• 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 72: People still buy movies — Transcript

January 18, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/people-still-buy-movies).

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

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

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, episode 72, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig, how are you?

**Craig:** I’m really good, and I will tell you why when we get to our One Cool Thing.

**John:** Nice. So, today I thought we would talk through two things. First off, there’s a new report out that shows for the first year in seven years that home video revenues are actually rising a tiny bit.

**Craig:** I know. A tiny, tiny bit.

**John:** That seems to be good news.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But we can talk through what that means and what it doesn’t mean. And then today will also be a day of four Three Page Challenges. And this is probably the goriest batch that Stuart has ever picked.

**Craig:** So much blood, Stuart! I like it.

**John:** He told me that he actually tried to lighten it up by throwing us a comedy at the end, but it’s still — it’s pretty gory.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, just a warning in advance.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But first, I have a correction. In last week’s podcast I said that I didn’t really have a New Year’s resolution for this year and I sort of made up a kind of half-assed one. But, the truth is that I am changing something fundamental for this New Year and I can’t believe I didn’t mention it on the podcast. I have become a single space after the period guy.

**Craig:** Oh! I love it. Good for you!

**John:** I just bit the bullet and I switched. And so it took some muscle memory retraining, but I’m now just a single-space-after-the-period and it’s just fine.

**Craig:** Yeah. I went through that myself and I do remember a weird little retraining period. But, welcome. Welcome to “Gooble-gobble one of us.”

**John:** Yeah. So, the script for ABC, Chosen, was the first one I did as a single space. And it’s just fine. At first you look at it, it’s like, “Oh, something’s wrong,” but it’s not wrong, it’s just different. And I don’t know that it actually saved me any pages because I actually typed it with a single space. So, I didn’t do a big search and replace. I didn’t like squeeze a page out of it. But, it feels just right.

So, if you’re a screenwriter who is on the fence about switching to a single space, I say just try it.

**Craig:** Yeah! Do it! Do it.

**John:** Do it! Cool. Let’s get to our topics.

So, yesterday — not really yesterday, it was last week by the time this podcast comes out — Ben Fritz in the LA Times had an article about a story released by the Digital Entertainment Group, which is a trade group for all the studios and sort of manufacturers of home video products. They were reporting that for the first year in seven years, home video revenues rose for the first time. The quote is, “After seven straight years of falling home video revenues, last year Americans spent more money watching movies at home than they did the previous year.” So, it’s stopping a trend.

And it was up a shocking 0.23%.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yeah. Well, you know, you hear these phrases sometimes in the world of finance, “The dead cat bounce.” It feels more like maybe the body finally hit the pavement.

For those of you who kind of casually monitor your own usage of things, you might have noticed that you don’t rent or purchase DVDs the way you used to anymore; other people don’t as well. But you really don’t have a sense of how precipitous the decline has been unless you work inside the business.

It’s been a freefall almost — really, really bad situation. This is a stream of revenue that the studios really relied on to fund everything, and so much of the decline in production and even the way that they’ve approached the kinds of movies they’re willing to back can be traced back to that, to that very fact that home video…just the bottom fell out.

And while I can’t say that a 0.2-something increase is good news, I think everyone’s held-breath hope is that we won’t drop a lot anymore. That maybe we are stabilizing. Maybe? And it seems almost too much to ask for that it will go up, but if that happens, great. But for it to not keep going down every year is just really good news.

**John:** Yeah. So, we’ll get into some more specific statistics, but we should talk about why it’s important for the industry and why it’s especially important for screenwriters. Because, as industry we talked about the fact that studios rely on home video to actually make profits on these moves, because movies as they’re released in the theaters, that’s not usually where the bulk of the money is coming from. More than 50% of the revenue comes from ancillary sources, down the road as they’re selling DVDs, as they’re selling television, as they’re selling it in other ways.

For a screenwriter, those other ways — those secondary markets — is where we get residuals. And residuals are a sort of crucial way of being able to maintain the career of screenwriting when you’re between projects. The years that you’re not writing a movie, those residuals are what is carrying you over.

And so the decline in home video has had a very profound effect not only on the kinds of movies that screenwriters are able to get made, but on how much you’re literally getting in your green envelope as residuals are paid.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s exactly right. We don’t get paid any percentage, effectively, of box office. We don’t get paid a percentage, interestingly, of the exhibition of movies on airplanes, which is considered primary exhibition. We get paid a small but significant — meaningful — percentage of home video downloads, rentals, sales, internet sales. And also the reuse of the movie on pay television and free television, you know, HBO and network airings of the movies.

And as this home video market collapsed, so too did our residuals base, and while the percentage stayed the same, the amount that it applied against just collapsed.

So, you know, it is good news for writers, and actors, and directors who all draw residuals on films. I don’t know. I mean, I can’t really jump up and down here. All I can do is say, “Gee, I hope next year it’s the same deal,” you know. I’ll take a 0.2 increase every year at this point over what we’ve been having.

**John:** Now, also for screenwriters we should say that classically as studios try to explain why they have to tighten things up, they are complaining that home video revenues are shrinking. Of course, Justin Marks, our mutual friend, a screenwriter, had a tweet yesterday saying, “Hooray, the end of one-step deals! Suddenly the purse strings will fly open and studios will pay more money,” which is not probably accurate.

**Craig:** No. And I can’t really blame studios for taking a wait-and-watch attitude here. Look, if home video does increase significantly, if the long hoped for “internet boon” occurs — “boom” I should say — occurs, then they will likely increase production and they will open their wallets and spend more because movies will be marginally that much more profitable again. So, that’s a good thing.

But it’s hard to fault them for waiting, because the news has been so bad for so long. So, you know, let’s put a couple of good years together and maybe then they’ll change their tune.

**John:** So, I spent some time this afternoon trying to find the actual source of this information, because Ben Fritz’s story was the first thing I saw, and that’s what got sort of passed around a lot. The group behind this is called the Digital Entertainment Group, which is so generic of a title that you know it has to be a trade organization. And it turns out it really is. And so I’ll put up a link to their original site.

They reference — there’s a press release that references information in the report. And they say like “Attached is a report” and I could not find the report as we were going to air. But, there was more stuff in the press release and in stories that we can find. We can do a little spelunking to see what’s actually really going on.

So, some of the facts: DVD subscriptions, by which I mean Netflix, dropped 28%, while the growth of kiosk rentals was 16% compared to 31% in 2011. So, Netflix, which is — there are other places that have subscriptions to DVDs, but Netflix is really what you think about; that was down 28%. Kiosk rentals, which is Redbox and things like Redbox were up 16%, but they’d been up 31% the year before. So, the growth in stuff like that has declined.

Those are important because those are big buyers of DVDs. And so studios would love for every person to just go back to the way that things used to be and be buying DVDs of all the movies and keeping them on their shelves, but no one is doing that right now. So, in lieu of that they are subscribing to Netflix and hopefully getting the DVDs, or buying stuff out of Redbox. And those are at least physical copies that the studios can sell. Those are not doing especially well.

Online purchases of digital copies was up 50% in just the last quarter of 2012.

**Craig:** That’s the good news.

**John:** That’s the really good news. So, online purchases of digital copies — that means when you buy off of iTunes, when you buy it from the Amazon downloadable part of Amazon, or the sites where you can do that — these purchases accounted for about 5% of overall home entertainment spending. But the fact that they are up 50% seems to be a very good sign.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And right now digital accounts for about 30% of the domestic home video market, up from 19% compared to 2011. That’s great. And I think that digital probably is also meaning video on demand or other ways that people are getting movies delivered to their screen without a physical medium.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s an additional bit of good news there for us as writers, because our residual rate is actually better for electronic stuff. The old rate that the guild hated and stuck over fruitlessly — twice — was the DVD/VHS rate, and that was essentially 20% of 1.5% to 1.8% depending on how many units were sold, which worked out roughly to be about 0.3% to 0.35% of the studio’s take, which is really, really tiny.

And yet when they were selling billions of these things it added up. And you’d get some big checks for some hit moves, really big checks.

**John:** Definitely.

**Craig:** And then that sort of collapsed. The good news is that our rate for sales on the internet, so if you purchase a movie on iTunes, I believe our rate is roughly twice that DVD/VHS rate. It’s something like 0.6% and change.

And if you rent, it’s even better. Even though, of course, there’s less revenue from renting, we get a full 1.2% of rental — internet rental revenue. And again, when you look at these numbers, you think, “Well, the movie cost $10 on iTunes.” Well, the studio doesn’t get $10. They have to share it with Apple and all the rest. But, it’s a good thing. I mean, if that keeps increasing we could do well.

**John:** Yeah. Again, I think it is really good news that the digital rates are higher, just like the overall pie is a little bit smaller, too. So, we get a larger chunk, but the pie is smaller because the actual price point is lower, too.

So, the advantage of the physical medium is that they can charge $15 for a DVD. They’re not being able to charge $15 for just the rental of that movie, or for the sale of that movie digitally as often. So, we’re getting a higher percentage of a lower price point usually.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, from the other angle where you ask, “Will this re-bolster the home video market and then will that translate into more movies and more hiring and hiring wages for writers?” The question I have, and I have never gotten an answer, is what the relative margin, what the relative margin — what the relative profit margin is on electronic stuff versus DVDs.

I mean, a DVD had to be actually made. It’s a physical object and had to be put in a box and it had to be shipped. And all of that costs money. And you don’t have that with electronic media. There’s one copy somewhere that just gets promulgated a billion times, essentially freely. I mean, the distribution system is de minimis.

So, I wonder, you know, if you ask, “Well, how much money did a studio get from a $17 DVD versus a $9.99 download?” I wonder. I hope it’s comparable, but I don’t know.

**John:** I suspect there is an answer that is true for 2012 and it’s a different answer than was true for 2010. I think it’s one of those constantly shifting things. And, again, the tides are constantly shifting. We don’t know sort of how… — Let’s think about how studios used to want consumers to work. They wanted you to just keep buying physical discs. And so they wanted you to buy VHS tapes originally, and then they wanted you to buy DVDs. And they wanted you to buy one of two competing DVD formats.

Hey, do you remember DivX? Do you remember that format?

**Craig:** Sure. Yeah.

**John:** Where you had the one-play DVD. That was a great idea.

So, then we had two competing HD formats, and Blu-ray ultimately won that fight. Now studios would love you to go to UltraViolet, which is where you’re buying a physical copy but you’re also getting a digital copy that we deliver to you.

They want to just keep selling you the same movie again, and again, and again. And that’s unlikely to ever happen again in the future, to some degree. They’re unable to sell that same movie to people again and again, but they may be able to sell that same movie again and again to the people who are licensing the movie for them, so the Netflix or the Amazon Primes who are subscription services, studios can keep cutting deals to sell those same movies again, and again, and again. And over the course of years that may become a valuable chunk of the revenue.

**Craig:** Yeah. The economics of running a movie studio aren’t particularly complicated. I mean, the way it works is basically you spend a whole lot of money upfront to make a movie, and then you sit back and collect money slowly for awhile, usually. I mean, sometimes you get a ton back right away.

But, the real advantage to owning a movie studio is having a library of films, because they’re made, and they’re done, and you own them. And if you can continue to make money off of copies of those things without having to spend a dime to make new stuff, that’s amazing. I mean, the analogy I use: it’s like a kitchen with a never-ending bread maker. I mean, it just keeps coming and you just keep selling it. And you don’t have to pay for anything else. So, they will consistently try and figure out how to monetize their library.

I think you’re going to see, inevitably, some kind of deal where there are going to be enhanced options and there’s going to be a lot more variations. There are going to do director’s cuts. And eventually they’ll figure out 3D viewing at home, and they’ll do 3D versions. Who knows? They’re just going to keep trying.

It’s like that line from Men in Black where he holds up the little mini CD and he goes, “I guess I’ll have to buy The White Album again.” I mean, that’s the dream. You will be on your 12th copy of Groundhog Day before you die. [laughs] They’ll keep trying. I mean, it’s been a scary few years, and maybe they can get their footing again.

**John:** Well, two points. First off, the Frankenweenie DVD just came out last week.

**Craig:** Excellent.

**John:** And it actually comes in a four-disc set, which I was skeptical about until they actually sent me a bunch of them. And I was like, “Oh, I can sort of see what this is.” And so it’s one box that looks like a normal center jewel box, but inside you have a 3D Blu-ray, you have a normal Blu-ray, you have a normal DVD, and some sort of token for downloading the movie, not on iTunes, but on some other service which is probably doomed.

But, I can understand why they’re going to keep the physical thing going as long as they can because that’s what they know. It’s like they’re saddle makers and they’ve been making saddles their entire life. And suddenly there are cars, and people love their cars, but they say like, “No, no, keep buying saddles, please. Please keep buying saddles. How dare you put the saddle industry out of business?”

And they’ll never really put the saddle industry out of business. People will still want physical copies of things. There are going to be advantages to owning Blu-rays or whatever comes after Blu-rays because you’re probably going to be able to get a better picture that way for quite a long time.

And also you have the nuclear bomb ability of, like, you actually physically own something; you’re not relying on it being on a server. But for most people the digital version is going to be a better solution. There is a lot of talk about how Millennials just don’t care to own things anymore. They’ve grow up with the internet.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so the idea of physically owning something is not that appealing. They just want access to things. And so they don’t care if it physically is in their possession as long as they can get to it easily. So, as long as you can find a way to make it profitable to give that thing to that person when they want it, that’s the business model.

That’s why… — You’re the person who always takes umbrage, but the one thing in the industry that gives me the greatest umbrage — partly because I had to sit on a CES panel for it last year — is UltraViolet, which I think is just such a misguided concept.

UltraViolet is a format of a digital locker, essentially, for people to take their physical copies of DVDs or Blu-rays, or whatever, and be able to view them digitally, but it’s a protected thing that all these studios are coming together to do. And it just seems like such a clustermuck that they’re wasting a lot of time and money trying to push when they should really just be figuring out how to embrace the competition between iTunes, and Amazon, and all the other services that are coming out there and play them against each other to make profit.

**Craig:** Yeah. A lot of their strategizing is driven by their fear of piracy. And it’s a completely rational and justifiable fear. But it is, unfortunately, I think it is driving it too hard. And you can’t really win, you know. And when you look at music I think you see where the solution is. And the solution is to make it so easy to do the right thing and so affordable to do the right thing that people just do the right thing.

If they continue to wall their content in out of fear, it’s just never going to work. And the good news is they don’t have to. We, thankfully, don’t share the same problems that news media currently labors under. There’s so much free news content, and everybody now basically just gets it for free, and there’s literally no impetus to purchase news anymore. Zero. I don’t know why anyone would pay for news at this point, because the news industry has told us it’s worthless. That’s exactly what they’ve told us, and they’ve made it worthless. And then, too late, they tried to put up pay walls and…forget it. Forget it. It’s never going to happen. It’s too late.

We lucked out in the audio/visual end of the entertainment business because we had the music business be our canary in a coal mine. We watched the music business desperately try and figure out a way around this. RIAA lawsuits didn’t stop anything — let’s be honest. What stopped the widespread piracy of music, I mean, the 99.9% omnipresence of music piracy, was iTunes. Steve Jobs said a song now costs a dollar. Come on. And it’ll be good and you’ll get it, and it’s cool, and you get it instantly, and it’s attractive and fun. It goes right on your device; you don’t have to sit there like a nerd on Limewire or Kazaa.

And that’s the answer. So, I agree with you. I think that these lockers and these things… — You know, the movie business is good at making and selling movies. They’re not good at electronic distribution platforms. It’s not their business. I mean, how many other companies whose business that is have failed? Why would the movie business be any good at it?

Let the people who distribute the stuff distribute it. They’re good at it. It’s like the way we let Wal-Mart sell DVDs. You know, we don’t sell DVDs. Let Wal-Mart do it.

**John:** But, if you actually look at the press releases coming out of CES this week, they’re touting how Wal-Mart is now doing this UltraViolet transduction service. Basically they let you convert your DVDs into the UltraViolet format. And I think it’s going to be spectacularly unsuccessful.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And you can tell that this digital entertainment group is a trade organization, because without any statistics that sort of back it up they talk about the overwhelming success of UltraViolet, which I don’t know anybody in the entire universe that likes or understands.

**Craig:** Literally no one. I mean, no one even bothers to understand it, because it’s unnecessary to understand it.

**John:** Because you know it’s going to go away.

**Craig:** Yeah! I mean, we’re going to be giggling about that in few years. I really do believe. And the thought that people are going to go to Wal-Mart with a cardboard box full of DVDs to convert it to another thing? No!

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No. What they’ll do is if they want it on their computer and they don’t know how to get it from their DVD onto their computer, they’ll buy it on iTunes, or they’ll buy it on Amazon, or they’ll buy it through their television. See, that’s the other thing that’s waiting out there is Apple TV. Not Apple TV, the hockey puck thing that streams video from your computer to your monitor, but the hardware Apple Television that everybody knows is coming.

And everybody understands that what’s going to be killer about it presumably isn’t that it’s a big screen with lights on it; everybody has that. But it’s going to be some kind of content delivery and content management system that is going to finally solve all of our problems of how to organize, purchase, and view material. And when that happens, that’s how people are going to get their stuff. Let’s face it. This UltraViolet junk — get out of here. Now I have umbrage!

**John:** Now you have some umbrage.

So, here’s, too, I think… — I mean, I don’t think the studios are going to be the big player in solving this problem other than the fact that they’re going to have to figure out how to sell — they’ll figure out who to license it to for subscription services and which essential retailers they’re going to be making deals with for selling through.

I think the players to watch are Apple, of course, through iTunes and for some sort of physical device; the cable companies, because cable can deliver libraries and give you video on demand; satellite. You know, I think Amazon will continue to sort of dominate in here because they’re both good at selling bits and selling discs. And their streaming services through that kind of stuff. The next Netflix will happen.

But it’s not going to be UltraViolet. And it’s not going to be a bunch of studios coming together to try to make something. First off, because they don’t like to work together. There are some restrictions on how much they really can work together because of anti-trust. It’s just a mess.

And, I also feel like a lot of the UltraViolet is being driven because they feel really bad for the Toshibas and all of the disc manufacturers, Sony, who have to make the physical devices and nobody wants those devices. I want all those DVDs that are in my cupboard. And I definitely don’t want a DVD player. For the last couple of years we’ve just been using like an old Mac Mini that has slot loading and we just use that for playing screeners when we have to.

I’m looking forward to not having to have screeners, and just have the code that I punch in that lets me watch Zero Dark Thirty when I need to watch it.

**Craig:** And, look, we all know that’s where it’s going. I mean, in ten years no one is going to have plastic. So, the clinging to plastic — I mean, I get what they’re doing. They’re like, “We’ll train people who like DVDs to also like digital. And then they’ll be our customers and they’ll have brand loyalty to UltraViolet.”

No they won’t. Nobody has brand loyalty to anything. They only have loyalty to what’s easy. So, you could say people have brand loyalty to iTunes. They don’t. iTunes is the best music and film delivery system for your personal computer. Period. The end. I believe that. And that’s where their loyalty is.

The second somebody comes along with something that kicks iTunes’s butt, they’re moving on, and that’s that.

**John:** Agreed.

All right. So, that’s our discussion of home video. So, hopefully we’ll be able to report back in a year and say, “You know what? That trend continued. And things are better than they were before.”

**Craig:** Hopefully.

**John:** And maybe there will actually be some real changes because of that. Next though, I want to go to our Three Page Challenges.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** I always forget to do this until after we’ve done one. So, let me preface this by saying, if you are new to the podcast and what we do with Three Page Challenges: We invite our listeners to send us three pages from one of their scripts. And it’s usually the first three pages. I think all the ones we’ve actually read on the air have been the first three pages of something.

