• 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 342: Getting Paid for It — Transcript

March 27, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/getting-paid-for-it).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 342 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

We’ve had a bunch of craft episodes back to back, so today I thought we’d take a look at the business side of things. We’re going to talk about getting paid, getting credit, and getting rid of a bad manager.

**Craig:** Yes! Oh my god, that’s like the trifecta of stuff that makes me pleased.

**John:** Very good. We’ve done almost no preparation for this episode, so it’s going to be making up answers as we go, which is sometimes the best thing.

**Craig:** You know, John, welcome to my world buddy. This is every episode for me.

**John:** We have some follow up though. Chaz from Disney wrote in to say, “On the last episode of Scriptnotes, Craig and John pitched a ‘standing offer’ to come and discuss the notes process with any studio that was interested in having such a discourse. I ran the idea past our president, Sean, and we agreed. As two gentlemen that we hold in very high regard, we’d like to take them up on that offer.”

So, that’s one studio down.

**Craig:** It’s not just one studio. It’s actually five studios. So, if I could have picked one studio to do this, it would have been Disney, not because they’re particularly good or bad at giving notes. It’s more that they cover so much. They now own Fox, in terms of movies, and Disney, and Disney Animation, and Pixar, and Marvel, and Lucas Film. That’s a lot of notes going out the door. And Sean Bailey, who is the head of Walt Disney Pictures, so that’s their live action film arm from Disney, is fantastic. We both know him and have worked with him and for him.

And I’m not surprised that he’s the guy who said yes to this, by the way. It’s very Sean-like to want –- he’s a good scientist in this regard. You know, he’s very rational and he loves the idea of kind of hearing another point of view on this.

So, I want to say to – so first of all, we’re doing it, for sure.

**John:** Yeah. We need to figure out when we’re doing it. Sometime post-Chernobyl or sometime.

**Craig:** It will be post-Chernobyl. I mean, we are all living in a post-Chernobyl era, but probably as we get into the summer. But I would also like to point out to any of you listening at Sony or Universal or Warner Bros., Disney is doing it.

**John:** It’ll be nice.

All right, so the question is what exactly are we going to say because it’s very easy to point out like bad things about notes, but even since we got this email in I started asking other writer friends about what are examples of good notes –- what is a helpful way to sort of give notes?

So, if you are a writer who has gotten good notes from a studio, or have received notes that were actually helpful or presented in a way that was helpful. It could be the means of getting the notes, or the structure of the notes, or who was giving the notes, let us know about that because we’d like to talk about best practices and not just complain about things that are terrible.

**Craig:** Completely. And, in fact, I don’t think it’s particularly useful to run down a list of here’s the dumbest note I ever got. That’s not what this is about. For me, this is entirely about process and philosophy. And very specifically what is going on in our brains, in an emotional sense, and in a productive sense. What is happening inside of our heads when we’re doing this? And what are the general philosophies that work best?

The whole point of this is entirely to get better work made. So better work out of us. Better work for them. And some of it is a little counterintuitive. There are things that I think have just become encrusted in the notes process that need to be looked at freshly and then dismissed. They are no longer useful. They’re not the right way to do it.

**John:** Yeah. They are barnacles on the system that need to be shaken free.

**Craig:** Hells yeah.

**John:** Hells yeah. Next up, Jen writes, “In Episode 340 both John and Craig use the term ‘central casting’ to describe a character. Can you describe what you mean by this?”

**Craig:** This is an old Hollywood term that’s kicked around forever and then has made its way into general lingo out there. Central casting refers to the most stereotypical example of how you would fill a role. So, if you say, OK, well this character of the prison guard is straight out of central casting, well who would you imagine is the most stereotypical prison guard? This big beefy guy with a buzz cut and kind of tough looking.

I mean, whatever it is that you imagine. It’s just the most stereotypical version of that person.

**John:** Yeah. So central casting, there was a casting department at a lot of studios. I think there still is a casting department at most studios. I know like networks will have the casting department. But it doesn’t sort of work that same way now. When we talk about central casting, we’re describing the look of the person. So it’s both the actor and how that character is made up. And so that’s the, again, the incredible stereotype of what that’s supposed to be like.

So it’s the nurse with horn-rimmed glasses. There is a very set idea of what that thing is like. So, you can say central casting in your script if you’re trying to sort of push against it or that it’s an example of why you want to be the biggest stereotype possible. But it’s not generally helpful. And so usually, if hear the term central casting, it is pejorative in that it is not well thought through.

**Craig:** Yeah. Inside of our business it’s pejorative. So you’ll say, OK, well you’ve written this butler character to be straight out of central casting. He’s a ramrod posture British man at the age of 60 who says, “Very good sir.” That’s central casting. It’s cliché. We don’t like it so much.

In the outside world, behind Hollywood, a lot of times they use it as a compliment like, well, we had to hire ourselves a new head CEO and we found this person and they were straight out of central casting, meaning they’re just the ideal person for that gig. So, two different meanings, but inside Hollywood not so great. Outside, generally pretty good.

**John:** I’m not sure. I think it’s changing outside of the world, too. Like your example of a CEO out of central casting, it does feel a little unimaginative. Like you’re worried that that person does not have a vision.

**Craig:** I think in the business world that’s considered a plus.

**John:** Although I would say, you know, the central casting version of the Silicon Valley entrepreneur, like that I totally get. You still see that out there.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** Yep. With the hoodie.

**Craig:** With the hoodie.

**John:** Kevin writes, “I’m listening to you guys argue about Sarah Paradise’s three pages as I type. I’ve been a stuntman in LA since 1999. Craig, you’re right.”

**Craig:** Oh, let’s just stop the podcast here. We’re done. Wrap it up. We had a great run. Folks–

**John:** 342 episodes.

**Craig:** At that’s our episode. Scriptnotes is produced by–

**John:** Now fill out your forms. Make sure you return all your uniforms. Erase all those little notes in the margins because we’re done.

**Craig:** We’re done.

**John:** Craig has finally been proven right.

**Craig:** Finally.

**John:** There’s a little bit more to the email, so we’ll get through it.

**Craig:** Ah, OK.

**John:** “Stunt people don’t punch each other in the face, especially stunt people who happen to be attractive women. If we are accidentally hit during a fight on a show or a movie we pretend it didn’t happen, then whisper to the person who did it to say you clipped me on that one. Then they apologize profusely. This is because how we look is a large part of how we get employed. Hell, we don’t even get haircuts for fear of losing work because an actor has to be doubled with long hair.

“Side note: I’ve been writing for about 17 years. I’ve been listening to current episodes as they come out, but I’m also on Episode 80 on the back catalog. The back episodes are fresh and informative because I’m a different writer now than I was a few years ago. I recommend that every listener go back through the old episodes again. It’s not like watching reruns. It’s more like watching Fight Club for the second time.”

**Craig:** Wow. That’s a hell of a compliment.

**John:** That really is.

**Craig:** Thank you, Kevin. I mean, by the way, also just a brilliant analogy, because I remember the first time I watched Fight Club and I was like what is this garbage? Then I got to the end. And then I watched it again and I was like, oh, this is my new favorite movie of all time. And I’ve seen it a billion times since.

Yeah, by the way, Kevin, first of all thank you. You sound like a very responsible stunt actor, stunt performer, so thank you for also doing that job. We need you. And also I’m a different writer then I was back then, too. I think everybody is changing constantly. This podcast as it goes on is an interesting kind of archeological record of me and of John and of all of us. So, thanks. Really nice comment.

**John:** It is a nice comment. I would say that making Launch, the other podcast I did for Arlo Finch, even as I was making it I realized like, oh, this will actually be a great little time capsule of who I was and where I was at that time, because it’s really like what the experience was like of making that book. And I’m looking forward to being able to go back 10 years, 20 years from now and listening to that again.

I don’t know that I’ll go back to listen to the old Scriptnotes, but I’m sure if I did go back and listen to some, there’d be advice I gave or things I talked about which I have a different opinion on now just because things have progressed and changed. The industry has changed and I have changed a bit as a writer.

**Craig:** I mean, and the world around us. Everything. Everything. If we were the same, what would be the point anyway? Right? I mean, things keep changing. Even though I’m joking about how exciting it is to hear that I’m right, the truth is as writers we spend most of our day being wrong. That’s part of the process. And that’s how good things will eventually come. You recognize that you’re in motion all the time. So, we’re like little butterflies that flit around, then we land on an opinion. We can stay there for a little bit, and then we’ve got to flit away and find something better. So, all good. Thank you for that Kevin.

And I have a little bit of follow up myself. Because I talked about being wrong. OK, so I had my one brief moment of being right there. Yay. Now let’s get back to me being wrong again.

My One Cool Thing last week was Alto’s Odyssey, a game I was really enjoying and still am. But I had one complaint and that was that when I downloaded it for my iPad it did not show up on my iPhone. In fact, the iPhone was saying, hey, you got to give us more money now. And I thought, oh, they’ve made this app where you have to pay for it twice for some reason because it’s on an iPad versus an iPhone.

No, no. It’s just that I had stupidly disabled my automatic iCloud app download function thingy. So, when I flipped that back on suddenly Alto’s Odyssey was available for download for no money, because I had already paid for it. I apologize Alto’s Odyssey people. My mistake. Sorry.

**John:** Yeah. It was user error.

**Craig:** It was totally user error. And you know what? I’ll tell you, it’s not like anyone told me. The Alto’s Odyssey people didn’t call up. If they heard about it, they probably just shook their heads and said, “Idiot.” But they let it go.

**John:** Yeah. Because you were that one person. I mean, there might be like 10 or 12 people in the world who are using this app and you are one of them. And I’m sure they were saddened that one of their 12 players wasn’t getting the best experience out of it.

**Craig:** Well, first of all, they spend their days listening to us. And specifically me. I’m pretty sure what they do is they just listen to my side of it. And, you know, they hang on every word. I get it. And I’m sorry. What do you want from me? I apologize.

**John:** All right, let’s get to some questions and all of these questions are from our listeners and they’ve written in about things that relate to the business of screenwriting. So, I thought we’d dig into those. They’re almost all feature questions, but I think there’s going to be some relevant things here for people writing for TV, both scripted TV and variety talk shows.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So we’ll start with Anonymous in LA. Writes, “I’m a young screenwriter who recently quit my well-paying salary job to pursue screenwriting full-time.”

**Craig:** Oh boy.

**John:** “I can hear Craig saying oh boy as I type this.”

**Craig:** Oh, interesting.

**John:** “Last year I wrote a script that earned a substantial amount of attention. And placed near the top of the Black List. It got me an agent and several dozen meetings with studios and production companies. Because I was taking mini meetings each week and could no longer fulfill the duties of my job, I decided to quit about three months ago. While I do not regret this decision, I have never been without steady work. And this new situation is quite frankly terrifying. I find myself in a constant state of anxiety and depression surrounding my unemployment. I am working towards securing work by pitching open assignments, but so far I have landed nothing.

“My question is, how do you deal with the anxiety and depression that comes from the instability of this profession?”

**Craig:** Well, we have talked about this quite a bit. So, first of all, Anonymous, you’re going to want to listen to Episode 99, that’s a big one I think that we talk about a lot. That’s where we had psychotherapist Dennis Palumbo, and also former screenwriter, Oscar-nominated screenwriter, Dennis Palumbo onto talk a little bit about the psychological challenges that we face as screenwriters. It is very, very hard to do what you’re doing. I feel anxiety and depression and terror surrounding potential unemployment and so when you are actually unemployed I can only imagine it is even more crushing. And I can also imagine it becomes extremely hard to be creative and inspired. My guess is the adrenaline is really good for volume, that is you will write because you’re terrified, but the quality of it is going to start to become warped by your perception of what they want and what they will give you money for.

Suddenly the money becomes really, really, really important. It’s not to say that when you start out you shouldn’t be taking jobs for the money. It’s not a bad idea. You have to pay bills. And all experience is good experience. But I am concerned about your situation because you did quit and you are scared. And you have not been paid yet. And so I think it’s fair to say that you should try and find something that brings in some money. Maybe there’s some freelance work you can do. Maybe your agent, for instance, can hook you up with somebody that needs some copywriting done. Little things. Anything. Just to get a little bit of money in so you’re not in just a total freefall about money going out and nothing coming in. That is terrifying. And more than anything it’s not so much about your bank account, it’s about your head space and feeling like when you sit down to write you’re not doing it with a gun in your mouth.

**John:** Yep. I will say Anonymous I think you made the right choice. And I don’t know anything about your situation beyond what you described, but in your situation that is when you just decide, OK, I’m going to have to pursue this fulltime because otherwise I can’t take these meetings. I can’t make this all happen.

So, you got to pull the ripcord at some point and you probably pulled the ripcord at the right moment. But it is scary. And I was exactly where you were at where I left my last job and I had not sold anything, but I had an agent and I had some traction. I was taking meetings. It looked like something could happen. But there were about four months there, five months there where there was just nothing and I was just falling. And one of those slow motion falls where you’re sort of swimming through the air. So I definitely remember what that felt like.

I think Craig’s suggestion of trying to find some way to get some income is good. And freelance copywriting could be something. Uber or Lyft could be something. Something so there’s a little bit of money coming in would be great.

Minimizing your expenses would be great, because if you’re a person who came from a salary job you’re used to like, oh OK, I can make this all work because I know how much money I have coming in. When you don’t know how much money you have coming in that all changes. And you’ve got to be realistic about how your life is going to change. Because even when you hopefully do get a job or sell something, that will be a chunk of money and that chunk of money will disappear.

So what I did in Anonymous’ situation was I had a little spreadsheet and I had my monthly expenses. I knew how much it cost for me to live each month with rent, with utilities, with food. I minimized those as much as I could, but I could see like this is how much money I have. This is how I can live for six months on the money I have. And you’ll get through it.

So I think you’ve done the right thing but I think you’re also right to be thinking about “How do I prepare for this thing that could go on a little bit longer than I’d hoped.”

**Craig:** Yeah. I think she or he has done the right thing, too. I definitely think so. I mean, based on what you’re saying, placed near the top of the Black List. You have an agent. You’ve had meetings and attention. All that says, yes, you did the right thing.

And I will tell you that the worst part of your fear, I think, at least for me, is the fear of the fear itself -– that it will never go away. That this is your life now. That you now live in a terrible freefall as John described. And it’s not going to get better. Or, if you do get a job it’s only a brief respite and then you’re right back in the fear pit again. So all I can tell you, Anonymous, is no.

Here’s the situation: you will either succeed in a reasonable way so as to make yourself a life and a career as a screenwriter. Or you won’t, and then you will go back to doing what your well-paying salary job was. The good news is you’re young so it’s OK to be afraid but don’t think this is forever. The feeling that you’re having now is not forever.

**John:** Yeah. It will morph into a different kind of forever feeling.

**Craig:** Which is also exquisitely horrible. But wait until you’re in your 40s and then you’ll know about that one.

**John:** Yes. So what I would say is different about my advice for Anonymous than for some other writers is that Anonymous is in a situation where –- we’ll say she –- she placed well on the Black List, she has an agent, she’s going out for these meetings. It’s not just an idle dream that she has of being a screenwriter. Like she’s a screenwriter, it’s just a question of getting paid to be a screenwriter and whether that will happen. I think it probably will happen. As we’ve always said, any person starting in the feature business right now has to also be looking at television, so hopefully your agents are sending you out on great television meetings as well.

But I think something will probably happen because you seem to be a good writer who is asking smart questions.

**Craig:** Yeah. One last bit of advice for you, and then we’ll move on from Anonymous, it’s good that you’re going out for the open assignments. Open assignments are lotteries really. Because what happens with open assignments is they are casting a pretty wide net. You’re going up against a lot of people who are exactly like you. And at any given moment either one of them will get the job, or someone like John will bump into the executive one day, they’ll have a chitchat over a drink. That executive will say, “Oh, we’re working on this thing.” And then John will say, “Oh my god, based on that book? I loved that book as a kid.” “Really? Would you want to read?” “Yeah, I’ll read that. You know what? I can do that.” And then it’s over. There is no more open writing assignment.

So, point being, don’t let those things –- and this is the hardest part because you have to prepare. It’s like you’re writing a movie a week preparing to pitch on these things. But don’t let that distract you from what got you in this position in the first place which was your voice and writing your work. That is the one thing that John can’t do, nor can anyone else. No one else can write your script. So, keep that going. That is going to keep you fresh and in people’s eyes.

They are so much more interested in writers that are sending them things than writers who are coming in with their hand out saying give me something.

**John:** Yeah. The third possibility in those open writing assignments is that the job just completely goes away because they decide like, oh, maybe there isn’t a movie to be made about this. And I would say in more than half the cases they hire nobody for those jobs. And so that is the other frustration. But what you’re describing, that process of going out for an open writing assignment, or a quasi-open writing assignment, like they’re not even sure they’re going to really be making this movie, is it’s like an actor going out on auditions. And auditioning is a crucial skill for actors and pitching on these things is a crucial skill for writers.

I’d hoped to have her on the show at some point and maybe we’ll still have her on the show, but Jenna Fischer has a really good book on being an actor and sort of an actor’s life. And she talks a lot about that audition process and how crucial it is in terms of finding your own voice going through that audition process. So I’m going to recommend that to you to read through as well, because actors and writers have a lot in common in this area.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Cool. Theo writes in with four questions. So we’ll take each question one at a time. His first question is, “How many scripts did you write before making your first sale?” Craig Mazin?

**Craig:** One.

**John:** So you wrote one script. What was that script?

**Craig:** It was a script that I wrote with my then writing partner called The Stunt Family.

**John:** Oh yeah, we’ve talked about The Stunt Family.

**Craig:** It was not good. But it was funny. It was just not good. It was very dated, very early ‘90s sort of Simpsons-y kind of live action thing. A very broad comedy about a legendary family of stunt people. Very silly. Sort of like a Chris Farley kind of thing.

**John:** Did they hit each other in the face?

**Craig:** Oh my god, like that was constant.

**John:** Because according to our follow up, they shouldn’t hit each other in the face.

**Craig:** Well, that’s the thing. Because this movie was so ridiculous and over the – I mean, they lived on the studio lot. Their house was part of the studio tour, so every day a tram would go through and an “earthquake” would rip their house apart. It was very, very broad.

**John:** I wrote three scripts before I had anything sold or I got paid to write. So, Here and Now, which was a romantic tragedy set in Boulder, Colorado, my home town. Devil’s Canyon, which is a cross between Unforgiven and Aliens I want to say. And X which was the short film version of Go, so it was just the first third of Go. So those are the scripts I’d written before that.

My first sale was actually an assignment. I was hired to write the adaptation of How to Eat Fried Worms. Was your first sale a sale, Craig?

**Craig:** Yes. Well, it was a pitch.

**John:** It was Rocket Man?

**Craig:** It was Rocket Man. That’s exactly what it was. When we pitched it the title that we had was Space Cadet, which we eventually were not allowed to use because Lucas Film apparently was squatting on Space Cadet, which I’m still waiting for the Lucas Film Space Cadet. It’s been about 22 years.

**John:** Any day now.

**Craig:** Any day. They’re on it.

**John:** Theo’s next question is, “How many scripts have you written that have not been made?” For me the answer is at least 11. I was counting through in the folder. It’s probably more than that, but at least 11.

**Craig:** Now, does that include things like, OK, where I came in and I was rewriting something and then eventually that project just never happened?

**John:** Yeah, so I’m not counting those. I actually have printed original full scripts I wrote that were not based on a previous script.

**Craig:** Oh, I see. Geez, maybe like three. Not that many. Because most of the time I was either rewriting something that somebody else had started or it was an adaptation of something that kind of had been sputtered along. Or it was kind of like a sequel. There was a lot of that.

**John:** Theo’s next question, “How many scripts have you written that have never been optioned or sold?”

**Craig:** I’ve never optioned anything.

**John:** I’ve never optioned anything either. The only thing I ever sold was Go.

**Craig:** I’ve never sold a screenplay.

**John:** Well except for Rocket Man.

**Craig:** That was a pitch.

**John:** Oh, it was a pitch. The pitch. That’s right. A pitch.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ve actually never sold literary material like that. I’ve either been commissioned to do it, or I have sold a pitch.

**John:** Yeah. I’ve sold some original pitches, but I’ve never sold a spec script, except for Go.

**Craig:** Except for Go, yeah.

**John:** “And what was the story behind your first sale? How much did you sell it for?” Well, my only sale was Go. I think it was about $75,000, sort of all in. So it was purchasing the script and the rewrite on it. That was for a little tiny company called Banner. We ended up selling the project to Sony right before we started shooting. But it was really done as an indie film.

So, that was fine money for what that was. So they said in that deal that I’d be a co-producer on the film and I’d be involved in the whole process and they were true to their word. So, it was a very good deal for me to have taken.

**Craig:** Yeah, so my first sale was the pitch for Space Cadet/Rocket Man. It was to Disney. It was 1995, I think, is when it happened. Roughly I believe we got something like $110,000, which then we had to split, of course, and then we had to pay our manager, and our agent, and our lawyer. So, it dwindled pretty quickly. And that was also when we learned how long it would take the contract to actually be finished therefore how long it would take us to actually get our money. So, for one day we felt like billionaires, even though we understood $100,000 was not a billion dollars. About eight months later I was like, “Can I please have my $15,000?” Because that’s all I’m getting out of this really. After taxes.

But, yeah, at the time it seemed pretty awesome.

**John:** Yeah. So I will say the first thing I actually got paid for, sort of two things I got paid for. I wrote the novelization of Natural Born Killers and that was the money that I was living off of for those six months before I actually got paid for other things. The money I got for How to Eat Fried Worms was WGA scale. So the minimum they could legally pay me. It was about $35,000 I want to say. But then I ended up doing multiple drafts on it, so over time I got more money than that.

But that’s why we have to have scale. If we did not have the WGA enforcing minimums, there’s no way I could have been a professional screenwriter.

**Craig:** No. No way anybody could be. I mean, that’s the whole point.

**John:** Well, some really rich people could be.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, but what a weird way to spend your life as a really rich person, just idly writing screenplays that make other people massive amounts of money but not you.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** Hmm. Do you want to take James’s question?

**Craig:** I do. James says, “I recently found myself owing $1,500 to the tax man. And it started me thinking about the business side of being a screenwriter. Do you treat your screenwriting as a business? By that I mean registering as an LLC, a limited liability company, or other entity? And what sort of expenses could you claim as a writer? Especially when you have no guaranteed income if you’re working on a spec script.”

John, all good nuts and bolts questions. What do you say?

**John:** So, yes, I do treat it as a business. And most screenwriters do treat it as a business once they start getting paid. So for our international listeners I think we should explain a little bit about companies in the US and how it all works. An LLC, I think it’s called a limited corporation in the UK, every country has some ability to have a corporation where instead of paying you as an individual they pay a company. And that company then employs you to do the work.

So, for screenwriters it is either through S-Corp or a C-Corp rather than an LLC. I am a C-Corp. Most screenwriters I know are S-Corps. There are subtle differences about how they can work, what deductions they can take. Both are fine. I’m a California corporation. You can incorporate in another state if that is more helpful to you.

But, yes, at a certain point you’re getting paid enough money that it makes sense to be a corporation rather than an individual person. So like for Go, my first sale, that was purchased from me. And so those checks go to John August. They don’t go to my corporation. So it’s always weird because I get separate residual statements for those things. And everything else goes to the corporation.

I will also say I do also have an LLC. So like this podcast and my software business, those are all run through the LLC rather than the C-Corp. It has to do with like a C-Corp really can’t have inventory and stuff like that. Whereas we have t-shirts and USB drives and stuff like that. And for accounting purposes it was really important that that be through a different branch. And that’s all through the LLC.

**Craig:** That’s how you’re laundering money and keeping it away from me. I know what’s going on. Continue.

**John:** That’s true. Craig, are you a C-Corp or an S-Corp?

**Craig:** I’m an S-Corp. I do not know the difference, but it’s just what they told me to be. I, like you, am incorporated in California. You have two numbers when you’re a corporation in the United States. You have a federal ID number which begins with the number 95 and then you have your state corporate number. And the reason is you’re paying taxes to both federal and state.

It would be awesome if you could incorporate in any state. And, in fact, you kind of can. If you’re a large corporation you often incorporate in Delaware because they have incredibly, well, just loving, lovey laws for corporations. They end up paying far, far less in taxes and all the rest.

However, when it comes to what we do it’s essentially impossible to incorporate anywhere other than the place where you are actually doing the bulk of your business. Believe me, I wish that I could do the bulk of my business across the state line in Nevada, and then I wouldn’t have to pay any state tax at all, although then I would just be a bad person. But pretty much every screenwriter is incorporated either as a C or an S in California. Like you, John, my residual checks for Rocket Man come to me and maybe Senseless, not that there’s that much coming in for that one, but regardless everything after that comes in through the corporate thing.

And, James, you’re right. You can claim all sorts of expenses as a writer. Easy ones off the top: every dollar you pay to your agent. Every dollar you pay to your lawyer. Every dollar you pay to your manager. That is a fair deduction. Also, the dues you pay to the Writers Guild. A fair deduction. Then if you have an office or office rent. You can even get away with a home office, although it’s a little bit of a red flag for the IRS. Computer equipment. Paper. Toner. Your cellphone.

Now, here’s the thing. One of the reasons that they tell us to incorporate is because it allows us to deduct a lot of these things without running into this whole alternative minimum tax business. I don’t really understand it. I’ll just be frank about it. All I can tell you is everyone is told to do it. It can’t be wrong. It just can’t be. So that’s kind of how it works.

**John:** Absolutely. The other thing I would say is helpful about a corporation is as a WGA writer you have a WGA pension. It’s lovely that we have a pension, but there’s a limit to how much you can sock away in that pension because it’s a union plan. You can establish your own pension and put money in for your pension for your corporation and that is a helpful thing as well.

So, for long term planning that is a reason why you would be doing that.

**Craig:** That’s my first level like every year the first level investment is the retirement plans and so forth that we’ve set up through the corporation. Because that is the best investment you can make because they don’t take tax off of it until you finally withdraw it later on in life.

**John:** Yeah. It’s been interesting. I’ve had some assistants, like Stuart Friedel, who were with the company long enough that they actually vested in the pension plan, which was kind of great. So it’s funny that Stuart has a pension through my corporation.

**Craig:** It’s going to be paying out for a long time because Stuart just seems like the kind of guy that’s going to make it to 148.

**John:** Oh, easily. Stuart Friedel will never die. He’ll find a way out. Like death will show up for him, and Stuart will negotiate a much better deal.

