking at the same time and not stopping.

**John:** We were rewatching Call Me by Your Name last night and there is a section in that where this Italian couple is at the table and they’re just talking constantly. And so that was a situation where you literally would put the side-by-side dialogue because it’s 30 seconds where they’re talking at the same time and not paying attention to each other at all. So that’s an example where you might want to do that.

But this last week on Twitter, Craig, someone had tweeted at both of us asking how much do you use beat. So there’s a convention which is not maybe a great convention in screenwriting, where as a parenthetical you just say “beat” which means sort of a pause or it’s a moment. It’s an interruption and such. And I said I don’t tend to use beat all that often. That I probably use it less than I used to. But I really liked your answer to it, so talk us through what you often do in that parenthetical.

**Craig:** Well, like you I’ve reduced my usage of beat, mostly because it’s so generic. It really is just saying nothing more than a mechanical instruction to the actor, pause. Right? But a pause is there for a reason. And as I’ve kind of gone on in my career I’ve just become more and more enamored of just informing the actor and director what the subtext is through parenthetical or through action lines. And so instead of just saying beat I might say reconsiders, or questions herself, or realizes. So that the reader and the actor and the director all understand why something there is happening. And it also gives them the choice of how to time it. So you don’t have this rigid pause but rather sometimes that little flash can happen so quickly that we see it happening and they keep talking and that’s way better than a kind of overdone stop, two, three, next line.

**John:** For sure. So I really liked how you phrased that on Twitter. It was a better answer than I gave so I wanted to make sure that you said it aloud because not everybody reads the tweets.

**Craig:** Well, thank you, John.

**John:** Rolling the dice. Roll a four-sided die.

**Craig:** So cute.

**Siri:** It’s three.

**John:** It’s number three.

**Craig:** Oh, it’s your new agent.

**John:** I got a new agent. Yeah, so that was big news of this last week. So for the first time in 20 years I have a new agent, a new agency. I switched to Verve. So I decided I would tweet out that I’d done this just so that I could actually say my whole – present my whole case and not have it sort of misreported in the trades. And that mostly worked. So there was an article in the trades about it, but it actually just said what I said and I didn’t have to answer any reporter questions.

**Craig:** Isn’t it amazing? Like I honestly feel like 95% of the things that are in the sort of web journalism are simply regurgitations of other things. Like they don’t do any – did they even call you? Or did they just reprint what you said?

**John:** They just reprinted what I said. And here’s the thing. The conversation we had earlier about the agency situation, they will recap that as if they are quoting it. So I just want to call out the people who are going to do this in Deadline especially right now. You know what, at least mention the Scriptnotes podcast. Because so often they’re saying like “In a recent podcast” and it’s like what podcast. Oh, my podcast? That’s where I said it, in my own podcast.

**Craig:** Why wouldn’t you call us? If you’re doing an article you should call. I mean, all you’re doing is just, what, writing down something transcribed and it’s not – how is that a thing?

Anyway, so you have a new agent at Verve.

**John:** I have a new agent at Verve. So here are the tweets I sent out and this really is sort of a good recap, but I’ll do a little framing around it afterwards. So, I tweeted, “I’ve signed with Verve. They’re the agency that represents some of my favorite writers, including Michael Arndt, Meg LeFauve and three of my former assistants,” which is true. “I’m excited to join them.”

Tweet two, “Back in April, I tweeted that I’d happily give my UTA agent of 20+ years a kidney. The offer still stands. But my frustration with big agency practices has only grown. I don’t think they’re putting clients first.”

Tweet three, “When I toured Verve, I really liked the vibe and spirit. It felt like a good match. To be clear: I would have met with ANY agency that had signed the agreement. I know a lot of screenwriters who will do the same.”

Four, “My decision to go to Verve is entirely my own. Yes, I’m on the WGA board but that’s not why I’m making the move. I remain committed to reaching an agency agreement that serves all writers. WGA West members can help by filling out the survey coming to inboxes this weekend.”

So those are my four tweets. And it was my decision to move there and that’s not going to be applicable to a lot of other people, but you have actually changed agents more than I have. And so I kind of want to talk through what it’s like to change agents because this was kind of a new thing for me. So I could talk through sort of what I did, but I suspect there’s some useful things for anyone who is considering moving from one agent to another for whatever reason if it’s not sort of this reason.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Cool. So, in my case I reached out to see who is there and who is there that could vouch for them or just give me some experience on the ground. So I reached out to Jac Schaeffer. She’s the writer who is running the Scarlet Witch show that Megan McDonnell, our former Scriptnotes producer, is writing on. So I reached out to Jac and I said, “Hey, I know you’re at Verve. Are you happy at Verve? And if you are at Verve who is your principal agent there because I’m considering making a switch?”

She wrote back that her agent there was Bill Weinstein, he’s fantastic, and offered to make the email introduction. And that is a very common way things happen here is someone who knows both people makes the email introduction just so it’s not me blinding emailing into somebody at Verve.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think the times that I’ve done this, there was one time where I really did a big I’m going to sit down and meet with all of the major agencies and talk to all of them and then pick one. And with that I used my attorney. I basically had him kind of call and say, “OK, would you like to meet with him? And who would like to meet with him over there?” And those were decided and off we went. It was a week of awkward couches.

**John:** And so used your attorney for that, other writers might use a manager for that. That’s a very classic thing that managers set up agency meetings for a person to go in and sign with an agency.

So in this case it was this writer who had made the introduction. I emailed with Bill Weinstein. We scheduled a phone call. We had a good phone call. Set up a time for me to go in. And before I went in they read some stuff so they’d have some stuff to talk about when I actually came in.

I went in, I met – I shook so many hands. I met kind of everyone at the agency. I sat down with Bill Weinstein and two other agents to talk through specifically what my goals were and what I was looking at for the next year and couple years ahead in my career.

Then I talked to my attorney, an important person to get involved with this.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And then when the time came to make a decision I called Verve, I called UTA to let them know that I was making the change, and that was it. A thing I need to sort of clarify because the timing looks weird is that the same day I announced that I was moving over to Verve was the day that UTA announced that they were suing the UTA. That was a coincidence. That wasn’t one causing the other. So that was not the reason for why I left.

**Craig:** You know, something you said there just flicked a little switch in my head. And it was about the manager thing. One thing to think about if you are a writer that has an attorney and a manager and you’re trying to figure out which agent you should go to, maybe rely on the lawyer a little bit more. Because managers are already inherently dealing in a kind of conflicted space. I mean, all the problems that we have with agencies, managers have codified from the very beginning of their work. That’s what they do. They want to produce your stuff and then you don’t pay commission.

So similarly a manager may be funneling you to an agent that they can kind of protect each other with, because inevitably down the line if you have an issue with one or the other you’re going to go to one or the other and say what do you think. And sometimes they just protect each other. And that’s not what you want.

What you want is an independent adviser. You don’t want necessarily a sweetheart deal being made behind your back that you don’t even know about.

**John:** Yep. I think that’s really good advice. And attorneys tend to see just a wider scope of things because they’re just dealing with many different clients and many different situations. They know a little bit more about how the sausage is made sometimes. I think it’s a good recommendation to at least enlist your attorney’s opinion if they’re not actually steering the conversation around.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** But I also say, I mean, the reason why I reached out to this writer was because I wanted to make sure that she was having a good experience at this agency and with this agent. And so asking for those personal recommendations is an important part of this as well.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** So right now Verve is the only sort of mid-sized agency that has signed the agreement. So I was really happy at Verve, but that was also sort of my one choice of a place, a midsize agency, that I could sign with. But in a macro sense let’s talk a little bit about the pros and cons of big agencies versus little agencies. Because I think there’s some real things to think through.

So at what other point this all gets resolved and people have a choice of I could go to a giant or I could go to a smaller agency, some pros and cons.

Some cons. In theory a smaller agency has a smaller information network. They have fewer agents who are talking to everyone at all the studios. Their tentacles are in less things in terms of understanding all the jobs that are out there or what’s really happening. Their information network could be smaller.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** They might have less access to certain IP or certain deals. So, they might have – you know, the big agencies would have a big book-lit department that would track all the books that are coming out. And might be able to steer some of those your way early.

They would have less history of making certain kinds of deals, especially big overall deals. Like the mega blockbuster deals.

**Craig:** Right. The monster deals for your J.J. Abrams and your Mike Schurs and those guys.

**John:** So interesting on the patching thing is that I sat down with a director this last week who was at Verve and his point was – it was an interesting pushback against that – is he said that being at a purely literary agency, so Verve only represents writers and directors, he finds it very easy to go after any actor because there’s not an in-house stable. You’re not competing with your own folks inside the agency. So, he’s actually been able to have good relationships with the talent agents at the different agencies when it comes time to go after an actor for a role. So that’s a thing he found coming from a big agency to a smaller agency, he found that helpful.

**Craig:** And I can see that, particularly if you’re talking about features. In television I think things are a little bit trickier. Well, why? Because the agencies are addicted to packaging fees. They are motivated to package. Yeah.

**John:** We’ll list that as a pro. I would say a pro is fewer clients means fewer internal conflicts. So basically we’re not all fighting over the same thing. And we talked about that in our conflict of interest episode a zillion years ago which is that the more folks you have who are going after the same things, there’s naturally going to be some conflicts among clients and that’s just a thing that has to be managed. And the fewer clients the fewer conflicts there are there.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And it’s probably less positioning which is that sense of they’re not actually putting you even on the list for that job because they have three other people who are clients who they need to be sending that to first.

**Craig:** That’s the danger. I mean, ultimately you are competing against everyone. But you want your advocate advocating. And they can’t really advocate for you fully if there are three people ahead of you on the list that make more money and are more important. I mean, that is an inherent issue at these agencies. And even at a small agency like Verve it could potentially be – somebody on Bill Weinstein’s list just took one step backwards. [laughs]

But you’re right. There are fewer potential conflicts to be had there. I think at a place like CAA it’s always conflicted.

**John:** Oh yeah. The last pro I’ll list is that you as an individual client probably have a bigger impact on that agency’s bottom line at a smaller agency than at a large agency.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** And part of that is just because there’s more clients, but also the bigger agencies are – as we’ve seen – are invested in a lot of other things, too. And so the financial interest in making sure that each of these clients is served to their best capability is different at a small agency than at a bigger agency.

**Craig:** Right. Absolutely true.

**John:** Let’s roll the dice again.

**Craig:** So much fun.

**John:** Roll a four-sided die.

**Siri:** It’s two.

**Craig:** It’s two.

**John:** Oh, Chernobyl!

**Craig:** Chernobyl.

**John:** Craig, so we haven’t gotten to talk about Chernobyl since it resolved and so you’re so sick of talking about Chernobyl. Can I just congratulate you again on–?

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** –On Chernobyl and on the podcast which I thought were fantastic.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** The Chernobyl podcast is the top rated TV and film podcast in the world.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** So, congratulations on that.

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**John:** Which is great. Questions I had for you, and these are not really spoilers, so if you have not seen all five episodes I don’t think I’m going to spoil anything for you in talking through this.

**Craig:** There are no spoilers. It blew up.

**John:** It did blow up. Episodes one and episodes five cover some of the time periods, particularly in the control room. My question – does anything that was originally intended to be shot for number one or number five drift back and forth in the edit?

**Craig:** Nope. It’s exactly as planned.

**John:** But I suspect you did shoot all of the control room stuff at one time.

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** You didn’t like send everybody off.

**Craig:** Oh no. We shot it all in one. There was one week. One week in that control room. And, you know, we – when I look back at that week we got a lot of pages done.

**John:** Oh, I’m sure.

**Craig:** Well, that was – there were really only three sets we constructed. We really tried as much as we could to be on location or on an exterior. We built the sort of Kremlin conference room because we couldn’t find one that worked right with its little hallway attachment.

We built Lyudmilla and Vasily’s apartment just again to control this little apartment. And then we built the control room. And the control room was our biggest build. And Johan and Jakob shot the hell out of it. I mean, they found angles that I would have never even thought of and just kept it looking fresh all the time. But, yeah, it was a great week. I loved all those guys in there. They were all fantastic. Just good people. Great actors. Some people don’t know that the guy who plays Stolyarchuk is Billy Postlethwaite, Pete Postlethwaite’s son.