If you want to do this for your own script, you can go to johnaugust.com/threepage, and there are instructions for how to do it, including boilerplate language that says you won’t sue us and stuff like that. And if you want to read along with us as we’re going through this, you can pause the podcast and go to johnaugust.com and find this episode of the podcast, and download the PDFs of these samples and read along with us and see if you agree with what we say.

**Craig:** Right. And you should agree with what we say.

**John:** Oh, you should. Because our opinions are infallible.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Our first script is by Al Ibrahim. It’s called Vandalan. It could be almost any pronunciation of the As in that.

**Craig:** Correct. There are three As. And they could all be the same. They could all be different. And we don’t whether the accent is Vandalan, Vandal-on, Vandalan, yeah, we just don’t know.

**John:** it is just an arrangement of As and consonants.

So, let me read the summary of what happens here:

We open in a dance club where loud techno music is playing. We’re in Changkat, which I think is somewhere in Asia, really unclear. We follow a young woman named May who is trying to get out of the club. A guy named Chen is shouting at her and being a jerk.

Outside the club this little Indian kid on a tricycle nearly runs her down. He rides off. May gets away from the club and away from Chen. Finally, she leans against a car, she’s trying to light a cigarette. The boy with the tricycle comes back and then when she looks again, the tricycle is there but the boy is gone, which is weird. And there’s also a strange puddle beside it. So, she approaches the puddle, looked into it, suddenly an arm reaches out from the puddle and drags her in.

And that’s the end of the three pages.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, I mean, it’s definitely — you get the genre pretty well. We’re in the world of creepy horror, sort of ghost storyish something. It’s laid out pretty well. I mean, there’s no dialogue on these thee pages, at all, except for the very last word which is an off-screen voice on the phone, and it’s just the word “hello.”

And that’s always a challenging thing, and I think the writer here pulls it off fairly well. I mean, it’s all fairly evocative. It’s very visual. And I can see everything. I know what everything looks like. I had a great sense of geography.

I don’t have a great sense of the literal geography, because I have no idea where Changkat is. It sounds vaguely Thai to me. But we’re INT. HAVANA NIGHT CLUB, CHANGKAT, so that’s going to throw people a little bit. It would be great if it’s Bangkok, if it’s China, if it is Hong Kong, please give us the country so we know.

I really liked the description of May. It says, “This is MAY (26).” 26, by the way, very specific. I just have a weird thing about super specific ages unless the age needs to be that specific because it’s somebody’s important birthday, or they’re getting their driver’s license, or it’s a war movie and they’re being drafted. You know, mid-20s is fine, or 20s is fine.

“This is MAY (26). She’s slim and Chinese and her looks are timeless; homegirl” — which I loved — “homegirl stepped right out of a Wong Kar-Wai film and found herself in this shit hole.” Which is cool because I like when the writer gives us a little sense of their own attitude, you know, that this is not being written by some stuffy dork. This is a person who has a point of view and an attitude and is kind of cool. If that is in fact who they are. Please don’t force it, [laughs], if it’s not who you are.

But I liked that there was some attitude here that made it enjoyable to read and made me actually feel that I was in interesting hands of the writer. This is a writer who is comfortable enough to call his own character “homegirl,” but also smart enough to know what characters out of a Wong Kar-Wai film would look like. So, I really like that. And I like the action.

I really don’t have anything to complain about here other than this one thing, and that is that this is generic. It’s a generic opening. She’s eaten by a puddle. And I’ve seen a lot of horror movies since The Ring, since Ringu, where people are swallowed by inanimate objects, static televisions, puddles, etc. And so nothing happens in these first two and a half that is in and of itself particularly fresh. That said, I thought it was well-written, well-crafted, and I liked it.

**John:** I liked it as well. What I will say — I will say I was surprised that it become the horror, that it became The Grudge, that that Ring thing happened. It was very specific and evocative and I thought like, “Okay, this is going to be some sort of chase movie, some sort of thriller movie. This is something about — or it’s going to be a Wong Kar-Wai movie,” and then the fact that it became this little horror thing I dug. So, I was surprised when it actually happened. And I didn’t see that coming. So, good on you for being able to do that.

Like you, I was thrown by Havana Night Club. If you say the word “Havana” on the third line of the thing I’m going to think, “Oh, we’re in Cuba. …But, but? Oh,” so I had to go back through that. “Oh, no, we really are somewhere in Asia.” So, just take that word “Havana” out of there. Put a different name for the club. Don’t make us think we’re one place when we’re someplace else, unless it’s important that we be misdirected.

I missed some uppercasing on people. You have people in the club, there are people going past, just give us uppercase on those people. It just helps us know that there are actual real — there are other people in the bar.

I sort of got a little bit lost in some of the paragraphs, and you don’t want me to skim. And so uppercase sort of gets me reading through the whole thing.

On page two there’s a cigarette thing where she’s like trying to light a cigarette. I’ve done this in movies, too. I think it’s becoming a clam. I think it’s becoming something that we’ve just seen too much, where like you’re having a hard time lighting a cigarette and that’s a suspense-building thing. Maybe we can do something else there, particularly because the phone is a more important thing that she’s trying to do there, so the cigarette, you can maybe get rid of that action.

But, on the whole I dug it.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, pretty minor nitpicks. But well-written, so good.

One little thing is when you said, I mean, I noticed it on page three, the page didn’t fill out, so the writer gave us the first scene, the sequence really, and then opted to not finish the rest of the page. Dude, finish the rest of the page. Give us the rest of the page. I like it. Even if I… — Obviously the next scene probably has nothing to do with what we just saw because that was sort of a cold open set piece, but I like it anyway. So, don’t cheat us. Give us the whole three pages.

**John:** I agree. What I will say about this is that this isn’t my genre. This isn’t a thing that I would necessarily gravitate towards, but if I were a producer who is looking to make a horror movie, I would like that and I would keep reading, and that’s a fantastic thing. So, it’s a good example of not just the genre but also the specificity of starting in a different culture, and I believed he sort of knew what he was talking about and that’s always a good sign.

**Craig:** Yeah, for sure. Nice work.

**John:** Next up is a script by Keith Groff & Jonathan White.

**Craig:** Is this the New Orleans one?

**John:** The New Orleans one.

**Craig:** Okay, great. Yeah. So, I’ll do a little quick summary here:

We open on young Kora, she’s a 10-year-old Creole girl. We’re in a rundown apartment in New Orleans at night. And she is watching as her mother, Maxine, is duct-taping the wrists of her unconscious father.

And Maxine returns to the room with a squawking chicken. Tells Kora to get out. Kora wants to watch, which Maxine is impressed by to some extent. Maxine slices the chicken open, dumps its guts out onto her husband’s stomach, and she makes a prayer, sort of like a Santeria kind of prayer, to somebody named Papa Legba.

And essentially puts a curse on this man. The man wakes up, freaks out, and Maxine tells him, “I’m taking Kora,” and she disappears with Kora.

We then flash forward to many years later. Kora is now 27. She’s in a port-a-potty. And while somebody is banging outside on the port-a-potty door to try and get in, she’s sitting there and we’re not quite sure what she’s doing until we realize she’s timing, she’s waiting for enough time to go by to read her pregnancy test which is, in fact, as it almost always is, [laughs], positive.

And she chucks the pregnancy test away, steps out of the port-a-potty, and we reveal that we’re in the Superdome parking lot. There are thousands of port-a-potties. People are trying, literally fighting to get in, and super informs us this is New Orleans 2018. And as she walks by we see that there is this barbed wire fence. And as the writer says, “We’ll call it…THE BARRIER.”

**John:** Yeah. And she has a cleaver in her hand.

**Craig:** What was that?

**John:** And she has a cleaver in her hand.

**Craig:** Yes, I’m sorry. There is a big meat cleaver that her mom was using to chop the duct tape in the sort of pre-scene and in the prologue, and Kora continues to hold that meat cleaver as a grown woman.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** So, what did you think?

**John:** So, you know, like many people I found Beasts of the Southern Wild to be just too light and airy. This was dark. This is dark, dark, dark. And it was like Angel Heart but, like, less subtle. It was just like, give me more blood. Give me more poop floating in port-a-potties.

It’s really dark. And so I can point to…I don’t know. It’s hard for me to guess what this movie is really going to be like. It’s a dystopian future of New Orleans. It feels a little bit almost Mad Max-y. When you’re walking around with a cleaver in your hand I feel like we’re in Mad Max territory.

And so I’m not entirely sure what movie I have signed onto after the three pages. And I would give myself to page 10, but if it continued along the same line I’m not sure I would keep reading.

**Craig:** Right. Well, there’s no doubt that something happened between 2012 and 2018 that caused bathrooms to become a little more scarce, because people are fighting over port-a-potties. And New Orleans is barriered in. So, yeah, dystopian, near-dystopian future after some kind of apocalyptic event.

Yeah, definitely some kind of Mad Max vibe when you have to walk around with a meat cleaver. And she’s pregnant.

Here’s… — I will say this. I like this, I think, quite a bit more than you. I don’t mind dark. In fact, I’m impressed with how unapologetic these pages were. Dark is one of those things that some people just don’t like, and some people do. And sometimes it’s context-dependent. If you write something that’s dark, if you write it well just rest assured that 70% of people are just going to go, “Yuck!” but 30% might love it. And all you need is one person to really love it.

So, you know, write truly to what you want to do. And if you want to write something that’s dark just make it interesting. I was interested. I thought there was good character work here between the mother and the daughter. And certainly the promise of somebody falling pregnant in the midst of all this chaos is interesting, and there’s drama built into these first three pages.

I’m a huge fan of Children of Men. I think it’s an amazing movie.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** This is sort of like a dark, creepy, nasty version of Children of Men. So, I mean, just based on these three pages and the way that she wrote, or he wrote, I’m sorry, or they wrote.

**John:** It’s a team, yeah.

**Craig:** I liked it. I thought the pages read well. They were laid out well. Good descriptions. So, I’m a little more positive about this than you.

**John:** Some typos I would also point out. On page two, “Then his EYE’S pop open.” That apostrophe doesn’t need to be there. There’s an “It’s” problem. So, if you’re sending stuff through to anybody to read, you know, it’s worth taking that last check. These are only three pages, so it’s worth going back through and making sure that all of that stuff is right so I’m not going to call you out on this podcast.

Great.

Our next up is by Nick Keetch. And this starts with a thing called “Teaser,” so we know that this is actually probably a pilot script, television project.

We open in the Chihuahuan Desert of Mexico where two young brothers, Alejandro and Miguel, are chasing after their runaway dog. They come upon a farmhouse. And peering in through holes in the wall they find a federale, an officer, being melted alive in acid by two men in biohazard suits.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** The boys are spotted and run. Miguel gets captured and presumably killed. Alejandro runs for his life, heading for the border. We see the US border. We see the flag. And that is the end of the teaser.

**Craig:** I mean, look, maybe I’m just in a good mood today. But I thought this was cool. Again, I guess my thing is, you know, you watch Game of Thrones like I watch Game of Thrones, and Game of Thrones is really bloody. Sometimes it’s creatively bloody. I mean, a man lops the head of his own horse off because he loses a jousting match.

So, if you’re going to be over-the-top violent at least be interestingly over-the-top violent, like dumping chicken guts on an abusive husband — presumably abusive husband.

In this case, they take this guy and they melt him in acid which is like, oh god, but you know, haven’t seen that. I don’t really think scientifically that’s accurate, by the way. I don’t think a body will immediately dissolve in a bucket of acid. You got to leave it in there for awhile. But, whatever.

The cool part though was that the acid man, the guy that’s burning this victim, reaches out for this little kid with his acid-covered glove, and just basically grabs the kid’s face. A kid, by the way. And puts this hand shape burn all over this little boy’s face. That’s bad-ass. And that’s cool.

And then his brother has to run away and escape. I presume, I don’t know why I presume this, I just have a feeling that the next scene is the kid who runs away is now 20-something, and there’s going to be this forgotten twin out there with a hand-shaped burn on his face coming for him.

But, I thought it was really cool. Like if I saw that on TV I’d keep watching. What other metric can I use to judge? So, I was pleased.

**John:** Yeah. I was pleased, too. I was actually a little bit alarmed because there’s a script that I’m working on that has a person being dissolved in a way that’s not the same, but it’s like, “Ugh, I thought that would be the first time we’d see it on screen.” Maybe mine will make it to production first.

But I did like sort of the creative violence of it all. I wasn’t a big of the opening voice over. So, let me read this to you. This is in the very first scene. Daxton Rivers says… — Oh, that’s interesting, his name is Daxton Rivers but we don’t know any other characters named Daxton Rivers. “People say,” that’s probably his new name.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. But we’re not given any clue about what this guy’s voice actually sounds like, or who he’s supposed to be. So, that’s one of the other problems. But the actual text I have a problem with. “People say we don’t get to choose our own lives. My brother and I would probably agree on the truth of that. Maybe him more than me.”

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s not very good, is it?

**John:** It’s not very good. And it’s very heavy-handed for over a shot of just like two brothers walking through the desert. I think it’s much stronger if you cut that out and just let it be the show.

Granted, I don’t know what else he’s going to do in this pilot, and maybe that voice over becomes a crucial thing, but it feels unnecessary, and I think it’s a much stronger opening without that there.

**Craig:** Yeah. I agree. The voice over like this is simply mirroring what we — tonally mirroring what we see. It’s not misdirecting us. It’s not leading us up to a surprise. And the language is just very wooden. “People say we don’t get to choose our own lives.” No they don’t! Never heard that before.

So, you don’t get to say that. You know, “People say we…” and then, you know, something that people always say. [laughs] You know, no one ever says that.

And then the next sentence is, “My brother and I would probably agree on the truth of that.” Well…that’s just bad writing. It’s just a clumsy sentence. It’s awkward. It doesn’t read well and it doesn’t come off the tongue very well. “Maybe him more than me,” it should really be, “maybe him more than I.” But, you know, it’s just not a pleasant bit of voice over.

And voice over — if you’re going to indulge in voice over it’s got to be delicious. It’s got to be fun. The language has to really be cool because people are just listening to it, like a book on tape. So, yes, that was a misstep for sure.

**John:** And the easiest way to rewrite it is to cut it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think so. You don’t need it. And if you do need it for your show, then come up with something else.

**John:** Now, on pages two and three, there’s some dialogue that is in Spanish and is subtitled, and let’s talk a little bit about best practice for this. Right now, El Pariente says, “Está bien. Está bien.” And then in parentheses, a parenthetical underneath it, the writer has, “(It’s okay.)”

**Craig:** We know “está bien.”

**John:** We know “está bien.” I would say that in cases of this really simple Spanish, I don’t think you needed to translate this at all. Everyone who’s going to be reading the script will understand what “está bien” means. I think you can get rid of the “Ayúdame,” which is the “help me,” all together.

I felt like in all these cases the Spanish that was there was fine and we would be able to understand it in context. If you have more sophisticated Spanish I would probably not try to put it — if you’re going to be using a lot of Spanish in your script overall, make a choice. Either you’re going to put it in English and just put it in parentheses so that it’s clear that this is in Spanish, or do the real Spanish and put it in italics and let people figure it out in context.

But this felt like over explanation for really simple things.

**Craig:** Yeah. And certainly you don’t want to do this weird thing where you do a line in Spanish and then put the English in parenthetical. That just doesn’t work underneath it. That’s not what parentheses are for.

A general rule of thumb is simple short sentences — don’t translate if they’re real simple, and short, and easy. Because frankly short little simple sentences are more interesting for the reader to figure out from context. And here you would be able to figure it out from context, even with “Ayúdame.”

So, there’s that. And then if you’re writing a more long, involved thing, then just say “they speak in Spanish” and then just put the English in italics to indicate — just let the reader know that this is going to be Spanish but it will subtitled. But you wouldn’t subtitle “Está bien.” And if you’re not going to subtitle it, then don’t translate it for us here either.

**John:** Absolutely. None of the dialogue that’s in here would have been subtitled, so therefore it shouldn’t be in parentheticals here. That’s all clear.

Our last script of the day is by P.K. Lassiter, and it’s called The Dance Machine.

**Craig:** The Dance Machine. So, we open up in New York City, 1976. And we are at Studio 54. It’s the heyday of disco. And all of these people are waiting, but not to get into Studio 54. They’re watching this little kid, Stuey Pepitone, who is six-years-old, dressed in a three-piece white suit, and he’s a dancing machine. He’s amazing. They’re just loving this kid dancing.

And there’s this little girl, also six, with her mom named CC who is just transfixed by this kid. Steve Rubell, the actual real life famous impresario, is that the right word?

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** The owner and promoter of Studio 54 steps out, sees Stuey, loves him. Brings him into the club and tells him to dance for everybody. And the kid is dancing for all these stars — I presume actors that look like the stars in 1976, including a young John Travolta. And Stuey is actually doing all these moves, inventing moves that we now know are famous, like the Hustle and even the Saturday Night Fever dance. So, John Travolta steals that from him.

And CC comes in, takes his hand, and the two of them are into each other even as six-year-olds. We then show Stevie Wonder, who reveal went blind because he watched Stuey Pepitone dancing. And then some Super 8 footage of Stuey growing up. He’s now ten. He’s winning various dance contests. Now it’s 1983. He’s 13. He’s inventing the language of break-dancing.

He Moonwalks, and Michael Jackson sees it. And he even then, a couple years later, gives LL Cool J his name. And LL Cool J — sort of documentary style — is telling the filmmaker that he knew Stuey P. He was the best. And he gave him his name.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** So, what did you think of The Dance Machine?

**John:** So, I have two sort of competing thoughts. My first thought was, well, this is actually a sketch and not a movie. Second thought is this is an enjoyable spec that will never actually become a movie, and so therefore should continue along its path in just being a very enjoyable spec script that will never actually shoot.

And those aren’t incompatible things. But I felt like what I was reading so far could sustain itself for a little bit longer, and great, and it’s a sketch, and it’s lovely, but I didn’t see this breaking into — at least what I saw so far — as the Anchorman or sort of the big comedy that can support sort of this premise of this is the kid who actually invented all of contemporary dance styles.

So, I enjoyed it, but I didn’t — and I sort of smiled — I didn’t really laugh-laugh-laugh.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, I thought it was a good version of this premise, but I’m not sure this premise is really sustainable.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, tonally it’s very broad. It’s obviously intended to be very broad and I presume that in a scene or two Stuey will be grown up, and if my comedy Spidey sense is as sharp as I think, Stuey is probably going to be a wreck and is going to need to dance his way back to the top.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And CC, his girl, is now grown up and he’s going to have to make up for something terrible he did to her. This is sort of the formula. These kinds of movies were very popular in the ’90s. And, in fact, when you mentioned sketch, that’s who would star in them. Saturday Night Live comedians transitioning to film would often star in movies like this. This is a very kind of early Sandler/Spade/Farley/Mike Myers kind of thing.

Will Ferrell doesn’t really do this sort of thing. It’s too broad for him and not quite ironic enough. This is really more of that earlier version. The problem is, of course, that that’s not really au courant right now.

**John:** Jim Carrey.

**Craig:** If you were to reinvent it you would have to be really, really funny and fresh. And I’m not sure that this quite rises to the challenge. Like you, I didn’t laugh out loud. I did appreciate the balls required to ret-con Stevie Wonder’s blindness as being a result of watching this kid dance. That is a very funny concept.

So, you know, it’s not poorly written. It’s not hysterical. They are following — or the writer, P.K. Lassiter, is following a formula quite closely that has worked in the past, it’s just that it’s worked in the distant past. And if I’m looking to purchase a script like this, the first question I ask is, “For whom?”

And there really isn’t anybody — even Saturday Night Live has sort of moved on from this kind of deal. It’s not — it just feels too goofily broad for where comedy is right now. So, you know, a mixed bag here.

I mean, these are exactly the kind of things I started writing initially, this tone. But, not bad.