**Craig:** Forever Friedel.

**John:** Anonymous writes, “I was recently having lunch with an actor friend. The actor told me that all actors freely claim unemployment when they are not working. Up to $300 or $400 a week. I Googled it and SAG even has instructions on how to do this. The idea is that actors are only working while they are on set basically. All other times they are ‘looking for work’ and therefore eligible for unemployment. Does the same apply to writers in the WGA?”

**Craig:** I believe so. The issue has to do a little bit with this whole loan out company situation, but basically then your loan out company, meaning your corporation, as they pay you they’re paying the unemployment money. So the idea is when you work your employer has to send a bunch of money to the state on your behalf out of each paycheck that they’re responsible for, which is unemployment insurance. And then when you are out of work you apply to receive that unemployment back.

So, yeah, I’ve actually never done it.

**John:** So, Craig, I don’t think he was talking about the writers who have their own corporations. But what you’re saying is just fascinating, because I don’t know any writers with their own corporations who have done that. I think of that as sort of the writers who are still trying to get up to the point where they will have incorporated.

**Craig:** I mean, I think it would work either way. Now, when you are paid as a corporation what happens is a bunch of money comes into the corporation and then the corporation gives you a salary. This is part of how the corporation is viewed as legitimate by tax entities. So out of those paychecks there is some unemployment. But, yes, generally speaking if you have a corporation, money is coming through, this is not a problem for you anyway. But, yeah, I mean, look, it’s your money. Somebody once explained it to me, because I think a lot of people think, “Oh, he applied for unemployment, it’s like, oh, he went on welfare. He’s on the dole.”

No. It’s your money. It’s money that your employer had to send into the state on your behalf specifically for this situation. So, while I’ve never done it, I don’t see why you shouldn’t. It’s not a question of applying to writers in the WGA. It’s a question of applying just to citizens who work in the United States.

**John:** Yeah. So I know that production office staff will also do this where production office people will be working incredibly long hours on shows and then when that show wraps they will take some time off and get their unemployment for a while. They’ll do what they need to do in order to be “looking for work,” but that is sort of a planned part of how it all works.

I don’t know where the ethical lines are on claiming unemployment, but I will say that it is a not uncommon practice. And if it allows a class of people who are writers and actors and production people to exist between jobs, I get it.

**Craig:** Yep. For sure. That’s what it’s there for.

**John:** All right, Jay, in Los Angeles writes, “I sold a screenplay two years ago to a major studio. The script went into production this past September.”

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** So, “The script went into production this past September. I found about this through a friend working on the film.”

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** “I also found out the writer-director attached to the film reworked the script, turning it into a sequel to a mildly successful comedy, all still using the title of my script to the film. The film is scheduled to come out in theaters in October of this year. No one has contacted me in regards to the film. I see write-ups on the film, but my name is not attached. I’ve looked up information on the film, but I have yet to see my name attached to it anywhere. All of the credits are listed on IMDb, except for the writer, which is odd. It’s as if they’re purposely not posting the writer’s name.

“My greatest fear is that the writer-director will take full credit for the film and I will be left out in the cold without a credit even. Even though I sold the original script. I also found out that a production company, not connected to the studio, financed the film. The studio I sold the script to will only be distributing the film.

“In short, studio buys my script. Separate production company offers to finance it through their company. It is then reworked to become a sequel. The production company shoots the film. The studio will distribute the film. I’m not a member of the Writers Guild, so what the F do I do?”

Craig?

**Craig:** Well, all this comes down to one single question. You are not a member of the Writers Guild, and yet you have sold a screenplay to a major studio. The major studio, by definition therefore, is a signatory to the Writers Guild. All major studios are signatory to the Writers Guild. Which means it had to have been a Writers Guild deal. If it is a Writers Guild deal, that is to say your contract is covered under the terms of the MBA, well first of all if it’s a screenplay and you sold it you should have become a member of the Writers Guild. But putting that aside, if it’s covered under the Writers Guild Minimum Basic Agreement then you don’t have to worry because the credits are going to be determined by the Writers Guild.

Now, you have to be on top of this because – well, actually you don’t. You don’t have to be on top of it because the writer-director has written on it and therefore there’s going to be an automatic arbitration. And you are guaranteed minimum Story by credit if it’s an original screenplay. And you may very well earn yourself Screenplay credit as well, depending on what the actual shooting script ended up looking like.

If you somehow didn’t sell it to a signatory, I would be confused how that happened considering that you said you sold it to a major studio, then in this case your script is viewed as source material. It is not covered by the Writers Guild. The studio, I believe, will be obliged to say based on a screenplay by Jay in Los Angeles. You will not get residuals for it. They don’t have to invite you to the premiere. There’s no guarantees of anything. That’s it. That’s what you get. Which is all the more reason why no one should sell screenplays to anyone if it’s not under the Writers Guild Minimum Basic Agreement.

**John:** Very true. So, Jay is not his real name. I emailed him when I saw this question this morning to try to get more details. Clearly some things have been changed in this email because I can’t Google to find out what this is. So don’t go Googling sequels in October because I think he’s changed some dates deliberately to obscure what’s happening here.

But I emailed him to ask what it actually was so Craig and I could figure out a little bit more closely like what might actually be happening here. I’m a little concerned that it could be a situation like The Disaster Artist. And we haven’t gotten into that because we just don’t know all the details yet, but essentially the lawsuit that was filed in The Disaster Artist was a very different kind of suit than we’ve seen in other things where like, “Oh, I sold my script” because clearly this person was writing a script for the actor and director of the film, but then other writers ended up writing a completely different script. And it became really unclear where this person’s script fell in the chain of title, or if there was a chain of title. It was a mess.

I’m worried that Jay’s situation may be a mess for some things we just don’t know about. So, that it wasn’t really a major, or sometimes – I remember back when I worked with Miramax, Miramax would have a whole separate arm that would buy non-WGA stuff. And that it could be some sort of weird arm’s length thing that they’re doing when they bought this thing. Or they bought it basically just for the title.

So, I’m a little concerned that there’s something going on here that we don’t know.

What I will say to Jay is don’t just sit on your hands and say like, “Oh I hope this all works out OK.” If you sold this thing, then you have an agent, a manager, a lawyer. You have somebody who represented you. Call them right now and ask. And then figure out who you sold it to and call them and ask what’s going on with this. Because just delaying and delaying, all you’re going to do is increase your anxiety. And you’re not going to make it worse for yourself by asking.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Ask now. Figure out what’s going on. Because it sounds like a situation where there should be a WGA credit arbitration. But if there’s not going to be one, you need to know that now.

**Craig:** Best advice.

**John:** Cool. Do you want to take Peter’s question?

**Craig:** Yeah. We’ve got Peter writing in. He says, “My wife was a full-time writer on a network late night show and now she has a successful full-time show of her own on a major podcast network. Two shows a week. But it is not a WGA show, which leads to my question do you have any suggestions on how to keep our health benefits through the WGA?”

All right, John, so she is doing a podcast. It’s not WGA. What does she do? What do they do?

**John:** Well, I don’t know of any WGA podcasts, but there probably should be and probably will be in the future because I think podcasts are occupying a space that feels a lot like what television has been in the past. What those deals are going to look like, I don’t know. But I think that’s a thing that will be coming at some point.

But at some point will not get you WGA insurance right now. So, if I were in your situation, Peter, I would encourage you to encourage your wife to find some WGA employment, writing on something that is covered by the WGA contract so she will earn WGA money that will pay for the health plan. Because WGA health insurance is fantastic and keeping it is a very good idea. So, if she can find some writing for some other late night show, for some other WGA-covered program, I think it’s probably worth it for her to be doing that because as busy as she probably is doing her own podcast, you know, keeping that WGA coverage is really a good idea.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s nothing that is going to happen now in terms of this podcasting, even if down the line the WGA starts making deals for podcasts, it’s quite likely that the initial deals won’t involve health. I mean, the contributions from the employers to healthcare are the single largest expense that they incur as a result of their deal with the WGA, I think even more than residuals. I could be wrong about that, but it’s a lot.

And so all I can say Peter is if she’s loving this job and loving what she’s doing, maybe whatever you’re doing on your side can get you guys some health insurance because it’s not going to happen through the WGA this way. And there’s really no suggestion of how to keep it. The only way you keep WGA health insurance is by qualifying by hitting the income minimum each year. And if you don’t, then you get a little bit of time with COBRA as an extension. And if you’ve over-earned in prior years you have the point system, so you can use those points to kind of extend it a little bit. But after that, no.

So, check with the plan. Maybe you have some points where you can extend it a little bit. But that’s about it.

**John:** Yeah. This is the brief political rant I’ll have here. The idea that we have to be freaking out about her health insurance and Peter’s health insurance at this moment is maddening to me because it stifles innovation and it stifles this person who has gone off and does something else that’s great because she has to be worried about keeping her health plan. So she may need to go write on a crappy home improvement show just so she can keep her health insurance. And that’s just ridiculous.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s a whole – you know, that’s a good side podcast, too. Maybe we can solve one of the great intractable problems of American politics. But it does seem like things are happening in a weird way. It was the strange response to Obamacare in our country, followed by the strange response to the threat of taking away Obamacare. We are an irrational people.

**John:** Deeply, deeply.

**Craig:** But things are happening that are different than I have noticed before. And I think the trend is toward universal coverage. That’s the way it feels to me. But it’s a long road ahead.

**John:** Yeah. Everyone outside of the US is saying–

**Craig:** Like what?

**John:** What do you mean? How do you live with this?

**Craig:** Duh.

**John:** Not well.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, yeah. Gina writes, “I optioned a script with a manager about nine months ago, and since then I’m not happy with the manager.” OK, Gina, you’re in my wheelhouse now. “And plan on cancelling our contract when it is up in a couple of months. My question is the script I optioned while with him is in the late stages of development and it’s really picking up steam towards financing. After I leave my current manager, is he still a part of the option? That is to say, does he get his 10% and the money going through him before it gets to me? Am I stuck with him forever on this deal? Or, am I able to dump him and get a new manager by sweetening the pot with a late developed screenplay on the table. After the current screenplay option ends I could sign a new one with the new manager, right?”

John, I like the way Gina thinks. Let me just put out there, I like the way her gears are turning. I like the way she thinks a lot.

**John:** Yeah. Getting rid of bad, unhelpful people is a goal we encourage. So, your situation depends on whatever this contract was you signed with him. There’s probably things beyond that, but this contract will be the thing that determines ultimately I think whether he stays attached to this project or not.

I don’t know what your contract look likes. Manager contracts can look very different. My hunch is you will not be able to shake him completely from this thing because it started underneath his little mantle. But that should not deter you from getting a better person on your team, because waiting it out for the clock to run out is not going to help you.

**Craig:** Yep. OK, so a couple of things, Gina. First of all, take a good careful look at that contract and discuss it with your lawyer. Most of us don’t sign contracts with representation. When they ask you to sign a contract it in general is a red flag. And what I would say to any manager or agent is if you need me to guarantee to you that I’m not going to leave for a while, that does not speak well of you. You should have the confidence to know that I’m going to stay because you’re doing your job well.

That aside, in these contracts very typically there will be an escape clause that says something like “You are bound to be the client for a two-year period, however this contract can be nullified if employment does not occur within any consecutive 90-day period,” let’s say. So you have to take a careful look at that and see if perhaps you can escape based on that clause alone. Because options are not employment. And, in fact, you’re saying, “Well, it’s in the late stages of development,” but have you been employed?

Right, so anyway, take a look at that. Second thing: after you leave your current manager, is he still part of the option – does he get his 10%? OK, so here’s the deal. Managers are not agents. Agents are attached to deals permanently. Agents are also bound by the Talent Agency Act. Managers aren’t. That gives them certain upsides, but also certain downsides. The way it has been explained to me by an attorney, and this was proven in my case through jurisprudence, managers are what they call on the wheel/off the wheel. They are not being paid for a deal. They are being paid for their ongoing services to you on a day-to-day basis. Meaning the day they stop working for you as a manager is the day you stop paying them.

So, there are a lot of ways to handle this. There are also things that you can – look, it depends on how unhappy you are with this manager. If you’re really unhappy, well talk to your lawyer and take a careful look and see if he’s violated the Talent Agency Act by attempting to procure you employment. And if you have proof of that that’s one phone call to the Labor Bureau in California and suddenly you have quite a bit of leverage there.

This is why I’m not generally a fan of the way a lot of these managers operate. You have more leverage I think than you realize. Definitely talk to your lawyer.

**John:** Great. I’ll go back to the first sentence here: I optioned a script with a manager about nine months ago. I don’t quite know what that means. And so I don’t know whether that manager signed on as a producer or kind of what happened there. I’d look at sort of what the actual agreement was there between you and this person who is a manager, but sometimes managers are also producers. If it’s a producer situation, whatever the deal is there is going to show up in that contract.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know what? There is an ambiguity there because the way I read it was that she optioned a script and the manager was along with her when they optioned it to a studio. But you’re right. It could be that he optioned the script, or she optioned the script, and then they’re acting as a producer. This is why I don’t like managers.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** Ugh.

**John:** It’s also why we don’t want agents to be doing managerial jobs, which they increasingly are doing.

**Craig:** God no.

**John:** God no.

**Craig:** Let’s hear from Mark.

**John:** Mark says, “I recently completed my first historical feature script and I’m currently looking for my next topic to tackle in the genre. However, I recently found out the historical figure I wanted to write about already has a major spec script sold about him with A-list actors attached to boot. I brushed it off and pivoted to a new historical event that was less famous, only to find out that this subject is also in development with A-list talent attached. Granted, one of the scripts has been in ‘production hell’ for over a decade. And the other is a fairly different take on my subject compared to what I had in mind.

“So should I just continue writing on these topics and hope that preexisting projects stay in production purgatory? And/or bank on my take on the subject matter being different enough? Or should I move on to a seemingly original topic to tackle?”

Craig, what should Mark do, our historical fiction writer?

**Craig:** Mark should stand still while I approach him and slap him. Slap! What do the five fingers say to Mark? Slap.

Mark, listen to me. Listen carefully. Everybody that anyone has ever heard of has a script about them in development somehow somewhere. Everybody. There are 12 different Winston Churchills on screens at any given moment on any given day all across the world. 10. 12. 15. Possibly 20 Churchills. It never ends. OK?

You will – listen to me, Mark – you will not care about that stuff. You will write your script. Either your script will or will not get made, but if it is beautiful and it is wonderful it is going to do wonders for you. The fact that one of the scripts you’re worried about has been kicking around for over a decade, well what else do you need to know? And the other one is a different take on this. You’re being way too concerned and scared and timid. My guess is that the historical figure you wanted to write about was a pretty brave person. Perhaps take some inspiration from them. And get back in there and do what you want to do. Write what you want to write. That will be the best script you are capable of writing.

**John:** Yep. I’d also say to Mark that it seems like your deal is that you love historical fiction about events and people of the past. If that’s your lane, stay in that lane. Do that thing and write really good scripts in there. And it’s helpful I think at the beginning to be a little bit stereotyped because then they know to go to you with that thing. So, don’t worry about it. Write the best script you can and then write the next best script you can.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right.

**John:** Cool. It is time for our One Cool Things. Craig? Oh, I know your One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** Well, I’ve been obsessed with this now for weeks. I think it went viral basically. There is an old advert, as they say in the UK, put out by the British Pork Counsel, Concern, you know, like these industry organizations that promote a particular meat or drink.

**John:** Milk does a body good.

**Craig:** There you go. Exactly. Pork, it’s what’s for dinner. Or Beef, sorry, Beef, it’s what’s for dinner. That was a–

**John:** Pork is the other white meat.

**Craig:** Pork was the other white meat. That was the American version. Well, in England back in the ‘80s there was an ad for British pork and I think the slogan was, “It’s got the lot,” meaning it’s got everything. But what is fascinating about this ad is that it is – it features a family. There is a man and his wife, and they’ve got friends and perhaps their children, all sitting around a table having lunch on Sunday. And they are serving roast pork.

And the man delivers all of the dialogue. No one else is allowed to talk. And it is the creepiest thing I think I’ve ever seen. What he’s saying is creepy. The way he says it is creepy. The way he says it is creepy. The way he looks at the camera, at you at home, implies that this is not really about pork at all. That he’s a killer. And that this may be – he may have killed Nana. This might not be pork. And he’s threatening you is really what he’s doing. It’s threatening. You feel unsafe watching it. It is astonishing that it was ever approved, written or approved, and put on the air in the first place.

Well, we have it for you to watch. I don’t know what to say. Just enjoy the subtle insanity of this British pork ad.

**John:** Yeah. So I have it paused here on my screen. And I had not really noticed, because I have only seen it on my phone, so now I get to see it on a bigger screen. It’s so fascinating, like the table they’re sitting at is incredibly tiny.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Tiny in a way that doesn’t seem that it could possibly be real. And it’s also a great thing to look at because you might have a question like what are eye lines. What is that term? Eye lines are not what this ad should teach you. Because he’s looking in really strange places. And when people look up at him, they’re not looking all the way in the wrong direction. It’s not like crossing the line problem. But they’re not looking at him. And it feels like a character choice, like I don’t want to look directly at him because he scares me.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** When the wife looks up at him in his general direction, and she quickly looks down, it’s just so fascinating. And it’s such a great example of how even if you took out his oddly menacing tone, you would know there is something deeply wrong in this family.

**Craig:** No, there’s something really – and I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on. All right, eye line wise, so what’s happening is he’s standing over this pork. And he’s apparently going to slice it up and hand it out, but everybody already has their food completely. So I don’t know what he’s doing standing over this pork anyway.

But the next time we see him, the way he’s standing is such that when they go in close it appears that he’s sitting. His posture is odd. So then people are looking up at him, but it appears that he’s sitting, so the eye lines are bizarre. And what he’s saying – what he starts is, “My wife, she’s got what it takes.” She’s got what it takes. Which is the weirdest. Like what do you mean she has what it takes? This is about sex? What is this about? My wife has what it takes?

And then he starts talking about pork, which is a total non-sequitur. And he starts talking about how they have plenty. You know, he’s got plenty. They’ve got plenty. We’ve all got plenty. And when he says, “We’ve all got plenty,” it’s like he’s saying “Don’t you dare tell me that we don’t have enough meat in this house. Screw you, man.“

And then he returns once again to his, “My wife.” And it goes to her. And she looks so terrified, and is so clearly not allowed to speak. It is awesome. It’s awesome. I’ve watched it 100 times.

**John:** Yeah. So I think some of the backstory on this is this from 1984 apparently. These are times of trouble. This is like an economic downtown. This is not the peak of success. And so to have pork for Sunday dinner was considered not necessarily extravagant, but like the sense of like we’ve got plenty is like “I’m able to provide for my family.”

**Craig:** Right. I get that.

**John:** So you as the homemaker should be cooking a Sunday ham to prove that I am a successful breadwinner.

**Craig:** Yeah. It definitely is Thatcher-era, what do they call it, austerity. And he’s saying essentially, yes, that we won’t be hungry today. But he’s doing it in such a way that you think if I don’t get pork, a steady of supply of pork, to feed these people – who by the way are dressed in suits for some reason. If I don’t get this pork, I’m coming for you. I’ll cut your throat. You’ll be my pork. He’s terrifying.

**John:** Yeah. And the fact that he’s addressing camera directly. I mean, it’s a little unclear whether his eye line is supposed to be down the lens to us, or that he’s talking to somebody else. But no one else seems to be hearing him.

And it is a strange thing in commercials where the actors will sometimes address camera directly, even though there’s other people around them. But this doesn’t work.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s like an Uncanny Valley situation here.

**Craig:** Oh, it’s so weird.

**John:** It’s not quite to us. It’s not quite to them.

**Craig:** And it’s so quiet in the room. And you just hear the clinking of – you understand that what happened is he said, “I’m going to talk to my imaginary friends about this pork. You’re all going to sit and eat it. You’re not going to say a damn word. None of you. Not one word. Do you understand?”

And they’re all like, mm-hmm. “And when I point at you, you smile.” OK daddy. Please. “Good.”

It’s so great. What’s your One Cool Thing, John?

**John:** My One Cool Thing is the pilot for Champions on NBC. So Champions is a new show, a half-hour comedy, written by Charlie Grandy and Mindy Kaling. This pilot is directed by Michael Spiller. What I really admired about it is how it makes me remember how much information you have to pack into a pilot.

And so with the pilot episode like every time you’re going to a new set you have to establish that set. You have to establish who those people are in this set. You have to actually do the jokes, and be funny, and move the character things along, move the plot along. And pilots are just this weird beast. And I thought it was just a really great example of form of this really strange weird beast we do.

It made me think back to the first episode of 30 Rock where you have to set up Liz Lemon and Jack Donaghy who is taking over as the new boss. And what their whole dynamic is going to be. And their sets. And sort of what the show is trying to do. Yet it’s all for the first time. And so this was just a very good recent example, I thought, of how a pilot does all these things and sets all these wheels in motion.

And it’s so breakneck speed because there’s just so much to cram in. But just remarkably well done. Like you can actually still feel all the jokes in there. You can feel it all working. So, I just – I’ve never written a half-hour. I don’t think I ever could do it. But it was just an impressive version of like what a half-hour pilot can do.

And I wonder if I would be able to read it on the page and really see what was going to need to happen in front of the lens to make that all work. So, the writing was great, but I thought it was also really nicely directed.

**Craig:** Well this is why the writer of the pilot and the director of the pilot are handsomely compensated for the run of a show, because they really do set so many things in motion in that first. In a network pilot, you’re talking 23 minutes effectively?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s an astonishingly restrictive writing form and therefore it requires enormous craft. And, again, I will just say all awards should be given to comedies. All of them. Even best drama should be given to comedy as far as I’m concerned.

**John:** Absolutely true. So check that out. I have a link to the little trailer in YouTube, but you can also check out the full episodes on iTunes or probably NBC.com.

Cool. That’s our show for this week. As always, our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Rajesh Naroth. 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 or follow up like the things we answered today.

For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. We’re on Facebook. Search for Scriptnotes Podcast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. Leave us a review. We love those reviews.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts. We still get those up about a week after the episode. And you can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net or on the USB drive which you can find at store.johnaugust.com.

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** Hmm.

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** We’ve got plenty.

**Craig:** We’ve all got plenty. Plenty to go around.

**John:** Have a good week.

**Craig:** Take it easy, John.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Alto’s Odyssey](http://www.altosodyssey.com/)
* An ambiguously threatening advertisement for [British pork](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0wDjWOnHcY) from 1984
* [Champions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsobbyIvPn8) on [NBC](https://www.nbc.com/champions?nbc=1), created by Charlie Grandy and Mindy Kaling, directed by Michael Spiller
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](http://johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([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_342.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 333: The End of the Beginning — Transcript

January 16, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/the-end-of-the-beginning).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 333 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to be taking a listener question about getting through the first act to look at the bigger issues of how we get our scripts on the right track to begin with. Then we’ll be looking at the role of writing and writers in creating VR, AR, and other immersive experiences.

Craig, you are in Seattle. How is that as an immersive experience?

**Craig:** Seattle is a great city. I really like it up here. It is verdant, as we like to say. It’s got that kind of – well, I’d guess you’d say a big city vibe but little city kind of vibe at the same time. It reminds me a little bit in that way of Boston or San Francisco. You kind of have the best of both worlds. Super educated. Very progressive town. Honestly, it just feels like a lot of LA to me, except colder, wetter. The time is the same. You know, you don’t have the time change problem.

So, it’s nice. We’re up here just for a few days. My son is taking a look at some potential colleges and things like that. And, you know, just chilling.

**John:** Cool. We are trying to figure out a date for us to come up to see Seattle and talk to screenwriters up there. Maybe this summer? It’s all really depending on really kind of Craig, because Craig’s schedule is crazy, because he’s making a giant TV show for HBO.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But we’d love to come up there. So if we have dates, we will share them as soon as we know.

**Craig:** As soon as we know.

**John:** Last week you were absolutely correct. You diagnosed me over the air with a sinus infection. That is in fact correct.

**Craig:** Nailed it.

**John:** I’m on my heavy antibiotics. I feel much better. I don’t really sound better, but people will suffer through my nasally voice for one more week hopefully and then I’ll be better.

**Craig:** And what did they lob at you?

**John:** It is not a Z-Pack because it had been going on long enough that they put me on a different antibiotic. I also have some Mucinex, I have two different kinds of Mucinex to take.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** My saline nasal spray. I have other stuff for kind of emergencies. But I really do feel quite a bit better. I was able to fly yesterday without my ears exploding, so I was very happy with the progress so far.

**Craig:** It’s amazing how quickly the antibiotics will turn around an infection like that. And let’s just all pray that we don’t ultimately succumb to bacteria that don’t care about our antibiotics. It’s a real thing. Because, you know, the problem with sinus infections, there are very few blood vessels running through there, so you have to actually bomb your system with a pretty sizable amount of antibiotics just to reach those little nooks and crannies up there. It’s atrocious.

And, also, the clearest evidence we have, I believe, that there is no intelligent design of human beings, the sinuses are absurd. They’re so dumb.

**John:** Yeah. Hopefully they’ll be restored to full functionality soon enough and we’ll be good. My question is would our voices be the same? Our voices would not be the same without our sinuses. So we have to credit some of our wonderful resonant human voices to the bizarre structure of our sinuses.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I guess a little bit. But, I mean, you’ve got a big hole that runs from your nose down to the back of your throat. That’s why we can breathe through our nose. But the sinuses that are in our cheeks and our foreheads, I don’t know if they’re doing that much for resonance. But, yeah, I’ll give you this. Maybe we wouldn’t have – maybe we wouldn’t have Barbra without the sinuses.

**John:** Yep. All right, let’s do some follow-up. Man, this is going back so, so far. Why don’t you try Richard’s question here.

**Craig:** OK. This is from Richard. “I’m writing as a long-time listener with an update to a question I asked all the way back in Episode 3. That’s right, not a typo, Episode 3 from 2011. How simple life seemed back then, right?” An aside, yes. Right. It did.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** It did. Oh, 2011, how we miss you. Richard goes on, “Back then I asked as a prospective parent what it’s like raising a child while trying to break in as a screenwriter. You both gave some great perspective about how it’s tough but doable. Well, I wanted to let you know that last year, 2017, I was admitted into the WGA having written two freelance episodes of TV, but better yet my daughter turned five.” Awesome.

“Somehow, through perseverance, discipline, luck, moxie, and a very, very patient wife I was able to become a writer and a parent in these past six years. I’m now preparing to go out for staffing season this year and transition to a fulltime TV writer. I find you both inspirations as writers and people. Your podcast has given me an education and a sense of hope.”

Holy cajole, thank you, Richard.