**John:** Oh how nice.

**Craig:** Great guy. They were all just terrific. It was a joy to work with those guys.

**John:** How early in the schedule was the control room shot? Was that quite early on in the months of shooting?

**Craig:** I would say it was sort of – I’m a little fuzzy but I’m going to say it’s maybe like a month in out of four months. April, May, June, July. Maybe a month out of five months. It was about a five-month shoot. So it wasn’t in the middle. It wasn’t right up front. Part of it was that we needed time to get it built.

**John:** I get that. In the library at johnaugust.com we have the scripts to all five episodes, but on the podcast earlier you said that you initially thought of this as six episodes. What would the extra episode have been or was it two things combined? What was the difference between the initial plan of six and what became the five episodes?

**Craig:** So, I was writing episode two, I had laid out a show bible and I had a description of how each episode would work. And the way I described episode one, episode four, and episode five, and six I guess at the time, was all correct. But when I was writing episode two I found that – I noticed, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but in the new world of limited series where you’re allowed to just set your own episode limit kind of it seems like writers sometimes are a little languid with their pacing. I don’t know if you’ve noticed this. But they sometimes – I’m like I think you might be wasting my time here with this kind of indulgent 20 minutes.

And because the second episode was taking place essentially in the day, the one or two days following the explosion of a nuclear reactor, I really wanted to people have the sensation that they were just falling through an episode, just out of control. So, I just said, you know what, I’m just going to tighten everything up. I think I can tighten this and just make it way more urgent if I combine episode two and episode three into one episode. And that’s what I did.

And so I called up HBO and said, hey, look, I’m thinking about doing this is that OK? And they were like, yeah, that’s great. And then later – because I come out of movies I found out that I get paid by the episode.

**John:** Ha!

**Craig:** So that’s why I think some of these limited series are a little long, you know. I get paid for another episode, yeah, sure.

**John:** What was the episode ender for episode two as you initially had thought about it in your show bible? Or you had not gotten to what individual scene would end an episode at that point?

**Craig:** You know what? I’ll tell you right now. So the original end of episode two happened around the point in episode two where General Pikalov drives his truck in and comes back and reports that it’s not 3.6 roentgen, it’s 15,000. And then the next thing I showed was a scene that we never had in the show, I never even wrote it. It was the moment where the Swedes determine that something was wrong at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant which was kind of the beginning of the end of the secrecy.

So that’s where that ended. And I think I made a smart choice to combine.

**John:** Yeah, I would say that the truck driving in there felt like it was a moment that could have ended the show and yet there was still 20 minutes, there was more runway left there and so it made sense. You did the right thing.

**Craig:** Thanks.

**John:** My last question for you. If you could email yourself back three years ago when you were just starting on this project some piece of advice what advice would you give to younger Craig Mazin going into this about the show?

**Craig:** Hmm. I think I would advise myself to stand by my instincts. And generally I did. But I have – this is the first thing that I’ve ever done that was truly mine. It wasn’t an assignment. It wasn’t a sequel. I didn’t have a writing partner. It was mine. There was no source material like a fictional book or something like that.

So, I went in and said this is the product of my instincts and now unlike those other situations where a lot of times I get into people-pleasing mode and want everyone to be happy, in this case I just was like the most important person to be happy is me. Which is a very weird thing for me because I’m not built that way. I just mostly want the puzzle to work.

But I allowed myself a tiny bit of preciousness, precocity.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** One of those. And I think it helped. And I don’t mean to imply that I ever threw any tantrums or anything. It was more like when I felt that out of the five people in the room, four of them thought one thing and I thought the other, I gave my point of view a full fair hearing. I didn’t always. Sometimes you do change your mind because other people are right. But I didn’t default to, OK well, it’s a vote.

**John:** Good. So you advice would be stick with that the whole time through. Because probably earlier on in the process you felt like, oh, I’m going to have to bend a bit here and you learned that bending was not the right solution.

**Craig:** Yeah. Sometimes I would, you know, I would bend and then I would come back and say, no, no, no, no, we’ve got to go back the other way. And that’s, you know, by and large that worked. But, again, I don’t mean to imply that I wasn’t open to things because all sorts of contributions came in from all directions, from our key cast and from Johan of course and from Carolyn and Jane and everybody involved.

It’s just that it’s not really that I said I’m not going to listen to other people. It’s mostly that I said while I’m listening to other people I will also consider what I want equally, which is new for me. So, I would want that to be fresher in my mind before I started.

**John:** Sounds great. All right. We’re down to two things, so I’m going to say flip a coin.

**Craig:** Oh, I like that.

**Siri:** Tails.

**John:** Tails. Tails is Craig’s solo episode. So, Craig, you did a first-ever solo episode. This is back Episode 403 where you taught us how to write a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It was really good. People loved it. And so, here’s let’s read what Bob wrote. “Immediately upon hearing Hegelian dialectic I shot up from the coach and started taking notes, hitting the pause button frequently and shaking my head as I’d never heard the phrase ‘central dramatic argument’ before. It didn’t stop there. The presentation led me over to my script and allowed me to see it in a whole new way.”

**Craig:** Oh good.

**John:** And I’m going to paste other things in the show notes so you can see and be happy about people’s reaction to it. But I’ve got some questions.

**Craig:** Go for it.

**John:** Here are some questions I have for you. I can very easily imagine someone listening to this or reading the transcript and saying like, “Ah-ha, Craig has found a new formula.”

**Craig:** Oh god. I hope not.

**John:** And I think the reason why they might do that is because the same way that Syd Field took Casablanca and sort of made it fit this sort of paradigm someone could say like, oh, all movies are like Finding Nemo and everything should follow in that thing. So, do you have any sense of how to encourage people to use what’s helpful here but not let this be a straitjacket for them?

**Craig:** Sure. So, Pixar movies in general are formulaic. There is a Pixar formula. And the Pixar formula happens to mesh nicely with my point of view about structure. But that’s – they do it in a very pure way. And animation can do things in story that live action can’t. Animation is almost like pure story. In fact, you will see, I mean, this model of how I’ve described things isn’t just Pixar. It’s across almost every major animated film now, ever since Pixar came on the scene.

But for live action this is meant to just be inspiration for how to think about your characters and how to think about why things happen in a movie at certain times. But your choice of execution should be as unique to you as your own fingerprint. If it’s not, then, you know, you will just have made a very well-structured piece of crap.

So this is not a formula. This is meant to be a kind of philosophical musing on why narrative works the way it does. Why it appeals to us the way it does. And in that sense if I’ve inspired people to stop thinking about plot and start thinking about character first then I will have done my job.

**John:** Great. And I will say having seen Toy Story 4, which I’m guessing you have not seen yet.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** It does – it’s completely the Craig Mazin plan. It really does follow the kinds of things that you’re talking about. If you look at Woody’s journey through Toy Story 4 it is a lot of what you’re pitching in your episode.

I want to make it clear that most screenwriters that you encounter in real life are not going to use thesis and antithesis. So Craig is using philosophical terms that are meaningful for his argument, but if you start throwing those around causally people will look at you kind of cross-eyed, or they’ll know that you listened to that episode of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** They’re not things that I’m casually using. Like Aline and I aren’t having mussels and talking over these things.

**Craig:** No, no, or having mussels.

**John:** Oh, Aline and I are having mussels on a regular basis.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** In Larchmont.

**Craig:** That’s your shellfish choice?

**John:** I love mussels.

**Craig:** No, absolutely true. This is not something you want to just trot out when you’re on your water bottle tour of Los Angeles and you’re sitting in a room with a studio executive or a producer. You could easily sound like a pompous jackass if you begin talking about Hegel. Yeah. This is really more of an inside baseball philosophical thing for you to think about when you’re alone quiet with your laptop or desktop.

**John:** Yes. I would caution that Craig’s philosophy if applied without subtlety and artistry could make it seem like the choices are being made by the author rather than the characters. And so just to really be mindful that your characters don’t end up becoming in a weird way plot bots responding to all the terrible things that the author is doing to them.

And so that’s always one of the trickiest things in writing narrative is you’re laying out these roads for your characters to walk down but making it feel like your characters are choosing to walk down those roads and that they actually have free will. That’s not a unique criticism of Craig’s screenwriting philosophy here, but if done poorly I think that’s what the result is going to feel like. It’s just an angry, evil god punishing these characters.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you’re doing that you’ve got it completely backwards. So the idea is that you need to understand this human being fully. And they need to be interesting. And what they feel and think needs to be interesting. And then you have to ask what would be the most fascinating thing to do to that person given what I know about them. The worst thing you could do would be to go this is the point where torture happens and then they just get tortured but it’s not interesting. It’s just torture. That’s, you know, well some people like that. But it’s not my thing.

**John:** Lastly, I think if I were to lay out sort of my philosophical argument for screenwriting and sort of how to write a movie I would approach it a lot differently. A thing that is a huge focus to me which I didn’t hear you talking a lot about is the role of the audience and the role of the audience’s expectation and the social contract you make with the audience and how they are the third party in all of this. And so you have the author intent. You have the character’s intent. But you also have the audience’s intent. And to really be mindful of what does the audience want. And that they are a character in this drama as well. And to be really thinking about their perspective on that.

And that doesn’t fit neatly into the thesis and antithesis, but they are the other party who is engaged with this whole argument to me.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I mean, the truth is I’m mostly thinking about them with this because I’m trying to get at why any of us like any story. But understanding, having an innate sense of what the audience is going to want to want is – that’s where talent is, I think. I mean–

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Yeah, there’s nothing – I can’t really – I mean, we had a clever headline for the episode, but this is not a substitute for talent. This is merely a way to help talented people organize their thoughts if they’re struggling or feeling like they’ve written something that’s plotty or they feel like they’ve run out of runway.

**John:** The last thing is I went through a list of my top movies and the top 100 movies to think of movies where this thesis/antithesis sort of dynamic doesn’t really come into play. And so there are a lot of movies where you don’t really see this. But I think as long as you’re looking at this as not a formula but a useful set of questions to be challenging yourself with as you start to write, it’s only going to benefit, even if the ultimate movie doesn’t fit into the dynamic of this character’s world view keeps getting challenged the way that Craig’s describing.

So, what I don’t want people to do is think like, well, you know, Jurassic Park doesn’t fit this at all and if you’re saying that Jurassic Park is a bad movie, no. We’re not saying that. I’m just saying that the kinds of questions that Craig is challenging you to ask would make even movies like Jurassic Park which don’t fit this overall template stronger.

**Craig:** Completely. Yeah. There’s nothing – I think I said in it, too, that this is really about a kind of movie. It’s about a very classic sort of movie-movie. But even a lot of classic movie-movies stray away from these things and that’s totally fine.

If you’re writing something and you’re loving it and you’re confident in it then you’re in a good space. If you’re writing something and you’re struggling and you’re not sure why, then maybe this will help. That’s about as much as I can–

**John:** Yeah, I would say the movies that it’s going to help most are the ones that feel like they kind of have a classic hero’s journey. A Joseph Campbell kind of thing. Because I think what you’ve done is a really smart way of addressing the stages of the hero’s journey, but what it really feels like on the character’s perspective. Or what they’re watching.

**Craig:** And it’s free. It’s free. You don’t have to pay $2,500 to go see some dude yammer on stage, or buy a book. It’s free.

**John:** Free!

**Craig:** I’m just trying to put these people out of business, obviously. [laughs]

**John:** It’s a noble goal.

**Craig:** This is just spite.

**John:** All right. Lastly, our last of our eight topics is Aladdin.

**Craig:** Aladdin!

**John:** Aladdin! So, Aladdin crossed $300 million domestic, $900 million worldwide so far. So it’s the highest grossing movie of my career, which is–

**Craig:** Congratulations.

**John:** Which is very exciting. And so I wanted to talk through sort of how much money I’ll be getting off of it. And because that’s the thing that people come to me. It’s like, “Man, you must be rolling in dough. Your movie made a ton of money.” And it’s like, no, it’s great that my movie made a ton of money. I think it’s important for people to understand that I don’t get any of that box office money. Like that ticket you bought, I don’t get any of that. But thank you for buying that ticket. It’s still meaningful and valuable that you bought that ticket.