**John:** Not at all.

**Craig:** I’m in a good mood today I guess.

**John:** You are in a good mood.

**Craig:** It’s not bad. I think there’s promise here. I think that P.K. has promise. It’s just maybe — it’s just a tough one with this because I just don’t know who it’s for. I mean, given the fact that it’s — I mean, basically this character is my age and your age, so Sandler?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I just don’t know if Sandler does this sort of thing anymore. It just seems like he’s maybe moved on. He’s too old to play this part of the former broad child genius in a crazy world.

You know who else? Stiller did it, too. This is very much like Zoolander. But Stiller doesn’t do this stuff anymore either.

**John:** Well, because we’re not really making those movies anymore. You brought it up. I’m thinking, “Well, what is the broadest movie lately that I saw, that I enjoyed, that I felt like even got a release?” It’s probably MacGruber. I mean, MacGruber is like this broad of a movie. And it’s smart in dumb ways, and dumb in smart ways. I really like MacGruber, but we’re not making a lot of MacGrubers right now. And this feels MacGruber-ish in that way.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, let me just say, as you know — I think I’ve mention this before — I think MacGruber is unheralded genius. [laughs] I think MacGruber is a great comedy. I really, really do. I love MacGruber. But this isn’t MacGruber. MacGruber even still was more meta and kind of hipper than this.

I think this is more close to some of the more recent — this is more close to like The Zookeeper with Kevin…

**John:** James.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I do want to get back to the idea, like, is it worth writing this script because people will read it and like it? And so I think there may be like a Balls Out with Robotard 8000. Like, you write a comedy that’s not really even meant to be made, but it’s meant to be read by people and passed around. People say like, “Oh, this guy is really funny.”

Even if they have no intention of buying the script or making the script, it could get you some notice and could get you started. And that’s maybe not the worst plan for a writer if this is the thing you want to write. He wrote this and that could pay off.

Because I can see people — I mean, I don’t know how the rest of the script is, but I could see people liking it. I could see like the junior development executive who has to read like 30 things over the weekend like reads this and is like, “Ah, that was really funny.” And gives it to his buddy to read and it could grow that way.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think it has to be really funny. Because really this script is so down the middle in terms of its tone, I just know what this movie is, and that’s okay, that therefore it needs to actually be something you’d want to make. In and of itself it doesn’t indicate that there’s this really special perspective on comedy. It’s not breaking new ground. It’s basically saying, “Look, here’s a movie like this kind of movie that competently delivers for the genre.” Therefore, it should be able to be made.

This kind of script to me actually isn’t as much of a calling card as legitimately, “Hey, would you like to make this movie? It’s a high concept idea that fits in this box.” And listen, we only have three pages. And like I said, I think the Stevie Wonder thing was ballsy as hell, and so I like that. There’s another bit of unapologetic writing. So, good luck. I think you’ve got a shot there.

**John:** All right. We liked that probably all of our samples have no apologies in them. That’s a nice thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is actually the best group overall. I mean, there wasn’t one stinker in the bunch.

**John:** Hooray. Well, thank you, Stuart, for picking these out for us.

**Craig:** Yeah, Stuart.

**John:** Thank you for our writers — I guess there’s actually five writers, because one is a writing team — for sending these in. That’s very brave of you, so thank you for doing so.

One thing I would like anyone who is listening to this podcast to do, if they have a chance to, is we’re going to do [a survey of our listeners to see who you actually are](http://johnaugust.com/survey). Because one of the things Craig and I talk about when we’re not on the air — we don’t really talk much when we’re not on the air, but we do talk every once and awhile.

**Craig:** Well, that’s only because you don’t like me.

**John:** Yeah. There’s that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But I think I really do a good job on keeping a lid on my disapproval of your lifestyle.

**Craig:** [laughs] I don’t know if it is that good of a job.

**John:** I just pinch myself when I want to yell things.

**Craig:** Anyway, a survey?

**John:** We’re going to do a little survey to see who our actual listeners are, because we work under the presumption that most of our listeners are screenwriters, aspiring screenwriters, people who are fascinated by screenwriting because they have some desire to participate in it.

But, that may not actually be accurate. And so one of the things I’m curious about for this New Year, and I think Craig is as well: Who are our listeners; what kinds of things would you like to see more of in the podcast? Because some people love the Three Page Challenges. But we also get some emails saying, “You know, enough of the Three Page Challenges. Maybe do some other stuff.”

People seem to like the interviews, but I don’t want to be completely an interview show. So, we’ll just see what kinds of things might be possible for people and be interesting for people.

The other thing we need to figure out is how many people are listening to us on sort of a regular weekly basis, and how many people sort of drop in and then like blow through a whole bunch of episodes, and then like we never see them again.

So, if you would like to participate in the survey, it’s just like four questions long, there will be a link at the bottom of this podcast, but also it’s just [johnaugust.com/survey](http://johnaugust.com/survey).

**Craig:** Well-crafted URL. And, yeah, I would love to know. I’m constantly surprised by the people that do listen to it. A lot of people in the industry listen to it, which is gratifying, but surprising to me. People from all walks seem to listen to it, and yeah, everybody has different wants. I hear it all the time, “More of this, less of this.” And nobody agrees.

So, maybe we can get some consensus from all of you.

**John:** Yeah. “Less Craig,” is usually what I hear.

**Craig:** Oh, I mean, I do, too. Sometimes I hear, “No Craig.” [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] And perhaps people will tell us if they like One Cool Things or don’t like One Cool Things, but it’s that time of the podcast. Did you remember this, because I didn’t remind you this time?

**Craig:** I have The Coolest Thing.

**John:** Oh, great.

**Craig:** Yeah. Do you want to do yours first? Or do you want me to go first?

**John:** I’ll do mine first because mine is simple and actually involves you to a small degree.

**Craig:** Yeah!

**John:** My One Cool Thing is Starred Changes, which is if you are working on a revision of a script and you have changed something in your script — this is not even just in production, but just like as you’re going through it. You’re making some changes for a producer, for a director, and you want to show him or her what has changed in Final Draft or Movie Magic, you will turn on Starred Revisions.

And so it puts these little asterisks in the margins, and people can see, like, that’s the part that changed. And it saves people a tremendous amount of time because they can like flip through the script and say like, “Okay, this is what is different from this draft and the last draft.” So, Starred Revisions are a very good thing.

One of the frustrations I run into sometimes is I will need to be able to do Starred Revisions for the person who needs to read it, but I also need to do a clean copy for people who have never read it before so they’re not seeing the stars in the margins.

Craig, how do you handle that situation? Do you run into that situation where you have to do a clean and a dirty draft?

**Craig:** Yeah. What I do is when I’m writing — I have to anticipate that this is going to be an issue, of course, because if you don’t turn the revision mode on before you’re writing, it’s too late; you can’t go back and — I mean, you could, it’s just annoying to go back and manually asterisk everything.

But let’s say I’m working on a draft/revision level, and I have asterisks on. So, everything is asterisked. That’s my default position. And then if somebody wants the asterisked version I send it to them. If somebody doesn’t, I just re-save as a new file and then I wipe the asterisks, and I send them that one.

**John:** Great. So, in those cases you’re sending the actual file or you’re sending a PDF made from the file?

**Craig:** Well, the PDF typically.

**John:** Yeah. So I will save you probably an hour this year.

**Craig:** Oooh!

**John:** Oooh! You ready? Because for the script for ABC I’ve had to do a lot of those revisions, and so I’ll send the stars to Josh, but then Josh will actually turn it in so I’ll give him a clean copy , too.

Here’s the trick: So, you have stars in your margins, great. Save the PDF. And I usually label it, like, “Stars” at the end to show that that is the one with stars in parentheses. Then go up to Revisions and just choose the next color revisions. And the next color revisions won’t have stars for it yet. And so just be in the next color revisions and make it the new PDF. So, therefore, you don’t have to save the file again. You don’t have to do anything magic. You’ve just told it to think that it’s in the next set of revisions.

And then you save that PDF with “Clean” in parentheses, and you’ve saved making a new file.

**Craig:** Is that really saving me that much time? Because what I do is — I’ve got my file open. And I don’t mean to uncool your One Cool Thing, but tell me where I’m going wrong here.

**John:** No, that’s cool. Tell me.

**Craig:** I’ve got my file open. It’s all these asterisks. I want to make a clean version. I go to “Save as” and then I do “Command-A” and then I do “Command-Bracket” to get rid of the asterisks and I’m done. It’s done. It’s just click, click.

**John:** And then you are now going through and making a new PDF off of that, and the next time you want to go through to make more changes, which of those files are you opening? Are you opening up the clean FDX or the one with (Stars).FDX?

**Craig:** I see where you’re going with this. Because I am opening the one with Stars. And I am also advancing the revision level anyway, so your point is that I’m already doing that.

**John:** You’re going to have to do it anyway, so why don’t you just do it now?

**Craig:** Yeah, look, that is one…I’m going to give you this. It’s One… — “Cool” is too strong for this. It is One — what’s a good word? — Somewhat Potentially Useful Thing.

**John:** Oh, okay. So, Craig, in your folder now you have two FDX files that are identical except that you’ve scrubbed the revisions off of one, but you’re never going to want that clean one again, because that clean one doesn’t do you any good. So, you’re going to either throw it in the trash or it’s just going to clutter up and you’re going to have to wonder which one of these two things I want.

My solution — only have one FDX file that has that date on it or says, you know, Draft 2.

**Craig:** You’re right. It’s better.

**John:** You just don’t want to admit that I’m right, that it’s better. And so how is this marginal improvement not, you know, a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** It’s marginally better. Look, you know what? Your initial assessment was correct. [laughs] Over the course of a year you will save me one hour.

**John:** Yes! I have saved you an hour. How can you not be grateful for an hour of your life saved?

**Craig:** Oh, I guess. You know what I’d do with those hours though? It’s tragic.

**John:** Yeah. Terrible things.

**Craig:** Terrible. Well, you know what I’m going to do with the hour. I’m going to spend it with my Cool Thing.

**John:** What’s your Cool Thing?

**Craig:** John, a few days ago I received my Tesla Model S.

**John:** That’s right! So, tell us all about it.

**Craig:** Oh, man, it’s the best car ever. Oh! Well, first of all I should say that there is, any time you talk about an expensive car everybody’s douche bag alarm goes off. So, let me just say in advance: This isn’t about the fancy aspect of it, because I really do believe that in five to ten years all cars will be like this car. I really, really believe it. It’s that good and it’s so much of a generational iteration past everything else on the road. It’s just every automaker is going to have to go, “We should just rip this off and just do it.”

The way that everybody ripped off the iPhone. Everybody had phones, and then the iPhone came along, and within a year every single phone was some version of the iPhone. It’s inevitable that it’s going to happen. And even Tesla themselves have plans for a much more affordable version of this car.

Here’s what’s awesome: I will say when it comes to the planet, you know, I’m not really — I don’t care. You know? That’s not my thing. I mean, I love the planet and everything but I’m not a crusader for the planet.

**John:** Well, you intend to die when you’re 50 and take your whole family with you, so it doesn’t really matter to you.

**Craig:** Precisely. I mean, when I decide to go out it’s going to — I’m going to take the whole block with me. But, what I love are things that work so much better that we use every day. So, the brilliance of the car, I mean, obviously, look, it’s all electric. One of the cool things about an all-electric car is there are no gears. So, you know you’re trained, you hit the gas, and the RPMs go up, and then you kind of ease off the gas and the automatic transmission goes to the next gear, and you ease up the next gear. So the car is like going fast, and then fast, and then, eh.

This thing you get everything all at once. And so it’s like being on a rollercoaster. I don’t know how else to describe. You know, the acceleration you get on Space Mountain that is sort of instantaneous throughout zero to whatever it goes to, that’s what it’s like in this car. Beautifully fluid.

You can kind of do almost one pedal driving, because every time you take your foot off of the accelerator, regenerative braking kicks in which basically collects electricity back into the battery and slows the car down. Every electric car has that.

Here’s the beauty of this thing: The car is controlled almost exclusively by this huge 17-inch touch screen in the middle of the car. And it is so much better than everything inside any other car. I mean, you have a fully-fledged web browser. [laughs] I don’t know what else to say. It’s so beautifully organized; you control aspects of the car from this thing. You have Google Maps with satellite. You want to go somewhere, it’s no more like fiddling with some goofy navigation system that somebody invented 12 years ago.

You just do it like you do at home. You just type in, “I want to go to McDonalds on,” you know, McDonalds is a terrible example. “I want to go to Spago.” Look at me, fancy guy. And it will just pull up, “Here’s three Spagos, which one?” You tap on it. You want to navigate through tap. Done. Boom.

It’s gorgeous. It looks so beautiful and I just feel like I’ve seen the future. I’m driving it. Everybody else has to be like this. It’s the coolest. It’s the coolest. You should get one. It’s the coolest.

**John:** Great. Well, I already have a Leaf which is the six months ago version of what you have. And so many of the things that you’re talking about, you know, the no-gears, the sudden quick acceleration, is terrific. And I have a center display but mine’s like four inches rather than your 17 inches.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** In that sort of dick-swinging aspect of it it’s very different. A question — when I told Mike that you got the sedan, his question is, because it has a much larger battery than our Leaf does, and do you already have your charger? Because if you’re just charging on the house current, that’s going to take like three days to charge.

**Craig:** Yes. I have a charger. Basically there is a high-powered wall connector that you can get to go along with it that you wire into a big honking 240-80 amp circuit. And that will charge. The Tesla Range on the big battery is — forget what they claim — in reality it’s about 250 miles which is extraordinary for an electric car. And you can get a full 250 charge in about 3.5 hours on this high-powered wall connector, which is nutso.

And so you just plug it in at night like your phone and every morning you have 250 miles which is more than anybody needs for normal driving. And if you wanted to do an actual road trip, like to Vegas, they have this even fancier, crazier, free charger in Barstow. And they also have two more in between LA and San Francisco. So, they’ve enabled road-tripping for free essentially.

The high-powered wall connector is actually arriving in a couple of weeks. So, as a stop gap, I’m using basically off of that same circuit a plug that is designed for electric welders, basically. It’s called a Nema 6-50. And that doesn’t pull the full amperage. It’s 40 amps. So, it charges, you know, again, overnight is a sufficient charge. But within a couple weeks I will be at a three-hour mega charge. And you can do it at night when your rates are lower.

And, I should mention, I’m also converting my house partially at least to solar.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** So, I’ll be driving on sunshine as they say.

**John:** That’s right. We have a big solar system and it has been nice to see that between the solar and the car, you know, things are balancing out nicely. Particularly in the summer we’re able to generate much more power than we actually need to use.

**Craig:** I will also add that one thing that’s pretty incredible about this car is that for an all-electric vehicle with no engine and none of that stuff, it’s just a battery, it goes zero to 60 in like five seconds. It’s fast. I mean, really fast. Like slap your head back into the seat fast. Very cool.

**John:** Very cool. So, I would say for listeners who are intrigued by that, they should check out your car. For listeners who check the price on the website and realize, like, “Oh my god, I could never afford that,” I would also check out the Leaf because it’s been a terrific car. We checked out the Leaf and the Volt. I did not like the styling on the Volt at all. It felt just like every terrible rental car.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But the Leaf I like a lot. So, your choices may vary. But I agree with you completely that once you’ve driven an electric car you definitely see that that’s how things are going and as ranges keep improving it’s going to be amazing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And for those of us who live in traffic-jammed Southern California, driving an all-electric vehicle like this gets you the coveted white decal, which lets you ride in the carpool lane by yourself. Woo!

**John:** Well, Craig, you may not be aware of this yet, but the actual single best thing about the electric car in Los Angeles is that there is one terminal you can park at at LAX and you don’t have to pay the parking fees?

**Craig:** What?!

**John:** Yeah, so honestly, it’s kind of worth it to have the car just for that. We were able to park through the whole Christmas break and not have to pay for it.

**Craig:** Oh my god! No way. Which one?

**John:** Well, we’ll talk when we’re off the air. It gets really full, so that’s why I’m not going to tell you on the air. But they can Google if they really want to.

**Craig:** All right. Well, you’ll tell me off the air, because I don’t want anybody else to know about it.

**John:** It’s pretty magic.

**Craig:** In fact, we should edit this to say it no longer has that, so don’t even bother.

**John:** Done. Great. So, again, thank you for a fun podcast. Thank you for listening. If you have the opportunity, please take the three minutes it would take to go to [johnaugust.com/survey](http://johnaugust.com/survey) and let us know who you are and what you like or don’t like about the show.

And, Craig, thanks.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. See you next time.

**John:** Have a great week. Bye.

LINKS:

* Digital Entertainment Group’s [Year-End 2012 Home Entertainment Report](http://www.dvdinformation.com/pressreleases/2013/Year_End_2012%20cover%20note_FINAL_1.8.13.pdf)
* [Frankenweenie](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LAIIA8/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) four-disc set on Amazon
* LA Times on Wal-Mart’s [disc-to-digital service](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/04/disc-to-digital-at-wal-mart-is-simple-if-you-know-your-vudu.html)
* Three pages by [Al Ibrahim](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/AlIbrahim.pdf)
* Three pages by [Keith Groff & Jonathan White](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/KeithGroffJonathanWhite.pdf)
* Three pages by [Nick Keetch](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/NickKeetch.pdf)
* Three pages by [P.K. Lassiter](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/PKLassiter.pdf)
* Tesla [Model S](http://www.teslamotors.com/models)
* The WolframAlpha Blog on [what Craig can do with that hour John saved him](http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2012/11/02/what-could-you-do-with-an-extra-hour/)
* [The Scriptnotes Survey](http://johnaugust.com/survey): A minute of your day. A lifetime of good karma.
* OUTRO: [Electric Car](https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/here-comes-science/id328953349) by They Might Be Giants on iTunes

Frankenweenie on video today

January 8, 2013 Frankenweenie

With the news that home video is finally [growing again](http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-home-video-revenue-no-longer-falling-20130107,0,5751239.story?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=71043), it’s the perfect time to point out that Frankenweenie is available today in the U.S., in both spinning plastic and digital versions.

The disc version comes in a bunch of different flavors — none of which I’ve tried firsthand. The basic DVD is just that. There’s a four-disc combo that includes Blu-ray 3D, Blu-ray, DVD and a digital copy, and a two-disc version with non-3D Blu-ray and DVD. (All links to Amazon.)

Digitally, the movie is [on iTunes](https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/frankenweenie/id570830865) in both HD and SD incarnations. On the Mac and PC, the digital version includes special features, such as a new Sparky short.

Amazon has the [digital version](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AOOIIVA/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=johnaugustcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00AOOIIVA) for purchase and rental, with HD available on Xbox and other platforms.

Animated movies don’t pay residuals like live-action movies, so you won’t be directly contributing any green envelopes in my future. But the more people who see it, the more likely it is we’ll be able to keep making odd little movies.

Scriptnotes, Ep 70: Best of Outlines, Agents and Good Boy Syndrome — Transcript

January 6, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/best-of-outlines-agents-and-good-boy-syndrome).

**John August:** Hello, and happy new year. My name is John August.

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

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

Now, despite the fact that you just heard Craig’s voice, he is actually not here with us today. So I cut him in on GarageBand, and I feel a little bit guilty about that, but he says it’s okay. So, truly he’s alive; nothing bad has happened.

What did happen is that he and I both took trips with our families over the holidays, and kept trying to find a time where we could record a new podcast, and we just couldn’t make the times work. So, we will be back next week with a brand new episode.

This week, though, I thought we would take a listen back to some things from the very first episodes of Scriptnotes. This is about a year and a half ago. Our first ten episodes or so don’t show up on iTunes for whatever reason, so if you started listening to the podcast over the last year, you may not be aware of these early episodes, and so I took sort of a best-of from these early episodes.

First up, from episode 3, we look at outlining, white boards, and sort of how you plan out a script. Second, from episode 2, we go back and we look at how do we get an agent or a manager, which is that evergreen question we tried to address at the very start of the podcast; it’s still probably the most common question we get asked every time I open up the mailbox. Finally, from episode 8, we talk about the good boy syndrome, which is that way that screenwriters tend to want to please people, and that can be a very good quality but it can also be a very limiting quality. We also talk about surgery and gynecological issues — we used to talk about gynecological issues a lot on the show for whatever reason.