**John:** That’s very nice. What a lovely way to start 2018 with a follow-up from six years ago. So, congratulations on being a parent. Congratulations on being a paid writer, a working writer who is now a member of the WGA.

Some clarification for people who don’t know, freelance episodes of TV series are – a lot of US TV shows are written by staff. And so the staff is assembled and they put together the whole season of television. There are also freelance episodes. And there are requirements that change and it’s all complicated, but some episodes of network TV shows are intended to be farmed out to somebody who is not a member of the staff, or for other reasons they’ll bring on an outside person to write an episode of a TV series. That sounds like what happened to Richard and that’s fantastic for Richard.

So something else he wrote attracted the attention of the showrunner, or other decision maker there, and said like, “You know what, let’s give that guy a script.” And Richard apparently did well enough to do it twice last season and now he is a paid writer writing under a WGA contract, which is fantastic.

**Craig:** That is. It used to be, I think, a lot of these freelance jobs existed. As I recall friends telling me, they sort of disappeared, but not completely. And so it’s good to see that Richard got that. And really cool to see that, Richard, our podcast is older than your child. I like that.

**John:** Yeah. It’s nice to see.

**Craig:** You know, your kid will always be younger than our show. Thanks for listening for all this time and we’re glad we have helped.

John, we’ve got some more follow-up from Laurie.

**John:** Laurie from Episode 331 writes, “Why are you so adamantly against work-for-hire? Are you saying that non-WGA screenwriters should turn down paid ghostwriting gigs? If the price is right, and the client insists on such terms, that is the alternative is no work and no money, what’s the downside for the writer?”

Craig, what is the downside?

**Craig:** Well, I don’t think, Laurie, that we’re adamantly against work-for-hire in the essence of it, because John and I both work in that capacity all day long, work-for-hire for studios.

What we’re concerned about, and yes, we are saying non-WGA screenwriters should turn down paid ghostwriting gigs. What we’re concerned about and what the downside is is not the downside for you individually in the moment, although there is one, but rather the collective downside for all of us. Because you’re essentially pushing down the nature of the work around us. Anytime somebody shows up and works for less than minimum wage, for instance, they are harming all minimum wage workers. I think we can all agree on that.

Well, in our business of professional television and movie writing, we have minimum wages. We also have some other protections that are minimum protections like our credit protections. When other people show up and work for less and under conditions where they don’t get credit, or paid properly for their work, or residuals, they essentially put pressure on the rest of the world. Not only do they make their lives worse in that moment, but they make other people’s lives worse.

Yes, in that moment you will get paid as opposed to not being paid, possibly, although I would argue you could take a stand. But what are you essentially doing is mortgaging your future to make a little bit of money right now. And you’re also harming everybody else’s.

So, the downside is not so much for the writer. The downside is for writers. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch, Laurie, to say that writers who are hired with money to write things should be able to write, if they so choose, under their own name. They should receive credit for the work they do and they should be compensated fairly. To me, that is not being adamantly against something, it is being reasonably for something.

**John:** Absolutely. So work-for-hire is common across all industries. So it’s not just writers, there’s artists, there’s other folks who work-for-hire. And we are really working-for-hire when studios employ us to work on screenplays. But they’re hiring us under very specific circumstances and conditions because of the union that we have. And if you talk to people in other industries, or writers who are doing the kinds of things that aren’t covered by the WGA contract, they would love to have some of the protections and some of the guarantees that we have. And so I don’t want to dismiss the possibility that there are writers who are working on movie stuff that is not covered and for other reasons maybe can’t be covered because of the weird esoteric conditions, but the aspiration should be to get that work covered and get that work paid fairly and those writers treated fairly. Do screenwriting on feature projects or television projects that could be covered under a contract because you are not just hurting yourself, you’re hurting everybody else who could be doing that work.

**Craig:** Hallelujah.

**John:** All right. Let’s move on to our marquee topic of the day. This is a question that came in from Dr. Cakey, and he sent audio, so we’re going to listen to Dr. Cakey’s question.

**Craig:** All right.

**Dr. Cakey:** To give some context for my unfortunately long question, I write almost constantly, either actually writing pages or more in the notes phase. But despite that, I almost always fizzle out very early on to the point that I finish less than one, even the messiest rough draft, per year. If you have a magical solution to that, I’m certainly open. But otherwise I think a place, or the place that stymies me, the place where I lose my way is what’s in the three-act structure term’s the second half of the first act. That is the incident has incited, the ball has been kicked, but its flight hasn’t yet stabilized.

The transitional period between what the story is going to be about, you know, crystallizing, and the protagonist actually doing that story. The period between Luke Skywalker seeing Leia’s message and him in the Millennium Falcon shooting TIE Fighters, and getting between those two points.

Because this is a period in the story rather than a point in it, I feel like that’s why it’s difficult to talk about, or why I haven’t seen people talking about it. And it’s also why it’s something I can’t find when I outline. So if you have advice about this space between inciting the story and beginning it, I’d appreciate it.

**John:** So an interesting topic and one we’ve never specifically dug into in these first 332 episodes. So, let’s talk a little bit about what we mean by the first act, because anyone who has picked up a book on screenwriting has probably heard the descriptions of what a first act, a second act, and a third act is. But just so we’re all talking about the same things. First act is the beginning of your movie. It’s usually the first quarter to a third of your movie. You’re meeting the characters. You’re setting up the world. You’re setting up the situation.

In the very classic sort of screenwriting book, the end of the first act is this big pivotal turn where everything is different. It’s the Dorothy, we’re not in Kansas anymore. Then you go into the second act which is sort of your biggest act. It can sort of be twice the size of your first and your third acts. That’s where the meat of your story is happening. The end of your second act is the moment of final crisis, the big worst-of-the-worst kind of twist. And then you get to your third act and the movie wraps itself up.

So, what he is describing, Dr. Cakey, is that moment after you’ve sort of first set things up, that inciting incident has happened, the fuse has been kind of lit, but before the character has really fully undertaken this journey. And that seems to be where he’s struggling.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I tend to think about these things entirely in terms of character. And in terms of the psychology of the character. Because you and I, when we’re doing this, we are in full control. The character isn’t. The character is as close to a real person as we can fashion. But we, as the writers, well we’re in perfect control. So everything we’re doing is intentional.

When I think about the character in the beginning of the story, this is a person who has achieved some ability to survive in the world a certain way. And then you, the writer, have upended things. People call this the inciting incident, and so on and so forth. And that’s, I think, what Dr. Cakey – which I really want to believe is his real name and that he’s a real doctor – Dr. Cakey is describing as the first half of the first act, right.

So, here’s the person. He’s living his life, she’s living her life, and then boom, a thing happens. Everything is rattled up. So, then he knows, Dr. Cakey does, that when we are in our second act some journey of a kind, whether it’s metaphoric or literal, is going to be undertaken. But what happens in between the point of the big shakeup and the going on that journey, the crossing of a threshold?

And to me a lot of times what that section is about, Doctor, is a character resisting and a character contemplating and considering, a character planning, trying to get out of, and then making some sort of bargain with the universe or fate. Characters are I think always on page 15 trying to get back to page 1. And between page 15 and whatever you want to call it, page 30, and please don’t hold me to those page numbers. You know how we are about these sort of things. The character is attempting to wriggle around it. They are meeting people and they are learning things that make it harder for them to wriggle around it, but in short they’re bargaining a bit.

I mean, Luke essentially is, I mean, in Star Wars he’s going to go return the droid and then this guy says, “Kid, come with me and fight the,” and he says, “Nah, that’s not for me. I’ve got to wriggle out of it. You know what? Let me just do one more harvest and then maybe.” He’s bargaining.

And then he goes back and he sees that his aunt and uncle have been murdered. There’s nothing more for him now and so our second act begins. But the second part of the first act for a lot of characters, whether it’s an animated character like Shrek, or a person like Luke Skywalker, or even in romantic comedies, you’re talking about–

**John:** So the decision that the Bill Pullman character is just fine. Like, you know, I don’t need to go off on the better one, I can stay with Pullman.

**Craig:** There you go. Exactly. And so really what – I think what I find helpful, because I think it’s real. It’s not like any of these things were written down by a monk in the 1500s and we just have to follow them blindly. These conventions occur because they mimic in some satisfying way what we know to be true. In your life, Dr. Cakey, if a big boulder comes rolling through and changes things, you are not immediately going to leap into a journey or an action. You are going to spend a little bit of time trying to undo what just happened, trying to make sense of what just happened, trying to excuse it, get out of it, return to where you where, and then once that becomes impossible then you start to think, OK, maybe I can do this, or this if I talk to this person and this person. To me, that’s kind of what it’s about.

**John:** So, what you’re describing is very true and very emotionally accurate to what it would be like to be in those circumstances. It’s also a very classic mythic structure, though. You’re talking about the denial of the call to adventure, which is a very classic sort of moment that heroes go on a classic hero’s journey/quest.

They won’t always have the denial. Like sometimes it won’t be a bad situation that’s forced them into that thing. They actually finally are able to voice that thing that they’ve wanted.

So, you’re talking about something outside coming in and disrupting their life. Sometimes it’s the character’s own want that finally gets expressed. Like this is the thing I want more than anything else, but they’re afraid to sort of fully grapple with it. So that’s another moment you’re going to see in these sort of we’ll say 15 pages, but really after you’ve sort of introduced the character, before they’ve really fully taken on their journey.

But as important as it is to understand this from the character’s perspective, you also have to understand it from the audience’s perspective. The first act is really how you’re teaching the audience how to watch you’re movie. And so in that initial set piece, the initial opening, you’re talking about the world, you’re talking about the characters, the tone, the voice. You’re giving them a sense of what’s important and what’s not important. But it’s after that section, it’s this period that we’re talking about, where you’re really kind of describing the path ahead for that character. What the kinds of things the movie will be doing over the next 90 minutes. And so you’re kind of cordoning off the sections that the character won’t go down, that the story won’t go down, so the audience sitting there in the theater watching it has some sense of what they’re in for.

You’re basically laying out the contract with the audience, like if you give me your attention I will make it worth your while. These are the kinds of things you can expect to see happen. And these are the questions I’m going to set up that I promise I will answer for you over the course of this next 90 minutes if you give me your full attention.

When movies don’t work, when TV shows don’t work, it’s often because that contract wasn’t well written, or was broken essentially by the end of the movie.

**Craig:** Well that’s exactly right. You are not only offering the audience a chance to crawl into your little world and thus give them an orientation tour of it, but you are also establishing a connection with them in terms of your responsibility to them. This portion of the movie is where you get to assure the audience that you’re going to be taking care of them by letting them inside your hero’s mind or thought process in some small way.

Even if the character is thrilled by the boulder that has rolled in, I’m going to go out on a limb and say generally speaking she may want to immediately get in the car and go on that exciting road trip because of what just happened on page 15, but A, she’s not going to want to go on that road trip for the right reason. Something is going to ultimately change with her, so I want to know, I want to get in her mind. I want you to show me her mind so I understand that she has something to learn. That she is not a complete character at this point. And then I want her to, I don’t know, say goodbye to some people. I want her to quit her job. I want her to pack, purchase clothing. I want to see a preparation.

Really, this area is to get ready. All of us, we get to get ready.

**John:** You’re assembling the team. You are figuring out what the path is ahead for you.

Going back to Star Wars, you know, it’s crucial that Luke not only deny the call to adventure, but he goes back and the family is dead. So, we call this burning down the house. You’re essentially making it impossible for them to get back to the life they had on page one through circumstances. Ideally, it’s circumstances that the character themselves have done and not some external force, but it also works if it’s an external force.

But something has changed and you basically said of all the stories this character could go on, the story the character is going to go on for this movie, for this two-hours of time is this story. This is the road ahead for this character. And that’s a crucial thing you’re doing in this period at the end of the first act.

**Craig:** Yeah. I actually don’t necessarily mind if a movie burns the house down, or does something like that in order to force a character to do something as long as I have seen that character refuse to do it prior. Because that does set up a certain tension which is to say, oh OK, now you’re doing it but you didn’t want to. You had to. And eventually you’re going to need to want to. You’re going to need to make this right choice when you can go back to a house.

And that’s a good expectation, but this is all stuff that you are setting up in motion here. You know, you think about the first half of your first act, Dr. Cakey, as who is this person and what is their problem. You can look at the second half of the first act as a little bit of an indication of what the ending of the movie is going to be. Because the motions that they’re going through here should be both in denial of that ending, but also in a sense predicting it.

**John:** So let’s talk about if you’re having problems in this period, what are some things to be looking for? I would start with do you really know what your character wants? And when I say wants, I mean both macro level like what is the overall hope, dream, ambition of the character, but what does the character want moment by moment? It goes back to what Craig was saying about trying to find a way to get back to page one. They probably want to retreat to a place of safety. How do you juggle the very immediate wants, the sort of scene by scene wants, with this bigger sort of emotional want?

Can you hear what the character’s song would be if this was a musical, because this is classically the moment where you’ve already had the “welcome to the world” song. This is the “I Want” song. Well, what is that character’s song? And if they could sing it, what would they be singing? Because that would probably tell you where they’re emotionally at as they’re trying to head into the second act.

Second I’d say have you picked a story that’s interesting to you, or just a character or situation that’s interesting to you? Because maybe it’s a fundamental thing about the nature of the story you’ve chosen, because if you’re not actually that intrigued by the journey, by where they start and where they’re going to, but you really love this character, or you really love this world, or this situation, that may be your problem and that may be why you’re struggling to get through this part of the first act and really only finishing a script in a year is you’re trying to force yourself to be interested in something that’s not fundamentally that interesting to you.

**Craig:** I think also, Doc, if I may, sorry, I think I’m coming down with John’s whatever sinus infection, I think you need to take a step back and start watching some movies that you love that you think you know. And watch them specifically for this. Write down everything that happens in every scene until the first act is over, and then think about what connected you to the second part of that, what you call the first act. Think about it. Really think about what grabbed you and what meant something to you and then ask how that might apply, not the details, but the spirit, how that might apply to what you’re doing.

**John:** The thing I want to stress is we’re talking about first act and second act that like it’s a really natural clear distinction between the two.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And a lot of times in the movies that I’ve worked on, I would disagree on sort of where the first act is and where the second act. I think it can be kind of arbitrary and honestly invisible. When a movie is working really well you sort of cross over that boundary and you don’t really notice that you’ve crossed over it.

Like, you might check in with a character later on and realize like, oh yeah, they’re in a very different place than they were 20 pages ago, but it wasn’t right on a certain page break where like, oh, suddenly now the curtain closed and now we’re open to act two. It doesn’t often feel that way. So, looking through some of my movies, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has a very, very obvious act break where we’re outside the factory, then we’re inside the factory. It’s a very different movie and things happen completely differently inside and outside.

But Go really doesn’t have that same kind of break, even though there’s three sections to it they’re all following different stories. Basically each one of those little stories has its three-act structure, its beginning, its middle, and its end.

Big Fish kind of has a first act and a second act, but I would have a hard time pointing at one specific scene that says like, oh, that’s the start of the second act. You know, it’s two characters on two different journeys and you’re following them. And if I’m doing my job correctly, scene by scene, you’re intrigued enough that you’re not really noticing that the landscape underneath your feet has changed.

**Craig:** Sometimes I find myself in a room where a producer and executive are discussing the first act or the second act, and one of them say, “And the first act, you know, I think ends here.” And then the other one will say, “No, I think the first act ends here.” And they’ll start arguing about it. And I will tolerate it, briefly, but eventually I will say you all understand there’s no – the curtain stays open the whole movie. No one cares. Why are we talking about this? Just talk about the movie. Talk about the story.

A proper movie has one act. Beginning, middle, end. That’s it. I don’t get all hung up on this act stuff. I really don’t. And, by the way, I think partly because there are other kinds of entertainment I’ve come to enjoy very much, like say musicals, that are two acts. But, you know, you could also take any two-act musical, ignore the fact that there’s a break in the middle so people can pee basically, and then re-divide that into three if you’d like. Or five. Or seven. You know.

**John:** So both stage musicals and classic broadcast television, they have act breaks because they literally have breaks where they stop the action and go to the next thing. And because they have that mechanical divide, you write them in a very specific way so that you have an intriguing question at the end of an act and then you come into the next act to sort of answer that question.

So, with Big Fish I had to figure out how to both resolve the action and have a big moment, but leave an open question so that the audience has something to talk about over the break and is eager to see that question resolved. In TV, we look at what Aline does with Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, they have to really plan for what those act breaks are. And once you get used to that form of writing for television, with act breaks, it becomes an incredibly useful structuring tool to figure out how you – those become the moments in which you story sort of hangs. You figure out those act breaks first a lot of times and then write to those act breaks. And it’s powerful when you can do it.

When we had our live show and we had Julie Plec talking about the one thing she wishes she could kill, or the lump of coal, it was the six-act structure which is imposed on some broadcast shows now where the acts become so short that like you’re just scrambling to get any meaningful piece of entertainment in between those last commercial breaks.

**Craig:** Yeah, you know, in the writing of Chernobyl I’ve never thought about acts, but not even once. Each episode is an episode. That’s what it is. It’s an episode. Inside of the 60 pages I couldn’t even begin to tell you where there’s acts. It’s just not relevant.

**John:** Yeah. And as we were talking about Game of Thrones and sort of the challenges of that first pilot episode and making it work right, they really weren’t act problems that you were describing. It was audience understanding of what characters were going for. It was audience’s understanding of the world and, yes, those are first act issues because you’re trying to establish things, but they’re really the whole piece issues.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. They had problems at the end of the show when people were showing up and I would say, “Well who’s that?” And I watch Game of Thrones religiously. I couldn’t tell you where an act occurs in any given Game of Thrones episode. Nor could I tell you where an act occurs in any given episode of Breaking Bad or any TV – any episodic TV show, like a 60-minute show. There’s no first, second, third to me. It’s really more about just breaks. It’s different.

In movies, there is this sense of dramatic motion, like “And now the second act is over and the third act begins. Well, the third act seems to be starting a little late.” And I always just giggle. I’m like, is the movie the right length? Then let’s just call to five pages earlier the third – who cares? What are you talking about?

If the movie is the right length and it’s paced properly, I don’t know what any of this jargon means. So hopefully we’ve helped Dr. Cakey without over hammering on the orthodoxy of this act stuff.

**John:** Yeah. So I want to try to square this circle here by saying I think it’s fine to talk about acts while acknowledging that they don’t really exist. What’s useful about talking about acts is we recognize that in most feature films with a central protagonist there’s a journey that happens because these stories happen to a character just once. Like there’s a once in a lifetime thing that is happening to this character that you’re going to kind of naturally flow along a certain path. And one of those paths is going to be leaving this comfortable place and going on a journey.

And not necessarily a literal journey, but some sort of change is going to happen to this character. And in that process of change there are turning points. I think it’s fine to talk about all those things without getting too hung up on “It’s this act, it’s that act, we’re on this page, or that page.” And where I feel the danger is is that somebody at some point read a bunch of scripts and watched a bunch of movies and realized like, oh, it’s happening at this page counts and at this minutes. And that must be how movies work. And they mistook the measurement of the thing for the thing itself.

**Craig:** Yeah. People watch movies and then they confuse symptoms for causes. And they will advise people. You see it all the time. “Well, in the middle of your movie this thing must happen.” OK. Why? “Because it does all the time.” Well, yes, but why? “Just do it. All movies have it.” OK. Well how am I supposed to do it if I don’t know why it’s there? And why did all the people who did it before me who didn’t have you telling them to do it, why did they do it?

And so these are the things that interest me. I’m never concerned about the act effect, which is why I actually like this question because he’s really asking why. Why do these things happen? Yeah.

**John:** So, back in Episode 100 someone asked in the audience, basically I have these two ideas, which one should I write. And I said write the one with the best ending because that’s the one you’re going to finish. I think my advice for Dr. Cakey is as you’re auditioning ideas to write, for you specifically I would say write the one that has the most interesting section of what we’re talking about. Pick the one next to write that has a really fascinating change from the normal world into the – we’ll call it second act – into that journey of like where things are going. Write the one that has a really intriguing moment of that character having to decide to go on that journey, because that’s the one that’s going to probably work best in that section. And it may work best overall for what you’re struggling with.

**Craig:** I’m down with that.

**John:** Let’s go to Nicole in Rome. She writes in with an audio question as well.

**Craig:** Let’s listen.

**Nicole:** Hi John. Hi Craig. My name is Nicole Mosely. I’m listening to your podcast from Rome in Italy. And I’m enjoying it very much. Thank you.

I have a question regarding new formats of storytelling that became possible in the last years. I’m talking about virtual reality, 360 film, and augmented reality. I’d like to know what you guys think about it. Is this the future of filmmaking? Or is it just to hype something that is already dead before it hits the mainstream?

And the thing that would interest me even more is how does it affect storytelling? For example, how do you actually get the viewer to look at what is important and convey story and meaning when it’s no longer you, the screenwriter, but actually the viewer who decides what he’s going to look at? What does all of this mean for dramaturgy like the three-act structure? Does it still apply as it does in non-linear movies, or does it work in a completely different way?

And is that still storytelling? Or would it serve for journalism, education, gaming, and other experiences? Also, the moment we talk about full immersion and the viewer being inside the story, what role does he take on? Is he the protagonist? Or is he a fly on the wall?

I know those are so many questions, but I’d really like to know what your take on all of this is. Thank you.

**John:** It was one of those epic questions that sort of keeps on going. But they’re all related and I think they’re all fair questions to ask.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** From my perspective, I don’t think AR/VR/Immersive storytelling/360 movies, I don’t think they’re the future of cinema. I don’t think they’re the future of moviemaking. But I think they are in our future. I think they are important art forms that need to be talked about in their own way and to try to just say that all movies are going to become them I think is really naïve.

I think they have as much to do with video gaming as they do with traditional movies. I think you have to sort of look at what is the best way to tell a story in those new mediums and not necessarily try to apply everything we’ve learned from TV or from film. Just let them be their own thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree. Well, first of all, Nicole, these are really, really good questions. And I don’t blame you for being a combination of skeptical and also possibly hopeful. I mean, it’s always exciting when these things come along. And then, of course, scary as well. What is it going to mean for all of us?

I think the first thing to understand, at least from my point of view, is that virtual reality/360 film, and augmented reality is – well, let’s leave augmented reality aside. Let’s just talk about VR/360. That already exists. They’re called videogames. The only difference that we’re seeing now is the delivery method which now straps to your head, so you’ve eliminated the space between yourself and the television. So, visually the experience is different. But storytelling-wise it’s the same. You control your point of view in a 360 up and down way the way you do in say Skyrim.

The storytelling that occurs in that format, well, there’s lots of ways of doing it. One way is the kind of it’s open and you discover things as you go. One way is sort of a combination of that, but you are also kind of on rails, so when you attach yourself to a certain story point you follow that little quest and you’re kind of on rails with it. Or you have choices between things to follow. That exists. And I think that when John says games, I think he’s right that this feels more about games to me than movies.

Movies and books and television shows are entirely passive experiences for the audience. They have always been so, with rare exception, and I don’t see any reason why that’s going to go away. That experience is actually the fundamental narrative experience. To read a book. To watch a play. To see a movie. To listen to a song. And we will always come up with other ways to have that experience, but the fundamental experience will always be there. No new technology has gotten rid of the technologies before it. None.

I don’t think there are any story type of technologies that have just simply been eliminated. We just accrue more of them, which I find fascinating.

There are some examples of things that are happening. One of the people that we want to talk to is Ed Solomon who has put together this crazy thing with I think Soderbergh, right?

**John:** Yeah, exactly. Mosaic.

**Craig:** Yeah, Mosaic, which is very much a kind of, OK, choose your own adventure style parallel storyline. Everything all adds up. Lots of different points. And it will end differently depending on what you’re doing. But, of course, no matter how complex you make these things, and we will talk to Ed about it, it comes down to, well, it’s written right? It’s written.

So, yes, these things are kinds of storytelling. They are all sorts of storytelling. And just as there are simple children’s books you can read and then these very complicated children’s books that aren’t really for children but more like for adults that involve moving back and around and turning things upside down.

Did you ever read – there’s just all these multimedia things and ways to do storytelling. And so I guess I’m going to say, Nicole, all of it is going to happen. None of it is going to eliminate anything else. That’s my crazy point of view. It will accumulate, but it will not eliminate.

**John:** Absolutely. I think the question that’s sort of underlying what Nicole is asking is how do you write it. How will we figure out how to write it? And we’re still grappling with that. I think we’re still grappling with how to write certain kinds of videogames. Like videogame writing has improved dramatically, but it’s a very different kind of writing than what we’re used to. Because usually when we’re talking about a book, we’re talking about a play, we’re talking about a movie, it’s one shot straight through. And we know exactly what we’re going to be looking at. We can direct the viewer’s attention completely.

But in a videogame you may not have that option because the character could do a thousand different things. It’s a forking branching paths, and so you have to plan your writing for all the different scenarios they could come across.

A similar thing happens with immersive theater. So, Sleep No More, New York, or I went to Safe House 77 here in Los Angeles, and those are situations where parts of it are clearly written and controlled and there’s a whole plan for this is going to happen at this moment. There’s a timeline in which things happen. But you can’t know for sure that a certain person in that audience was looking where you wanted them to look, or was interacting the way you wanted them to interact. You can direct your actors to do certain things, but the audience can change that as well. They have to be able to sometimes improvise based on what’s happening in the space. So every time is different.

So that’s still playwriting to some degree, but it’s also a different thing. And I think to try to force it to become the future of something, or to be like something else, is limiting its potential.

I would say when you’re grappling with AR/VR/360/some new storytelling mechanism/an alternative reality game, always great to take lessons from what other things have done before it, but you really are walking into uncharted lands. And enjoy that uncharted landness. I think it’s important to be able to not limit yourself because the movie version of it would have done this. Well, you’re not making a movie. You’re making something else. What is going to be the cool experience? What is going to be the thing that people will take with them?

And one of Nicole’s great questions is are you a spectator or a participant as a viewer? Are you changing the story? Are you making the story move around? Or are you a fly on the wall? Both can work, but that’s a fundamental choice you’re going to have to make early on in any of these projects is to what degree are you participating in the story versus watching.

Jordan Mechner who did Prince of Persia, he really describes his games as being like you are the hero of the game. You have to think about every action being you are the protagonist doing it. So, if you’re watching people have a scene around you that is a failure. You have to be driving the scenes that you’re in.

**Craig:** Yeah. A lot of it reminds me of magic in the sense that you are implying a certain amount of choice to the audience that they don’t have. Pick a card, any card. I know what card you’re picking. Or it doesn’t matter what card you’re picking. You’re going to think that it’s this card. This is what craft is all about, right? So, when we do these things, I think videogames do it all the time, they make you think that you’re making a million choices. They make you think that you are somehow going to change the ending of something. But sooner or later the debt comes to be owed.