So, screenwriters, I got paid good money to write a script that became a movie. And down the road thanks to the WGA I will also get residuals. And so residuals are for all the things that aren’t showing on a big screen or showing on an airplane, for weird reasons.

So it’s home video. It’s buying it on iTunes. It’s renting it on iTunes. We have a really good rate for renting on iTunes. So rent that movie on iTunes.

It’s for when it sells to a streaming service, when it shows up on ABC television. Those are the things where I get extra payments for it. So I don’t get any money right off the top of the box office. Sometimes some contracts will have a box office bonus. I checked through my contract. I don’t have any box office bonus, because that would have been swell.

**Craig:** That would have been swell.

**John:** I didn’t have one for Aladdin. But in lieu of that I got a credit bonus which is a common thing you’ll also see. For sharing credit I got a bonus for that.

But I was looking through, so if you’re curious about your residuals I know a lot of screenwriters who never check their residuals. And so on the guild website go to mywga.org. When you’re signed on click on the My Residuals tab. It’s actually really good.

**Craig:** Yeah, it is.

**John:** You know, and so full props and credit to the WGA for figuring out how to really show you your residuals. But by movie or by year you can check exactly how much you’ve gotten and from what categories. And so the closest comp I had for Aladdin is probably Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which didn’t do quite as well but did really well.

And so over the 15 years since Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out I’ve made $2.7 million in residuals. And I say that because it’s a big number. And I think it’s important for people to understand that like residuals really do matter. They really are an incredibly important source of income for writers. So those checks come every quarter. You get the big green envelope that has your check in it. The biggest checks are in the first year that a movie shows up on video. But then they do keep coming. And so for a family film like Aladdin I can expect those checks will keep coming.

**Craig:** Yeah. And if you want to understand the value of our union, and I like to point these things out particularly when I’m grousing about them, the original Aladdin, the animated Aladdin, came out in 1993, 1992. It came out in 1992. That’s 27 years ago. And worldwide it made $500 million. And I would venture to say that 27 years ago that’s probably akin to your $900 million now worldwide.

And Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, who wrote Aladdin, got zero dollars in residuals. And they don’t even get credit for the story, right, for the new one?

**John:** Yeah, they get an onscreen credit, but it’s not a WGA credit.

**Craig:** It’s a source material credit. So the point is the animation world doesn’t have residuals like WGA does unless you’re talking about primetime animation like The Simpsons and Family Guy. So that difference is millions of dollars.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** And we can’t work hard enough to protect that. But these are the things – and it’s really when I look over at animation I go, OK, whenever I’m feeling a little grumpy about the guild I just look at animation and I go we get to determine our own credits. We get residuals. This is really, really important. Because it’s a strange feeling to know that in massive success not one penny is going to trickle down to you. That’s bad.

**John:** It is bad.

A thing I do want to say is that I am assuming that Aladdin will come out on iTunes, it will be available on DVD and all those normal things. And I’ve seen cover art for DVDs, so I think they will exist. I think that’s a thing that’s going to happen. But another thing I know is going to happen is Disney+.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, Disney+ is Disney’s equivalent to Netflix, it’s a streaming service. Aladdin will of course show up on Disney+ and not on Netflix or someplace else. And the rate that Disney will charge Disney for the movie of Aladdin determines how much residuals I will get. And that is a weird situation. So that is the reason why I’m going to be very mindful of sort of what numbers they are reporting for how much they are licensing Aladdin to itself.

**Craig:** Sure. And we know that Disney+, which I think is going to be an enormous success for Disney, is starting out at a very reduced monthly rate to sign the world up, which I think they will. And so you’re right. That does impact your earnings.

Now, compared to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was driven largely by DVD sales, our rate for Internet rentals and streaming and sales I think is a bit better.

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** Than the DVD rate. So it may balance out. But you’re right. There’s a huge difference when someone is buying a DVD that costs $18 or someone is paying – what is the initial Disney+ rate? Like $12 or something?

**John:** It’s surprisingly low.

**Craig:** Yeah, for a month, and your one piece of it. So you carve out your biddy share of the whole thing. I mean, which in Aladdin’s case will be a pretty good share. But, yeah, I’m fascinated to see how that functions.

In the long run I think it will be good for writers. In the short term, while Disney is slowly harvesting humanity it may be slightly negatively impacted.

**John:** Yeah. So I would say all the streaming services on the short run have been good for writers. So we say Netflix, we also mean AppleTV Plus, we mean Amazon.

**Craig:** Amazon.

**John:** Hulu. The folks who are employing writers – that’s awesome. That’s good. More writers employed is really great. The challenge will come when it’s time to figure out residuals for some of these projects which are essentially just made for the services and how we are going to calculate those.

**Craig:** Well, see, it’s hard.

**John:** It’s hard.

**Craig:** It’s hard.

**John:** So somebody on the WGA board in these upcoming years will have to figure out how we’re going to do that.

**Craig:** Somebody is going to have to figure out who to hire to do that.

**John:** Ah-ha. That’s true. It’s not just an elected person’s decision.

**Craig:** Fire fast, hire slow.

**John:** We have come to the end of our eight topics. Man, that was a lot but I think we did well by at least seven of those.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So good on you and me.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is the Rodecaster Pro Sound Board. It’s a recording studio for podcasts. So it’s not what I’m using right now to record this because I’m just recording directly into my computer, but when Craig and I are live and in person, or with a guest we’re often doing it at this improvised little studio I have at my house. And it’s been a real challenge. And as we were recording the Rachel Bloom episode like the computer froze up. There were real production issues. And so I ended up buying this new board and it’s really good.

So I would say if you’re thinking about doing a kind of podcast where it’s two or three people in a room talking, this is probably the thing to get. Because you just plug in microphones, you plug in headphones. People can hear themselves in both sides of their headphones. Craig, you’ll like that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Look at this thing. It’s like a little mixing board basically. So it’s got mic pre-amps already in there. Oh yeah. And I assume it’s just USB to your laptop?

**John:** It’s USB to your laptop, but it records onto a little card itself. And it records separate channels. So you want to record separate channels. And originally this didn’t have multi-channel recording. Multi-channel recording means that each mic is being recorded separately. It is a godsend when it comes to actually cutting episodes together.

**Craig:** Yeah, no question.

**John:** So, buy this.

**Craig:** Somebody is always quieter than somebody else and all that. And so, yeah, it’s a huge help. No question.

**John:** And so next time we have you out of the studio and you’re calling in, it can also patch in, Skype through the computer. So it should work much better for these things. So, I recommend the Rodecaster Pro for folks who are considering a podcast.

**Craig:** Brilliant.

**John:** Brilliant.

**Craig:** Brilliant. Well, my One Cool Thing is a lot of people’s One Cool Thing, but you know, I struggle to keep up with television. I do. But I was traveling back and forth last week and I took the opportunity with some extra free time to watch Russian Doll from Natasha Lyonne and Leslye Headland and Amy Poehler. And I loved it. I loved it. I thought it was awesome.

And, you know, OK, one of my least favorite things about peak TV, someone comes, “Have you seen blah-blah-blah?” No, haven’t seen it. “OK, it’s amazing. You have to get through the first 4,000 episodes, but then the next 12,000 episodes are incredible. And I’m like, uh, that sounds like a lot of work man. And in this one, I’m like I enjoyed the first three episodes, clearly. You got to get to the end of episode three or you’re not going to ever get to the absolute joy and shock and dismay of the rest of the show which is at times really funny and at times really beautiful and at times terrifying.

And Natasha is a force of nature. Just remarkable on it. So, yeah, I couldn’t love it more.

**John:** So you realize sort of like your connection to Russian Doll? So we were on the Slate Culture Gabfest and Natasha Lyonne was the other guest.

**Craig:** I remember.

**John:** On the Slate Culture Gabfest. And she had recommended Black Mirror. That was her sort of equivalent of her One Cool Thing. So I feel like there is a synchronicity here because I don’t think you necessarily get to Russian Doll without Black Mirror happening first and sort of like shattering some glass around there, sort of make it possible to make such a weird, great series.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so I think it all comes together in a very great way. But I agree. Russian Doll is one of my favorite things of the year. Just geniusly done.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just beautiful work. I just loved it.

**John:** Give them money to do whatever they want to do next because we want more of it.

**Craig:** Well I think they’re doing a second season of Russian Doll. I was like, how? But yes.

**John:** But more please. Cool. And that’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Arbitrary Jukebox Experiment. And a correction, on a previous episode, Episode 397, we accidentally credited them with Thomas Johnstone’s outro. So fixing that. Sorry Thomas Johnstone. Sorry Arbitrary Jukebox Experiment. But thank you for everyone who sends in outros because they are fantastic.

You can send your outro to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. But for short questions, Craig is on Twitter @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up the week after the episode airs.

Folks do recaps of our episodes on Reddit. So go there and check out the recap if you want to see what people are talking about with the show. You can find all the back episodes of this show at Scriptnotes.net, or you can download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

And you might want to check out the Listener’s Guide there if you’re new to the show because people have recommended their favorite episodes. So if you want to catch up this will tell you what episodes to prioritize as you’re doing your catchup.

**Craig:** Brilliant. You know, we have 4,000 – you’ve got to get through the first 4,000 podcast episodes.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But the next 20,000 are great.

**John:** Yeah, I mean, because you have to listen to them all in order because as you know it builds episode by episode.

**Craig:** Builds.

**John:** And there’s no randomness. It’s not like we’re rolling dice to figure out what we’re going to talk about.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s all planned.

**Craig:** You won’t understand why Episode 378 is genius unless you hear the setup in Episode 16. So good.

**John:** It’s really, really elaborate.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, thanks.

**Craig:** Thank you John for a wonderful dice-rolling show.

**John:** Have a good week. Bye.

Links:

* [Scriptnotes Episode 406, Better Sex with Rachel Bloom](https://johnaugust.com/2019/better-sex-with-rachel-bloom)
* [Verve Talent and Literary Agency](https://www.vervetla.com/) and [John’s Tweets](https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1144754149763850241).
* Find Chernobyl scripts [here](https://johnaugust.com/library)!
* Watch [Chernobyl](https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl), listen to the podcast [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-chernobyl-podcast).
* [WGA Financials](https://www.wga.org/the-guild/about-us/annual-report)
* [Dots, Dashes, and Parentheticals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7XUNvtNSt8&feature=youtu.be)
* [Scriptnotes Episode 403, How to Write a Movie](https://johnaugust.com/2019/how-to-write-a-movie)
* [Aladdin](https://movies.disney.com/aladdin-2019)
* [Rodecaster Pro Sound Board](https://www.rode.com/rodecasterpro)
* [Russian Doll](https://www.netflix.com/watch/80211627?source=35)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by the Arbitrary Jukebox Experiment ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_408_rolling_dice.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 407: Understanding Your Feature Contract, Transcript

July 11, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/understanding-your-feature-contract).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s Scriptnotes was recorded live at the Writers Guild West where Craig and I led a panel explaining how contracts work when you’re hired to write a movie.

During the presentation we had slides that showed the legal language we were discussing. You can probably get the gist without the slides, but to really get the most out of this you should download the PDF and read along. To do that follow the link to the show notes, or just go to johnaugust.com and look for this episode. I’ll be back at the end for some housekeeping. Enjoy.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** We host a podcast called Scriptnotes, which is about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

I can’t promise you that this is a thing that is interesting to screenwriters but it’s a thing that’s very important to screenwriters, which is your contract.

**Craig:** I’ll make it interesting.

**John:** Craig is going to try to make it interesting.

**Craig:** We’ll give it a little zhoosh.

**John:** So some folks are going to listen to this at home and so I want to give them a sense of the place that we’re in. And we’re in the multipurpose room of the Writers Guild of America West building. And often, this space was offered to us to record a show. And Craig said he wouldn’t come here because this is where dreams come to die.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is a brutal room. It’s a perfect rectangle of doom. The carpet is just pediatrician brown and it just always felt oppressive. It was always three degrees too hot. No air. And I walked in tonight and oh my god it’s so much nicer.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s give applause for this new look. This room has improved greatly. So we have an audience of writers, obviously, a bunch of them are feature writers. And tonight we are going to talk about what to look for in your contract. Because I remember getting my very first writing contract. It was for How to Eat Fried Worms which was an adaptation. And I was so excited to get my contract and I read through it and I could not understand it for the life of me. I was just kind of blindly signing. I had to get it notarized. But that got me paid. And so I loved it for that.