And that is our episode for today. So I hope you enjoy it. This is sort of a clips show, but as I rationalize it, this is my rationalization: screenwriting and television writing, the career of those things really relies on residuals, and residuals are for the re-use of preexisting material, so this is being very WGA in the sense that we are reusing preexisting material to entertain and educate you.

I hope you’re having a great New Years Day, and we look forward to seeing you next week. Bye.

[Transitional tune]

**John:** How do you start? Are you a whiteboard person, are you an index card person? How do you start beating out a story?

**Craig:** Yeah, I’m kind of an index card person. And I say kind of an index card person, because I feel like there’s actually a step before the index card person. I mean really, I’m a shower person. In thinking about it, all the fundamental breakthroughs that occur usually happen because I’m standing in the shower for 20 minutes thinking. And I don’t know why. That’s just where it happens, mostly.

**John:** That’s exactly where it happens for me, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. Shower. I don’t know, there’s something about that. And it’s sort of my little sacred place where no one can come in, and I’m alone, and I can just let my mind wander. And ideally I like to try to figure out the biggest things.

Beyond the idea of the movie, what does this main character want? What is the dramatic argument of the movie, the theme, whatever you want to call it, and what would be the most interesting story to kind of get this person from where they are to where they need to be? And I just start thinking there. But yeah, eventually I’d go to note cards.

**John:** The main ways I see screenwriters breaking stories is either index cards where each index card has one or two, or maybe it’s up to 10 words, that describe an important beat of the story. So, it’s not necessarily a scene, but it’s a thing that happened. So, if you write an action movie, it would be an action set piece. If it were a thriller, it might be a major reversal. So, some way of breaking down the important moments of your screenplay.

And those could be, you might have 30 cards for a movie, you might have 10 cards for a movie, you might have 100 cards for a movie. If you have 100 cards for a movie, you’re probably making too many index cards.

**Craig:** Too many cards.

**John:** Too many cards. But cards, here’s what I’ll say that’s good about cards is that it’s very easy to take up a beat and move it someplace else, and sort of lay them all out on a table and figure out how stuff works. A lot of people like to tape them up on the wall, or use Post-It Notes. When I do index cards — and I don’t always do index cards — I really like to have a big, flat table that it’s just much easier to sort of move them around. And, if you’re having to write with somebody, the table is good, because you can both stand there and take a look at this map that you’ve laid out. It’s like, this is how we would go through it. So, that’s index cards.

You can also do different colors for different kinds of beats. So, if you have action beats that are always on red cards…

**Craig:** Yeah, some people — and they color code them for the characters, so you can see, I haven’t been with this character in a long time.

Lately, what I’ve been doing is kind of short-circuiting the card thing entirely, and actually just recording my voice. I’ll sit with my assistant, and I just start talking through what I want to do. And I record it, and in talking, just as in the act, the physical act of writing, you can start writing.

There’s something about talking it through, where you can arrive at things, it unlocks you a little bit. The enemy of writing is silence, and inactivity. So, talking it out loud seems to be a big help. Now, I’ll take that, she’ll sort of take everything that I’ve recorded, summarize out the crap where you know, I’ll say, “You know what, not that — this,” and then she puts it into Microsoft Word and now I have an actual outline outline.

**John:** And then 20 years from now it’ll be like The Raiders of Lost Ark sessions, and someone will unearth the original audio and the original transcripts, and say, like, “Wow, that is how the Hangover III got figured out.”

**Craig:** Right. Except the opposite of that, in terms of its interest to people. Like, “Wow, this is the least interesting recording of notes ever.”

**John:** And that’s one thing I was using more when I was doing TV shows is the whiteboard. And the whiteboard is sort of ubiquitous in television-land as you’re figuring out your episode. You might be figuring out your season arcs, and you’re really figuring out this given episode, what’s happening in your episode. Generally, if you’re writing as a room, or all the writers in the room are trying to figure out how to do stuff, they’re all staring at one whiteboard, and they have everything marked down in terms of this is what’s happening.

Usually one or two people are empowered with the ability to write stuff on the whiteboard, but others…actual, just simple screenwriters use it too. I know Joss Whedon is a big whiteboard fan. You feel free to sort of erase and make a mess on a whiteboard in ways that you might not if you were doing note cards. Like oh, I have to rip up this note card and do it again. On a whiteboard, everything is sort of possible. And you can sort of scribble and draw arrows, and move stuff around.

**Craig:** It just seems like it would get so messy. Constantly erasing and doing and erasing and doing. Because I like to — with note cards, I use a bulletin board and thumbtacks, and obviously this is all academic, people should do whatever they want, but I like that I can, with my thing lately, is that I can make two columns. Because actually, I’m like, I don’t know why, I’m one of the few people in the world that makes the columns go columnar instead of rows. I don’t go across, I go up and down. So, as the Act One proceeds, it starts at the top of the board and slowly goes down.

And then — oh, you do that too? Oh, okay. So, that’s … so, I have one column that’s whatever the scenes are, and then to the left of that, I do a column and next to each scene, I have a card that sort of explaining why that scene matters. What is the purpose of the scene, what is the character intention. How is the story actually advanced in a way that has nothing to do with the plot, but the relationship between the characters, or the internal life of the character, and I found that that’s really useful, because it forces me to always think, “What is the point?”

You know, it’s one thing to sort of say, “I have to get from here to here, let’s have a big chase.” Okay. Well now, how could that chase actually be purposeful for advancing the character ball. And I don’t know how you’d fit all that crap onto a whiteboard.

**John:** It sounds like you’re writing a lot more information on each of those beats right from the very start. Let’s say, you were working on something that’s happening at the end of the first act. So, you have an idea for what the action of that is, and you’re sort of — the idea of the location: there’s going to be a big event at a carnival. So does your card say carnival, and then you have a second card that has all the detailed information about what’s happening there?

**Craig:** Yeah, no, I would do one card that says “Carnival — Maxwell realizes that the bottle toss game is rigged.” And then next to that I would put a card that says “Maxwell realizes that he should never have trusted So-And-So. He should have been listening to So-And-So all along; she was right.” So this way, I understand, it’s sort of like one column is what, and one column is why.

**John:** That does make sense. It’s a lot more detail than I ever got, and I would ever get into with cards. I’m always the person with a Sharpie, and I write three words on a card.

**Craig:** Oh, Okay. I see.

**John:** So, it’s a very different way of going about it. And I’ve seen whiteboards where they really do kind of get into that kind of detailed information, and so there will be a headline in blue marker, and then detailed stuff below it and you have to really squint to see sort of what’s in there.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** And it’ll be one of the assistant’s jobs — like the writers’ assistant’s job — is to take iPhone snapshots of all the boards at the end of the day, and transcribe those as notes.

**Craig:** What I’ve been doing lately is having my assistant actually write the content of the note card on a little Word template with some sort of Sharpie-ish font. And then we can print them. And then if we want to change something, you know, I can just scribble on the card, or I can just ask her to change it, and then she can change it and print it again. Because, you know, we’ve sort of all caught up.

But, the truth is, whatever — I mean, this is my whole thing about outlining: for everybody who is sort of wondering, “Should I do it?” Listen: however you want to outline, outline. If you want to outline in great detail or less detail, it doesn’t matter. But I do think it’s really important to at least approach writing with more than just, “Okay, I have an image of a woman walking through a forest. Fade in: Forest — Morning.” These are how bad screenplays are written.

**John:** I will agree with you that many bad screenplays are written with just like, I have this one kind of idea, and no idea how to extrapolate from it. What I will say is that a lot of the screenplays where I’ve had the most detailed outlines, I’ve been most frustrated by the final results, and that I kind of got sandwiched in by the outline. And so some of my very, very favorite stuff I’ve written never had that level of detail or thought. So, some of them feel very organic because literally, it was like, it’s what the movie wanted to do next, versus what I as the author said should happen next.

**Craig:** Right. And I do agree that, I guess the way I would put it is this: You should always feel free to ignore your outline. But if all you get from your outline process is the beginning, the middle and the end, then I think you’ve already done your job.

[Transitional tune]

**Craig:** All right. Here’s the big question as we hit the midpoint of our podcast and everybody’s been really patient. They’ve listened to us talk about uteruses and the law. John, how do these people get a manager or an agent? [laughs] We ripped the Band-Aid off that 15 minutes ago. We’re still dancing around it aren’t we?

**John:** I think you get an agent or manager through…I can think of three ways. The first is recommendation. So someone has read your work, has met you, and said, “This guy is awesome. This guy should be writing movies for Hollywood and I’m going to take this script and I’m going to take you, introduce you to this agent or manager, and say you should represent this person because this person is great.”

If that person has the ear of the right agent or manager and there’s already trust and taste being established between them that agent or manager will read your material, say yes or no, and be interested and excited about possibly representing you. That’s how I got an agent, is a friend took the script I had written to his boss.

He was interning at a small production company. The boss liked it, wanted to take it to the studio. I said, “I really need an agent, can you help me get an agent?” He said yes and he took it to an agent he had a relationship with. The agent read it because this guy who he trusted said that it was worth his time reading. He took it, read it, met with me, and he signed it.

That’s a very, very common story for how writers get represented. Second way, I would say, is agents read material that they found through some sort of pre-filtering mechanism. A pre-filtering mechanism could be a really good graduate school program. If you graduated from a top film school and you were the star screenwriter of a USC graduate film school program, some junior agent at an agency is likely reading those scripts and saying, “Oh this is actually a really good writer. This is a person we should consider.”

Even without that writer hunting down that agent the agent was looking for who are the best writers coming out of these programs or the best writers coming out of a competition. These are the Nicholls finalists. Those scripts get read and those people will be having meetings with the people they think are potentially really good clients.

**Craig:** Makes sense. What’s the third one?

**John:** Just scouring the world to find interesting voices. I don’t know how much of this story is really accurate, but the apocryphal story of Diablo Cody is here’s a young woman who’s writing a funny blog. An agent reads the blog and says, “This woman can really, really write. She’s funny, she has a voice. I bet she could become a screenwriter.”

I don’t think all those details are quite accurate, but there’s always those writers who they were doing standup and they’re clearly very funny and someone sees their act and says, “I think that person is a performer but I also think that person is a writer and there’s something there that’s worth pursuing.”

**Craig:** I like those. Of course, all of them are predicated on you being a good writer and writing a good script, as is always the case, but those all make sense. I actually asked an agent at CAA named Bill Zotti, I gave him a call earlier today and I asked him the question. Of course, he groaned because it was that question, but he had a couple of pieces of really good advice that I figured I should pass along.

One is to make sure that, if you are specifically pursuing an agent, to really know who they represent and ask, “Is this agent appropriate for my material?” He said one of the most frustrating things is when he’ll get query letters or log lines for the kind of movies that his clients just don’t write.

Right now there are a lot of resources out there that are relatively inexpensive, like IMDb Pro for instance, where you can actually see, “OK, let’s say I write movies like Judd Apatow. Who represents Judd Apatow? Let me see. I write movies like John August. Who represents John August? Let me see.”

If I send that person a query letter and say, “Listen, I’m a huge fan of John August, I’m aspiring to write like John August, here’s my log line,” you might actually have a shot. Whereas, if you send it to a guy that represents writers who write rated R broad comedies, that person’s going to go, “Well what do I care? It’s not for me.”

Do your homework. If you’re going to go through the effort of trying to break the rocks to get a rep, do your homework about the rep. The other advice that he gave that I thought was pretty smart was to get a job in the business, which seems so blindingly obvious, but yet so many people resist it. I know why because it’s hard and it involves a commitment that you may not be willing to make.

He said listen, 80 percent of the people in the mailroom at one of the big talent agencies are not really interested in being agents. They’re there to learn the business because they want to do other things. They want to produce. They want to write. They want to direct. When you work in that business and you work in that place you get to know the other people there.

You work next to a guy who suddenly is now an assistant to an agent. You say to him, “Listen, I’ve written a script and I’m going to tell you what the idea is.” If he loves it he’s got a chance now to impress his boss with a great piece of material so he’s going to read it. These personal connections are invaluable.

It’s nearly impossible to do that kind of thing from Rhode Island.

**John:** Yeah. I would also say what your example stresses is the horizontal networking. Everyone always thinks, “Oh to become successful you have to meet more powerful people and get more powerful people to love you.” It’s really not that case at all. It’s been my experience, but it’s also been the experience of all my assistants, the way they got to their next step was by helping out everyone else at their same level.

They were reading other people’s scripts and giving them notes. Those same friends were reading their scripts. Eventually they wrote that thing that was, “You know what? This is the script I’ve been waiting for you to write and I think I know the right person to take this to.” It’s always been those people who were doing exactly the same stuff you were doing who were the next step.

**Craig:** That’s right. That’s exactly right. I think people should think, as they are horizontally networking, about how they should market themselves. The funny thing is Hollywood, with one hand is saying, “Get out, stay out,” and with the other hand, is saying, “Please, somebody show up,” because they’re hungry for new talent, they’re desperate for new talent.

Nothing makes them happier than a writer who’s better than a guy who makes a million dollars that they don’t have to pay a million dollars to.

They’re actually looking, believe it or not. If you can market yourself properly; for instance we have a couple of friends who wrote a pretty crazy script and just put it out on the Internet and marketed it as this insane thing. It caught on.

**John:** You’re talking about the Robotard 8000?

**Craig:** I’m talking about the Robotard 8000. You may say, “Why would you put your screenplay on the Internet, and why would say it was authored by the Robotard 8000?” Well, why, because they have agents at CAA and they’re working. It really got them a lot of attention.

Also, it didn’t hurt that other writers that people trusted were saying, “We read this script. This was really funny.”

Similarly, I’ll tell you, if I were 22 again and I were in a writer’s group, I would say…You and I didn’t have this in the 90s. Let’s get a web page for our writer’s group, and let’s just start blogging about the experience of our writers group. Let’s track the progress of our scripts and the log lines and the rest of it. If one of us catches somebody’s attention, suddenly our writer’s group has a little bit of buzz to it. “What will this writer’s group come up with next?” That’s why that Fempire thing was so cool, with Diablo…

**John:** Dana and Lorena.

**Craig:** Dana and Lorena. It was like, Okay. There’s a group. Now, it’s not really a group; they all have to write their own scripts. But something about it, there’s a little bit of sparkly dust to it. It’s interesting.

How do you make yourself interesting? Maybe then somebody will be attracted to your script.

**John:** We talked about marketing, but it’s really almost positioning. People need to know how to consider you, or what to consider you as. Here’s a terrible way to go into your first meeting: You wrote a really good comedy script that people liked, so they brought you in, a manager and agent sat down to meet with you. They say, “I really liked your script; it was really funny. What do you want to write?”

It’s like, “Well, I mostly want to write period detective stories with monsters.” The manager is going to hem and haw and make conversation for about another 10 minutes, but they’re not going to want to sign you because they were thinking about you as a comedy person. Let them pigeon hole you for five minutes until you actually get something going. They need to know how are they going to make the next phone call to somebody else, saying, “This guy has a really funny comedy script, but he’s exactly the right person to hire for your period action movie.” That just doesn’t make sense.

**Craig:** It doesn’t. Listen, these guys, what is their training in? Managers and agents are not there to tell you what to be. Their expertise is watching trends and patterns and pulling people out that fit what they believe is going to generate cash. They can’t tell you who to be. What they can do is see who you are and say, “That looks like money.”

So know who you are. Go in there and be who you are.

It doesn’t mean that you have to go in there as Michael Bay. Not everybody has to make $200 million movies; not everybody has to sell $3 million scripts. To be successful in this business, you just have to work. If I could walk into an agent’s office and say, “I will never make more than $200,000 a year, but I will make $200,000 every year for the next 20 years and I won’t bother you a lot,” that’s an instant signing. Why not? That’s great.

It’s not about how much you’re going to do, but just will you do. If you walk into an office and you say, “Look. I wrote this script and this is how I want to come off. These are the movies I love; this is the niche I want to fill.” If they feel like that’s a real niche and that niche needs filling, that’s a big deal. But they can’t tell you who to be.

[Transitional tune]

**John:** I thought I’d start today with a quote because someone on another message board had left a quote about writing, which was really good, that referenced a Winston Churchill quote. So then I looked up the Winston Churchill quote, and it was great. This is the original Winston Churchill quote, which someone will probably actually find was not really something he said, the same way that all great quotes are always ascribed to Martin Luther King but he didn’t really say them at all.

But this is a good quote. “Writing a book is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement, then it becomes a mistress, and then it becomes a master, then a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster, and fling him out to the public.” Winston Churchill writing a book.

**Craig:** It reminds me of… I think it was Antonioni. Somebody said, talking about making a movie, when you start making a movie your goal is to make a great movie, then as you proceed you just want to make a good movie, then at some point you just want to make a movie, and the last stage is you simply want to survive. [laughs] Very similar sentiment.

**John:** Definitely. I find any of the sort of project that takes months to do, I end up always going through that stage. I always think, “Oh, this movie that I write will be different.” I’m on my 40th thing right now. I just printed, about 20 minutes ago, I printed for the first time because I realized, “Oh, I actually have enough pages that I could print, and it won’t be embarrassingly small.” There’s actually enough that I could actually spend a good hour going through pages. I definitely find that manic depression, peak-and-valley thing happening.

A mutual friend of ours, who probably doesn’t want to be mentioned in the podcast, so I won’t mention her name, described when she was first starting on a project that she was sort of like a grandmother going in the ocean in that she would dip her toes in and splash some water on her ankles and then get back on the shore. Then she’d go in a little bit deeper and a little bit deeper, and eventually she’s in the ocean and she’s swimming, like, “Oh, I’m in the ocean. I’m swimming.”

That very much is what it is when I’m starting almost any project, is I’m always reluctant to start and then I finally get in and get going and recognize, “Oh, you’re more than halfway through.” Suddenly all the stuff that was keeping you away from the script starts sucking you into it. It sort of occupies every available brain cycle. I’m hitting that point in this project right now.

**Craig:** That’s a great time. There’s something magical that happens around page 70 for whatever reason, the notion that you’re leaving the forest and no longer wandering in. It just lifts you up. Page 50, for some reason, seems like the worst page to me.

**John:** Yeah, that’s a bleak time. Weirdly, on two recent projects I’ve had to turn in pages early because we could have theoretically lost a director. Both on Preacher and on Monsterpocalypse — I wouldn’t have lost Tim, but we needed to get timing and schedules and stuff figured out — I had to turn in like 45 or 50 pages.

Fortunately, they were a really good, strong 45 or 50 pages. And I felt really good about them, and people liked them, which is hooray, fantastic, that’s exactly what you want. But then to get the mojo back, like, oh my god, I felt like I was done to finish those 45 pages, and then you have everything else ahead of you. That can be a daunting period.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t think the people that employ us have any sense of how emotionally fragile we are when we’re doing this stuff. Minor interruptions, anything sometimes, can cause three days of downtime and fetal position. The truth is there’s nothing we can do about it. They have to do what they’re doing. We all live in the real world. We’re writing movies that require many moving parts and the participation of a lot of people. You don’t always have the luxury of being able to just go through the way you want to but, god, anything that stops momentum is the worst.

**John:** It’s rough. The challenge I always have if I get notes too early on in a project is I’ll start to question fundamental decisions I’ve made about a story. Thank god in the case of both of those two movies people liked it and said, “Go, write, full speed ahead.” But if they had said, “Oh, we’re reconsidering this aspect of it,” I would have been doomed. That’s the risk.