And the debt is to story. It’s to narrative. Mass Effect had a little bit of a problem when they arrived at the end of their trilogy of a billion user choices only to realize, “Uh, we have to give an ending. And the ending has to cover at least an enormous amount of these possible choices. So, let’s go with three of them,” and everybody went bananas.

And I understood why they went bananas, because the game had promised a certain kind of something it could not deliver. I played it. I played them. They made you feel like the choices you made mattered and you had many, many multiple choices. But in the end really they were kind of squishing you towards two poles, which were manageable narratively. And then some other things that occurred, which were managed narratively, but you know, it comes down to decision tree. No game, no piece of art can offer you a decision tree that is as complex as just walking down the street to the 7-11 is in real life. Because there is an end, right? The show ends, therefore work backwards from that.

So, I think, Nicole, no matter what happens it’s our brains that will always be the sticking point. That’s sort of the log jam. We have to deal with our brains. And people’s brains do require a certain kind of firm narrative to cling to one way or the other.

**John:** Circling back to Dr. Cakey’s question, I feel like this is also a case of the contract you’re making with the viewer, the participant, whatever you want to call the person who is experiencing the art that you’re making. It’s quite early on, the first few minutes, you are going to be establishing these are the kinds of things that can happen. These are going to be your responsibilities. These are going to be my responsibilities. Together we’re going to make this all work. And in a film or television show, it’s one kind of contract. In an immersive theater piece or in AR/VR, something that’s 360, it’s a different kind of contract. But it has to be there and you have to recognize that whether you’re explicitly stating it or just sort of implying it, people are going to have expectations about where you’re going. And so as long as you’re going in a place that meets their expectations and hopefully surpasses their expectations you’ll have a good experience.

Where it’s just confusing, or I just don’t even know what I’m supposed to be looking at, that’s where these projects tend to fall apart.

**Craig:** Yep. 100%.

**John:** Cool. Do you want to take Melissa’s question?

**Craig:** Yeah, Melissa in Eugene, Oregon, not too far from where I am now, asks, “I’m writing because last year I made it to the semifinal round of the Nicholl Fellowship,” congrats Melissa, “and ended up getting some inquiries from managers and producers based on that. The majority of people that reached out asked for the whole script, but two people asked for a writing sample.

“Is there an industry standard as to what a writing sample should consist of? The first ten pages? Any ten pages? The first act? Or is this generally up to the individual writer? Any advice you can give would be appreciated.”

John, what do you make of this?

**John:** Great. I don’t really know what to make of it because I’ve never been asked to send in a writing sample that wasn’t the whole thing. Because honestly I feel like you can send the whole script and if they just didn’t finish the script that’s up to them. We talk to a lot of people who read scripts for a living, who are staffing, and they stop whenever they stop, or they skim through stuff. We had these agents on for the last Three Page Challenge and they said like, “Yeah, we’ll start reading and then when we get bored we’ll skim.”

If they’re asking for a sample, it makes it sound clear that they don’t want the whole script, I would send them ten pages. And ten pages doesn’t feel like a lot and I think if you’re sending ten pages, I’d send them the first ten pages I should stress. And that’s not a lot. If they like the ten pages they can always ask for more. Craig, what’s your instinct?

**Craig:** I wouldn’t do that. Because here’s the thing. You have gotten inquiries, Melissa, from managers and producers based on making it to the semifinal round. The majority of people will ask for the whole script. That implies to me they haven’t read it. Two people asked for a writing sample, I wonder if that means we’ve read your script that was in the semifinal round. Can you please send more?

No matter what, I would never send anything less than a complete script. Because like John said, especially now in the age of PDFs where we’re not creating extra weight on their desk, they can read as much as they want. The script is a writing sample, top to bottom. If you send ten pages and they love it, the problem is they may go, “Great. I’ll ask her for the rest of those later,” but then a couple days go by and something happens and they’ve forgotten. But a script is a script. So, I would just send the whole script every time. If they ask for a writing sample and you’re not sure if they’ve read your Nicholl script, send the Nicholl script and something else.

If you don’t have another script, just resend the Nicholl script and say this is what I have so far.

**John:** Yeah. I think you are right and I’m going to sort of retract my previous advice. I guess I really can’t make a strong case for the ten pages. I think I may have been thinking about writing packet submissions, which are for a very specific kind of thing, and the WGA has been addressing abuses in that world.

The other thing I’ll say is it’s not even that we’re shipping big chunks of paper around, or even attaching PDFS. If you stick a link on there saying here are some things I’ve written that you may enjoy, then you’re sending two of those things and they’re basically just Dropbox links they’re going to open or not open.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Great. You’re really creating very little burden for them to do it. Just make sure you’re steering them to the thing you think is your best work, the thing that is going to best showcase what you’re able to bring.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. You know what? Every now and then, John, I feel like we actually answer a question.

**John:** Oh, that’s so nice.

**Craig:** A lot of times, you know, listen, I’m not dissuading people from writing in. We do our best. Some of these questions you people ask are not answerable. You realize that. We do our best. But every now and then I feel like we nail it. And we’re definitely going to nail this next one. Definitely.

**John:** All right. Let’s bring in our next and our last one. It’s the last one in our list here. It’s from Will in Toronto. He writes, “How feasible is adapting a novel into a screenplay? Does the red tape of IP and rights make an adaptation virtually unreasonable to focus on or even impossible? I came across a novel in the past few months that would serve as a brilliant screenplay, but should I give it my undivided time and effort if it’s going to be ultimately denied?”

So, this is a very fundamental question but also a naïve question and I think a question that we can frame out for Will here in this discussion. Yes, a lot of books are adapted into movies. And sometimes those books are optioned by studios or producers who say like, “Hey, let us borrow the rights to your book and we may make a movie out of it. We’ll pay you a small amount of money. We’ll pay you more money if we make it. We’re going to hire a writer to work on this.”

That happens. That’s a lot of what I do is adapting books into movies. Individual writers can also option books. So, you, Will, in Toronto, if there’s a book that you love that you thought could be a movie and you felt like you could convince that author to sign over the rights, to option those rights to you, you could option those rights from that author and do it.

I’m sure on previous episodes we’ve talked about optioning stuff, about adapting other work. But I think you are fundamentally asking is this a thing you should be thinking about doing. I don’t think it’s the first script you should write is an adaptation. I think you need to learn how to write screenplays first. And I think you need to write one or two screenplays that are just yours, that are just entirely your things that you own every piece of.

And then if you want to circle back around to that book to adapt, go for it. Craig, what do you think?

**Craig:** I think you did it. I think you nailed it, John. I predicted that this question would get answered firmly and completely and you did it. I have nothing to add except this tiny piece of information. When John says, “Hey Will, maybe you could find this author and option the rights yourself.” That is absolutely true. And it may cost you a dollar. It may cost you nothing. Right?

It depends on who the author and the book is. If no one is asking them about their book, it’s an obscure book, or there wasn’t any interest. You’re the only person interested. What does it cost them to say, “All right, well you know what, give me ten bucks and you have a year to set this up somewhere, at which point somebody will have to purchase the rights to this book, but you have the exclusive right to go ahead and create a screenplay based on it and go and try and sell it.”

**John:** Yeah. Back in the day, when I was a young screenwriter, there was a book that I really wanted to option. And the only way to figure out how to get to the author was to call the sub-rights department of the publisher. So let’s say it was Macmillan, you would find the number for Macmillan in New York. You’d call the operator at the Macmillan switchboard and ask for sub-rights. And you get to someone in sub-rights and say I’m looking for the film rights for this book. And they would look up in some sort of catalog and then they would tell you who the person was. Or later on you’d email or you’d fax something through and they’d fax you back information.

Now with the Internet, you find the author, you find the author’s Twitter thing, and you ask them. You find an email address for them and you email them directly. The few times that I’ve optioned the rights to books myself, I just figured out who the author was and how to reach them and started the process myself.

**Craig:** That sounds exactly like the way to go. Will, we’ve done it. We’ve answered your question. I feel really good about it.

**John:** I feel great about it.

All right, it’s time for One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is Bathe in my Milk. Craig, have you clicked this link yet?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Click the link. Clink the link, Craig.

**Craig:** Batheinmymilk.com. OK.

**John:** Now, please describe what you see.

**Craig:** OK. So I see a photo. Oh, all right. So, it’s a photo of a bathroom. It’s a bad bathroom. Peeling wallpaper. An elderly white woman is standing in a shabby white nightgown, cleaning products at her feet. There is a torn tassel rope and then a standalone tube. There is an African American man also about her age I would say sitting in the tub and the tub has apparently got milk in it. But maybe just soapy water.

And then her head is casting a shadow against the window. It’s not good. Should I keep scrolling?

**John:** Keep scrolling.

**Craig:** Oh god. OK. So now she has repositioned herself on the other side of the room and now there is a younger Asian man in the same tub. Nothing else has changed except a plunger has appeared in the cleaning – oh god. What is the story here? What is happening? Every single photo is the same except that there is a different man in her tub of weird, creepy, milky water.

Oh, there’s a big boy at the end. He’s big.

**John:** Yeah. He barely fits into the tub.

**Craig:** Yes he does. Oof. Yikes.

**John:** All right. So, Craig, tell me your theory. What the hell is going on here?

**Craig:** OK. Well, theory number one, this is a very, very low rent spa. This is a spa that costs $0.14.

Now, I think this is some kind of art project. I can’t imagine it’s anything else. The bathroom doesn’t – it’s – what could possibly be happening here? Oh my god, there’s one picture where she’s outside looking in through the window. Did you see that one?

**John:** [laughs] I saw that one, too.

**Craig:** That’s horrifying. So in one of the pictures she’s not even in the room. She’s outside of the room looking. Yeah, this is just a weird art project.

**John:** All right. So now you can click through to the New York Post thing which shows the actual flyer this all comes from. So it’s a flyer that’s mounted onto a telephone post. It says Bathe in my Milk. It has one of the photos there. It says Bathe in my Milk. Offer open to men only. Soy, almond, or traditional. Use my sponge. I will watch you. And then it has a link to the batheinmymilk.com.

**Craig:** So what the hell is it? It is a prank. Should we tell people?

**John:** It’s a prank, yet it is a meme. It is a creation, this guy Alan Wagner, and his friend Sydney Marquez helped him build it. He’s a guy who just does these things. They’re kind of art projects. They’re just like sort of little bits of cultural stuff that go out there. And this is an especially effective one, I thought. I just thought it was delightful.

**Craig:** Yeah, this is great. I like this line. He says, “Nobody seems to be enjoying it, and yet they are partaking in it.” That’s a great description of what these people are like. Yeah.

**John:** So I’m going to put up a link to the New York Post article which goes into sort of the backstory of it. So, Alan Wagner is a USC film school grad. I suspect he might be a listener, so Alan if you’re listening, hello.

**Craig:** Well done.

**John:** And basically he built that bathroom set in his garage. He just did it for the giggles. It looks like all those actors are from Craigslist. I just thought it was a nice example of just making something for the hell of making it. And a wonderfully creepy sort of disturbing thing to float out there in the world.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s got a bit of the Saw bathroom kind of going on in this. It’s creepy.

**John:** It does. Yeah.

**Craig:** Very creepy.

**John:** It also reminded me a little bit of escape rooms. You can sort of imagine that there’s some escape room that’s kind of like this bathroom. That is just so disturbing.

**Craig:** Yeah. There will be a Bathe in my Milk Escape Room. Well, god —

**John:** Top that.

**Craig:** I won’t. I will go right underneath that with the most mundane One Cool Thing ever, but you know I’ve got this Apple Pencil. I don’t use it. It’s just there. I have it. I don’t know what to do with it. And finally I just thought, you know, I had to go somewhere and just jot down some notes and I didn’t want to bring my laptop. So I brought my iPad. I just said, screw it, I’m just going to do the pencil, the Apple Pencil note thing. I’m just going to plunge in. I’m not going to read instructions about anything. I looked to see there’s two apps that people use. There’s Notability and then there’s another one. I can’t remember what it’s called.

And I just flipped a coin, went for Notability. And you know what? It’s actually not bad. I don’t know if this is a One Cool Thing as much as a one begrudgingly, yeah, it actually works pretty well. I guess the nicest part of it, the part that made me happiest was I’m writing these notes down and it just automatically puts an image of the notes that I’ve taken on my computer when I’m at home via the magic of Dropbox of iCloud or whatever. But, you know, yeah, it’s OK. I mean, it’s not Bathe in my Milk, but it does the trick.

I’m not like fully into it. I’m OK with it.

**John:** Yeah. I don’t use my pencil for very much, but when I do need to go through a script and do some markup on it, I find it’s actually really good. So, even doing Three Page Challenges, I will find I usually use my Apple Pencil for that. So I’m looking at the PDF. I use a PDF Expert for that. And then I use the little pen function on that and circle things, highlight things, mark things. And it’s quite good for that.

And I agree that the iCloud aspect of it is incredibly important because then when I’m on my computer and we’re recording an episode I can pull up that same PDF with all of my markup in it and sort of see what I wanted to talk about.

So, I do use my pencil some. I think the pencil is remarkable. I just don’t have as much use for it as I’d hoped I would.

**Craig:** I’m there with you. Look, this is a better method for me than what I normally do, and what I normally have done, which is to just write notes on a regular piece of paper and then take a picture of that with my phone so in case I lose the note I have an image of it. But that’s sort of dopey.

The one thing I wish they could do differently is I don’t like that the Apple Pencil makes a little click when it contacts the glass of your iPad. I wish that there was no click. Because there’s something about graphite on paper, you know don’t get a click. You know what I mean?

**John:** I don’t hear that click. Are you sure you have the nib screwed all the way in?

**Craig:** No, it’s not a click-click. It’s more just – it feels hard. There’s no give, basically, right? There’s a little bit of give to paper and a little bit of give to graphite, because the graphite is wearing away as you’re drawing, right? And the paper is wearing away as you’re writing and drawing. But there’s nothing – it’s a fully inelastic collision between the nib of the Apple Pencil and the service of the iPad. And I wish it was slightly – I wish there was just a touch of give.

**John:** I get it. I get it. My wish for the Apple Pencil 2.0 or whatever is some stylists in the past have had a thing where you flip it over, and it’s like an eraser on the other side.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** I keep trying to do that and to try to erase and instead you have to click the little erase thing and that’s just frustrating. There are also great apps out there that are doing innovative things where you’re touching with your finger while you’re using the thing. And you watch people do it and it’s amazing and it’s magic. I just don’t have a need for those things right now.

**Craig:** Also, I don’t have any talent with anything that involves dexterity and some sort of fine art instrument like a pencil, a crayon, a marker. I’m a disaster.

**John:** Yeah. I’m good at craft. I’m good at wrapping up things and that stuff.

**Craig:** You are.

**John:** But I’m not good with the little fine motor skill stuff whatsoever.

**Craig:** I’m also bad at craft.

**John:** I remember during the strike you were so impressed with my duct-taping abilities as we were duct-taping signs.

**Craig:** I still think about it. Yeah, we had this job of like, so, you know, these picket signs are made of two posters that are stapled together over a stick. Not even a stick. Like a slat.

**John:** It’s like a yard stick.

**Craig:** Yeah, like a yard stick. It’s a piece of crap piece of wood. And if you were to just walk around holding it your hands would be shredded with these terrible splinters from these things. So you have to duct tape them so that people can walk around and hold them without shredding their skin. And so John and I spent an hour at the Writers Guild one morning in 2007, I guess it was.

**John:** I guess.

**Craig:** Duct-taping these things. And my method, you know, just because again I don’t understand craft. I just figured, you know, I’m just going to start winding duct tape around this thing. And eventually I’ll stop. And then John’s method, everything was at a perfect slant. Each layer overlapped the other layer perfectly, so it just looked professional.

**John:** I’m a professional picket sign maker.

**Craig:** Yeah, it was really good. So I tried to do it like you were doing it, but I wasn’t as good.

**John:** Yeah. No, I really love that. I love that kind of stuff. I love wrapping presents. There’s something really calming about that. Like me and Martha Stewart, we love to wrap presents. Love it. Love it.

**Craig:** I still can’t do it. I’m almost a 47-year-old man, and when I have to wrap a gift I go to Melissa and I just say can you please wrap this for me. Because I don’t know how to do it. [laughs]

**John:** I kind of feel bad for my daughter because I will still wrap gifts that she’s giving out for presents for people and like I’m denying her the ability to actually learn how to do it, but I just love it so much that I always want to do it.

**Craig:** You know what I do? My one crafty thing is tiling out large D&D maps and then taping them back together.

**John:** That’s quite a skill. I’m not good at that. So nicely done.

**Craig:** That I rock. I knew that somehow this would come around in my favor. I just didn’t know how it would happen. So exciting. This is why VR struggles because you could never predict that.

**John:** No. They would never know that like Craig’s ability to tile things is crucial.

**Craig:** It’s going to be the ending. Like who could have seen that that was the ending? Our show is produced by… [laughs]

**John:** This Sunday, Craig, we get to play the next installment of Storm Kings Thunder. I could not be more excited.

**Craig:** Oh I know. I mean, it’s all I want to do every day.

**John:** Our adventuring party is headed into some place along the spine of the world and we have a giant who is a friend, so it’s going to be great.

**Craig:** It’s going to be great. And there will be blood.

**John:** There will be blood.

**Craig:** There will be blood.

**John:** Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Rajesh Naroth.

If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send questions like the ones we answered. We love it when you record your audio with your question because it just makes it easier, because that way we don’t have to read your question. And also we get to hear the voices of our people. We get to hear your accents. The way you pronounce words in Canadian and/or Italian accents is fascinating for us.

But short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We are on Facebook. Search for Scriptnotes Podcast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes or really any place you get podcasts. Leave us a review. That’s always so lovely. It helps people find us.

The show notes for this episode and all episodes are at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts. They go up within a week of the episode airing. And for all the back episodes you need to go to Scriptnotes.net. It is $2 a month for all the back episodes and the special episodes. We are crucially close to having 3,000 paid subscribers, which is remarkable.

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** So if you are the person who pushes us over, I will be eternally thankful, because that would just be kind of cool.

**Craig:** I won’t care because it means nothing for me. [laughs]

**John:** It means nothing for Craig.

**Craig:** Nothing.

**John:** Other than something else for him to complain about.

**Craig:** Ooh. Yay.

**John:** That’s a gift that keeps giving.

**Craig:** Come on people. Help me out here. One away.

**John:** We also have some of the Scriptnotes USB drives in the store. So that’s store.johnaugust.com. That has the first 300 episodes of the show in one handy little package.

Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. I’ll see you next week.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Bathe in my Milk](http://batheinmymilk.com) and the [NY Post article](https://nypost.com/2017/12/22/the-story-behind-creepy-as-hell-milk-bath-flyers/) about it.
* The [Apple Pencil](https://www.apple.com/apple-pencil/) works pretty well! You can use it with [Notability](http://gingerlabs.com/).
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([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_333.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 331: We Had the Same Idea — Transcript

January 2, 2018 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/we-had-the-same-idea).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Ho-ho-ho, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 331 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the final episode of 2017 we look at what happens when two writers seem to have written something very similar. What are the legal and ethical responsibilities for those writers, but also for everyone talking about those writers? We’ll also be answering listener questions about slug lines, conservatives, and what impact the new tax law will have on writers.

**Craig:** Hmm, exciting. Everyone get ready in your cars and at home because we’re going to talk about taxes.

**John:** Taxes! At least as much as we know about taxes so far. We won’t have all the answers but at least point you in the right direction.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think it’s safe to say that this episode will not have any explicit language.

**John:** No. It’s going to be a very safe episode. So listen to it with your kids, with your older parents, your grandparents. Do it. Taxes.

We don’t know everything, and one of the things we did not know – this is the follow-up segment – we talked a couple episodes about How Would This Be a Movie, these female inmates who were firefighters, we thought this is absolutely a slam-dunk for a movie, how is this not already a movie? And, of course, it already was a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. Obviously. You know, I know probably people think that we would be somehow embarrassed or ashamed by this. Quite the contrary.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Listen, nobody can know everything that’s been made. And I think it’s actually very encouraging and very confirming that we picked something to be a movie and we were right. It’s just we were late.

**John:** We were late. So, in 2012 there’s a movie called Firelight. It stars Cuba Gooding Jr. It was made for television I think for ABC, or ABC Family. Ligiah Villalobos wrote it, who is actually a former WGA board member. She won the Humanitas Prize for writing this script. So, it’s a movie that’s out there that you can see. The log line on IMDb says, “A group of young inmates are given the opportunity to turn their lives around by becoming volunteer firefighters.”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** But I would say, Craig, my prior belief holds, I don’t think this precludes someone from making another female inmate firefighter movie.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** This was made for television. And I’m sure it’s great, but I think there’s a big feature version here you could totally do.

**Craig:** 100%. Look, you can tell the same story multiple times. We certainly know that. We tend to see it with classic works of literature. I mean, we’re on our 4,000-version of A Christmas Carol. But even for these things, these events, they can be told and retold in different ways because sometimes the major difference is money.

If you’re making a feature film, you get more money to spend, make it look a certain way. Just you’re able to tell the story in a slightly different way. And now with all of our different formats, you can also tell stories just using different segments of time. So instead of a TV movie, which I think you said ABC or ABC Family, traditionally broken up by commercials. You can do a version that doesn’t have those kinds of breaks, which definitely impact narrative. You can do a version that’s spread over four episodes. You could do whatever you want these days. So, yeah!

**John:** You could do the R-rated version of this. The other thing which has changed is basically your perspective. Like who are you telling the story through? Ligiah made very distinct choices about how she was going to tell her story, but you may make different choices.

You look at the difference between All the President’s Men and the new movie The Post, they’re both telling the same section of history but from very different perspectives. So, I say go for it. If you want to write that movie, write that movie.

**Craig:** Oh, of course. Yeah, there was a BBC docu – no, not a docu. I don’t know if you call it a docudrama. It was about Chernobyl. So BBC, this was a few years ago, did a movie about the Chernobyl incident and I watched it, of course. And they did a fine job. But it was – it was what it was and it was compressed into a certain amount of time and it wasn’t at all the way I wanted to do my version of the story. And at no point did I ever think, oh well, someone has told a part of this story, sort of, therefore I can’t. That’s crazy.

**John:** I say make that female firefighter. Make Chernobyl. Maybe don’t make a five-hour Chernobyl drama right now, because Craig is just about to start doing that.

**Craig:** Yeah, that would be stupid.

**John:** But other than that, everything is open and clear.

**Craig:** 100%. Go for it.

**John:** Other follow-up. Sam wrote in to ask, “I have a question about Episode 235.” This person is listening to the back episodes which we applaud. “Craig mentioned on that live show that he was privy to the original Game of Thrones pilot which according to him was deeply flawed. So what was that ‘massive problem’ the creators had and what did they do to fix it? I’m curious what the pitfall was and how to avoid it as I write my own pilot.”

**Craig:** You know, I’m happy to talk about what I perceived. I’m going to do it carefully because that pilot has been seen by about three people – I think just myself, Scott Frank, and Ted Griffin. And no one else outside of the production or HBO. So I don’t want to get into specific things, because then there will be a hundred click-baity articles about it.

And, Dan and Dave are my friends. And what’s the point? That just seems silly. But I’ll talk about it at least in terms of the spirit of your question which is, OK, what screenwriting problem could there have been and what can I avoid.

The massive problem that I was talking about was I remember saying to them, “You guys have constructed this enormous, tall, beautiful building, but you forgot to put in a lobby with doors. There’s no way in.” The way they had done it, I think because of their closeness to the material, and also their tremendous knowledge of the material, there wasn’t much of a point of entry. You were immediately confused by everything. You were confused by who was talking. You were confused by the relationships between the characters. You were certainly confused by the allegiances and the conflicts.

And so when it was over the overwhelming sense that I think all of us had in the room was there was a lot of quality there but I don’t know what any of it means. And as we talked through things I could see them realizing, “Oh, go d, you didn’t know this? Oh, you didn’t understand that? Oh boy.” And so my general feeling about it was that there was writing to do. It wasn’t just about reshooting or recasting, but it was about writing.

And they did. They rewrote. And they rewrote brilliantly. It’s a great story, by the way, of not just of how brilliant, creative people sometimes need a take two, but also a brilliant story of a company supporting artists, at great risk. And obviously with great reward.

So that was the massive problem that particular day. So if you’re writing a pilot and there’s a lot going on, unless you are OK with people being confused because it’s sort of the chaos of war or something like that, just remember they know so much less than you. In fact, when the show begins they know nothing.

**John:** Absolutely. The general phenomenon you’re describing is what we often call the curse of knowledge. Is that you as the writer know why everything is there. You know how it is all going to fit together. But it’s that process of forgetting everything you know so if you just started on page one and had no priors, what would you think is going to happen. Or, sort of assume different priors, where a person is going to have assumptions about this kind of a genre but might not know what you’re going to do with it. You have to just be able to wipe all that clean. And working on something for two years probably by that point they’re showing this to you, they had a hard time wiping that all away. And so showing it to trusted people you think are going to be smart about what you have and what you’re aiming for was exactly the right choice.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s this dilemma that I’m constantly rolling around in my head and I bet you are, too. And it’s a little game. And the game is too much or not enough. I don’t – nobody wants to pander. Nobody wants to overfeed the audience. Certainly nobody wants to hit the nail on the head or be obvious.

So, we tend to try and craft things in such a way that the audience can play along and they get invested and they can tease things apart and they can draw their own conclusions. But you want them to draw the conclusions you want them to draw. So, then you start to think have I taken too much away? Are they unmoored? Do they not have enough? It’s a little bit like I guess designing one of these escape rooms that I’m so fond of doing. You have to build it in such a way that it can be escaped. Or else it’s just not much fun for the audience.

And I think sometimes we overcorrect one way or the other and I think for writers we probably have a tendency to overcorrect in the direction of supplying not enough because we are constantly getting notes from studios and networks whose default position is “tell everyone everything five different times.”

**John:** Yeah, the challenge of the notes you get from the studios and from networks is make things explicitly clear but also make everything shorter and simpler. Those contrasting notes of like they’ve read 14 drafts so they sort of know what’s going to happen. And so they keep going, “Could we cut this out? Could we cut this out?” So, that’s why I think so often it’s important to show it to people like you, people who are want you to succeed but are not invested in all of the politics of that particular project.