What was the first contract that you signed for writing?

**Craig:** It was for Rocket Man. Not the current movie. Not the good one.

**John:** Ha.

**Craig:** But 1997, Walt Disney. And like you I was – you know, well, I’m a student and I was kind of interested so I flipped through and I read through everything. And I tried to understand it as best I could. It did seem to me that there are a lot of things in here, I mean, we concentrate on how much we get paid, but there are a lot of things in here that actually do impact how we do our job, what happens to us in success, how we’re taken care of, how we’re not taken care of. So, it’s actually good to understand how this all works.

**John:** All right. So over the years we’ve picked up some experience but not nearly as much experience as the actual real lawyers on this panel.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Firstly welcome up Laurie Espinosa. Laurie Espinosa is the Senior Director of Contracts for the Writers Guild of America West and has nearly 17 years of experience with the WGA. Laurie has extensive experience interpreting and enforcing all aspects of the WGA theatrical and television basic agreement with a particular focus on separated rights issues. Separated rights are important.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Laurie obtained her JD from the USC School of Law and her undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Laurie, thank you for being with us.

**Laurie Espinosa:** Thank you.

**John:** Next and final up we have Ken Richman. Ken Richman coming up. Ken Richman is a Managing Partner at Hanson, Jacobson and a whole bunch of other people’s names where he reps a ton of writers including me. I just found out that he got his degree from Harvard so congratulations Ken Richman. Ken Richman!

Thank you both for being here. I thought the best way for us to actually go through this would be to actually look at a real contract. And so then I was daunted by like this is a 60-page document that we’re going to be copying for 170 people in a room. That wasn’t going to work. So in this room we’re going to be looking at some slides. And so the slides are behind us. We have in front of us a thing that will be a PDF down the road that people can download.

What we did is with Ken’s help tried to find the very basic things you’re going to see in a contract. So, this isn’t one specific contract. It’s sort of an amalgam of different things. But it gives us a jumping off place for talking about the kinds of stuff you will see in your contract. So we’re going to kind of go from page one through it, but just talk about the sections and see what’s there and what are the important things to look out for if you’re a writer.

**Craig:** But before we actually dig into the contract we should probably talk about the things that happen right before the contract, because before you – so this is the long form, the dreaded long form. But before that ever happens there’s usually some sort of agreement and a deal memo. And right off the bat you’re probably, no OK, well how much am I getting paid? How many steps am I guaranteed? How many optional steps are there? What is the price per step? Is there a credit bonus? What’s that going to be? How much time do I have to work on this?

All those basic things are there in that kind of initial.

**John:** And so that initial round or discussion that’s where you’re talking with your reps about like they’re going back and forth and they’re figuring out how to do stuff. And they say like, OK, we’ve got a deal, it’s these points. And, great, and so that’s the thing that I’m scribbling down on my little notebook. And then weeks or months later I see the final contract and it’s Ken Richman who is negotiating those important stuff in the contract.

So when I see the contract I recognize those things that I had written down, but there’s so much more and it’s Ken’s pencil notes over everything. Ken, just in a general sense when there are deal points settled are they done or does stuff vary after that point?

**Ken Richman:** Sure. What Craig summarized is pretty accurate in that we will have negotiated what are the writing steps, how many steps are there. And we’ll see in a contract how it’s reflected. But how many guaranteed steps? Is there one guaranteed step? Are there two guaranteed steps? That’s for sure negotiated. How many optional steps are there?

And then what is the money attributable to each of those steps? Furthermore we absolutely will have negotiated what kind of credit bonus there is. And those are the key points that will have been negotiated.

**Craig:** And they stay essentially firm?

**Ken:** Those are very unlikely to change. You know, in this business for the most even though this contract is going to need to be signed for sure in order for you to get paid, those points really will not have changed. And I will just point out in the entertainment business not all contracts do get signed. Often depending on what studio you’re dealing with–

**Craig:** Can I tell you something? I never signed my contract for Chernobyl. It’s unsigned.

**Ken:** I believe you. And what I was going to say is depending on what studio you’re working at, depending on whether it’s an actor deal or a director deal or a writer deal it may never get signed, depending on whether it’s film or TV. But I will say as a general matter a feature writing contract is going to get signed or you’re not going to get paid. And so it is going to get signed.

**John:** And Laurie at what point are you tending to see feature contracts? Is it usually when there’s a problem, when something has gone wrong? Is that when you’re seeing these contracts?

**Laurie:** We usually see them after they’re signed and sometimes not until credits are done, in which case our credits department will ask people for the contracts so they can confirm that the writing was done under our jurisdiction. Sometimes it helps with determining the order of writing services.

**John:** Great. Well let’s going to get into a contract. And we’re going to have a bunch of stuff to talk through as we hit different slides.

**Craig:** This is going to be so much fun.

**John:** Oh my god. It’s like [crossover] but in audio form.

**Craig:** Here we go. Deep breaths.

**John:** Your contract will start with something called a Memorandum of Agreement. This is the thing. And the stuff that I have redacted here is actually helpful. These are the variables that are going to get plugged in. So the date, who the studio is. In this case it’s Wet Dog Pictures. The writer’s loan-out corporation. The writer’s name. And the project entitled Movie, so the name of what they’re anticipating this being.

Let’s start with the loan-out company. So my first deal was for Go. And it was just me. I signed it as me. I had no loan-out company. What is the common perception of when a writer needs to have a loan-out company today in 2019? When does that happen, Ken? What is the recommendation? Because it was because of you that I got a loan-out company. So what is the advice now?

**Ken:** Yeah, I think different accountants, different business managers might give different advice, but I think generally speaking once people are steadily working, feel confident they’re going to have a steady income it tends to be recommended to form a loan-out. You get better tax treatment. You can take better advantage of deductions. And so I would say that the vast majority of clients with whom I work have formed a loan-out by then.

If it’s your first deal, you’re not sure when the next one is going to come, it may not be time yet. But we would talk about it and we’d have a discussion of what do you think the next year looks like, what do the next few years look like, what’s going on.

**Craig:** The thing about these loan-out companies in terms of these contracts is you will see sometimes if you’re signing a certificate of authorship, I assume you guys have seen those things, which can get your paid prior to the whole thing. A lot of times what they’re asking you to attest to is the essential falsity of the corporation. The corporation is hiring you and the corporation is saying we promise he’s going to do this or she’s going to do this and they’re responsible. So it’s just connecting the company to the person.

**John:** Nice. Next we’re going to see Conditions Precedent. Ken Richman, tell me what’s actually happening on this thing.

**Ken:** OK, so what’s happening here is this provision is basically saying here’s some things that need to happen before you can actually get paid. So generally speaking the first of those is signing your contract. And so that’s there. The next thing that it says here is that the studio approves the chain of title for the picture. So this basically means if there’s any underlying material, if they needed to acquire a book or an article or life rights they’re going to need to have gotten an agreement for that before they will pay you.

And I should point out that’s really important because you know let’s say you’re writing a movie and it’s based on a book, if they’re still arguing with the author of the book or that person’s representatives as to the terms of their contract and that contract is not done yet they’re not going to pay you. And I’ve absolutely seen situations where writers sometimes get impatient, they have a window of opportunity to start working so they want to start working, and then I’ve seen situations where the underlying rights deals never close because the deal between the author and the studio blew up and now the writer has spent a bunch of time working when they shouldn’t have yet and they never get paid. And that’s really problematic.

**Craig:** This is kind of our paragraph one red flag. Right off the bat this is something that you should look really, really carefully at. This is a kind of clause here, 1.2, that you may sometimes say no. I mean, come back when you have the stuff. Or just say you have it now.

**Ken:** And the other thing I would just point out is sometimes also in this conditions provision you would have other people’s agreements. So for example if there are producers on the film, if there’s already a director on the movie, if somehow having you write was conditioned on an actor becoming attached to the project, those will be listed here as well. And so you definitely want to have a discussion with your representatives in terms of what’s the status of those, what’s going on to make sure–

**John:** Because you cannot start writing. You cannot be paid for the writing you’re doing until it’s clear. Next up, Engagement, Assigned Materials, Separate Projects. 2.1 says Loan-Out. So we were talking about loan-outs before. So loan-out they’re not hiring me directly they’re hiring Quote-Unquote Films. Quote-Unquote Films is – they’re cutting a check to that company. But that company is just me.

**Craig:** And if you’re company says something it’s like you saying it. And if you say something it’s like your company is saying it.

**John:** Mostly Quote-Unquote Films is a way for me to shield profits from Craig Mazin on t-shirt sales.

**Craig:** I’ve gotten nothing.

**John:** That’s really what it is. Any red flags with loan-outs, it’s just there because it’s there.

**Ken:** I’m not super worried about that provision.

**John:** Assigned Material. This is a red flag for us. For assigned material a “lender and artist acknowledge and agree that television results of artist’s writing services shall be based and derived from the assignment material including, without limitation, the following.” And there will be a list. Craig, you’ve encountered this.

**Craig:** Well sure. So sometimes you know what the assigned material is. You’re coming in and somebody is saying to you we need you to rewrite something. Well right off the bat one piece of assigned material is all of the scripts prior to your employment. If it is an adaptation, if there’s a novel or it’s a remake of a movie or a song or something that would all be there.

But this is incredibly important because sometimes writers think they’re writing something original and they’re not. Because the studio will occasionally assign material that they didn’t know they were being assigned. And this becomes a huge issue when it’s time for credits because the way the Writers Guild evaluates credits there’s what they call an original project or a non-original project. That has nothing to do with the quality of your writing. It is entirely about this.

If anything is assigned material and it is of a story nature they’re going to move it over into the non-original bucket. It’s a whole different set of rules. You are not entitled to a guaranteed shared story credit. And you will be behind this in line chronologically when it comes time to determine credit.

**John:** Laurie, you must have encountered this.

**Laurie:** Yes, and it can also impact your entitlement to something called Separated Rights which we’ll probably talk about a little bit later. Essentially is a benefit of the guild agreement that goes to the writers of something original. So if there is something of a story nature assigned in the contract it can definitely impact that and it changes the rules for the writer even being able to get separated rights.

**Ken:** Yeah. And I should also just point out sometimes even when you know technically there have been prior writers, the creative executive or someone may have said to you I want you to throw that out. I don’t want you to pay any attention to it. I just want you to start from scratch.

**Craig:** Don’t read it. Yeah.

**Ken:** The reality is it still counts as assigned material. So as the guys were just saying when it comes time to determining credit it’s still considered a rewrite so all of that material that was done prior to you will absolutely come in for the credit determination, even if you never looked at it. And so this is really important even if you think you’re starting from scratch if there have been prior writers.

**John:** One thing to bring up also, Craig and I were talking about this backstage, is the Romeo and Juliet problem. And so let’s say under this, you’re doing a modern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, if they list Romeo and Juliet here in this place then it’s an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. It is not an original thing. And that’s frustrating.

**Craig:** Yeah. When you’re dealing with stuff that is in the public domain they cannot possess it, but they can assign it, which is weird. And so you might want to take a look at that especially if you’re the first writer coming in to say if you don’t have to assign me this don’t.

**John:** Don’t. Yeah.

**Craig:** Because just like that it’s now an original project.

**John:** Yep. Let’s move on to the money. We like the money parts. Writing services and compensation. So we have a couple of slides here. We’re starting with First Draft Screenplay. And so you see here in this first paragraph that this writer is being paid $200,000, which is being split into two steps. $100,000 once–

**Ken:** That’s actually for one step right there.

**John:** I’m sorry. It’s one step.

**John:** Commencement and delivery.

**Craig:** Commencement and delivery.

**John:** So it’s one step, two checks. $100,000 to start and $100,000 when you’ve completed that and turned it in.

**Ken:** Correct. So in this agreement and we’ll see between this slide and the next slide in this deal this writer is guaranteed one writing step. OK, so the deal that was made here was $200,000 guaranteed for a first draft. As John was just saying it’s very normal for the compensation for any step to be paid half on commencement, half on delivery. So that’s what you see here.