**Craig:** We should remember this. There’s a good topic to be had, I know it’s not today’s topic, but the notion of the Good Boy Syndrome, of how you balance being a responsible professional who’s open to criticism because oftentimes criticism makes us write better work, how to balance that with the demands of your own voice and your own instincts so that you’re not bargaining away what matters the most. That is an internal war. Sometimes you have to be a bad guy for everyone’s sake because you’re right. Topic for another day.

**John:** I don’t know. I would actually propose that we talk about that today. The topic we were going to talk about today was film school and I can sort of talk about film school any time, I have my notes here and I can get back to that. I love this idea of the Good Boy Syndrome is that most of us as screenwriters tended to be decent students.

If we weren’t teacher’s pets, we were at least responsible enough to get stuff done. A lot of times my early writing was getting my mom to read it and say, “Oh, this was really great.” She was proofreading it, but mostly it was, “Hey, mom knows how smart I am.” So we don’t want to be the villains, and sometimes we have to be the villains.

When I was first directing for The Nines, where I decided, “Oh, I should direct this movie,” one of the things I had to get out of my head was this sense of having to feel like a host, having to feel like the person who was putting on the event, putting on the party, and having to make sure everyone’s happy and comfortable.

That’s not my job to make sure everyone’s happy and comfortable. My job is to get this movie made, and I can be nice and polite and friendly while getting this movie made, but it’s not my job to make sure the gaffer’s having a great day. It’s my job to make sure the gaffer know what it is I need to have done or the DP knows what I need to have done, so that everyone can do their job properly.

As the screenwriter on projects, a lot of times so much of our work is theoretical and mushy and you could go 1,000 different ways and there’s not a huge time pressure usually. You want to be the good guy, you want to be the hero, and it’s not always the right choice.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s not always the right choice. Think about two diametrically opposed extreme kinds of screenwriters, and they exist. On the one end you have a guy that is the classic resistant, defensive, “I’m not listening to you. I know what I’m doing. Don’t change anything. Don’t tell me what to write. You’re all idiots.”

When we look at that guy, we see someone who’s put his ego or his own fear or emotional needs ahead of what ultimately could be better for the movie. Because even if 90-percent of the people with whom you’re collaborating are idiots, 10-percent of them aren’t. Maybe even only one of them isn’t. Or maybe they’re all idiots, but the truth is one of them is going to be performing. You simply cannot do this job in creative isolation. Let’s call that the bad boy.

On the other end of the spectrum, though, you can have screenwriters who are so eager to please and over collaborate and who are steeped in enough self-loathing that anybody telling them, “I don’t like this,” triggers that impulse of, “Oh no, oh no,” that they agree to everything. Suddenly they find themselves under enormous, anxious stress because they are now writing toward pleasing people as opposed to making a good movie.

Both writers, in the end, will end up with a bad movie and negotiating within yourself, you need both sides of this or else you’re going to get crushed.

**John:** Yeah. That’s maybe a reason why some writing teams are successful is that one of them is that good cop people pleaser and the other one is the asshole who says, “No, we’re not doing that,” and you do need both functions a lot of times.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m sure the roles change, one guy can be the placater, the other one can be the defiant one and then for the producers and the director, whoever else is on the other side of the script, they can see, “Okay. Well, at least some sort of truce is being brokered. There’s a negotiation happening.” But if it’s just you, you have to be both of those things at once. Very difficult.

**John:** In projects that have come in to do rewrite work on, especially in the weekly rewrite work, part of my attraction for that is I do get to be the hero. I get to be the good guy. I get to be the person who arrives and fixes this problem and makes everyone feel better about the situation and then I get to leave. That’s the remarkable thing.

You recognize that a lot of the stuff that you’re finding in the script, a lot of the cruft and stacked up bad decisions weren’t because the previous writer or writers were bad writers. It’s that they were trying to address concerns that other people had, often not the same person’s concerns. So the director needed this and the producer said this and the star said, “I really want a scene where I’m eating hamburgers,” and all those things got put into the script that weren’t necessarily the right choice for the script at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. When you come on specifically to help something they’re literally saying, “Look, we need things. Give them to us.” So your job is very clear and you are sort of rent-a-writer and you don’t have to get super visionary about it because you’re only there for a week or two. And sometimes that kind of detachment is precisely what the movie needs. It doesn’t always mean that you’re coming in to deliver hackwork. Your emotional distance may be very useful.

But when you’re writing a script from scratch or you’re doing a page one rewrite or something like that you do need a vision and you do need something that you must protect. I’m still dwelling on the fact that you used the word “cruft.” Is that what you said? Cruft?

**John:** Cruft.

**Craig:** What is that?

**John:** Cruft. My use of the word comes from coding, and cruft is extra stuff that’s in code that doesn’t actually do anything, it just junks it all up.

**Craig:** Like an inefficient…?

**John:** Yeah. Again, I’m probably using the term slightly incorrectly, but cruft to me is sort of like the breadcrumbs that are left from previous ways of doing things. So it’s the loops that don’t really need to be loops. It’s the extra stuff. So it’s not the comments. It’s not the actual explanatory stuff. It’s vestigial stuff that’s left.

**Craig:** It’s vestigial. I was going to say it’s like a little tail hanging off of a baby’s butt.

**John:** Baby tails.

**Craig:** Baby tails. By the way, that is not normal.

**John:** If you have a tail, you should probably see somebody because that could be a problem down the road.

**Craig:** It’s biological cruft.

**John:** I’ve had tail bone problems before and I think part of the reason why we have back problems is that our ancestors had tails and things just worked differently. From sitting in my chair for so much of my day I will develop aches in my hips and the sacrum, which is where your tail bone is. If I just had a tail I could crack something, but there’s nothing to crack.

**Craig:** The human back is the greatest refutation to intelligent design theorists. It’s the worst design ever.

**John:** We’re a series of compromises. Just like every movie is essentially a series of compromises. The human body is a huge series of compromises. We’re born at nine months not because we’re ready to be born, but because otherwise our giant heads would not fit through the pelvis.

**Craig:** Correct. That’s why the first two and a half months of an infant’s life are useless.

**John:** It’s the fourth trimester.

**Craig:** It’s the fourth trimester. Horses are born, they plop out, they stagger around for two minutes, and then they’re running around eating oats. We can’t even hold our heads up.

**John:** We’re sad and we’re pathetic.

**Craig:** Useless. We’re cruft. [laughs]

**John:** There’s a lot of cruft there. Because of this sort of biological problem, this engineering problem, the first two months of a child’s life for parents is just horrible.

**Craig:** Worst. The worst because your child gives you nothing.

**John:** Their brains can’t actually do any of the stuff that would cause you to have a parental attachment. They can’t smile at you, they can’t roll over. They can just poop and eat. We love them just because we have so much sunken cost into them during those two months. It’s tough. It’s not intelligent design.

**Craig:** I’m sure there is a biological, hormonal component to postnatal depression, but I do honestly believe at least half of it is the crash that comes from the expectation what it means to have a baby and then have no emotional connection to it. Babies, that first four, five, six weeks they don’t even recognize you. It’s awful.

**John:** My biggest frustration is couples, women mostly, pregnant women, who will go through this whole elaborate thing about exactly how they want the birth to be, because like with the birth is a big, bigger thing. And they haven’t planned for like two minutes after the birth. They know exactly how they want the room set up, and what they want the doula doing, but they haven’t figured out like, “Oh, what are we going to do in that first horrible month when no one is sleeping?”

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And you know what? It’s people when they’re having babies — this is now, we’re once again back to gynecology, which I love — when people are going to have their first baby, they want to apply as much control as they can. But the only thing they can control is the birth, and they’ll get really, really finicky about it, but the baby upon birth dashes all of your plans to hell, because she’s screaming.

So that’s it. Plan’s gone. When I had my second kid, I didn’t care about any of that birth nonsense. All I cared about was lining up a night nurse. To me, that is like I would sell anything for a night nurse. I would rather have a night nurse for the first month of an infancy, for a new baby, than a car.

**John:** A night nurse, for people who don’t know, is a woman — generally — you hire and who comes and takes care of the baby overnight. Basically feeds and diapers the baby overnight, so that the parents can sleep. You don’t hire the night nurse for the baby. You hire the night nurse for yourself.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** So you get a night of sleep.

**Craig:** And you cannot imagine the difference it makes in your experience with this child. The day is annoying anyway, because the child gives you nothing and screams and cries and poops, but at least you’re not exhausted to the point of tears. You’re functional. Again, nothing to do with screen… Although it is, you know what? If you’re a screenwriter and you’re having a baby, you can’t write without a night nurse. So that’s it. [laughter]

**John:** Actually, I have a better way to sort of bring it back to the actual process of screenwriting is that these couples — these women who are planning for the birth, and they’re focusing all of this energy on the birth — are very much like the producers and studio development people who are focusing on the screenplay.

So they’re trying to make this movie, and they’re focusing only on this script that’s in front of them. But they’re not focusing on, like, “Oh, you know what? There’s actually going to be a movie.” And that the minute you start production and the minute you get to that first test screening and all the stuff down the road, they’re not thinking about that final movie.

They get so obsessed with this little one moment on this page, and making sure that thing is exactly what they want it to be, that they sometimes stop thinking about the entire… the actual point of the work that they’re doing, which is to make this movie.

**Craig:** That is a genius analogy. It’s so true. The obsession over minutiae when you’re writing a screenplay is entirely about people who are afraid — and we all are, not just them; all of us, everyone’s afraid of this — exercising control over it, but it is endlessly amusing to me that all the things that we all have god knows how many hours of conference calls over tiny little things get dashed to pieces when the director shows up and says, “You know what? On the day, I think it should just be this.” And everybody’s like, “Okay,” because you’re the director.

That’s like, “I’m giving you the baby now. You raise the baby, but boy, we really sure put a whole lot of time into thinking about what it should wear on Wednesday morning.”

It’s a perfect analogy, and the more you recognize as a screenwriter that many of the notes are about exercising control out of fear, the more you can actually relax about them. Because we get bad notes sometimes. They’re not trying to hurt you. They’re just trying to protect their fear level, which is extraordinary.

**John:** And generally, as you’re getting notes and you’re job as a screenwriter is to figure out who’s notes are really coming at you, and which are the important notes.

And the best analogy I can actually think of is something that happens every time you go into a creative meeting. You’re in somebody’s office, and an actual okay question to ask is, “Where should I sit?” because there’s one chair that the person who’s the most important person in the room wants to sit in, so you make sure that person gets the chair they want to sit in.

And you should be sitting someplace where you can look directly at that person, and you can turn your head and look at everybody else, but really you’re talking to that one person. And when you go into those meetings and you figure out who is the actual most important person in the room — that’s the same experience of these notes. It’s that you could try to address everybody’s notes and make sure everyone gets heard, but then you’re just being a good boy, and you’re not necessarily being a good writer.

**Craig:** That’s right. And the instinct or ability to determine who needs to be listened to primarily — that is unfortunately one of those things that requires some experience. I mean, I’m sure some people are better at it than others right out of the box, but for new screenwriters, you are going to have some dramatic, clumsy meetings where you blow it. And you just blow it because you’re learning how all this stuff works. In the end, everybody figures it out.

**John:** One of the very smart things my first agent, who in the last podcast I talked about how I let him go —

**Craig:** Oh, your first agent in quotes, the one that doesn’t exist?

**John:** Yes, who apparently doesn’t exist — my imaginary first agent. One of the smart things that he did or I did myself somehow, was he sent me out on fifteen meetings, like right away. And they were really unimportant meetings. They were sort of the junior executives at various production companies. And so they’d read my script and we’d talk, but it was mostly, I think, just to burn me through my first fifteen terrible meetings, so I got better at it.

**Craig:** Yeah, I like this. Yeah, that’s smart. Good… It’s sort of like spring training for meetings. I like it.

**John:** So we have a little time here, so I think I may jump ahead, and I do want to talk about film school, but I think we can tie a lot of this back in here. So we’ll see how this goes.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** This last week I got to talk at UCLA. So it was a group of students who had just watched The Nines, and had watched God, the short I did with Melissa McCarthy before that, and so it was great to be sitting in a room with people who had just very recently seen the two movies I had done and could talk about them in a smart way. This was mostly a graduate group, some cinematographers, some directors, and I got to see what the UCLA Film School looks like, which is pretty nice. It’s not as nice as the new USC building, but it’s pretty nice.

And then over the last month I’d been up to USC three times to talk to students, both in the screenwriting program and some of the incoming freshmen, and it’s got me thinking a lot about film school, and college and graduate school overall.

So I made a list of eight reasons why you go to college or grad school at all, whether it’s film school or any sort of college program, some reasons why you’d want to go. As I’m talking, keep note of those and see which ones you think are actually important and which ones I’m just talking out of my ass.

**Craig:** I’m getting a pen. I’ve got an index card. I’m taking notes.

**John:** All right. Reasons to go to college or a grad school program. The information, literally so you learn this thing that you’re supposed to be learning.

Two, a degree or some sort of certificate that proves that you know how to do this thing. And in some professions, that’s incredibly important, like engineering — you have to be certified to be able to do certain things. Medical school, obviously.

Number three, access to special equipment.

**Craig:** Wait, wait. You need a degree to do medicine?

**John:** In the U.S., you do.

**Craig:** Oh, boy.

**John:** Yeah. Sorry.

**Craig:** Oh, boy.

**John:** Is this going to be problematic for you there, Craig?

**Craig:** Ooh, no. I, I… Send him out. I can’t do it. Not today. Okay, go on. Number three?

**John:** Number three, access to special equipment. For some things, that’s really obvious. If you’re doing nuclear engineering, you probably need some kind of special stuff, but even, like, a law library is sort of special equipment. It’d be hard to do law school without access to some sort of law library.

Number four, structure. That’s the sense that’s like, “That’s me learning calculus.” I never had a real calculus class. And so I kept thinking, like, “Oh, I could teach myself calculus.” But I’ve never taught myself calculus, because I would need the structure of having to actually work my way through the book.

The last four reasons are sort of people-related.

Number five, professors. Professors are experts, like the learned people in that field who are the teachers who will teach you.

Number six, peers, people who are there to do the same thing that you’re trying to do.

Number seven, alumni, people who are going to be helpful for your learning process, but ultimately to get a job and to sort of thrive in your career.

And the last reason, so these are kind of out of order, but the last reason is because you enjoy it, because you want to have a good time, and it’s a good way to spend a couple years.

**Craig:** None of these reasons are sex.

**John:** Well, sex is enjoyment.

**Craig:** Oh, I see. Okay, fine. Now I understand number eight. I didn’t understand until you said that. Okay.

**John:** I would argue that a lot of our traditional liberal arts education or our four year college education is really about the four years aspect. It’s like you’re taking kids when they are 18 years old and letting them grow up to be 22 years old without killing themselves, and they’re going to have sex in a safe environment — a safer environment — and drinking a lot, but they have a safe place to land.

**Craig:** All right, all right. That’s a pretty good list.

**John:** Of those eight, let’s think about film school, and which of those do you think are important for film school or not relevant anymore.

**Craig:** Let me go down the list. Info — of questionable importance for film, to me at least, and I’ll preface this by saying I didn’t go to film school. But I think that much of the information that we need to write good stories is available elsewhere. It may not be available to the extent or in the concentrated form, but that’s covered by some of these other things. So I’ll give it sort of a…

**John:** Partial.

**Craig:** …a partial. Degree — totally irrelevant.

**John:** Completely irrelevant. I have no idea where my MFA is. I have an MFA in film. I have no idea where it is. I assume I still have it someplace. No one will ever ask me for my film degree. No one cares.

**Craig:** No, no one cares. Special equipment — used to be the case. No longer.

**John:** Very true.

**Craig:** Used to need the moviolas and all the rest of it. Now, you just need a laptop.

**John:** It’s interesting looking at USC, because USC just built an amazing new complex for the cinema school, and at the same time, with their freshmen who are showing up there have 5D or 7D cameras of their own, and they have Final Cut Pro 7 on their laptops, so they’re able to make… Smartly, USC is having them make a lot of stuff right away, so they’re shooting stuff constantly and they’re doing it all on their own stuff.

And so downstairs at the USC complex they have these amazing rooms and rooms and rooms of Avids and George Lucas kind of special equipment. And there’s some special things it would be very hard to get any place else, like they have motion capture equipment and 3D labs and stuff like that that would be hard to find other places. But equipment is not nearly as important as it used to be. When I went to film school, you were going to have hard time getting a 16 millimeter camera any place else, and getting your film processed — that was all a big deal.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** And now it’s not.

**Craig:** It’s just all gone, so that’s…

**John:** And, Craig, with your 4S, you have a better camera than anyone in film school had up until…

**Craig:** Isn’t that amazing?

**John:** …the mid-’90s, probably.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s nuts-o. So, I mean, special equipment — certainly doesn’t play anymore. Structure definitely, I think, is a huge benefit of film school. You are forced by the demands of your curriculum to write, produce, cut, edit, do whatever else is required. It forces you out of your normal state of procrastination, so that’s a helpful thing.

**John:** A helpful thing.

**Craig:** Professor mentors — obviously, you can’t get them unless you’re… I mean, you can’t get professorial mentors unless you’re there. I would argue, however, that you can get mentor mentors elsewhere. You don’t need film school to get a great mentor. And frankly, one of the hidden dangers of film school is that a lot of times, the professors are slightly more academic than you would want, I think.

**John:** I think it’s a really valid question to ask about any film program you’re looking at, is like what have these people actually done? Do they really know what they’re talking about as it relates to the film industry right now versus the film industry 20 years ago? If you’re going to film school for critical studies, that’s probably much less important, because you’re talking about the history of film. Well, you want somebody old, that’s great.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, if you are trying to be a director, a writer, a producer, and you’re not going to NYU or USC or UCLA, I’m not really sure why you’re going to film school at all. Because I don’t know if they are attracting the kind of people that really can steer you in a smart way. I mean, maybe there are other ones out there, but sometimes I meet people who are going to film school at a tiny, I don’t know, Arizona State Film Studies program, I just don’t know why they’re there.

**John:** I would say that number six might be a reason why — it’s the peers situation. I think of anything, I think peers is probably the most important reason now to consider film school. It’s that I look at these kids who are in the UCLA program and especially the freshmen, entering freshmen at USC’s program, is they are surrounded by 100 other people who want to do exactly what they want to do, and want to stay up all night doing what they want to do. And that’s a huge help.

They can make a lot of really amazing things. The people who were most helpful for me as I got started in the film world were not the people I knew who were more powerful. They were people who were doing exactly what I was doing. I showed up in Los Angeles knowing 25 people who were exactly the 25 people in my film program, and those are the only people I really knew for two years, and they became best friends and mortal enemies and everything in between, but they were incredibly important to me.

**Craig:** But that would still, I think, and when we get to alums, it argues for going to an excellent program, because the better the program, the better the peers, and certainly, in the case of USC, NYU, UCLA, the alums are… That’s the one I said wait okay yeah, I mean, man I wish that I had had USC alums helping me out when I showed up. I didn’t have anybody. That’s obviously a big one. And then sex — I feel like, ah, it’s an expensive way to get laid.

**John:** It is a very expensive way to get laid. I think, you know. We’ve intended to label our podcasts very conservatively, but “an expensive way to get laid” is really a good title for something. [laughter]

**Craig:** Yeah, tuition, also known as an expensive way to get laid.

**John:** I think going to undergrad with that as one of your stated goals is completely noble and good, but you shouldn’t be paying $35,000 trying to get into a top-tier film program for just that reason.

**Craig:** Yeah, super bad idea.

**John:** Plus the people who are going to applying to a film school program aren’t necessarily going to be the most attractive people you’re going to meet.

**Craig:** Exactly, for $35,000, this man or woman should be spectacular and do everything.

**John:** Instead, they’re going to be able to talk about the early films of Tarantino, but that’s not necessarily what you want out of that.

**Craig:** That’s correct.

**John:** Let’s recap this list. What is still important about film school in 2011? Partial credit on the information. When I went to film school, the Internet really wasn’t what the Internet is today, so I couldn’t find out about that stuff. I had Premiere Magazine. That was my source of film information, so I showed up not knowing what the studios were.