**Craig:** Yeah. And that’s why I think those showings are the most terrifying. Because you don’t have to worry about them burying you on purpose. You don’t have to worry about them overpraising you or going easy on you. You know you’re going to actually get the truth, which is hard. It’s hard for everybody, you know?

I don’t like giving it any more than I like getting it.

**John:** Yeah. All right. Final bit of follow-up questioning comes from Kinsey, which is a great name. “In the recent episode on pitching you guys made a pretty clear cut distinction between pitching features and pitching TV. But considering that platforms like HBO, Netflix, and Amazon Prime are beginning to blur the lines between the two, would you say that studios or producers are now generally more open to the miniseries format? And what distinctions would you make between pitching a classic open-ended TV series versus pitching a miniseries like Craig is doing?”

**Craig:** Well, I don’t know if either one of us can safely say that producers and studios are more open to miniseries formats than they were two or three years ago. It seems that way, just based on how many are hitting the airwaves.

**John:** Yeah. I think the evidence is just in how many you see. And they don’t even call them miniseries anymore. Like Scott Frank’s show I sort of assumed was a series, but then it’s like as we talked to him it’s like, oh no, it’s just this is what it is. These are episodes. And I’ve heard that of people going to Netflix is like they’re like, “Oh, it could be ten episodes. It could be four episodes. It’s sort of whatever makes sense for the thing.”

So, yes, there are places who like to have a series so they can come back and do more things down the road, but I think you’re going to see more and more projects like that. The services want people to keep subscribing. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to keep subscribing for that one specific show. They want you to subscribe so that you can see the next thing that they’re going to be able to make.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think the phrase limited series is probably as descriptive as any. The idea being the purpose of the series is to end. As opposed to a regular series as he’s describing it, which the purpose of the series is not to end. And I would even extend that to something where, OK, technically speaking the purpose of Game of Thrones was to end after seven or eight seasons. That counts as an ongoing series.

I think that they want both kinds. I think if they had their choice they would love someone to come in with an open-ended series that would keep people coming back week after week. That’s kind of the golden goose, right?

**John:** Yeah. There was a project over at Sony that I was considering doing that was meant to be – I pitched it as a limited series and they said, “OK, yes, maybe, but could we also think about doing it as a dot-dot-dot,” so it wouldn’t necessarily have to finish up and end there, or we could do more anthology-like where it could come back as another season as a different thing. So, I think there’s some openness there.

You know, something that is made strictly for Netflix, they don’t necessarily need to have that ongoing basis because they’re not trying to sell foreign rights off to somebody else. Everything for Netflix just sort of stays inside Netflix.

**Craig:** Exactly. But you can see that Amazon in their massive purchase of the Tolkien properties, minus I think the properties that people really like, well sorry, now Tolkien fans are going to go crazy. I like The Silmarillion, too. I’m just saying generally.

Anyway, Amazon purchased all of that because they do want an open-ended series. They do want something that is must-see-TV that people talk about and obsess over and tweet over and turn into endless reaction gifs just like they do with Game of Thrones. I mean, it’s a naked attempt to replicate Game of Thrones. And we know this because it’s obvious on its face and it follows the head of Amazon Television saying I really want my own Game of Thrones. So, no mystery there.

**John:** Nope. All right, let’s get to our main topic. This is something you proposed because it came based on a series on tweets and just set us up.

**Craig:** Sure. And I pulled this because it happens a lot. It happens a lot, and I want to talk a little bit about why I think it happens and what you at home should be doing if you find yourself in one or the other pair of shoes. So, this started with a journalist whose name is Sarah Sahim. And she tweeted, “I’m never going to pitch anything ever again.” And along with that she included two screenshots. One was a title of an article she was pitching to write to the New York Times and the title was Bertrand Cantat and the toxic masculinity of the “tortured male artist.”

Then she includes a screenshot of the title and sub-header of an actual article by Amanda Hess which I guess appeared in the New York Times. How the myth of the artistic genius excuses the abuse of women. To some assessing an artist’s work in light of his biography is blasphemous, but it’s time to do away with the idea that they’re separate.

Well, she clearly and strongly felt that Ms. Hess’s article was a direct rip-off of her pitch. She went on to tweet, “My heart is f-ing pounding with anger. I lost money because my ideas were handed to a white woman.” And then she asks people to put money in her tip jar. And I don’t mean to demean her whatsoever, because I actually understand how she feels. I think anybody who has ever written anything understands how that feels.

But, here’s another thing I understand because I’m a writer and it’s Amanda Hess’s response. “Hey Sarah, I have hesitated to say anything about this publicly and I’m sorry for the delay. But since people keep tweeting and emailing me, falsely calling me a plagiarist, I felt that I should. I have never met the editor that you pitched. Before I saw your tweet I had never even heard of him. Thousands of people work here. I’ve since learned that the editor works for the Opinion section. I work for the Times’ newsroom. We operate totally independently of one another. My editor in the newsroom, Mary Suh, assigned me this story after she noticed a tweet I wrote in October responding to revelations about actors and directors accused of sexual harassment and worse. She asked me to expand on it and I did.”

And she goes on making the general case that, hey, these aren’t really the same thing at all and I don’t talk about Bertrand Cantat or musicians and I’m talking about film and TV and so on and so forth.

So, here’s the thing. I get how it feels when you think you might be ripped off. John, I think it’s safe to say you and I encounter people complaining about this a lot.

**John:** Yeah. A couple times a month.

**Craig:** Couple times a month. Yeah.

**John:** And we find it in sort of the feature realm, or sometimes the TV realm, but it’s a similar kind of situation. So, Sarah Sahim is a freelancer so she’s a person who is going in to pitch stories to big publications very much like how we’re pitching ideas for a movie. This is a story I want to write for you. Would you pay me to write this? That’s kind of like a feature pitch. You’re going and saying like, “Hey, I have this idea. Do you want me to write up the story for you?” That’s how she makes her living.

And so when she sees this article coming out that feels like, to her, the thing that she was pitching, she’s furious because a job that she didn’t get that she sees someone else wrote that story.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I get that because we have a natural bias toward our own writing. It’s not necessarily just a bias of favorability. It’s a bias of – I guess I would call it a bias of completion. When we have an idea in our minds, when we write something it is fully fleshed and formed and it is alive and vibrant. And when we read somebody else’s it’s words. And it is easy, I think, to see, OK, I pitched something to someone at the New York Times and then someone else at the New York Times did something that is similar and obviously took from me because how else could they have done it.

Therein is the mistake.

**John:** Yeah. You’re drawing a causal relationship between a correlation which is that you pitched something and something else existed, but the actual cause behind both of those things was the cultural moment that was the genesis for both your idea and the idea for the story.

**Craig:** Exactly. So, I wanted to talk about this mostly because I want to – I actually feel for Sarah, and we’re all Sarah. We’ve all been Sarah. And I want to figure out how to kind of come up with a general code to avoid ending up like Sarah did in this situation, which wasn’t great, because people basically saw what Amanda Hess said and then kind of went and turned on Sarah. As is the case on Twitter, relatively little happens with moderation.

**John:** Yeah. Well, there was a pile-on on Amanda originally, and then Amanda responded and there was a pile-on on Sarah. And we would like there to be no pile-ons. And so how do we get to a no pile-on place in these situations?

**Craig:** Yeah. And it was particularly rough because they’re both talking about articles about toxic masculinity and now two women are beating each other up in a public forum about who is responsible for it and it all just felt bad. I felt bad for everyone. So how can we avoid this?

So, I came up with a little checklist, John.

**John:** Let’s do it.

**Craig:** So, you’ve opened up the paper, you’ve turned on Twitter, you’ve seen something and you go, “Oh no. I believe, I have the feeling, that I have been violated. Someone has broken into my house and stolen something of mine.” Of course, when it comes to writing some houses are a lot alike and maybe they didn’t break into your house at all. So, let’s just stop for a second and ask some important questions on our checklist, even as we’re feeling violated, even as we’re angry. And the most important and first question is “Did this person theoretically take an idea from me or a unique expression?”

**John:** Let’s unpack those. An idea being the sense of there’s a cultural moment happening there with auteurs and how we’re treating male auteurs is part of the problem. Maybe that’s the general idea in Sarah Sahim’s situation?

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you have a topic. You have a take. You have an issue. These are ideas. These are subject matters. They are not in and of themselves unique expressions. They are not intellectual property. Two different newspapers can write about the same topic and they do every day. So, even if you believe someone has actually read your pitch and went, “Ooh, great idea, but I don’t want to have her do it. I want to do it,” the truth is no crime has been committed other than an ethical one. But in this sense if you believe that that is the nature of what’s happened, you kind of also have to just shrug and say I didn’t own the thing that I’m claiming got stolen. It’s not mine any more than it is hers. I can still write my article. Nothing will stop that.

So if you get to this part in your checklist and you say, OK, they haven’t taken my unique expression. That is they haven’t lifted paragraphs, sentence structure, et cetera, and people have been caught doing that, especially in journalism, then stop. You’re done. But let’s move on.

Next. Is it about specifically a title and words in a title or execution, which is a little sub-chapter, because I think sometimes you see a title, and in this case Sarah looks at a title, right. She had one. Bertrand Cantat and the toxic masculinity of the tortured male artist. Toxic masculinity. Tortured male artist. And then in Amanda’s headline we see artist, and I think maybe OK, is that enough? [laughs] Right?

And sometimes you key in on certain words and you feel like this is meaningful. It is evidence of a violation. It’s not. It happens all the time.

**John:** Absolutely. This is also the place where I jump in and remind everyone that the feature writers often do not write their headlines, or they may write a bunch of headlines, but it’s ultimately not their choice what the headline is. So, Amanda Hess may have had nothing to do with the headline that was actually assigned to that.

On features and in television, you know, you might have a great title like Asteroid. And this is my movie Asteroid. And someone else sells a script that’s about an asteroid about to hit the planet. Just because it says asteroid does not mean it has anything to do with the movie you wrote called Asteroid. And I can understand the emotional frustration of like, “Oh, but I had this perfect title and now someone else is using this perfect title.” But sorry, that doesn’t mean that they stole your title.

**Craig:** Exactly. I mean, let’s say for instance you and I independently had an idea. We both wanted to do a movie about the Easter Bunny versus Santa Claus.

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** And I’m sitting there going and, you know, it’s arch, it’s ironic, it’s funny. I’m going to call it Bunny vs. Claus. There is a fairly decent chance that you’re going to do the same. It’s not particularly clever or brilliant. It sort of is what’s there, right? People can have the same idea. People can have the same title. But, if I sell my script after you ran into me at a party and you go, “This is what I’m working on.” And I sip my drink and inside my head go, “Oh, dammit, I better sell mine before this dude sells his.”

And then I sell mine. Yeah, you might be like, what? You stole my….but, no.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** So, title is just not enough.

**John:** I guarantee you there are at least 15 thrillers out there on the market called Escape Room.

**Craig:** Oh yeah, for sure.

**John:** Because the idea of an escape room that turns out to be like a, no, you really will die if you don’t get out of it, that’s a fine idea. A bunch of people will write that movie. And that movie can be original in the sense that you’re not basing it off of anything else. But the sense that no one else will ever have that idea of writing a movie about an escape room is crazy. And my frustration when it gets to actual lawsuits, which we will talk about later on down the road, is writers tend to think that they are the only people who could ever have that idea. Like oh my god, I wrote a thriller that’s set in an escape room. That’s not a great idea, but it’s certainly a good idea done properly. But it’s not – you’re not the only person who could have had that idea.

**Craig:** And you aren’t.

**John:** You are not.

**Craig:** Exactly. And that brings us nicely to our next item on the checklist. Is this my original creation or is it something that I’m putting together as a result of a public record or observation of real life? And in this case, it is both, when we talk about the escape room idea. It’s both my original creation, but it is also based on an observation of the real world around me. And similarly when you look at what Sarah was proposing to write and what Amanda did write, they were writing clearly about the world around them and about matters of public record.

At that point you’re done. Stop. Don’t go forward. Do not pass go. You’re not ripped off.

**John:** 100% agree. So, if you’re basing something on actual events, if you are going back to write a great female inmate firefighter movie, yes, absolutely a valid idea. You can write a great version of that, but you can’t claim that you’re the only person who ever thought about writing about female firefighters because Ligiah wrote it and wrote it great. And we talked about it on the show. So, it’s not an original idea there. All that can be protected is your original expression of that idea.

And so in this case is the characters, is the way the story actually proceeds.

**Craig:** Exactly. And that is why you can have two articles written by two different journalists at two different periodicals about the exact same topic. And the only way you can show that one author, one journalist, infringed upon the copyright of the other is if they are duplicating unique form – sentences and sentence structure and word choice and word arrangement. Right?

OK, and then lastly, and this is the one that really blows my mind because people fail to check on this time and time again. It happened recently with somebody who was like, huh, I wrote something that’s a lot like Scott Frank’s Godless. Interesting. Well, turns out after Scott Frank wrote Godless. Timing counts. Chronological primacy counts. More often than not, when people make an allegation that someone has ripped them off, more often than not what I see happening is somebody like for instance Amanda coming back and saying, “Uh, guess what? I’ve been working on this since before your evidence that I ripped you off. So technically if there’s any evidence at all of being ripped off, it’s evidence that you’ve ripped off me,” which obviously Sarah didn’t do.

But the point is chronological primacy is crucial. If you don’t have a sense of it, hit pause and figure it out. Find out. And remember this, too, especially when we’re dealing with topic matters. I’ve seen this a lot in the comedy world. A comedian will do a joke. Another comedian will accuse them of ripping – you ripped off my joke. And then somebody else eight times out of ten will show up and go, ah, you both ripped off this guy who was from 30 years ago.

And so there was a joke I think Louis C.K. accused Dane Cook of ripping off, but then Steve Martin had done the same joke about 20 years earlier on The Tonight Show. So, the problem is even if you are chronologically ahead of the person you’re accusing, you may be behind somebody else you don’t even know about. At which point you just got to really think carefully.

**John:** Yep. Especially something with jokes. It’s like we’re all living in the same culture, so the odds that we’re going to come across similar kinds of things, like we’re going to have online dating frustrations, is pretty much 100%. So, yes, you need to write original jokes, but you also need to be aware that other people are going to be writing original jokes about the same universe that you’re living in.

**Craig:** 100%. So, let’s talk now about those rare circumstances, because they do exist, where somebody’s rights have been infringed. You go through our little checklist here and you’re like, um, I’m covered. They did in fact lift my unique expression. I was the first person to make this expression. It’s not about idea, or title, or subject. Nor is it about a matter of public record. It’s about my unique expression in fixed form.

So, OK, congrats, you’ve passed the checklist. So what do you do? Should you now publicly accuse that person on social media, John?

**John:** You should never accuse that person on social media. That is not going to win you anything.

**Craig:** Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. It is the weak person’s move. It is a person-who-has-no-leg-to-stand-on’s move. If you believe and can prove and have substance to an allegation that someone has ripped you off, you call a lawyer. And you sue them. And, ideally, you win. But going after people on social media backfires almost always with this stuff. Because in the end what you look like – and you’re not – but what you look like is nuts, or ignorant, or petty, or jealous, or stupid, or amateurish. And these words get thrown around willy-nilly on Twitter because people love it. And that’s not who you are. Who you are is somebody who got upset in an understandable way.

So, what you don’t want to do is turn your initial honest and completely understandable emotional reaction into a target that people are pasting on your forehead because you decided to behave in a way that was ultimately self-destructive.

**John:** I completely agree. So, if you are in this situation, you’ve past through Craig Mazin’s checklist of was I ripped off and you can tick affirmatively on all those things, yes get a lawyer. Yes, I think it’s fine to discuss privately with friends what you’re doing and maybe they can help talk you through some of what’s going on, but going out to the broad wide world of social media saying this thing that happened to me is not going to serve you well.

Now, if you see that there’s a pattern of this kind of thing happening particularly with a certain person or a certain kind of employer, I can see the reason why you might want to speak up for that. The same way you don’t want to stay quiet about harassment and other things, it’s important to not feel like you have to keep everything to yourself, but to go after the individual in something like this, writer versus writer, I don’t see being good for you or for any writer around you.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think even in situations where perhaps speaking out publicly in advance of some kind of legal action would be called for, I would still want to do so on the advice of legal counsel. So, I’d seek out the help of an attorney and the attorney says to me, “You know, this is something where I think we need to apply pressure from two different avenues. I’m going to file a lawsuit and I want you to go and say to people what’s happened here, because you have stuff to say.” And in that case what you don’t have is somebody tweeting and equating feeling violated with being violated, which are two different things. Particularly when we talk about intellectual property and copyright infringement, it’s a matter of law. It’s not a matter of feeling whatsoever. And there are a lot of people with hurt feelings who have sued and lost or been sued and lost who still walk around with hurt feelings feeling violated. But unfortunately the law was the law and that’s how it worked.

So, if you have legal advice, and I do, I strongly suggest getting it in a case where you honestly believe you’ve been violated and they say that it’s a good idea to go public, then go public. But otherwise I just don’t see the upside.

**John:** I agree with you. So let’s talk about situations where you’re not filing a lawsuit, you feel frustrated, you don’t feel like maybe you could tick two out of the four checkboxes. What do you do? You’ve got to move past it. And that’s I think a crucial thing is that if you fixate on this one moment where you feel like your idea was stolen but you don’t think there’s a lawsuit, you don’t think there’s any sort of way to rectify the situation, you got to keep moving. Because with this one New York Times story, or with a pitch that you went in with that they end up doing a different movie, you got to keep moving. Because I see writers who get fixated on this one big score, like this one thing would have changed everything for them, and they don’t move forward. They just stagnate on feeling bitter about this one thing.

And that does nobody any good. So, you’re there to write. So, write something else and that’s the power that you have.

**Craig:** And also take charge of your circumstances. You know, if you believe that your fate is completely determined externally from you, then this is going to hurt even more. But I think if it were me, and it has been, and I see that somebody is doing something that I wanted to do or was doing, my instinct is not to say, “Oh my god, you ripped me off.” My instinct is to say, “OK, A, good news, I’m on the right track. I’m thinking of things that these people are paying other people to write. So, A, good. B, maybe I should reach out to the woman who is writing this article and say, ‘Hey, great minds think alike. Ha-ha-ha. Awesome job. Love your article. Was wondering if I could grab a coffee with you and you could give me some advice, or you can get on the phone and give me some advice, because I’m like you and I’m thinking the same things like you. And I want to write about the same things like you. So, hey, let’s…’” Can we turn this into a positive? And not turn it into an accusatory thing, which ultimately gets you nowhere.

Even in success, what do you get? Nothing?

**John:** You get nothing. So, I want to talk about the third party involved here. So we talked about the two writers in a situation, but I want to talk about everybody else. Everyone who is seeing this thing on happen on Twitter, or someone comes to you with a story, if you came with just Sarah’s initial story, that instinct to be outraged. Like I can’t believe they’re stealing this thing. My general advice, which I’ve given before, is just be generous. Be generous in your assumptions. Be generous in your assumptions with the original writer. Be generous in assumptions with the writer who claims to be ripped off. That everyone may be acting in good faith, they’re just feeling very different things. And they’re acting out of a place of emotion rather than sort of what the real reality of the situation should be.

So, in talking about both the writers in this situation, but all writers who feel like their work has been stolen from them, be generous in how you’re taking in the situation that they’re presenting. And try to look at people in their best light and not make assumptions that they’ve done something horrible just because one person says so.

**Craig:** Well there you go. I think that what used to be a worry about jumping to conclusions is now a worry about jumping to alliance or jumping to condemnation. We are presented with a narrative in which a great injustice has been done by a bad person to a good person, which is a very seductive narrative. There’s an entire religion based on it. And we naturally start like rats who have been fed cocaine hit the bar again for more cocaine. And our hearts leap out for the person who has been hurt because we’re empathetic or we’re sympathetic.

And we get in there and I think in our zeal to be good, and to be comforting, we forget that we have completely accepted the notion that another human being is bad. And now that person is easy to kick around because boo them. And then we turn around and now I see people accusing the first person of somehow betraying them.

Whoa, everyone, let’s always as best we can try and get some facts. And if at all possible, at all possible, can we get some information from a third party. You know, it is one thing for someone to say, “This person did this to me.” It’s another thing for a third party, disinterested party, like a journalist to say, “This is what I have learned about what this person has done to this person.” That is just generally more credible. So, let’s just slow down.

**John:** Yeah. Slow down. Don’t hit that retweet button so quickly. I thought back to a moment that happened earlier this last year. This was a tough, horrible year on just so many fronts, but I remember there was a tweet that came through my timeline where someone said that the Trump White House had replaced the word person with citizen in their explanation of the Bill of Rights. And that’s an outrage. Basically they’re trying to divide us into real Americans versus fake Americans. And so this person on Twitter was outraged about it.

And I was like that’s horrible. And I was about to retweet it. And then I was like, but is that really true? And so I went and I pulled up the page and like it’s true. It said Citizen rather than Person. So then I went to Internet archive and I pulled up that same page from previous years. And it turns out it said Person the whole time through. So it wasn’t a change that had been made. It was just like that’s how it actually said it on that White House page. So it wasn’t Trump who did that.

And so rather than retweet it I tweeted back to the original guy saying like here is what’s wrong about that, and here’s the actual link to it. I think I helped stop that little meme from spreading for about an hour. And I think if we all did that and just took a step back and looked at the actual reality of the situation, do a little research yourself, you might find that the world is not so – the world is outrageous and awful in many ways, but not everything is bad. And not everything is the way it is being presented on Twitter, certainly.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So take a step back.

**Craig:** This way you get to earn your outrage.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** If you have an impulse to outrage, then train yourself to recognize it, stop, make sure you have earned it, because the thing that you have been presented needs to be tested. OK. Let me check. Let me make sure. Verify. Snopes. Et cetera. Good. Outrage.

**John:** Outrage. Full outrage.

**Craig:** Correct. Outrage free-wheeling, unfettered outrage.

**John:** Sounds good. All right, let’s get to some more questions. Eric in NYC writes, “I read in the New York Times that ‘a deduction that is disappearing is one for fees paid to agents, other outside managers, or headhunters who take a commission on a salary directly from an individual.’ This sounds quite a bit like the deduction that affects working writers, so I wonder why we haven’t heard more about this as the tax bill has been debated. Or perhaps we have and I haven’t been listening close enough. To the best of your knowledge, how does the tax bill affect writers who pay a commission to agents?”

**Craig:** I have no idea. I mean, the thing to remember about a lot of working writers in Hollywood is that once they hit a certain level of steady employment, and I think this would cover most of your steadily working professional writers, they create pass-through corporations, S-Corps usually, sometimes C-Corps, in order to better take advantage of the byzantine tax laws.

And one of the things that that means is things like agent fees and manager fees become business expenses from your business and they are not a personal expense. So I don’t know exactly if this is true. I don’t know what it means, per se, and I don’t know how it is going to affect a lot of writers.

The truth is, I don’t know what the hell is going on. And you know what? Neither who the ding-a-lings who voted yes on it. Because they didn’t even read it.

**John:** Yeah. That’s what’s so frustrating. I mean, everything is so frustrating. But I want to be able to provide a good answer saying like if you’re an S-Corp it’s going to affect you this way. If you’re a C-Corp it’s going to affect you this way. If you don’t have a corporation it will affect you this way. So therefore you should arrange certain things certain ways. I would love to be able to provide you those answers. And so once stuff shakes out a little bit more, hopefully the WGA will be able to provide guidance on how this will affect writers moving forward.

But right now we just don’t know. I’ve read conflicting reports about what changes for S-Corps versus C-Corps. It’s all just kind of confusing and murky. Certainly writers tend to have a lot of student loan debt. That gets affected differently. So, it’s a challenging time.

Sorry. [laughs] Yeah, so I would say that the best guidance would be to do things the way things have been going for a while and then listen for changes as stuff comes through. Because it may make sense to make an S-Corp earlier, because the threshold used to be if you were making reliably over $200,000 a year than an S-Corp made sense. Maybe that will drop down lower. I just don’t know.

**Craig:** I don’t know either. I think this is one where you just have to talk to your tax people. I mean, I’ve been speaking to my tax guy and running various rumors I’ve heard past him and he’s like, “Ah, I wouldn’t do anything right now. We’re still all figuring this out.” So whatever happens, some strategy will be employed, but it also may just be that what is is what is.

I mean, the truth is if in fact the government said nobody can deduct agent expenses anymore, whether it’s a corporation doing it or a person, well, we can talk about that, but generally the conclusion is there is no action item. That’s the law.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Sucks for us.

**John:** Yeah. It could be more people going without a manager, or making some other choices based on that, but I doubt that would really change that much.

**Craig:** Who the hell knows? All right, let’s go to Mark in Encino. He says, “I’m curious about your thoughts on the polarization of our country and how it affects writer’s rooms. Many of your showrunner guests have indicated that they’re looking for talented writers that see the world differently than they do. But I can’t help think that most of these showrunners would balk at hiring a new writer who didn’t have a progressive/liberal stance on most issues. I’ve been in too many rooms that are openly hostile toward conservative or libertarian viewpoints and I know some closet conservatives in town who don’t dare speak about their party affiliation for fear of losing opportunities.

“What would you say to a talented, hard-working, intelligent writer in this town who happened to hold conservative views? Bit your tongue and go along with the room? Considering that roughly half the country holds conservative views, wouldn’t it make sense to populate writer’s rooms with a few more conservative voices? I don’t mean to belittle the hard-earned gains of people who have endured discrimination because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera, by placing political affiliation within the same sphere of diversity. That said, it still feels like Hollywood is working to keep certain people out, even though the criteria for what makes those people different has changed. Thoughts?”

**John:** Well, neither of us are staffing TV rooms, but it’s true we’ve had a lot of guests on the show and the thing we hear consistently is they’re looking for writers who are not like them. They want some different voices in there, so that’s why diversity in rooms becomes so important so they’re not an echo chamber of their own thoughts and they can see things outside beyond their little bubble.

So, in general I want to agree with some of Mark’s concerns and this instinct to make sure that you’re not excluding a huge chunk of the population by your choices, but I guess we just have to decide what we mean by conservative, or sort of what those views are. Because your views are like a fiscally conservative take on how we should be doing tax policy, I don’t think that’s necessarily going to hurt you much in your ability to staff in a room.

If your conservative values are going to church every Sunday, I think that’s awesome. And that’s the kind of thing which actually could be an asset in a room because you might have experience about sort of what a very religious life is like. Those are things that I think could be assets for you as you’re going into a writer’s room.

Where I think you’d have a harder time in some of those rooms is if you felt like I don’t think those people should have rights, or I don’t think those people should have healthcare. There’s certain beliefs you could have that would come out naturally in the conversation which could be challenging in a room.