As you can see in this provision it basically says the conditions had to have been satisfied in order for you to get paid. And then they will pay you half on commencement, half on delivery. If you flip to the next slide what you’re see then is an optional set of revisions, also sometimes referred to as an optional rewrite. So here it was just one step guaranteed and then there were some optional steps. There’s this one, and then on the next slide it will show another optional step. And so that right off the bat is just something that is very important for you to understand when you’re deal is done which is how many steps are guaranteed, how many optional steps are there.

And I will just say that over the many years that I’ve been doing this it’s definitely been more than a trend of moving away from two-step guaranteed deals to one-step guaranteed deals. So a bunch of years ago most feature deals that we did were if you were the first writer you’d be guaranteed a first draft and a rewrite. And there might be two optional steps, an optional rewrite and an optional polish.

Increasingly now almost all studios try to have it be one guaranteed step and then either two or three optional steps thereafter. Once again, when you get to these optional steps like the first step, half the money would be paid on commencement, and half on delivery.

**Craig:** There’s a few other things you want to look out for in these sections. First of all, nomenclature, if you’re being hired to do a rewrite it will say first rewrite. It’s not going to say first draft. I mean, think of in steps they’ll call them rewrites.

The other thing that’s really important on these options is there’s a window. The option doesn’t last forever. So inside all of those things they’re going to tell you exactly how long they have to trigger that option and there’s a couple of things you’re going to need to know. One is how much time do they have before that option goes away. And the other thing is are there any conditions to that time window. For instance pending availability, or not pending availability. In other words, we have the exclusive right within four weeks to decide if we’re going to pay you again or not for another step. So those windows matter because on the very first thing I did they missed the window and because they decided to make the movie we ended up making more on the optional, you know, non-optional rewrite than we did on the original.

**Ken:** The other thing that comes up here too Craig is that it’ll set forth whether these optional steps need to be done in order or whether they can do it in whatever order they choose.

**Craig:** Right. You want in order.

**Ken:** In order is generally considered preferable, more protective of the writer, because in order means hey we’re going to go from a first draft to a rewrite to a polish. Usually that’s in ascending order of how big the step is and also how much money you’re getting paid for them. And so you don’t want to be in a situation where you do the first draft and they say, “We kind of want to save some money here. Let’s go immediately to the polish even though the step is a pretty big step and they’re going to really want you to do rewrite type work, but let’s just call it the polish.” And so it’s something to be wary of. So hopefully these steps would have to be in order. But even if they’re not and even if they are allowed to jump to the polish you do want to make sure that when you’re getting those notes for what they’re calling the polish steps that it really is a polish. And you’ll see the time periods in a couple slides from now, but is it really a three or four week step, or this a six or eight week step, in which case this isn’t a polish and it’s something to pay attention to.

**Laurie:** Right. It becomes even more important if you’re at minimum and these figures are not. But there’s a big difference between the rewrite minimum and a polish minimum. So if you’re asked to do work that rises to the level of a rewrite it’s definitely important to bring that to us so we can enforce the rewrite minimum for that. Basically a rewrite is changes in story, structure, and dialogue.

**John:** So on the issue of one step deals, so this is a one-step deal we’re looking at. This is the thing we’re trying to push back against and fight against. In this case it’s not in the long form agreement that you’re pushing back against that. It’s in the initial deal-making. This is a guaranteed one-step guarantee, two-step optional. That’s being figured out before any of this is drafted. So in the initial conversation what I would scribble down, I would star the ones that are guaranteed and the ones that aren’t. So it’s not in this stage that you get out of the one-step deal problem.

**Ken:** Right. And you can understand why it’s preferable, right? I mean, generally speaking it means not only that you’re guaranteed more money, because you’re guaranteed multiple steps, but also you know that when you’re writing that first draft – you guys can speak to it – but obviously you’re adhering to what you pitched, you’re doing it. At the same time you know you’re going to have another step and you know when they give you notes that you’re going to get a chance to address it as opposed to feeling like, hey, they can replace me immediately, go to somebody else, which I’m sure–

**John:** Which leads to a lot of free work.

**Craig:** That’s just the tip of the shit iceberg that this thing causes.

**Laurie:** The other thing is some other terms of a contract are contingent on fixed compensation. So only the steps that are guaranteed are going to be included when that calculation is done, such as sequel payments.

**Ken:** With that said, I should just emphasize there has been a real strong movement towards the one-step deal, so I don’t want it stated as if–

**Craig:** I think everybody here is well aware of that.

**John:** All right. Let’s move on to 3.5 Fair Compensation. Who can explain fair compensation?

**Craig:** It’s fair.

**John:** It’s fair.

**Ken:** It’s reasonable.

**John:** So basically this means that you’re doing this for money. Is that all that this is telling us?

**Ken:** Yeah, essentially this isn’t the most impactful provision, but basically it’s saying hey look you understand that even if this movie is never made, even if this movie is made and you don’t get credit on it and therefore you don’t get a credit bonus or profit participation, if all you ever receive is that guaranteed money that you were paid for that first draft that was fair. That was it. And you’re not going to come back and complain.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** All right. 3.6 is your bonus. So let’s say the movie gets made, you get a bonus. So in this case the writer is getting a bonus for a sole screenplay by or written by credit upon final credit determination by the Writers Guild of America, the MBA. This writer is going to be getting $500,000 upon final credit determination. For shared screenplay or shared written by this writer is going to get $250,000. So half for this.

**Craig:** This is a slightly odd one. You see this less. So the flat bonus is no matter what you’ve been paid this is what you’re going to get. It’s pretty typical that your shared bonus is about half of what the sole bonus would be. But I think more commonly you will see this against this. So it’s a reducible amount. So then the really important thing is to say, OK, if the bonus is I’m being paid $200,000 against a million dollars, then there’s kind of an implied $800,000 bonus. But you have to make sure you know which of these other steps apply against it. And typically it’s every single thing in here. So, if there’s two optional rewrites and one optional polish, all of that money is going to eat up into that bonus. Which means essentially you’re kind of working for free for a while.

**John:** If the movie gets made.

**Craig:** If the movie gets made and you get credit. It’s just important to be aware what applies against and as you’re going through the process if it’s not working for you and you’re unhappy and you have leverage you can always sort of renegotiate and ask for a new term like an all services deal or a step that’s not applicable. The words not applicable are your friend. You want that. If you’re dealing with a bonus like this it means you’re getting paid and it’s not eating into your bonus.

**John:** Yep. Let’s move onto contingent payment. This will be in your contract. You will never get this money.

**Craig:** The contingency is death.

**John:** So this writer is getting a contingent payment equal to the amount of 5% of 100% of the contingent proceeds of the picture. There’s also the definition of what the contingent proceeds are. You won’t get it.

**Craig:** It’s attached to your contract. It’s a very large – you’ve seen the booklet that they attach on there. Their boiler plate, all of which explains why you’re not going to get it.

**Ken:** A few things here. First of all, this is called different things in different contracts. So here they’re calling it contingent payment or contingent proceeds.

**Craig:** Net profits.

**Ken:** This is also referred to as net profits, net proceeds, defined contingent proceeds. Different studios have different names for them. I mean, as the guys said it is extremely standard for a feature writer agreement to provide for a 5% net profits participation for sole credit, or a 2.5% net profits participation by whatever name for shared credit. As a general matter you’re right, very few movies hit net profits.

It does happen. It absolutely has happened. I absolutely have had a bunch of clients who have net profits as writers on films. Usually it requires – this is not shocking – it usually requires a movie that didn’t cost a ton to make, that didn’t have a bunch of gross players in the movie, and the movie had to perform beyond wildest dreams. Which absolutely happens, but not terribly often at all.

**Craig:** Don’t count on it.

**John:** Don’t count on it.

**Craig:** And also it’s not a negotiable term.

**Laurie:** Have you had to audit companies?

**Ken:** Absolutely. And so in those situations in the context of most movies that either are paying out profits or are close to paying out profits, usually the profit participants, which wouldn’t just be the writer, it would generally be the writer in conjunction with other profit participants, be it actors, director, producers, would jointly hire an auditing firm to look at the books of the movie. And it’s pretty common practice. And keep everybody honest and hopefully turn some stuff up.

**John:** Great. Next, general terms for writing services. So this is actually the page I probably flip to most in my contract to see sort of like, oh, what was I actually guaranteed, what was here. It’s listing first draft screenplay, 12-week writing period, a four-week reading period, first set of revisions which is an option. 10 weeks and four weeks. Then polish is four weeks and four weeks. I will look this up because to remember where am I at in this deal, sort of what step am I on. How long do I have to do these things?

**Ken:** Yeah, and a few things that are important here. You know, once again let’s just be clear. Under first draft it says start of services is upon satisfaction of the conditions. OK, so you’re not technically supposed to be starting until those are satisfied. You’re not going to get paid until they’re satisfied. As John was just saying it specifies the writing period for each step. Obviously it’s in declining number of weeks as the steps get smaller. The reading period there corresponds to what Craig was talking about earlier about option periods. So basically in the situation like this where there are optional steps they have to exercise that optional step within that four-week period of delivery of the previous step, otherwise they lose that option.

As we’re about to talk about in a couple slides now, they have the right to exercise the step but postpone it. And we’ll talk about what happens if they do that, but they do have to exercise their option within four weeks.

**Craig:** And that’s going to roll us right into exclusivity which essentially tells you when you are required to only work for them. Like all of these things, the issue that you deal with is it’s enforceable if there’s a conflict. This comes up all the time obviously. And generally speaking things get sort of worked out.

But by and large when you’re in a writing period you can only write for them, for no one else in features. And in the reading periods, those four-week times, it’s typical that it’s not exclusive. That you can go and do something else while they’re reading there. But then when they exercise their option the question is is it subject to your availability or do you have to come back after those four weeks. Those things get worked out in exclusivity.

Again, this kind of a red flag one. You want to be as not exclusive as you can be.

**Ken:** And generally I will say that when we are negotiating deals up front, so before we’ve ever seen paper, usually we will bring up the issue of carve outs from the exclusivity. So just when we’re negotiating what’s your compensation, what are the bonuses, etc., we would also say by the way John has these preexisting obligations on these other projects. Those need to be carved out so that even during the writing periods when he’d otherwise be exclusive he’s not exclusive. And sometimes it’s, hey look, he’s not exclusive but he’s still going to comply with these delivery periods. Or in other instances when it’s crystal clear that there’s no way you can – you may not be able to comply with this if you get called back to your TV show and you have to spend a bunch of time on it. There may be instances when we have the ability to extend time periods as well.

**John:** All right. Great. Point E, commencement of services. Lender and artist acknowledge that only an authorized business affairs executive of the company has the authority to commence artist services. So when the studio executive says, oh no, go ahead start writing, they are not the person who is authorized to do that. And this is a point in the contract to make that really clear that the creative executive can’t commence you. It really is the studio business affairs has to do this. And you must encounter this a lot.

**Laurie:** The MBA actually requires the name of the person who is authorized to commence services. I notice that this agreement doesn’t have that. It’s not supposed to be generic. Or maybe it has it somewhere else.

**Ken:** I think John may have cut it off, but I think it goes on to say it.

**John:** So there’s one person specifically who you’re supposed to be delivering things to and one person who can say, yes, go ahead and start writing.

**Laurie:** Exactly.

**Craig:** For commencement this is actually pretty easy because they want you to start writing and so you just make sure that your attorney says, OK, you’ve been officially commenced. Once you hear that from your lawyer you’re good to go.

**Ken:** The bigger issue is commencement of subsequent steps because have I been commenced on that second step–

**Craig:** The option.

**Ken:** And optional steps, exactly.

**John:** Oh, so much text on this slide. Deferred services. So this is getting back to that place of they can say start but also start but wait.

**Ken:** And what this is basically saying is they have the right in this provision, in this contract, to postpone any step for up to 18 months. But if they do so what this goes on to say is if they’re postponing a step they have to pay you as if they had timely ordered it and you had timely performed services, OK. And then you will do the step later when they ask you to do it, subject to your availability. So if they don’t have you start within the four-week period they were supposed to they then have to wait in line until you are available. They’ll have to pay you now and you’ll do it at your next availability essentially.