I’d not really read a script, the first script I read was the printed script in Soderbergh’s diary for Sex, Lies and Videotape. So I’d seen kind of a screenplay, but it wasn’t even formatted properly. Now the Internet is lousy with information about that.

Certificate? Useless, you don’t need a degree. I would say if you’re going to film school and an amazing opportunity happens halfway through, bail.

**Craig:** Totally, what’s the point of going? It’s a vocational school.

**John:** A mutual acquaintance of ours, Jon Glickman, was in my graduate school program and bailed, and now runs MGM Studios.

**Craig:** It’s not like he just became successful. Jon produced the first movie he ever wrote. He and I began at the same time, and you don’t need… If you get the job, go. That’s the whole point.

**John:** But it was a good thing he was in that graduate school program with me, because I remember being in the elevator with Jon Glickman. We were going to a class, and Joe Roth was going to speak in the class. Joe Roth, who was running at that time… I guess he’d left Disney, was running Revolution, or was right at that time.

**Craig:** It was Caravan, the forerunner.

**John:** Caravan before Revolution. I’m in the elevator. It’s me and Jon Glickman and Joe Roth. This is before the class, and Jon Glickman, to his credit, and his audacity, is like, “Hey, I’m Jon Glickman, I really want to work for you. After class, I’m going to give you my stuff and I really want you to hire me at your new company.” Joe Roth did.

**Craig:** It’s amazing is that he went to go work for Joe Roth. Joe Roth was partners with Roger Birnbaum, and then Joe Roth went off later to do Revolution. Jon has stayed with Roger the whole way through. Talk about a fateful elevator meeting. You’re right, I guess that falls under peers and alums.

**John:** Yeah, getting to meet people who will help you. Access to special equipment, not nearly as important. I think there’s still some amazing things you’re going to be able to do at USC Film School or UCLA Film School that are going to be hard to do on your own, but the special equipment is a much less important thing now.

**Craig:** You know what, it literally comes down to lights. That’s the only equipment I can think of. Lights and maybe a dolly.

**John:** I would say some of the 3D stuff, and some of the gaming, there’s some really special digital things that USC does now.

**Craig:** Like mo-cap and so forth?

**John:** They have a whole mo-cap stage.

**Craig:** By the way, in five years, watch.

**John:** Five years, it’ll totally happen. We’ll have mo-cap, easily. Did you watch the Trey Parker South Park documentary? It’s really good.

**Craig:** I haven’t seen it yet. I’ve got to watch it, I love it.

**John:** They talk about the six days to air, so they do South Park episodes in six days. What’s encouraging to hear is that they used to spend a ton of money on the technology to make it happen, and now they’re just buying Macs off the shelf, and that’s mostly what it’s done on. They’re able to do it in six days because technology has advanced, not because they necessarily want to do it in six days, it just became possible. Structure, still important?

**Craig:** Yeah, I think so.

**John:** I think it’s really important, and having to get stuff done at a certain time is really important. A smart thing that USC is doing with their incoming freshmen is in addition to their class structure, because incoming freshmen, they have a lot of general ed requirements, so they’re taking a lot of stuff that’s not film related. They have this amazing game that’s being played this first semester where students are shooting projects constantly on their own. It provides a structure even though it’s not classically your education.

[Siren]

**Craig:** Siren.

**John:** I think they figured out that you’re not really a doctor, and they’re…

**Craig:** No, that was the ambulance I called for this guy. Just so you know, he was open, I was about to go in. We had him prepped, and then you dropped…

**John:** A crisis of faith.

**Craig:** No, you dropped this bomb on me all of a sudden that I can’t do unlicensed surgery in my office in Old Town Pasadena. Anyway, we wheeled him down over to the Cheesecake Factory, and left him there on the corner. He’ll be fine.

**John:** He’ll be fine. Cheesecake Factory is a pretty good restaurant, I think he’ll be fine.

**Craig:** He’ll be fine. Everyone’s such a baby about unlicensed surgery. God.

**John:** I know, come on. What is it, a manicurist can do your nails, but you can’t remove someone’s appendix?

**Craig:** This was a little more complicated than that, to be fair. I was doing a bypass, and I knew I was in over my head. I opened him up — sometimes I get excited about these things. I don’t think them through.

**John:** Again, women with childbirth. They have the doula, they have the whole water birth thing all set up.

**Craig:** That’s me.

**John:** Yeah, that’s you.

**Craig:** I got so excited about doing surgery, I really controlled everything up to the point where I was staring at a beating, exposed heart. Then I froze up.

**John:** Did you ever play the Macintosh game, the surgery game?

**Craig:** I totally did, I remember it exactly.

**John:** You had to draw with the mouse the little scalpel line. If you’d go too deep, he would start bleeding out.

**Craig:** I loved that game. They would also throw things at you, like, “Uh-oh, he’s going through bradycardia,” and you had to know, “Do I inject him with lidocaine or epinephrine?” And if you screwed up, the patient would die, and I killed thousands of Macintosh patients. Thousands, I don’t think I ever made anyone live. This is when I realized I shouldn’t be a doctor.

**John:** The thing about those early games is so many of them, you would just always lose, and then you just kept playing.

**Craig:** I think that’s why. It’s funny, they just released for the iOS platform this classic game called Out of this World, which was this gorgeous, rotoscoped game, revolutionary game from 1990. It’s impossible. I’d forgotten how impossible it was.

**John:** The nostalgic stuff being brought back to new platforms is a weird trend. There’s one video game I’m involved with that’s doing a bit of that. The fascination with pixel art I hope goes away.

**Craig:** It will. It was stupid to begin with, so we’re just remembering a stupid thing, and then we’ll stop, because it was stupid.

[Transitional tune]

**Craig:** We’ve often talked about the value of production for the screenwriter. The experience of seeing your pages produced will always make you a better writer, always. It’s so much easier to do that now, with actual expertise, than it ever was before.

Like you said, you could run around with a chunky VHS camcorder when you were a kid, or eight millimeter film, but then you’ve got to cut it, and edit it, and put it in the soup and transitions, all the rest of it. What you can do now almost compels you to do it. There’s no excuse to not.

**John:** At UCLA, they screened God, my short film, and that was a thing I made with Melissa McCarthy, and I’d taken part of the reshoot crew for Go, and we just splintered off and we shot the short film in two days at my house. That was $30,000 to do, and that was using short ends of 35 millimeter film and borrowing time on an Avid, and all those processing kinds of costs.

The thing that I can’t believe now is there’s just a superimposed title that says “God” over this opening tracking shot, and that was three days of opticals and $4,000 to get that one word over a moving image. Everything that we had to do to shoot God back in ’99 would be simple to do on any camera right now. We’d do it all on a computer.

**Craig:** No question. By the way, good on you for seeing how brilliant Melissa McCarthy was so early on.

**John:** I have a good track record of spotting people who will do well. After she got cast in Go… She was fantastic in Go. I watched the cut, and I was like, “My god, she’s terrific.” I bumped into her at Starbucks, and I said in that sort of brief, awkward seeing her again, “You’re amazing. I’m going to write a short film for you, and we’re going to do it, and it’s going to be great.” Then two weeks later I had her licking a parking meter for my movie. She used that as her audition real for years and years after that.

**Craig:** Yeah, she’s awesome.

**John:** People say, “Do I have to move to Los Angeles?” That’s the reason you have to move to Los Angeles. Not just so you got your first movie made, but that you bump into her in Starbucks again, and you make short films with her, and make a series of movies with her after that.

**Craig:** 100 percent.

**John:** We talked about a lot of stuff today.

**Craig:** We did amazingly well. I want people to give us some credit. I want credit.

**John:** I hear some applause, but I’m traveling back through time for it.

I feel like we covered a lot today, and I’m really glad we got back to the gynecological issues that really were the genesis of this whole podcast.

**Craig:** Eventually we’re going to have a huge audience that just comes for that. Next week’s podcast is entirely about vaginosis.

**John:** I like it. Things I know, we’ve gotten some reader questions, and I’ve put that up on the blog. Before we go, I’ll say this. If you have a question that you want Craig and I to talk about, if you want Craig and me to talk about it — that was bad — email at ask@johnaugust.com. There’s a big bucket of questions, and if you ask a question that would be interesting for Craig and I to talk about, we’ll talk about it. Other than that, thank you for listening.

**Craig:** Yeah, thanks. People keep coming up to me and saying they’re listening to this. They really are, that’s awesome.

**John:** Thank you, Craig, and have a great weekend. We’ll talk to you soon.

**Craig:** All right, bye bye.

**John:** Bye.

Scriptnotes, Ep 65: The Next 117 Pages — Transcript

November 29, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 65 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. This is our post-Thanksgiving episode. Craig, how was your Thanksgiving?

Craig: You know, it was great. I had Thanksgiving with my family over at Derek Haas’s house.

John: You were right up the street.

Craig: Yeah. I was very close to you. Thought about walking over to your house and handing you some turkey, but then I thought, “You know what? No. No. Give the man his privacy.”

John: Just this one day you’re not going to come by and harass me.

Craig: Just this one time.

John: So you had a good group of writers there because you had you and Derek. Any other screenwriters?

Craig: Nope. No, it was just us and the kids going crazy. How about over by you?

John: We had the Creaseys come over, also screenwriters, and Amy Higgins and Matt Watts, also writers. So, it was a good group. We had a total of 14. I made a turkey and all the trimmings. It was fun.

Craig: Excellent!

John: It was a good, fun time.

So, Craig, today I thought we would talk about, we’ve done a lot of work the last year on the First Three Pages and talking about sort of what should be in those first three pages, and people have been sending in those things and that’s been terrific. But I kind of want to talk about the next 117 pages, if we can do that, sort of all the stuff we might talk about if we were reading people’s full scripts and sort of the things we would be looking for if we were looking at everything beyond those first three pages, if you’re game for doing that.

Craig: Always.

John: Always. But first we have a bunch of little questions that have stacked up, so I thought we might burn through those and just do a bit of a sprint. Okay?

Craig: Sounds good.

John: All right. First, Mike in New Jersey asks, “I was wondering what the protocol for spacing in between sentences is. I’ve been told to use two spaces after each period, but I’ve also been told this doesn’t matter. I was just wondering what you guys would suggest.”

This has come up on Twitter also. It’s a simple answer.

Craig: It’s a thing. Well, you know, the whole two space thing came from old typewriters because it looked weird if things weren’t double spaced after the period. It looked like the sentence never ended. But I think, you know, you’re a font nerd. This problem went away with computers, didn’t it?

John: This problem went away with proportional-spaced fonts. So, the problem is that mono-spaced fonts, because every character is exactly the same width, the two spaces were helpful in readability when you were typing on a typewriter, it had like every character the exact same width. So, double spacing after the period was a standard thing you would do.

My belief is that if you’re still typing in a mono-spaced font for a screenplay, like Courier, it’s nice to do the two spaces. But I don’t think it’s a must in the mono-spaced font anymore. So, if you choose to use two spaces in a mono-spaced font, great, like Courier. But if you’re using any other font, any other sort of normal font, stop doing the two spaces.

Craig: Yeah, I grew up on two spaces because I learned to type on actual typewriters, which obviously don’t exist anymore. However, somewhere I would say about six years ago I made the jump to one space because I started reading a lot of scripts that were in one space, obviously still in Courier, and they just looked better to me. And I wasn’t having a problem following where the sentence breaks were.

It was a very difficult thing to break myself of because I had become so used to the double space after the period. But, I did it. And now I am a single space aficionado.

John: One thing which is interesting that’s happened with the advent of the web is HTML by default sort of sucks white space down to a single space, so if you double space on a web page it is going to break that down to a single space regardless. So, I think people are a little bit less mindful of it, because when you’re typing into some web forms and things like that it all just does kind of go away, and you don’t really notice the difference anymore.

If you are doing a script and like maybe you started writing with a period and two spaces, and like your writing partner does space/one period, it’s worth it to go through and fix all of those things because it’s going to be weird if you’re flipping back and forth. Your friend there is to do a find and replace. So, don’t just search for a space, search for a period-space and go through and swap all those out. Or search for a period-space-space, and substitute those in for a period-space. There are ways to do it so you can get back to sanity.

Craig: Yeah. I remember going though this. The issue with the period-space is that if you had something like Mr. Smith it would become Mr. space-space Smith.

John: Yeah. So what you can do in those situations, if you really want to geek out on it, is search for R-period-space, and change that to something different. Like change that to like four asterisks in a row or something. And then do all of your other things, and then remember at the end switch four asterisks back to R-period-space.

Craig: Oh, nice. Love it. You know, it seems like the sort of thing that you would write an app for. [laughs]

John: There is actually some talk of some script cleaning apps down in the future, because what we do in Fountain which is the plain text screenwriting language, it’s very easy to build those kind of utilities because you’re just dealing with plain text. And so it’s very simple for us to go through and clean up that kind of stuff.

Craig: I love it. Great.

John: Question number two. Joseph in LA asks, “With all the contests and sites that technology has made accessible, like the Black List, or tracking boards, do you see yourself shifting your views in whether living in LA and working in the industry is really that vital to an aspiring screenwriter’s career? There have been some tangible results with Kremer signing to CAA off the Black List, Ashleigh Powell who sold a script to Warner and recently gained reps off the TrackingB Contest,” a site I never heard of.

Joseph asks, “I live here in LA, I grew up here, went to college here, but I’m considering moving just to live somewhere else for awhile. But I’m fearful that doing so would mean giving up on Hollywood. What do you guys think?”

So, there’s some valid points to this in that there certainly are people who are getting attention from Hollywood not living here, so like through the Black List or through other places they’re getting noticed to some degree here and they’re getting stuff started.

I’d be curious if you followed up on these people and sort of how they’re going in their careers, are they ultimately moving here? I kind of think a lot of them probably are, for a couple reasons. You are going to be taking a zillion meetings starting off. And all those meetings with people are a lot easier to schedule and easier to manage if you’re living here in town.

I would also say you are looking at the results of these — the two people you’ve cited here — people who signed based on success on these boards or these sites, but most people who have success didn’t go through these sites. They went through sort of more conventional ways in which they were interning at places and they swapped scripts with other assistants and they did all the normal stuff.

You’re not hearing those things, you’re not noticing those breakout stories because they’re just so common. You’re hearing these stories because they’re so uncommon I would also say.

Craig: Yeah.

John: A third point that Joseph actually brings up in his question which I’m going to summarize out is: you don’t see this happening in TV. And I think the reason you don’t see it happening in TV is that TV is staffed by going into rooms, and meeting with people, and TV is written by people in rooms.

Many feature writers now have both TV lives as well. That’s very hard to start or run from any place other than Los Angeles. Rob Thomas, who is starting to do it now from Austin, which is great, but Rob Thomas has run a lot of TV shows. Starting out, you’re never going to be able to do that.

Craig: All good points, yes. Certainly if you do manage to succeed with one of these gateway services you’re going to end up here anyway no matter what.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So, the real question is: Do I have to move to LA if I haven’t yet made it? Because we, you and I, always say that part of making it, part of the process of making it, is being where it’s made. So, we’re suggesting to people, yeah, you should be in Los Angeles if you want to be a screenwriter, a professional screenwriter, but aren’t yet one.

And even in the case that he cited, I think the guy who got his script going off of the Black List I think was here anyway. He was working as an intern for the Black List at some point even. But, you know, these things have happened before without these services. Diablo Cody managed to get her start from afar and then came here. There have been people who have done it. Andrew Kevin Walker was in New York. But, yeah, I mean, they’re kind of few and far between. And, frankly, I don’t think the business is particularly interested in these kind of aggregators as their quality control.

I think they’re pretty happy with the quality control they have. Sometimes these things do pop through, but look at Amazon, frankly. If you want to talk about probability and odds and all the rest of it, god knows how many scripts have gone through Amazon. Well how many have come out? Any?

John: Zero.

Craig: One?

John: Not that we know of; not one has gotten made.

Craig: I think that what happens is people — people keep asking this question because they don’t like the answer we give. But that answer remains. We are humans. This is a human business like all businesses. If you want to work in technology you should be in Silicon Valley. It’s technology, the stuff that makes it possible to live anywhere and work from anywhere, and yet still they want you in Silicon Valley. What does that tell you?

Ultimately these things are managed face-to-face through human contact. Even having meetings on the telephone is deleterious to the quality of the meeting. So, yeah, sorry; move to LA.

John: Yeah. Sometimes, every once and awhile, like lightning will strike somebody sort of out of the clear blue sky, and that’s why it’s a phrase, “out of the clear blue sky.” Well, lightning struck that person and it’s just remarkable that lightning struck them because it wasn’t even like a big thunderstorm happening.

Craig: Right.

John: But most of the time people who are struck by lightning, it’s because they were out in a thunderstorm. And so if you want to get struck by lightning I would say go to where there are a lot of thunderstorms, and that tends to be Los Angeles. To a smaller degree, New York. And to a much smaller degree, Austin.

That’s just sort of how it’s working these days.

Craig: Yeah, if the phrase “the exception that proved the rule” meant what everybody thinks it meant, then this is where we would use it. [laughs] Because, you know, everyone thinks “the exception that proves the rule” means that…

John: No, the exception tests the rule.

Craig: Yes. Yes. You should put a link up to what “the exception that proves the rule” actually means.

John: Stuart, find a link.

All right, Mark Andre in Victoriaville, Canada writes, and he writes in sort of the kind of English that is clearly a person whose first language is not English, so I’m going to sort of translate it from English-to-English so it’s more clear. He writes, “You talk about writing out numbers on your website, but I didn’t find my answer. My question is, say there’s an address on a door. Can I just use the numerals, like 1, 2, 3, or do I need to write out One Hundred and Twenty Three?”

Craig: Oh, god, no. 123 is fine for addressees. Sure. Even if it’s 2 Elm Street I would put the number for an address.

John: Yeah. So, let’s talk about numbers in writing and the special case of numbers in dialogue. So, generally numbers in writing, most of the sort of journalistic guide for it and what you’ll often really find in books, too, is numbers less than ten you write out the word. Numbers greater than ten you’re more likely to use the numbers for it. And that also applies for scene description and action that you write in your screenplays.

I’ve often said though in dialogue in screenplays I strongly suggest you consider writing out the whole number, because you just don’t know how an actor is going to say some words. And sometimes you really want them to say something a certain way. You want them to say “one-twelve” rather than “one-hundred and twelve.” And there’s a real reason why you may want them to do that. So, write it all out if it’s in dialogue, most cases.

Craig: I totally agree. I remember — it’s a great rule of thumb — writing things out in dialogue the way you want them to be said. And I learned that lesson on my very first script. We did a table reading, and at table readings they will bring the actors they’ve cast, but usually they haven’t cast all the parts, typically the little ones. And so they just get actors to fill in that day.

John: The day players.

Craig: And there was a line in it and it was — the character I think was supposed to be the head of NASA. And he was saying something like, “You’re going to be through space at 900 miles per hour.” And what we had written in the script was “900 mph.” And the actor got to that line and said, “You’re going to be rocketing through space at 900 mmph.”

John: Ha ha.

Craig: And I sat back and I thought, “Oh god, he’s so stupid, and yet it’s kind of my fault.” [laughs] It’s kind of my fault. So, a good rule of thumb: When you are writing dialogue write out everything, unless it’s like some crazy long number. Write it out.

John: So, in your example, did you mean for him to say “M-P-H,” or did you mean for him to say “miles per hour?”

Craig: I meant for him to say “miles per hour.” Or, I mean, even if he had said, “MPH,” that would have been so weird because nobody ever says, like, “60 M-P-H.” So, I just assumed that it would say, when he would get to “60 mph” he would say, “60 miles per hour.” Totally wrong assumption, the kind of assumption that an idiot makes when he hasn’t written a screenplay before.