Craig, what are you thinking?

**Craig:** I’m pretty much right there with you. I mean, look, if the point is that diversity in a room and the principle of different kinds of voices is helpful for writing, then – and you want to take advantage of that, which I think is fair by saying, “Look, I am also different in a way from all of you, so I would have a different viewpoint,” that is absolutely fine and I do think would be welcomed, unless your different viewpoint is intolerant. Because then unfortunately what you’re saying is you need to tolerate my intolerance. And it just doesn’t work that way.

In general, these rooms need to function on tolerance. And so everything up to intolerance I think is fair play. Like you said, libertarianism, a way of viewing taxation, the notion that private interests may be better at doing things than the government, foreign policy, you know, how aggressive should we be? Should we be supporting this or supporting that? That’s all I think fair game. I don’t imagine people getting emotional about those sorts of things.

What they get emotional about is intolerance. And I don’t think that you would find any welcome room in our business if you are harshly intolerant or even mildly intolerant of the things that generally speaking we are tolerant of. We are a community of artists, and artists have always been, I think, more tolerant than most people of these things. And also we have a great tradition, and we have a lot of friends and a lot of coworkers, and a lot of heroes who are not white, who are not straight, who are not gender binary, and all of that stuff.

So, if you can sort of be tolerant than I don’t see any reason why you should be – I think sometimes some people get a little dramatic. Don’t forget, when you say like, “I know some closet conservatives in town who don’t dare speak out about their party affiliation for fear of losing opportunities,” you know, there are always people who are going to come up with some excuse for why they’ve lost an opportunity. Anything other than, oh yeah, it’s super freaking hard to get these jobs. It’s super freaking hard for everybody. And so, yeah, you can go home and say that wasn’t my fault. It was the fact that I’m a Republican. Or you can go home and say these are very, very difficult jobs to get. The odds are against me. I must prevail. I must work harder and go on harder. Isn’t that the whole conservative thing anyway? Right? Not to be a snowflake.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** There you go. Don’t be a snowflake. [laughs]

**John:** No snowflakes. All right, Ann writes, “A couple weeks ago my feature script was trending on the Black List site. It’s still trending now. I’ve had an interested production company contact me and I’m meeting with another production house this week. It’s all been very exciting, but I’m grappling with how to handle these meetings. After an hour-long call with one of the LA companies, they said they’d love to develop a project with me one day and asked for any treatments, outlines, or ideas I have. They also sent me a ‘top secret’ script they’re developing and asked for my feedback. I sent my notes. And they said they were very impressive.

“On a second call, the exec said he liked one of my treatments, but felt it needed more plot. And to keep sending him material. I don’t have a manager or an agent and basically I’m wondering about the dos and don’ts of these kind of meetings and relationships.”

**Craig:** Well, I think Ann it sounds like you’re doing it just fine. It’s always a scary thing when you, after a period of time I presume, where you’re not getting any attention but you’re really struggling to get some, finally get some, then I get it. You sort of tense up and go oh god. I kept asking for people to look at me and now they’re looking at me. What do I do?

Well, it seems like you’re doing it right. I mean, you’re meeting with them. You’re talking to them. You’re kind of being a participant in their lives. You’re sending notes back. These are the sorts of things that don’t really qualify as working for free. It’s more like being a kind of collegial friend of the court. And I think they’ve said basically we’re not up to the point yet where we want to pay you for what you’ve written, but send us more.

And I think maybe at this point other than what you’re doing I would suggest the following. One, express to them your willingness, if it’s there, to work on other things as well. In other words, the thing that you sent notes on, if you can be an active participant and actually be paid to work on that, that would be lovely.

And, two, say hey, you know, if you guys are aware of a terrific manager or agent that you think would be a nice match for me, I’d love for you to make an introduction.

**John:** Absolutely. So, if these are bona fide producers and they are really working in the town, they’ll have contacts with other agents and managers and stuff like that. And they may be able to bridge those gaps.

I also agree that what you’re doing so far is not spec work. You’re reading something, you’re giving some notes, it’s basically just kind of feeling each other out. That’s fine. Don’t do a ton of it. But it’s sort of like you’re kind of an intern, sort of wandering around through there. And that’s fine. That’s totally normal. Don’t do it for six months.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Just sort of build out a relationship. That’s great. Take more meetings. Don’t feel exclusive to these people or to anybody. And just keep trucking.

**Craig:** Yeah. All right. We’ve got something from Daniel in Sydney who writes, “My writing partner and I are working on an original pilot that starts with our hero coming into some notoriety. We currently have outlined two interview scenes with well-known celebrity hosts who run their own shows. It is a bad idea to have celebrity ‘characters’ included in the script? Even if we’re not wedded to the specific celebrities we’ve chosen, and wouldn’t necessitate them being cast if the show were to be made, we found them useful for telegraphing the tone of the interview. And since a Seth Meyers interview is generally understood to be very different in kind to a Joe Rogan interview, et cetera. Or, are we better served coming up with obvious stand-ins for these celebrities, say having our hero interviewed on Later Tonight with Marty Klein? Are we just being lazy?”

What do you think, John?

**John:** I think it’s fine to use Seth Meyers if it’s just like a one-off scene. Where like Seth Meyers is just interviewing the character and there’s not big, long, elaborate scenes with Seth Meyers. That’s fine. You will see that in scripts where it’s just like they talk to Katie Couric or whoever and it’s just clear that it’s a placeholder person, that you’re not relying exclusively on getting that one person in there. It’s not like it’s William Shatner and he’s in the whole movie playing himself. That’s fine.

It’s also fine to do the second suggestion, which is basically just give us a type. And then if that character does have to recur again then you actually sort of own that character and you can do specific things with that character. So, I wouldn’t get pulled too much by a real person showing up as long as it is clear how we’re using them.

**Craig:** Yeah. I have to be honest, I do find it a little jarring when I see it in scripts. It does feel – it doesn’t feel lazy. It feels a touch gimmicky. What it does is it disrupts the world that you’ve created. I want to believe that I’m in a world that is my world, but it’s also not my world. And so it’s a special world I’ve gotten to go in to watch this movie. And obviously some topics require this kind of thing. But others don’t. Comedies tend to lean on these things quite heavily and sometimes it can be a little, I don’t know, cheesy.

I do think if you’re going to write somebody to replace somebody, so you don’t want Seth Meyers, but you want a Seth Meyers-like person, change the name plenty. And maybe even change the venue. And maybe even change the time of day. In other words, make it your own thing. It will feel fresher and more connected to that world than either something that’s from our world, like Seth Meyers, or something that feels almost like a parody or knock-off of something from our world, like Later Tonight with Marty Klein.

**John:** Yeah. I agree with that. And I think it comes back to tone, also. Like there’s a tone of movie and certainly a tone of comedy where you do have those real callouts, where you see real people. And that makes sense, especially if it’s part of a montage of things, like they’re being interviewed a bunch of different places. Just saying like Seth Meyers, blah-blah-blah, that is fine. But in a drama or something else than you’re going to a real person, that always feels weird to me.

And I think I may have complained about this on a previous episode, but I would like to call out for CNN and sort of all the news networks, like stop letting your anchors be in our movies. I think it does a real disservice to your anchors, to your Anderson Coopers, to have them be in our fictionalized stories to provide verisimilitude when the asteroid is about to hit us. Maybe just stop that. I think that could be a good thing for 2018 is if we stopped having CNN in our movies.

**Craig:** I agree with you. I think it cheapens them. And look, the old school news folks would never do it. And I think a lot of the – I think a lot of people today wouldn’t do it just on principle. It’s one thing I suppose if you want to do, you know, a send up of yourself, or appear in a late night sketch. That’s fine. Everybody understands you’re doing a goof.

But, yeah, when you essentially trade on your own authenticity and authority for cash, it just cheapens the whole thing doesn’t it?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’m with you.

**John:** Just stop. All right. One simple question here. Mackenzie from Michigan writes, “I know about the ‘one-page/one-minute’ rule, but my script doesn’t have any dialogue. Is there a separate rule for scripts with no dialogue? Or is it a guessing game on how long it will turn out to be?”

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s a guessing game. You don’t know.

**John:** You don’t know.

**Craig:** It’s the god’s honest truth. The person that will figure it out is a First AD. And they will do so by relying on their experience. So you’ve written this happened, and then this happened. Well, that should take about this much time to shoot. That should take about this much time to shoot. And then this should be this much time on screen.

**John:** Yeah, the script supervisor will do a report like that, too. So he or she will sit down with a stop watch and literally read through the script and usually in consultation with the director figure out how long would this scene be and just basically add it all up.

So, this is a thing you could do yourself, Mackenzie. You could just go through your script and just really kind of read through it and figure out how long do I really see this playing. Just play the whole movie in your mind, add it up, and you’ll get some sense of what that would actually feel like.

**Craig:** Correct. That sounds great. We have time for one more?

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** All right. Well let’s go with – this one is a good one. This one will get me all angry. Jesse writes, “I’ve been approached by a director to co-write a script with him and he’s asked what I would charge as a work-for-hire. I’ve heard 2% to 3% of the production budget, but do you know of any resources to find a good starting point? Or have you any suggestions on how to decide on a figure? That would be greatly appreciated.”

John, do you see the big red flag?

**John:** Ah, yeah, work-for-hire is the problem here. So, work-for-hire is a term – and so all I know Jessie may have just put that in there because it sounds like a big official term, but work-for-hire is a way of working for somebody where they own everything. They’ll own the copyright. You’re basically just writing for them and you have no claim to it whatsoever.

You really don’t want to be doing this right now. If you want to write something with him, great. Write something with that director. That person could be paying you or not be paying you, but don’t sign over everything to that director at this point. That doesn’t feel like a great choice.

**Craig:** No, it’s a terrible choice. I mean, look, so John and I, when we write we write work-for-hire, but we’re writing work-for-hire for movie studios. And then we have an arrangement with the movie studios via the Writers Guild that says the Writers Guild will figure out the credits. So we have the ability to credit on the movies that we write, even though we don’t retain the copyright. The legal author of everything John and I have ever written for screen is a studio.

What this director is saying to you, if he is saying work-for-hire, the real question I have is why. Why work-for-hire? What does he get out of it? Well, what he gets out of it is you never existed. Your name doesn’t have to go on the movie at all. The author of the movie is him. Because he’s the commissioning author. And then you worked-for-hire. Work-for-hire goes all the way back to the revolutionary period when silversmiths used to hire people to make silver out of the molds that they created and so it was a work-for-hire. You’re not really the author, I am, because it’s my shop.

So this is what ends up happening. So you’re concentrating on how much money you get paid. I’m concentrating on the fact that this guy is potentially getting set to shaft you.

Now, I don’t want to get ahead of my skis here. If this director is saying, “OK, no, it’s a work-for-hire for someone else. We’re both going to be writing work-for-hire for somebody else,” that’s different. As long as you have parity with the director here in terms of credit, and copyright standing, then I’m OK. Then we can move on to the money point.

And on the money point, you know, I don’t really know how to advise here. Because I don’t know what the budget is. Yeah, there are some people out there who say things like 2% to 3%. Some people say 10%. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know. I think that you need some help and really what I think you should say to the director is, “You know how much I should be paid? Half of what you’re getting paid. How about that? Like whatever you want to get paid, I also get paid that. We have perfect parity. That’s what it means to co-write a script.”

**John:** Yeah. Perfect parity in the sense of the amount being paid to that person as the writer versus the director. I know it can get confusing because if that is the writer-director and he or she has made other movies, they may have previous credits, there may be some reasonable case for why you’re getting less money than that person is. But, a work-for-hire is not the real situation you’re talking about there. You want some sort of contractual agreement where if this movie happens, we are a writing team with an ampersand and this is how it’s all going to work out.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** I will say I talked to a writer this last year while I was living in Paris who does a lot of basically what Jesse is describing where he goes in and helps writer-directors with their scripts and basically gets no credit and just gets paid by this writer-director to basically rewrite their scripts. That’s not uncommon in Europe. It’s not a situation I would want to emulate here in the US.

I believe in Writers Guilds and writers getting credit for the things they do. And residuals.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s really weird in Europe because they don’t have work-for-hire in Europe, so really what’s happening there is that’s just straight up ghostwriting. That’s somebody essentially taking money to not exist.

**John:** Yep. That’s what happens.

**Craig:** I don’t like that.

**John:** All right. We answered a bunch of questions. We still have more questions. But if you have a question for us, write in to ask@johnaugust.com and we will try to get to them on a future show. But now it’s time for our One Cool Things.

Craig, I’m so excited to see yours, so talk us through yours first.

**Craig:** So, mine is the Nokia Thermo. John, I hate thermometers. I freaking hate them. There’s so many different kinds – here’s the problem with thermometers. There’s the dinky digital kinds, and then you stick them under your tongue, or you lose them and they go, meep-meep, and you have to hold them in your mouth. And you’re never sure if you’re getting them right under your tongue. And especially if you have a kid, are they holding it under their tongue?

And then you can put it under the armpit, but that’s a different reading because the body temperature is different than the blah-blah-blah. And it goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. I hate them.

And then, you know, when you and I were kids they had the glass thermometers with the mercury that inevitably somebody would drop and then there was deadly mercury on the floor. So there’s that problem.

So, the Nokia Thermo, I love this thing. It is an electronic thermometer. On their website they’re charging $100 for it, but on Amazon I think it’s $80. And, yes, there’s an app. And it syncs with the app. And you can record, oh, Craig’s temperature, and Melissa’s temperature, and Jack’s temperature, and Jessie’s. Yeah, whatever. Whoop-tee-do. That’s not the point.

Here’s what’s fascinating about it. It uses essentially a scan of your temporal artery and your temporal artery is sort of located in an arch across your forehead and then up under your hair. And so what you do is you glide this thing, you sort of place it in the center of the forehead, and it’s got this very – you know that super soft kind of silicon? Yeah, so it’s like being caressed with a whisper. You place that right in the center of the forehead and you just slide it like you’re swiping. You swipe right. You slide it to the right, towards the hairline, and just like that, boop, it’s done and it gives you an instant reading. And it is really accurate because I tested it against a bunch of thermometers and it was just spot on.

And I loved it. And it was fast. So, I’m a big fan of the Nokia Thermo.

**John:** So, I’m looking at the picture here and I’ve seen this exact thermometer before. So I don’t remember who originally had this, but obviously Nokia makes it now. And I was curious about it. So I’m so glad that you liked it and now that I know you like it we will buy one immediately.

**Craig:** You’re going to love it.

**John:** I’m going to love it.

**Craig:** So much fun!

**John:** My One Cool Thing is a very good blog post by Justin O’Beirne about Google’s Moat, he calls it. Basically it seems to be obsessed with Google Maps and Apple Maps and sort of how they compare and how they grow over time.

So, his blog seems to be just entirely about digital maps. But this article I thought was especially great because he takes a look at the same areas and how Google Maps maps it and how Apple Maps maps it. And the differences but also some of the new technologies and sort of speculation about why Google Maps is ahead and how they are going to continue to be ahead.

So, it’s really fascinating. A thing I had started to notice but I hadn’t realized that it was just on Google Maps is as you zoom in closer and closer they now show the outlines of buildings. So they always had like the satellite view, but now they very carefully trace the outlines of buildings and they use those traces of outlines to sort of show the larger density within cities.

It’s a very smart bit of both computers crunching things hard, but also designers really thinking about what is the right level of detail to show you at different levels of zoom in. It’s impressive. And he speculates on why they’re doing this and sort of where it’s going next.

**Craig:** Where is it going next?

**John:** Well, one of the things that’s so fascinating is if you go into Google Maps and you zoom in really close it shows the outline of the buildings. And it shows where the bay windows are on buildings. So like it’s really detailed. And his theory is that Google is doing this all because down the road when they have cars going around they want to be able to take things to a specific door. Or really know buildings in such detail they can see like someone is going to come out of that door versus that door.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so they want to know where all the doors are. And so they have the satellite imagery, they have existing maps, they have their street views. And they seem to be doing a very good job of combining all that data to really know exactly what businesses are where. Basically where everything should be so that if they down the road want to send an autonomous vehicle someplace they’ll know exactly where to send it within like feet.

**Craig:** That’s fascinating. It’s scary, but it’s fascinating.

**John:** Yeah. It’s good. Just today I’m in Boulder visiting my mom and we looked out the window and we couldn’t figure out what this one thing was. And it was some sort of like giant enclosure, sort of like how you know practice fields have those big tent enclosures over them. But we couldn’t remember what was there. And so we pulled up Google Maps and like, oh, those are tennis courts because we can see the tennis court.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**John:** Everything is at your fingertips at all points these days.

**Craig:** Everything.

**John:** Everything. That is our last show for 2017.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Craig, there was some good stuff that happened this year, but on the whole I’m just ready to sort of put 2017 aside and be excited about 2018.

**Craig:** Let me just remind you, let me just be Jewish for a second, John, that’s what we all said about 2016. [laughs]

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** I just want to caution you that we may be fondly remembering 2017.

**John:** There is that possibility. I think 2016 ended really badly, but 2017 was really bad the whole time through.

**Craig:** Well, you know, the fun part of this all now is that people can hear us. As the world changes they can go back and listen to what we said before and after these things. And it’s very touching actually and people are like, oh John and Craig seemed so happy right up until the election. [laughs] They were so happy.

**John:** There was that little extra episode we put out which was like–

**Craig:** Shell-shocked. Yeah.

**John:** Everything will be OK.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well. Yeah. Look, this may get worse before it gets better.

**John:** That’s absolutely true. Or it may not get better. But we’ll hope it gets better.

Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Matthew and the Children’s Bell Choir of Akita.

If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send these longer questions like the ones we answered today.

On Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We’re on Facebook. Just search for Scriptnotes Podcast. Look for us on Apple Podcasts or wherever else you get your podcasts.

Show notes are at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. They go up within the week. And you can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net, or on the USB drive which is at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, have a great New Years. And I’ll talk to you in 2018.

**Craig:** Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. See you next year.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Firelight](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2281241/), the How Could This Be A Movie that is, indeed, a movie
* Amazon’s [deal](http://deadline.com/2017/11/amazon-the-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-multi-season-commitment-1202207065/) for The Lord of the Rings TV rights
* Amanda Hess’ Twitter [response](https://twitter.com/amandahess/status/943318750094417920) to Sarah Sahim’s accusation of plagiarism
* [Nokia Thermo](https://health.nokia.com/us/en/thermo)
* [Google Maps’s Moat](https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps-moat) by Justin O’Beirne
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilleli and the Children’s Bell Choir of Akita ([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_331.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 319: Movies Dodged a Bullet — Transcript

October 2, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2017/movies-dodged-a-bullet).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 319 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, it’s a new round of the Three Page Challenge, where we take a look at samples sent in by our listeners to see what’s working and what’s not. Then we answer perhaps the most important question of all, is how do we number our files.

But first there’s exciting news. This past Monday, or actually a week ago now that the podcast comes out, I got elected to the WGA board.

**Craig:** You didn’t just get elected, John. You got more votes than anyone, which actually does matter. It means that when you go into the boardroom as a new board member everybody is going to know that you’re for real. You’re the real deal, buddy. And I couldn’t be happier. Obviously I voted for you and endorsed you wholeheartedly. We are in desperate need of you on our board of our union.

And so I wish you the greatest of luck.

**John:** Well thank you very much. I want to thank everybody who voted. These elections are always sort of low turnout because they end up being sort of low turnout, but I’m really grateful to everybody who did go out and vote. Also, the other candidates are terrific. And so most of them will be joining me on the board this next year, so I’m looking forward to that.

So, by the time this episode comes out I will have been through my first WGA board meeting. I will have gone through the gauntlet and all of the hazing rituals. And will hopefully have come out the other side.

**Craig:** Yeah. The hazing rituals is really a hazing ritual and it never stops. The nature of the ritual is to bore you to death. I’m telling you, man, those board meetings, the homophone is appropriate.

**John:** Mm-hmm. I will post a link to two things that I have written about the WGA experience. First is on the site johnaugust.com there is a link now for WGA. So, if you are a WGA member who has something you need to tell me about what’s going on, that is a link you can click. Also on the blog I just did a post sort of outlining general objectives for what I hope to be able to look at these next two years. The short version is that there’s a lot of stuff that’s affecting writers on a day-to-day basis, and I want to look and see what we can do on just an enforcement basis. That’s not a negotiation. That’s not a big fight, but it’s just sort of getting people to honor the contract we already have.

Secondly, I want to be able to spend these two years looking at what’s down the road. And making sure that we’re prepared for big changes in the industry and the impact they could have on writers like you and me and the brand new writers who are just now joining the guild.

**Craig:** Music to my ears. We are always in a state of looking forward these days. I think this is a problem that our generation has far more than the generations that preceded us. The business basically was the business for many decades, but with the advent of technology it’s been a little nuts. So, we do have to look forward constantly. But even more important I think is that E-word you mentioned — enforcement. Because we have been locked in a cycle for a long time now where we fight very, very hard and occasionally even strike to get terms in our contract. And then we don’t really seem to do a fantastic job of enforcing those terms when they are violated by the companies.

So, excellent news. You know what? I do not regret voting for you as of this point.

**John:** As of yet. So join us next week to see how I’ve disappointed Craig.

**Craig:** The regret will kick in. And just the fact that you’re the cohost of this podcast will not save you.

**John:** No. Not a bit. I will take the full wrath and umbrage of Craig Mazin for my role in the WGA.

**Craig:** Gonna be good.

**John:** Revisiting past umbrage and confusion, MoviePass was something we’ve talked about twice on the show before. The first time it was sort of a head scratch and a “huh,” like how could this possibly work. And then in the second bit of follow up we said like, oh, I guess I can see sort of a way that it could work. And now there’s more follow up. So, for people who forget what MoviePass is, this is a service you sign up for for now $9.95 a month. You can see unlimited movies in the US. And that seems impossible. Like theatrical movies, in the movie theater.

It turns out it’s actually a credit card you are getting. With that credit card, when you buy your tickets, the money is refunded to you. So, we have more information. This week an interview by Rob Cain for Forbes, in which he talks to the CEO of MoviePass about sort of what the actual plan is.

And, Craig, I don’t know about your experience with this, but I felt like, oh you know what, I could see a way this could actually work for MoviePass. What’s your take on this new information?

**Craig:** Yeah. Now that I look at it, I do think, “OK, there’s a possibility here.” I mean, first and foremost what Mr. Lowe says, this is — what’s his first name?

**John:** Mitch.

**Craig:** Mitch Lowe. What Mitch Lowe says is that he expects that in time most users of MoviePass will settle into what they believe is a fairly predictable rate of usage, which is essentially one movie a month, or I guess he says a pattern of just over a movie ticket per month. Because, you know, you could do digital fractions of things. But so, OK, if the average cost of a ticket is $9 and he’s charging about $10 a month for MoviePass, he’s breaking even on that. That’s his expectation over time.

So you’d say, OK, well, fine, you broke even. But how do you make money? And the way he’s making money it seems is that he’s creating essentially a targeted advertisement platform, as far as I can tell.

**John:** Yeah. That seems to be part of it. I guess originally our concern was how do you make money if people are going to three movies per month and it’s costing you all that money and they’re only paying $9 a month. And I have some increased belief that he actually knows what he’s talking about because he comes from Netflix, he comes from Redbox, so he does have a lot of background in sort of customer behavior when it comes to movies.

And the case that he makes in this interview with Cain, he says that, “We found that at $40 per month, subscribers would attend an average of 3.8 times per month. At a higher price they would attend more frequently. At a lower price, a lot less. So at $9.95 a month we expect the average subscriber to settle into a pattern of just over one movie ticket per month.”

So he’s targeting sort of the reluctant moviegoers. And he describes it as basically bad movie insurance. So the people who don’t go to movies all that often, people might go once or twice or three times a year, there’s a fear of loss, of what if I buy a ticket and I don’t like the movie. Well this sort of psychologically gets them out of that fear because the ticket was essentially free for them for that month.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I can see in some ways it could increase movie-going if the people who are actually subscribing to MoviePass are in that sort of reluctant filmgoer mindset.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s also talking about perhaps capturing a small commission on concession sales. Not quite sure how that works and we’ll see if the large movie theater chains want to go along with it. But what is interesting about what he’s doing is he’s capturing information that nobody else is capturing. The point of sale other than MoviePass is of course the movie theater ticket box office. There are some other ticket purchasing outfits out there, you know, if you buy online through Fandango or something like that. But I think a lot of people they go up to the box office window and they say I want a ticket and they sell you a ticket. And the theater isn’t collecting any information on you.

And so here he is going to collect an enormous amount of information on the kinds of people who go to certain kinds of movies and how frequently they go. And he’ll be able to sell that information to studios and say, by the way, here’s a group of people that are going many, many times to the movies each month. Here is a kind of movie that gets a lot of repeat business. Here’s this. Here’s that.

So, you know, I can see how this could work. It really is all based essentially on the guess that people will not overeat at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

**John:** Yeah. This was the most intriguing part of the whole article to me. “When we get to ten million subscribers, we’ll be able to generate $7 million in additional box office for an independent film. At that point, it makes sense for us to get into the distribution business.” And so circling back to our conversation about how theatrical exhibition works, movie theaters like Loews, like AMC, they cannot make movies themselves. That is part of the consent decree. They cannot become movie producers.

But this guy, MoviePass, he can totally make movies if he wants to make movies. And at a certain point if this is successful enough, if it becomes like a Netflix, it will make sense for them to make movies because they’ll have tremendous information about who could buy their movies and could offer discounts on their movies. I could see it becoming a thing.

Will it become a thing? I don’t know. But I can see a way that it could evolve into something that is good, and new, and exciting.

**Craig:** Yeah. If he gets to his 10 million subscribers and he wants to go ahead and get into the distribution business, at that point he will almost certainly face a gauntlet of legal challenges that will either be initiated by the government or by large movie chains lobbying the government. That will be a fight. No question about it. They’re going to want to–

**John:** Why do you think there will be a fight? Because he’s not an exhibitor. He’s just a distributor the same way that a studio is a distributor.

**Craig:** I think there is an argument to be made that he is selling movie tickets, and therefore is directly selling movie tickets to people through MoviePass and therefore he is kind of an exhibitor.

You know, like Paramount Pictures can’t sell you movie tickets that you then go and bring to a theater. That’s kind of part and parcel with the whole split up of the producers and the exhibitors.

It’s not to say that what I’m saying is determinative or that he won’t get there. There’s no question that if he’s thinking about it, it means plenty of lawyers have said we can make the argument that this will work. But it’s going to be a fight. The AMCs of the world are not going to lay down and let this guy start basically playing by rules that — new rules or not having to play by the rules that they played by.