**John:** In my 20 years I’ve never had this happen. Have you Craig?

**Craig:** No. There have been some instances where we do like a suspend and extend where I’ll say I’m supposed to do this but I just got asked to do something else for two weeks. Would you mind suspending and extending? So we hit pause on this contract and we extend the time by two weeks so you don’t suffer. But I’ve never had anybody hire me and then say, “But by the way we don’t want you to work now.”

**Ken:** It’s happened with optional steps for sure though where they may say, hey look, we know we have this optional polish. We absolutely want to preserve the right to have you do it, but we’re going to wait until a director comes along.

**Craig:** So we’ll pay you now, look that rate in. That’s smart.

**Ken:** It definitely happens. It’s not that common but it does happen.

**John:** Great. Next up, first opportunity. So let’s say the movie gets made and let’s say you got credit on this movie, probably sole credit on this movie, yes, sole credit on the movie, within seven years after the initial general theatrical release of the picture they have to come back to you for sequel or prequel remake. Ken, is this a standard thing you’re going to see in a lot of contracts?

**Ken:** Yeah, couple provisions. You will absolutely see, it’s pretty standard that if you get sole credit on a movie then you will get the first opportunity to do certain derivative works, film or TV derivative works. I will say that the exceptions to that become if it’s based on library material. So sometimes you will get this first opportunity if it’s based on significant library material, but often studios will say, look, we’re not giving it in that sort of instance where it’s a big franchise film that you didn’t create and so you may not have it.

But as a general matter you would. There would be a certain circumscribed amount of time. Here it’s if they’re developing it within seven years of the prior film, if you got sole credit you have to be available when they want you to, and often there are certain parameters to the effect of hey look as long as the budget of this film is intended to be similar to the prior one they can’t offer you any less money than you got on the first one. Pretty normal provision here though, yes.

**Craig:** And Laurie in a case where somebody does get separated rights because they write an original screenplay and they have story by credit, separated rights cover a little bit of this too as well?

**Laurie:** It only covers the sequel payments, not the opportunity to write. So this is a key term to negotiate for sure.

**Craig:** Got it. Thank you.

**John:** Great. So just to make sure it’s all clear, if you have separated rights on a thing you’re going to get paid money for that derivative work, but there’s no guarantee that you’re going to be the person writing that derivative work. Is that what you’re saying?

**Laurie:** That’s correct. You get a sequel payment. So essentially that means if they use one of the characters that you created in that original film in a sequel or a prequel or whatever they want to call it, a new and different story, then you’re entitled to a minimum payment. And oftentimes there’s an above scale amount in the contract as well.

**John:** Great.

**Ken:** The same applies to TV. Yeah, there obviously wouldn’t be a floor of the prior deal and often this provision will require the approval of the relevant network as well, but yes you would generally get a first opportunity to do the first TV production as well.

**John:** Fantastic. Next up, this point C has some definitions, and it says solely for the purpose of determining artist’s first opportunity rights under this previous paragraph. It’s defining what a sequel and a prequel means. And it carves out this point D, it’s not an “ensemble production.” Ken, what’s an ensemble production?

**Ken:** Yeah, I mean, I think what I would just say is first of all usually these definitions are not that complicated and usually we know what a sequel is and we know what a remake is. Although I’m sure you can find reasons to argue about it. What is increasingly starting to happen with these franchise type films and particularly superhero type films is you see these mashups of different films.

**Craig:** This is an Avengers problem.

**Ken:** Exactly, Alien vs. Predator. You’ll see Avengers. There may have been multiple different movies. You may have written one of them. But now it’s being combined with another movie. And so–

**Craig:** Nobody gets the first rights because–

**Ken:** Exactly right. Once again, not a super common provision.

**Craig:** Most people here have worked on The Avengers I would imagine. It’s a thing.

**John:** Yeah. Markus and McFeely are both here in the house. This next point is related to this. So a remake shall be defined as a live action, English-language, theatrical motion picture produced for domestic release that is based on a picture and meets the following criteria. Same substantial number of elements. Repeats the principal story line, at least two the principal characters, and is not an ensemble production which is a loosely defined term.

**Ken:** And all that, you know, once again, some of that is fairly normal, but I would just say you do want to pay attention to, particularly as the world starts getting more complicated is, you know, when it says English-language theatrical motion picture – theatrical motion picture. What happens now when it’s done directly for a streaming service?

**John:** Or Disney Plus?

**Ken:** Exactly. And by the way, the same applies not just to this provision but earlier when we were talking about credit bonuses and other provisions, increasingly it’s unclear what a movie is going to be produced for necessarily and so you want to make sure you’re getting your bonuses and your other entitlements regardless of whether they’re releasing the film theatrically or how they’re doing so.

**John:** Great. 5.5 talks about royalties, which is not residuals. It’s its own separate thing. But I don’t understand this piece. So, Ken, why is this here? What are they talking about?

**Ken:** Generally this goes along with the first opportunity provision. So usually in a contract what it will provide is that if you get – as we just said – if you get sole credit you’ll get the first opportunity to write derivative works. Then there will be a corresponding provision which says that, hey, if you get not only sole credit but also generally sole separated rights, so this is really your creation, then if there are subsequent productions, remakes, sequels, or TV productions that you don’t wind up writing, either because you weren’t available, you couldn’t make a deal to do it, or whatever the reason is, they still have to pay you certain money as a result.

So what this goes on to say is if you look at the sequel provision what that says is that if they do a sequel to your film, and you don’t write it, you will get paid half of the compensation that you got paid on the first.

**Craig:** And these are called passive payments, is that right?

**Ken:** Correct.

**Laurie:** And this is an above scale example of a sequel payment where if you have separated rights there is a minimum for that, but this is more than that.

**Ken:** Correct. And generally that’s for a sequel it’s 50%. For a remake it’s less than that. For TV productions it will be certain episodic payments for each time they do an episode that’s essentially derived from your movie.

**John:** Cool.

**Laurie:** And we have minimums for remakes as well in here that aren’t tied to separated rights, just as an aside.

**John:** Nice. Transportation and expenses.

**Craig:** Gotta love transpo.

**John:** Oh, transpo is so good. So now your movie is in production or you’re headed to a premiere, there’s important places where you need to travel to go to—

**Craig:** I’ll flip to this sometimes first. I’m like are you flying me first or business? That’s a big argument. We used to have an MBA term that we would be flown first and that got rolled back to business, across the guilds. So that’s one area where you can sometimes fight, but they’re getting really good at just saying, no, it’s business all the way.

And then how much money am I going to get paid, my walk around money. And am I going to be accountable for my walk around money. You should not have to be. But this is like a fun part of the contract because I’m like, ooh.

Now one thing to note is that they will break it out by kinds of cities. I have had arguments about what kind of city I’m in.

**John:** Yeah, so when you’re doing Chernobyl and you’re in Eastern Europe are they paying you–

**Craig:** The Vilnius would be on the lower end.

**John:** Lower scale.

**Craig:** But it is a capital city location. I mean, so that actually is a decent argument to have. As it happened in that case because we knew where we were shooting they were just like you’ll get this much for being in a city say like Vilnius. But typically they will break it out as these major metropolitan areas like New York, Paris, Tokyo, or London, and then it kind of goes down from there.

And this is where you’re going to find out whether or not you’re sharing a car from the airport. I don’t really care too much about stuff like that but it’s an area where you can fiddle with things and get some perks, improve your life. It’s certainly a place to look and make sure that you’re not in for trouble, especially if you know that you’re going to be on location. I mean, Universal practically makes every movie in Georgia, which is a whole other discussion. But, you know, everybody ends up spending time there. So you want to know how am I going to be taken care of if I’m say in Atlanta.

**John:** Yep. Next up. Pension, health, and welfare contributions. This contract says that the studio will pay directly applicable pension, health, and welfare fund contributions required by the MBA to the WGA. In no event shall the aggregate amount of such payments exceed the total of all similar payments which the studio would have been required to make had the studio employed that writer directly.

**Craig:** They’re getting around the loan-out.

**John:** They’re getting around the loan-out company stuff. You are in a guild. You’re in a guild space right now. This is really good. I mean, they should – I guess the alternative is they could pay the writer and the writer would have to – I don’t understand why this would never be here.

**Laurie:** Yeah, the writer can’t make his or her own contributions by law, so the company has to make those contributions, regardless of whether there’s a loan-out or not.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** Nice. Point 8, ownership and distribution. I take this to read that this thing that you’re writing they own it and they–

**Craig:** This is the big one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** This is how they built Hollywood, on this paragraph, which says you’re not writing it. You’re being commissioned to write it. Even if it was your idea and you brought it to them. Even if you’ve already written it and you’re selling it to them, they – we engage in this.

Look, the upside to this is because it’s a work-for-hire that means you’re an employee. Because you’re an employee you can be in a labor union. So there’s some good upsides to this. But this is the magic paragraph that says – and it’s my favorite paragraph in combination with the paragraph that says you also warrant that you are writing the material you write. So you have to promise us you’re going to write it and also we’re writing it. It’s basically what they’re saying.

**Laurie:** This is the genesis for separated rights because this is the work-for-hire doctrine that means the company is the copyright holder. And so separated rights basically says that certain rights are separated out from that. And effectively licensed to the writer of original material in perpetuity.

**Craig:** Right. They’re kind of giving us back stuff—

**Laurie:** That you should have, yeah. Nice.

**Craig:** Begrudgingly.

**John:** Begrudgingly. But we should acknowledge that it’s good that this paragraph is here because without this paragraph we cannot be employees and there would be no union. This is a foundational thing that we need to have exist.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that’s why we have – I mean, the whole concept of residuals was essentially to simulate the royalties we would get if we maintain copyright. So that’s all of what we do here is this kind of strange dance regarding work-for-hire. It’s fascinating to a small amount of people. But I’m one of them.

**John:** Point number nine.

**Craig:** Oh yes.

**John:** So, these are the bonus materials and other things that could use your material that aren’t the main thing. And Ken are there important negotiations here or are they just protecting themselves?

**Ken:** Not really. And also what this is also saying is, hey look, if they shot some behind the scenes the footage that you happen to appear in you’re giving them the right to – unless there was something particular going on it’s not something we would generally talk too much about.

**John:** Cool. Assignment. The studio may assign, transfer, license, delegate, and/or grant any part of the rights, privileges, and properties here under to any person or entity. So, this thing I made with you, they could give it to somebody else.

**Craig:** They just have to honor – the person that they sell it to has to assume the burden of all of this.

**Ken:** Correct. And if they were to assign it to some non-solvent entity they would remain [liable, the other studio]. Yes.

**John:** Does this ever become a problem where the guild sometimes deals with studios and producers who are not good folks. Where this assignment thing, they’ve assigned it to a person who is terrible or is coming away from a terrible person. Does this kind of paragraph ever come into your work?

**Laurie:** Well, we already have paragraphs that require what we call assumption agreements to be signed by the distributor or whoever is assuming the obligations. And so like Ken said if that distributor doesn’t honor the residuals obligations then we will still go after the original signatory company.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** And to become a signatory in the first place you have to show that you have the financial solvency to actually take care of your obligations.

**Laurie:** Right. We require a personal guarantee among other things.

**Craig:** So it’s not like any of you can do it. I’m sure some of you could.

**John:** Some of them can. Part 11, there’s no obligation to use. So the studio is not obligated to develop, produce, distribute, and/or exploit the picture–

**Ken:** Or to have you write it.

**John:** Or have you write it.

**Ken:** Essentially this is sometimes also referred to as a pay-or-play type paragraph. So it’s basically saying, hey look, you can never come after us and say, hey, we didn’t have you actually write it, or you didn’t make the movie. But that doesn’t absolve them of their obligation to pay you your guaranteed–

**Craig:** How do I get this deal where I don’t have to write it? That sounds awesome.

**John:** There have been a couple of times in my career where either a step, things just sort of fell apart. And they still needed to pay me out for stuff.

**Craig:** Oh, sweet.

**John:** It’s nice.

**Craig:** What a life you live.

**John:** Point 12, employment eligibility. So you will have to prove that they can hire you legally in the United States to do stuff. And so they’ll ask for identification. It’s really unclear to me sort of like why some studios want everything and other places are just like, “Just sign here.” But sometimes they ask for a lot more documentation at other places.