And it was a good — I never could have seen “mmph” coming. That’s just dumb. But then again, you know, it happens and the more specific you write things out the better. Because you’re right, “124,” “one hundred twenty four,” “one twenty four,” all different ways.

Plus, frankly, it’s cheating on length.

John: It’s going to take longer to say it.

Craig: You know, every extra word is length.

John: All right. Our next question comes from Adam who writes, “I’m an editor by day, cutting short interviews with stars, directors, and writers for new movies for a cable network. In the last two weeks I’ve done this for two very high profile studio movies which were based on novels. In both cases the author of the novel says in his interview that he was brought on to rewrite the screenplay before production, but was not given credit as a screenwriter because of the WGA.

“Also in both cases the author implied that he felt he deserved credit. This seems unfair for two reasons. One, the novelist did some amount of screenwriting and he’s not getting any credit for it. But more importantly, two, the credited screenwriter’s potential future employers are led to believe that he wrote this movie all by himself, which he did not.” Our thoughts?

This is one of those frustrating things where you don’t know what the specific circumstances were. You don’t know sort of how much this author really did. Whether this author had it in his contract that he or she got to go back and tweak things because of the nature of it. And I’m not trying to slam on Nicholas Sparks, but this feels sort of Nicholas Sparks-y.

You don’t know what the actual situation was. I can talk to you about, Craig can even talk more knowledgeably about it, is that the credits on a movie are determined by the WGA based on who really wrote the movie. And there’s a whole process for that. And so it’s not about excluding the author. It’s about who really wrote the movie and wrote the majority of the movie that we see up on screen.

Craig: Yeah. First thing to point out is authors always have their name on the movie. They get a “Based on the novel by.” So, that’s a source material credit and that’s something that the WGA has agreed to with the studios — that’s within the studio’s discretion. And I cannot think of any case where, I mean, even the worst deal that a novelist makes for the movie rights to his or her novel will include the right to be acknowledged for the source material.

So, their name is on the movie. Their book exists in the world. It’s no secret that the movie was based on a novel.

What is important to understand is that all “Screenplay by” or “Written by” in terms of the screenplay means is the screenplay was written by somebody. So, if I come along and I write a screenplay of say The Shining, “Written by Craig Mazin” just means the screenplay of The Shining was written by Craig Mazin. It’s not casting any aspersions on the author of The Shining who will, of course, get credit, “Based on the novel by Stephen King.”

If Stephen King should come on after me and rewrite me, the Guild asks the question, “Did the amount of work they did on the screenplay rise to the test of authorship?” We don’t always get it right. I have to tell you, I think that given the evolution of the rules that has occurred over the last few years we’re getting it right more often than we used to.

But, frankly, it is not at all unfair. Sometimes people come in and do some rewriting and frankly they simply don’t do the kind of substantial rewriting that would rise to the test of authorship. Our credits are unique; they are not employment credits.

Some people say, “Well every writer should have a credit on the movie because, you know, the craft service guy has his name on the movie.” Yes, that’s true, but the craft service guy’s credit just means that he was employed as a craft service guy. Our credits as “Written by,” it implies authorship and it’s different. It’s simply in a different category. That’s why our credit confers things like residuals and separated rights. And the credit for craft services does not.

So, that part, I think, I can see why maybe it would rub you wrong. I mean, the fact that the authors are complaining just means that they’re authors because everyone thinks that they deserve credit on everything, of course. That’s part of our birthright as writers.

Your second point is not valid…

John: No.

Craig: …and here’s why. You are concerned that the industry won’t know who did what. They always know. It’s the funniest thing. The studios and the agencies know who did work on the movie. They know who impacted the movie. And when the credits don’t reflect that, they don’t forget, in fact, they seem to know it even more in a weird way.

You will hear phrases like, “Well, they weren’t credited but they did a ton of work.” Nothing escapes anyone. I hear this all the time. I hear it from studio executives who will — sometimes studio executives will say the credits were just wrong. This person did it. And they all talk to each other. And every time a writer goes in for a job the studio will call other studios where they worked to hear how it went. There are lists of writers who have recently succeeded and writers who have recently failed. And success and failure in the studio context has nothing to do with who actually got credit.

It has everything to do with who made them happy.

John: Yup. Definitely. One last point about the original authors and determining credit is if these situations did go to an arbitration, those arbitrations are done anonymously. They’re anonymously in two different ways. That is, the people who are the arbiters who are figuring out who deserves credits, none of them know each other’s names. None of the people who are submitted material know who those arbiters are.

And, likewise, we don’t get the names of who the writers were on the project.

Craig: Well, that is true, however, the writer does submit a statement, and in that statement they can identify themselves as… — Well, I don’t know. It’s an interesting question. Can you identify yourself as the author of the source material? They’ll probably disallow that because it would make you not anonymous.

John: The only reason why I know why it can happen, the author can identify himself, is that I went through a really strange arbitration where I was an arbiter. And so I’m going to talk about this in such a general way that no one will ever know which one I’m talking about. This isn’t a movie I worked on; this was where I was just volunteering to serve as an arbiter. And the original person who wrote the book was Writer B and was able to explain that he was Writer B.

Craig: Mm, there you go.

John: And the only reason it came up was there were notes — in addition to the actual book that he or she had written, there were additional notes that became material; it became a whole issue about sort of when he was actually employed as a writer in the movie. It was a mess like these things often can be.

But, being the original novelist doesn’t give you extra bonus super powers in this thing. It’s about who wrote the screenplay and who wrote the bulk of the screenplay that we’re seeing. And Craig’s original point of like, you wrote the book, that book has your name on it. And because you wrote the book you have a credit saying, “Based on this book,” and that’s a large part of it.

So, those are some quick questions. I thought we would spend the rest of the time talking about sort of what we’ve learned from the Three Page Challenge up to this point. So, we’ve gotten more than 500 entries to the Three Page Challenge which is just crazy. And those are like actual real ones that people put in the right boilerplate and they submitted stuff properly. And Stuart has read all of those which is nuts.

Craig and I, we’ve done maybe 30 on the show, but Stuart has read about 500 of them. So, Stuart did a great post on the blog this week. I don’t know if you saw it, Craig, but where he sort of went though and talked about the things he’s learned from reading these 500 scripts.

Craig: I didn’t see that. I’m going to read it.

John: You can read it right now. I’m going to give a little summary here, but you can take a look at it if you want to.

Craig: Calling it up.

John: So, some common trends he noticed was floweriness, which is — what we often talk about when we read the samples — the sort of more novel writing than screenwriting, where people will use poetic language to describe things which makes you think — it’s ambiguous sometimes. And ambiguity is wonderful for poems; it’s not a good choice for screenplays.

He talked about clumping, and clumping is the word he was using to describe when you’re reading down the page and suddenly you can see like, “Oh my god, that’s a really big block of text there and I don’t know if I want to read it.” And so, you know, make the page feel like you want the movie to feel and don’t give us those giant chunks of text that we’re going to be scared to read, because you know what? We might skip them.

He found most of the formatting was actually pretty good, and actually I would agree; most of the ones we’ve read have been properly formatted in a general sense. One thing he notices that I hadn’t noticed is that a lot of people are uppercasing names every time that character appears rather than just the first time they appear in the script. So, that’s no good.

The reason why in feature screenplays you use uppercase on the first time you mention a character’s name is that it makes it really simple to flip through the script and figure out which scene a character first appears in. If you do it every time, or every scene the character appears it just becomes soup; we can’t tell when a character started appearing. So, that’s a useful thing. It lets us know that this is the moment where the character is first appearing in the script.

Craig: Right.

John: The other things which should get uppercased — sounds, like important sounds; really important elements that you really need to draw the reader’s attention to them. And, so, you use uppercase judiciously when you really need to attract the reader’s attention to something.

People have different personal styles. Some people use a lot more uppercase than I like to use. Some people will also use bold, and italics, and five asterisks, and a lot of explanation points. That’s not my style, but this doesn’t mean — there are some very successful writers who do that kind of thing. But uppercasing is pretty consistent, so do that.

One thing Stuart pointed out which I hadn’t noticed but I think is a good thing to notice, the first time you mention a character on the first character introduction, give us their age. Do those little parentheses and give us their age, because sometimes it can be ambiguous when you say someone has salt-and-pepper hair. It’s like, “Well, does that mean he’s like a prematurely gray twenty-something or is he a 60-year-old who is looking really good?”

An age is helpful. And you don’t have to give us an exact age. It’s fine to give us, like, “50s.” But it just gives us a sense of who this person is.

Vary your character names. And this I did notice in one of the scripts that we went through on the Three Page Challenge.

Craig: I remember that one, yeah.

John: And there were two characters with almost exactly the same name. So, every time you saw a dialogue header, a character dialogue header for them, like, “Which one is this? Which one is this?” Don’t do that to us.

You know, you have 26 letters in the alphabet. You’re not going to have 26 major characters in your script, so why don’t you just pick one letter for each character and try not to duplicate if you can possibly help it?

Use descriptive names for minor characters rather than Guard #1. Guard #1 doesn’t help you at all. It doesn’t help you as a reader. It doesn’t help you as a director who’s thinking about how to cast this role. So, if you say like, Lanky Guard or Chubby Guard or pretty much any adjective Guard is going to be more helpful than Guard #1. So, those were things Stuart pointed out.

Craig: Really good observations. Yeah.

John: The rest of the post we’ll put a link to it. He also, along with our friend Nima, did sort of a meta analysis of all the pages. So, they put it through a little processor and they’re going to have more results on some other stuff they discovered.

One of his first hypotheses was that people weren’t using enough white space on the page. That’s probably not actually true. His metric for it was he was comparing the first three pages of what got sent through to us versus the first three pages of the Black List winners of the last couple years. And the white space is actually more on our samples than it was on the Black List.

Craig: Interesting.

John: So, his hypothesis is flawed.

Craig: Yeah, I mean, you don’t want to hammer people with big chunks, but it’s funny — good writing solves almost everything.

John: It does, yeah.

Craig: Good writing will solve all of your formatting issues and mislabeled uppercase things. But, these were all really good tips. Really simple things. You know me, I’m not big on rules and things, but there are some simple rules that we all follow, like capitalizing a character the first time we see them and stuff like this. I think these are all very good simple, practical things to consider as we go through, makes it easier for you guys to get past Stuart.

Although, I have to say, he spelled “legalese” like “beagle.” It’s L-E-A…hmm.

John: Oh, did he do that? Oh, Stuart.

Craig: Yeah. It’s actually kind of adorable. [laughs]

John: Aw.

Craig: Well, because it does remind me of a beagle. I’m sorry, I’m so ADD.

John: You’re picturing a beagle with a law degree and briefcase, aren’t you?

Craig: I really liked it. This is a very well-written article that he did here. This is a very well-written sort of discussion. This should be sort of almost required reading.

God, it’s amazing. Honestly, John, I feel like… — I’m going to tell you something. I went and I lectured at UNLV when I was in Las Vegas shooting on The Hangover. And the professor asked me upfront, “Where did you go to film school?” And I said I didn’t. And he was like, “Oh.” [laughs]

And, you know, I just feel like if we do this right, and by “we” I mean just in general, people in the business who give back through these kinds of things — podcasts, and blogs, and essays. I just feel like eventually these film schools are going to be in real trouble.

Because I look at a thing like this and I think this is a free lecture that people currently pay a lot of money for except now they don’t have to because it’s right here. I mean, Stuart kind of just did a little master class on very simple presentational guidelines.

John: I think we could be a very good substitute for seminar, or for sort of one of those little three-week intensives. What we can’t do that a film school can do is give you a class full of other people aspiring to do exactly what you’re aspiring to do.

Craig: True. That we cannot.

John: And that’s what I got out of film school more than anything. Like, you know, I’ve talked about it before. The Stark Program that I went through, there’s only 25 people a year. And those people, like, I fought with them and saw movies with them and shot their movies. It was crazy, and horrible, and wonderful, but I owe them my career. And so that’s the thing you get out of a film program or being in NASA or wherever else, you’re surrounded by a bunch of people who are trying to do what you’re trying to do.

And that’s the best of film school.

Craig: Hmm. We’ve got to figure out how to do that.

John: Yeah. That’s tough though.

Moving on with sort of what we learned from the Three Page Challenge, we had a question from Matt Price who wrote, “I’ve noticed one more than one occasion you guys have said, in regards to Three Page Challenge script, ‘I know where this script is going,’ as if this was a compliment. Other times you’ve criticized a script with, ‘I don’t know what this script is about.’ But, three pages in, isn’t it a good thing that we don’t know where this script is going? Shouldn’t the story be surprising? I’m sure I’ve misunderstood what you guys mean when you say these things. Can you clarify that critique?”

Craig: Huh. Well, I’m trying to remember my frame of mind when I said it. I think there are times where you know where a story is going and it’s not a compliment at all because it just seems like a very predictable road story we’ve seen before, and that’s no good.

Sometimes I know where a story is going but I’m okay with it because I can tell that it’s the kind of story where the plot is less important than the characters and their journey, and the theme, and the details. Some wonderful movies are centered around incredibly cliché plots. But that’s okay because it’s not about the plot, you know?

I mean, look, let’s take As Good as It Gets. Guy meets girl; guy loses girl; guy gets girl. I mean, it ends with the two of them together and he is the most improbable character for that. It’s kind of a cliché romantic comedy in that regard plot-wise. They go on a road trip in the middle for god’s sakes.

But, it’s how they got there and the details along the way that were wonderful, so frankly the answer is sometimes it’s an insult, and sometimes it’s not a compliment, it’s just an okay thing.

John: I think when I say that phrase — and I’m sure I have said it on multiple occasions — I generally mean I don’t know what kind of movie this is. Like, I’m not clear quite what the genre of this movie is. I’m not clear of who the characters are or how I’m supposed to feel about this movie. I’m not clear if this is a comedy or a drama. I’m not sure what your world of this movie is.

Think back to my movies. Like Go is a movie that goes in a thousand different places. It should be very surprising sort of what happens, but I think in those first three pages you sort of know where the world of this movie is and that grocery store, which is not where we’re going to center most of the action, you realize like, “Okay, it’s about these kinds of characters, these young people who say these kinds of things, who are ambitious in this sort of narrow and weird kind of way.” So, it’s like you get what kind of movie this is and how it’s going to feel.

And when I’ve said that about three page scripts, that I don’t know where this movie is going, it’s because I’m not sure what to expect when I flip the page again. And that’s not the right kind of feeling.

Craig: I agree with you on that. And it’s funny — I was watching Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels last night. It was on and I really like that movie. And that movie is designed in such a way specifically to prevent you from seeing what comes next. It’s a puzzle box of a movie that plays tricks constantly because it’s part of its charm, it’s part of its intention is to continually confuse the plot and send it weird ways.

But there’s no question about what kind of movie it is. And if you were to read the first three pages you would get it. It’s a stylized kind of criminal/heisty movie in the general Tarantino vein. And you’d say, “Okay, I’d like to see where this is going. It seems like it’s going to turn into kind of a criminal farce,” which is what it is.

Sometimes we read pages and we think not so much “we don’t know where this is going” but rather “it can’t go anywhere that’s interesting.” Because we’re looking at the seed and we’re saying, “Based on this seed the plant is going to be a weird looking plant that isn’t a plant.”

John: Yeah. If we read those first three pages and they’re just really flat, and it’s generic, and there’s nothing that sparks us about those first three pages, when we say, like, “I don’t know where this is going,” it’s like it’s really a nice shorthand for like “I don’t really kind of care where this goes next because I’m not interested in it, or I’m not intrigued by anything I’ve seen so far.”

Craig: Right.

John: So, let’s talk about the “what happens next” and let’s talk about the next 117 pages frankly of these scripts. I think we picked the Three Page Challenges because you had actually done something like that on Done Deal Pro before, hadn’t you?

Craig: Yeah. I started doing, I think I called them Four Pages or Five Pages. I can’t remember how many. But I just had people start to post these things. And they didn’t have to be the first. They could be anywhere; I was allowing them to even take them from the middle of the movie if they felt like it. And then I would just sort of go through.

And I did it in part because I wanted people to believe that much could be gleaned from that. I think that there is a natural writerly narcissism that says, “Well you can’t know if I can write or not based on two or three pages.” Yeah I can. For sure I can. I think anyone can, frankly; any reader really can.

And I wanted to be able to encourage people that deserved encouragement. And also sort of just reality-check people that deserve reality checking. And, in fact, there was one guy — only one — who put up three pages that I thought were so good that I wanted to read the rest of the script. And I read it and it was really good and I got him a manager. And I think he’s actually working now.

John: That’s really nice.

Craig: Look what I did! His name is Adam Barker. Really, really good…

John: His name is David Benioff.

Craig: …it was a really interesting few pages and it was just evident from those pages that he knew how to write. And when I read the script I talked with him at length about it because the script wasn’t — it needed work, it needed help, it needed love, but it was also — it needed the kind of work, help, and love that I see from anybody. When Scott Frank gives me a script and says, “What’s wrong with this scene?” It’s the same thing.

The difference between a writer giving you something and saying, “Why isn’t this working?” and a not writer giving you something and saying, “Why isn’t this working?” Well, one of these is a cake that you baked a little bit too long and one of these is just a bowl full of ingredients that are poorly mixed together.

John: I want to talk about why we do the Three Page Challenge rather than reading like 120 pages. There’s a couple reasons. First off, you and I just theoretically wouldn’t have the time to read 120 pages. And it’s just a giant commitment. And it really is a commitment in the way that like dating someone is a commitment versus having a little, you know, kiss in the hallway. And these three pages are just like that kiss in the hallway. And so it’s like, “Ah, yeah, there’s something promising there,” but you’re not sort of going out and doing the full romance.

If we were to somehow do those full things I want to talk about sort of the kinds of things we would be looking for and some of the things we would notice, sort of the way that Stuart noticed in his post about all the 500 pages. What are some common themes we probably would be talking about if this podcast were to be about reading the whole script for these things?

And so I’ll start with just some things I thought of, but you chime in with things you often say when you read scripts.

Craig: Go for it.

John: First, it always comes to: Are the right characters in charge of the plot? And this is something I see time and time again when reading newer writer’s screenplays is that they have this hero who is perfectly nice and likable, but the rest of the characters completely run away with the script. And so everything that is important that needs to be done gets done by one of the other characters. Anything really funny that needs to be said gets said by one of the other characters.

And the other characters tend to become much more interesting and much more important than your actual hero because they can be. So often the hero just becomes this little pawn that sort of gets pushed or pulled through the screenplay, and sort of this hapless victim of the screenplay rather than a person being in charge of the screenplay.

And so I feel like if I was reading a whole 120-page script in one of these cases I would be finding those problems again and again where your hero is just the guy who happens to be in this story rather than the person who is in charge of this story.

Craig: That’s a good one. One of the first things I will look for and notice missing is philosophical meat. What is this movie about beyond the motions of the characters and the circumstances? Let’s say you’re writing a movie about two cops — is it just about that? Is it just about them solving the case? Who cares? That’s an episode of a TV show. Who cares? What is this movie really about?

And it’s amazing how many scripts I read where it’s frankly about nothing at all, and that’s always a bummer.

The other thing I look for is layered writing. I find that sometimes I read scripts where the scenes are just about action. Then there’s a scene that’s just about character. Then there’s a scene that’s just about relationship. Then there’s a scene just about theme. Well, really, the plot should serve the character which should serve the theme, which should serve the plot, which should serve the relationship.

It should all be layered and harmonic.

John: Another question I would probably ask with these scripts is: Why is this story happening now? Why are we choosing to make a movie about this character and this situation right here and right now versus six months earlier or six months later? What is unique about this situation?

And I think it’s one of the things that distinguishes a movie idea from a TV show idea is that is this a story that wants to be told in two hours? And this is this character’s main story in their life. Like this is a great use of this person and our time to focus on this story, versus a TV series which is like, “Well, here’s a whole bunch of promising things, and here’s a good universe and a good world, and we can spin a thousand stories out of it.”