So, you know, let’s see what happens. It will be interesting.

**John:** It will be interesting. I agree. Last bit of follow up, listener Matt wrote in to say, “I was wondering if you could elaborate more on Episode 315 in which you touched on how the music industry was crippled by the digital age, but movies did not suffer the same fate. Being a former musician, I know this better than most, but I was wondering if you could go into more detail on how exactly film managed to survive. I know the midrange movies took a big hit as DVD sales declined, but what else happened, and why?”

So I threw this on the outline without doing any additional research, so this is just going to be speculation and opinion.

**Craig:** We’ll wing it.

**John:** We’re totally winging this. Some things which occur to me that are different about movies versus music. Theatrical I’ll say is sort of like our live performance. And so the same way that recording artists took a giant hit when their songs became downloads rather than CDs that were purchased, and they were then making their money sort of going out on tour, our movies in movie theaters are sort of like being out on tour. They are that public performance where everyone is going to buy a ticket and see the thing live in front of them on the big screen.

And that’s been surprisingly resilient, even in the face of new challenges, because it’s a chance to get out of your house. It’s a chance to go on a date, or hang out with your friends. It’s an excuse to get together with people. So I think that has helped the movie business buck up a bit.

I think a difference between movies and music, which was important at the time but is much less important now, is that the files are huge. And so it was easier to schlep around music files. It was much harder to schlep around giant movie files. And so torrents made that easier, but still they were much bigger files and as bandwidth increased it became easier to send around giant movie files. But they weren’t happening as much as early.

Once you have those files, it’s harder to get them onto your TV. Clever people can always find a way to do that, or they’ll be willing to watch them on their laptops, but it’s harder to get them on the screen. And if you’re watching these movies overseas and it’s a western movie in English and you want to watch it with your subtitles, solutions have sort of come up for like how to pirate movies and slap on the subtitles, but it’s not easy. It’s not simple to do that. And I think that’s another thing that has slowed down some piracy of movies or at least let movies sort of get some — it gave them some time to get ahead of piracy.

**Craig:** Well that all sounds accurate to me. I would add on a couple of other things. When Napster happened, and started to change the way that people were paying — or in this case not paying — for audio, and for music, the radio business continued as it continues. You know, the radio business plays music for free. I’m talking about not the satellite subscription, sort of terrestrial radio. You listen to music for free and then they pump ads at you. And that’s how they make their money.

Well that’s exactly how broadcast television and a lot of cable television works. Right? So the difference being that that was how you got the product in television, broadcast television, and cable television. It’s not like you were going to a store to buy this product before it was running on television. You had to go to the television to get it in the first place, which meant you were getting the ads on you right off the bat.

If I buy an album, if I buy a whole bunch of albums and music that I want to listen to, I don’t have to go listen to the radio station to hear that music because I own it. And in fact that directional issue is I think a lot of why music suffered and the movie business didn’t.

In general, like you said, movies are like concerts, right? And then the DVDs are like the albums. Well, notice that in movies and in television the performance comes first. That is the main product. And then the album equivalent comes after. That’s something that the fans then buy afterwards because they want to see it or experience it again.

Not the case with music. In music, you buy it first. If you like it, then you go to the concert. So, if the first option is free, that’s what people are going to want. And in movies, they’re not free. The first option is you’ve got to go to the theater. And television a lot of times the first option is free, or there’s a monthly subscription that they’ve already gotten used to, going to HBO and so on and so forth. And then if they liked it, yeah, you know, most people who go and see a movie and they love that movie and they want to see it again, they would go — they were used to renting it. They would go to Blockbuster and rent it. So they’re in the pattern of paying for that. No big deal.

The excitement of short-circuiting the entire thing and getting something new for free by stealing it was, I think, the problem with the music business. Because the free part, the change part, happened at the front of the experience. Not at the middle or end of the experience the way it did in television and in movies.

**John:** I think you are hitting on a key point here. And if you look back historically, the movie business existed long before there was home video. So for many, many years there really was no way to watch Gone with the Wind if it wasn’t playing at the theater down the street. And yet the movie business was completely viable.

And so as home video arose, that was a whole bunch of new money. And it was fantastic. And we made a lot more stuff and it benefitted writers tremendously because residuals became a more meaningful thing. So the rise of digital downloads, legal and illegal downloads, did hit home video in a really hard way. But there was still a way for movies to make money. And that’s I think why they were able to survive.

When you look at music, yes, there had been that tradition of live performance, but we’d had recorded music for so long. It had been so expected that you go out and buy an album and that was your primary way of consuming music. That when that got disrupted the whole business model did collapse.

**Craig:** Yeah. It is fascinating. The other aspect of music that’s so interesting to me is that there isn’t a work-for-hire in the music business the way that there is in movies and television. So, part of the problem with the music business was that all the album sales, the first part of the experience, almost all of that money went to the companies. And then the — I mean, some money went to the artist, but a lot of it went to the companies. And then the performance, going out and touring, that was all about the artist.

But then they would have to send back money if the company promoted it and stuff like that. Or the company fronted them money for videos and so on and so forth. And so when you chop that thing in half, then I think for a moment maybe artists thought this is good because that side of the business, the album sales side, I was always getting screwed on anyway. But, you know, the performance side is going to be great and I’m still going to sell t-shirts and make my money.

Except that they kind of forgot that no one goes to a concert for an act they don’t know. And that all the promotion was coming from the companies and the album sales. So there was a symbiotic relationship that got really disrupted there. And so you do have this strange thing now where we have these acts, the most successful touring acts, are old. With rare exception.

You know, The Rolling Stones still, you know. It’s hard to break new bands that then make a ton of money on tour. At this point now, a lot of them are I guess manufactured bands that are literally created for the purpose of this sort of thing. But when I look at the list of the highest grossing concerts, I’m like, oh my god, everyone is old.

**John:** Yeah. I do think it’s worth going through the thought experiment of like what if there had been more bandwidth earlier. If a few variables had changed, I do think we would be in bigger trouble. I do think if there had been tremendous bandwidth and it had been easier to get pirated movies onto your TV, I think home video would have collapsed more fully, more quickly. I think the economics would have changed. I still think the theatrical experience would remain. I think all the doomsdayers are saying like, oh, your TV at home is going to be so great and people are going to want to stay home rather than go out and suffer through the movie theater experience. Those are old people. Those are old people who don’t want to be around teenagers. Teenagers want to get out of the house and movies are a good excuse for doing that.

**Craig:** Yep. As long as kids want to make out in a dark room, there will be movies.

**John:** And there will be a MoviePass or something like that to try to get them to do more of it.

**Craig:** Naughty children. Well, that probably — that should get us to our Three Page Challenge, don’t you think?

**John:** We absolutely should tackle these three pages.

**Craig:** What should we start with here?

**John:** Let’s start with Steven Wood, a script called This is Absurd. Now, if you want to read along the three pages as we go through them, you can find them on the show notes. Just go to johnaugust.com and look for this episode. We’ll also have them up in Weekend Read so if you’re on Weekend Read you can read along with us.

So here’s a synopsis for this first one. A dapper middle-aged gentleman works the front desk at a motel. He stands perfectly still, with his hands clasped. A single room key hangs on a peg behind him. Joey enters, tired. He waits to be greeted by the manager. He rings the bell, but still no acknowledgment. Finally, Joey speaks, only to be cut off by the manager.

The answers do not quite feel stock, but the conversation is disjointed and unnatural. The manager accepts Joey’s payment without knowing the amount and sends him to his room. Joey and Dale, with whom Joey arrived, share a smoke outside their room. Joey mentions that the manager didn’t even count the money.

In the dingy motel room, Dale clicks the TV to a new station. Joey warns that “They’re going to find the car.” Dale is not worried. He wiped it down for prints. He goes to the bathroom just as the news anchor announces these two men as fugitives.

Craig, do you want to start us off?

**Craig:** Sure. So we talk a lot about confusion versus mystery. I think these three pages do a very good job of creating mystery as opposed to confusion. The manager and the nature of this motel are a mystery. You and I don’t know what it is, but if it turned out that the manager is the devil that would make sense to me. If it turned out the manager was an alien that would make sense to me. If it turned out the manager was a robot that would make sense to me. There’s all sorts of possibilities about what’s going on here.

The way it plays out and the scene craft is quite good, I think. The first scene here between Joey and the manager. Mostly good because I think the manager is created really interestingly. It’s a smart thing to have the manager say nothing until the bell rings. It makes us wonder what was it about the bell. See, they’re all like little hints.

I also like the way it was set up visually. And the part I liked was it says, “A leather-bound ledger is atop the counter along with a fingerprint-free brass bell.” That’s interesting. It’s almost as if this motel has been waiting. It’s like it popped up out of nowhere and is just waiting for these two guys like a Venus fly trap or something.

So, I liked that. And the fact that Joey has to sign his name and his room number felt very, I don’t know, hell-like to me. So, all that was good.

If I have any criticisms, it’s that the introduction of Joey is kind of a whiff. So, the manager gets MAN in all capitals, Joey doesn’t get anything. The description of Joey is as follows: Joey. That’s it. That’s all I get. Joey. I don’t know his age, I don’t know his height, his appearance. I don’t know anything. Until it says he, I didn’t even know if Joey was a man or a woman.

So, that’s not good. I want to know more about Joey. Similarly, when Joey does enter through the front door, it says tired. He slams his forearms on the counter. I don’t think anybody has ever done that. I don’t know what that means. How do you slam your forearms on a counter? That’s a very odd motion.

**John:** Yeah. So I think it’s throwing your weight down on the counter. So I got what he was going for, but I had read it twice or three times.

**Craig:** Yeah. I wasn’t quite sure about that. And then following that it says, “Dale waits outside.” Um, who? Dale? Oh, OK. I don’t know who Dale is either. And also how do I see him. Is there a window? Is the door–

**John:** Glass?

**Craig:** Yeah. What’s going on here? So, the descriptions were really scant. Joey I don’t think is quite interacting with the manager the way I would expect somebody normal to. And it’s not that Joey has to be normal. But when you have a character in a scene who is so wildly abnormal, isn’t that the title of this? This is Abnormal?

**John:** Yeah. This is Absurd.

**Craig:** This is Absurd. So we have an absurd character in the manager, which means we in the audience sort of need to be anchored in a non-absurd character opposing him in this back and forth conflicted scene. And Joey doesn’t quite get there. I wasn’t really with him on this. But, you know, it wasn’t bad. The line that sort of stopped me was when Joey says, “I’m going to wait” — ”I’m gonna to wait,” so let’s fix those typos. “I’m gonna wait and let you finish with your little spiel so you can stop interrupting me.”

It didn’t really seem like the manager was, I don’t know, interrupting him that aggressively. They’ve done bad things, Joey and Dale, and now they’re in a deadly motel of some kind, where they will receive some sort of punishment. That’s my prediction. But overall good.

**John:** Yeah. I enjoyed it as well. So, I have exactly your same criticisms in the sense that the manager is so well described, the environment is so well described, and Joey is just nothing. He’s just a name. And so giving us some specificity on who he is so we can relate to him and relate to his experience interacting with this manager is crucial. So even if you don’t want to tip us off that Joey is a bad guy, just give us some sense of who he is so we can get a sense of what his voice is going to be as he starts talking.

I also agree with you that I felt — it’s not that the manager was too pushed, it’s just that Joey’s reaction to his being pushed didn’t seem reasonable. And I flagged the same moment at the end of page one that you did.

I think if I had a bigger concern is that I’ve seen The Twilight Zone. I’ve seen Tales from the Dark Side. I was thinking back to that sci-fi series, The Lost Room, that I liked a lot. The idea of a haunted motel is a bit stock. But it’s still delightful. And it harkens back to almost like an Edgar Allan Poe kind of sense of like “this is the place where your sins are going to be punished.“

I just needed — I wish I got a sense after these three pages that our screenwriter sort of knew the tropes and could push past the tropes, or could at least know that he had a plan for sort of going past those easy things. Because by the time I got to the end of page three I was like, “OK, yeah, they’re criminal on the run,” but I’m not confident that this is going to be the subversion of this kind of story I’ve seen a lot.

And an example of something of where I thought we were missing an opportunity is at the start of page three. We have our only exterior. So “EXT – MOTEL – OUTSIDE ROOM FIFTEEN — NIGHT. Dale and Joey take a few drags off a smoke before going inside.”

That action is great. So, that they’re sharing a cigarette is also great. But where are we? If we’re exterior someplace, we have to be someplace. And so is there a rain storm? Are we in a desert? Are we in the middle of a city? We’re nowhere. And I think it’s absolutely a valid choice to start in a place where you don’t have any sense of what’s outside this room, but once we are outside this room you’ve got to give us some environment. And that’s where I felt like, OK, we’re on a sound stage someplace in Toronto and it’s going to be one of those sort of incredibly teeny tiny budget things that doesn’t really add up to anything.

**Craig:** Unless these three pages are not the first three pages. You know, if — and I would imagine people would probably let us know, but if these aren’t the first three, because we’ve never said that people have to send the first three. If it were in the middle then, OK, I would understand why Joey isn’t described and why Dale isn’t described and why the general area isn’t described.

But, some other things to consider. And certainly if this is the first three, no question about what you’re saying. When they’re standing outside Dale and Joey take a few drags off a smoke before going inside. “He didn’t even count the money.” What’s Dale thinking? Does Dale even know what he’s talking about? I feel like I’m missing something there. It’s like Joey is presuming that Dale is watching the movie with us. He wasn’t in there. He didn’t even hear any of that.

So, what is Joey trying to impart to Dale there exactly?

**John:** There’s a sense of which this could be the end of a conversation. So if you wanted to signal that like this was the last part of a conversation you’d say like, “Yeah and it’s weird, he didn’t even count the money.” Crushes the cigarette. Goes in the room. Like the sense that this was the end of a longer thing. But I agree, it just hangs there in a weird way.

**Craig:** It’s sort of a naked line because there’s no action inspiring it. It’s unmotivated. So what you end up happening is — you have two actors and they’re out there and you say, “Action,” and they’re smoking, and then one says, “He didn’t even count the money.” And the other one looks at him. Shrugs. And then they both go inside. But then why did you say that? It will seem like an odd cut.

You can certainly do what you’re suggesting, which is you get there and they’re smoking and then Dale says, “Really?” And Joey says, “Yeah, he didn’t even count the money.” And then you go, OK, I get it. I’m at the end of a conversation.

Lastly, I want to point out that trope-wise the news anchor, the helpful expository news anchor working for Exposition News Nightly, needs to be driven from the planet, ejected into deep, deep space. The news anchor helpfully informs us, “The two men have been identified as Dale Shelton and Joseph Williams, both should be considered…”

You know what? No. First of all, news anchors, when was the last time you heard a local news anchor say, “Both should be considered armed and dangerous?” Oh please. So, anyway, there’s so many better ways of doing this. If this happens in the middle, then we don’t need to know. But if it doesn’t happen in the middle and I don’t think it does, I think these are the first three pages, then he says, OK, “You know they’re going to find the car, right?” “Who cares, I wiped it down.” Good. Not expository. Just intriguing. Fine.

And then show me casually one of them putting his clothing in the drawer and as he’s moving his underwear in there’s the gun. Or show me that he wipes his hair back and we see that there’s a blood stain. Show me something else that makes me go, OK, these guys are bad guys and they’ve done a bad thing. The news anchor has got to go.

**John:** It’s got to go. That to me is the new air vent. It’s just the convenient thing that’s there which would almost never happen in real life.

**Craig:** And also it’s amazing. Every time they turn on the news that’s what they’re always talking about.

**John:** Isn’t that great? Yeah.

**Craig:** How cool is that?

**John:** I’m sure there are shows that have hung a lantern on that idea of like that trope and so if people who are listening to the show can point me to things where they point out the absurdity of that, we will maybe run those on a future episode, because it has to be just called out.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think somewhere somebody must have done Exposition News Network, because… — All right. Well let’s see, which one should we do next?

**John:** Before we go on to the next one, there’s one last thing I want to signal. Five paragraphs in, “An awkward moment passes, no one speaks, Joey waits to be greeted by the Manager, who only stares, not making eye contact.”

So, that’s a lot of commas in a row. And there’s ways in which that could be great. It just wasn’t great for me there. So breaking that up into some sentences would help you out.

**Craig:** No question. And also they’re not used properly. “An awkward moment passes. Period. No one speaks. Period. Joey waits to be greeted by the manager, who only stares, not making eye contact.” Grammatically speaking, that’s how you would do that.

**John:** There’s no stylistic reason why those commas are helping him out there.

**Craig:** No. None at all. They just sort of mush up your sentence there.

**John:** Cool. Do you want to do the next one, Craig?

**Craig:** Sure. How to Make Friends by Elizabeth Boston. OK, so a beautifully lit garden party is filled with happy guests and Bon Voyage balloons. We follow a partygoer to the restroom. She knocks, but inside the restroom is Tula, 30, who politely calls back through the door and says, “It’s occupied.” After a second knock, she claims to be pooping but she is not.

She gets a text from her friend that says she’s running late, but that Tula should socialize. Instead, we see a quick montage of Tula killing time in the bathroom. Painting her toes. Plucking a stray hair. And then actually pooping.

We then cut to Pam and Katie, both 30, who are skipping arm-in-arm down the street a la the Laverne & Shirley opening, for those of you old enough to know what that is. And then we smash cut to reality. Oh, that’s not really what was happening. What’s really happening is Kate is super-duper drunk and attempting the Laverne & Shirley routine. She pukes. Then tells Pam that Pam will miss her when Katie is in New York.

Pam says they are late to her, meaning Pam’s, goodbye party. Katie kneels down near a sleeping homeless man to tie her shoelaces, but is actually doing it to steal money from his collection can.

And that is How to Make Friends. John, dig in.

**John:** I shall dig in. So, my guess after these three pages is that this is a story about the three women. So, it sort of looks like it’s a Tula story, but I believe that the weight is probably going to be shared between the three women, or at least Katie who is such a drunk in this thing, maybe she becomes more of a thing that is carried around through the course of the story. So maybe it’s more Katie and Tula.

I was frustrated because I was happy to see these women sort of having their individual moments, but it wasn’t adding up to a lot for me. And I didn’t feel like I was seeing anything remarkable that was intriguing me to read more down the road. And some of it was — I’m going to say that horrible word again — specificity. From the very start, “EXT. PHILADELPHIA STREET — NIGHT.” Night.

Then “EXT. BACKYARD PARTY — NIGHT.” So the Philadelphia Street gets no scene description at all. So it should just not be there if you’re not going to tell us anything about that Philadelphia Street, because a Philadelphia Street could be a giant boulevard. It could be a tiny back alley. It could be in a posh neighborhood. It could be somewhere else.

I just don’t know what this is. And so then we go to this backyard party. I still have no sense of where are we. Are we at some sort of row house? Are we at a mansion? You’ve got to anchor us in a place or anchor us with a character in those first shots so we can really see what’s happening.

Then we follow a partygoer toward the house. Well, partygoer, so I see the kind of shot we’re trying to describe here, which is where we’re sort of floating behind somebody who is leading us into the house to get to a place. But is that partygoer a man, a woman? Who are the people at this party? And without any of those details, I have a hard time getting into Tula’s point of view or any of these other women’s point of view, because I just don’t know what situation I’m in.

**Craig:** Mm. Yeah. I’m right there with you on this. I think that we appear to have a Girl’s Trip/Hangover-y sort of thing going on. This looks like three crazy characters who love to party. I know a little something about this. It’s not really breaking any ground. I want to talk a little bit about tone. We’ve got pooping on page one and we’ve got puking on page two. There is something that we call the cumulative effect in comedy. We know that certain transgressive things get big laughs. And sometimes pooping gets a big laugh. And sometimes puking gets a big laugh. But the more you do it, the more it sort of collects. And there is a cumulative effect.

It starts to make people angry. There’s a fine, fine line. And, granted, it’s different for different people. But to go one-two punch on page one and page two like that is signaling the wrong thing. I think it’s telling people you’re going to be in the toilet for a while.

**John:** Yeah. And I think it’s actually not a one-two punch, but it’s a two-three punch maybe? A number two and a number three punch?

**Craig:** Oh, wow.

**John:** What do you call — is vomit number three? Like in terms of bodily fluids being expelled?

**Craig:** Now this podcast has a cumulative effect.

**John:** It does. So, I think that’s a very important point that I never really sort of thought about before. But you look at Melissa McCarthy’s moment in Bridesmaids where she’s in the dress and she has diarrhea and uses the sink. I mean, it’s all those things on top of each other that make the diarrhea so funny. Because if she’s not in the big dress, if she’s not doing it in the sink, then it’s not funny. But it’s the specificity — I’m sorry, again — that makes it so funny. And it’s Melissa McCarthy and she’s amazing.

Anything that Melissa McCarthy does that involves a fluid is hysterical. Like her salad dressing sketch from Saturday Night Live is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

**Craig:** Amazing. It’s amazing. Well, that scene, you know, the other thing about that scene in Bridesmaids is it’s a set piece. So when we talk about comedic set pieces, what we’re talking about are extended sequences that are built around large comic actions. They are usually physical in nature. And they are motivated. So they’re carefully set up like little machines, like little Rube Goldberg machines, or like imagine one of those little Domino things. And then something flicks the Domino and then there is a cascade. And so it escalates into insanity.

The Hangover movies do this, of course. And most mainstream comedies will have the big set piece, or two, or three. That one is a good example. There really isn’t bathroom humor in that movie until you get to that point. So that set piece is motivated by Kristen Wiig’s character and her desire to one-up her competition to be the bride’s best friend. And who insists that everybody go to this Brazilian all-you-can-eat buffet. And they all get food poisoning. They are all now very, very sick. And we understand why. And it’s not like, oh, you’re very, very sick because you’re just kind of a pig that drinks too much. You’re very, very sick through no fault of your own and now it’s funny.

And then we watch it all kind of come apart. And what do they do? They’re brilliant. They put it in an all-white room. And everything is pristine. And then it all just goes to hell.

That’s a set piece. This is just casually I’m going to puke. And I’m going to poop. So it’s just, meh, look at me. I’m pooping. Ha-ha. And that’s — you know, you can do it. And you can do it once. Like if all that had happened here was, OK, she’s pooping, I’d go, oh, OK. I get it. It’s this kind of movie. But then one page later to have another thing like that right off the bat, it starts to make me think that this is just going to be dopey.

And unfortunately I’m kind of with you, nothing else really got me out of the dopey. What we’re dealing with aren’t really characters. We’re dealing with caricatures. So Tula is kind of just singing a little hip-hop to herself. Having some fun. Being sort of selfish. Not letting other people come into the bathroom.

And I’m not really sure frankly why she’s doing all this.

**John:** That was my frustration. If there’s a reason why she barricaded herself, because she just didn’t want to talk to these people because she was nervous around them, because she wanted to smoke a joint, because she just wanted some me time, I could get that. But I wasn’t getting that out of any of those reasons out of these scenes.

**Craig:** Yeah. She’s just sort of motivationlessly grooming herself. So, not really sure what the deal is there. I enjoyed the contrast between the kind of fantasy imagining of these two women, seeing themselves as Laverne and Shirley, and then, OK, here’s the reality, they’re not. Except I don’t know who they are. Also, whose dream is this? Because the two of them are in the dream. And then when we come out of the dream, not really the dream but the fantasy I guess, one of them is doing it and the other one isn’t.

So, that was sort of confusing to me. Also don’t know who they are. It takes a while for me to figure out that the party that Tula is at is supposed to be for Pam. And then you’ve got kind of a — Katie appears to be just, you know, train wreck. She is the train wreck. She is drunk. And she’s stealing money from homeless people. Wow.

**John:** So, the second half of these three pages, the stuff with Pam and Katie, it reminded me of Broad City, which I think is a phenomenal show. And it made me think more about sort of why Broad City works and sort of the central sort of premise of how those two characters work together. So you have Abbi and Ilana. Abbi is the wrecking ball who keeps knocking everything down and couldn’t care about offending anybody, but is completely obsessed with Ilana and sort of making Ilana happy. Ilana is mortified by everything and so she’s the one who like terrible things will always happen to. She’s the one who would have food poisoning and have to try to find a place to deal with it.

And you have to have those two competing interests — people who are aligned with each other, but are also going to push each other’s buttons. And maybe that can be — maybe Pam and Katie can have those similar dynamics, but we’re seeing them in a moment where we don’t have any sense of what their real relationship is, or sort of why they’re together.

And so stealing the money from the homeless man is like, “Oh, that’s shocking and transgressive,” but I don’t know anything about Katie or Pam to know why that moment should land or not land.

**Craig:** Well, right. And to confuse matters, Katie is really, really drunk. So like at the beginning of The Hangover, we see Bradley Cooper’s character, Phil, collecting money from his students. He’s a teacher and he’s collecting money for a class trip, which we then realize he’s just stealing to use in Vegas. He’s not drunk. He’s — we learn a lot about who is right there.

But she’s drunk here, so when she’s stealing the money from the homeless man’s tin can, I’m not even sure if she knows what she’s doing, so I’m not sure how I’m supposed to feel about it.

**John:** Yeah. Yeah.

**Craig:** I just want to be really clear for Elizabeth’s sake, I don’t have a problem with lowbrow humor. God knows I don’t. Just go ahead and check my IMDb page out. I love it. But there is a science to it. And I think we’ve all made all the mistakes that I think Elizabeth is making here. We’ve all made. But the problem is that she’s making all of them kind of in these three pages all at once.

We need clarity. We need specificity about who these characters are and what they want and what their problem is. And if we’re going to be transgressive, we have to set it up. We have to understand why. You have to let me know that I’m supposed to be learning something and I need to know what I’m learning. In a very annoying and craft-based way, comedy requires the most care and attention. Because it’s always a soufflé. Even the dumb ones are soufflés. In fact, the dumb ones are the most soufflé-ish of soufflés. The slightest little thing and it all just collapses. It’s science.

So you have to be scientific about it, and unfortunately these three pages, they have a lot of sloppiness in them. And so we’re not quite sure how to feel or think. And I agree with you, I think that they need to be reworked or people aren’t going to keep going.

**John:** Something I do want to highlight, “TULA ANDERS, Black, 30, with the outfit of a fifty year-old middle school teacher.” I like the outfit of a 50-year-old middle school teacher. Give me more like that. Let that inform what I’m going to see next, because I don’t have any action or dialogue from her that reinforces that idea of the good character description you gave me there.

So, reading that I think maybe she has tremendous social anxiety disorder. There’s something about her that would help explain why she’s barricaded herself in the bathroom. So I’d just say like maybe look for — find little details and build out from those to create your characters and you’ll maybe get to a good place.