**Craig:** They keep them on record. So every now and then some studio will say, oh, you’ve got to update your I9 because after some certain amount of time we think maybe you stopped being a citizen or something. I don’t know. But it’s basically just that you can legally work.

**John:** Point 12.12 is services outside the US. Lender and artist acknowledge and agree that artist shall not render services under this agreement outside the US unless and until, and there’s some conditions here. As more things do go overseas this could become a factor for certain people.

**Craig:** Yeah, I was there. And so one of the interesting things about working overseas is the guild – and correct me if I wrong on this Laurie – has jurisdiction over writing that happens here in the United States. It doesn’t technically have jurisdiction over writing that’s done somewhere else. So if I’m hired by a British company, or if I’m hired by Euro Disney to write something, and I’m positioned physically in France.

**Laurie:** Right. So it is complicated but if you are a resident of the US and the company transports you, which this paragraph seems to allude to, it’s still within our geographical jurisdiction. This is article five of the agreement that has different back patterns essentially about what’s inside and what’s outside our geographic jurisdiction. So you do want to be aware of where you’re performing your services. At some point it may become a test of what percentage of your services were performed in the US versus abroad.

**Craig:** Which becomes super annoying in terms of taxation also. Because sometimes you end up having to say, well, a part of my money is paid to Lithuania and part of my money – but you know. Tax people.

**John:** Yeah. Confidentiality. Lender and artist acknowledge that prior to and/or during lender’s and artist’s contact there’s confidential information. Ken, does this become an important negotiating point?

**Ken:** Generally not. But you can imagine, I mean, what it’s really saying is it’s a couple things. One, they don’t want you running around talking about what your compensation is. And two, also, you shouldn’t be out there publicizing the film, sharing pages, giving secrets away, that kind of thing.

**Laurie:** Spoilers.

**Ken:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Spoilers.

**John:** So I didn’t see this thing about compensation, so is it saying that I’m not allowed – would I not be allowed to talk about how much I got on a project? I didn’t see that in this.

**Ken:** In this one it may not say it. Some agreements definitely do, you know, where they want you to keep the terms confidential. Sometimes.

**John:** Cool. Notices. Any notice pertaining hereto shall be in writing. And it’s saying they can send it by mail, cable, or fax, or telecopy.

**Craig:** Usually cable.

**John:** Cable is how I do all my stuff. Telegrams is the best.

**Craig:** You are no longer working. Stop.

**John:** Ha. But where this cuts off would be the address of like who notices should go to. And that’s important to be in there. And they should be in theory still be sending them to the address that is there. And if that’s no longer the person who is representing you or the place it should go, make sure that gets updated.

**Craig:** Yeah. And notices, the biggest problem that we have with notices comes down to credits. Because there have been some very sad cases where the guild has sent the notice of tentative writing credits to the person listed here, that is the representative of the writer, and that person just doesn’t pass it along, or it wasn’t the right person, or that person was terminated during the writing. So you’ve just got to be really aware of that one. The most important thing there is going to be credits I think.

**Laurie:** Because there’s a very quick turnaround in terms of finalizing the credits.

**Craig:** Correct. And if suddenly two weeks later someone calls you up and says, yeah, so it’s over. What’s over? It can happen.

**John:** Insurance. Lender and artist shall be covered as an additional insured on the studios errors and omissions insurance policy. You want that. That is good.

**Laurie:** That is required in here by the way.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** Indemnification.

**John:** Nice. Indemnification is – what’s indemnification? Help me out. I don’t even know.

**Ken:** Indemnification is basically saying – usually this will go along with another provision called Representation and Warranties. Where essentially – in general you’re saying as you said earlier this is original to me. I’m the person who wrote this. I didn’t steal this from anybody else. And you’re generally saying but if I did, if I stole this or if I’ve breached this representation somehow I’m responsible and I will indemnify you, studio, for any expenses or liability you incur.

But on the flip side, and that’s what’s addressed here, you studio are going to indemnify me and protect me if there are any claims against me in connection with the film that didn’t arise from my breach of my obligation.

**Craig:** And there will be. If there’s a movie that’s a big movie inevitably somebody is going to wriggle out from under a rock and say you stole my… – And then the studio has to bat that away. You are not on the hook for that sort of thing and I don’t know – honestly, I don’t know of any writer that has ever actually committed some kind of plagiarism or fraud and then been exposed because of breach here. We don’t do it.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** And they protect us.

**John:** Crediting. Over scale cash payments for writing services any credit bonus, or any contingent payment paid to lender and picture shall not be credited against residuals which may become payable to lender and artist for the picture. Basically the money they pay – they can’t take the money they’ve already paid you out of your residuals.

**Craig:** They can’t chew into that. That makes sense.

**John:** Residuals are a different thing.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** The premiere! Congratulations. You get to go to the premiere. We talked about the Aladdin premiere. In this case if the writer got sole or shared screenplay by credit or written by credit they get to go to the premiere.

**Craig:** This is where you find out what they really think of you.

**John:** Yes. So this writer, let’s see, artist and one non-business related companion–

**Craig:** Two tickets.

**John:** Two tickets.

**Craig:** That’s what you get.

**John:** To the US celebrity premiere.

**Craig:** You’re getting two tickets to the movie you wrote, to be a theater filled with people that have nothing to do with the movie. That’s basically the deal. But it will detail what the transportation and hotel might be if the premiere is at a distant location, because sometimes it’ll be in New York or somewhere else. So, you know, this is an area where somebody like Ken can, if he knows like OK my client would love to take his family or his friends, this is a place where he can grind them a little bit. But, you know, the attitude on these things from the studio is the premiere is not to celebrate your genius. The premiere is to sell tickets. And sorry, this don’t sell nothing so. And so that’s why they’re a bit cheap on it. But they don’t seem to be that stingy when it comes to producers, do they?

**John:** No. Point 19, YOU GET A DVD. You get a DVD of your movie. Congratulations. You made your movie, you get a DVD.

**Laurie:** You don’t have a DVD player anymore.

**John:** No, not at my house.

**Craig:** Also they don’t send them.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No. They’ve just stopped. They know we don’t want them. They’ve just stopped.

**John:** Point 21, the cure. No, just a cure. On a one-time only basis – I read through this paragraph two or three times and didn’t really get it, so?

**Ken:** I wouldn’t get worked up about it. It’s basically saying if they would otherwise say that you’d done something wrong, you breached something, you didn’t comply, they have to tell you and you get a chance to correct that mistake. I can’t think of a situation in which that’s really come up in this context.

**John:** So you get one whoops.

**Craig:** You get two days to buff that out.

**John:** Point 22, WGA MBA. Artist’s services hereunder shall be subjected to the terms of the MBA. At this point Laurie points to her big purple notebook, spiral bound. This is our MBA, the basic agreement, which has all the rules of how the Writers Guild and the studios do stuff together.

**Laurie:** Right. And this is an agreement between the guild and the studios that’s enforceable in the same way that this agreement is enforceable. So we have two things going on simultaneously. But in no event can an individual writer agree to something that is less favorable than what’s in the minimum basic agreement. And that’s the whole point of it. So even if there were something in the agreement, and oftentimes there is something hidden in the standard terms and conditions or somewhere else that is a violation technically of this agreement. It’s not enforceable by the studio because they have agreed to do this.

**John:** Yes. So you can’t go lower than this. This is the base and everything has to build up above the MBA.

**Craig:** And this is essentially the paragraph that tells you you’re working on a WGA project. You are not allowed to work – if you’re in a covered work area you can’t not have this in your contract.

**Laurie:** Right. And by the way making sure the company that’s listed in the contract is signatory is a critical thing. It’s not always a studio and you might not always be absolutely certain that this particular entity is signatory. So you can always call the signatories department to confirm that.

**John:** Yeah. This wouldn’t be a Scriptnotes podcast if we didn’t rail on Bob Weinstein once.

**Craig:** Let’s go. Here we go. Everybody line up.

**John:** My second project they tried to hire me under the non-signatory thing. And like, no, I am a guild member. You have to hire me under their signatory branch.

**Craig:** That’s weird because their adherence to ethics is notorious. I’m not sure what happened there.

**John:** Mm.

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** Now we get to the exhibits. Exhibit A, writer’s certificate. And so this says as of date the undersigned certifies that for valuable consideration, basically there is an agreement here between movie, Wet Dog Pictures–

**Craig:** You’re paying me to write it. You’re paying me to write it and I’m writing it. And this is the thing – the invention of this is the greatest because I don’t know when I started if they had these frequently.

**Ken:** Basically the certificate which will be, they vary at the different studios, but a very short document which basically just says, hey, we own what you’re doing and you represent more that you didn’t steal from anybody else, etc. Because usually what the studio may do is they may take this, they file it in the copyright office, and it’s just a simple document. It doesn’t have any confidential terms. It doesn’t have any money in it. It’s just their way of putting out there publicly that, hey, we own this thing without having to reveal any private details.

**Craig:** Right. And then that in turn gives them the comfort to pay you your commencement even though somebody like Ken is trying to figure out how many dollars you get for a trip to Tokyo, you know. Because that can take a really long time. And every one of these contracts I’ve ever had my lawyers red line through dozens of things. And some of these things are important. But if you really have to wait for this whole thing to be done months will go by, or as we said earlier it never happens.

**John:** Yeah. Exhibit B is a thing I’ve never had to actually do. Procedures for annotating the screenplay.

**Craig:** I had to do this.

**John:** You had to do this for Chernobyl.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** This is marking up sort of the stuff that is in your script. Who are real characters? What are real places? What you changed and where you consulted to get the information in this? So I know you had to do this for Chernobyl, marking up.

**Craig:** Yeah. I was back in 11th grade and I was doing a bibliography and citations and everything. Because, I mean, the company had their own person that goes through it and does his own thing of like, OK, yeah, you didn’t make this up. Because they’re protecting themselves against you defaming people or you just saying things that are wildly incorrect. But you may have to do this. And this is something that I think a lot of people are caught unawares. There are people that will help you do it. There are people that can hired to essentially assemble the annotated screenplay form with you. But, yeah, if you’re working in a space where you are adapting or representing true facts, someone’s life/history, you’re going to be on the hook for this.

**Laurie:** And that ties into the representation and warranty section that you were mentioning earlier. And the company is supposed to notify you upfront if you’re supposed to be annotating.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Ken:** Because usually in those reps and warranties it will say, hey, you are not writing about a real person unless you tell us you are. Exactly.

**John:** So, we made it through the end of the contract.

**Craig:** Let’s do it again!

**John:** Let’s keep in mind this is the contract for them paying you to write something. This wouldn’t be exactly the situation if you wrote a spec script and you were selling it to a place or optioning it to a place. So Ken could you quickly talk us through what other things would we see in a spec sale? Would it be a separate contract completely?

**Ken:** Sure. It depends on the studio. So, if you’re selling a spec it might be one contract or it might be two. So, if it were two you might have one which is essentially called a screenplay purchase agreement. Or it were an option purchase agreement it would be an option purchase agreement. And then separately you might have a writing agreement.

**John:** Great.

**Ken:** And so the writing agreement would look very much like what you just saw. And the purchase agreement, not terribly complicated other than there’s a purchase price for buying the script and then it would have a whole host of assignment type language where you’re assigning all rights over to them, once again featuring representations and warranties and indemnities. But the two together would have you transferring ownership to them and then also discuss the rewriting you’re going to do of your own script.

**John:** Great. Because we’re the guild I’m going to talk a little guild stuff here. The Start Button, just show of hands, who here knows what the Start Button is, feature writers? Oh, that’s better than I would have guessed. Who here has used the Start Button? Shorter number. But let’s talk through like how this ties in with your contract. Because the Start Button is a service that’s on the website right now. With the Start Button when you start writing on your feature project or a pilot it also works well you’re going to go in, you click Start Button, and you say create new project. You’re going to create a new project and you’re going to go into little fields and fill stuff out that says what the title of the movie is, who it’s for, the person authorized to accept delivery per contract, exactly the thing that Laurie stressed. Who the producers are.