This should be like, “Well this unique set of circumstances created this one story that we’re going to follow.” And so often I’ll read scripts where it’s like, “This is all lovely, and I believe these characters basically,” but when I say this doesn’t feel like a movie I’m saying it doesn’t feel like it has to be a movie. It feels like it can be almost anything else and therefore it really isn’t a movie.

Craig: Right. That’s a good one, for sure.

The other thing I notice probably more in comedy scripts is an unsupported premise. And if you can’t get the audience completely onboard with the premise tightly and logically then the whole thing just feels like an exercise in wankery.

I was working on something a couple months ago where just the premise wasn’t there. The whole movie was sitting on nothing. It was just a short little two week thing. And, by the way, everybody acknowledged it. The other writers, they were like, “Yeah, we tried to do that but there was an issue.” And the studio — everybody sort of said, “Yeah, this thing is kind of leaning on air.”

Well, you can’t build a house on air. And it was a nice house. [laughs] But there was no foundation. And I’m pretty adamant about these things. I get very serious about it and I just say, “Look, you’re going to spend all of this money to make a movie and the problem is you will lose them on minute ten. And never get them back. They will never stop thinking about it.”

John: Yeah. What you’re describing is really the logic that you approach the movie with. It’s like, “Wait, does this even make sense for why this is a movie?” And a related concern that I always comes up with is the internal logic. Is there consistent internal logic in your story? Are the characters behaving in a way that’s both emotionally believable, like the characters are acting consistently? The way they would behave on page 20, that same kind of character would act the same kind of way on page 80? Do I believe that the same characters are still in the same story? Or are they just saying that thing, or doing that thing because you need them to move the plot along?

They’re not acting in a way that’s consistent. Have you established rules in your story and then are you following those rules? Or you’re just breaking those rules whenever you feel like breaking those rules because it’s more expeditious?

Craig: And usually when you see characters behaving inconsistently, violating rules, violating the basic tenets of their character, it’s because the characters are not distinct enough. And the characters aren’t real. And so that’s the other thing you see a lot are characters that all sound a lot like each other, or characters that feel pre-fab, borrowed from other movies, retooled and dropped in. And that’s a sign that you’re in for a bad ride.

Really in the end people go to movies for characters more than anything else.

John: Another question I would tend to ask about the full script is: Have you actually served me a meal? And by a meal I’m saying did you start at a certain place? Did you start at appetizers, move to the salad course, move through the entrée, and then gotten us to cheese plate and dessert? Have you gotten through the whole thing?

Or, did you just serve me a bunch of appetizers? Because some of these scripts, they just sort of like throw things at you, like, “Oh here, you can try this, you can try this, you can try this.” And it’s a whole bunch of different appetizers served back, to back, to back, but it never actually gets into the meat of what it’s trying to be. What we describe as second act problems are really kind of entrée problems. It’s like there’s just not enough there as your main — there’s not meat there. And you’ve never really gotten into it. You just kept throwing appetizers at us.

And that’s especially noticeable in action movies where it’s just like there are a bunch of action sequences that happen, and it’s like, “Well, a bunch of stuff happened but I’m not sure we really got any place.” The most recent Bourne movie to me felt like tapas, where it was just like a bunch of really good small plates, but they didn’t actually relate to each other in any useful way.

Craig: Yeah. You do see a lot of endings that seem far away from the beginnings in terms of space and stuff, but not far away from them enough in terms of character and emotion. I want the character to be almost the opposite of who they were in the beginning, in a big way, in some real way. I want something big to have happened so that they would be disgusted or not recognize who they were in the start.

And a lot of times these movies make these — scripts rather that I read — make banal movements. You know, “I will start dating again.” Well who cares? You know? [laughs]

John: Yeah.

Craig: The tricky thing about these scripts is that you want to find ways to pull audiences into universal truths set in very not universal situations, because I don’t want to see somebody go through my day. It’s boring. I want to see them jump off a building, and go through explosions, and deal with whatever they’re going to deal with, but ultimately I want them to be doing it because of something that I do recognize as important in me, and we all recognize is important in us.

And I feel like sometimes people forget that part. The motivations become rather specific to that character, not universal, and therefore sort of tawdry.

John: Yeah. What you’re talking about, like, “I will start dating again,” like if that’s the realization at the end of this two-hour movie, “I guess I’ll start dating again.” What?! That’s a realization for like the end of a half-hour sitcom. That’s not a movie. That’s not a movie journey.

And I think what you’re talking about is really: Was the character tested hard enough so they can actually prove and get to someplace in the end? And so often I read these scripts, and I understand the sympathies — you love your main character, so you don’t want to hurt your main character, but you need to hurt your main character. You need to make things as difficult as possible for your main character.

Too often I’ll see these situations where, “Wow, that seems impossible — you have to break into that building, and do this, and that,” and like, “Oh, and now these people come and help me do that.” It’s like, why are you adding these people in to helping you do that? The character should have to do it themselves. And they should get caught. And it should get like much, much worse for the character. And you don’t ever make things bad for the character.

I mean, I think you should, you know, I’ve never read a script where I said like, “Oh, I thought they were too hard on their hero.” I want characters to lose their hands. You want bad things to happen to them. And if it’s not that kind of movie then in a comedy you want them to be as humiliated as possible. If it’s a love story you want them to be ripped apart from the person they love for as long as possible to make their reunion meaningful.

And too often I read scripts that aren’t anywhere in the ballpark of how difficult they should make things for the characters.

Craig: I feel like comedies should be the most tortuous for the main characters because that’s where so much of the comedy comes from anyway. But, yeah, I mean, that’s the point. You’re God and the character is Job. Trial by fire. This is the worst thing that could happen to them but it’s the thing that must happen to them. And it must happen today. It can’t happen yesterday, it won’t happen tomorrow. It has to happen right now.

And if they fail, we hear this from executives plenty, “Make sure the stakes are high.” It doesn’t have to be the world exploding, but I have to care if they fail.

John: Yeah. And here is the danger: So when we say like we have to make it as difficult as possible for them, that sounds like an externality applied to them. It’s true, like something else is probably making things difficult for them, but they also have to choose to run into that burning building. You have to make sure that your character is still in charge of making the choices that are making things more difficult for themselves.

And so sometimes they’ll make a bad choice and they’ll suffer the consequences from it. Sometimes they’ll make the right heroic bold choice, but that is going to make things more difficult for them. And so it’s not just about planes falling from the sky or some sort of external calamity. It has to be something that they’re doing that’s making the situation more difficult for themselves.

Craig: Yeah. And sometimes it’s the smallest thing. But whether you’re writing a drama or a comedy you must be writing drama. Always. You have to find drama and you have to understand what drama is. Sophie’s Choice is the smallest thing. It will not change the world.

John: No.

Craig: She has to pick one kid or another in a moment and then live with that decision her whole life. And the world didn’t change. Nothing changed. But it was dramatic. It was so dramatic because as humans — and this is why it’s a great story — we connect with it immediately and emotionally and we’re there. And we’re in it and we can feel it inside of us. It feels awful. And if you can’t find drama, whether it’s big or small, in a goofy comedy or in a weepy movie, you’re dead.

John: And because Sophie’s Choice has become sort of a cliché of a Sophie’s Choice, but it’s an irrevocable choice. And that’s the other thing that you see so often in scripts that aren’t working is that characters make a choice but they can easily just undo that choice and there’s no consequence for them to sort of go back to their previous behavior, their previous lives.

That’s why I always like “burn down the house.” Make sure they can’t go back to that safe place they were at in the start of the movie. They have to keep pushing forward and they have to keep pushing on. And every time they make a choice, never let them unmake that choice.

Craig: Right.

John: That’s sometimes, yes, that is you as the writer creating a situation and building a choice that is irrevocable — that’s good. That’s your job as the writer.

Craig: It’s dramatic. All of this is drama. All of it.

John: Yeah. So, these are some of the things I would have said of this hypothetical script if we had read it. Anything more you want to add?

Craig: Oh, just that the writer of this hypothetical script is the worst.

John: Just the worst. Brave, first off, so brave for sending in his script and letting us read the script.

Craig: [laughs] So brave and so delusional.

John: [laughs] And thank you, Stuart, for reading 500 screenplays so we could pick this one to talk to.

Craig: Seriously. I owe this guy a beer.

John: Yeah. But, that was fun.

Now, Craig, this week I did actually email you to say, like, hey don’t forget your One Cool Thing. “Did you remember your One Cool Thing?”

Craig: I did. I totally did.

John: Hooray.

Craig: Should I go first?

John: You can go first or I can go first. Your choice? Mine is a little Christmassy.

Craig: Oh, so is mine.

John: Great. You go first.

Craig: Okay, well mine is sort of inspired by Thanksgiving but then I realized it applies for Christmas as well. And my Cool Thing is brining. Now, did you make your turkey?

John: I did make my turkey.

Craig: Did you brine your turkey?

John: I did not brine my turkey. But I’m fascinated to hear this discussion because I want to know.

Craig: Brining is the key to turkey. So, here’s the issue with turkey: There are multiple problems cooking a turkey and you can see that when you eat it and it’s dry and gross.

So, one problem with turkey is that it’s huge, so it takes a long time to cook. The longer you cook meat, the drier it gets. The second problem is that the breast meat cooks much faster than the dark meat, so in order to get the dark meat at a temperature that won’t kill you, you end up desecrating the breast meat, and so you end up with the syndrome of like, “Oh, this is pretty good dark meat, although I’m not really a big fan of dark meat. I really like white meat and this white meat is just saw dust. What happened?”

Enter brining. Brining is brilliant. So, here’s what you do: You take a turkey — and you can do this with chicken, or pretty much anything — take a turkey and you put it in a solution that is roughly 5% salt water. And you can use Kosher salt — most people use Kosher salt because it doesn’t have a lot of the anti-caking agents and things that they put in regular table salt. And it comes in big boxes and it’s easy to dump in water.

And you can put some other things in there. You can put some sugar or spices in if you want. And you take your turkey and you put it in this solution. And imagine you’ve got one of those five gallon coolers. So, you put enough water in to submerge the turkey completely. You put in enough salt to hit about 5%. And there are guides online to show you how many cups of salt per how many liters of water. And then you put in a bunch of ice to keep the whole thing refrigerated.

You seal it up and you leave it in there for anywhere from they say 12 to 24 hours. Here’s the magic of science. What happens? The salt water penetrates into the muscle tissue and saline does two things. The first thing, the most important thing, is that it begins to slowly denature the proteins. Proteins are complicated molecules. Have you ever seen pictures of proteins, like the molecule structures online?

John: I have.

Craig: Yeah. So they’re like really big and they’re like all clumpy and turned around and that’s why protein is really good at making muscles and hair that’s curly and stuff like that. So, the saline gets inside and starts to slowly unravel them and loosen them up. And by loosening them up, and even partially dissolving them, they begin to create more space between the proteins. They essentially — it’s like taking a tightly knotted rope and slowly working it so it gets nice and loose.

So, now, what do loose fibers taste like as opposed to dense fibers? They taste tender. We translate that in our mouths as tender. So, that’s the first thing it’s doing: it’s tenderizing the meat. The second thing it does is by creating all this space, and because the turkey is at a lower saline level than the salt water, it allows all this moisture to go into the turkey, so the turkey starts to act like a sponge and increase in moisture.

Now you think, “Oh, I don’t want to eat a sponge.” You won’t. Because what happens is the turkey will gain maybe 20% water volume through the brining process. But the cooking process, which is so drying, will cause it to lose about that much. So, what you end up getting is the moisture that you should have had from the turkey in the first place, plus this nice, tender meat that has a little bit of saltiness to it, just a little bit, which you like — people like a little bit of saltiness to their food anyway.

Brining is the key. I’m telling you, it’s the most amazing thing. So, you leave it in there for 24 hours, take it out, rinse it off, get all that salt off the outside, pat it dry. Good to go.

John: So, I do not brine my turkeys, but I’m familiar with some of your techniques and I think they’re fascinating. A few footnotes and observations. What kind of turkey were you using? Were you using a normal store-bought turkey? Were you using an organic turkey? Which turkey were you using for this?

Craig: I didn’t make the turkey for this Thanksgiving because I was over at Derek’s, but in the past I have used — I try and use a Kosher turkey because they tend to not have a bunch of — you know, sometimes when you get the store-bought turkeys they’ve already kind of put weird stuff in there.

John: Because what I was going to say is some of the store-bought turkeys, I don’t want to say Butterball is a bad brand, but part of the reason — they kind of already do the brining for it because they can sell it as a more expensive turkey because they’ve increased the water weight of it.

Craig: They’ve kind of done it, but they haven’t done it well.

John: They haven’t done it well, which is true. But I think if you were to try to brine again a Butterball, a kind of crappy Butterball turkey, you might have mixed results. The second point is that you bring up like all that time in the oven is what dries out the breast meat, and that brings me to sort of how I have cooked turkey these past few years and it worked well last night, was you don’t do it low and slow in an oven. You do it in an incredibly hot oven.

And we cooked a 21-pound bird in about two hours and fifteen minutes. So, it’s a 500-degree oven, which sounds ridiculously hot, and it is really, really hot; you have to be careful you don’t burn yourself. But you put the bird in, incredibly hot. The bird is at room temperature, you put it in, incredibly hot, keep the oven door sealed so no heat gets out. 45 minutes, you need to tent it over or else it’s going to get too dark. It’s a really nice pretty golden color.

And then it’s out of the oven so soon, the breast meat doesn’t have a chance to dry out the way it otherwise would. And it worked and it got nice and hot. You need to let it rest so that all the juices can sort of get back to where they need to be anyway.

That’s one of the classic problems of turkey anyway is people are waiting so long for the bird that the minute they pull it out of the oven they try to carve it and all the juices have been sort of circulating, they just fall out on the board. And that’s why it dries out, too.

Craig: That is absolutely true. And I’ve read about the high heat cooking method, and that is a good method. And a lot of people will sort of interrupt that sort of three-quarters of the way through and tent the breast with foil so that the legs and the thighs can cook while the breast sort of doesn’t get pelted as much.

The other thing I’ve done is the whole deep friend turkey thing, which is dangerous, and crazy, and awesome. [laughs] But, because you’re a man of science, and because I know how left brain you are, I strongly recommend to you and to all of our listeners, Cook’s Illustrated…

John: Fantastic.

Craig: …and their associated cookbook, The Best Recipe, in which they approach everything from a scientific way and sort of say, “We have decided after cooking 4,000 turkeys this is the best way.”

John: So, what’s great about Cook’s Illustrated is every article about, like, how to cook everything is all about the technique. It’s like, “So, I went through this thing, I had these frustrations.” I went back though these recipe books and I kind of think it’s all made up. I think that they sort of create a narrative after the fact for like, “Here’s a really good recipe, let’s make up a story about how we got to this recipe.” But it is fun. And like, you know, “Confused, I went to our science editor who talked me through sort of how this protein reaction was working, or why adding sugar at this stage did stuff.”

Still, it’s great fun. It’s really well-illustrated. It’s called Cook’s Illustrated. There are no pictures; it’s all drawings. You should check it out if you get a chance.

Craig: Yeah. It’s awesome.

John: So, my thing is also a cool illustrated thing. It’s called Ticket to Ride. Craig, have you played Ticket to Ride?

Craig: I have not, but it sounds like another game that I should try.

John: You will love…

Craig: I’ve had mixed results. I did great on Ski Safari. You repeatedly kicked my ass in Letterpress, so I guess maybe this one. Maybe this will be the trick.

John: Ticket to Ride began its life as a board game. It came out in 2004. And it’s a German-style game, which doesn’t mean it’s in German. It means that it’s one of those games where it’s more about strategy than open conflict. So, it’s not like Risk where it’s a zero sum game, or Monopoly. It’s sometimes you’re actually kind of cooperating with the other players in order to get what you want out of it. And there’s some resource management involved.

It’s not as difficult or sort of strategically challenging as Settlers of Catan, but it’s sort of in that universe. If you like Settlers of Catan you’ll love this game.

Craig: Yeah, that one frustrated me a little bit.

John: So, the idea behind this is, in the basic game you have a map of America and it’s like 1910 or so. And you have all the cities. And there are these rail lines connecting these. And basically you’re trying to build rail lines between the different cities. And so these cards show which two cities you’re trying to connect, and then you have to — you’re drawing these other cards in order to build the trains from place to place.

And so you’re trying to get these routes before other people get these routes. But you don’t know what they’re actually trying to connect and you get different points for different things you do. It’s really ingeniously set up and incredibly well-designed.

And so I’d seen it in a bunch of game blogs and everybody would talk about how amazing it was. And so I bought it on Amazon just on a whim and I stuck it on a high shelf figuring whenever my daughter was old enough we could play as a family.

And she’s seven and she’s really good at games so we broke it out last month. And we’ve been playing it a lot. It’s really, really well done. And so if you have a kid who’s seven and into games they can play it.

It takes about 45 minutes. It’s not too involved. And, there is an iPad version which is not surprisingly addictive in that you can play by yourself, against computer opponents, or you can play it one on one against people on the internet or in the same room. You can just play it off of Bluetooth or WiFi. And so, you know, at bed time Mike and I will be each on our iPad playing a game of this. And it goes super fast because all the physical stuff gets taken out of it and you can just go — pure strategy.

So, I highly recommend it. The reason why I say Christmas, it’s a really good gift for Christmas, like if you know somebody who likes board games who hasn’t played this yet, they will probably love it. And so I feel like it would be a really good thing to get for Christmas with your family if they like board games and haven’t played this — they’d probably dig it a lot and it’s a good fun time.

It’s for two to five players for the physical game, and the iPad version is either solo or you can pass and play and do other stuff, too.

Craig: So, because Settlers of Catan, I wouldn’t play with say my seven-year-old, or almost eight-year-old daughter, or my 11-year-old son. It seems a little…

John: I wouldn’t be surprised. I think your 11-year-old might be able to handle it at this point. Like Settlers of Catan is overwhelming when you first try to do it, but then you actually realize, “Okay, it’s strategy.” So, the rules are really simple; figuring out how to actually get through it, how to optimize can be tough.

Craig: And is that the case with this as well?

John: It is. Similar kind of game. And what I like about the German-style board games is that if you’re really good at it you’re more likely to win. But if you’re not actually all that good at it you’re not likely to get squashed. They’re sort of set up in a way that being ahead actually has a bit of a penalty to it. When everyone can see that you’re ahead they’re going to try to block you or stop you from doing things.

And so no one sort of clears the board. No one takes over everything. And it doesn’t have that punishing aspect of Risk or Monopoly where one person is completely dominant and the other person is worse. Here, the person who wins might get 120 points and the second place person might get like 105. It doesn’t feel like you got killed.

Craig: I like that. Risk or Monopoly are sort of drain-circling games where once you start losing it’s just a slow spiral to death.

You know, my kids play Mario Party on the Nintendo and it’s kind of brilliant how you truly cannot predict who is going to win that game until maybe the last two minutes of it. Because they’ll give you points for being in last place. [laughs] They’re so good about it. They’re so smart. So, I like that idea of sort of not knowing… — Sorry, by the way, which I play with my kids, you know, a classic board game. Sorry is so good at that.

You think you’re winning and then you’re not.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s cool.

John: Sorry though is ultimately up to chance. Like, did you get a bunch of good rolls?

Craig: Yeah, there’s no strategy whatsoever.

John: There’s no strategy.

Craig: Frankly, it sounds like this game would be a good use of the Simplex Algorithm.

John: I’m sure the Simplex Algorithm could be used to maximum effect.

Craig: Yes.

John: Yeah. So, Craig, thank you so much.

Craig: Thank you.

John: A fun podcast and we’ll be back at this next week.

Craig: Woo! And remember, folks, brine those turkeys.

John: Brine those turkeys. Take care.

Craig: Bye.

« 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.