Last little things I want to point out on the page. Let’s talk about the ellipsis, dot-dot-dot.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** It’s just three periods. There’s no spaces between the periods. And so they’re used all the time in screenwriting to sense a trailing off or connecting two things. So don’t be afraid to use them, but it needs to just literally be dot-dot-dot. So, in this case we have extra spaces between them. It looks weird. Please don’t do that.

The other thing you have to watch out for, on the Macintosh, sometimes the Mac will try to substitute the ellipsis character — which is like three dots really close together — don’t use that either. You just literally want period-period-period.

**Craig:** Yeah. The biggest issue I think with the same way that Elizabeth is doing the dot-dot-dot is that it just eats up a lot of space. And so we try and limit that. Just a suggestion, Elizabeth, for you if you do want to re-approach these pages and think about a different way of getting into them, you have the partygoer, Anonymous Partygoer approaching closed door, knocking. Maybe you should start with Tula. And start with presenting us with somebody. And so here is this 30-year-old woman, she’s black but she’s British, so that’s an interesting combination for Americans. But she’s got this frumpy, old way of dressing. So we’re kind of getting this interesting sense of who she is. And then she excuses herself to go to the bathroom and then shows us a totally different person inside that bathroom. Maybe that’s just a way to kind of be intentional about all of this, because right now it just sort of feels haphazard.

**John:** There’s nothing more relatable I can imagine than showing up at a party for a friend and that friend isn’t there and sort of how mortifying it is. Like, I don’t have any anchor at this party. I don’t know any of these people. And then I completely understand the instinct to just barricade yourself in a bathroom. Like that is a start that — and it doesn’t have to be a lot. Like you could just start on her face and then — or one of those sort of locked off cameras where you’re just moving through this party with her and she’s like “There’s no one here I know.” And then stop, and cut to in the bathroom locking the door, and she’s just going to bunker down until her friends get here.

That is a completely relatable experience and that tells me a lot about Tula that helps me so much in the scene that you have there.

**Craig:** Yeah. Yeah. You know, what’s interesting about that notion is that it’s actually short-circuited by the way Elizabeth has done this here. Because we start with Tula in the bathroom. She’s already decided not to come out. Then the phone says Pam, meaning Pam — this is the other thing. If Pam is sending the message, it’s weird to have the message say, Pam, be there in 10. Because now I’m thinking Tula’s name is Pam. But let’s put that aside.

Pam is telling her I’ll be there in ten minutes. Sorry. Got held up. So, she’d already decided to put herself in the bathroom. If she’s walking around this party, she clearly doesn’t know anybody, and then she gets a text, “Sorry, meant to be there. I’m running 30 minutes behind.” At that point I understand the panic and the “What do I do, what do I do.” So get out and socialize or go around and socialize. And Tula decides I know exactly what I’m going to do. The opposite of that. I’m going to lock myself in the bathroom.

Now I understand what’s going on. I just need motivations. Motivation.

**John:** Motivation is a crucial, crucial thing. All right, let’s get to our third and final Three Page Challenge. This is Shaker Heights by Dan Pavlik.

We start at a community pool, bustling with the excitement of a youth swim meet. RJ, 38, attempts to give his son, Hudson, 8, a pep talk as he gets ready for his race. RJ is not so good at pep talks and says things that would only make a kid more nervous. Rondell, the starter, who wears a sweet baby blue sweat suit, calls the swimmers to the pool. The other boys are wearing Speedos, besides Tyler, 8, who wears a full torso high tech suit. Hudson, meanwhile, wears trunks.

On the other side of the pool, RJ dismisses his son’s ability to Tyler’s dad, Stefan. It appears that they have placed bets on this race. The race begins. Tyler and Hudson are neck and neck, but Tyler barely pulls through for the win. RJ shouts in celebration. The pool goes silent seeing RJ celebrate his kid’s loss.

Hudson is disappointed. RJ tries to recover.

So, in reading this synopsis I would say I did not the first time reading through it know that they were betting on the race until quite late. Craig, what was your take on the betting or not betting?

**Craig:** I just found out that they were betting on the race from that summary. I didn’t see any — I mean, I didn’t understand the hustle line. But I also didn’t see any indication that these guys were betting. So I don’t get it.

**John:** All right. So, what did you get from these three pages?

**Craig:** Well, let’s start with some simple crafty, format-y stuff. And these pages are again by Dan Pavlik. So, Dan, I see you, and I see what you’re doing, which is expanding your dialogue lines to be way longer than a dialogue line should be. So there’s margins, right? Now, we can all fudge margins here and there. You know, if I’m writing dialogue and the whole thing spills over so that the fourth line of dialogue is the word “all” or “you,” OK, I’ll cheat the margins to pull that up. That’s no big deal. It’s not going to deform the script. It’s not going to make that paragraph look bizarre.

But here’s all one line: “Next up, event 32, boys 8 & under backstroke.” No. And to make it even worse, to shove that all in one line, you also used “8,” the number eight, for eight when generally the rule is ten and under you spell you out. And then you ampersanded the word “and.” What? We don’t do that.

**John:** Nope.

**Craig:** Just don’t do it. You can put “&” in dialogue if the person is referring to the title of something that has an ampersand in it. Other than that, nope.

**John:** Nope.

**Craig:** Just we don’t do it. So there’s some cheaty stuff going on here. And it carries throughout. I just saw a number of dialogue lines where I thought, “OK, these margins are way too loose.” But that aside, we start off — I can see the room, I can hear the room, which I like. And I have no problem with things like “A drone shot, high & wide shows a packed pool deck.” I’m fine, you know me. I think we’re allowed to direct things.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** And then we have this pep talk between a dad and a son. And it’s cute. I mean, we get the idea which is, OK, I’m nervous and I’m going to use my nervousness by telling you not to be nervous. And that I really don’t care if you win or you lose, but obviously I do or else I wouldn’t keep talking about it. And the kid seems to be well onto his own father and just like “Leave me alone, I want to go swim.”

So that was all fine. I was good with that. By the way, we have a couple of issues with default whiteness I noticed in two of these, where we mention that someone is black but we don’t mention when people are white. You know, if you want to mention race, mention race, but then mention race.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We have — and maybe an indication of something, I wasn’t quite sure on page two. There’s certain bits of description that I think are important, but then they kind of fell in between the “Is this important or is it not important” zone, and I need to know.

So, it says, “At the far side of the pool, we see RONDELL RI’CHARD (48). Rondell is a black man, wearing a sweet, baby blue sweatsuit.” OK, he is the race starter. He calls for the race to begin. Hudson, along with five other boys, step up to the edge of the pool. Next to Hudson is Tyler Kim, a wirey” — spelled wrong, I believe.

**John:** I looked it up. Yeah, that is incorrect.

**Craig:** Yep. Korean kid. Now here’s the part where I got, huh. Four of the boys wear baby blue Speedos. Tyler wears a full torso, high tech baby blue suit. Hudson wears regular swim trunks. So, on the one hand I get what’s happening here, which is that these other kids are advanced swimmers who are geared up and ready to go. And Hudson is wearing the wrong kind of bathing suit, so he’s not. But baby blue Speedos. So, are they on like a team that the guy that’s the starter is the coach of? Because he’s got the baby blue sweat suit? Or is that just random?

**John:** I agree with you. I was confused as well. It felt like they’re all on a team and he’s the guy competing against them. But that doesn’t actually make sense. So if it’s a meet, they’re not all going to be on the same team. So, that was just weird. I just feel like “baby blue” trickled in in places where it did not need to be there. It would also just make more sense — the point is that most of the kids are in Speedos, this one kid has an amazing full body suit, and the joke is that Hudson is in just regular swim trunks. That’s the point. Not the colors.

**Craig:** Correct. Exactly. So you want to just be clear. You don’t want to muddy these things up, because now I’m just confused about what I’m supposed to be paying attention to here. When we get across the pool, so the race is about to begin, and we go across to where Dad is, RJ. And he’s standing with Stefan, “a tall, athletically built Korean-American man.”

So we’re going to presume, I guess, that he is Tyler Kim’s dad, because Tyler is a wirey Korean kid. Interestingly Tyler is from Korea, whereas his dad is Korean-American, so we got to figure out what’s going on here. But RJ says to Stefan, “He doesn’t stand a chance.” Who doesn’t stand a chance? Is he talking about his own kid? Probably. But then tell me that he’s nervous. Tell me that he’s embarrassed.

Obviously he knows Stefan, right, because you wouldn’t just start saying that to some guy you don’t know. But then Stefan says, “The board shorts don’t fool me. He’s got the eye of the tiger.”

**John:** Can I pitch a fix here?

**Craig:** Please.

**John:** This is what I would say. So, first off my daughter competed in swim team last year, so I actually learned a lot about swim team, and I would say most of the details here feel kind of correct. Except for the board shorts. That would just not happen. It’s not a thing. Like a kid who competes on swim team is not going to be in board shorts, unless — and this would be your opportunity — if RJ’s line of dialogue here is like, “Man, I can’t believe I packed his board shorts rather than his Speedos. What an idiot I am.”

If he were to say something like that, it would take the curse off of the board shorts and make us believe that he’s an incompetent father. And then the overall joke that basically he’d been rooting against his son would make more sense in the end. That he’s basically trying to sabotage his son so that his son wouldn’t win this race.

**Craig:** Well, we’ll get to that part, because I really got confused about that. But I think you’re right. We need to explain this one way or the other. Either the dad forgot and screwed up, or the kid forgot and screwed up, or they’ve never done this before and this is his first time. And so they didn’t know. And he’s embarrassed.

But either way, the problem is his relationship with Stefan implies that they know each other, so it’s weird to have Stefan making comments like this as if he’s never met Hudson, the kid, before. And then RJ says, “My boy doesn’t possess the intensity gene.” So he’s sort of apologizing for him. And then Stefan says, “Maybe so, but at least this isn’t his first backstroke event ever.”

OK, now, so OK, I guess he has been doing this for a while, so then he shouldn’t have the board shorts. Why would he have the board shorts if he has done it before? And Stefan seems to be implying that his son, Tyler, has never done the backstroke before. And then RJ says, “Did you just hustle me?” So they did bet on it? But if they bet on it, then why would RJ bet on it because he says that his kid doesn’t stand a chance and he doesn’t possess the intensity gene. And he doesn’t.

So, I don’t understand what’s going on I guess is my point. And at the end when he roots — he’s happy that his son loses. Is it because he bet on Tyler?

**John:** Yes. He bet on Tyler. He bet against his own son in the race. That I think is meant to be the overall point of this scene. Like here’s a dad who bet against his own son in a race. And was trying to sabotage his son in the race. So I think if you read through what’s there, I think it supports that thesis. I just don’t think that it does the best job of supporting that thesis.

**Craig:** OK, if that’s what’s going on, first of all, “Did you just hustle me?” when Stefan says, “At least this isn’t his first backstroke event ever,” why is Stefan talking down his kid if RJ has bet on Tyler? Hustling him would mean talking Tyler up.

So I don’t understand exactly what’s going on. But regardless of that, if you’re going to do something in a script that is as extreme, and frankly interesting, as a father betting against his own kid, I need to see it happen. That’s the interesting part. Not this other nonsense.

Sorry, I don’t mean to be a jerk and say nonsense.

**John:** Yeah, I get it.

**Craig:** You know what I mean? That’s the moment I want to see. So the scene is you have these two guys and one of them is like I’ll put $30 on Tyler. And he’s like, you sure? He’s never done this before. I’m putting $30 on him, don’t worry. And then he’s going to win. And you’re like, OK, this guy is betting on, I don’t know, what? Don’t know. Then they walk out of the locker room or parents’ area into this school thing and the kid — and this guy who has just bet on Tyler walks up to his kid and says, “Listen, you can do it, blah, blah, blah. Go get him, Hudson. Oh, hey Tyler.” And you’re like, oh my god, whoa.

Right? There’s a way to do this that is exciting and pays something off and makes people gasp. This isn’t it.

**John:** I agree. So, I think what you’re describing is the scene as written right now, there’s probably not a version of like this is all happening in one real time thing that could do the best job of it. The way I would pitch for it is if they get up to the starting block and you’re starting to see that these guys have the conversation. You could do the flash cut back to like their betting in the parking lot, or some moment beforehand where they said like my kid is worse than your kid. My kid is going to tank. No, no, my kid is the worst. That could have been the thing basically before this thing started, so you’re recontextualizing what just happened and then you start the race is another way you could do it.

But I agree, it’s going to be challenging to — the fact that you got confused in these three pages and being able to go through this a couple times on the page, it’s probably not going to work especially well even if you shot it just like this.

**Craig:** No. This one definitely is not in the mystery zone. It’s not trying to be a mystery. It’s confusion.

**John:** Great. Let’s talk about an interesting choice that Dan has made with bold face. So bold face is a thing that exists in computers and you will see bold faced in scripts. Dan is choosing interesting things to bold face, like Lane Markers. Starting Blocks. Goggles. Sort of some random things seem to be boldfaced. I don’t think it works in this. I think it’s fine to sort of experiment with the form and bold face things that would not normally be boldfaced, but the choices he’s making here don’t seem to merit that.

Usually you’ll find in screenplays when boldfaced is used it’s because you got to really call out something to make sure that someone who is skimming does not miss this thing. Goggles does not deserve bold-facing, in my opinion.

**Craig:** I’m with you. In general if there are key props, I might put them in all caps. Boldface in action is for — I think I would probably just reserve it for some enormous reveal. Something that’s supposed to shock people. In dialogue, boldface always looks better onscreen, and then you print it out and you’re like, oh god. It just, you know, if I really need to emphasize something in dialogue, I’ll use italics or an underline, but almost never boldface.

**John:** A few other things that are just confusing for the read. Rondell Ri’chard wears a “sweet, baby blue sweatsuit.” I think it’s a “sweet baby blue sweatsuit.” I think it’s all one thing. Because breaking off that sweet just confusing the read.

In American English we put commas inside quotes, which is just how we do it here. If you’re British, don’t have to do that. But we do that here. So I see that on page two.

We tend to do uppercase for things like “the crowd cheers.” We tend to do uppercase for when we introduce groups of people as well. So like “the crowd.” It’s not the end of the world if you don’t do that, but just to know that it’s a convention.

And reaching back to our first Three Page Challenge, one of the arguments for those were not the first three pages is that the manager got uppercased but the other two guys walking in did not get uppercased. And they wouldn’t be uppercased if it was not their first scene. So that could be an argument that they actually had a scene before the three pages you sent through.

**Craig:** Correctamundo.

**John:** I would use PA Announcer (OS) rather than (OC). OC is off-camera, OS is off-screen. I just don’t use OC really at all and I just don’t see it being used at all. Do you use OC?

**Craig:** No, I use OS.

**John:** OS. I think OC just has kind of gone away. I think OC would kind of make sense just in the sense of the character is just past the eye line. Like one character is talking to an off-camera character, but OS is general purpose and is better used here I think.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, it’s not–

**John:** Not a big deal.

**Craig:** Not a big deal. But yeah, generally speaking I don’t see OC.

**John:** Last bit of grammar thing I’m going to point out. Page three, “We hear victorious shouts; YES, YES!” No. That’s not a semicolon. That’s a colon.

**Craig:** Sure is.

**John:** It is. Any time you use a semicolon your first question should be like is this really supposed to be a semicolon? And I would say 75% of the time the answer is no.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, basically unless you are using it to separate a series of items that include commas within the items, semicolons should be completely interchangeable with periods.

**John:** That is correct. So it’s a way of joining together two sentences that could exist separately but by fusing them together with a semicolon they ascribe meaning to each other, I guess.

**Craig:** Yeah. The sentence, I guess second independent clause, is in some way explaining or illuminating the first.

**John:** Yeah. And just the nature of what screenplays are, we’re not going to use that a lot.

**Craig:** No. I don’t think I’ve ever used a semicolon in a screenplay.

**John:** I know I’ve used one or two, but it’s just for very random small things like that. All right, those are our Three Page Challenges. Thank you, guys, for sending them in. You guys are incredibly brave to share these with us. We pick them because they have valuable lessons for hopefully our listeners at home, so you guys are awesome for doing that.

If you have three pages you would like to send in to have us look at on the air, you can go to johnaugust.com/threepage, and there’s a little form. And you attach a PDF and you click a button and it gets whisked away to Megan’s special little inbox where she looks through all of the Three Page Challenges. She read like 40 yesterday to help pick these. She’ll be reading even more because we’re going to do a live Three Page Challenge in Austin. So if you have three pages you would like us to look at at the Austin Film Festival and you will actually be there, there is a special little checkbox to say I will be at the Austin Film Festival. And if we choose your three pages, we may invite you up to talk about your three pages so we can actually ask, “Hey, are these actually the first three pages” or “Hhat happens to these characters after page three?”

**Craig:** And we’re nice. We’re not mean. And we will also — by the time this episode airs, so you’re listening to this now, and the Austin Film Festival has put up their official schedule. So you will see on that official schedule that I am doing some events in addition to the Three Page Challenge, but most notably John and I will be doing another live show. This will be on Friday night at 9pm.

Last year we did it Friday night at 10pm which was amazing because everybody was kind of toasted and was a good, fun time. But this year they moved it up to nine because I guess, well, what they said was it’s overlapping with some parties. And I think we actually impacted the attendance of some parties because this was a very popular event. They put it in the big, big ballroom at the Driskill Hotel. It was a great time. So please do make that a part of your schedule.

We will show up slightly inebriated. It will be a fun time. Last year the format was stand up and ask us questions. Because that’s why you’re here. And we had a great, great group of people. We had Tess Morris. We had Malcolm Spellman. We had Katie Dippold. We had a great group of people. And I expect that this year we will have a similarly fantastic group of people. I think we’ll have Megan Amram and Scott Frank and Dana Fox, or somebody. I don’t know. We’ll figure it out.

**John:** And you’ll have me. That will be a key change to the lineup, because I was not there last year. And there will probably be little bit more order. Just the nature of things.

**Craig:** There’s going to be an adult. It won’t be as much fun.

**John:** I’ll be the Ilana to your Abbi.

**Craig:** It will not be as much as last year, because dad will be there. But still it will be fun.

**John:** It should be a good time. All right, let’s get to one question here. This comes from Clive, which is apparently a fake name, in Los Angeles. He writes, “I have what is possibly the most boring question in the history of the show. What filing and or naming conventions do you use for your script files? And do you distinguish between drafts or major changes, polishes in your file names? I don’t mean for production revisions, but just for your own internal purposes. Also, how do you guys collate all your notes on a draft and file them so they make sense? I’ve been putting them in the same folder for whatever draft they were for, but it’s quickly become quite messy.”

Craig, I have known you for years, I have no idea how you number your files.

**Craig:** I’m pretty simple. The first draft is Draft 1. And then I work on that. And then when I send it in, I put the date in parenthesis along with the name, so then if there are some little notes before I’m sending in an official draft one, then it will Draft 1 with a new date. And then when the official one is designated, I’ll just say Official Draft 1. So, you know, I have multiple versions of it.

All the while, I’m generating PDFs, which I’m handing back and forth between myself and Jack Lesko, who is my editor. And so that’s roughly how I do it. And then I go to Draft 2. I don’t distinguish between drafts, polishes, rewrites. Everything is a draft. Draft 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Doesn’t matter to me. And in terms of notes, yeah, I mean, I don’t really write down a bunch of notes. I mean, they give you a bunch of notes, or in a meeting I’ll take notes of the notes. And then I just print it out and look at it.

But I don’t really collect the notes per se. I just do the thing. So I just have folders. You know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. That kind of thing.

**John:** Yeah. So on Dropbox, I have everything on Dropbox. I’ll have a folder for a project. So I’ll have a folder for Aladdin. In that folder I’ll have — once I start assembling a script, I’ll just give it a date. So whatever date I’m turning in that script — so whatever date I’m putting on the title page, that will be the number at the end of it. So it will say Aladdin 2.28.17, because I like dots in my dates, because I’m that guy. And that will be the draft.

And so that will the draft for both my Highland file and also for my PDF. I’ll use that same convention for numbering, for putting the date on things. And then everything for me is just the date on it. So the file just shows what the date would be on the title page of that script. I don’t say first draft, second draft, whatever draft. It’s just that–

**Craig:** Just the date.

**John:** Just the date.

**Craig:** I had to figure out a slightly new system because Chernobyl was in episodes. I’ve never written anything in episodes before. But I just made folders. Each episode got a folder. Episode One. Episode Two. And it worked out just fine.

It’s a little annoying, actually, because in movies we’re on the draft we’re on. So I just know like, OK, I’m on the second draft. I can live in that folder for a while and not have to worry about going in between folders. But to keep things neat for Chernobyl, I did divide it up by episode or else it would have gotten out of control.

And the other thing I do is when a movie goes into production, then there are other folders that get made. And then I’ll make a production draft folder. And that’s when you do get into your revisions and I’ll have a folder for casting, and a folder for storyboards, and a folder for this, and a folder for that.

**John:** Once we get into color revisions, then I will sort of label the script, like Blue Revisions, and stuff like that. Which is natural for this.

The other thing I’ll say is that there are going to be times where you’re cutting stuff out of your script, like there’s a scene that you want to hold on to that’s not part of it. What I used to do was create a separate scratch file of things that got cut out of it, so I could go back to those things if I needed them. In the new Highland, there’s bins. So there’s a place you can just drag stuff over and it will just keep it there. And so I just tend to use the bins that are sort of part of the file itself. And so I don’t ever lose those little pieces.

**Craig:** That’s smart. Yeah. In Fade In there is a function where you can also bin large chunks of stuff within the file without it showing. But I still will — just as force of habit, I’ll just make it, you know, cut–

**John:** Cut and paste. Yeah.

**Craig:** Command N for a new file. Paste. Save it as, you know, and just write a description of it. Maybe three or four times every project there will be three or four of those that get shoved off to the side.

**John:** Cool. All right, one of the most important questions of the history of Scriptnotes has been answered today.

**Craig:** Thank god.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. I’m going to cheat. The first is a book I am reading right now called Conversations with Friends by Sally Rooney. It’s delightful and it’s one of those rare cases where I’m trying to read the book before everybody else in the world has read the book because I usually read things like a year or two late, and all the conversation has past. So, there’s going to be Slate Book Club stuff talking about this book and so I wanted to read it now.

It’s quite good. She’s an Irish author. It revolves around two college students in Dublin, Frances and Bobbi with an I. It’s their relationship with a married couple named Melissa and Nick. It’s good and it reminds me so much of my early 20s and how obsessed I was about studying very tiny interactions and my paranoia of what people were doing around me and my social status. It’s a very well observed thing.

And your early 20s are a fascinating time. I think this author really nails it, so I would recommend that. I’m only halfway through, though, so maybe it completely falls apart at the end and I’ll retract my observation.

**Craig:** That would be awesome.

**John:** A thing I have watched to the end is a short called Meet Cute. It is written by Ben Smith. It is directed by Ben Smith and Scriptnotes producer Megan McDonnell. And just this past week it went up online. It’s delightful. So I will send you to IndieWire where you can watch it. It stars Jon Bass and Juno Temple. And I don’t want to spoil what happens in it, but you think you know what’s going to happen and something very different happens. So it’s a quite well done little short film. So I recommend you guys take a look.

**Craig:** Well, you did two, so I don’t have to do any. Phew.

**John:** Craig escapes once again.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week comes from Rajesh Naroth. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place you can send questions like the one we answered today.

On Twitter, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. We love to answer your little short questions on Twitter. So hit us up there. We are on Facebook. Just search for the Scriptnotes podcast. Megan actually kind of uses Facebook, so maybe she’ll answer questions there, too. Who knows?

You can find us Apple Podcasts at Scriptnotes. That’s also where you can leave a review for us. That’s always delightful. Helps people find the show.

Pretty soon we’re going to have actual information about who listens to episodes because they’re going to release all the download — beyond sort of downloads, they’ll have very specific granular information about who listens to shows all the way to the end. And we will know so much more about who tunes out halfway through the Three Page Challenges.

**Craig:** That’s going to be awesome. I love it. We can call them up and let them know we know.

**John:** That would be Mike. Mike does not listen to the Three Page Challenges.

**Craig:** I don’t think Melissa listens to any of these. You know what? Let’s find out. Let’s see if she does. Melissa, if you listen to the podcast, then I want you to say the word Umbrella to me really loudly and, if you do, I will do all of the laundry for a week.

**John:** That is a hell of a deal. That’s good. You’re betting on yourself, and that’s what I like.

**Craig:** I think I’m going to win.

**John:** You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the Three Page Challenges we just did. You’ll find transcripts. Within a week of the show airing we’ll have the transcripts up.

We have all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. We used to have USB drives and we ran out of USB drives. We actually had to refund some money to people who bought USB drives and we didn’t have, so sorry about that. We’ve ordered more, but it could be a couple weeks before we get more of the first 300 episodes on USB drives. We’ll let you know when those are back available. But there will always be back episodes at Scriptnotes.net.

And, just this last week I was at your party and I was talking to a young writer/director, a woman who has been a guest on the show before but I don’t want to spoil who she is at this moment, but she said that after being a guest on our show she paid for the premium subscription and has gone back and started listening to key episodes and she loves the back episodes.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** So yet another person who is paying us $1.99 a month.

**Craig:** Paying you $1.99 a month.

**John:** Oh, me, us, it’s all the same.

**Craig:** No it’s not!

**John:** No it’s not.

**Craig:** I get nothing.

**John:** Craig, thanks for another fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [WGA Section of johnaugust.com](http://johnaugust.com/wga-board)
* [I’m Joining the WGA Board](http://johnaugust.com/2017/im-joining-the-wga-board)
* [CEO Mitch Lowe Pulls Back The Curtain On MoviePass And Explains Its Economics](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/09/18/ceo-mitch-lowe-pulls-back-the-curtain-on-moviepass-and-explains-its-economics/) from Forbes, by Rob Cain
* Three Pages by [Steven Wood](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Wood_3pgs.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Elizabeth Boston](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Boston_3pgs.pdf)
* Three Pages by [Dan Pavlik](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Pavlik_3pgs.pdf)
* [Submit](http://johnaugust.com/threepage) for the Three Page Challenge
* [Austin Film Festival 2017 Film Slate](https://austinfilmfestival.com/festival-and-conference-aff/festival/film-slate/)
* [Conversations with Friends](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0451499050/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Sally Rooney
* [Meet Cute](http://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/juno-temple-jon-bass-meet-cute-short-film-1201878128/) – Short Film on Indiewire
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive) will be available again in a few days!
* [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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([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_319.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.