Once you have your contract you’ll click that little button there and upload your contract. You’re supposed to be doing that. And actually feature writers are much better than TV writers. So, we’re awesome. We tend to submit our contracts. But then you’ll put in your steps. So, a step, what is a step? Well we talked about that. A step is, you know, first draft, your optional rewrite, your optional polish. You’re going to put that information in and say how long you’re expecting to be working on those things. And it will kick you back an email when that time is about to run up saying like, hey, how’s that going, is everything good? Is there a problem? Do you need the guild to help come in?

Because TV writers, they get paid on time because they are making a show every week. Feature writers, we don’t get paid on time because they just don’t. And so we want to make sure people are getting paid on time. And the way we can do that is by using this and letting the guild be the bad guy at times. You know, your reps should be the bad guys, but sometimes your reps aren’t doing a great job being the bad guys.

**Craig:** Reps. These reps you speak of.

**John:** But let’s let the guild do that, because the guild is really good at collecting money and doing that. And so try using the Start Button on your next project. I’ve used it regularly because we were testing it and it does help. It reminds you also because, you know, the thing like wait how long is my writing period? Look at your contract. Look at the notes you scribbled down. It gives you a sense of just a little bit more control over the process from your perspective.

And then lastly guild wise, I’ll point out that this working rule number three says like you know what you actually are supposed to be sending in your contract. That’s how the guild sort of knows what’s happening out there, what people are working on, and what are the common points. So you see a ton of contracts, but with more contracts you see like how many one-step deals are really getting made. Well, we’d know because we’d see all of the contracts.

**Laurie:** Right. I mean, there’s really a dual purpose for us collecting the agreements. One is enforcement. We tend to be able to guide writers through the process even when they’re making a deal, but especially after they’ve made a deal we can check to make sure the terms comply with the MBA and we can enforce it. And really also another major purpose is just gathering information to support the guild’s strategic goals. Just like you said, what’s happening in the industry, what are the trends, and what are the problems that keep arising.

**John:** Yeah. That is it for our official presentation, but we do have a few minutes to take any questions if people have questions. Craig says he’s going to the bathroom. We’ll see if he returns.

**Male Audience Member:** Yeah, I don’t know if that has to do with favored nations, would that be something that’s in the contract, favored nations? And the other thing with the Start Button, if that would be if – in other words if you’re already in the process of you getting paid, or is Start Button like if you’re writing a spec script but nobody made a deal yet?

**John:** Great. So I can address that first part. The Start Button is more for when you are getting paid because it’s really about sort of this person is paying me, I’ve started working on it, and I’m delivering it. And there’s an expectation that I’m going to be paid for it. So it’s not really a planning thing like that. It’s really more for you’re being hired as a writer for things. But let’s talk about favored nations and most favored nations. Where would you see something like most favored nations show up in a writer’s contract?

**Ken:** It’s not a terribly common term for feature writing contracts because as a general matter, you know, so favored nations or most favored nations is terminology which basically means you’re going to be treated no worse than anybody else. OK. And it comes up all the time for actors where my trailer is going to be no worse than anybody else’s. Or sometimes a profit definition where my definition is going to be no worse than anybody else’s. Or my credit will be no smaller size, or that sort of thing.

In a feature writer agreement it’s much less common just because as a general matter you’re the only writer at that time doing it. So, it wouldn’t come up very often. TV writer contracts sometimes in other ways. But not very common for features.

If you had two or three writers writing at the same time, but usually from a compensation perspective usually they will have each made their own deals. Sometimes when you’re doing like a roundtable deal where there’s multiple writers coming in for the same – to all work for a day on a project, it would be a favored nations deal where everyone is getting the same compensation. So it would come up there. You’re right, if it’s a bunch of people doing the same job at the same time it might.

**John:** Let’s take over here.

**Male Audience Member:** I had a question regarding working outside the US. Saying you get hired to write something in Mexico in a different language. Does that still apply? Are we protected from the guild from something like that?

**Laurie:** So, you’re both bound by working rule eight to make sure that company is signatory and, yes, the protections will still apply if the company is transporting you for the purpose of performing those services elsewhere.

But always call us before that happens just so we can make sure.

**John:** And when you say always call us, what department should they be calling in?

**Laurie:** Call contracts for that. That’s a good starting point.

**Male Audience Member:** Great. Thank you.

**John:** Fantastic. Over this side.

**Male Audience Member:** Option trigger question. If the employer is outside the reading time period, whatever that is, and then they say we want to trigger an option, which is I’m sure fairly common where in one of those, what to do next on a contract level and if you’re willing on political level?

**Craig:** I’ve been in that situation and we just said, well, OK, let’s negotiate a price. I mean, they can say, well, we did. And you can say it doesn’t apply anymore. You wouldn’t be asking me to do this if you didn’t want me to do it. And you definitely wouldn’t be asking me to do it outside of this four-week reading period if you didn’t screw up, so I’ve got a little something here. Let’s just talk about it. There should be some sort of price to pay for that. Even if it’s a little penalty.

But, yeah, I would approach it as just a negotiation for another step. That’s how I would do it. I don’t think there’s a political problem with it.

**John:** I would say I don’t think I’ve ever asked for, you know, we’ve gone past the reading period–

**Craig:** You’re missing out on so much money. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

**John:** I think there is a political aspect to it because if it’s a thing that you genuinely believe is going to go to the next thing and they’re not just stringing you along, you may decide to just go for it.

**Male Audience Member:** Shine that they’re outside of it.

**Ken:** It also depends on do you want to do the step or not. Because you absolutely have the right to say I’m not interested in doing it. And particularly if it’s a deal you made a while ago or your price has gone up since then and you feel the compensation is not appropriate you may just not want to do it if the money is not right. And you absolutely have the right to say no.

**Male Audience Member:** Thanks.

**John:** This way.

**Male Audience Member:** Yeah, I have a question on specs. Specifically on P&H, because we’re lucky enough to have a fantastic medical plan and my understanding is that we do not get credit compensation payment for specs. So, where exactly in the contract negotiation do we make sure that we’re getting the rewrite? And my second part of that question is do we get the P&H credits for just the rewrite or for all of that by triggering the rewrite?

**Craig:** They get that first rewrite as a function right?

**Laurie:** As long as its original, meaning the characters in the story in your spec are original and you sell it to a signatory, under the separated rights provisions you’ll have the opportunity to perform the first rewrite. And to answer your second question you get contributions on everything. So you if you just have the sale and no writing services, then no compensation at all. But once you perform a rewrite or other revisions in connection with that project then contributions are due on everything, including the purchase price.

**Male Audience Member:** Awesome. Thanks so much.

**John:** That’s great. Thank you. This way.

**Male Audience Member:** I’ve got a couple questions about assigned material. First, I mean, the examples you gave are usually we’re given documents or previous drafts. But sometimes you’ll go in and meet with an executive and they’ll say, “Hey, I’ve just got this idea.” Could they ever say that assigned material is that executive’s two sentence log line that they told you?

**Laurie:** They can say it. There are different ways that the term is used. I’ll let you—

**Ken:** Yeah, no, I mean, I’ve definitely seen them try to say it. I’ve literally seen contracts say, you know, based on an idea supplied by the studio. And depending upon what you’re concerned about you might either want that out of the contract altogether or you might want to make it very clear that it’s based on an oral idea from the studio because for credit purposes as the guys were discussing earlier if it’s simply an oral idea that someone gave you that still remains an original screenplay. There was no previously exploited material or anything. And so it would just – I’d want to understand better what it is. And then I would talk with my client what were you given, what were you told. But simply an idea shouldn’t be something that impacts you and so I’d either keep it out or specify that it’s oral.

**Laurie:** And that also impacts compensation provisions as well as separated rights. So when we think of what is assigned material that’s a story intangible in fixed form. So some sort of idea, some sort of oral instructions won’t rise to that level.

**Male Audience Member:** The other question is you talked about how sometimes they’ll assign public domain material. Is there any benefit for a studio to do that, or are they just being dicks?

**Craig:** It seems like they’re being dicks. Sometimes, in the one instance where I confronted it it was part of a larger legal strategy they were trying to make about what they did control from an extension of a public domain work. Because, you know, these public domain works kick off derivative works. And then those are property because they’re new. And then those kick off things. And so it seemed like this was more about them than about me. But the problem was that it changed the nature of the work I was doing and so that was worth arguing about.

**John:** Great. Thank you. Our last question.

**Female Audience Member:** Hi, I have a question for those of us who work in TV regularly and are now trying to do features for the first time between seasons, it’s really scary to hear how long it takes for that contract to go. So do I pretty much need to put my contract in place three months before my television series is up?

**Craig:** No.

**Female Audience Member:** So I can have the four months I have free off?

**Craig:** I don’t think so. I mean, generally speaking, and correct me if I’m wrong, they know you have a time window. And you get the points that we discussed that were the deal memo points, how much money, how many steps. Then from that point they can generate that Certificate of Authorship. You can sign that, turn it in, and they can commence you. And while you’re writing your attorney is going back and forth with them to try to shape that—

**Ken:** True and not true. I mean, in fairness—

**Craig:** You say true and true?

**Ken:** True and not true. Most studios will not pay you on a signing certificate.

**Craig:** Really? How have I been getting away with this?

**Laurie:** But they’ll commence you probably right?

**Ken:** Most won’t, once again, with a feature writing deal. With that said I would say a few things.

**Craig:** I did not know that.

**Ken:** As much as they’re saying it takes a super long time, feature writing contracts shouldn’t take that long to get done. They really shouldn’t. And also I would just say unlike – obviously you’ll have a ton on your plate, it may not be easy for you to write your feature during the TV season because you’re super busy, but I would just say that unlike this feature contract which generally provides that during writing periods you’re exclusive to them, you’re not allowed to work on other things unless they’ve been specifically carved out, generally – not always – but generally a TV writing contract wouldn’t make you exclusive in movies, so that you would be allowed to work on the movie while you’re in the season of your TV show.

Some studios try to overreach and say that you’re totally exclusive during the season. Depending upon the studio, depending upon the show, your stature, what have you, that can usually be changed. OK? But I don’t know if that answers the questions to part two.

**Female Audience Member:** Great. So I’ll have time hopefully.

**John:** Yeah. A thing we’ve learned is that most feature writers are also TV writers these days. So, that is the new normal is that most of the folks are working in both. And so you’re entering into a place where many people have gone down this before. And we’ve mentioned they didn’t carve out any specific pre or prior things, but your feature contract would probably acknowledge that you are on a show or that there’s some other commitment that you have that could delay some things.

**Laurie:** And you probably also want to check your series contract, too, regarding the exclusivity provision just to see what it says.

**Female Audience Member:** OK, great. Thanks so much.

**John:** I want to thank Ken Richman and Laurie Espinosa for all their expertise.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**Ken:** My pleasure.

**John:** Craig and I often play lawyers on the show but we don’t actually know what we’re talking about–

**Craig:** I feel like I kind of do. I feel like I could get away with it.

**John:** He’s kind of a doctor.

**Craig:** I’m kind of a doctor.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And kind of a lawyer. I am a nuclear physicist.

**John:** He is a nuclear physicist. I want to thank Albert for putting together tonight’s production. Thank you very much for this, for putting this together. And thank you all for coming out. This was a great little session. Thank you very much.

***

OK, I’m back. Some last bits of follow up. Obviously there’s a lot going on in the agency negotiations so we will get back to that soon. We’ve also had a lot of folks writing in about Craig’s master class on thesis and antithesis, so we will be revisiting that topic.

In the meantime, Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It was edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alex Winder. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin and I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. You can find a recap of the show generally on Reddit. You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net or download 60-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com. You may want to check out the Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide at johnaugust.com/guide to find out which episodes our listeners recommended most. Thanks and we’ll see you next week.

Links:

* [Example Contract](https://johnaugust.com/Assets/WGAContractSlides407.pdf)
* Try the newest release of [Highland 2.5](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/highland-2/).
* Order your Scriptnotes 400 shirts, sweatshirts, and tanks [(Light)](https://cottonbureau.com/products/scriptnotes-400-light#/1506766/tee-men-standard-tee-heather-white-tri-blend-s) and [(Dark)](https://cottonbureau.com/products/scriptnotes-400-dark#/1506818/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s)!
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Alex Winder ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_407_understanding_your_feature_contract).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.